President Buhari’s One Year in office: Economic assessment and public opinions on national and states’ performances.

President Buhari immediately after taking
oath of office, 29th May 2015.

By Dr. Ahmed Adamu

The following article reviews the economic performance of President Buhari in his first year in office, but it first reports and analyses the outcome of a public survey I conducted to crowdsource public opinions on the one year performance of President Buhari and state governors.

The survey was conducted online and lasted for 48 hours. The participants in the survey came from across the 34 states in the country, even though some 24 of them withheld the name of their states. The outcome of the survey differ from states and regions. There were some discrepancies in national and states outcomes. Only Oyo, Ondo and Ebonyi states did not participate in the survey.

Starting with the aggregate outcome, 53% of the respondents are satisfied with the President Buhari’s one year in office, and most of them think his policies are not extremely effective, but just effective, and 18% of them think his policies are not effective. 43% of the respondents think his policies are inclusive, while 15% of them think they are not inclusive. 86% of the respondents still have hope for the future under President Buhari. There are more of the respondents who think their state governments performed poorly or could not decide yet.

Majority of the participants from 9 states out of 13 southern states are not satisfied with the administration of President Buhari in its first one year. However, majority of respondents from 10 states out of these (southern) states think that their state governments performed either excellently or good. However, 100% of respondents from Bayelsa state think that their state government performed poorly. Likewise, 55% of respondents from Delta state think their state government performed poorly, and 66% of respondents from Abia state either think that their state government performed poorly or are indecisive. Majority of respondents from 5 southern states are still not hopeful for the future under President Buhari, and some majority from 7 states in the south do not have confidence in the competence of political appointees under President Buhari’s first one year in office.

All the 19 northern states participated in the survey, and majority of the respondents from 16 of these states are extremely satisfied with the first one year of President Buhari in office.  However, 100% and 77% of participants from FCT and Jigawa state are moderately satisfied with the government of President Buhari in the first one year respectively. Furthermore, 43% of participants from Taraba state are not satisfied with President Buhari’s one year in office, and another 43% of the participants from the state are moderately satisfied.

In terms of states performances, majority of participants from 10 northern states think that their state governments performed poorly. The poor performing northern states from the responses of this survey include Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Jigawa, Katsina, Kwara, Plateua, Taraba, Yobe, and Zamfara. Specifically, 100% of respondents from Zamfara state think that their state government performed poorly.

Respondents from Adamawa, Kaduna, Kano, Kebbi, Kogi, Niger, and Sokoto think that their state governments did not perform excellently, but performed just well. There are more perceived poor performing states in the north than in the south in the first one year of the current administrations, but they are largely more hopeful for the future and they are confident in the competence of the political appointees.

There are few shocks in the above discoveries, and that is important in identifying areas of weaknesses and strengths. The survey was based on general performance devoid of specific sectors. 

Even though there have been social and print media reports scoring the performance of the current administration in various sectors, I think they are not without sentiments. There are sectors that require intensive and strategic planning and implementation before witnessing any progress. So, it is not fair to judge the current administration on some major development indicators considering the fact that, it has not implemented any of its blue prints and plans yet, as the first budget of this administration has just been approved. Similarly, considering the economic situation inherited by the current administration, it will take time and patience to fix some of the infrastructural deficits and economic downturn.

The porous Nigerian economy has already responded to the global economic slowdown and have already imported inflation and unemployment. Of course, the current administration was not responsible of making the economy porous. It is the effect of long term mismanagement of resources and reliance on one sector i.e. Petroleum Resources. And recovery from this resource curse will definitely be long and slow. It is going to be a slow growth. The pace of economic downturn is always faster than its recovery.

Looking specifically at the inflation index, when President Buhari came on power, the inflation rate was around 9%, and at the end of his first one year it rose to 13.7%. This could be the repercussion of the much helpless economy built over the years and its vulnerability to foreign currency exchange shocks. With the recent sharp depreciation of Naira resulting from rising importation, the cost of importation became higher, and this caused increase in general price levels. Similarly, payments for some contractual obligations in foreign currency especially for foreign capitals invested in the country have become more expensive (due to Naira depreciation), causing increase in the cost of goods and service provisions especially in power sector. And this significantly affected prices. So the inflation is explained by the resultant effect of a porous economy (Naira depreciation) built over a decade. So, the currency depreciation was not caused by effects of the current economic policies, it is the remanence of the long ineffective policies.  

