Connect with us

columnist

From Nairobi to Nigeria: Kenyan election as a mirror election

Published

on

By Dakuku Peterside

It is not always that an election in one part of the world can function as a mirror in another part of the globe. Societies differ in demographics, political and historical evolution, and the general economic issues that shape elections. The general election in Kenya that took place on Tuesday 9th August is in many ways a mirror of the forthcoming 2023 elections in Nigeria. This mirroring is primarily evident in their shared democratic characteristics, current economic climate, and socio-political milieu.

Kenya, resemblant of Nigeria, is a former British colony practising multiparty democracy and is multi-ethnic with three dominant ethnic groups vis Kikuyu, Luhya, and Kalenjin. Kenya, like Nigeria, has a young population, with 75% being under 35years. Nigeria and Kenya in their different constitutional provisions require  a candidate to obtain  50% plus one vote to win the presidential race, with 25% spread in 24 of 47 Counties. Like our president Buhari, the incumbent president is not a candidate in this election.

Four significant candidates were Raila Odinga, William Ruto, David Mwaura and George Wajackoya. Two, however, are candidates of the major coalition parties. Like most third-world countries, Kenya faces coordination and network challenges in election management.

The two countries have similar core issues that will define the election. The presidential campaign in Kenya was centred on three issues  of economy, corruption, and unemployment. The only difference with Nigeria will be the addition of how to tackle the menace of insecurity bedevilling our country.

In most economic indices, Kenya is better than Nigeria. Kenya’s inflation at 7.9% on election month is better than Nigeria’s 18% by June 2022. Public debt is as high as Nigeria’s, and the unemployment rate is spiralling. On the positive side, Kenya is a regional economic giant in East Africa, while Nigeria is a continental giant. Corruption is endemic and deep-rooted in the private and public sectors. These similarities give us the impetus to pay close attention to the Kenyan elections and learn from the outcome.

Kenyan election brought three fundamental issues for consideration: First, the new increased level of electoral transparency occasioned using technology and the increase in deepening democratic tenets among Africans. Democracy, although young in most African countries, is gradually becoming accepted. The new school of thought in Africa favours democracy and assumes that only a few bent on circumventing democracy are the culprits of democratic disorder that often leads to electoral violence and crisis. Elections are not only free and fair than in the past, but most are beginning to accept the results of the polls leading to less violence and more acceptance of the electoral outcomes.

Second, it is evident that incumbency is no longer an iron ceiling that is almost impossible to break. Incumbent to non-incumbent transition is a sign of maturity of democracy and is anticipated to happen if the incumbent loses many people’s backings. Anybody or party can lose an election if they lose the political patronage of the people. In the past, votes did not count, and election results were manipulated, written, and imposed on the people by the incumbent party or government.

The third is that Africans are beginning to jettison personality politics and focus more on issues that affect their lives. Insecurity, bad economy, and corruption are quickly becoming the thematic thrust of election campaigns, and the people are getting more likely to vote on their conviction of how candidates will tackle issues plaguing the country than relying on the cult of personality that is more ethnic and religious oriented.

At the end of the Kenyan elections, three patterns have emerged that are instructive to Nigerian politicians, the election management body (INEC) and the electorate. The first pattern is technology’s positive influence on electoral outcomes. Technology deepens electoral transparency, enhances free and fair elections, and reduces rigging. The root of electoral violence in Africa is the lack of trust by stakeholders in the electoral process. Somaliland was the first to use iris recognition for voter accreditation and followed it up with electronic voting. Somaliland went from a war zone to a respected nation in a credible electoral process.

On the other hand, Kenya, which witnessed violence in its 2017 elections, deployed technology to add credibility to the electoral processes. It deepened the application of technology in 2022 using a specially designed Kenya Integrated Electronic Management System (KIEMS), and this reduced the 3-prong evil of violence, rigging and result disputation to its minimum. South Africa and Ghana are other African countries that have taken maximum advantage of technology to deliver free, fair, and credible elections with minimal or no disputation of results.

BVAS, introduced by the electoral commission in Nigeria, like Kenya KIEMS, is an advanced voter identification technology that will be hostile to election riggers, effectively ending the old order. We saw this in recent elections at Anambra, Ekiti and Osun, and nobody challenged the results based on the number in each of those elections. BVAS, according to INEC, promises to deliver elections that reflect the people’s wishes.

