By Adeniyi Israel Adekunle

INTRODUCTION

All over the world, the concept of human rights has been deemed sacrosanct. Especially in democratically civilized countries in the world, human rights have been given serious legislative recognition and enforceability. Nigeria, as the giant of Africa, is not left behind in these global developments. Withal, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), by virtue of its Chapter IV, has given life to the application of human rights in Nigeria. However, not only does Chapter IV of the Constitution provide for fundamental human rights, but also does it undermine same with certain limitations and derogations. In the face of the rising security challenges in our democracy, it has now become germane to consider the constitutional limitations of these fundamental rights.[1] The kernel of this paper examines the constitutional restrictions, derogations and limitations to the enforcement of the fundamental human rights in Nigeria.

FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS

Generally, Chapter IV of the Constitution has been regarded by constitutional law experts as one of the most important parts of the Constitution. This is because it contains some sacred provisions which guarantee the freedom, liberty and enjoyment of many basic privileges accruable to our status as humans. Eleven human rights are guaranteed by virtue of Chapter IV of the Constitution, particularly from sections 33-43. These rights are: right to life[2], right to dignity of human person[3], right to personal liberty[4], right to fair hearing[5], right to private and family life[6], right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion[7], right to freedom of expression and the press[8], right to peaceful assembly and association[9], right to freedom of movement[10], right to freedom from discrimination[11] and the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria[12]. As beautiful and revivifying these rights are, some of these rights are however blighted with constitutional limitations and derogations, which affect their absolute safeguard. In other words, some of these rights are absolute, while some are limited by certain circumstances, as provided for in the constitution.

LIMITATIONS TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS

Fortunately, and unfortunately, the fundamental human rights that are enshrined and constitutionally protected under Chapter IV of the Constitution are not absolute, as they are made subject to certain limitations and derogations. These limitations include:

• JUSTIFIABLE LAWS

Section 45(1) of the Constitution provides that: “Nothing in sections 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society- in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons”. From this constitutional provision, it is apt that the legislature can make laws, limiting certain rights in as much as those laws are reasonably justifiable for the purpose of the protecting the interests, stated in the above section 45. This position has been espoused in the case of Dokubo Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria[13].  However, the foregoing provision does not imply that such law made by the legislature to limit those rights cannot be challenged in a court of law.[14] In other words, such law made by the legislature can be questioned by the court on the ground of its justifiability.[15]

• LOCUS STANDI

Locus Standi is a Latin phrase, which means “place of standing”. In law, locus standi is the right or capacity of a person to institute an action in the court if his right has been infringed upon. Locus standi is a limitation to the enforcement of the fundamental human rights. Section 46(1) of the Constitution provides that: “Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress”. By the literal implication of this section, it is only a person whose right has been breached can seek enforcement or redress. However, the problem now arises in a case whereby a person has been murdered (that is, he has been deprived of his right to life under section 33 of the Constitution). The question will now be: who will sue for the redress of the violation of the deceased’s right to life since section 46(1) of the Constitution has exempted every other person except the person whose right has been infringed to enforce same? Thus, in such case, locus standi ordinarily limits the enforcement of the fundamental human rights.

• PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES

This class of limitation has an avalanche of constitutional spines. For instance, section 33(1) of the Constitution, which provides for the right to life, has its peculiar limitations, as provided under section 33(2) of the same Constitution. That is, if a person dies by the act of another person during the following circumstances: defence against unlawful violence; defence of property; effecting a lawful arrest; prevention of escape from lawful custody; and suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny, such person will not be deemed to have been deprived of his right to life. This is because those circumstances are the limitations to the right to life, as provided for in section 33(2)(a)-(b) of the Constitution. Another instance is seen in section 35 of the Constitution, which provides for the right to personal liberty. Similarly, this right has been suffixed with exceptions. Thus, a person will not be said to have been deprived of his right to personal liberty in these circumstances: imprisonment in execution of court sentence; detainment upon failure to comply with court orders; lawful arrest upon reasonable suspicion; detainment in order to prevent commission of an offence; curtailment of the personal liberty of a child or young person for the purpose of his education; detention of person for the purpose of treatment of contagious disease; and prevention of a person from unlawfully entering into Nigeria.[16] These circumstances are lucid limitations to the right to personal liberty of person. Other peculiar circumstances can be seen in sections 34(2), 38(4), 39(3), 40, 41(2) and 44(2) of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