In terms of Job opportunity, the current administration promised to create 3 million jobs in a year during their campaign, but the unemployment rate has increased by 4.6% within a year, with new unemployed people numbering around 1.5 million joining the labour market in just the first quarter of 2016. This is not surprising due to the delay in the implementation of the expansionary fiscal policy, which the Buhari’s administration has to be responsible for. Likewise, job creations by organised private sector has dropped due to increasing cost of production and delay of investment as a result of recent political transitions and uncertainty in the new economic policies. Similarly, the proposed fiscal policy that will convert unemployment cannot be fully implemented without the passage of the budget. These explained the negative economic growth in the first quarter of this year.

The Central Bank of Nigeria has already injected close to N2 trillion in to the economy, and some banking population already possess enough resources to create jobs. Even though, the effect of this cannot be visible immediately, as people make investment decision as when they deemed optimal. However, with the recent passage of the budget, the government spending will commence, which will immediately create jobs and put more money on the hands of common man, which will increase their purchasing powers. So, there is need for at least a year to generate more jobs and distribute money through government expenditure within the framework of the first budget of this administration.

Within one year of President Buhari, the foreign reserve has declined by $5 billion, which can easily be explained by steep reduction in the crude oil prices and reduction in production of the crude oil due to vandalism. In addition, the rising importation and slow global economic growth has resulted to more utilisation of the reserve to offset local and international liabilities in foreign currency. So, any inability that reduction in the reserve may cause was apparently not as a result of the recent economic policy, but external factors.

In terms of electricity generation, it is evident that in just 2016, the average power supply has declined by 30%, this was largely caused by the shortage of gas supply to power plants as a results of gas pipeline vandalism. It is significant to note that the highest ever electricity generated in the history of the country was 5,074MW, which was generated on 2^nd February 2016. But period after this was characterised by some few inevitable system collapses and pipeline vandalism, which lowered the generation to around 3,000MW daily at maximum.

It is apparent that some of the setbacks above are caused by some externalities and inherited weak economic systems, which the current administration must strive to address before building a new economy. So, this will require tough decisions and slow growth before the economy can pick up. This underpins the necessity to have more of economic advisers than luxury or political aids. The government must have the guts to tell the negative truths, and explain clearly and specifically the situations, and what the government plans to do to address them. Apology and keeping hopes alive cannot serve well, we have to be honest to ourselves and face our challenges together.

Some of the first year assessments of President Buhari are myopic and misguiding. For example, the Punch newspaper illustrated that, President Buhari performed poorly in electricity sector. This is not valid assessment due to above explanations under electricity generation. Even if this government will have to improve in electricity generation, it will take 2 to 3 years and huge amount of money to install new generation and transmission capacities, which the government cannot finance alone. Funds for power projects must be appropriated, and private investors must be wooed, which all cannot yield result in just a year.

It is apparent that, the economy is not so attractive, and giving excuses and blaming the past should not distracts the government. The government has done well in the area of tackling corruption, which made all other gained achievements possible, including security, financial prudence, efficiency of public institutions, patriotism etc. It requires an honest leader to fight corruption, which President Buhari is, so it is easy for him to fight corruption, and this is why he performed well in fighting corruption. 

Finally, it will take pains and patience to see the much needed positive change. Priorities must be set especially in energy and transportation, which is why there is need for separation of duties. No matter how much government want to minimise cost, it must share responsibilities to optimise quality outcome. It will be better to have separate ministries for power, housing, works, and youth. Similarly, the petroleum ministry require robust attention, as such it requires a substantive minister whose specific assignment will be the petroleum sector. 

Dr. Ahmed Adamu,

Petroleum Economist and Development Expert,

Pioneer Global Chairperson of Commonwealth  Youth Council,

University Lecturer (Economics), Umaru Musa Yar’adua University Katsina.

President Buhari's One year assesment Form

President Muhammadu Buhari

29th May 2016 is the one year anniversary of Muhammadu Buhari as President of Nigeria. This evaluation helps to review government performance, and crowdsource opinions and reaction of the citizens on the current administration in the last one year. To participate in this voluntary and independent assessment, fill the following form.

This  survey is closed. No further submission will be valid

How satisfied are you with the one year of President Buhari’s administration?

How would you assess the effectiveness of the government policies in the first one year?

How inclusive do you think of current government policies, programmes and approaches?

