Construction of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway has begun amid a myriad of fiscal and due process concerns. But indifference is the response of President Bola Tinubu’s administration to the challenges. The 700-kilometre stretch of road infrastructure, which will span eight years to complete, will gulp a staggering N15 trillion. This figure is tentative, given the country’s inflationary spiral. The project might well have significant economic benefits for the country but there are real questions involved, especially as regime spokespersons have repeatedly reiterated the fact that our economy is bankrupt, of which there is no question.

The pilot phase of the construction has started at the Eko Atlantic City and it will terminate at Lekki Deep Seaport, for which N1.06 trillion has already been released. It is a highway of 10 lanes, which will cost N4 billion per kilometre, and would be the first of its kind in Africa, says the Minister of Works, David Umahi. His zealousness in its implementation brooks no dissent, and sometimes it gets spiteful. The first set of victims, whose properties were demolished to pave the way for the construction, were paid N2.75 billion in compensation last week.

There are similar road networks in the offing, in the Sokoto-Badagry Coastal Highway and the Enugu-Abakaliki-Ogoja-Cameroon Highway, in what seems like a geo-political balancing act. As a spur, the latter will course through Oturkpo in Benue State, to Nasarawa State and end at Apo, in Abuja.

On the second project, Umahi said, “We have started the design and I’m sure that as soon as the Federal Executive Council approves it, we will be starting at the Sokoto side.” Given its 1,000-kilometre length, it will surely gulp over N20 trillion.

The political ecosystem is already astir on the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, with the circumstances surrounding its award. Adherence to due process has been raised by some critics, causing waffling in official quarters. The point has to be made: the project did not go through a competitive bidding process, which is imperative for such a huge venture, in line with the 2007 Public Procurement Act, as enunciated in Section 16 (1) (1) and (d), to create transparency, accountability and value for money.

As the minister admitted, the award sidestepped the public tender competitive bidding process. This raises the question of how the cost was arrived at. Was it a favour to a friend of the administration? Or is the government bidding farewell to the transparency and accountability of public tender and the competitive bidding process? In addition, why was the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) phase of the project not done before work began? We know this through a letter dated 18th April that emanated from the Ministry of Works, soliciting residents living in the Section 1 and 11 areas of the highway in Lagos, to attend a workshop organised for a scoping study that will generate this all-important data, after the project implementation had commenced.

This action, the letter reads in part, will “ensure that the project is developed in a responsible and sustainable manner, in line with regulations in Nigeria as well as international standards and frameworks.” No, this is sophistry! The country’s statute and global best practices do not uphold putting the cart before the horse in the award of a contract, as the ministry’s letter exemplifies. The ESIA precedes any contract.

How the project will be financed is still mired in obfuscation. On 23 September 2023, Umahi disclosed that Hitech – the construction company for the work, would fund the project, precisely under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) scheme. However, in a volte-face recently, he said that the government will provide 50 per cent counterpart funding, in an Engineering, Procurement, Construction plus Finance (EPC+F) model. This fiscal decision is not cast in stone yet, as he revealed that discussions were ongoing for a possible reduction to 30 per cent of government funding.

Recently my Inc. colleague Jeff Haden wrote a piece about the connection between bad bosses and toxic work environments, citing some 57 separate studies that effectively came to the same conclusion - "Destructive leadership significantly decreases employee job satisfaction." 

I immediately found myself wondering why otherwise intelligent business and thought leaders would need even one, let alone 57 studies to prove what should be self-evident - that horrible bosses create horrible places to work. 

What seemed even more important to understand though, is how, in the face of such a literal mountain of evidence, do these awful executives manage to keep their jobs?

Until now, it's been a question that most have been content to treat as rhetorical. After all, until a year or so ago, when presented with the century-old "take it or leave it" bargain, most workers felt compelled to take the "it" - one that included any or all of poor treatment, a toxic workplace and a lack of care ... until the Great Realization.

