The Nigeria’s public debt stock which includes external and domestic debt stood at N121.67 trillion ($91.46 billion) in Q1, 2024, rising from N97.34 trillion ($108.23 billion) in Q4 2023, indicating a growth rate of 24.99 percent on a quarter-on-quarter basis.

Figures by the National Bureau of Statistics(NBS) on Monday said total external debt stood at N56.02 trillion (US$42.12 billion) in Q1 2024, while total domestic debt was N65.65 trillion (US$49.35 billion).

The figure by the NBS came on the heels of the disclosure last week by the Debt Management Office (DMO) that Nigeria’s total public debt has reached N121.67tn, increasing by N24.33tn or 24.99 per cent within three months.

In its publication titled “Nigerian Domestic & Foreign Debt Q1 2024,” the NBS said, “The share of external debt (in naira value) to total public debt was 46.05 percent in Q1 2024, while the share of domestic debt (in naira value) to total public debt was 53.95 percent.”

According to the NBS figures, “Lagos state recorded the highest domestic debt in Q1 2024 with N929.41 billion, followed by Delta with N334.90 billion while Jigawa state recorded the lowest domestic debt with N2.07 billion, followed by Ondo with N16.40 billion.”

The outcome of the Federal Executive Council Meeting led by President Tinubu pertaining to the issue of new Minimum Wage Memo is a setback to the scramble by the Organised labour Unions. The President  has decided to step down consideration and deliberation on the memo on the new minimum wage to allow President Bola Tinubu engage in more consultation with stakeholders.

The Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, disclosed this on Tuesday while briefing State House correspondents emphasising that the President has studied the report submitted by the Tripartite Committee on Minimum Wage and would consult further before a final submission on a new national minimum wage to the National Assembly.

President Bola Tinubu in January set up a Tripartite Committee to negotiate a new minimum wage for workers. The committee comprises the Organised Labour, representatives of federal and state governments as well as the Organised Private Sector.

However, the committee members failed to reach an agreement on a new realistic minimum wage for workers, forcing labour to declare an indefinite industrial action on Monday, June 3, 2024. Businesses were paralysed as labour shut down airports, hospitals, national grid, banks, National Assembly and state assemblies’ complexes. The labour unions said the current minimum wage of N30,000 can no longer cater to the wellbeing of an average Nigerian worker, saying government should offer workers something economically realistic in tandem with current inflationary pressures, attendant effects of the twin policies of petrol subsidy removal and unification of the forex windows of the current administration.

Labour ‘relaxed’ its strike on June 4, 2024 following assurances from the President that he was committed to a wage above N60,000.Both the Trade Union Congress (TUC) and Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) leadership subsequently resumed talks with the representatives of the Federal Government, states, and the Organised Private Sector.

There is no agreement thus far on a new national minimum wage, barely a month after a Tripartite Committee set up for it began to deliberate seriously on the matter. It raises a spectre of uncertainty. This is further worsened by the governors’ rejection of the Federal Government’s N62,000 offer, amid the 7 June meeting of the committee with organised labour, which was deadlocked, yet again.

Such dissonance is undoubtedly unsettling. It is also distressing that the authorities in Abuja have remained silent over it. An insipid assurance by President Bola Tinubu that an executive bill will be forwarded to the National Assembly on the new national minimum wage without a consensual amount, does not soothe the nerves of either the organised labour or the governors. From its high horse, labour finally came down to N250,000 from its original N615,000 demand. On the contrary, the Federal Government had moved from N48,000 to N54,000, then N58,000, and later N60,000, until it tacked at N62,000.

The argument of the governors is that even N60,000 as a minimum wage is not sustainable and therefore will not fly, citing the lean financial resources of their states, competing demands and the indebtedness of many of them.

“It will simply mean that many states will spend all their allocations on just paying salaries, with nothing left for development purposes,” the NGF emphasised in its media statement. Some have argued that if a wage figure is forced on states, over 40 per cent of the workforce in many of them will be laid off.

One of the governors, Chukwuma Soludo, a former governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), who has a full grasp of the issues involved, in a subtle dissent at a recent public forum, said he pitied the President if he approved a minimum wage that was not sustainable. When the consequences begin to cascade, he stressed, “it will all be on his head.” Clearly, some states in the country still struggle to pay the two previous national minimum wages of N18,000 and N30,000.

These leakages and misplacement of fiscal priorities, typified in the recently inaugurated N21 billion official quarters of the Vice-President, amidst mass hunger and poverty in the land; the $12 billion official admission of annual loss of solid minerals revenue to rogue operators; and the ostentatious lifestyle of public officials, if not addressed will conflate with inflation to erode whatever gains workers might benefit from the wage review. President Tinubu has spent a year in office without the refineries and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses functioning, as he had promised. There is a limit to propaganda as a tool of governance. Getting these facilities to work will add value to the minimum wage and reduce suffering in the land.