How confident are you in the competences and abilities of the political appointees?

Do you have hope for the future under the current administration?

How would you rate the performance of your state government in the first one year?

Which state are you from?

Implications of Nigeria’s Floating Exchange Rate Regime: Way out

By Dr. Ahmed Adamu 

Following the decision of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) to fully implement the floating exchange rate regime in the country to allow competitive access to foreign currency and introduce flexibility in the currency exchange market, the economy will face certain shocks, which if not carefully managed will further endanger the economy.

With this new policy, the value of Naira in relation to foreign currency will be determined by demand and supply, which means the new value of Naira will be closer to, if not exactly as its value in the parallel market. The parallel market have been influenced by the forces of the demand and supply. So, there will be relatively similar naira values in the Forex markets. The government will not therefore fix the exchange rate, which normally distort the currency exchange market at the expense of the government.

Therefore, the value of Naira will immediately depreciate since at the parallel market which is the proxy competitive market, the Naira is sold around N350 per US dollar. This will mean Naira will now reach a market value of not less than N300 in the short term, which is up to 76% increase. This market adjustment will cause uncertainty and speculations, which will further depreciate the value of Naira. However, this policy will motivate more supply of foreign currency, making currencies like US dollars and Pound Sterling overflowing the market, because of the profit motive. The foreign reserve which has depleted by more than 130% in eight years, will then be relieved, as the resulting increase in interbank and Bureu De Change (BDC) transactions will cause increase in currency supply, which will offset the rising foreign currency demand. The increase in supply will also make importation easier but not cheaper.

Therefore, as the foreign currency supply curve shifts outward, its demand curve will follow it outward, moving the new equilibrium value at a higher position. And this may continue in the midterm except drastic structural economic changes took place, which will include measures to reduce importation especially of refined petroleum, which constitute the largest share of import to the country.

Under the previous fixed exchange regime, the central bank had to use the foreign reserve to meet up the market gap (excess demand) caused by import demand. The fixed exchange regime is not realistic for importing countries like Nigeria, as the continues oversupply of the country’s currency will continue to depreciate the value of the currency. And this leads to increase in the inflation and depletion of the foreign reserve.

So, setting the Naira at competitive value will cause depreciation of the currency, due to continuous rising importation in the country, every other thing being equal. So, we should expect further sharp decline in the value of Naira, which may likely reach somewhere around N500 in the midterm, and then it will stabilise.

Another implication of this is the suppression of the black market, as buyers and sellers can accept the interbank equilibrium rates, which are not so much different from the black market value. So, buyers and sellers will avoid the street and walk into banks for any transaction. The BDC will now compete with the banks, giving customers supplier options. Even though, the black market will not seize to exist yet, as they will still push frontiers of their prices no matter the efforts and there will not be convergence.

The need for strict regulation is imperative under the currency competitive market to ensure fair play, so that the economy will not be jeopardised for the benefit of profit seekers. Similarly, the cost of importation will immediately increase as more Naira is required to acquire a unit of foreign currency. In addition, the country will be more vulnerable to foreign inflation (imported inflation). These will lead to cost-push inflation, and with the already 13% inflation rate, the inflation may reach 15% in a near future. Consequently, local industries will underperform due to expensive factor inputs.

The prices of goods and services will continue to skyrocket, and no matter how much efforts are put in place to bring prices down, the price downward slope is going to be sticky and slow. Even though, the government will have window opportunity to acquire foreign currencies at concessionary rate to settle some critical responsibilities, still the cost of government will increase, as government will have to spend more in paying its local and external liabilities.  As a result, the performance of the government will reduce.

With the recent removal of subsidy, the cost of importing petrol will increase, which will push the ceiling price from N145/litre to around N160/litre depending on the crude oil price and stability of the exchange rate. The electricity tariff may also increase as more Naira will be required from the Discos to settle payments to some foreign Gencos in foreign currency.

So, this is Naira devaluation in disguise despite the president’s outright rejection of devaluation. However, whether to devalue or not to devalue, the economy is in danger due to continues reliance on importation of almost everything. So, the expansionary monetary policy will not alone stabilise the market unless it is accompanied with strategic public and private investment in critical areas like refineries, agriculture, automobile and machines production, technology, textiles, education and health. Once Nigeria can independently meet its local demand for these goods and services, the value of Naira can appreciate to even N100 per US dollar. Nigeria has the potential to achieve this, since the country’s exports still outweigh that of its import. Even though, the country is the 52^nd largest importer in the world, but with its average annual import growth of 3.2%, this position may reduce over time.