The second pattern is that influence of the incumbent on the electoral outcome is beginning to wane. The use of state resources to influence voters will soon be history. Social media and citizens’ vigilance combine to rub government officials of secrecy to deploy state resources at will. Voters who are sure they can cast their votes in secret will vote according to their conscience. Voters are more informed, enlightened, and ready to defend their votes and voices at all costs.

They are more active and less fearful of state apparatus wielding power when deployed to influence elections. It is common knowledge that when incumbents deploy considerable resources to influence voters, many collect the financial inducements and yet vote for candidates most qualified to lead. The third pattern is that the quality of electoral laws and rules are beginning to impact on quality and outcome of elections. We saw this with the electoral reforms in Kenya. The electoral laws and regulations are beginning to provide a level playing field for all parties and voters. Power resides with the people and not local oligarchs somewhere.

Even stakeholders are beginning to buy in on the issue of transparency in elections. It is worthy of note that in the last Kenya elections, the media are becoming unbiased and partisan. For instance, the two leading candidates held simultaneous final rallies in Nairobi, and the police did not interfere. Newspapers, TV, and radios gave balanced and equal coverage to the campaigns. The campaign coverages are a pleasure to watch. To gain support among a disaffected electorate, politicians have had to hinge their campaigns or movement on the country’s pressing economic issues, prompting a shift away from the country’s ethnic and personality-driven politics toward issue-based campaigns.

Tuesday’s polls were peaceful, with isolated violence cases in the northern region. The corrosive ethnic politics that framed previous electoral contests is ebbing . The critical question in the coming days is not only who won the race but whether the loser will accept defeat. This is a sign of maturity of the political players. It is evident from developments in Kenya that the train of history has left Kikuyu hegemony and dynastic politics.

Similarly, Nigeria may witness the end of ethnic politics in 2023. The critical issue in Nigeria, as we saw in Kenya, will be who among the candidates can secure the welfare of the majority. Poverty and hunger have no ethnic colouration. So, hunger and poverty are weaponised to push the electorate to vote for candidates that seem in tune with the economic and corruption realities and usher hope and belief in their future.

Kenya is leading the way in Africa in gender equity in politics and must be emulated by Nigeria and other African countries. According to IFES FAQ on the 2022 Kenyan elections, “Kenya’s legal framework includes firm principles of gender equity. According to the 2010 Constitution, no more than two-thirds of the membership of any elective body in Kenya may be of the same sex. In this respect, the National Assembly reserves forty-seven seats for women and the Senate reserves sixteen for women, with two more Senate seats reserved for women representing youth and persons with disabilities.” Interestingly, three out of the four presidential candidates chose female running mates. Similarly, the country believes in the twinning principle.

Another exemplary provision in Kenyan electoral law is the out-of-country voting provision. According to IEBC, out-of-country voting is allowed for the presidential election only.

Kenyan voters outside the country may only vote from twelve countries, chosen based on the number of Kenyans who live there. These voting took place in Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, South Africa, South Sudan, Germany, United Kingdom, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Canada, and the US.

It is quite unfortunate that despite the enormous contributions of Nigerians in Diaspora to the country’s economy and image laundry, they have no say in determining the political leadership of their homeland except they take the cumbersome option of travelling down to Nigeria to register and later to vote.

Finally , It can only be hoped that free and fair elections are not seen as ends in themselves. Instead, free and fair elections should produce governments that can end illiteracy, poverty, unemployment and limited enlightenment.

Only by so doing can democracy improve and entrench itself to become an integral part of the value and cultural reality of tomorrow’s Africa.

