Brand, Nation and Truth: The Parable of the Apple

Good people, Great nation is the most generic description for a nation that anyone can imagine! It fails the crucial test of differentiation! It is the equivalent of what we refer to as communal properties. Every nation has a right to make that claim.

Continues here

N10 billion rocks Celtel/Zain Board: Otudeko leads directors against Bayo Ligali, others

As published in the September 01, Issue 32. ULD by ol’Victor Ojelabi

——————————————————————————

L-R, Oba Otudeko, Celtel logo, Bayo Ligali, Zain logo

The decision by the managing director of Zain, Mr. Bayo Ligali, to disregard the objection raised by some members of the board of directors of the company over a five year rent of a property at the Banana Island, Ikoyi, Lagos for a pricely sum of $27million (N3.1billion) has caused a bitter row among directors representing the interest of Celtel BV, the controversial majority shareholders of Zain and the minority shareholders.

The dissenting shareholders are aggrieved that rather than build its own head office with the sum, the Managing Director, was allegedly pressured by Zain’s parent company in far away Kwait to rent the Plot 2, Zone L, Banana Island property for the said sum even when Etisalat, a newly set up competitor of Zain, actually bought outrightly, a property of nearly the same size at $20.8 million.

The dissenting shareholders led by Mr. Oba Otudeko have filed papers at the Federal High Court, Lagos asking a reversal of the $27million rent for the building and a declaration to stop the re-branding of the company’s product from Celtel to Zain.

Otudeko had in different letters (which were also attached to the originating summon) to the Chairman of the Board of the company, Mr. Gamaliel Onosode, accused the majority shareholders of the company of wasting a total $58million (N6.7million) on rebranding the company within two years, adding up to a record five times the company has changed its name in its seven years existence. A sum of $30million (N3.4billion) was said to have been expended on rebranding the company from Vmobile to Celtel and just under two years thereafter, the same company is now expending a sum of $28million (N3.2billion) on its current rebranding effort which dissenting directors describe as wasteful for a company that is yet to declare dividend in the seven years of its existence.

——————————————————————————

Seven years since Econet joined other global system of telecommunication operators to usher in a new generation of mobile telephony in Nigeria, the Econet progenitor brand had since changed ownership four times within those seven years and with each change of ownership comes peculiar disagreements that have become celebrated issues of settlement at different courts of law in Nigeria and abroad.

For most telecommunication industry watchers, reviewing the seeming protracted bickering that continues to snap at the heels of the brand since its inception could be confounding. However, an industry analyst says it is best to qualify the genesis of the unremitting crises in the company as that of the right of ownership between Econet, the first operator of the GSM license and the two others, Vodacom and Celtel BV (now Zain) that had acquired majority stake in the company in quick succession.

While the outcome of who holds the right ownership of the company is yet in view, a new and perhaps, more troubling dimension have emerged, and again, aggrieved directors are heading for the court. At issue in the present conflict on the board of the company are allegations implying breaches of the underlying principles of corporate governance.

In court papers, shareholders of the company, including Mr. Oba Otudeko, Broad Communication Limited, and Foluke Otudeko are alleging that Celtel BV, the majority shareholders in Celtel Nigeria, through its appointed directors, had consistently foisted its desires on the company without regard to the appropriateness of the action or the investment held by other shareholders.

For a company that is yet to pay a dividend to its shareholders seven years since its inception, the complaining shareholders have alleged that a sum totaling $85million, about N10billion have been expended on projects that are questionable and unjustified.

The immediate precipitation of the current crises of confidence on the board of Celtel Nigeria was the decision of Celtel Nigeria’s Managing Director, Mr. Bayo Ligali to disregard the objection of some shareholders/directors of the company to pay a sum said to be about $27million (N3.1billion) to acquire a five- year leasehold of a property at Plot 2, Zone L, Banana Island, Ikoyi, Lagos, Nigeria.

Court documents averred that when Ligali proposed a resolution, at a board meeting, for the company to relocate from its present head office location at Plot1678, Olakunle Bakare Close, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria, to banana Island property, the proposal was vigorously put to debate with several directors querying the rationale for incurring such an expense. Besides, there were suggestions that it would make more sense and be more prudent for the company to expend such resources in erecting its own head office building rather than expending $27million on renting new premises.

