A speech given in the House of Representatives, Lagos, on 18th November, 1961.
A number of things which have been said in the course of this debate must make the hearts of many members and many patriots leap with joy. The government spokesmen have pointed out for the first time, and in this respect, they are in entire agreement with the Opposition, that industrialisation would not succeed and will not benefit the people for whom it is intended unless it could have as its solid foundation a sound agricultural economy.
The Hon. Minister of Economic Development has made a statement which I read in the papers this morning that the economy of this country is at the moment, and according to him will be for a long time to come, subject to imperialist control. What is more, many members on both sides have expressed their awareness of this and have had the courage to ventilate their feelings on the present plight of our economy. In spite of itself, if I may add this to what I have said before, the Federal Government gave expression to the prevailing mood of depression in its latest issue of the Nigeria Trade Journal The following short extracts are relevant. I will, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, refer to the Nigeria Trade Journal, Volume 9, No.3 of July/September, 1961. ‘LAGOS: Trade was predominantly dull.
“NORTHERN REGION: There was a poor market in shirtings, poplins and baft.
“EASTERN REGION: The fall in prices of the: main export produce in the overseas market left a depressing market on the general trading conditions at the beginning of the year. Most goods imported were in ample supply, demand noticeably weak and turnovers disappointing.
“WESTERN REGION: There was an apparent reduction of money in circulation and the news of the ‘reduction in the producer price of cocoa had a dampening effect on the market.”
In my humble opinion our finances and economy suffer from many maladies. I will call attention to only three in this debate. They are mismanagement, reckless waste and lack of plan. For the past four years our overseas trade has been run at a deficit. I am personally astonished, indeed astounded, that the Hon. Minister of Finance does not see any signal for serious danger in this trend. Our net debit balance of payment in each of the years, 1957, 1958, and 1959 is £30.6 millions, £41 millions and £28.4 millions respectively. Figures for 1960 are not yet available and have not been published by the Department of Statistics. We can only rely on what the Hon. Minister of Finance says in this house. But it is believed, and I stand here to be corrected in this, that the figures are close on £50 millions for 1960.
For the current year we have made a most disturbing start. Our adverse balance of trade for the first quarter of the year, that is January to March, is slightly more than £14 million. This figure does not take account at all of our balance of trade on invisible imports and exports which is always unfavourable to us.
Again I am surprised that the Hon. Minister of Finance thought, from what he read to us just now, that when account is taken of these invisible transactions, the position might improve. The contrary is the case. Invisible balance of trade has always moved against us. What the position is going to be at the end of this year is anybody’s guess. Some knowledgeable people have made a forecast that our adverse balance of trade for the current year 1961 might be in the order of £100 million. It is rather alarming that, though the Federal Government claims to recognise these disastrous and persistent trends in our overseas trade, it has not given any iota of evidence that it knows exactly what to do and that it is taking any active steps to put its ideas, whatever they may be, into early effect. Three simultaneous actions are called for and that without delay.
First, we must cut down heavily on our overseas buying and on imports of any kind. I cannot help but express my surprise at some of the pronouncements of the Hon. Minister of Finance. He said that we must continue to import certain goods for certain reasons which he gave. But must we continue to import frozen meat and unnecessary luxuries into this country? A quick arithmetical exercise shows that for the first quarter of this year, we imported into this country consumer goods of a luxurious type amounting to about £1½million. I think that can really be cut down.
With your permission, I will mention a few items. Here we have ‘fresh, chilled or frozen meat’; then we have ‘eggs in the shell, or otherwise’; then we have ‘malted milk compounds’. (I do not know who takes that, whether it is the Hon. Minister of Finance, I do not know.) Then we have ‘fish, fresh, chilled or frozen’. We have plenty of fishes in the Lagoon here. And then we have here another item: ‘fish – fish products, etc, canned or not’, and so on and so forth. I do not want to take up the time of the house by reading these wretched items. And, what is worse, some of these unnecessary items of goods are imported from such backward countries as Portugal, who have showed utter contempt for us Africans.
We import tomatoes when we can produce as much as we want in the Northern Region and other parts of the country. I do not think the Hon. Minister of Finance ever takes the trouble to look at these statistics. Secondly, we must give a most vigorous push to the volume and prices of our export commodities. I am, personally, disappointed that throughout the last Economic Mission led by the Hon. Minister, nothing was reported about what the mission had done to push our export commodities abroad.
On the contrary, the Hon. Minister of Finance made a most heretical statement in London before he went to Moscow and it is not surprising that he had a very cold reception in that cold country. He said, ‘I am going behind the Iron Curtain, but I assure you’ (he was addressing London businessmen) ‘I am going to return to this country with my colour intact and untarnished,’ Was that necessary?
And this leads me to the third thing we must do. Our external and overseas trade must be re-constructed to connect areaswhich are at present untounched by us. I have in mind countries behind the Iron Curtain: I must say in this connection that I feel relieved to read the remarks of the Hon. Minister of Finance when he said that, so far as the Government is concerned, money has no earmark and that the Government is prepared to trade with any country. That is good news and is in accordance with the advocacy of the opposition this past year. When I say that we should cut down on our imports I do mean both visible and invisible imports. In this connection I would like to call attention to the inexpert and suspicious manner in which Government has gone about its proposed Pools monopoly, Fort-nine per cent of the profits on Pools when the monopoly is introduced will still go abroad and this will constitute invisible imports of the same amount. When the facts are known it will be agreed that his arrangement is absolutely unnecessary.