The state governments can lessen their financial burdens by aggressively weaning their payrolls of ghost workers. Dealing with a bloated workforce to remove personnel without any work schedule, office space or tables is inevitable now. It is unthinkable that in one of the South-west states, a commissioner recently appointed 273 advisers. Some governors have about 1,000 aides – an overreach in impudence, which the administrations of Ben Ayade and Isah Yuguda of Cross River and Bauchi states, respectively, were notorious for.

An overhaul of the internally generated revenue mechanism is crucial in the emergent fiscal regime with the new minimum wage, to ramp up the revenue base. Many of the states have suspect revenue accounting or returns systems that undermine their treasuries, which should not be condoned. If all the states can increase their IGR by 100 per cent the way Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State has done, under one year in office, from N13 billion monthly to N27 billion, it would boost their fiscal profiles and mitigate the challenges to be posed by an enlarged payroll. Other Governors must also wake from their slumber considering the fact most of the states are blessed with mineral resources that can cater for the needs of the people.

It is very critical that the Federal Government proffers lasting solutions by pencilling down a reality minimum wage for the workers and introduce incentives, palliatives that will capture the informal sectors as a means of cushioning the suffering by Nigerians.

The situation described in Nigeria regarding the upcoming flood season is indeed concerning. The Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NiMET) has predicted heavy rainfall across several states, which could lead to flash floods, particularly in low-lying areas and on infrastructure like roads and bridges.

The states specifically mentioned in the forecast include Niger, Plateau, Benue, Kaduna, Taraba, Delta, Imo, Cross River, Akwa Ibom, Rivers, Bayelsa, Ekiti, and Osun. Additionally, moderate to heavy rainfall is expected in several other states.

This forecast is a stark reminder of the recurring flood disasters that have affected Nigeria, causing significant damage to lives, livelihoods, and infrastructure.

According to the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), thousands of Nigerians were impacted by flooding in 2023, with casualties and extensive destruction of homes and farmland.

Efforts to mitigate these impacts are crucial, including preparedness measures, early warning systems, and robust emergency response plans to protect vulnerable communities from the anticipated challenges of the flood season ahead.

 Meanwhile, in the year 2022, Nigeria was struck by a staggering blow, losing an estimated $4.6 billion to flooding, as reported by NiMET.

This economic catastrophe not only dealt a severe blow to the nation’s GDP but also inflicted tragic losses with thousands dead or injured and millions displaced from their homes and lands.

The destruction of critical infrastructure further worsened food insecurity by devastating agricultural production.

Year after year, Nigeria faces the same underlying issues that contribute to these floods: inadequate drainage systems, poor waste management, harmful environmental practices, and the looming threat of climate change.

These factors, both natural and man-made, leave large swaths of the country vulnerable to disaster with each rainy season.

Despite numerous studies and committees, the crucial step of implementing recommended solutions has been consistently overlooked. Urgency and resolute commitment are essential to effectively combating this recurring threat.

The recent revival of the Presidential Committee on Flood Mitigation, Adaptation, Preparedness, and Response by the National Economic Council is a promising development. However, what’s needed now is swift action to translate proposed solutions into tangible outcomes.

This cycle of devastation cannot continue unchecked. It underscores deep-seated flaws in public policy and a marked lack of political will to enact lasting, effective strategies for flood mitigation.

It’s time to break free from this destructive pattern and hold those accountable who can make a difference. Flooding should not be an inevitable disaster but a preventable crisis with proactive and decisive measures.

The recommendations put forth by the NEC committee provide a comprehensive framework for addressing this significant challenge.

Establishing a National Flood Management Council under the Vice President’s office to coordinate response efforts, alongside allocating dedicated annual budgets for flood prevention at all government levels, lays a solid foundation to tackle this crisis effectively.

However, these measures must be complemented by substantial investments in upgrading drainage infrastructure, promoting sustainable urban planning, enhancing reforestation initiatives, and strengthening disaster management systems.

Furthermore, it’s crucial to recognise the nexus between flooding and climate change. As global temperatures rise and weather patterns become more unpredictable, Nigeria’s susceptibility to extreme weather events increases accordingly.

Therefore, our flood mitigation strategies should be integrated into broader climate change adaptation and mitigation policies, addressing underlying causes rather than just symptoms.