All eyes are now on Angola (August 2022), Chad (September 2022), Lesotho (Oct 2022), Somaliland (Nov 2022), Sudan (December 2022) and Nigeria (Feb 2023) to deliver free, fair, and credible elections, deepen democracy, promote political transformation, increase prosperity  and give Africa hope of a bright future. Nigeria must show leadership and use the 2023 election to highlight democratic resilience and deep-rooted principles in the Nigerian democratic culture.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

columnist

Air Peace, Capitalism, and National Interest

Published

on

By Dakuku Peterside

Nigerian corporate influence and that of the West continue to collide. The rationale is straightforward: whereas corporate activity in Europe and America is part of their larger local and foreign policy engagement, privately owned enterprises in Nigeria  or commercial interests are not part of Nigeria’s foreign policy ecosystem, nor is there a strong culture of government support for privately owned enterprises’ expansion locally and internationally. Nigerian firms’ competitiveness on a global scale can only be enhanced by the support of the Nigerian government.  It is evident that the relationship between Nigerian businesses  and foreign policy is important to the national interest. When backing domestic Nigerian companies to compete on a worldwide scale, the government should see it as a lever to drive foreign policy, national strategic interest, promote trade, enhance national security considerations, minimize distortion in the domestic market as the foreign airlines were doing, boost GDP, create employment opportunities, and optimize corporate returns for the firms. For example, the South Korean mega conglomerates within the chaebols corporate structure, such as Samsung, Daewoo, SK Group, LG, and others, have become globally recognizable brands thanks to the backing of the South Korean government. For Chaebol to succeed, strong collaboration with the government has been essential. Also, in telecommunications, Huawei would only be such a well-known brand worldwide with the backing of the Chinese government. The opposite is the case with Nigeria.

Admitted nations do not always interfere directly in their companies’ business and commercial dealings, and there are always exceptions. I can cite two areas of exception: military sales by companies because of their strategic implications and are, therefore, part of foreign and diplomatic policy and processes. The second is where the products or routes of a company have implications for foreign policy. Air Peace falls into the second category in the Lagos – London route.

Two events demonstrate an emerging trend that, if not checked, will disincentivize Nigerian firms from competing in the global marketplace. There are other notable examples, but I am using these two examples because they are very recent and ongoing, and they are typological representations of the need for Nigerian government backing and support for local companies that are playing  in a very competitive international  market dominated by big foreign companies whose governments are using all forms of foreign policies and diplomacy to support and sustain.

The first is Airpeace. It is the only Nigerian-owned aviation company playing globally and checkmating the dominance of foreign airlines. The most recent advance is the commencement of flights on the Lagos – London route. In Nigeria, foreign airlines are well-established and accustomed to a lack of rivalry, yet a free-market economy depends on the existence of competition. Nigeria has significantly larger airline profits per passenger than other comparable African nations. Insufficient competition has resulted in high ticket costs and poor service quality. It is precisely this jinx that Airpeace is attempting to break. On March 30, 2024, Air Peace reciprocated the lopsided Bilateral Air Service Agreement (BASA) between Nigeria and the United Kingdom when the local airline began direct flight operations from Lagos to Gatwick Airport in London. This elicited several reactions from foreign airlines backed by their various sovereigns because of their strategic interest. A critical response is the commencement of a price war. Before the Airpeace entry, the price of international flight tickets on the Lagos-London route had soared to as much as N3.5 million for economy ticket. However, after Airpeace introduced a return economy class ticket priced at N1.2 million, foreign carriers like British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, and Qatar Airways reduced their fares significantly to remain competitive.

In a price war, there is little the government can do. In an open-market competitive situation such as this, our government must not act in a manner that suggests it is antagonistic to foreign players and competitors. There must be an appearance of a level playing field. However, the government owes Airpeace protection against foreign competitors backed by their home governments. This is in the overall interest of the Nigerian consumer of goods and services. Competition history in the airspace works where the Consumer Protection Authority in the host country is active. This is almost absent in Nigeria and it is a reason why foreign airlines have been arbitrary in pricing their tickets. Nigerian consumers are often at the mercy of these foreign firms who lack any vista of patriotism and are more inclined to protect the national interest of their governments and countries.

It would not be too much to expect Nigerian companies playing globally to benefit from the protection of the Nigerian government to limit influence peddling by foreign-owned companies. The success of Air Peace should enable a more competitive and sustainable market, allowing domestic players to grow their network and propel Nigeria to the forefront of international aviation.