First, it is well within the capacity of all our Governments and Nigerian Pools proprietors to subscribe the total authorized capital of £200,000 for the Nigerian Pools Company Limited. Secondly, the Continental Finance Cie S.A., Switzerland, which is the Government’s partner and Managing Agent in this deal, is not only not registered in Switzerland but its proprietor is a man of bad reputation who has never before handled a pools business. I have documents here in my possession for the examination of the Hon. Minister of Finance whenever he likes (though I will not part possession with them) to establish that Government is only being taken for a ride on this Pools venture by some international crooks, I repeat, international crooks and that the proposed drain on our funds to overseas businessmen of extremely shady character in uncalled for and should be stopped now! In other words, as ‘one of the many means of easing our adverse balance of trade, Pools venture should be a monopoly of the Nigerian Government and of Nigerian citizens who know something about Pools transaction.
The pattern of our capital and recurrent expenditure urgently needs looking into. Why should we spend, for instance, about £25,000 to £30,000 per mile as- we are at present doing on the Shagamu-Benin road when I am sure we could build the road for half of its present cost? I understand that a firm of international repute; which submitted the best design, only quoted £3 million for this bridge.
If the Hon, the Minister of Finance is conscientious about this, I will certainly give him not only the name of the firm but the name of the African Director of that firm. That is a bargain struck and I hope that one of us will have to report to this Honourable House. But our Government, as I was saying, in its reckless waste, rejected the offer of £3 million and gave the bridge for much more. Perhaps the Hon. Minister of Finance will enlighten me further, as he said. In the face of threatening bankruptcy for the nation, must we continue to indulge in some of the wasteful heritages of our former Colonial master? The present time calls for austerity if we are to get ‘over our financial difficulties and promote the welfare of our people.
If we are to attract assistance from abroad we must show at home that we ourselves mean business. What will scare away foreign investors is not the threat of nationalization but criminal complacency and brazen mismanagement and waste of time. Certain privileges have hitherto been enjoyed which call for a review. It seems to me that the time has come when, firstly, all those who occupy Government building and quarters – the Governor-General ‘and the Prime Minister exempted – should pay an economic rent for them. Secondly, certain allowances, like basic allowances for cars, especially for those Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and officers who do not have to do a good deal of traveling should be completely abolished. Thirdly, allowances paid to Hon. Members of this Parliament should be slashed by at least 50 per cent. The truth is that, at the rate we now do business, we do not at all earn our keep.
The Hon. Minister of Finance, Chief Festus Okotie-Eboh, is by nature a boisterous and exceedingly optimistic person. But our economy and finances do not have the buoyancy which exists in his imagination and which he has relentlessly sought (especially this morning) to convey to the country and to Hon. Members of this House.
I have repeatedly advocated that the economy of the country should be planned and regulated. By planning I do not mean the sort of exercise that is being performed now by Mr. Prasad and another gentleman from America. By planning I do not mean a mere series of budgetary proposals covering a period of five years or so. That is a job which Regional Governments may well look after. When I speak of planning, or when any intelligent person speaks of planning, it ‘is meant to be state planning and regulation of all the aspects of the country’s economy: production, consumption, exchange and distribution. The pattern and direction of each of these aspects, or departments of our economy must be carefully planned and regulated. It is the lack of such planning and regulation that is responsible for the paradox of a poor Nigeria. Nationalisation of certain basic industries is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. By means of nationalisation or public ownership, the pattern and direction of production, consumption or exchange; and the share of the national produce which equitably belongs and must go to each of the factors of production, will be determined. It may be argued that this end will be equally achieved by planning and regulation without nationalisation. But the naked truth is that, first of all the Government has not been doing the type of planning and regulation which we advocate. And secondly, in an underdeveloped country such as ours whose economy is dominated – as has been admitted by the Government itself – almost one hundred per cent by foreigners, the planning and regulation of the economy are bound to fail woefully if the weapon of nationalisation is entirely excluded. There is a Motion on the subject of nationalization, and I shall have more to say on this subject when it comes up. Meanwhile, I want the Government to understand quite clearly that nationalisation is not the same thing as expropriation, sequestration or con fiscation, and that no conscientious overseas investor will be scared away simply because we adopt the ideal of democratic socialism, the cornerstone of which is nationalisation of certain basic industries and business undertakings.
If one may cite one or two examples. India has trodden this path as well as a number of other countries in Asia and they still attract foreign investment.
I only wish to re-emphasise before closing that the type of planning and regulation which I have mentioned cannot be formulated by foreigners with capitalistic backgrounds, but by qualified Nigerians who, together with their fellow citizens, wear the shoe of a mismanaged and deteriorating economy and therefore know where it pinches.
CONTINUES NEXT WEEK.
READ ALSO FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
and then