Most of the board members also noted that the lease hold rentals proposed were prohibitively expensive and that the was not conducive. The director insisted that the shareholders who had not received any dividend from the company since inception would not approve of such wasteful expenditure.

Ligali and other representatives of Celtel BV on the board were said to have responded to these arguments against the proposed transaction was that the “Group,” had approved the transaction. By “Group” Ligali and those on his side were referring to the parent company of Celtel BV in Kuwait. The other directors were said to have made it clear that their fiduciary (the responsibility to look after someone else’s money in a correct way) duties were owed to Nigerian law and not to the so called “Group” and that the decisions with regard to the company should be taken in good faith by its board and not by any “Group” outside the company.

As a means of resolving the impasse, Mr. Gamaliel Onosode, Chairman of the board set up a committee of the board to look into the proposed lease transaction. The committee, known as the ad-hoc committee on the new head office building, was made up of four members of the board namely: Mr. Alex Otti (Chairman), Mr. Ligali Ayorinde, Ms Tsega Gebreyes and Mr. Paul Usoro.

The committee was said to have met on several occasions with the management of the company. The committee, in its report to the board, noted the discrepancy in the rents quoted in different documents presented to the board. It (the committee) indicated that while some quoted $1,050 per square meter, others quoted $1, 175 per square metre and yet some other documents had figures like $1,200 and $1,300. A management letter to the ad-hoc committee, in its report, said it considered that taxes were alien to rentals in Nigeria, thus, acting on the objection of the committee, the management came back to it (ad-hoc committee) with rent proposition devoid of the objectionable taxes of $1,050 per square metre. The ad-hoc committee also observed in its report that the proposed rent was out of tune with existing rent in Nigeria market.

What might have persuaded the committee in this regard was the revelation during the course of its investigation that Etisalat, a competitor company who had just set up in Nigeria, bought outrightly a property of over 5, 000 square metres in the same Banana Island at a price of $20.8million just about the same time Celtel’s management were negotiating to rent for five years at about $27million.

Besides, the ad-hoc committee also raised, among other issues, the potential health hazard for the occupants of the building. It is noted that the building is close to high tension wires while also observing that the building has only one lift with a maximum capacity of eight people. This, the committee, considered grossly inadequate.

In its conclusion, the committee submitted that it was unable to give final approval for the lease of the Banana Island property.

Even before the committee submitted its report to the full seating of the board, Ligali was said to have reported that he had the approval of the “Group” to go ahead and pay for the property irrespective of the outcome of the report of the committee. The dissenting directors protested. In a letter dated 7^th July, 2008 addressed to Mr. Onosode, chairman of the board, the directors, the dissenting directors alleged that the chairman “clandestinely and in collaboration with other directors proceeded to authorize the acquisition and have since made the payment of a sum of about $27million to cover the purported lease.”

In further protestation of what they describe as failure of corporate governance, the dissenting directors in the letter to the chairman, submitted that they considered the action “to have been both imprudent in gross violation of your fiduciary duties to the company and a diminution and erosion of our personal rights and interest as shareholders of the company.” They then asserted that “the board of directors is the organ entrusted with management of the affairs of the company and no director or group of directors is entitled to deprive that organ of its authority in the manner which you have done.

“The irresistible conclusion to be drawn from your action when viewed against the background of the extensive and negative findings of the committee set up to look into this matter”, the dissenting directors observed in the letter, “is that the decision to proceed with this transaction without waiting for the committee to submit its report and for the board to deliberate upon it was borne out of interest in other than those of the company.”

In the letter to Onosode which is supporting document to the sworn affidavit in the support of the originating summons, the dissenting directors also raised issues on the multiple brand names under which the company operated.

“As you must be aware”, the dissenting director observed in the letter, “the company has operated under four different brand names in its seven years of existence. First it was Econet Wireless Nigeria Limited, and then it was Vodacom Nigeria Limited, Vee Networks Limited and now Celtel Nigeria Limited. When the last re-branding to Celtel Nigeria Limited was mooted, we voted against the proposal on the basis that the acquisition of a majority shareholding in the company by Celtel Nigeria BV was still the subject of legal challenges and that it would be prudent to await the outcome of these challenges before expending resources on another rebranding exercise. Our protestation was ignored.