Without a scintilla of ambiguity, the Constitution has lucidly slapped the sacred provisions of the Chapter IV – fundamental human rights – with certain limitations and derogations, which ostensibly affect the plain enforceability of these fundamental rights. This article has examined the enforceability status of the fundamental human rights, which have been enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. In the same vein, it can be deduced from the foregoing examination that indeed, some rights are absolute, while some are limited. For instance, by a community reading of the Chapter IV of the Constitution, one will discern that the absolute rights are: right to fair hearing, right to freedom from discrimination and the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria. On the other hand, the limited rights are: right to life, right to dignity of human person, right to personal liberty, right to private and family life, right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, right to freedom of expression and the press, right to peaceful assembly and association and the right to freedom of movement. In the same breadth, it is now imperative on the Nigerian legislature to review and amend some of these limitations, especially the one that justifies the violation of a person’s right to life during the process of effecting a lawful arrest or prevention of escape from lawful custody. This recommendation is owed to no other reason than the disquieting statistics of extra-judicial killings and human rights abuse by the Nigerian law enforcement agencies in the guise of the victim evading lawful arrest or escaping lawful custody. These constitutional limitations are assiduously milked by these law enforcement agencies to perpetuate in unlawful acts and abuse of power.

1 Professor Fabian Ajogwu, ‘Constitutional Provisions on Restriction and Derogation from Fundamental Rights (S.45 CFRN) and the Need for Balance’. A paper delivered at the Maiden Edition of the Annual Colloquium of the Law Office of Adegboyega Awomolo & Associates, held in honour of Chief A.S. Awomolow, SAN, FCIArb, FNIALS at the Abuja International Conference Centre, Abuja, on September 23, 2014.

2 Section 33 of the Constitution.

3 Section 34 of the Constitution.

4 Section 35 of the Constitution.

5 Section 36 of the Constitution.

6 Section 37 of the Constitution.

7 Section 38 of the Constitution.

8 Section 39 of the Constitution.

9 Section 40 of the Constitution.

10 Section 41 of the Constitution.

11 Section 42 of the Constitution.

12 Section 43 of the Constitution.

[13] [2007] NGSC 106. See also section 4(8) of the Constitution.

[14] See the case of Uwaifo v AG Bendel State (1982) 7 SC 124.

[15] See DPP v Chike Obi (1961) 1 ANLR 186.

[16] See section 35(1) (a)-(f) of the 1999 Constitution.

[Adeniyi Israel Adekunle is an undergraduate student of the Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin. He is also the Director of Litigation of the Equity Chambers, Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin. He can be reached via [email protected]  for commentaries and feedbacks on the article.]

By Ikechukwu Amaechi

Whenever I hear Northern leaders lament over the parlous state of the region, I wonder what they have been thinking all these years. As the legendary novelist, Chinua Achebe, wrote in his 1986 magnum opus, Arrow of God, “the man that brings ant-infested faggots into his hut should not grumble when lizards begin to pay him a visit.”

For too long, Northern elites have been busy hauling home ant-infested firewood. It is, therefore, the height of hypocrisy when they pretend to be surprised that they have lizards as guests.

Are they just realizing that they are the reason why Northern Nigeria is the worst in all the three indices of human development, which Pakistani economist, Mahbub ul Haq, developed in 1990, namely, life expectancy, education, and per capita income?

The Human Development Index (HDI), which is a statistic composite index of life expectancy, education – years of schooling completed and expected years of schooling upon entering the education system – and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development of “very high, high, medium and low” are all precarious in the North.

So, when Nigeria is ranked as one of the countries in the world that occupies the lowest rung in human development, it is because of the abysmal position of Northern Nigeria on HDI.

Sadly, these wounds are self-inflicted, caused by a self-conflicted, predatory, ultra-selfish elite class, who are only interested in power for its sake.

Why do I say so?

They have dominated the political space in Nigeria since independence in 1960, using state power to corner national resources. Of the 36 states in Nigeria, the North has 19 and the Federal Capital Territory. Southern Nigeria has 17. In fact, while the Southeast was allocated five states, North West has seven. Nigeria has 774 local government areas. Kano State alone has 44.

