Buhari-Osinbajo: National security, rule of law and changing roles

General Muhammadu Buhari and Professor Yemi Osinbajo, a soldier and his lawyer deputy, are well paired to address these pressing concerns. These concerns may not change much in the next four years, but these two will change, or at least our perception of them will. The soldier may end up looking like a lawyer, and […]

General Muhammadu Buhari and Professor Yemi Osinbajo, a soldier and his lawyer deputy, are well paired to address these pressing concerns. These concerns may not change much in the next four years, but these two will change, or at least our perception of them will. The soldier may end up looking like a lawyer, and vice versa. Welcome to a brand new dawn,
Broadly defined, “national security” and the “rule of law” cover every other issue of our day. Security goes beyond Boko Haram, kidnappings, cattle rustling and militancy, critically important though these are. A nation cannot be said to be secured if it cannot feed itself, provide jobs (with decent incomes) to its citizens, or educate its youth to compete in today’s world. It cannot be secure if it relies on simply selling raw materials (crude oil, natural gas, solid minerals or agricultural produce) and have to rely on imports from others for most of its medicine, clothing, oils, flour, sugar and other consumables, at increasingly higher costs. A large nation, to be really secure, needs its cement, glass, plastics, chemicals, iron and steel and other industries. It must have adequate electric-power, modern transport systems, and the weapons, doctrines and supporting infrastructure to defend itself against internal insurrection and external attacks.
We are so underdeveloped, so dependent on others, so unprepared for what the world may throw at us that everything from agriculture to manufacturing, health, education and infrastructure, have now become virtually matters of national security concern, and they must be treated that way. Banking, finance, real estate and other services are all well and good but we must start re-focusing on the real economy and the future of our people if we are to build a prosperous, peaceful and secure nation. Trade with the rest of the world is necessary but not a substitute for national, self-reliant development. Seen in this light the issues of electricity, fuel subsidy and even education and job creation all take on a different dimension.
Our electricity plans were designed to fail as the designed energy-mix was strategically wrong. We based all our projects on gas from the Niger-Delta when we should have also included coal, hydro and even solar, leaving ourselves open to deliberate disruptions of supply lines and crude blackmail. With so many rivers, abundant sunshine, plenty of coal and uranium deposits, why should we plan on gas alone?
The fuel “subsidy” scam, crude oil theft, pipeline protection rackets, tax evasion, fraudulent waivers and official corruption account for more than twice the Federal Budget. About 70 percent of that Budget itself is spent on salaries allowances and “overheads” for less than one percent of the population. Trillions more are spent to “secure” the resulting mess. Lack of electricity compounded everything. Is it any surprise therefore, that we opted for a retired general and a legal luminary to rescue us?
Without mincing words we are facing great security challenges. Take the fuel “subsidy” scandal as an example. Basing our projections on 35 million litres of petrol a day (a figure much higher than our real consumption) we sabotaged our refineries and instituted a scam to “import” refined products, at fictitious prices, and still pay “subsidy”, often when nothing was ever imported in the first place. If someone grows groundnuts, sells it cheaply in the next town, gets another person to import the cooking oil and the buys it at higher rate for the family, and even goes ahead to give that person additional cash as “subsidy” (and foreign exchange differential), we would say that the chaps has gone mad. But was this not what we have been doing all these years, and also keeping our own people without jobs? Could that groundnut farmer not extract the oil, use the cake to feed his animals and even produce soap and other things with the residual slush?
However, in the case of oil, it was even approaching criminality. We must remember that it is really the additional products extracted from refining crude oil that really enables a producing country to realise full value of this natural resource, and not just government revenue derived from outright sales. The best-know products are the fuels: petrol, diesel and kerosene. Other valuable products include liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), naphtha, gasoil and fuel oil – Low Pour Fuel Oil (LPFO) and High Pour Fuel Oil (HPFO). Beyond these by-products of refining processes we also have several other non-fuels especially lubricants and asphalt. Other derivatives range from perfumes to insecticides and, significant to other industries, naphtha, gasoil, and ethane, which can be used as inputs or feedstock in the production of petrochemicals. Then you have ethylene, propylene, benzene, ammonia, methanol and several others that can use to produce plastics, synthetic fibres, synthetic rubbers, detergents and chemical fertilisers. So why should we just destroy our refineries, sell crude and import refined products?
All this is known to NNPC, PPPRA, DPR and other government agencies. They also know that they can exchange the 445,000 we allocated for our refineries to import enough petrol and kerosene to satisfy our local demand, pending the rehabilitation of the refineries, or the building of additional ones. Deregulation may be the way out, but that should not mean government cannot own refineries. Nobody should be given licence to import any more fuel or be paid any subsidy. If they can import and make a profit that is up to them. We should repair our refineries and/or charge the NNPC with making up the difference, if any. The Odetolas, the Ubas or the Dangotes can all establish their own refineries and compete so as to ensure fair, and non-monopolistic, prices. Indeed we should aim at refining at least 50 percent of our crude locally so as to create jobs, get feedstock for our industries, retain most of the benefits at home, and move into a prosperous future like others. Right now all we hear are slogans and promises. But fuel, just like water, electricity, must be realistically priced (along with interest rates) if our industries are to compete globally. As a matter of national security we must end the subsidy fraud, repair our capacity to be self-reliant in refine products, develop oil and gas to drive manufacturing and electricity in a sustainable and inclusive manner.
Similarly, education industry and jobs are becoming National Security concerns. If these young ones don’t have jobs and hopes, if they are not educated to compete in this emerging knowledge economy we are finished. Any victory against Boko Haram may be a pyrrhic one, a simmering tinder waiting to be ignited again by the next rabble-rouser or “militant”. Without industry, especially manufacturing, we cannot provide decent and sustainable jobs. Treating all these from a national security perspective could change the debate and the policy focus in a positive direction.
Osinbajo will find himself addressing the economy like security-conscious soldier; Buhari has already shown his commitment to law, order and due process. It may soon be difficult to distinguish the one from the other. That may not be bad at all. So, GOOD LUCK to Barrister Buhari and General Osinbajo, and divine guidance. We trust you both. We know you won’t fail us.