“Another re-branding has now been proposed at the last board meeting, this time to Zain, the new name of the parent company of Celtel Nigeria BV. Again, we had voted against this proposal and as on the previous occasion we have been outvoted.”

While noting that the benefits, if any, of the re-branding exercise would only ensure to the de facto majority shareholders whereas the burden of the rebranding in terms of costwould have to be shared by all the shareholder, the dissenting directors posited that the company had already changed its identity four times since it commenced business in 2001 and these changes of identity have been detrimental to the company business and confusing to its customers.

For dissenting directors, the cost of the re-branding exercise conducted since the purported acquisition of a majority in the company by Celtel Nigeria BV was disproportionate.

“The cost of re-branding carried out in 2006 was about $30million (N3.4billion) whilst the cost of the proposed re-brand to Zain is estimated at about $28million. All these costs are being incurred by a company that has failed to declare dividend in its seven years of existence,” the dissenting directors noted in the letter to the chairman.

The directors insisted that the current rebranding of Celtel to Zain is for the sole benefit of a shareholder group that is also in control of the technical and administrative management of the company.

They then averred that they considered the instance of the majority shareholders on proceeding with the re-branding to be unfairly prejudicial conduct which has a substantial and negative effect on the majority interest.

“If the majority shareholders feel a strong need to have the company rebranded to communicate its majority control to the public,” the dissenting directors reasoned, “there is no justification for the minority being compelled to share the burden and cost of this personal desire.”

In a veiled response to the allegation of the dissenting director, Ligali, during a chat with journalists made strenuous effort to justify the change of brand name to Zain; “Zain has expanded its network known as One Network 12 countries to 22 countries in both Africa and the Middle East. The 22 countries, according to Ligali, were across Africa and the Middle East thereby enabling the company’s customers in Nigeria to benefit from the globalization of the network.”

While highlighting the benefits of the globalization exercise, Ligali said the cost of operations would begin to go down due to the economies of scale of being a member of a large group.

What the Nigerian law says on protection of minority shareholders against illegal and oppressive conduct

Some of the section of the Company and Allied Matters Act on which the dissenting directors are pleading a redress so as to be protected against illegal and oppressive conducts are sections 300 and 303(1) which state:

Section 300: Without prejudice to the rights of members under sections 303 to 30S and sections 310 to 312 of this Act or other provisions of this Act, the court on the application of any member, may by injunction or declaration restrain the company from the following;

(a) entering into any transaction which is illegal or ultravires;

(b) purporting to do by ordinary resolution any act which by its constitution or the Act requires to be done by special resolution;

(c) any act or omission affecting the applicant’s individual rights as a member;

(d) committing fraud on either the company or the minority shareholders where the directors fail to take appropriate action to redress the wrong done;

(e) where a company meeting cannot be called in time to be of practical use in redressing a wrong done to the company or to minority shareholders; and

(f) where the directors are likely to benefit, or have profited or negligent or from their breach of duty.

Section 303(1): Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, an applicant may apply to the court for leave to bring an action in the name or on behalf of a company, or to intervene in an action in which the company is a party, for the purpose of prosecuting, defending or discontinuing the action on behalf of the company.

