(+234)9029755663 hello@legalnaija.com
What Nigeria’s Public Sector needs

What Nigeria’s Public Sector needs

by | May 10, 2016 | Uncategorized

Photo Credits – godrejproperties.com 
Corporate Governance is a big deal in the private
sector today, stakeholder and shareholder interests are constantly at daggers
drawn, accountability and transparency are now mandatory values in corporate
institutions and effectiveness in managing organisational wealth is considered
paramount. These procedures are of immense importance to the financial growth
of institutions and boost economies in the long run. However, one vital part of
national economies is being ignored in this drive for better corporate
governance, which is the public sector.


Public sector driven institutions i.e. institutions
that provide services for the people must also be better regulated in order for
them to provide the dividends of democracy to the citizenry. With critical
examination of Corporate Governance in Nigeria, an African country which is
rated 3rd world and largely underdeveloped with a population of
about 160, 000,000 (one hundred and sixty million) people, these statements can
never be more of a reality.  The Nigerian
public sector is generally admitted by Nigerians themselves as definitely not
functioning at optimum capacity, there are various lapses by government agencies
which contribute to poor governance and in extension underdevelopment. It is
both a truism that no nation develops beyond the capacity of its public
service, and there is broad consensus amongst Nigerians that our public service
is broken and dysfunctional. Corporate governance principles must not only be
promoted in the private sector but also be applied to managing government
institutions and parastatals.

Good public governance seeks to promote:
–     Accountability
– being answerable for decisions and having meaningful mechanisms in place to
ensure adherence to all applicable laws, regulations and standards.

–  Transparency
/ openness – having clear roles, responsibilities and procedures for making
decisions and exercising power, and act with integrity.

–        
Stewardship
– enhancing the value of entrusted public assets.

–        
Efficiency
– applying the best use of resources to further the aims of the organization.

–        
Leadership
– promoting an entity-wide commitment to good governance starting from the top (Wadie, 2013).

The role of corporate governance in the public sector
of a nation cannot be over emphasized as it deals with the management of the
country’s resources and how they may be transformed into social and economic
benefits for the citizenry both in the long and short term.  This involves making laws, empowering
security and financial agencies, supporting small scale business industries or
SMEs, providing adequate infrastructure such as adequate transportation means,
providing employment, equipping health facilities and ensuring that the rule of
law is supreme etc. Generally, this is only achievable when government is held
accountable and there is transparency in governance.

Currently in Nigeria, there are various laws and rules
which aim to promote and strengthen corporate governance, most of these codes
are however private sector focused. Various government organisations have been
mandated to implement laws and codes which will strengthen good corporate
governance ethics, these produced several codes regulating good governance in
the Nigerian public sector including:

·       
Code
of conduct for public officers
·       
Securities and Exchange Commission
·       
Central Bank of Nigeria
·       
Corporate
Affairs Commission
·       
National
Pension Commission
·       
National
Insurance Commission

There are a number of factors affecting the promotion
of good governance in Nigeria, they include but are not limited to: Corruption;
Lack of accountability; Ethnic and Tribal sentiments; Leadership and high cost
of governance; Weak social justice system;

That there is inordinate delay in the administration
of justice in Nigeria is a pedestrian statement. What is however difficult to
understand is how Nigerians have been able to live with this phenomenon for
several decades without proffering a lasting solution. Very often, we see
ordinary cases of unlawful termination of employment or even those for the
enforcement of fundamental rights lasting between three to five years or even
more (OKOGBULE, 2013).

The right to effective and speedy trial is enshrined
in the constitution as a fundamental human right. Article 36 (paragraph 1) of
the 1999 Constitution which provides that: “In the determination of his civil
rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against
any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing
within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and
constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and
impartiality”.
 
However, the law does not specify what a reasonable
time means, the Supreme Court in the case of Gozie Okeke v. The State (2003) 15
NWLR pt. 842 p. 25 in its judgment stated that “the word “reasonable” in its
ordinary meaning means moderate, tolerable or not excessive. What is reasonable
in relation to the question whether an accused has a fair trial within a
reasonable time depends on the circumstances of each particular case, including
the place or country where the trial took place, the resources and
infrastructures available to the appropriate organs in the country”. As the
court and prison system is underfunded, under-manned and over populated,
without adequate facilities, it is safe to say that one may be trapped in a
Nigerian centre for many months.

In order for Nigeria to reach its true potential, the
current Government must introduce codes and policies meant to strengthen
corporate governance in the public sector.


