Featured

Towards a Study in Comparative Analysis: the Enugu-Ebonyi Paradigm

Published

5 years ago

September 8, 2020

By Reuben Onyishi (Ugoachataberu)

To know a thing is to know it in opposition to other things. This implicates binary- opposite kind of reasoning as similarities and parallels are drawn in order to arrive at what really constitutes the objects in question and how one differs from the other in quality, inform and presumably in content also, without prejudice to their individual peculiarities.

It is natural to think female when a male is mentioned. This manner of thinking may account for why man created gender and the conflicts that arise from gender issues; whereas, He that made them made them male and female. God created sex with defined natural forms and roles. The differences are quite clear in form and content, though the two sexes share in the set of humanity as subsets. Today, some have tinkered with their natural sexuality and are no longer happy with the sex naturally assigned to them. Some men have become women and vice versa. Some have inverted sexuality and have no sexual feeling for the opposite sex as designed by nature; they feel sexual desire for the same sex. The conflicts created by this have torn the world apart.

It is not actually wrong to think comparatively in opposition, as this helps to bring out differences and confer on each object its natural question and status. However, when the attitude is to think why X should be Y and leave being itself, then conflicts and troubles are inevitable. Such is the effect of the tinkering with natural dispositions. Objects may come across each other; they may share borders but none loses its identity to the other. An object may even at the surface configuration reflect some qualities other than itself, yet does not lose itself to the outer surface appearance. You may be in different outfits at different times but do not lose who you really are to any of the outfits. Comparative thinkers should really place their eyes on the real object and resist the seduction of surface configuration. That is why a lot of discrepancies is often found between appearance and reality. That is the irony of life.

Enugu State and Ebonyi State share borders with each other. The two states belong to a set called South East in Nigeria’s structural demarcation. Enugu State has been the root of which the South Eastern states hived. Enugu was the capital of the South Eastern Region during the first republic and in the process of time got split into two: Anambra and Imo states, created by the military government of Late Muritala Muhammed. Then in 1991, Anambra State which capital was Enugu was split into two: Enugu and Anambra states with Enugu being the capital of Enugu State thereby retaining the infrastructural appurtenances of the state capital. It was from this same root that Ebonyi State was later created with the agrarian semi-rural town, Abakaliki, as its capital. Awka, the capital of the new Anambra State, before it became the capital, had the same rural status. So, it was expedient for the governments of these virgin states to bring these rural towns to urban state capital status by understandably taking some tangible strides in the provision of basic amenities meant to uplift these towns. The governments of the new Enugu State naturally inherited a lot of assets in the state capital, beginning from the seat of power: the Lion Building, the house of assembly and the judiciary complexes, the Enugu State University of Science and Technology, the Institute of Management and Technology(IMT), the Enugu State Broadcasting Service, ESBS, the state secretariat, the various road networks in the city and a whole lot of assets. So, it was natural that while the governments of the new states would be burdened with critical infrastructural needs inevitably at the state capital, Enugu State would look away for other things as these projects were already on the ground.

Now whether it is appropriate for comparative opposite thinkers to compare Enugu State with Ebonyi State as it is rife today among some casual critics that stray around the social media platforms is a question begging for an answer. Most of these critics do not have the intellectual depth to think deeper that they be able to tease out the surface and seductive fripperies that may mix up with the two objects and hold their distinct identities sacrosanct. Objects that share borders when subjected to comparative analysis have got to be managed well to avoid confusing and mixing up issues that may result in problems that can engender conflicts, war, and misunderstanding. That is really why comparative criticism is not a ready tool in the hands of the unschooled.

You get to hear such things as “go to Ebonyi State and see what the governor is doing there’ as the latest critical fad from casual social media commentators in their bid to diminish whatever projects the government of Enugu State is doing. When you ask them what the government of Ebonyi State is doing that should be a reference point to Enugu State, they would point to concrete roads and flyovers the governor has caused to erupt here and there in the state capital and which are not being replicated in Enugu State.

It is really difficult to engage with this comparative discourse without ‘calling him who did not call you’ so to say, in the first place. These casual commentators do not actually take into account the peculiar nature of these states and their necessary areas of Infrastructural needs which also have a way of being determined by certain factors. These factors point to the identity of the two objects. Take for instance, if concrete roads are being constructed in Ebonyi State perhaps because of the soil texture of the place, does it also follow that Enugu State too should imitate this for its own sake without any reason or need for that? Won’t it be foolish to do so when asphalted roads have proven to last for decades in Enugu State? Why waste scarce resources on expensive concrete roads when doing so is economically inexpedient? Why resort to such a waste when asphalt gives the state the same value and utility?

Every government has its policy trust and areas of priority. Someone the other day said of Ebonyi State that light shines in streets while homes are in darkness; that the citizenry has turned beggars under beautiful flyovers; that the civil servants are groaning over unpaid salaries which without even the application of the minimum wage has been reduced by 20 percent; that the future of the state has been jeopardized by huge borrowing from international lenders all for the construction of concrete roads and flyovers. I really do not know how true these claims are, but I do know the government of Ebonyi State for the reasons best known to it has concentrated efforts on road projects, and is said to have made Abakaliki a paradise of sorts.

Enugu State as a distinct object has its own needs and policy trust. The government of the state under Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi is given to total projects for the total man. Serious attention is paid to human capital development. Infrastructure is developed bearing in mind how it benefits the citizenry, thereby elevating human lives above the animal level. Civil servants are regularly paid and the new minimum wage is also implemented. Besides this, giant strides are made in the area of road construction, health facilities, agriculture, peace and security, and in all facets of the happiness of the people. The equation is balanced so that Iyianyi is not trampled to death in the process of Oyima’s funerals.

