Nigeria’s culture of public policy failures, By Jibrin Ibrahim

The fact of the matter is that Nigeria has lost the process of thinking about policy and ensuring that policies are effective, and that the institutions which produce them actually think, plan and monitor these policies, to make sure that they provide the public good that government had intended when they were designed.

Public policy refers to a set of actions selected from alternatives, on the basis of the assessment of given conditions, to guide and determine the successful delivery of a public good. What is important in the choice of any policy is never the good intentions behind the policy but the impact it would have through the delivery of the public good. The key issues in determining policy choices, therefore, are feasibility, production of intended effects and positive impact, in relation to the targeted public good. In Nigeria however, it appears there is very little reflection on what the desired success of public policy is and how we will know when we get there.

One example is the recent decision to temporarily suspend the activities of Twitter because of the harm it does in producing and sustaining hate messages that impact negatively on national cohesion. In other words, the intended positive impact in government thinking is to improve social relations and unity in the country, which is very good. As such, Twitter is disallowed from operating in Nigeria by the government and within minutes, most Twitter users circumvent the measure by using VPN technology and continue what they were doing on the platform. Meanwhile, because government now has a clear policy decision on Twitter, its spokespersons and supporters, who were previously countering fake news and hate speech on the platform, all withdrew, creating a situation in which there are no longer alternative voices against fake news and hate speech on the platform. The real effect of the policy decision, therefore, is an increased access of Nigerians to fake news and hate speech without any alternative voices from government and its supporters. The impact of the policy move, so far, is the opposite of what was desired. There was no real thinking about the policy before its implementation.   

A second example was the recent ban placed by the Central Bank on banks and financial institutions from servicing cryptocurrency transactions in the country. In other words, crypto exchanges and related companies that previously allowed users to deposit or withdraw their funds directly from their bank accounts can no longer do so. The intention of the policy was to reduce the ability of corrupt individuals from stealing public resources or engaging in criminal activity and hiding the proceeds as digital money. The intention was to save Nigerians from scammers in the digital economy and combat corruption. The real effect of the policy is that it has driven the transactions underground. Most crypto transactions were initially through registered banks and financial institutions, and government could monitor what was going on. With the ban, the transactions have moved to the peer-to-peer cryptocurrency trading platforms, where government can no longer monitor what is going on. The volume of transactions in cryptocurrencies has not gone down, from all indications. All that has happened is that government now knows much less about what is happening.

As Nigerian citizens continue to lose millions to cryptocurrency fraud, Nigeria’s regulatory authorities have remained quiet on this matter and are not in a position to take corrective actions to shield citizens and venture capitalists in the country against cryptocurrency fraud. Did the Central Bank do its research before implementing this policy?

Industry reports indicate that Nigeria has the second highest volume of crypto transactions in the world, with a remarkable trading volume of $1.5 billion and over 1.5 million users, despite the ban. These 1.5 million Nigerian traders are, due to the government policy, more susceptible to scammers, as they engage in direct trade without the protection of financial institutions. Most of them are hardworking Nigerians who think there is value in saving in cryptocurrencies and that the public policy has affected their interests negatively. As Nigerian citizens continue to lose millions to cryptocurrency fraud, Nigeria’s regulatory authorities have remained quiet on this matter and are not in a position to take corrective actions to shield citizens and venture capitalists in the country against cryptocurrency fraud. Did the Central Bank do its research before implementing this policy?

Maybe the most serious policy madness was the establishment of the Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution (IPCR) in 2000 by the Olusegun Obasanjo regime, in response to the rising incidents of conflicts across the country. It is a policy think tank whose mandate covers research and interventions towards strengthening Nigeria’s response capacity in the promotion of peace, conflict prevention, management and resolution. In the 21 years since its establishment, the need for the institute has become even more crucial, as conflicts have broadened and intensified. Sadly, through the lack of critical thinking, the Institute was placed under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has zero mandate for internal security and peace building.

Each year, the Institute does it work and sends it to the Foreign Ministry, which throws the report to the dust bin because it has no mandate for the work. The IPCR case proves my point because violent conflicts are threatening Nigeria’s existence, yet no one in government has noticed that we have a very important institution to help the country, which however cannot function because it has been placed under the tutelage of a Ministry without the mandate to act on its work. The intended public good of addressing rising insecurity is not being performed and the error in its placement has not been addressed for over two decades.

The work of the Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution should provide the empirical basis for the work of government in developing policy measures aimed at addressing violent conflicts that have emerged, and above all developing and implementing peace building measures to address them.

The irony is that the IPCR has been doing significant work in conducting the Strategic Conflict Assessment (SCA) of the country since 2002. The SCA provides detailed field information, data and analysis on conflict prevention and management strategies for government institutions and communities at all levels. It also established the Nigerian Peace Academy (NPA) as a training vehicle for developing the capabilities of individuals, groups and organisations in the area of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), as well as the peaceful management and resolution of conflicts.

The Strategic Conflict Assessment pays attention to the contexts of conflict – trends of violent conflicts, stakeholders, and the impact and implications of conflicts for inter-group relations, state-society relations, and all spheres of human security. Nigeria needs this institution to achieve its mandate and all States in the country need peace building institutions to address the current crisis. The work of the Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution should provide the empirical basis for the work of government in developing policy measures aimed at addressing violent conflicts that have emerged, and above all developing and implementing peace building measures to address them. So far, only two States have embarked on the path of establishing specialised state level peace building institutions – Kaduna and Plateau States.

The fact of the matter is that Nigeria has lost the process of thinking about policy and ensuring that policies are effective, and that the institutions which produce them actually think, plan and monitor these policies, to make sure that they provide the public good that government had intended when they were designed.

A professor of Political Science and development consultant/expert, Jibrin Ibrahim is a Senior Fellow of the Centre for Democracy and Development, and Chair of the Editorial Board of PREMIUM TIMES.