Financial Times reportage on Nigerian economy – standards are falling, by Manuel Agbakwuru

Anyone familiar with the famed subtlety and etiquette of understatement that the British have turned into a cultural art form would see the sheer arrogance and disrespect, bordering on racist condescension, in the recent Financial Times editorial titled “Shock Therapy Alone Will Not Cure Nigeria’s Economic Ills.” Such an editorial would hardly scale the barriers of most self-respecting Nigerian online newspapers or even mere blogs, making one wonder how such an uncouth write-up made it into what is otherwise a respected global newspaper, which has been in existence since 1888.

I will address the core issues shortly, but first, it is important to consider the many inelegances of said editorial. When a newspaper adds its name and the integrity of its editorial board to statements like “(The President) removed a generous fuel subsidy, one of the few benefits citizens receive from their inefficient and corrupt state,” it raises great concern. Is the newspaper engaging in a serious discussion about a nation’s economy and policies affecting its people’s well-being, or is this another attempt to slyly vent racist tendencies and disdain for an entire independent nation? That statement is on par with the one captured during a moment of indiscretion by former British PM David Cameron when he told the late Queen Elizabeth that he was expecting some “fantastically corrupt” nations at his anti-corruption summit in 2016. Nigeria was mentioned in that statement too.

The intention of the FT must be questioned, as it approbated and reprobated in a single editorial. The paper criticized the removal of subsidies but then stated that the removal was “necessary in correcting the country’s long-term economic demise… (and was) ruinously expensive…distortionary, and channeling Nigerians’ energies into rent-seeking, smuggling, and graft.” Knowing how unproductive the subsidies were, does the FT believe Nigerians deserved economic demise, or should the people harangue their “inefficient and corrupt” government and collect subsidies on fuel since it was the only thing they could get? Is that how it is done in Britain and other so-called first-world countries? Or perhaps to the FT, that is what Africans deserve: immediate gratification and waste, not a robustly rounded future.

In another breath, the FT wrote that “Moving to more orthodox policies is vital to reset an economy…where one of the most lucrative industries has been kidnapping.” This statement is a cheap blow from a despicable bully. The point about managing optics and carrying the people along could be well made without descending to the gutter and broadcasting to the world that kidnapping takes place in Nigeria. Every country has its own issues, and incidences of kidnapping have reduced drastically in Nigeria, even when knife crimes and phone snatching in posh streets have become rife in the UK. There is no point in going into the histrionics of how Nigeria was infiltrated by international terrorists, some backed by the most sophisticated nations on earth. All we ask is to solve our problems without anyone digging into our wounds and infecting them for us.

And what was that talk about corruption? A January 30, 2024, report in The Independent headlined “Britain Hits Lowest Ever Score on Global Corruption Index.” Another news item in Central Bylines UK reads “United Kingdom Corruption Officially at its Worst in Modern Times.” The Financial Review calls it “Chumocracy,” following all the scandals that predated and preceded the Covid-19 pandemic and how multiple billion-pound contracts were awarded to friends of those in power. Who is the Financial Times to talk about corruption in Nigeria when the UK is a global purveyor of corruption, maintaining territories where corrupt money is laundered tax-free, while London is built on illegal inflows into real estate from all over the world? If Nigeria is deemed corrupt, it is because of legacies learned from departing colonial masters. It is notable that as the UK is dropping on the anti-corruption chart, Nigeria is improving, climbing five steps as of January 2024 compared to the same period in 2023. The same Britain is where the son of former puritan PM Margaret Thatcher, Mark, was arrested in South Africa with his Eton chums while trying to overthrow a government in Equatorial Guinea in 2004. Only the influence of “mummy” got him out of that pickle. What could be more corrupt than sponsoring a coup or being a business mogul in that vocation? What effect have several sponsored coups had on the progress of African nations?