The second is Proforce, a Nigerian-owned military hardware manufacturing firm active in Rwanda, Chad, Mali, Ghana, Niger, Burkina Faso, and South Sudan. Despite the growing capacity of Proforce in military hardware manufacturing, Nigeria entered two lopsided arrangements with two UAE firms to supply military equipment worth billions of dollars , respectively. Both deals are backed by the UAE government but executed by UAE firms. These deals on a more extensive web are not unconnected with UAE’s national strategic interest. In pursuit of its strategic national interest, India is pushing Indian firms to supply military equipment to Nigeria. The Nigerian defence equipment market has seen weaker indigenous competitors driven out due to the combination of local manufacturers’ lack of competitive capacity and government patronage of Asian, European, and US firms in the defence equipment manufacturing sector. This is a misnomer and needs to be corrected. Not only should our government be the primary customer of this firm if its products meet international standards, but it should also support and protect it from the harsh competitive realities of a challenging but strategic market directly linked to our national military procurement ecosystem. The ability to produce military hardware locally is significant to our defence strategy. This firm and similar companies playing in this strategic defence area must be considered strategic and have a considerable place in Nigeria’s foreign policy calculations. Protecting Nigeria’s interests is the primary reason for our engagement in global diplomacy. The government must deliberately balance national interest with capacity and competence in military hardware purchases. It will not be too much to ask these foreign firms to partner with local companies so we can embed the technology transfer advantages.

Increasingly, other companies, especially in the banking and fintech sectors, are making giant strides in global competitiveness. Our government must create an environment that enables our local companies to compete globally and ply their trades in various countries. It should be part of the government’s overall economic, strategic growth agenda to identify areas or sectors in which Nigerian companies have a competitive advantage, especially in the sub-region and across Africa and support the companies in these sectors to advance and grow to dominate in  the African region with a view to competing globally. Government support in the form of incentives such as competitive grants ,tax credit for consumers ,low-interest capital, patronage, G2G business, operational support, and diplomatic lobbying, amongst others, will alter the competitive landscape. Governments  and key government agencies in the west retain the services of lobbying firms in pursuit of its strategic interest.

Nigerian firms’ competitiveness on a global scale can only be enhanced by the support of the Nigerian government. Foreign policy interests should be a key driver of Nigerian trade agreements. How does the Nigerian government support private companies to grow and compete globally? Is it intentionally mapping out growth areas and creating opportunities for Nigerian firms to maximize their potential? Is the government at the domestic level removing bottlenecks and impediments to private company growth, allowing a level playing field for these companies to compete with international companies? Why is the government patronising foreign firms against local firms if their products are of similar value? What was the rationale for flight tickets from Lagos to London costing N3.5M for economy class just a few weeks ago only to come down to N1.3M with the entrance of Air Peace to the market? Why are Nigerian consumers left to the hands of international  companies in some sectors without the government actively supporting the growth of local firms to compete in those sectors? These questions merit honest answers. Nigerian national interest must be the driving factor for our foreign policies, which must cover the private sector, just as is the case with most developed countries. The new global capitalism is not a product of accident or chance; the government has choreographed and shaped it by using foreign policies to support and protect local firms competing globally. Nigeria must learn to do the same to build a strong economy with more jobs.

Continue Reading

columnist

Food security: The Bago challenge

Published

on

By Dakuku Peterside

Against the run of play, Governor Mohammed Umaru Bago of Niger State ruffled feathers with his speech at the 2023 annual Leadership Newspaper Conference and Awards held in Abuja last week. This speech was an instant hit online and trended at different times on both Instagram and X (Twitter). Governor Bago’s arguments in his speech can be summarised in three ways: First, as a nation, Nigeria cannot achieve economic freedom and eradicate poverty without being productive, especially in agriculture, where we have a comparative advantage. Second, it is indefensible for a nation with an estimated arable land of 40 million hectares and a reasonable youth population to accept grain donation in whatever guise from war-torn Ukraine; and third, because of natural and human endowment, Nigeria can feed the people and export the excess to other countries. There is nothing Governor Bago said that we do not already know, but as a nation, we have egotistically refused to accept these truths nor act on them. These arguments are significant because they were made by a serving Nigerian governor, a member of the powerful club that has enjoyed the monthly sharing arrangement called Federation Account Allocation Committee( FAAC).

