The Nigeria/South Africa Palaver

By Adekeye Adebajo

I was recently visiting Lagos – the city of my birth – when I found myself feeling a sense of déjà vu as I watched South African mobs on television looting and attacking shops owned by Nigerians and other Africans. We have been here before. Nigerians were among those hurt in the horrific xenophobic attacks of 2008 when 62 people – mostly Zimbabweans, Mozambicans, and Malawians – were killed, and 100,000 displaced. More recently, in March 2017, South African vigilantes burned and looted scores of homes and businesses belonging to Nigerians in Rosettenville, Mamelodi, and Atteridgeville in Gauteng province, which they alleged were drug dens and brothels.

Having lived in South Africa for 16 years, one of my biggest frustrations is the failure of so many of its citizens to embrace an African identity and of the government to attract more skilled Africans to its shores in order to create an “America in Africa”. America’s genius has, of course, been its ability to attract the best and brightest from the rest of the world – trained at huge expense by these countries – and to turn them into American citizens or green-card holders.

Getting Paid For Blunders

By Paul Onomuakpokpo  

At the height of the recession in 2008, those on the sidelines of the corporate world were scandalised by the blithe ease with which chief executive officers (CEOS) of companies, especially those in the United States were giving themselves hefty compensation. This came in the form of robust salaries, bonuses, stock option, severance pay and  other  benefits. Even those CEOs whose remorseless mismanagement of their companies triggered financial catastrophes that led to the collapse of their institutions and the loss of jobs by thousands of workers gave themselves robust reward packages. Of course, nobody would have protested if the compensation the CEOs were giving themselves were a reward for making their companies to meet their organisational goals, even surpass them and bring prosperity to their shareholders and workers.

Even in Nigeria, in the midst of the crisis, some CEOs, especially those of banks were busy buying private jets and fancy vehicles for themselves and acquiring properties all over the world. But after the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) took over some of these banks, there were several allegations of how these CEOs who were living big were actually deploying their organisations’ finances including those of shareholders and depositors to cater to their lavish lifestyles. While some of these CEOs were deprived of their banks, others managed to return to those institutions in higher capacities as chairmen. But before the crisis eased, some shareholders of these banks who sold their houses and used all their life savings to invest in them had taken their own lives.

Recent developments at MTN, a telecommunications giant, evoke the sad memories of the global recession. The MTN forced its CEO in South Africa and his counterpart in Nigeria to resign when they bungled a directive by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) to register the telephone numbers of its subscribers in Nigeria. Outraged, the Nigerian government through the NCC asked the company to pay a N1.4 trillion fine. The matter has dragged on, and despite the MTN’s hiring of a U.S. attorney to negotiate with the Nigerian government, no truce has been brokered. The crisis has inflicted a heavy toll: the prices of the company’s shares have crashed on the South African stock exchange, jobs have been lost and some subscribers of the company have switched patronage. It was amid these developments that the news broke this week that MTN has paid the two former CEOs a severance package worth N560 million.

All these developments tend to reinforce the notion that in the world of business there is neither justice nor morality. Or else why should the CEOs who created problems for the company be the ones to be rewarded while the other stakeholders in the company, including  employees and shareholders are made to either suffer job loss or a cut in salary if at all they are still employed while  investors have the value of their shares whittled down? In justifying the payment of CEOs after taking their organisations through paths that are paved with calamitous consequences, there is often the argument that they are experts who take risks on behalf of their companies. But such an argument is invalidated in so far as whatever risk the CEOs may have taken that does not redound to the bottom line of their companies should elicit censure and not seeming approbation. Indeed, it is not because the CEOs are right that they succeed in paying themselves heavy compensation after making their companies to suffer huge losses. It is rather that through a certain canny dispensation of favour to those who could have challenged them, they rather get their support.