Nigerian leaders of Northern extraction have also used their absolute control of political power, particularly in the years of the military, to manipulate census figures, thereby ensuring that the North has maximum advantage population-wise.

And then, they started making the authoritative allocation of our collective values using local governments, landmass and rigged population as yardsticks.

If power is a means to an end where the end is the promotion of common good, one would have thought that the North would be heaven on earth. And it should be where leaders are altruistic because, ideally, acquisition of power is like the start of a journey. The difference lies in the destination, which explains why power can be a revolution and remarkable success or lamentable destruction and failure.

The Northern elites chose the latter. Having acquired power over the years, they spent a ton of time trying to maintain and increase their power, perceiving it as an end in itself. That is what happens when leaders lose sight of the reasons they wanted power. They become conceited, haughty and vague. Philosophers are agreed on the fact that absentminded use of power can be dangerous.

That is exactly what happened to the North.

Today, despite the quantum of resources they control, and I daresay disproportionately, insecurity is endemic in the North, number of out-of-school-children in the region is perhaps the highest in the whole world.

When it is said that Nigeria is the poverty capital of the world, it is because of Northern Nigeria. Nigeria is the illiteracy capital of the world because of the North. Nigerians have the fifth worst average life expectancy of about 55 years in the world because of the North.

In July, the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) announced that 526 persons died from cholera even as 22,130 suspected cases of the disease were recorded in 18 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) since the beginning of the cholera outbreak in 2021. Fifteen of the 18 states – Benue, Zamfara, Gombe, Kogi, Sokoto, Bauchi, Kano, Kaduna, Plateau, Kebbi, Niger, Nasarawa, Jigawa, Yobe, Kwara as well as the FCT – are all in the North.

The NCDC report also revealed that though there was a decrease in the number of new cases in the last two weeks of July, yet Bauchi with a total case of 2, 438, Kano 674, and Plateau 87 accounted for 91 per cent of the 3,519 cases reported in weeks 27th and 28th.

Those who were not killed by cholera are liquidated by terrorists. Those lucky to be alive are living in camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs).

Life in Northern Nigeria over the years, but most especially under President Muhammdu Buhari’s watch, typifies the Hobbesian “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” state.

So offended was the veteran journalist and inimitable columnist, Dan Agbese, that he called out Northern leaders in his article titled, “Shame on northern Nigerians” in The Guardian on July 9, 2021.

“The region bleeds and has been bleeding from Boko Haram, bandits, Fulani herdsmen, kidnappers and sundry criminal elements,” Agbese, himself a Northerner from Benue State, wrote.

“There is no way one can put it less indelicately: it is a shame on our governments and our political leaders who sought the mandate of the people, not to lead them into the gutter or abandon them there but to make their lives meaningful to them. But here we are: while the good times roll for our political leaders, the rough times roll for the people; while the leaders are protected by a phalanx of security men and women, the people are at the mercy of criminals who profit from the cynical attitude of our leaders towards us.”

His concluding sentence aggregated the message: “Let the northerners rise now and save their region, its future and the future of their young people. And end the shame of weakness.”

Before now, they have prided themselves as the princes of Nigeria’s political space. They are the astute politicians, who are born to rule. Southerners, particularly Ndigbo, are ridiculed for their supposed lack of political dexterity.

As Agbese further noted, they object to power shifting to the South in 2023 and conveniently forget that their people are losers even as they hold the reins of power.

But it would appear that Northern leaders, hearkening to Agbese’s harsh admonition, are no longer content with playing the ostrich, having realised, it seems, the need to wake up and smell the coffee. Their utterances in recent times seem to suggest that they have realized that the problems, which they deliberately created, are not going to fix themselves.

Rather than blame the South for their self-inflicted woes, they are beginning to apportion blames appropriately to themselves. That is self-awakening and it is gratifying.

The herdsmen who are raping women, abducting students, killing and maiming innocent people are Fulani. And they need to be called out by their own people instead of giving quit notices and threatening fire and brimstone when other ethnic nationalities who could not understand why the North is tolerating and pampering such malcontents act in self-defense.

Completely flustered by the rising spate of kidnappings, killings, and attacks in Taraba State, the Emir of Muri, Abbas Tafida, a Fulani, on July 22, issued a 30-day ultimatum to Fulani terrorists to vacate forests in the state or be forced to do so.