Whatever Ugwuanyi does, he does for his people; whatever Umahi does, he does for his people. The two states are not in equal terms. While Umahi might have reportedly gone into borrowing to build roads and flyovers all over Ebonyi, Ugwuanyi has creatively raised funds without borrowing a dime from anywhere and has put Enugu State in the league of the six states in Nigeria that are financially self-sufficient without federal allocation, despite the fact that Enugu is not an oil-producing state. It is senseless to compare the two states. Heaven and earth are there but heaven is far above the earth. So to what extent can heaven be compared to the earth? Even the heavenly clouds will obfuscate the comparative identification of the heavenly elements; even the sun rays will dim the eyes of the obdurate fool who looks directly into the sun of heaven.

Social media casual critics should leave Umahi alone to concentrate on his job and task of lifting Ebonyi State from its rural outlook, something he is doing with every sense of sacrifice. To continue to compare Ebonyi with Enugu State is to cause unnecessary identity conflicts and bring to ridicule the works of the Ebonyi government, for any tree aspiring to grow taller than the iroko is looking for the sky’s trouble, for any animal headed for the stream shall surely meet the frog there.

Let all animals stay in their habitats. Peter is not James; Enugu is not Ebonyi. They may share borders but they do not lose their identities to the borders

Share on Facebook

Business

Tax Reform Bills: The Verdict of Nigerians

Published

2 weeks ago

March 6, 2025

The Gleamer

Ismaila Ahmad Abdullahi Ph.D

The public hearings conducted recently by the two Chambers of the National Assembly have elicited positive responses from a broad spectrum of Nigerians, cutting across regional interest groups, government agencies, civil society groups, concerned individuals, the academia, and Labour Unions, among diverse others. Contrary to a few dissensions hitherto expressed in the media, almost all the stakeholders who spoke during the week-long sessions were unanimous in their declaration that the hallowed Chambers should pass the tax reform bills after a clean-up of the grey areas.

The public hearings were auspicious for all Nigerians desirous of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. They were also a watershed moment for the Federal Inland Revenue Service, which had been upbeat about the tax reforms. Indeed, the public hearings had rekindled hope in the tenets of democracy that guarantee freedom of expression and equitable space for cross-fertilisation of ideas. Without gainsaying the fact, the tax reform bills have been unarguably about the most thought-provoking issues in Nigeria today, drawing variegated perspectives and commentaries from even unlikely quarters such as the faith-based leaders, student bodies, and trade unions, which speaks much about the importance of the bills.

In the build-up to the public hearings, not many people believed that the bills would make it to the second reading, much less the public hearings. Even the Northern stakeholders who seemed unlikely to support the passage of the bills have softened their stance and have given valuable suggestions that would enrich the substance of the bills. The Arewa Consultative Forum came to the public hearings well-prepared with a printed booklet that addressed their concerns. It concluded with an advisory that the bills should be “Well planned, properly communicated, strategically implemented and ample dialogue and political consensus allowed for the reforms to be accepted.”

The concerns of ACF ranged from the composition of the proposed Nigeria Revenue Service Board as contained in Part 111, Section 7 of the bill, the unlimited Presidential power to exempt/wave tax payment as proposed in Section 75(1) of the bill, the family income or inheritance tax as contained in Part 1, Section 4(3) of the bill, to the issues around development levy and VAT. On the development levy, the ACF stated that unless the Federal Government is considering budgetary funding for TETFUND, NASENI and NITDA, it does not see the “wisdom behind the plan to replace (them) with NELFUND”.

The position of the North was equally reinforced by the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria, Northern Elders Forum, Kano State Government, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, and the FCT Imams. Like the ACF, these stakeholders lent their respective voices to the Section on the Inheritance Tax in Part 1 of the bill and the use of the term ‘ecclesiastical’, which, in their views, undermines certain religious rights and beliefs. The Kano State Government, represented by Mahmud Sagagi, affirmed that “we support tax modernisation” but cautioned that “we must ensure that this process does not come at the expense of states’ constitutional rights and economic stability”. Professor Auwalu Yadudu, a constitutional law professor, drew attention to the use of the ‘supremacy clause’ and cautioned that the repeated use of “notwithstanding” in the bills would undermine the supremacy of the Nigerian constitution if passed as such.

Other stakeholders that made contributions at the sessions included the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas, Fiscal Responsibility Commission, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria, Nigeria Customs Service, and a host of others. While most of their concerns bordered on technical issues requiring fine-tuning, they were unanimous in their support for the bills. They aligned with the position of the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Zacch Adedeji, Ph.D. and the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Mr Taiwo Oyedele, which is that the extant tax laws and fiscal regulations are obsolete necessitating reforms aimed at creating a fair and equitable tax and fiscal space to grow Nigeria’s economy.

In one of the sessions, Dr Zaach Adedeji expounded on the criss-cross of trade activities in the Free Trade Zone whereby companies misuse tax waivers as exporters to sell their goods or services in the Customs Area at an amount usually less than the price the operators in the Customs Area who pay VAT and other taxes sell theirs thereby disrupting business transactions. This way, the operators in the Free Trade Zone shortchange the government in paying their due taxes by circumventing extant regulations, which are inimical to the economy’s growth.

Overall, the presentations were forthright, foresighted, and helpful in elucidating the issues contained in the bills. According to the statistics read out at the end of the hearings at the Senate, 75 stakeholders were invited, 65 made submissions, and 61 made presentations. At the House of Representatives 53 stakeholders made presentations. By all means, this is a fair representation. Given the presentations, it is evident that the National Assembly has gathered enough materials to guide its deliberations on the bills. As we look forward to the passage of the bills, we commend the leadership of the National Assembly for their unwavering commitment to making the bills see the light of the day.

Abdullahi is the Director of the Communications and Liaison Department, FIRS.

Share on Facebook