Adedunmade Onibokun

Adedunmade is the Managing Partner of Adedunmade
Onibokun and Co, a firm of Barristers and Solicitors in Lagos, Nigeria. 






REFERENCES
Adedunmade Onibokun. (2012). CODE OF CONDUCT FOR
PUBLIC OFFICERS. Available:
http://legalnaija.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/code-of-conduct-for-public-officers.html.
Last accessed 4th July, 2013.

Audu Jacob (2007), The role of external forces on the
corporate governance in Nigeria, a paper presented at the 2nd international
conference of the school of management and social sciences, Babcock University.

Nasir El-Rufai. (2011). Reforming Our
Dysfunctional Public Service.Available: http://el-rufai.org/reforming-our-dysfunctional-public-service/.
Last accessed 13th September, 2013 .

NLERUM S. OKOGBULE. (2013). Access To Justice And
Human Rights Protection In Nigeria: Problemns And Prospects. Available:
http://www.surjournal.org/eng/conteudos/artigos3/ing/artigo_okogbule.htm. Last
accessed 30th Oct, 2013.

Salisu Suleiman. (2009). Nigeria: Why the Public
Sector is inefficient. Available:
http://nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/salisu-suleiman/nigeria-why-the-public-sector-is-inefficient.html.
Last accessed 25th Oct, 2013

Rami Wadie. (2013). Corporate governance in the public
sector. Available:
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_xe/xe/insights-ideas/the-middle-east-point-of-view-magazine/767b42e1064b3310VgnVCM3000001c56f00aRCRD.htm.
Last accessed 5th July, 2013.
Registration of a Branch or Subsidiary of a foreign Company in Nigeria

Registration of a Branch or Subsidiary of a foreign Company in Nigeria

by | May 9, 2016 | Uncategorized



Non-Nigerians and Foreign
Companies are at liberty, and indeed encouraged to invest and participate in
the operation of any enterprise or company in Nigeria. To invest in Nigeria,
the promoters or investors must register a company in Nigeria. 

A foreign company may
apply in accordance with Section 56 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act
(CAMA) for exemption from incorporating a local subsidiary if such a
foreign company belongs to one of the following categories:-


1.    
Foreign companies invited to Nigeria by or
with the approval of the Federal Government of Nigeria to execute any specified
individual project;
2.    
Foreign companies which are in Nigeria for
the execution of a specific individual loan project on behalf of a donor country
or international organization;
3.    
Foreign government-owned companies engaged
solely in export promotion activities, and;
4.    
Engineering consultants and technical
experts engaged on any individual specialist project under contract with any of
the Governments in the Federation or any of their agencies or with any other
body or person, where such contract has been approved by the Federal
Government. 

A foreign company or
investor may incorporate a Nigerian branch or subsidiary of the parent company
by giving a Power of Attorney to a qualified solicitor in Nigeria for this
purpose. The incorporation documents in this instance would, disclose that the
Solicitor is merely acting as an “agent” of a “principal”
whose name(s) should also appear in the document. The Power of Attorney shall
indicate that the appointed Solicitor shall cease to function upon the
conclusion of all registration formalities. 

The minimum share capital
of a company with foreign investment is N 10 million and where the
foreigner is resident in Nigeria, he shall submit/file a copy of his residence
permit along with other documents required for incorporation of a company.

Sequel to registration of
the Company at the CAC, all companies with foreign investors must register with
Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) and obtain a Business Permit
from the Ministry of Internal Affairs through the NIPC before commencing formal
operations. 

Section 8(1) (b) of the
Immigration Act provides that no person other than a Nigerian citizen shall on
his own account or in partnership with any other person practice a profession
or establish or take over any trade or business whatsoever or register or take
over any company with limited liability for any such purpose without the
written consent of the Minister of Internal Affairs. A Business Permit is the
operational licence granted to an expatriate or foreign company to enable him
carry on business activities in Nigeria.