NIGERIAN ENTERPRENEURS SCARE: GOVERNMENT POLICIES THAT DESTROYED BIG-TIME BUSINESSES

Only the naïve entrepreneur in Nigeria is excited with the contemplation of floating a manufacturing concern. The wise ones, schooled in the experiences they have had to contend with in the ever changing dynamics of manufacturing and other investments tasks in the production lines have fled the scene to the shelter of trading and merchandising. This, for good reasons. The challenges of conducting manufacturing and related production activities in the country, though, besetting, are however benign when compared with the ease with which government oft volte-face on policies and action stamp out the promises or existence of a once upon-a-time manufacturing plant.
In this review, we track some of the celebrated industrial concerns that had been heckled into non-existence by government policy summersaults over the years, official actions or inaction that have become the scare of entrepreneurs.
Presidential Initiative on Cassava Production
In 2002, cassava suddenly gained national prominence following the pronouncement of a Presidential Initiative. The intent of the Initiative was to use cassava as the engine of growth in Nigeria. In the ordinary sense, the perception is that cassava is indigenous to the country, official statistics claim that Nigeria grows more cassava than any other country in the world with a production capacity of about 34 million metric tones a year.
The Presidential Initiative on Cassava production and export was initiated in the year 2002. The goal of the initiative was to promote cassava as a foreign exchange earner in Nigeria as well as to satisfy national demand. The challenge of the initiative was to make Nigeria earn 5 billion US dollars from value added cassava exports by 2007. The objectives of the Presidential Initiative on Cassava was to expand primary processing and utilisation to absorb the national cassava production glut, identify and develop new market opportunities for import substitution and export stimulate increased private sector investment in the establishment of export oriented Cassava industries, ensure the availability of clean (disease free) planting materials targeted at the emerging industries, increase the yield, productivity and expand annual production to achieve global cassava competitiveness, advocate for conducive policy and institutional reforms for the development of the Nigerian cassava sector and integrate the rural poor especially women and youths into the mainstream of the national economy.
The federal government under Chief Olusegun Obasanjo backed the initiative with funding support while encouraging banks and other government and multilateral agencies to drive the initiative through funding support.
Suffice to say that in response to the government drive, an industry revolving around cassava plantation and processing started emerging. Opportunity seekers were encouraged to invest because of the obvious outward flourish of government. The signs were obvious too, under the Presidential Initiative on Cassava, Nigeria mandated millers to integrate 10 percent cassava flour to wheat flour in making bread, a percentage mix of ethanol in refined petroleum motor spirit (petrol) in the nation’s refineries. These were moves aimed at increasing the utilization of the tuber crop.
Other statistics pointed to the profitability of entrepreneurial engagement in cassava related activities; the domestic demand for cassava starch is about 130,000 tonnes per annum and 200,000 tonnes per annum for high quality cassava flour. The domestic demand for ethanol is 180 million litres – all ethanol is imported In Nigeria. None of these markets are being satisfied by local supplier even till today in Nigeria.
Individual entrepreneurs were attracted into the field and the buzz made the rounds of great things happening in cassava production in Nigeria. Unfortunately, the fancy was just for a time, even before the exit of the Obasanjo’s regime, there were obvious signs of government distancing itself from the clarion call to cassava farming and processing, soon after the assumption of office of President Umar Musa Yar’Adua, immediate successor to Obasanjo, federal government articulation of the cassava initiative lost its din.
The lacklustre enforcement of the policy of mandating flour millers to integrate 10 percent cassava flour to wheat flour in making bread and other confectionaries were altogether abandoned. Of course, the idealism of the refinery blend of ethanol with petrol had been a mirage according to entrepreneurs that had found their ways into cassava processing. “The nation’s refineries only functioned epileptically, rather, the bulk of refined products are being imported from foreign refineries, so the idea of the ethanol could not have worked out at all.” A cassava processor said
The government of Yar’Adua nailed the fledgling sector by abandoning the ethos of the Obasanjo initiated presidential initiative on cassava initiative. Importations of cassava processed by products and all have been allowed in the country with import tariff of 20 percent value.
“Apparently, this has sounded the death knell for that endeavour.” Another cassava processor said. “Local conditions have made it difficult to produce and process cassava, the thinking was to protect the industry until such a time that it would be able to compete favourably with importation but I understand that government decided to make this reversal because of the need to mitigate increased food prices. But then, we think that it would have been better to strengthen cassava production and processing in the country to boost food supply and to earn more income for government through export.
In the final analysis, the fact is that most entrepreneurs have had their investment and efforts gone up in smoke, another promise subverted by inconsistent government policy shift.
NIGERIAN LAMP PLC
One of the outstanding business endeveavour the recently demised Chief Beyioku Adebowlale of the Adebowale Store fame would be remembered for is his Nigerian Lamp Industry Plc. A courageous indigenous effort to play in the main stream manufacturing sector, when Adebowale built the Nigerian Lamp plant in his native Epe in Lagos State, it was reported to be the first of its kind in Africa. The plant was equipped to manufacture light bulbs and fluorescent.
It is reported that Adebowale was encouraged to make a foray into the manufacturing effort away from his electronic products trading concern in the Adebowale Electronic Store by the positive outlook of government incentive for indigenous manufacturers to commit to the economy in the 1980s.
Unfortunately, by the time the plant came on stream, it was like hitting dirt on first day of commission, government had made a reversal on policy, rather than protect local industries, government lifted the restricted importation of bulbs and fluorescents tube and other lamp forms. The market place was immediately flooded with Asian and Far East Asian countries bulb brands, which were cheaper though low in quality.