Governor Bago ended his speech by throwing a challenge against the Federal Government’s promise to deploy and distribute 42,000 MT of grains from the strategic reserve, that the Niger State Government will deliver and distribute 100,000 MT of grain by June 2025. Make no mistake about it, Governor Bago was not just exercising his bragging rights; he was marketing his strategic plan to rescue Niger State from the sharing mentality, economic doldrums, poverty, unemployment,and criminality. A quick review of what the Niger State Government is doing to accomplish the vision of food sufficiency might give us a better perspective. Niger State, over the next year, plans to cultivate one million hectares of farmland, inclusive of a 50,000 hectares fully irrigated food production hub. Over 500 large-capacity tractors, 1000 pieces of irrigation and agricultural equipment, 2000 power tillers for smallholder farmers, 2000 petrol water pumps, 3000 solar pumps, and 5000 tube wells to support dry season farming have been delivered. Besides, the government has acquired about 100,000 bags of fertilisers, plus herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides have also been obtained. Governor Bago’s commitment to this agricultural revolution in Niger State is self-evident and realistic.

Governor Bago’s challenge in his speech and what he is doing in Niger State is founded on solid historical precedence and economic reasoning. Before we discovered crude oil in commercial quantity and started depending on it as a mono-product, which made us lazy in thinking, diminished the value of hard work, and elevated monthly sharing of FAAC to a religion of sorts, sub-national governments (regional governments) relied solely on agriculture to develop the regions. Some of the iconic infrastructure projects were executed with groundnut, cocoa and palm oil money. The choice of agriculture as an engine of economic growth was because of its multiplier effect. It has an excellent capacity to create employment and wealth. Those reasons are still valid today. The neglect of agriculture and the food production supply chain led Nigeria into many of the economic malaise we are suffering today – from food insecurity, unemployment, criminality and poverty to a dearth of foreign exchange. Some countries that were our contemporaries developed their food production and supply, which became the mainstay of their economy.

Governor Bago’s speech represents a significant shift in thinking in recent times, giving some hope. Some state governments have started making efforts towards creating a clear vision of increased productivity, providing an enabling environment for such productivity, and building on this productivity to improve their internal revenue generation. These governors are using food security in Nigeria as fuel to engage in food production in a way that has not been done in Nigeria for a long time. They understand that the question of food security in Nigeria starts with food production, then food processing, food distribution and food commercialisation, both locally and abroad. But first and foremost, ramping up food production is the first step in tackling the food insecurity conundrum. It is a matter of how much food Nigeria produces. It is determined by what individual states bring to the table. In that regard, the message of self-reliance from the Niger governor is on point. Production of food for local consumption and export is vital for Nigeria’s economy because it solves two significant problems that have recently thrown Nigeria’s economy into a wild spine – food inflation and scarcity of foreign exchange.

Increasing our productive capacity and, by extension, enhancing our internally generated revenue is imperative. States waiting to go to Abuja to pick up peanuts monthly is not sustainable. States, by the design of the 1999 Constitution, ought to be growth centres – actively participating in production and creating the institutional framework, structures, and environment to make this possible. However, only a few states have taken advantage of this vantage position to lift their people out of poverty. Most states function as salary payment centres. This must change if any meaningful development strides will take place in Nigeria. The era of states becoming a leech on the centre, milking the Nigerian state dry, is over. Every state must look inward and decide the best path to economic progress. Each state must have the mentality that if the tap of crude is switched off today, how will it become sustainable? This calls for chief executive officers of the states (governors) to wear their thinking caps now, holistically review their productive comparative advantages, develop an audacious strategic plan, and execute such to achieve a clear vision for the state. Anything less than this is not acceptable to Nigerians.

The idea that consistent productivity at the sub-national level is one critical ingredient among many ingredients that will get us out of the economic mess we found ourselves in is more germane today than ever. The significance of this statement is that state governments are responsible for figuring out the best strategy to make their states viable and contribute to wealth creation and employment generation. Each state must tap into their  comparative and competitive advantage to contribute to the national food basket.

A strategy for economic viability will require dealing with internal security issues coupled with medium- and long-term planning. The most crucial short-term action critical to agricultural production presently is to provide security and a safe environment for such economic activities to occur. The states must make farming safe and allow farmers to return to their farms without fear of attacks from bandits or terrorists. Insecurity is a great headwind against agricultural productivity.