Registration with the NIPC
and application for Business Permit is processed by completing the NIPC
application form accompanied with the following documents: –

1.    
Original copy of the treasury receipt for
the purchase of NIPC Form.

2.    
A copy of the Certificate of Incorporation.

3.    
A copy of the Tax Clearance Certificate of
the applicant company.

4.    
A copy of Certificate of Capital
Importation

5.    
Certified True Copies of CAC Form 02 &
07 i.e. Particulars of Shareholders and Directors.

6.    
Certified True Copy of the Memorandum and
Articles of Association;

7.    
A copy of treasury receipt as evidence of
payment of stamp duties on the authorised share capital of the company

8.    
A copy of the Joint-Venture Agreement
between the Nigerian Partners and Foreigners

9.    
A Copy of Feasibility Report and Project
Implementation Programme. (Business Plan)

10.A copy of Deed of Sub-Lease/Agreement
evidencing firm commitment to acquire requisite business premises for the
company’s operation;

11.  Profile of Foreign Investor as testimony of
international expertise and credibility of the foreign partner in the proposed line
of business.

If the foreign company
intends to employ expatriates, an application shall be made to the Ministry of
Internal Affairs to obtain Expatriate Quota. The Expatriate Quota is the
official approval granted to a company to enable it employ individual
expatriates to specifically designated jobs and the quota must state its
duration. Section 8(1) (a) of the Immigration Act provides that “no person
other than a citizen of Nigeria shall accept employment, not being employment
with the Federal or a State Government, without the approval of the Chief
Federal Immigration Officer.  

There are two types of
expatriate quotas which are:

  • Permanent until Reviewed (PUR) – This
    is meant for positions that would be occupied on a permanent basis and is
    usually granted to the Chairman of the Board of a company or the Managing
    Director. As the name implies, it is permanent until there is a
    supervening circumstance, which will necessitate its review. The essence
    of granting the PUR is to ensure that the foreign company is able to
    protect its investment. Once a PUR is granted, a certificate is issued
    stating the position that the PUR covers.


  • Temporary Quota – This is usually
    granted to the directors or other employees of the company. These
    positions are specifically stated on the permit and the expatriate
    employee’s qualification must be in par with the designation.
Please note that the quota
is issued to the company and not the expatriate, as such when the expatriate
leaves the company, the position reverts to the company and the company may
place another expatriate on the same position for as long as the quota position
remains valid.

To apply for Expatriate
Quota Position, in addition to the documents submitted for the application for
Business Permit, the following additional documents and information are needed:

1.    
Evidence of non-availability of expertise
in the country;

2.  A copy of training programme or personnel
policy of the company, incorporating management succession schedule for
qualified Nigerians;

3.  Particulars of names, addresses,
nationalities and occupations of the proposed directors of the company;

4.  Job title designations of expatriate quota
positions required, and the academic and working experience required for the
occupants of such positions.

Once the expatriate quota
is obtained, the Company shall apply to the Nigerian embassy or consular office
for a subject to regularisation for residence work permit (STR) Visa in
writing, confirming that there is a vacancy on the expatriate quota and stating
the position in which prospective employee is to be employed and confirming
acceptance of immigration responsibility.   

STR visa is normally given
for 90 days without reference, during which an application must be made to the
Comptroller-General of Immigration, to regularise the stay of the prospective
employee, and the person may assume his employment only when such application
is approved and a RESIDENCE WORK PERMIT granted.  
Remedies available to Minority Shareholders for wrong done By the Majority/Controlling Shareholders

Remedies available to Minority Shareholders for wrong done By the Majority/Controlling Shareholders

by | May 6, 2016 | Uncategorized

Written
by Oluyemisi Dansu
Managing
Partner at Argyle & Clover Attorneys at Law
It is rather easy for the
rights of minority shareholders to be infringed upon however minority
shareholders are afforded some protection under the Companies and Allied
Matters Act (CAMA) to protect their rights/interests.
While it is trite in line
with the provisions of Section 299 of CAMA[1], that where a wrong has been done
in the course of a company’s affairs to the company (by the majority or the
alter ego of the company), only the company can sue to remedy the wrong. This
is commonly known as the rule in Foss .v. Harbottle. There are some exceptions
to this general principle provided for under Section 300 of CAMA. These
exceptional instances are discussed hereafter.


•Entering into any transaction which is illegal or ultra vires2:

In the case of Yalaju-Amaye
v Associated Registered Engineering Co Ltd (AREC)[2], a minority shareholder
was allowed to sue where the purported appointment of new directors by the
board was held ultra vires the board as there was no such power granted in the
articles of association.

•Purporting to do by ordinary resolution any act which by the Company’s
Articles or the CAMA is required to be done by special resolution[3]:
The law guards against the
risk of majority/controlling shareholders ratifying an act which is in itself
wrong, by a wrong procedure. For minority shareholders to effectively bring an
action under this exception, it must be clearly established that irregular and
illegitimate procedures were adopted by the majority and this requires a good
knowledge of the provisions of the company’s articles as well as the provisions
of CAMA.