Nigerian Lamp, unfortunately, had become a publicly quoted company, Nigerians had subscribed to is initial public offer, but with the influx of cheaper products and brands into the market, the company’s operation became blighted and soon after became literally comatose. The company that never took off for operation eventually was placed under a receiver manager. This officially announced the demise of the once upon a Time promising company.
ROKANA INDUSTRIES PLC
Rokana Industries, had, back in the late 1980s caught the attention of the dentistry world with its production of the uniquely styled Jordan tooth brush. The market penetration of the Rokana brand of tooth brush was fast and quite domineering. It is reported that in its first year of introduction, the Rokana brand had pushed other imported brands to the back of the shelves. Jodan tooth brush was, considered the authentic Nigerian brand though the brand is a British franchise.
The dominance of the brand won’t endure for long however, because the Federal Government felt no need to specifically outlaw the activities of importers who would rather import fake Jordan tooth brush into Nigeria than to import other brands.
This more or less killed the vibrancy of the brand in the market place, it is however to the credit of the endearing qualities of the brand that it still subsists till day despite the continuous import of its counterfeit. The limitation is that Rokana, the producing company which is also a publicly quoted company floated by the immediate past commerce minister in the Yar’Adua’s cabinet Mr. Charles Ugwuh, has remained more or less moribund on the stock exchange’s price listing as investors ignored it even when the stock market was upbeat.
DOYIN INDUSTRIES
Doyin Industries is still a flourishing concern, this would not have been so if the man behind the manufacturing concern had not been well grounded in the ways of manufacturing in Nigeria. Of course he had been badly burnt from his engagement with manufacturing.
Samuel Adedoyin, the man behind Doyin Industries started out in business as a trader and he made quite a success of it that he diversified into manufacturing of household and food items and body care products. By 1996 he mobilized credit to build an awesome factory to manufacture his company’s range of products, and he was daring enough to take on multi-national companies. Travails soon ensued, electricity limitation to power the factory and the credit sourcing for funding the factory project became a burden, the market was also flooded with cheaper products from Asian countries.
The operations of the company soon became hamstrung, credit issues from City Express Bank became a public embarrassment for the Kwara State born industrialist, eventually, a production line of the industry had to close down and workers lay off.
DUNLOP
Dunlop Nigeria Plc is the latest of once buoyant companies to hit the dirt. The company had endured the harsh economic environment and had over the years returned impressive earnings to investors in the company being a public quoted company a greater majority of 95 per cent of the company’s shares belongs to several state governments, public companies and no fewer than 93,000 private Nigerians.
In 1991, it acquired majority shareholding in PAMOL (Nigeria) Limited, a rubber producing company to ensure uninterrupted supply of the right quality natural rubber, a major raw material in tyre manufacturing.
The company pioneered the radial car tubeless tyres in West Africa; produced the first crossply tyre in tubeless in Nigerian market; was the first Nigerian tyre company to hold the E.C.E 30 Certificate, an export requirement for car tyres to Europe; and first manufacturing company in Africa (beside South Africa) to hold the ISO 9002 certification.
It would soon be revealed during the former minister of commerce visit to Dunlop factory late last year that the company was merely struggling to stay afloat. The managing director of the company had complained about infrastructural deficiency, especially energy (electricity and recently, gas outages) and import duty regimes, inconsistent tax regimes which combine to place local manufacturers at significant disadvantage.
A major gripe of the company was its N8 billion expansion into the Heavy Truck Radial segment which was frustrated by reversal of government policy on tariff for imported truck/bus tyres from 40 per cent to 10 per cent at the beginning of 2007. This according to the company’s officials, created unfair and inequitable advantages for importers of finished tyres.
The dichotomy between tariff for car tyres (50 per cent) and Truck/Bus tyres (10 per cent) is said to have been abused by importers, both in terms of tariff and haulage evasion.
The situation confers undue advantages on importation rather than local manufacturing, now, the company has declared its incapacity to continue manufacturing activities in the country. Unofficial source said it would resort to tyre importation with grave implications for the rubber from its subsidiary, Pamol.
FAMAD (FORMERLY BATA) PLC and LENNARDS NIGERIA PLC
Before the introduction of the Structural Adjustment Programme, Bata’s ubiquitous outlets were the ultimate in foot wear shopping for all ages, Bata with its lesser cousin, Lennards Nigeria Plc. After 1986, the promise of flourishing was effectively shut out of the footwear manufacturing outfits. Government could not stem smuggling activities.
Synthetic shoes from Dubai and other Asian countries and high quality leather foot wear from Europe smuggled large scale into Nigeria particularly suffocated indigenous production. Ironically, the nation’s export in their raw forms the materials needed for footwear manufacturing. The products are exported, refined, recycled and packaged abroad to be sent back to Nigeria as import.
Till date, no appropriate government policy has addressed the inadequacy in the sector that has turned FAMAD (BATA) and LENNARDS into moribund companies.
VOLKSWAGEN AND PAN NIGERIA
In the 1970s Nigerian was the centre of attraction in the African continent with its hosting of the Volkswagen and Peugeot Automobile Nigeria plants. Nigerians, before the economic deluge of the last quarter of 1986 were sure of brand new cars proudly assembled in Nigeria. The assembly plants were supposed to be transitional in the nation’s march to becoming a full fledged vehicle manufacturing country.
The dream was cut short by government policy. Government steel rolling mills could not produce an ounce to support the desire to attain full production capacity, just as the value of the naira had suddenly depreciated in the years running to the close of the 1980 decade, and government back in the days, unofficially gave the go ahead for the importation of second hand vehicle (Tokunbo) at outrageously low tariff without consideration for age of vehicle to be imported.