Agro-industrialisation is crucial in massive food production and increases local revenue and foreign exchange generation. We are embracing new agro-technology and jettisoning old agricultural practices that have provided suboptimal productivity over the years. This is also a time to bring real entrepreneurs into the food production and processing value chain. State governments should leverage various public-private partnership investments available to bring in seasoned investors and ‘agropreneurs’ to work together to put in place modern mechanised agricultural facilities for the mass production and processing of food. Recently, I had a long discussion with the Governments  of Edo, Jigawa , Nasarawa  and Akwa Ibom State who are leading in this new PPP arrangement and are collaborating heavily with the private sector (both local and foreign) to produce food for all and revenue to the state and our economy. I could feel a new mindset away from the “sharing mentality.”

Still on Agro-Industrialisation,Agricultural exports accounted for about 90% of Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings in 1960. In quarter one of 2023, three products alone, Cocoa seed, sesame, and cashew seed, even without maximising our potential, gave the country N297billion. In 2022, Malaysia’s gross domestic product from palm oil export was estimated to be 36 billion Malaysian ringgit (approximately USD 8 billion).

Governor Bago has thrown an open challenge to the Federal Government and his fellow state governors. There is a need for constructive engagement and healthy competition around subnational food productivity. Most importantly, the food imperative allows some states to improve their domestic revenue situation. Agricultural productivity has become an economic lifeline for the states, especially in the north. Kofi Annan argued that “Food security is not only a moral issue but also a strategic one: without food, people have only three options – they riot, they emigrate, or they die. None of these are acceptable options.”

The fight against poverty, unemployment , hunger and malnutrition is one of the most significant challenges of our time, and it’s a challenge that can be won in Nigeria. Nigeria can work towards achieving food security applying the essential spirit of Bago’s challenge. Quality and affordable food is fundamental to Nigeria’s development. We must take care of the basics before travelling to the moon. Nigeria’s development hinges on this!

Continue Reading

columnist

Herbert Wigwe: The things yet unsaid

Published

on

By Dakuku Peterside

Clean-shaven, suave, upwardly mobile, and incurably optimistic, Herbert Onyewumbu Wigwe (HOW) was one of the most recognisable figures in the banking space and corporate Nigeria. His official biography could only be written by him. But I hope his example can inspire and influence us. Accurately describing Herbert in one word can be compared to explaining the mystery of centuries in a few words or a wild goose chase. It is a nuanced and complex process.

He was an extraordinary businessman who died alongside his wife and son in the United States of America under exceptional circumstances. His tragic and sudden departure reverberated beyond our shores. But who was Herbert Wigwe? I can only answer this question from the narrow prism of my friendship and many encounters with him.

Herbert and I were members of the same local church assembly, and I witnessed his dedication to spirituality, good works, and commitment to church growth. It is easy to explain because of his solid Christian foundation. Herbert’s father, Elder Shyngle Wigwe, is a pastor in the Redeemed Christian Church of God. Herbert was a man of prayer, which he complemented with a ruthless work ethic. He attributed all his successes to God’s blessings.

Both of us are from Rivers State, and we had many sessions on how best to fix the politics of Rivers and, by extension, improve the State’s development trajectory. Herbert was utterly detached from politics but had deep insight into political manoeuvrings. We debated the affairs of Rivers State and the country, and he baffled me with the precision with which he predicted the outcome of political contests. He would quickly tell you that his political party is Nigeria and no other.

His passion for Nigeria was simply unwavering. Only a few persons can match his faith in Nigeria. He firmly believed that he would impart society by using businesses to provide solutions to society’s needs and create wealth that would touch the lives of many. He was unapologetically capitalist, in the proper sense of it, and he lived his life using capital to solve many societies’ needs, such as creating employment, paying taxes, providing lots of charity, and investing heavily in world-class university education. He used capital as an instrument for socio-cultural upliftment across Africa.

Herbert was a man of bold dreams and obsessed with excellence while making room for unavoidable mistakes. Herbert never gave up on any bold dream, no matter the odds. He rode the waves of challenges and was filled with the spirit of hard work, dedication, and strokes of ingenuity. He had bold dreams in all ramifications, and this was self-evident.

