Nigeria Leaders, Debt Crisis and IMF It is rather unfortunate, that African leaders know this too well but still accept the loans and aids even in the face of their incapacity to pay back. This is why some less corrupt and more reliable regimes such as the government of Shagari and Buhari did not succeed in getting the IMF loan. This is because these leaders were very convinced that their administrations cannot comply with all the conditionality or prescriptions that follow SAP. Again, these leaders considered the plights and sufferings, which the Nigerian masses will pass through if they accept complying with IMFs prescriptions. For example, the government of Shagari is noted to have assessed the IMF financial facilities after approaching the institution on loan assessment sometimes in 1983. Nigeria, under Shagaris regime sought to borrow $2 billion from the fund, largely to help refinance, and had initiated negotiation with IMF. However its trade debt then estimated to be between $3 billion and $5 billion has not been serviced, and Nigeria was unwilling to comply with IMF guidelines; therefore, his administration did not succeed in getting the IMF loan (Biersteker, 1993). And by the period Shagari left office in 1983, Nigeria was indebted to $14,130.7 million (CBN Annual Report, 1988). Also, under Buhari government; in spite of the fact that the Buhari administration serviced her foreign debts more than other regimes, the IMF, acting through the US blocked the loan application of $1.6 billion which the government of made to Saudi Arabia in February 1984. This yet compelled Buharis government to start negotiations with IMF in late February 1984. But after series of discussions, the government publicly criticized the IMF around mid-1985 suggesting a deadlock over possibility of assessing IMF loan (Banguna, 1987). And by the period Buhari left office, Nigeria owed $18,034.1milllion (CBN, op cit). However, unlike the above two regimes, Babangida, quickly accepted complying with the IMF prescriptions without considering the interest of the Nigerian masses. The simple logic is that the IMF wants to assert its hegemony over Nigeria at all cost, while Nigeria under Babangidas regime in the same ball game, wants to assert its supremacy over the Nigerian citizens, without considering their conditions. This is what made the various groups in Nigeria to vehemently oppose the SAP and Babangidas regime diametrically, with the resultant riots, demonstrations and conflicts in the midst of suffering because of the excruciating effects of SAP. Having forced Nigerians to accept the IMF, in a bid to keep the tentacles of Nigerias dependency on Westerners and their international financial institutions going; the debt crisis plummets, since Babangidas regime was unable to service her debts which as at 1989 have risen to $29.28 million and by 1993 when he left office, the country was indebted to over $32 million (CBN, ibid). In fact, it has been argued that the IFIs (particularly, the IMF and World Bank) and the West should be blamed for causing the Nigerias debt crisis. This is because, At the close of the day a situation was created in the process of the international trade between Nigeria and the West was exploited by the IFIs and the West to create foreign debts and a debt crisis later in Nigeria. Also, the process was used to create stolen wealth for Nigerians, the IFIs and the West at the detriment of Nigeria (AFRODAD, op cit: 9). Africa Debt Crisis and the IMF with a Case of Nigeria: towards Theoretical Explanations Brian-Vincent IKEJIAKU Research Institute of Law, Politics and Justice Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK Tel: 44-79-4476-5923 E-mail: [email protected] OR ike.bvo06@yahoo
Posted on: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:00:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015