Central to these efforts should be a firm commitment to sustainable urban planning, infrastructure development, and environmental stewardship. Prioritising resilient infrastructure construction, enforcing strict zoning regulations, and promoting eco-friendly practices that harmonise human settlement with the natural environment are essential steps forward.

In tackling this challenge, unity and cooperation stand as the cornerstones of success. It’s imperative that federal, state, and local authorities transcend political boundaries to form cohesive partnerships.

Equally crucial is fostering a culture of readiness and resilience among Nigerians. Community-driven efforts such as clearing drains, conducting disaster drills, and proactively relocating from high-risk zones can significantly reduce the impact of floods.

Year after year, floods devastate lives, destroy livelihoods, and hinder economic growth. We owe it to both past flood victims and future generations to confront this crisis with unwavering urgency and resolve.

As Nigeria grapples with economic challenges, the Federal Government’s priorities are once again called into question. Under President Bola Tinubu’s administration, State house report showed that a staggering N14.77 billion has been spent on repairing and maintaining the presidential air fleet in just 11 months.

This extravagance is particularly galling when considered against the backdrop of a proposed $623.4 million expenditure on two new aircraft, as recommended by the House of Representatives Committee on National Security and Intelligence.

The justification for this lavish spending? The committee cites the “fragile structure of the Nigerian federation” and the need for a “suitable, comfortable and safe carrier” for the President and Vice President.

One wonders if our leaders have lost touch with the realities faced by ordinary Nigerians, who struggle to make ends meet amidst rising poverty and inequality.

This is not an isolated incident. The previous administration, under President Muhammadu Buhari, spent a whopping sum of money despite promises to reduce the size of the fleet and cut costs. It appears that our leaders are more concerned with projecting an image of grandeur than with prudent fiscal management.

The proposal to procure two new aircraft by the National Assembly should be reconsidered, with a refocus on allocating resources to sectors that directly benefit the nation. It’s time to move away from extravagant spending.

Recent concerns about the state of the presidential air fleet highlight ongoing challenges despite significant past investments. These issues have led President Tinubu to resort to chartering private jets and Vice President Shettima to cancel international engagements.

On May 6, 2024, Shettima had to cancel his attendance at the 2024 US-Africa Business Summit due to a technical issue with his official aircraft.

Similarly, the President himself had to opt for a commercial flight to Saudi Arabia after his primary luxury jet required rehabilitation, and another aircraft he was using developed mechanical problems in The Netherlands.

Currently, the Presidency operates a fleet comprising six aircraft: a Boeing 737, a Gulfstream G550, a Gulfstream GV, two Falcon 7Xs, and a Challenger CL605. Additionally, there are six helicopters in service—two Agusta 139s and four Agusta 189s.

Given these operational challenges and the financial implications of maintaining such a fleet, it’s important to reassess spending priorities.

We implore that the focus should be on prudent fiscal management and directing resources where they can have the most meaningful impact on national development

During President Buhari’s eight-year tenure, the operation and maintenance of the Presidential Air Fleet (PAF) incurred a substantial cost of N62.47 billion. Despite his initial pledge to downsize the fleet as part of cost-cutting measures, government records indicate that this promise was not upheld.

The budgetary allocations for the PAF provide a clear insight into the financial commitment over the years. In 2016, N3.65 billion was earmarked, which increased to N4.37 billion in 2017.

The following years saw significant rises, nearly doubling to N7.26 billion in 2018 and N7.30 billion in 2019. A minor decrease to N6.79 billion occurred in 2020, followed by a substantial surge to N12.55 billion in 2021 and N12.48 billion in 2022, before moderating to N8.07 billion in 2023.

In contrast, President Tinubu’s administration, since assuming office, has taken a different financial approach. Recent reports from GovSpend, a civic tech platform monitoring government expenditures, revealed disbursements totaling N14.77 billion within a single year.

This expenditure, distinct from travel costs incurred by top officials domestically and abroad, underscores a renewed financial commitment to maintaining the presidential air fleet.

The debate surrounding the necessity of acquiring two additional aircraft has sparked considerable dissent among political parties.

The Labour Party and the New Nigeria People’s Party have openly challenged the federal government’s rationale, questioning the timing and fiscal prudence of such a significant investment amidst ongoing economic challenges faced by Nigerians.

Peter Obi, Labour Party’s presidential candidate, criticised the move as untimely, emphasising the economic hardships inflicted by current government policies on the populace.

Similarly, the New Nigeria People’s Party expressed scepticism, accusing the ruling party of insensitivity to public sentiments.

As discussions continue, the focus remains on balancing governmental responsibilities with prudent financial management.

The decisions made regarding the presidential air fleet will undoubtedly shape perceptions of fiscal responsibility and government priorities in the eyes of the Nigerian public.