DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 5698

Ghana Not Sure if AfCFTA Can Deliver Them the Biggest Market in the Continent, Nigeria

1

Nigerians have been doing business in Ghana for years.  It was perfectly legal, and an absolute entitlement under the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Protocol.

Excerpts from the protocol affording rights to member citizens:

Article 3d) of the protocol:  the establishment of a common market through: i) the liberalization of trade by the abolition, among Member States, of customs duties levied on imports and exports, and the abolition among Member States, of non-tariff barriers in order to establish a free trade area at the Community level; ii) the adoption of a common external tariff and a common trade policy vis-à-vis third countries; iii) the removal, between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of persons, goods, service and capital, and to the right of residence and establishment; e) the establishment of an economic union through the adoption of common policies in the economic, financial social and cultural sectors, and the creation of a monetary union…. and …

3i) the harmonization of national investment codes leading to the adoption of a single Community investment code;

So what went wrong?

Well, it all started with an organization called ‘The Ghana Union of Traders Association (GUTA)’ , looking to leverage a Ghanaian law brought out in 2013 called the Ghana Investment Promotion  Centre Act (GIPC) 2013 (Act 865)

Subsection (2) of this law states:

‘A person who is not a citizen may engage in a trading enterprise if that person invests in the enterprise, not less than one million United States dollars in cash or goods and services relevant to the investments.

An enterprise referred to in subsection (2) shall employ at least twenty skilled Ghanaians’

The problem is, that the law was never intended to target individuals or companies from the ECOWAS community and was conceived to protect the Ghana local market, and its businesspeople, from exploitation by distant nations, particularly non-African.

However the wording of the Act was not sufficiently well defined, and this notionally criminalizes any non-Ghanaian, even ECOWAS citizens such as Nigerians, from operating in Ghana without bringing in the required capital, and/or failing to employ the required minimum of locals.

Initially, Ghanaian authorities more or less ignored the law when they saw the obvious disconnect, in respect to ECOWAS citizens in Ghana.

It is a global phenomenon that Police and other agencies with enforcement powers, are not obliged to prosecute each and every infringement they discover. They are entrusted by the nation they serve with the entitlement to exercise discretion.

There is a law in many countries called ‘jaywalking’, which is crossing a road on foot, without due care and attention, and in a manner that puts both oneself and other road users at risk. However, while road-crossing in an unsafe manner is quite common, it rarely gets prosecuted.

It is required of Police and Enforcement Agencies to use their experience and specialist skills with public engagement to understand infringement context, recognize mitigating circumstances and see gaps between what is on statute and what works on ground.

This is critical in their shepherding of the public in the adherence to laws.

However, as Nigerian small-medium businesses in Ghana began to give indigenes competition, conflicts began to appear. This was mostly in traditional market environments with businesses operating from converted container freight units, kiosks, and small ‘lock-up’ shops.

Then  GUTA began supporting its members to drive Nigerians out of their businesses quoting the law.

In August of last year, The General Secretary of the All Nigerian Community, Mr Isaac Osahon Ekhator, said some members of the association were contemplating leaving behind their goods and move back to Nigeria because of the difficulties they were facing following the closure of their shops.

He expressed surprise that their government did not seem concerned about their plight in Ghana and pointed out that if it were to be in another country, their government would come to their aid.

“On behalf of citizens of Nigeria in Ghana, we appeal to the Federal Republic of Nigeria to urgently consider this burning issue and promptly intervene to bring hope and lessen the plight of her citizens,” Mr Ekhator stated.

Nigeria responded by closing borders.

Parallel to this however, we have had the ongoing progress of AfCFTA taking various twists and turns.

In March 2018, President Muhammadu Buhari requested a committee to review the AfCFTA’s text, saying   ‘continental aspirations must complement Nigeria’s national interests’ and this especially means not permitting Nigeria to become ‘a dumping ground for finished goods’.

