See article on an event we organised recently...
http://nigeriahealthwatch.blogspot.com/2008/10/medical-mission-with-difference.html
Saturday, 1 November 2008
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
The state of Nigerian healthcare
I have just read an article by Mr Simon Kolawole of Thisday newspaper. Truth be told, I am not impressed by either Mr Kolawole's style or the newspaper's editorial rigour but he gave a very clear picture of many people's experience of the Nigerian healthcare system and hopefully ignited debate on the subject. There are very few people who will disagree that the system is in shambles and needs to be overhauled. No better signal of this is required than the fact that political leaders choose to get healthcare outside the country. Contrast that with the US where a Presidential candidate gets flack for owning foreign made cars.
There are several responses to the article that share the personal experiences of readers. In particular, I read of one person's loss of a limb in part because of what appears to be professional neglect and lack of resources. Just makes me wonder why it is so easy in our society to ignore the value of life.
Things just can't continue this way much longer. There has to be a change in the mindset somewhere along the line. People have to demand more and maybe a first step is for the media to mount a campaign on the entire health care system and make it the subject of conversation for the next 6 months to a year. If leaders will not lead in this matter, then maybe they should be led by others. The press can investigate the activities of the ministries and the government departments and make people uncomfortable with their actions. Professional bodies can start to demand more of their members in the quality of service they provide. The legal profession can influence creation of laws that punish the culprits for their failings. Patients can stop accepting bad service and either walk with their feet or be prepared to seek redress.
And I can continue to pursue my goal of transforming healthcare in Nigeria...
There are several responses to the article that share the personal experiences of readers. In particular, I read of one person's loss of a limb in part because of what appears to be professional neglect and lack of resources. Just makes me wonder why it is so easy in our society to ignore the value of life.
Things just can't continue this way much longer. There has to be a change in the mindset somewhere along the line. People have to demand more and maybe a first step is for the media to mount a campaign on the entire health care system and make it the subject of conversation for the next 6 months to a year. If leaders will not lead in this matter, then maybe they should be led by others. The press can investigate the activities of the ministries and the government departments and make people uncomfortable with their actions. Professional bodies can start to demand more of their members in the quality of service they provide. The legal profession can influence creation of laws that punish the culprits for their failings. Patients can stop accepting bad service and either walk with their feet or be prepared to seek redress.
And I can continue to pursue my goal of transforming healthcare in Nigeria...
Saturday, 6 September 2008
My first racist incident
I have always thought of racist actions as things that happened to other people. It just seemed like something that wouldn't happen to you if you had a certain appearance or comport yourself in a respectable way or you didn't roll with a wrong crowd or in the wrong place. Basically, it was something I was immune to. I never had problems at airports, and I was always treated with courtesy at service points. Having lived in London for the last 3 years, I haven't had any experience to dent my view that this is one of the most amazing cities to live in.
Unfortunately, last Sunday, I had a taste of the unpleasantness that is a racist incident. Seemed like any other Sunday morning as I walked from the car to the church I attend in Peckham. There was an Asian (likely Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshi) man - perhaps in his late thirties - walking with two youths behind me. One of the youths had been particularly noisy shouting on the street when suddenly, I heard him shout something to the effect "f$$k you, you black monkey". Now, being the only black person within sight, I was quite shocked and turned to face them. I asked to whom he was referring to and he responded that he was speaking to his cousin (the older man). The man apologised and they walked hurriedly away ahead of me.
This would have been funny if it wasn't such a serious incident. Funny because these people were of the small trader stock that lines the streets of Peckham and must have experienced the inconveniences of racism. So it is ironic. And without being immodest, these folks are many rungs below me on the economic ladder so I could not see a claim to superiority on his/their part. Apparently this didn't matter and just being a little bit light skinned qualified them to dish out abuse.
