Enough of Nigeria’s dependence on Diaspora remittances

Recommendations (3)

One, the federal government’s attention, continuous reference and dependence on diaspora remittances should stop forthwith. The continued decline in the polity, analysts have claimed, is a deliberate plan to frustrate our young and old locally, so that they can generate remittances when they move abroad. Unfortunately, and rightly so, the distrust between the populace and government continues to widen and rather than use the government’s prescribed channels for remittances, diasporas have continued to innovate on the remittances channel. Remittance cost to sub-Saharan Africa is the highest all over the world at about 8.3%. Today, a lot of Fx is stuck outside the country despite the Naira for dollar incentive to cushion the cost. Where remittances are not done using blockchain technologies, the P2P (Person/Peer to Person/Peer) strategy is adopted. This has continued to frustrate the effort of  the federal government and undermine their prescribed solutions. Should things continue the way they are right now (God forbid as we say in our local parlance), the estimated diaspora remittance of $34.89 billion for the year 2023 by PWC will be a fluke.

Two, the federal government should encourage the development of a sustainable and effective network. Scotland has Globalscot.com, a diaspora network created and managed by the Scottish government. Active participation and knowledge sharing by way of regular conferences through dedicated channels or portals should be encouraged and aggressively pursued.

Three, the federal government should deliberately promote investment in Nigeria. The ease of doing business has attempted to do this but beyond this, the government must deliberately encourage improvements to the business environment, governance, improve quality of public institutions, deliver quality service at the civil service, reduce perceptions of corruption, address insecurity, independent and speedy judiciary, clear, decisive and prompt (not delayed) penalty for wrongdoings, would not only facilitate investment but drive innovation. The sincerity with which the government is perceived to act in the interest of the citizens can appeal to the patriotism of the diaspora as seen in Israel, where they invest in infrastructure bonds. The Nigeria government, rather than borrow from other countries or multilateral organisations, can put their house in order and raise funding from the diaspora, to fund certain traceable projects and be ready to be held accountable.

Four, inclusion has been an elusive word, albeit mentioned with lip service, is seldom practised. Three types of inclusion are under focus here;

a). Electoral inclusion is a situation where the diaspora can take an active part in deciding the leadership in Nigeria. Many have blamed the government for lack of sincerity, claiming that for fear of not being able to promote malpractice, which characterizes Nigeria’s election, the government would never allow electoral inclusion for the diaspora.

b). Financial inclusion is another area where the diaspora claims neglect. Many Nigerians abroad, though willing, are yet to obtain their BVN which enables them to open and operate an account in Nigeria. Though there exists government and corporate attempts to enrol diasporas, analysts believe that the effort cannot yield the desired result until the government institutionalizes and tracks its impact.

c). Social and civic inclusion refers to NIN registration, issuance and renewal of international passports, etc, by the diaspora is a herculean task. They claim to have been ostracized either by omission or commission.

The above is certainly not rocket science as they exist in other climes. If with all the human resources we possess as a nation, we cannot accomplish and deliver basic services to the diaspora, then it will be difficult for the government to deny complicity in the allegation that it is deliberately frustrating the polity to instigate migration in droves to drive diaspora remittance volume upwards.

Five, the federal government should leave remittance appropriation to the discretion of beneficiaries, avoid setting the exchange rate at which the remittances should be converted and concentrate on other innovative ways of generating Fx. There is an adage that says you do not reap where you did not sow. If the government cannot give the average citizen hope of a better Nigeria thereby, prompting their migration, cannot provide support for them abroad, then, the rate at which they appropriate repatriated remittances should be at their discretion; except where there are clear wins for both parties amid a relationship devoid of suspicion.

Lastly, the federal government’s continuous insistence on superintending the exchange rate and other modalities have crippled the benefits and surplus hitherto diaspora remittance provides to the Nigerian economy. Having gone far on this road, the government should courageously make a U-turn and seek other ways that will cause our economy to flourish again with foreign exchange. Let us try something else. Enough!

Just in case you missed it. This is part 3 of a larger article with parts 1 and 2 that addressed global facts in diaspora remittances and a special focus on Nigeria’s experience with diaspora and remittances. They form a good background to these recommendations.

________________________________________________________________