Referring to the incident in Kenya is tantamount to dog-whistling the violent in Nigeria. Surely, the FT, as an elite newspaper catering to the needs of elites like bankers and politicians, will not appreciate such dog-whistling to the violent in the UK who could be riled into destructive protests as happened under the David Cameron administration in 2011. The unkind cuts in the editorial flowed endlessly, with emotive and offhanded statements about “soaring” hunger levels, lack of capacity, and judgmental statements about President Tinubu’s cabinet members. It seems the editorial, by its language, was farmed off to a disgruntled and disconnected Nigerian to write, with the typical effusiveness in Nigerianese, without the professional editing required to prevent a riposte like mine. What does the FT mean by the “state” being implicated in the wholesale theft of oil? Has the FT lost standards so much that lousy, untrue, and wildly speculative statements like that make it into an editorial?

Perhaps we should allow the Financial Times to stew in its own self-foisted ignorance. Many indices are looking better for Nigeria and will increasingly do so under President Tinubu. Rather than the typical idea of mere cash transfers being pushed by the FT and those behind it—an idea which they know to be inflationary and fleeting in impact, but as voyeurs, they are not interested in finding real solutions for our issues, just opportunities to laugh and snigger—Nigeria is devising ways in which such monies will be used to power up the agricultural sector for better productivity, food security, and improved nutrition. The Tinubu government is aware of the need for nuanced policies that take Nigeria’s cultural peculiarities into account.

The Financial Times cannot cavalierly instruct Nigeria to send cash to the wallets of poor people as a surefire way of ending poverty. Nigerians are proud people. They haven’t said they want just cash. Cash to buy what? Food distribution is a valid strategy that cannot be demonized and vilified. The USA and Europe have laudable food support programs. A focus on food distribution helps to increase Nigeria’s productivity in that sector and to eradicate hunger. We do not expect the FT to know this. And if it did, given the editorial’s language and spirit, the FT is unlikely to advise Nigeria correctly. Also, President Tinubu met the tax-to-GDP ratio at 7% but has now seen it increase to about 12%, even as no new taxes have been introduced. The president has made clear that he is not here to make Nigerians’ lives harder. As I type, the President has increased the minimum wage to ease Nigerians’ lives. Dozens of programs exist to assist businesses, and businesses with turnovers below N25 million per annum don’t pay a dime in taxes. Looked at critically, there are many advantages and incentives people and businesses enjoy in Nigeria that can only be dreamt about in overtaxed and unduly expensive Britain. Even the inequality gap is being bridged because there is better income mobility and a robust social capital system that can only be imagined elsewhere. The FT and their ilk should give Nigeria a break and stop demeaning a struggling nation.

The so-called editorial ended on a base note, with the FT editors going for a below-the-belt jab at President Tinubu. All of a sudden, the editorial lost track and forgot its essence as an advisory on the Nigerian economy, turning into a personal attack on the president. It is doubtful whether a true Brit would descend so low. Therefore, my advice to the FT is that the editorial board should take more interest in write-ups about African countries and ensure they meet their very high global standards. Do not consign such editorials to low-level staff shorn of maturity, who claim to have affinity or experience with some African country. The maturity for which the FT is known must be guarded and projected at all costs.

Despite Nigeria’s many challenges, citizens’ trust is growing and will increase when they see the results of Bola Tinubu’s efforts and their sacrifices. What we don’t need right now is the destruction of the country, which the Financial Times has positioned itself behind as an instigator and agent provocateur. It is highly unfortunate that things have turned this way for the respected newspaper. But in spite of the FT, Nigeria will move ahead and achieve greatness.

Unfortunately, this editorial has been shared by many Nigerians since it was published, read, digested, and believed as if it was the Holy Grail. Nigerians and other Africans are advised to be careful about what they believe and from whom. Nigeria is a 63-year-old country, soon to be 64, which was granted independence by Britain in 1960. From a historical standpoint and compared with countries that have been around since the 11th century, honestly, we are not doing too badly. A lot more hard work is required, with great imagination, vision, integrity, and unity. Yes, we know we must run faster. Bola Tinubu is a big thinker and can get Nigeria running at the quicker pace we all deserve. What we don’t need is for anyone to depress us as we solve our own issues, proudly and surely. No one should attempt to take away our dignity. It’s all we’ve got left.

• Agbakwuru, an economist and public affairs analyst, wrote from Abuja