Since then, and in the "Great Resignation" that followed, which, through January, has seen some 41 million workers walk away from their positions - many in search of better conditions - employees have largely decided to stop taking it. No longer are they content to tolerate bad bosses and the toxic environments they propagate. 

The trouble is, the wrong people are leaving. It's the bad bosses that should be on their way out. Unfortunately, for the most part, they aren't, despite massive numbers of resignations because of them. I decided to take a look at exactly why, and what the rest of us can do about it.

To begin, there is no single reason that bad bosses keep their jobs. A few years ago, business giant Warren Buffet took a stab at guessing why they do. He posited that toxic CEOs hang on for three principal reasons: 

1. an absence of written performance standards for many of these leaders;
2. the fact that most CEOs have no immediate supervisor; and
3. that the boards that these CEOs typically answer to desire to maintain collegial boardroom atmospheres and, so, almost never directly confront their charges on any performance issue, let alone those having to do with the happiness of his/her associates.

While I buy that these three reasons - assembled from the bird's-eye perspective of the greatest organizational heights - apply in some cases, they certainly don't explain why all bad bosses stay employed. To fully understand this issue requires one to look at the problem from every altitude, not just the top. In doing so, a common theme emerges.

Mostly, including in the case of the three Buffet-supplied explanations, it's a courage problem, or at the very least one of conflict-avoidance. Take Warren Buffet's excuses. The reason most CEOs don't have clear performance standards is because most boards avoid the discomfort that comes with presenting him or her with them. 

Likewise for the point about supervision. Among the roles these boards are expected by shareholders to play, whether they choose to accept it or not, is to supervise and to hold CEOs accountable to deliver the expected results of the organization and, ostensibly, to reflect the values of it. 

Lastly, the desire for collegiality is less about back-slaps and smiles than it is about ensuring that board meetings and other interactions are devoid of difficult conversations around accountability or CEO behavior. And this avoidance strategy doesn't end here.

Remember that any executive hire, especially C-Suite hires like the chief of the company, involve many well-placed people - senior HR leaders, board members, and executives at the white-shoe recruiting firm that led the search. 

So, removing these people will require all of these people to admit that they either made a mistake or missed a gargantuan red flag. People like this rarely admit to having committed errors. So, they conspire to live with their mistake rather than live up to it.

It is also helpful to remember that in many of these organizations, whether privately held, public, for profit, or not, the people at these levels run together. They are friends. They socialize together. Their kids are in school together. They serve on community boards together. They belong to the same clubs and frequent the same service providers. 

As a result, for any part of the clique to move on another part of it becomes problematic and requires enormous amounts of fortitude.

Many companies hang on to bad bosses for fear of upsetting investors, creating bad press, or inviting litigation. So, they find doing nothing more favorable to airing their dirty laundry. As a result of this general lack of courage, these crafters of toxic cultures are left to roam freely, without compunction. 

Sensing the reluctance of the organization to deal with them, over time, these awful executives double down on their bad behavior, eventually making the work environment unbearable.

Finally, over time, a sort of Stockholm Syndrome begins to overtake many of these organizations. I have seen it first-hand. Left uncorrected, those constantly abused by a tormentor will, in time, begin to recognize him or her as a benefactor. 

Once this happens, finding a collective bloc with the courage to speak against the aggressor becomes very difficult. But regarding these people as aggressors and tormentors is precisely what is going to be required to make progress. And the very results of the business demand that it must happen.

Here's why. A recent Talenteck study published by Harvard Business Review found that employee experience is directly correlated to business results. In fact, top quartile businesses in regard to employee experience significantly outperform bottom quartile businesses - those offering a poor employee experience and ostensibly led by a bad boss. 

By the numbers, top quartile businesses deliver 53% higher revenue and 44% higher earnings than their bottom quartile counterparts. So, keeping bad bosses thinking they are good for business is, actually, a really bad idea. 