I also wondered what my response would have been if the young man had confirmed that his crude comments were directed at me. Would I have responded violently or walked away? I still wonder because each of these solutions presents a dilemma. Weakness would encourage this young man in his path to likely destruction while fighting would be wrong - and not just morally, given I was on my way to church. In any event, the boy helped me avoid making a choice.
So, I am no longer a virgin to racist abuse. Too bad, I enjoyed my period of blissful ignorance of the pain of being abused for my colour!
Unfortunately, last Sunday, I had a taste of the unpleasantness that is a racist incident. Seemed like any other Sunday morning as I walked from the car to the church I attend in Peckham. There was an Asian (likely Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshi) man - perhaps in his late thirties - walking with two youths behind me. One of the youths had been particularly noisy shouting on the street when suddenly, I heard him shout something to the effect "f$$k you, you black monkey". Now, being the only black person within sight, I was quite shocked and turned to face them. I asked to whom he was referring to and he responded that he was speaking to his cousin (the older man). The man apologised and they walked hurriedly away ahead of me.
This would have been funny if it wasn't such a serious incident. Funny because these people were of the small trader stock that lines the streets of Peckham and must have experienced the inconveniences of racism. So it is ironic. And without being immodest, these folks are many rungs below me on the economic ladder so I could not see a claim to superiority on his/their part. Apparently this didn't matter and just being a little bit light skinned qualified them to dish out abuse.
I also wondered what my response would have been if the young man had confirmed that his crude comments were directed at me. Would I have responded violently or walked away? I still wonder because each of these solutions presents a dilemma. Weakness would encourage this young man in his path to likely destruction while fighting would be wrong - and not just morally, given I was on my way to church. In any event, the boy helped me avoid making a choice.
So, I am no longer a virgin to racist abuse. Too bad, I enjoyed my period of blissful ignorance of the pain of being abused for my colour!
Sunday, 11 May 2008
Accepting responsibility for one's actions
I received the sad news recently of my cousin's passing in Nigeria. I was not aware that she had been ill or involved in any accidents so naturally I was quite shocked. Speaking with my mother and other relatives, I realised that the shock was felt across the family and everyone asked the same question: why and what happened?
I learnt later that Femi (my cousin) had been receiving fertility treatments at a leading IVF centre in Abuja and had complained one night of abdominal pains. She had been rushed to the hospital where she died shortly after. No explanations were provided by the hospital to her distraught husband and relatives.
Given that Femi was in her thirties and in otherwise good health, relatives insisted that an autopsy be performed to explain what went wrong. Her body was moved to one of the leading government hospitals in Abuja for an autopsy but when the family was told they would have to pay N 150,000 (about $1,200), the family reconsidered and has subsequently buried the corpse. The matter was thus settled and my family is grieving in silence.
I would probably not think more of this, but several things struck me about this: why would an IVF treatment centre lose an otherwise healthy patient and not want to find out what went wrong? Why is there no body - government or professional asking questions about this? Why did a grieving family have to pay such a price to find out whether a hospital or doctor failed in their duty of care? I subsequently learnt that the owner of the fertility clinic is also a senior officer of the government hospital where the autopsy was supposed to be performed. Could this be why the cost was so high? Was there an effort to protect the hospital involved in this death?
I am deeply disappointed in the way the system has failed my family in this case. I think that we deserve to hear what happened without the additional injustice of paying for the answers. Not just because it will ease our pain, but because this may contribute to saving someone else's life and sparing another family the grief we feel.
I think there is responsibility to be borne by the medical professionals involved in this case. This is one of those periods when I am ashamed to be associated with healthcare in Nigeria.
I learnt later that Femi (my cousin) had been receiving fertility treatments at a leading IVF centre in Abuja and had complained one night of abdominal pains. She had been rushed to the hospital where she died shortly after. No explanations were provided by the hospital to her distraught husband and relatives.
Given that Femi was in her thirties and in otherwise good health, relatives insisted that an autopsy be performed to explain what went wrong. Her body was moved to one of the leading government hospitals in Abuja for an autopsy but when the family was told they would have to pay N 150,000 (about $1,200), the family reconsidered and has subsequently buried the corpse. The matter was thus settled and my family is grieving in silence.