THE OBAMA PHENOMENON: HOW IT ALL STARTED

It is no longer news that humanity is today basking in the Obama Phenomenon which from all indications is set to alter the socio-political equations both in the United States and the world over. Obamas’ emergence as the 44^th president of the world’s sole super power is a thing that was unthinkable just some years back, more so, when his race is famous for anything but standard behavior. Worst still is the fact that his ‘ancestral home’, Africa, is notorious for an assemblage of poor leaders and political waywardness.

This is why I am still baffled that Kenya, barely out of a political violence that engulfed it as a result of electoral fraud, shamelessly declared a public holiday to celebrate Obama’s emergence on the world stage. You can also see those lazy folks in our national legislative houses, briefly suspending their theatrics of daily assailing our ears with one revelation or the other on frauds and pilfering of public funds and other sordid revelations from the probe of one ministry or the other, conducted in the most unserious manner, even in announcing their findings. Of course, we do know that such probes are more for public show-offs than solving our problems- probes that will never be concluded; these legislators are now taking turns to commend something they never will allow to happen here. What a shame!

Painfully, it is becoming obvious that we are about to miss the opportunity of learning the lessons embedded in this great change the Lord is thrusting on mankind through this messiah of the 21^st century. Rather than sit down to study this phenomenon and see how and why it worked and probably, seek to know how we can best apply it to our own pitiable situation, we are busy clicking wine glasses to drink to a state of stupor.

As a matter of challenge, we need to remind ourselves that OBAMA became what he is today because he had a vision rooted in dreams dreamt by a fellow American, turned it to a mission with a solid plan, worked on it with all he has, focused and selfless, carrying every one around him along through persuasion and strong character base that assailed even the strongest of hearts, and he landed finally to our admiration and maybe, for some, consternation.

The dream referred to above was dreamt by the late highly respected Rev. Martins Luther King Junior quoted below in part, which was the seed sown back in 1968 hence this phenomenon called Obama. It also shows that with resilience, patience, focus and belief rooted in the strong faith that for a dream to be realized, you must have the vision and be exceptionally focused, carrying every one on the way along. This is what makes Obama. It is what makes nations great and that is the difference between us and the person we are celebrating. The dream as in the speech is as follows:

“I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the emancipation proclamation. This momentous decree came as great beacon of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous day-break to end their midnight of captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free, one hundred years later; the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and chains of discrimination, one hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the mist of the vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself in exile in his own land.

So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense we have to our nation’s capital to cash a cheque. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the constitution and the declaration of independence, they were signing a promissory note for which every American fall heir. This note was the promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men will be guaranteed inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad cheque, a cheque which has come back marked insufficient-fund. But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vault of opportunities of this nation. And so we have come to cash this cheque, a cheque that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of ***.