I cannot stress enough how important and timely it is for those responsible for making the decision to move on these bad bosses to begin finding the courage to do so. Not only will you start stemming the loss of good people, which has exceeded 4 million for five straight months, but you'll add to the numerical performance of your business too, and you'll avoid the inevitable grassroots action that's coming next.

Salesforce founder and co-CEO, Marc Benioff was recently quoted as saying, "We have a lot of examples in Silicon Valley, where CEOs were 'fired' by their employees because they did not listen." 

Small and medium enterprises that have left horrible bosses in place for far too long now have a decision to make: do the right thing now or risk being called out by an activist mob. Employees are increasingly losing their patience with boards and senior HR leaders who fail to act on these bad bosses. 

More and more they are speaking out against these tormentors in the same way they spoke out against sexual harassers of both genders. They are tired of being treated poorly or being the ones to have to uproot their lives when things become unbearable. They want to stop leaving; they want their companies to start doing the right thing.

It's not only about better leadership, it's about time.

 

Inc

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has mandated all financial institutions in the country to commence deductions for a cybersecurity levy on electronic transactions, effective May 20, 2024, following a directive issued six years after its initial issuance.

The levy, to be remitted to the National Security Fund administered by the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), will be deducted from all electronic transactions conducted through various financial channels, including commercial banks, merchant banks, non-interest banks, payment system banks, mobile money operators, and payment service providers.

Non-compliance with the directive and failure to remit the levy within the stipulated timeframe will attract a penalty of two percent of the institution's annual turnover.

Originally introduced in 2018 with a levy rate of 0.5 percent on electronic transactions, the implementation was delayed. However, a recent circular jointly signed by the CBN's director of payments systems management and director of financial policy and regulation now mandates the deduction and remittance of the levy.

As per the circular, the levy, equivalent to 0.5 percent of all electronic transaction values, will be applied at the point of transaction origination and reflected in customers' accounts with the narration "Cybersecurity Levy." Deductions are to commence within two weeks from the circular's date, with monthly remittances to the NCF account domiciled at the CBN by the fifth business day of each subsequent month.

Financial institutions are required to complete system reconfigurations to ensure timely submission of remittance files to the Nigeria Interbank Settlement System (NIBSS) Plc within four weeks for commercial, merchant, non-interest, and payment service banks, as well as mobile money operators. Other financial institutions have eight weeks to complete the reconfigurations.

Certain transactions are exempted from the levy to prevent double application. Failure to remit the levy is considered an offence under Section 44 (8) of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) (amendment) Act 2024 and is subject to penalties, including fines of not less than two percent of the defaulting business's annual turnover.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has reactivated fees for cash deposits exceeding N500,000 for both individual and corporate account holders, marking a resurgence in processing charges after a suspension period.

The decision, effective May 1, comes after over four months of the apex bank's suspension of processing fees on cash deposits surpassing N500,000, which was set to expire on April 30, 2024.

In a circular addressed to customers, First Bank Nigeria (FBN) notified of the revised processing fee structure, where individuals face a 2 percent charge on deposits above N500,000, while corporate account holders encounter a 3 percent fee on deposits surpassing N3 million.

"We write to inform you that, effective 1 May 2024, our processing fees structure on cash deposits has been adjusted in accordance with regulatory requirements," FBN stated.

This reinstatement follows the CBN's directive on September 18, 2019, which introduced processing fees of 3 percent for withdrawals and 2 percent for deposits exceeding N500,000 for individual accounts, aimed at promoting cashless transactions.

Additionally, banks were instructed to impose 5 percent processing fees on withdrawals and 3 percent on deposits exceeding N3 million for corporate account holders.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has unveiled plans to remove the naira from all peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms, as announced by Emomotimi Agama, SEC's acting director general, during a virtual meeting with the Blockchain Industry Coordinating Committee of Nigeria (BICCoN), the collective body of major blockchain and cryptocurrency associations in the country.

P2P platforms facilitate direct financial transactions between two parties without traditional financial institution involvement. SEC's decision aims to mitigate perceived manipulation within the cryptocurrency domain.