Finally, strong measures must be in place to encourage local investors and producers, and provide the environment for their prosperity, importantly adequate provision of energy. In addition, the MPC should consider increasing the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) to catch up with the inflation. The MPR should be increased to encourage savings, and reduce money in circulation to quell the pending rise in inflation. 

Dr. Ahmed Adamu,

Petroleum Economist and Development Expert,

Pioneer Global Chairperson of the Commonwealth Youth Council,

University Lecturer (Economics) at Umaru Musa Yar'adua University Katsina.

Petroleum subsidy saga and solutions

Picture of a government owned
filling station selling at new
ceilling price

By Dr. Ahmed Adamu

Recently, the Nigerian government once again removed subsidy on petroleum consumption in the country, on the account that setting the price at equilibrium will ensure optimal supply, competition, and end the illicit trade of the Nigerian subsidised products in the neighbouring countries. This sparked lots of comments and different opinions, and this article will shed more light on the subsidy and its flip side with some recommendations.

Petroleum subsidy existed for long time and in many countries, especially oil rich countries as it serves as the direct benefit citizens drive for having petroleum deposits in their countries. Initially, the subsidy was economically introduced to support structural changes in economies, and encourage usage and shift to more efficient technology and fuels. It was introduced in petroleum sector to enable access to cheaper factors of production, so that factories and industries can buy petroleum products and transport their products cheaply. This helped in quelling inflation, and increased investment. The subsidy also protected consumers from the volatility of the petroleum products prices.

Nigeria being one of the leading oil rich countries in the world introduced subsidy for over two decades, and for many Nigerians, they do not know how to live without the subsidy. As a result, any attempt to remove the subsidy is followed by protest and unrest. Recent of which is the 2012 subsidy removal. With the latest removal, some Nigerians still think, it is a wrong decision or bad timing, and may consider going to the streets, and the Nigerian labour union has already expressed dissatisfaction with the decision.

However, within Nigerian context, the subsidy was considered unbearable due to the increasing consumption of the petroleum products, which make the government spend up to a trillion Naira in just a year for subsidy payment. The petroleum subsidy regime had created avenue for corruption adding more to the subsidy cost. The subsidy payments keep increasing year by year, which could reach N2 trillion in two years time due to the increasing demand for local consumption, corruption and illegal exportation of the subsidised product. This has affected the government’s performance in major sectors of economy, and if allowed to continue will affect future economic growth. This can be worse if Naira continue to depreciate, as Nigerians have to pay more in local currency to import a unit quantity of the refined petroleum product.

The petroleum subsidy in the country was not targeted as even the rich people who could comfortably buy at competitive price still enjoy the subsidy, and yet, they consume more than the poor. So, the subsidy benefited the rich more than the poor.

Similarly, providing the subsidy has caused market failure as setting prices below the equilibrium, will cause excess demand, where consumers will be willing to buy more than the suppliers are willing to supply. Supply of petroleum products under regulated petroleum prices are discouraged as the suppliers are attracted to higher or competitive prices. So, the subsidy causes market imbalance, which is not desirable.

With the recent reduction in crude oil prices, the Nigerian foreign earnings reduced drastically, which depleted its foreign currency reserves, and resulted to its failure to meet local hard currency demand. This affected supply of the petrol, as marketers could not secure sufficient US dollars for the importation. This has caused further market imbalance, as it caused lower supply. So, the government is left with no option than to allow marketers with autonomous sources of foreign currency to import and sell at competitive price. Even though, access to local currency is not lacking, but lack of its convertibility has compounded the situation. So, foreign currency shortages made the market monopolistic, as only few marketers with independent sources can import, and this elongated the distribution chain, and increased the pump price.

Being someway monopolistic market, the anticipated competition may not come easily due to the reliance on few ways to acquire foreign currency, and due to the capital intensiveness of the petroleum importation. So, there might be cases of collusion to exploit consumers, which has started manifesting in some parts of the country. So, the country is seriously hit by resource curse, since despite its resource availability, it heavily imports most of its consumables, making supply of its local currency higher than its demand. Similarly, the too much sentiment and profit seeking in the industry make distributors aim for higher profit above the normal profit. The marketers must be sincere and sympathetic, as they are leaders in their own right, they should go for as minimal profit as possible. The consumers can play their role, by boycotting any filling station selling above the ceiling price.