“Our Fulani herdsmen in the forests, you came into this state and we accepted you, why then will you be coming to towns and villages to kidnap residents, even up to the extent of raping our women?

“Because of this unending menace, every Fulani herdsman in this state has been given 30 days ultimatum to vacate the forests. We are tired of having sleepless nights and the hunger alone in the land is enormous and we will not allow it to continue,” he said.

That was unprecedented. Before then, it was a sacrilege for the Fulani to call out one of their own no matter how heinous the conduct.

Then on Tuesday, August 17, Northern leaders that included the 1993 presidential candidate of the National Republican Convention (NRC), Bashir Tofa; former FCT minister, Dr. Aliyu Modibbo Umar; former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Yayale Ahmed; former chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Attahiru Jega; former Governor of Kaduna State, Ahmed Maikarfi; former Minister of Defence and National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Haliru Bello; former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Umar Ghali Na’abba; former Minister of Interior and ex-Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Abdulrahman Dambazzau; former governors of Sokoto and Kwara States, Attahiru Bafarawa and Abdulfatah Ahmed; etc., met in Abuja to acknowledge the obvious: All is not well with the North.

For the first time, Northern leaders are genuinely concerned that the region is faced with existential threats of their own making. They are neither blaming Ndigbo – their bête noire – nor the Yoruba.

“We have no difficulty admitting all is not well with Northern Nigeria and we are taking primary or vicarious responsibility for the current state of affairs. We must all – leaders, followers and passive onlookers – accept our share of responsibility but beyond that, we must collectively resolve to take action and remedy what went wrong going forward,” Tofa, who spoke on behalf of the group, said.

He acknowledged that “the state of insecurity across Nigeria is worrisome, but the state of insecurity in Northern Nigeria has reached existential proportions, threatening to render the region hostile to civilized existence.”

The truth is that insecurity is not just threatening to render, it has already rendered most parts, if not the entire North hostile to civilized existence.

This Tofa-led parley will be the beginning of redemption for the North if the leaders are sincere.

The North remains the weakest link in Nigeria’s developmental chain. And it is a problem caused by the disingenuousness of its leaders and their perception of power. They must fix that for the sake of the region, in particular, and Nigeria, generally.

By Owei Lakemfa

IBRAHIM Badamosi Babangida, retired general and former military Head of State will turn 80 tomorrow, Tuesday, August 17. I congratulate him primarily because I also pray to grow old. But I do not pray that in my old age my children will organise gatherings where people will try to whitewash my deeds.

One of such occasions was the August 12, 2021 pre-birthday event. The summary of the endless speeches which were relayed live on television is that Babangida is a reliable, kind-hearted statesman who never neglects or betrays his friends. But that is not what the records show.

Yes, Babangida comes across as a comely, friendly, charming person, but so does the beautiful, cunning, crafty fox. Those gathering for the whitewash of Babangida know that Nigerians gave him the sobriquet Maradona. This was because like the famous Argentine footballer, Diego Maradona, who was a great dribbler and seller of dummies on the field, Babangida was dribbling Nigerians, selling them dummies, was quite crafty, deceitful and unreliable.

A great difference was that while the real Maradona never shifted the goal post during play, Babangida was always shifting the goal post whenever he thought a goal was to be scored against him. For instance, he promised to hand-over power to an elected civilian administration in 1990. When the date drew near, he shifted it to 1992, then January 1993, later to August 1993, and ended up not handing over power before he was disgraced out of office.

While claiming to be a champion of mass participation in decision-making, he declared a public debate on whether or not, the International Monetary Fund, IMF, loan and its conditionalities should be accepted. Nigerians in overwhelming numbers rejected both. On December 13, 1985, Babangida addressed the nation acknowledging the undeniable choice of Nigerians and even declared that “ …the path of honour and the essence of democratic patriotism lies in discontinuing the negotiations with the IMF for a support loan”.

Nigerians were ecstatic, but the cunning Babangida did the exact opposite by going to bed with the IMF and imposing its criminal conditionalities christened the Structural Adjustment Programme, SAP. When Nigerians protested against this imposition, patriots like the labour legends, Michael Imoudu and Wahab Goodluck and lawyer, Gani Fawehinmi were detained, many tertiary institutions shutdown and protesters were shot in the streets.