Agama emphasized the importance of collective action and dialogue within the financial ecosystem, citing concerns over the impact of crypto P2P traders on exchange rates. He urged stakeholders to report and denounce any illicit activities detrimental to national interests.

Furthermore, SEC is committed to purging the virtual assets space of illegal trading activities, employing all available powers within its mandate. Agama stressed the importance of upholding decency and fair play within Nigeria's capital market community, in accordance with the Investments and Securities Act 2007.

The capital market regulator also announced forthcoming regulations to govern virtual space activities and expedite license approvals for individuals or institutions. Agama assured streamlined processes to facilitate compliance and operation.

SEC is actively developing an inclusive regulatory framework for digital assets, encompassing various cryptocurrency ecosystem aspects. This initiative seeks to support and regulate every Nigerian contributing to economic advancement.

In response to the crypto sector challenges, BICCoN proposed the formation of a working group to address issues and propel market development.

Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC) have jointly demanded that the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) revoke its recent electricity tariff increase before May 12, 2024. Failure to comply, they warn, will prompt unprecedented industrial action.

In a letter addressed to the Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of NERC, dated May 3, 2024, and copied to key government officials and electricity distribution companies, the presidents of NLC and TUC expressed outrage over the tariff hike, labeling it as exploitative and unjust. They argued that the increase, from N65/kWh to N225/kWh, imposes undue hardship on Nigerians amidst existing economic challenges.

The unions accused NERC of neglecting its regulatory duties and siding with electricity companies at the expense of consumers' rights. They demanded an immediate reversal of the tariff hike, cessation of discriminatory practices in tariff application, and adherence to statutory obligations.

Warning of swift action if their demands are not met, the unions vowed to mobilize members and occupy NERC offices and those of distribution companies nationwide until justice is served.

The Federal Government of Nigeria has dismissed speculations surrounding the establishment of foreign military bases within its borders. Mohammed Idris, the Minister of Information and National Orientation, unequivocally rejected assertions of discussions with foreign nations regarding military installations on Nigerian soil.

In a press release issued on Monday, Idris addressed what he termed as "baseless rumors" and urged the public to disregard such claims. He stressed that there have been no talks, nor is there any intention, to allow foreign military bases in the country.

According to the statement, "The Federal Government is not engaged in any such negotiations with any foreign nation. We have neither received nor are we entertaining any proposals from any country for the establishment of foreign military bases in Nigeria."

Highlighting existing collaborations in addressing security challenges, the statement affirmed the government's commitment to enhancing these partnerships. It stated, "Nigeria already benefits from international cooperation in addressing ongoing security issues, and the President remains dedicated to strengthening these alliances."

The Presidency has responded to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar's allegations regarding the Lagos-Calabar coastal highway contract, dismissing his claims and questioning his moral authority to raise concerns about conflicts of interest.

Atiku had accused President Bola Tinubu of favoritism in awarding the contract to Hitech Construction Company due to alleged ties between the company's owner, Gilbert Chagoury, and Tinubu. He also raised concerns about the demolition of buildings for the highway project.

In a statement, the Presidency refuted Atiku's claims, emphasizing that he lacks the moral high ground to question conflicts of interest given his own business dealings during his tenure as Vice President. The statement pointed out Atiku's involvement in Intels Nigeria, which secured major port concession deals while he was in office.

Furthermore, the Presidency highlighted Atiku's role in approving the sale of state-owned enterprises to his associates and friends during his tenure as Chairman of the National Council on Privatization.

Regarding Atiku's allegations against Seyi Tinubu's involvement with CDK, a tiles manufacturing company, the Presidency defended Seyi's right to pursue legitimate business interests, stating that his membership on the board does not conflict with Hitech Construction Company's work on the Lagos-Calabar highway.