Without the subsidy, any future inflation of petroleum products will be transferred to the citizens. However, if there is deflation, the government will not have the chance for over recovery, so the citizens will enjoy the price reduction directly. The removal of the subsidy will relief the government and enable it reinvest the saving on social responsibilities. It will set prices at equilibrium, and allow for free market. Suppliers will now be more motivated to import, and as a result, there will be more supply of Naira, which will further depreciate Naira. This will make the country spend more for every import, making factor inputs more expensive, leading to inflation.

 However, the removal will ensure energy conservation and efficiency, which will be useful to environment. Without the subsidy, unnecessary consumption of petrol will be reduced, which will lead to reduction in aggregate petroleum demand, and in the long run lead to petroleum price reduction. So, even if the price is high, people will reduce their consumption, and may not have significant effect on the total spending.

Despite the historical unrests and protests resulted from past subsidy removal, the country may not experience serious protest this time around, due to the unyielding trust and confidence on the current leader of the country, but the question to ask is, how would the Nigerians cope with the subsequent increase in price of petrol and other commodities, since incomes did not appreciate in the same proportion. Similarly, the resulting inflation will add to the cost of production and unemployment. So, to avoid serious hit on citizens, measures must take place to alleviate the looming catastrophe.

The removal of subsidy should have been systematic and gradual in phases, this will then prepare the consumers and make them adapt to new prices gradually. The continuous saving should then be reinvested in physical social projects that will justify the opportunity cost of the fuel subsidy. The price control measure must be in place and compliance enforced. The price of petrol should be flexible to reflect the volatile crude oil price timely, this will avoid over and under recovery. There must be strict supervision to checkmate cost composition and price compliance.

For example, this week, the NNPC announced that the maximum price of petrol is N145, which is the peak price. Even though the allowance is huge, but it does not mean all filling stations must sell at this price. The price at each filling station must be determined by their specific landing cost and other associated cost, but not above the N145 presently. This means, the price can be far lower than N145, and still viable. This peak price should be reviewed regularly. So, each supplier should declare their cost composition and selling price, and supported with evidence before acquiring a selling clearance, this will help avoid excessive maximization of profit.

In addition, the government should design programme (palliatives) to offset the price shock, for example, provision of monthly subsidy ticket for 60 litres per eligible consumer/car can be provided for at least six months in the beginning. The eligibility to benefit from this subsidy ticket is subject to economic status of the consumer and per vehicle. Ticketing shops can be established in each town, and this should be secured and trackable. For vehicles to benefit, they must be properly registered and renewed with the Road Safety Commission for verification. The beneficiaries must be honest, and only purchase the subsidy ticket if they are eligible, and they should not go beyond the 60 litres per month. The commercial vehicle subsidy quota can be extended to 200 litres a month. The filling stations can cash the served subsidy tickets at the relevant government agency. The transport fare must then be regulated per kilometre, this can change based on the prevailing peak price. The provision of convenient public transport, within and between states and towns must be provided, so that people can start selling their cars and go for these conducive public transport options.

The default long term solution will always be to sufficiently refine the Nigerian crude oil within its territory. This will evade the exposure of the fuel price to the exchange rate fluctuations and shortages in foreign currency reserves. It will also drastically reduce the refinery acquisition price and eventually the pump price. If Nigeria can sufficiently meet local petroleum demand without the need to import, the fuel pump price may reduce to about 30-40%. This can be much lower if government will consider subsidising the refining by then.

Currently, it will cost N138.26 to bring a litre of petrol to a filling station in Nigeria at the current crude oil price and exchange rate. So, it will still be profitable even below N145. So, it is a policy that, no litre of petrol should be sold above N145. Unfortunately, I just took petrol at N150 per litre. And I asked the manager of the filling station, why he sells at higher price than the peak price, and he said he bought it at higher price from a dealer. So, there is need to reduce the chain of supply to reduce too much profit seeking. Allocation or wholesale of petroleum products should only be to owners of filling stations, and they must show evidence of sale at their filling stations before they can be sold again.