This followed on Nigeria’s refusal to sign the ECOWAS-EU Economic Partnership Agreement, and opposing Morocco’s ascension to the union at the end of 2017.

This is Nigeria’s current playbook –  to consolidate its economic power in West Africa through domestic market protectionism.

However, the second biggest market on the Continent, South Africa, has also backpedalled somewhat on AfCFTA.

My own concerns on AfCFTA are well noted, not on the principle which I broadly support, but on confines and boundaries being properly set up, so that it results in benefiting the member nations as intended, rather than loosening control measures regulating non-member actors to member markets.

I have been particularly vocal on the automotive sector.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/embed/feed/update/urn:li:share:6735258973328470016

‘GHANA – THE NEW BACKDOOR INTO NIGERIA FOR FOREIGN VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS’

 

Fast forward to the present, and a new report  a few days ago by BALARABE ALKASSIM for News Express

‘The Ghanaian Speaker, Alban Kingsford Sumana, says his country has raised a seven-man committee as its delegation to the Joint Committee of Eminent Persons of Legislature between it and Nigeria to end trade disputes and other issues’

They will interact with their Nigerian counterparts towards passing the “Ghana-Nigeria Friendship Act”, which is intended to be a bi-national trade agreement. The Act will then pass into both Ghanaian and Nigerian Law.

The act is also offering to mitigate Nigerians against the requirements of  GIPC Act 2013 (Act 865)

This happened speaking to House of Rep. in Abuja just Wednesday.

But you have to ask the obvious question…

If the #2 powerhouse in ECOWAS has to approach the #1  ECOWAS (and African) powerhouse for a bi-national trade agreement…

Doesn’t this leave AfCFTA looking rather toothless?

 

 

References and Acknowledgements (Not in main body text):

Ghanaian GIPC Act: gipc.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/GHANA-INVESTMENT-PROMOTION-CENTRE-GIPC-ACT-865.pdf

https://www.peacefmonline.com/pages/comment/features/202008/425647.php

thenationonlineng.net/one-million-dollars-levy-is-xenophobia-in-disguise-say-nigerian-traders-in-ghana

www.linkedin.com/posts/ndubuisi-ekekwe-36068210_the-ghanas-great-disintermediation-playbook-activity-6817047127974305792-kNMh

Revised ECOWAS Agreement: www3.nd.edu/~ggoertz/rei/rei260/rei260.23tt1.pdf

South Africa, Nigeria and the AfCFTA : www.africaportal.org/features/south-africa-nigeria-and-afcfta-6-key-questions-answered/

newsexpressngr.com/news/127704-Ghana-raises-cttee-with-Nigeria-to-end-trade-disputes

 

 

 

Take your FIRST STEP on something productive

1

For a baby, for an adult; for a company, for a nation; the most difficult step to take is the FIRST STEP. But if you summon the courage to do it, it is a magical feeling. You are more likely to move forward than fall backward. And just like that, you are out of the bounds of inaction. Take your FIRST STEP on something productive. This is a weekend to plan #Action.

It may not be perfect on day one but nothing great has ever been achieved until someone takes action. Take action and #build.

Happy weekend ahead…

Tekedia Capital Invests in Texas-Based Digital Bank for Immigrants

0

Tekedia Capital offers a specialty investment vehicle (or investment syndicate) which makes it possible for citizens, groups and organizations to co-invest in innovative startups and young companies in Africa and around the world. Capital from these investing entities are pooled together and then invested in a specific company or companies. 

I report that our Syndicate members have taken a position in an upcoming digital challenger bank which is based in Texas, USA. The startup focuses on immigrants and will launch with about 16,000 users, supporting about three dozen countries, next month.

We are building one of the most diversified holding companies. Today, we hold pieces of some of the most amazing technology companies operating in Africa. Join us.

To learn more about Tekedia Capital, join our Syndicate or just join our mailing list, click here.