The Presidency also challenged Atiku's assertion that the highway project would discourage investors, citing significant foreign direct investments attracted to Nigeria under the Tinubu administration. It highlighted the growth of various sectors in the economy, including telecoms, manufacturing, and fintech.

In response to Atiku's remarks on Nigeria's economy, the Presidency dismissed reports of IMF reclassifying Nigeria's economy due to Naira devaluation as "stale news," expressing confidence in Nigeria's economic resilience and potential for growth.

Ultimately, the Presidency urged all Nigerians to prioritize national unity and economic development, emphasizing the importance of infrastructural projects like the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway in stimulating economic growth and attracting investments.

Nigeria's electricity regulator, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), has instructed the grid operator to decrease electricity exports to overseas customers (Benin Republic, Niger, and Togo)

in order to enhance domestic supply.

In a directive issued recently, NERC highlighted that the grid operator's prioritization of supply to international customers, under bilateral contracts, has resulted in significant challenges for Nigerian consumers. To address this, NERC has imposed a 6% cap on total grid generation available to international off-takers for the next six months, starting from May 1.

While Nigerian power firms have agreements with neighboring African nations to export electricity, delays in payment have been a recurring issue. This move aims to alleviate domestic power shortages exacerbated by recent tariff hikes, which were intended to provide more consistent power but have not been fully realized due to supply constraints.

The decision to limit overseas sales could introduce operational uncertainties, requiring adjustments in production and distribution by power generation companies. Moreover, it may exacerbate financial strains by reducing revenue from foreign customers and necessitate debt repayment from distribution firms.

Since the directive, electricity supply from the national grid has increased, surpassing 4,700 megawatts compared to the previous weeks' levels below 3,000 megawatts. However, challenges persist, including lax terms in international contracts and unpaid debts owed by international customers, totaling $12.02 million according to a report by NERC.

The move underscores Nigeria's commitment to prioritize domestic electricity needs while seeking to address systemic issues within the power sector to ensure sustainable and reliable energy provision for its citizens.

Hamas accepts Gaza cease-fire; Israel says it will continue talks but presses on with Rafah attacks

Hamas said Monday it accepted an Egyptian-Qatari cease-fire proposal, but Israel said the deal did not meet its core demands and it was pushing ahead with an assault on the southern Gaza city of Rafah. Still, Israel said it would continue negotiations.

The high-stakes diplomatic moves and military brinkmanship left a glimmer of hope alive — but only barely — for an accord that could bring at least a pause in the 7-month-old war that has devastated the Gaza Strip. Hanging over the wrangling was the threat of an all-out Israeli assault on Rafah, a move the United States strongly opposes and that aid groups warn will be disastrous for some 1.4 million Palestinians taking refuge there.

Hamas’s abrupt acceptance of the cease-fire deal came hours after Israel ordered an evacuation of some 100,000 Palestinians from eastern neighborhoods of Rafah, signaling an invasion was imminent.

The Israeli military said it was conducting “targeted strikes” against Hamas in eastern Rafah. Soon after, Israeli tanks entered Rafah, reaching as close as 200 meters (yards) from Rafah’s crossing with neighboring Egypt, a Palestinian security official and an Egyptian official said. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. The reported incursion came a day after Hamas militants killed four Israeli soldiers in a mortar attack that Israel said originated near the Rafah crossing.

The Egyptian official said the operation appeared to be limited. The Associated Press could not independently verify the scope of the operation.

Israeli airstrikes also hit elsewhere in Rafah late Monday, killing at least five people, including a child and a woman, hospital officials said.

The Israeli military declined to comment.

Shortly after Hamas said it had accepted the Egyptian-Qatari truce proposal, Israel’s War Cabinet decided to continue the Rafah operation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ‘s office said. It also said that while the proposal Hamas agreed to “is far from meeting Israel’s core demands,” it would send negotiators to Egypt to work on a deal. Late Monday, Qatar announced it was sending a team to Egypt as well.

President Joe Biden spoke with Netanyahu and reiterated U.S. concerns about an invasion of Rafah. U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said American officials were reviewing the Hamas response “and discussing it with our partners in the region.”