As to the claim that Babangida was loyal to friends, at least two of his close friends who believed that, were sent to early graves. One of them was Mamman Vatsa, his childhood friend, high school classmate at Government College, Bida, and a fellow general. In fact, Babangida signed Vatsa’s marriage register as his best man. Vatsa was accused of harbouring the thought of overthrowing Babangida, was tried in a military tribunal, tied to the stake on March 5, 1986 and executed.

Another Babangida close friend, Chief Moshood Abiola, won the June 12,1993 presidential election, fair and square. But Babangida annulled it and later claimed he did it to prevent a coup. Is that not treasonable felony? What a friend he had in Babangida! Abiola while fighting for his mandate was detained under the Abacha regime and eventually died.

At the Babangida whitewash last week, a former Director of Military Intelligence, DMI Haliru Akilu, a retired general, mentioned Babangida’s relocation of the capital from Lagos to Abuja as a monumental achievement adding: “This was a great decision that only leaders of IBB’s capacity can make.” I am not sure about this. Abuja was being built by previous governments and partially under Babangida. Not a few attribute Babangida’s December 12, 1991 relocation to Abuja as a fall out of the Orkar coup which exposed the vulnerability of the Dodan Barracks State House.

In fact, the haste and disorderly way the capital was relocated was like a man fleeing a city. For instance, many of those who had to relocate, had no offices. As for accommodation, it was in so short supply that many lived in their offices for years, while many desperate female public servants, some of them married, shared rooms with males lucky enough to secure accommodation. This is the origin of the popular ‘Abuja Marriage’ syndrome.

Businessman, Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, talked glowingly about Babangida as a dependable friend. Babangida, he claimed, made him leader of the Raw Materials Development Council, and stayed by his side for a whole day when he buried his father. But he only narrated one side of the story. The other is that the same Babangida sent armed security agents to traumatise journalists and staff of Iwuanyanwu’s Champion Newspapers and shutdown the publication without any warning or court order. It was simply the application of brutal force against a non-military institution.

The Babangida regime had no regard for fundamental human rights. People were detained without trial. At any given time, under that dictatorship, the cells and dungeons were packed full of patriots. When the pro-democracy protests broke out with demands for the de-annulment of the June 12 election, the regime sent out well kitted soldiers led personally by then Chief of Army Staff, General Sani Abacha to repress them. On July 6, 1993, a total of 118 protesters were shot dead on the streets of Lagos. Almost all were shot in the back which meant they were running away and not confronting their murderers. These are crimes against humanity for which the regime should be held accountable.

When the pro-state candidate, Takai Shamang, could not win the 1988 Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC elections, the Babangida regime banned the Congress under a nebulous ‘Economic Recovery’ decree. When senior staff of Nigeria Electricity Power Authority, NEPA, went on strike against the poor state of power infrastructure, the regime seized eleven of them and hauled them before a military tribunal demanding the death sentence. Eventually, the men were sentenced to life imprisonment for going on strike which is a right!

In 1986 after the police murdered four students of the Ahmadu Bello University, ABU, for protesting, the regime shutdown virtually all tertiary institutions in the country for protesting the murders. It also proscribed the National Association of Nigerian Students, NANS. The Babangida regime was a lawless one which not only ousted the jurisdiction of the courts in many decrees, but also did not obey court orders and rulings.

Those gathering around the country in a vain attempt to whitewash Babangida are just deceiving him and deceiving themselves; history has already judged him. The wise in Africa say even if a man is being deceived, he owes himself the duty not to deceive himself. If Babangida does not apologise for his atrocities against the Nigerian people, he should go to a quiet spot in his hilltop mansion to pray that God forgives him his sins.

My belief in the efficacy of market forces as the cure for voodoo economics remains unshaken. And so I welcome the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) which came into effect this Monday. What irks me is its lateness in coming, and what I dread is its shoddy implementation. 

Twenty wasted years are enough proof of our lawmakers’ diligence. It was in the same year, 2001, that they set out to review the 1999 constitution which everyone agreed was riddled with flaws – it’s a constitution that lies in its very first sentence. Twenty years and several billions of naira after, the National Assembly is still “on top of the situation” or the situation is on top of the legislature.