•Any act or omission affecting the Minority Shareholders’ individual rights as
members of the Company:
This occurs where the
shareholders membership rights are the facts in issue, for instance where
minority shareholders are systematically denied the right to vote at general
meetings, or consistently denied the right to receive notice of general
meetings of a company. In the case of Edokpolo & Company Ltd v Sam-Edo Wire
Industries Ltd[4], a minority shareholder holding 40% of the company’s shares,
alleged collusion between the company’s Chairman and Solicitor, the result of
which was the allotment of shares to other parties out of the 40% belonging to
the minority shareholder.
The Supreme Court held
that the minority shareholder was entitled to sue in its personal capacity to
protect its personal right to the shares held by it. In the words of Aniagolu,
J.S.C; “it appears to one that this is a clear case in which a minority
shareholder should, in the interest of justice, be allowed to sue as one of the
exceptions to the rule in Foss v. Harbottle”.

•Committing fraud on either the company or the minority shareholders where the
directors fail to take appropriate action to redress the wrong done[5]:
Examples of this is where
there is expropriation of the company’s property by majority shareholders or
where majority shareholders have obtained certain unfair advantages by dealing
with the company’s property, or an attempt to release the directors’ from
liability arising from breach of the duty of good faith owed to the company. In
the case of Yalaju-Amaye v AREC[6], the minority shareholders were allowed to
sue where the directors of the company went on a withdrawal spree from the bank
account of the company, falsified minutes of meetings to cover up a
non-existence board resolution to change the signatories to the company account
on the ground that a fraud had been committed against the company. A broader
definition of fraud was given by the Supreme Court in this case as “Any act
which may amount to an infraction of fair dealing, or abuse of confidence or
unconscionable conduct, or abuse of power as between a trustee and his
shareholders in the management of a company.”
In light of the above
definition, “fraud’’ is used in a loose, wider and equitable sense thus an
abuse or misuse of power and indeed breach of duty on the part of the majority
shareholders or controlling directors opens the way for minority shareholders
to sue to correct the wrong done to the Company.
What may be imputed as
fraud on the company or on the minority shareholders varies from case to case,
and the entire circumstances surrounding a particular case would usually be
examined to determine whether or not it meets the requirements. In the case of
Omisade v Akande[7], the parties involved in the suit were both directors and
shareholders and had shares in equal proportions in the company.
In a contract entered into
between the company and a US-based airline, it was agreed that in consideration
for patronage of the flight services of the airline by Muslim pilgrims through
facilitation by the company, the airline would pay a certain amount of money as
commission to the company. Omisade alleged that Akande falsely represented to
the US-based airline, with which the company had a contract; that the company
was being wound up, in order to divert the commission due to the company to
another establishment in which Akande was the majority shareholder.
It was held that Akande
had clearly committed a breach of his fiduciary duty as a director of the
company by making false representations about the company in order to divert
profit from it, and that this amounted to a fraud on the company for which a
minority shareholder, or any other interested shareholder could bring an action
on behalf of the company.
•Where a company meeting cannot be called in time to be of practical use in
redressing a wrong done to the company or to minority shareholders[8]:
This situation may arise
where an irreversible wrong is about to be done and the facilities for
convening a proper meeting of shareholders or the board are not available, or
where urgent action is required to abate the wrong. It will be unreasonable to
wait for a formal meeting requiring notice to be convened to address the wrong
thus the law allows a shareholder in this instance to apply to court to abort
or nip the wrong in the bud.

•Where the directors are likely to derive a profit or benefit, or have profited
or benefited from their negligence or from their breach of duty[9]:
In this circumstance, a
shareholder/member[10] of the company may apply to court for redress. The
rationale behind this is that the directors are the wrongdoers and are also the
ones in charge of the day to day running of the company, it is to be expected
that they would not take any action against themselves for breach of their
duty.