It was not immediately known if the proposal Hamas agreed to was substantially different from one that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken pressed the militant group to accept last week, which Blinken said included significant Israeli concessions.

An American official said the U.S. was examining whether what Hamas agreed to was the version signed off on by Israel and international negotiators or something else.

Egyptian officials said that proposal called for a cease-fire of multiple stages starting with a limited hostage release and partial Israeli troop pullbacks within Gaza. The two sides would also negotiate a “permanent calm” that would lead to a full hostage release and greater Israeli withdrawal out of the territory, they said.

Hamas sought clearer guarantees for its key demand of an end to the war and complete Israeli withdrawal in return for the release of all hostages, but it wasn’t clear if any changes were made.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly rejected that trade-off, vowing to keep up their campaign until Hamas is destroyed after its Oct. 7 attack on Israel that triggered the war.

Netanyahu is under pressure from hard-line partners in his coalition who demand an attack on Rafah and could collapse his government if he signs a deal. But he also faces pressure from the families of hostages to reach a deal for their release. They say that time is running out to bring their loved ones home safely, and a ground operation would further endanger them.

Thousands of Israelis rallied around the country Monday night calling for an immediate agreement. About 1,000 protesters swelled near the defense headquarters in Tel Aviv. In Jerusalem, about 100 protesters marched toward Netanyahu’s residence with a banner reading, “The blood is on your hands.”

Israel says Rafah is the last significant Hamas stronghold in Gaza, and Netanyahu said Monday that the offensive against the city was vital to ensuring the militants can’t rebuild their military capabilities.

But he faces strong American opposition. Miller said Monday the U.S. has not seen a credible plan to protect Palestinian civilians. “We cannot support an operation in Rafah as it is currently envisioned,” he said.

The looming operation has raised global alarm. Aid agencies have warned that an offensive will bring a surge of more civilian deaths in an Israeli campaign that has already killed over 34,000 people and devastated the territory. It could also wreck the humanitarian aid operation based out of Rafah that is keeping Palestinians across the Gaza Strip alive, they say.

Israeli leaflets, text messages and radio broadcasts ordered Palestinians to evacuate eastern neighborhoods of Rafah, warning that an attack was imminent and anyone who stays “puts themselves and their family members in danger.”

The military told people to move to an Israel-declared humanitarian zone called Muwasi, a makeshift camp on the coast. It said Israel has expanded the size of the zone and that it included tents, food, water and field hospitals.

It wasn’t immediately clear, however, if that was already in place.

Around 450,000 displaced Palestinians already are sheltering in Muwasi. The U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, known as UNRWA, said it has been providing them with aid. But conditions are squalid, with few sanitation facilities in the largely rural area, forcing families to dig private latrines.

The evacuation order left Palestinians in Rafah wrestling with having to uproot their families once again for an unknown fate, exhausted after months living in sprawling tent camps or crammed into schools or other shelters in and around the city. Israeli airstrikes on Rafah early Monday killed 22 people, including children and two infants.

Mohammed Jindiyah said that at the beginning of the war, he tried to hold out in his home in northern Gaza under heavy bombardment before fleeing to Rafah.

He is complying with Israel’s evacuation order this time, but was unsure whether to move to Muwasi or elsewhere.

“We are 12 families, and we don’t know where to go. There is no safe area in Gaza,” he said.

Sahar Abu Nahel, who fled to Rafah with 20 family members, including her children and grandchildren, wiped tears from her cheeks, despairing at a new move.

“I have no money or anything. I am seriously tired, as are the children,” she said. “Maybe it’s more honorable for us to die. We are being humiliated.”

The war was sparked by the unprecedented Oct. 7 raid into southern Israel in which Palestinian militants killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducted some 250 hostages. After exchanges during a November cease-fire, Hamas is believed to still hold about 100 hostages as well the bodies of around 30 others.

 

AP