But has the long wait really ended? Procrastination is the thief of time.  Even after the PIA’s enactment, minister of state for petroleum resources Timipre Sylva told us that fuel subsidy and the current pump price of petrol would stay “for now”. In other words, the government won’t obey its own law “for now”. A pronouncement by President Buhari on Wednesday wasn’t emphatic either. A nine-member steering committee led by Sylva has been given one year to work, suggesting that the new law may not be fully implemented until the panel concludes its work. So, the PIA may remain in the cooler — the law exists but its implementation has to wait. This is lawlessness.

Just like America’s misadventure in Afghanistan, Nigeria’s romance with “guided deregulation” of the oil and gas industry for 20 years may be ending badly for the country. We knew that fuel subsidy was not sustainable. We knew that state-owned refineries wouldn’t work efficiently. And we knew that public funds were being looted in the guise of subsidy and turnaround maintenance of refineries. Now we’ve been forced by threats of total economic collapse to do what we should have done 35years ago. How long shall we tolerate ineptitude?

Deregulation or liberalisation was a pillar of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) introduced by the Gen. Ibrahim Babangida regime, but the policymakers chose to whitewash a fraud while killing Nigerians in instalments. Although the military leaders then told us they had rejected a loan of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), they accepted the global financial institution’s conditionalities through the backdoor. Corruption stepped in to distort SAP’s implementation. Yet, if the IMF prescriptions had been followed faithfully since 1986 when SAP was born, our water would have found its level well before the end of the 20th century. 

Here’s a good piece of news for the Niger Deltans and other Nigerians who have expressed discomfort with the PIA: it’s not what you think. Sylva was right when he said it’s better to have 3% of something than 100% of nothing. It’s not statistics that matter; what matters is delivery of tangible benefits. NNPC boss Mele Kyari, who speculated that with 3% the local oil-producing communities would share $500m (N250bn) each year, was simply dreaming – he’s counting his chicks before they’re hatched. So it’s better we wait for one year – or two years – to see what will trickle in. If foreign investors refused to come, who else would contribute the 3%? In Nigeria, pessimists are almost always right – few things give cause for optimism these days.

Before the start of World War II, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s government implemented “The New Deal” to bail Americans out of the Great Depression. Nigeria’s “New Deal” is likely to emerge from the ashes of a raw deal. The PIA is not a raw deal perhaps. But I don’t see it regaining the “$50bn worth of investments” lost in the past decade to delays, as President Buhari declared on Wednesday, or supporting “the nation’s economic recovery and growth plan” until we achieve political stability as well as security of life and property.  

Nonetheless, I believe in market forces, the vagaries of demand and supply. In 1987 we thought all hell had been let loose as the dollar exchanged for N10. A few years later, it hit N22.  Nobody dreamed it would ever reach N160. But it did — and that was the rate at which the current government met it in 2015. I don’t know the rate today, but the rumour is that a dollar fetches more than N500. And I bet you won’t get the American currency with N1,000 by 2023, the exit year of this administration.

That shouldn’t evoke fear anyway. Things won’t get worse than they are now. There will be no apocalypse when a litre of petrol costs N300. Life will still go on if the pump price hits N500 or N700 per litre. So bring it on! What may change is people’s lifestyle. We’d be forced to travel less and use internet services more. Thanks to lockdowns during Covid-19, many meetings are now conducted online. Business executives don’t need to book flights from Lagos and other state capitals in order to attend meetings in Abuja or London or Dubai. And why have we stopped trekking short distances? The medics say it’s good for our health.

When fuel stations don’t get much patronage, they may reduce prices or even close shop. When we stop asking for dollars and pounds, their rates of exchange will change in favour of the naira. When there’s no demand for foreign goods, warehouses will fill up – and smugglers or genuine importers will consider changing their business models. When schools charge high fees, withdraw your kids and put them in schools that take much less. If imported food becomes too expensive, learn to eat village food or grow your own food or eat less. And learn to first satisfy needs before wants (luxurious items). Market forces? You can’t alter the course of nature.

Let’s stop worrying about events of the future, for water will always find its level. Most Nigerians are down already and need not fear any fall. We haven’t died since 1981 when unimaginable things started happening through “austerity measures”. Who knows, the tonic needed to jumpstart the economy may lie in implementation of legislations such as the PIA.

*Nwamu, a serial entrepreneur, writes from Abuja.

SMS/WhatsApp only: +234-8054100220 

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.eyeway.ng