Nigeria May Not Capture Value From Its Future Empires

1

The Nigerian stock market and the players are not ready for the future. The implication is huge: the domicile of Nigeria’s next level of wealth will be outside the nation. Yes, Delaware will remain the legal jurisdiction but Lagos has not demonstrated that it cares. How can eTranzact International Plc be valued at $21 million? CWG is even sub-$10 million.

By 2030, I expect 80% of the richest Nigerians to have made money from technology. Nigeria is having its finest cambrian moment on the formation of enduring companies. The last time we were this bold, on entrepreneurial capitalism, was in the early 1990s when some of Nigeria’s current  leading banks were established. 

But unlike those banks which today boost the local stock exchange, Nigeria’s future empires may not be found in the local bourse. And that is a challenging economic war ahead. Nigeria has been fixated with 5G, 4G, data, etc without paying attention to what matters: future economic capture.

Comment on LinkedIn Feed

Comment: Well I don’t quite agree with you on Nigerian stock market not being ready. What I believe is happening is that most of the companies that you are talking about have not yet gotten to where they would list their shares on the exchange. Nigerian exchange have demutualised, the exchange have capacity to raise funds but the new kids on the block do not only need funds. They need partners that would enable them to gain access to the global market. I believe that at a time in their growth they will need the exchange. Nigeria as a country has issues that if unresolved will make listing unattractive to investors. These include foreign exchange policy, insecurity, politicized regulators. These are factors that the exchange have no control over.

My Response: Certainly, I expected this comment since I did not link to the full piece. CWG Plc is worth about $8 million. eTransact about $20 million. Even though they are listed, I will not approve for any of our firms to be listed in Lagos if that is how the market will price them. The issue is not being listed, the issue is the exchange educating the investors and the nation doing what is critical for people to understand technology investments.

ETransact in America would be worth at least $150 million but Lagos cannot even price it up to $25m. The best investors are customers: the customers here are Nigerian people. And we need to get them into this new world.

Paystack was priced by Americans more than Wema, FCMB and Unity Bank combined. Would you have expected Paystack to pick $20million in Lagos compared with the $200 million Americans paid?

Why Trump’s Lawsuit Against Social Media Platforms is Futile

0

Just days after a federal judge halted Florida’s social media law, former President Donald Trump has sued Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and their chief executives, in a new attempt to restore his megaphone that was collectively placed under wrap by social media platforms.

It has added to GOP’s vigorous efforts to stop social media platforms from “conservative censorship,” but the move has been seen as another waste of time.

The cases are: Trump et al v Twitter Inc et al, 21-cv-22441, Trump et al v Facebook Inc et al, 21-cv-22440, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami) and Trump et al v YouTube LLC et al, 21-cv-61384, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).

Trump has been left with little means of reaching his supporters after his social media ban, following the chaos instigated by his utterances after the US presidential election. With his previous attempts to curtail big tech and social media platforms quashed, and his political future hanging on his ability to reach a wider audience, he is making one more move to restore his social media presence.

In a report on Wednesday, Bloomberg details how Trump’s lawsuit stands in the eyes of experts.

Billing the effort during a Wednesday press conference as a move to defend First Amendment rights, Trump filed three separate class-action lawsuits in federal court in Florida against the tech giants and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and Google’s Sundar Pichai.

The lawsuits seek court orders to restore his social-media accounts, along with punitive damages, to ensure other users can’t be banned or flagged by the tech giants. The legal team is being led by John P. Coale, a trial attorney involved in lawsuits against big tobacco companies.

“We’re going to hold big tech very accountable,” Trump said during the press conference at his Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey. “If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone.”

Twitter permanently banned Trump in January for his role in stoking the mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6 in a deadly riot to stop the counting of Electoral College votes for President Joe Biden. Facebook last month said Trump would remain suspended from its networks for at least two years, with the possibility of being reinstated in 2023 if risk to public safety has subsided.