•Where the interest of justice demands:
In its effort to apply
equitable principles to corporate relationship for the purpose of minority
shareholders protection, the Nigerian Supreme Court, in Edokpolor & Co Ltd
v Sam-Edo Wire Industries Ltd recognised a further exception to the rule in
Foss v Harbottle now known as the “interest of justice” exception. This
principle is to the effect that where, considering all the circumstances of a
case, it is in the interest of justice that the application of the rule in Foss
v Harbottle be suspended, the court has a duty to suspend application of the
rule even where the circumstances of the case do not fall under any of the
preceding six categories of exceptions.
Types of Action that can
be commenced by Minority Shareholders
In line with the
exceptions to the rule in Foss .v. Harbottle, there are 3 types of actions that
Minority shareholder(s) can bring:

•Personal Action
A personal action may be
commenced by a member to enforce a right due to him personally where such
rights have been abused by an act deemed to be the act of the company[11] See
Section 301 of CAMA. An example of personal action is where a shareholder commences
an action to enforce the term of a contractual obligation with the company.

1.Representative Action
A representative action is
commenced where an individual member’s right has been infringed, and the
infringement affects other members in the company, the appropriate action will
be a representative action i.e. a member will be suing the company on behalf of
himself and other aggrieved members. See Section 301 (2) of CAMA.

1.Derivative Action
A derivative action is
when minority members/shareholders bring an action in the name of the company
to correct the wrong done to a company by majority/controlling shareholders.
There are however various impediments to the minority shareholder’s ability to
enforce company’s rights as the minority shareholder(s) has to satisfy the
provision of Section 303 of CAMA, which provides that:

•“Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, an applicant may
apply to the court for leave to bring an action in the name or on behalf of a
company or to intervene in an action to which the company is a party, for the
purpose of presenting, defending or discontinuing the action on behalf of the
company.

•No action may be brought and no intervention may be made under subsection (1)
of this section unless the court is satisfied that:
 •The wrongdoers are the directors who are in
control and will not take necessary action.

1.The applicant has given reasonable notice to the directors of the company of
his intention to apply to the court under subsection (1) of this section if the
directors of the company do not bring, diligently prosecute or defend or
discontinue the action.
In light of the foregoing
provision, minority shareholders before they can validly commence a derivative
action must first apply to the Court for leave to commence the action and where
they are unable to establish factually and based on the provision of CAMA that
the conditions for a derivative action has been met, the court will refuse
leave.
[1] CAP C20 LFN 2004
[2] (1986) 3 NWLR (pt. 31)
653
[3] S. 300(b) CAMA
[4] (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.
116) 473
[5] S 300(d) CAMA
[6] Supra
[7] (1987) 2 NWLR (pt. 55)
at 158; (1987) 18 NSCC 486
[8] S 300(e) CAMA
[9] S 300 (f) CAMA
[10] According to S. 302
CAMA, “member” includes the personal representative of a deceased member and
any person to whom shares have been transferred or transmitted by operation of
law.
[11] S. 301 CAMA

Ed’s Note: – This
article was originally posted by the author on 29th June, 2016 at https://www.linkedin.com/messaging/thread/6131850926308286467
(Last Accessed on May 6, 2016) 
Constitutional Roles of the House of Representatives

Constitutional Roles of the House of Representatives

by | May 5, 2016 | Uncategorized


The House of
Representatives is the second chamber in Nigeria’s bicameral legislature, the
National Assembly. The National Assembly (NASS) is the nation’s highest
legislature, whose power to make laws is summarized in chapter one, section
four of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution. 

Sections 47-49 of the 1999
Constitution state inter alia that “There shall be a National Assembly
(NASS) for the federation which shall consist of two chambers: the Senate and
the House of Representatives”. 


The House of
Representatives is headed by the Speaker assisted by the Deputy Speaker. These
Presiding officers serve as political heads. There are three hundred and sixty
(360) members in the House of Representatives representing the 360 Federal
Constituencies the country is divided into based on population. 

The Constitution has
vested in the House of Representatives the power to make laws for the peace,
order and good governance of the Federation. 
The House of
Representatives also has broad oversight functions and is therefore empowered
to establish committees of its members to scrutinize bills and the conduct of
government institutions and officials.

The House of
Representatives is also empowered by the Constitution to legislate on
Exclusive, Concurrent and Residual lists.

Photo Credit- google.com 
Senate Constitutional Role

Senate Constitutional Role

by | May 5, 2016 | Uncategorized



The Constitution has
vested in the National Assembly the power to make laws for the peace, order and
good governance of the Federation. The Assembly also has broad oversight
functions and is therefore empowered to establish committees of its members to
scrutinize bills and the conduct of government institutions and officials.

The Constitution confers
exclusive powers to the Senate among them the power to scrutinize and confirm
major appointments of the executive. It is, however, specific about the
appointments to be confirmed. They are those of the Ministers, Special
Advisers, Ambassadors, top Judicial Officers heading specified levels of
courts, the Auditor-General of the Federation, and the Chairmen and Members of
the vital National Commissions.