I say to you today my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, we hold this truth to be self evident that all men are created-equal. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression; will be transformed into oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day in Alabama with its vicious racist with its government having its lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification- that one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers…”

Well, every society it is said has its own gifts. We do have in Africa our own Rev. Martins Luther King in the mould of Nkruma, Awolowo, Nyerere, even the Madiba himself, Mandela. They may have, unlike the great Dreamer, participated in the governing processes in their various domains and times. They may also have made mistakes along the way. But what happened to their dreams? And where is our OBAMA? Instructively, as it is in politics and governance, so it is in business. Which is why we are still searching for a Bill Gate, neither are we able to light our homes 48 years in nationhood. Not to worry, the Germans are here maybe to ease out the Chinese? That is the typical rigmarole that characterizes our way of doing things.

BETRAYAL! WHY OTEDOLA, DANGOTE FALL APART

The prospect of Mr. Femi Otedola and Alhaji Aliko Dangote engaging in direct business competition is already exciting Nigerians across the economic strata.

Until about two months ago, Otedola and Dangote have been known to be buddies in both the social and business senses. A source that had trailed the relationship between the two observed that though Dangote had had preeminence in the nation’s economic sphere before Otedola, but as soon as Otedola emerged in the big league of business owners about six years ago, he and Dangote became a pair both in public places and business alliances.

 In the early days of Transcorp, Otedola and Dangote were on board of the company, positioned back then as Nigeria’s answer to the dominance of the multinationals. Perhaps the most high profile business alliance between the two was the Blue Star Consortium, a special acquisition vehicle the two had used to acquire controlling stakes in the Port Harcourt and Kaduna Refineries. The acquisitions, were, however, revoked soon after Alhaji Umar Musa Yar’Adua assumed the office of the nation’s president.

Beside, though Dangote is known to be the face of Obajana Cement Company, a cement manufacturing concern propositioned to be the biggest in production capacity in Africa, Otedola, his friend has also been mentioned to be part of Obajana in terms of stake holdings.

But now, it would seem that the business collaboration between the two may have been put under pressure arising from what sources close to the very moneyed men describe as betrayal of trust.

 “I think it all has to do with the battle to acquire Chevron Plc, the downstream arm of Chevron Oil and Gas in Nigeria.” A source close to the two said. “Of course, you know by now that Femi had an intense interest in the acquisition of the company. The benefits to him were obvious, if he had acquired Chevron, he would have become the indisputable dominant operator in the downstream sector of the oil and gas industry. He would have merged Africa Petroleum, (a downstream behemoth in its own right after it was merged with Zenon) with Chevron Plc. With the two you can only imagine Femi’s competitive edge in the market place” The source revealed.

“Before the divestment of Chevron Oil and Gas from Chevron Plc was made public, Femi had apparently got information on the move and had shared his desire to buy Chevron with his friend, Dangote. I know that initially, Dangote was all in support of the scheme by Femi to acquire. But that was until Sayyu Dantata came into the picture.” The source said.

Sayyu Dantata, aside being a former business protégé of Dangote, is also related to Dangote, so it would seem natural that the balance of emotions by Dangote would tilt in favour of Sayyu.

“As it turned out, I am not too sure if Femi thought along that line. At least, he and Dangote had been at the Chevron thing for a while so there would have been no suspicion of Dangote’s shift of loyalty. So as the negotiation and bidding for Chevron proceeded, Femi constantly updated on his next moves and strategies. As issues evolved, he got to know that Sayyu’s MRS Group, the company that eventually won the bid was always outflanking him. The long and short of it is that there is the suspicion that Dangote might have availed his cousin, Sayyu of information Femi had shared with him.”

The same source said there had been a confrontation between the two where Dangote explained that Otedola could not have expected him to go the whole hog with him in consideration of his (Dangote) relationship with Sayyu.

“You know these people are matured men, you don’t expect them to bring their small fights to the public place, what I know is that Femi has decided to review and locate any opportunity in the economic space that enable him contribute to the economic advancement of the country. So all these talks about Femi taking on Dangote in competition by deciding to go into establishment of cement manufacturing plant is principally about expanding his business horizon. It has no direct bearing on the role Dangote played in the bid for Chevron.” The source explained.