Many countries that were providing subsidy have now removed it, for example, Venezuela provided the cheapest petrol in the world as a result of its petroleum subsidy. Despite having the world largest oil reserves, Venezuela stopped providing subsidy, and as a result, the price of petrol in the country rose by about 6000%, which is the first rise in 20 years. Though, 95% of foreign income of the country come from crude oil exports, the country had to use the revenue to subsidise consumption of petrol, which reduced the government capacity to invest in other sectors of the economy. Now Venezuela is facing economic recession, inflation of around 95%, hunger and unemployment.

Finally, since people are used to subsidy, removing it will be very sensitive, as such, the removal must be democratic to engage and convince citizens on the need to remove it. There should be immediate manifestation of resulting benefits after removing the subsidy, and the removal has to be gradual and targeted. It was envisaged that no country will give fuel subsidy in the next 10 years, due to increasing demand for petroleum products and the need to diversify the energy mix. So, the Nigerian subsidy removal should be restructured and revisited to make it systematic, gradual and clearly beneficial, targeted and inclusive. 

Dr. Ahmed Adamu

Petroleum Economist and Development Expert

Pioneer Global Chairperson of the Commonwealth Youth Council

University Lecturer (Economics) at Umaru Musa Yar'adua University, Katsina.

The need for a bill to lift the ban on land importation of Rice

Nigerian Customs officials intersecting truck full of imported rice

This is the letter I will send to a Senator requesting him to present a bill before the national assembly on the need to lift the ban on land importation of rice. Let us discuss it and have more suggestions before I deliver it to the National Assembly.

Dear Senator

In one of my recent articles titled: “Rising Inflation and Unemployment: The Answers” (Here is the link to the article: http://ahmedadamu.blogspot.com.ng/2016/04/rising-inflation-and-unemployment.html ), in the article I raised the issue of the recent food price crisis and unemployment in the country. I mentioned that the Nigerian inflation rate is now 12.8%, which is higher than what it was (8%) in 2014, this is evident in the prices of common consumer goods. Now, household commodities like tomatoes, rice, egg, milk, spaghetti, maize, matches etc. have all risen, some even doubled their initial prices.

People now adjust their life styles and downgrade the quality of foods they eat, and this affect the performance of the economy as the aggregate demand keep reducing. In addition, the increase in inflation supposed to have been triggered by increase in employment opportunities in the short run, but that is not the case in Nigeria, as the unemployment rate increased together with inflation.

We are concerned with the potential hardship that people may face if this price increase prolong. Particularly concerned with how government’s decision of banning land importation of rice has caused the scarcity and price increase of the rice, which is essential food item among average household. This made some of the poor to switch to lower food options or pay extra money from their savings to pay for the rice. This affect the general aggregate demand in the country.

Therefore, to address part of the food inflation, the government should lift the ban on land importation of rice. If rice is still imported through the sea, then it should be allowed to be imported through the land. What the government should do is to take measures to track and organise the land rice importation, so as to generate revenue from import taxes. Before the banning of land importation of rice, the Nigerian government receive huge amount of revenue amounting to close to N300 million per month, which is around N3.6 billion per year. So, now government is loosing this amount due to the ban.

Even if some of the importers avoid payment of tax, that will still benefit the economy, because, if they did not pay the tax, they will be able to save some money for other expenses, which will improve aggregate demand and help other businesses grow. The tax evaders may likely reduce the price of their rice due to the reduction of the landing cost following tax evasion. This will help in bringing the price of rice down. However, government should take extra measures in the midterm to ensure compliance and payment of tax by those tax evaders.  

However, there should be provisions and incentives for rice farming locally. The price of domestic rice should be subsidised so as to discourage buying foreign rice. The local farmers shall be incentivised to have easy access to capital and suitable farming locations for rice, so as to encourage local rice production and discourage its importation. If there is abundance of local rice production, then the entire rice importation can be banned. The current ban on land importation of rice has led to the scarcity of rice, unemployment and rise in rice price. It is discriminating to ban small-scale importation through the land if large sea importers are still allowed to import. Therefore, government should lift the ban on land rice importation in the short term before the effects of new measures and investment in local rice farming start to manifest. This will evade the expected acute increase in rice price, ahead of the fasting period.

I hope you will accept this propose bill and present it to the National Assembly for Consideration.

Dr. Ahmed Adamu

Petroleum Economist and Development Expert

Pioneer Global Chairperson, Commonwealth Youth Council

University Lecturer (Economics), Umaru Musa Yar’adua University, Katsina.