The Senate is one of the
Chambers in Nigeria’s bicameral legislature, the National Assembly. The
National Assembly (NASS) is the nation’s highest legislature, whose power to
make laws is summarized in chapter one, section four of the 1999 Nigerian
Constitution. 

Sections 47-49 of the 1999
Constitution state inter alia that “There shall be a National Assembly
(NASS) for the federation which shall consist of two chambers: the Senate and
the House of Representatives”. 

The Senate is headed by
the President of the Senate assisted by the Deputy President of the Senate.
These Presiding officers serve as political heads. There are one hundred and
nine (109) members in the Senate corresponding to the 109 senatorial districts
in the country. Senatorial Districts are evenly distributed among the thirty
six states.  Each state has three senatorial districts while the Federal
Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja has just one senatorial district.

Photo Credit – www.dgossip247.com 
House Seeks To Amend The Electoral Act, To Address Lacuna In Electoral Process

House Seeks To Amend The Electoral Act, To Address Lacuna In Electoral Process

by | May 5, 2016 | Uncategorized

The House of
Representatives has on Wednesday, May 4, 2016 referred to the Committee on
political and Electoral matters, a consolidated Bill that seek to make
provisions to address the lacuna in the event of the death of a candidate, any
time before the conclusion of an election and to empower Election Tribunals and
Courts to declare Candidates who score the second highest votes as winners of
the elections. Other issues which the Bill seeks to address include to ensure
that all political parties are gender sensitive and to eliminate all forms of
discrimination.
A co-sponsor of the Bill,
Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, while leading the debate on the general principles of
the Bill stated that a key component of the Bill also wants to accommodate the
use of Card Reader in the Electoral Laws as well as to increase the amount of
money permitted as maximum election expenses to be incurred by Candidates
standing for elections. In addition, nullification of elections by Tribunals or
Court should be put in the right perspective, he said. Other sponsors of the
Bill, Hon. Karimi Sunday, Edward Gyang Pwajok, Uzoma Nkem-Abonta, Olatoye
Temitope Sugar and Raphael Nnanna Igbokwe took turns to adumbrate on the
desirability or otherwise of the Bill as they appealed to the Members of the
parliament to support their argument and prevent the recent electoral impasse
in Kogi Sate Governorship election from happening elsewhere.
However, the Minority
Leader, Hon. Leo Ogor had a different view regarding the use of Card Reader, he
informed that the Card Reader was almost declared illegal in a recent ruling by
the Supreme Court. He opined that the Card Reader inadvertently shuts out
several eligible voters from performing their franchise, calling it a violation
of the fundamental Human Rights of the people; he however suggested that the
system of electronic voting be captured in the Electoral Act. 

In a related development,
the representatives passed for second reading a Bill which seeks to alter the
3rd schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to
provide for Electronic Voting and other related matters, standing in the name
of Hon. Edward Gyang Pwajok.
Meanwhile, the House
resumed the senatorial debate on Diversification of the Economy: real sector
development during the plenary session where it played host to the Hon.
Minister of Agriculture, Chief Audu Ogbe who delivered his brief where he
advised that the way out of the current economic quagmire is to ride the lane
of self-sufficiency and to focus on export goods like cocoa and palm oil. “We
must begin to grow our own foods and wage an economic war against importation
of excessive goods”, he emphasized.

He informed that the
Ministry of Agriculture is doing well in rice and beans production, reviving
the cocoa industry, establishing a new market for bananas and conducting
nationwide survey on fertilizer. 
Chief Ogbe stated that the
Ministry is tackling the issues of competition, importation and inability to
access finance through policy direction, however, solicited support of the
parliament if the challenges are to be surmounted. He further stressed that
factors such as high and inaccessible financial interest rate for farmers,
youth restiveness, land revenue and problems of Extension Services need to be
addressed. “Nigeria has the highest ratio of extension workers to the tune of
1:10 in Africa”, he stated.
Responding to questions
from the lawmakers, the Minister said that the way forward includes having a
functioning Local Government system that will perhaps boost local production in
the grassroots, and interest rate for agriculture should not be higher than 5%.
He strongly advised against re-opening of the grazing routes across the
country, citing waste of effort as reason if the routes would not lead to grasslands
but farms. 
Credit – www.nass.gov.ng http://nass.gov.ng/news/item/249