I would probably not think more of this, but several things struck me about this: why would an IVF treatment centre lose an otherwise healthy patient and not want to find out what went wrong? Why is there no body - government or professional asking questions about this? Why did a grieving family have to pay such a price to find out whether a hospital or doctor failed in their duty of care? I subsequently learnt that the owner of the fertility clinic is also a senior officer of the government hospital where the autopsy was supposed to be performed. Could this be why the cost was so high? Was there an effort to protect the hospital involved in this death?
I am deeply disappointed in the way the system has failed my family in this case. I think that we deserve to hear what happened without the additional injustice of paying for the answers. Not just because it will ease our pain, but because this may contribute to saving someone else's life and sparing another family the grief we feel.
I think there is responsibility to be borne by the medical professionals involved in this case. This is one of those periods when I am ashamed to be associated with healthcare in Nigeria.
Friday, 4 April 2008
The role of the media and their impact on public opinion
It has been a while since I got around to updating this blog, but something happened recently to prompt me. I have followed the coverage of the Heathrow Terminal 5 problems and have sympathy for all the people affected by the embarrassment that has replaced the excitement during its opening.
The rider to the report started with a fairly harsh assessment of the situation. Then a CNN reporter questioned a couple about their experience and the first comments from the couple were overwhelmingly negative. Then, the reporter made a comment sympathising with BA and then asked the couple how they had been treated and suddenly, their tone changed - they were very understanding of the airline's situation and even made positive comments about how they had been treated.
This surprised me and I wondered whether the reporter had in some way influenced the response from the couple. From subsequent coverage, I am inclined to think so. It just seemed like the media primed people for a stinging critique with their initial harsh assessment. Now I am not suggesting that BA/BAA didn't deserve this - I suspect I would be harsher if I had a similar experience. However, I still wonder: is the press' role one of informing on the basic facts or of expressing their opinions?
In 2005, I had an email exchange with Mr Simon Kolawole of ThisDay newspapers. At the height of the external debt forgiveness/repayment work one by the last administration, he had written (what I considered) an unbalanced criticism of the government's policy. I sent him an (I admit, very critical) response and he sent an incredible response. I reproduce both my email and his response here because it seemed to me again evidence of the media getting personally involved in situations that their profession only requires them to express factual views!
My original email:
Dear Sir,
I have read through your article in ThisDay (11 July 2005) and am quite surprised by your logic. At first, I thought it was just another case of journalists writing rubbish (and it wouldn't be the first time in your newspaper's history) but later, I realised that it really has to either be poor understanding of the concepts or just a plain desire to be different in a way that draws attention to oneself.
The first (and fundamental) concept is that when you borrow money, you have an obligation to repay under the terms as agreed. It really is that simple. We can debate the morality of rich nations collecting money that would have been applied to developing poorer nations, but if you loaned me money, you would expect me to pay back with the agreed interest. The fact that the lender peddles the loan or encourages the borrower to get indebted is insignificant. Your article suggests that Nigeria has the option of repudiating its debts (in agreement with our legislators' opinion) but this is really not true. While countries would not declare war on Nigeria for that reason alone, there are significant implications: to Nigeria and Nigerians. Just as an indication, I was unable to borrow money from UK banks to pay my school fees at a top business school because Nigeria has been classified as NCCT by OECD's money laundering assessment. Things like that can be more damaging than a simple refusal to advance Nigeria more loans.
The second concept is the time value of money. You say Nigeria has paid $1 billion yearly and should continue to do so. Well, do you believe that our total indebtedness will increase or reduce during that time with that payment schedule? By exiting the loan market at this time is our unique opportunity to relieve future generations of the burden of debt servicing. If you think about it, most governments (including the US government) prefer to borrow today, and let future generations repay. This government's departure is quite unusual. While I can not reasonably determine if it is altruistic, it is most un-African.