YouTube, Google’s giant video service, also froze Trump’s account following the Jan. 6 riot. The former president’s videos are still accessible, but he isn’t permitted to post new videos. Susan Wojcicki, YouTube’s chief executive, has said that the company will reverse its policy when it decides that the “risk of violence has decreased,” without providing details.

Facebook, Google and Twitter declined to comment on the suits, which were criticized by tech-funded advocacy groups. NetChoice, whose members include Amazon and other tech companies, said the action shows a “deliberate misunderstanding of the First Amendment” and is without merit.

“President Trump has no case,” NetChoice CEO Steve DelBianco said in a release. “The First Amendment is designed to protect the media from the President, not the other way around.”

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Facebook, Twitter and Google, said in a statement that digital services have the right to enforce their terms of service and “frivolous class action litigation will not change the fact that users — even U.S. presidents — have to abide by the rules they agreed to.”

Joshua Davis, a professor at University of San Francisco’s law school, agreed Trump’s legal argument was “weak” but said politics may inspire some judges to rule differently.

Trump is very likely to lose the cases “on the legal merits,” he said. “Having said that, there are political movements afoot that probably make it attractive to conservative judges who I think are concerned about the effects of social media on conservative causes and also more liberal judges who are concerned about the power that social media commands.”

Trump and the Republican National Committee began blasting fundraising solicitations almost immediately, including one appeal seeking donations “to show your support for President Trump’s lawsuit against Big Tech.”

Trump is seeking to overturn a federal law that shields internet companies from liability for content posted by users. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms from lawsuits accusing them of unfairly removing posts or accounts, among other legal challenges. The First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing tech companies to leave up or take down certain categories of posts.

The companies are private and therefore not subject to First Amendment claims from users and have liability protections under Section 230. But in his lawsuits, Trump is arguing that the tech giants worked with the government to censor Americans and thus are “state actors” who can be sued.

The banishment of Trump by major tech platforms reignited Republican calls to revoke the legal shield, arguing that it has enabled social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to censor conservative viewpoints.

The lawsuits aren’t the first time Trump has taken aim at Section 230. While in office, he tried to get Congress to repeal it by threatening to veto a Defense Department spending bill. Democrats have also proposed bills to curtail the legal shield to encourage tech companies to more aggressively rid their platforms of bigotry, abuse, and harassment.

Tech companies have largely resisted changes to the law, fearing that the proliferation of lawsuits will force them to clamp down on the free-flowing user-generated content. However, both Zuckerberg and Dorsey have expressed openness in recent months to Section 230 reforms.

Without access to the broad reach afforded by social media giants, Trump has struggled to maintain an online presence. He shut down his blog-like “From the Desk of Donald J. Trump,” though he frequently sends out several press statements a day — often targeting fellow Republicans he believes are insufficiently loyal.

Trump recently stepped up his public activity by restarting rallies and making a trip to the southern U.S. border last week to criticize Biden’s immigration policies. He’s backing candidates in the 2022 midterm elections and actively opposing others. He has also held out the prospect of running again for president in 2024.

The former president has been teasing that he’ll launch a new platform that can’t remove him. He said on Dave Rubin’s “Rubin Report” podcast on June 25 that “there’s a lot of platforms out there, that’s what we’re looking at, getting the right platform, a perfect platform, and I think you’ll see something fairly soon.”

During his presidency, Trump used Twitter for everything from insulting rivals to major policy announcements, and he relied on Facebook especially to raise money from small-dollar donors.

A Florida law that was supposed to go into effect July 1 prohibiting social media platforms from suspending the accounts of political candidates was blocked by a federal judge. Likening the state’s law to “burning the house to roast a pig,” U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in Tallahassee said the legislation passed by a Republican legislature and a priority of Governor Ron DeSantis, violates the companies’ free speech rights.

To many others, Trump’s lawsuit is just another means of fundraising for his political engagements, as many of his supporters are already making donations in support of the lawsuit.