First, as a young banker, he teamed up with his friend and partner to acquire “a distressed bank,” rated number 89 then, and turn it around in two decades to become one of the top five banks, with an assets base of over N20.9 trillion, is phenomenal. Herbert, as CEO, set out to build an Access Bank with the vision of becoming the gateway to Africa and the world’s most respected African bank. With a presence in more than 13 African countries plus a footprint in other continents, Access Bank was working towards realising this vision.

Second, Wigwe University, which Herbert personally referred to as the “Future Harvard University of Africa,” was another extraordinary, bold dream. He set out to build the best University in Africa, investing $500 million in the initial set-up. You do not need further testament that he was a man of bold dreams.

An entrepreneur extraordinaire, his mystique was his ability to sniff out opportunities where others see none, multiplied by the fact that he was one of the most persistent persons I know when going after opportunities. He mentored many budding entrepreneurs, top managers, and top academics in entrepreneurship.

Apart from his well-known flagship, Access Bank, he was active in other financial services, construction, oil and gas, aviation, film, and music, and, most recently, the education sector. He made a star success of all his multiple business pursuits.

Herbert’s hidden strength was his ability to connect with people of all classes and cadres, accompanied by a related instinct to simplify complex things in the most basic way. His mastery of Rivers’ version of Pidgin English could only equal his fluency in Queens English. He was among the few successful people referred to as the “original old Port Harcourt boy.”

Another strength of his was his courageous, daring, patient, and persistent nature, which added to his relentless ambition to accomplish exceptional things. This attracted to him friends and foes in equal measure.

His philanthropic work in the Herbert Wigwe Foundation, which he founded in 2016, focused on youth empowerment, health, arts, and education. This focus on youth development was central to his mentoring, given his strong belief in the importance of the youth in the development of Nigeria and Africa. He was an art enthusiast and contributed to art development in the country. As the art connoisseur he was, his collection reflected his passion for excellence, diversity, and social purpose. The HOW foundation extensively supported many healthcare projects for the downtrodden among us. His charity works were unique because he loathed publicity about it.

Herbert’s enduring legacy is the power of vision, bold dreams, courage, and determination to pursue it and rally people to accomplish the objective. This is what we need to improve in our public space. History has shown that bold dreams have the power to transform societies. He was exceptionally enterprising and entrepreneurial.

Listening to Herbert talk about his vision was to find yourself in the oasis of inspiration. He genuinely believed that there was nothing you fixed your mind on that you could not accomplish. He had bold dreams for the banking sector, tertiary education, the oil and gas industry and most importantly society.

 What lessons can we learn from him? Herbert epitomised a life of passion, dedication, resilience, and boldness in achieving grand personal and societal visions. He was bold in setting out great goals and pursuing them relentlessly until he reached them. He proves that an unexamined life is not worth living. To achieve greatness and impact on society maximally, one must be purposeful, bold, and patient. Herbert’s hidden strengths prepared him for an eventful life – a life he lived on his terms. His ability to connect with people, courage, daring attitude, ambition, and excellent work ethic are the ingredients of his success and must be emulated. Peter Drucker posits, “The best way to predict the future is to create it.” Herbert created his future and lived it to the full of those he loved.

For our budding entrepreneurs, Herbert left a legacy. He proved the axiomatic expression true: “Entrepreneurship is living a few years of your life like most people won’t so that you can spend the rest of your life like most people can’t.” He made the needed sacrifices at the start of his entrepreneurship and built capital enough to be reckoned among his contemporaries. Steve Jobs posits that “your work will fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work.” Herbert did outstanding work; the only way to do great work is to love what you do. Success is not just a product of luck. Hard work, knowledge, skills, and integrity underpin it. Thomas Jefferson argued, “The harder I work, the more luck I seem to have.” Herbert worked hard enough to be lucky. He had an eye for greatness. It is little wonder he set great goals for himself.

John Rockefeller advised that one should not be “afraid to give up the good to go for the great.” Both in banking and establishing a University, Herbert went for greatness and achieved it. We should do the same.

As a business and community leader, Herbert understood that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers. He created leaders of industries and global advocates of responsible capitalism in the 21st century.

My friend and brother Herbert lived like a candle in the wind. His star burned so brightly but ended so shortly. Greatness in life is not measured in how long one lives but in the impact of one’s life on society. Herbert lived, and he conquered. Adieu, my great visioner!

Continue Reading

Trending