A third point to consider is: where is the $12 billion coming from? This is a truly unique time in Nigeria 's history where we have significant revenues arising from high oil prices. What has become of this sort of windfall in the past? And can you be sure that whoever our next set of leaders are (post 2007) will not simply "blow" our treasury chest? I think the government is doing the right thing by applying those resources now to give us a future clean slate.
The most disappointing part of your article is your slur on Mrs Okonjo-Iweala. I have always felt amazed when people who have not done a single identifiable thing for their country stand back and slander others who have put their hands and intellect into doing something for their fatherland. I see it all the time: journalists say nonsense about footballers, yet they have never put themselves forward to excel in any area on behalf of their country! Now here we have a true lady who has literally given everything she has to achieve this one objective for her nation and you suggest that she is sabotaging her nation’s interest for the sake of the World Bank. I believe that is lower than even a journalist would go. You can say she is misguided, you may even believe she is incompetent. But saying she is serving the interests of the World Bank is ridiculous.
In the end, every great leader seeks a legacy for itself. Obasanjo has achieved his in removing the debt burden from our country. We may remain poor, but we do not owe anyone. You may disagree with the terms, but removing $ 18 – 20 billion is a considerable feat (considering the scepticism of the international community to Nigeria ’s ‘plight’). Think about it.
Kind regards,
Gbenga
Mr Kolawole's response:
Thank you so much for your mail. I never knew I write so much rubbish until your very enlightening letter. I wish I had gone to a better school. Can you blame me? I lost my father at the age of 4 and I became a burden on my extended family immediately. You can understand my plight.
Despite my poor understanding of issues, however, you appeared not to have read my piece, or maybe you were a little bit drunk so early on Monday morning. If you take a loan, you must pay, yes? What of Iraq that has its debts cancelled? What of the Tsunami-infested countries? What of Argentina that repudiated its debt? I doubt if you are aware of anything that goes on in the world, beyong Ajegunle.
Time value for money? You don't seem to understand simple logic. If we invest $12 billion excess crude in the future of our children, what the hell is time value of money for creditors? Which will serve 135 million Nigerians better, $12 billion to Paris Club or to infrastructural development?
As for Okonjo-Iweala, you think she can do anything that will HURT the interest of World Bank and IMF? You must be an idiot to think that World Bank will send somebody to Obasanjo's government to do anything contrary to their interest. Soon, fuel price will be increased, according to the dictates of World Bank, which has been arguing that we remove subsidy on petroleum products for ages, yet US and Europe subsidise agriculture to the tune of 80% every year and the WB is ok with that. We can pay Paris Club $12 billion, but we can't subsidise fuel with less that $1billion.
You wrote: "I have always felt amazed when people who have not done a single identifiable thing for their country stand back and slander others who have put their hands and intellect into doing something for their fatherland..." I have no response to that, except that I'm sure you understand plurality of opinion in a democracy. Even under Abacha, we criticised him and his ministers.
By the way, do you know what my tomorrow may be? Who knows if I can contribute something to my fatherland too? Not what you think - I am not a politician and I will never accept political appointment. But as a journalist, I can stimulate debate, not this one-way praise-singing of a so-called debt relief that will hand over our oil fortune to a club of shylocks who have made too much money from our debts.
I sign off, Mr Wiseman.
The rider to the report started with a fairly harsh assessment of the situation. Then a CNN reporter questioned a couple about their experience and the first comments from the couple were overwhelmingly negative. Then, the reporter made a comment sympathising with BA and then asked the couple how they had been treated and suddenly, their tone changed - they were very understanding of the airline's situation and even made positive comments about how they had been treated.
This surprised me and I wondered whether the reporter had in some way influenced the response from the couple. From subsequent coverage, I am inclined to think so. It just seemed like the media primed people for a stinging critique with their initial harsh assessment. Now I am not suggesting that BA/BAA didn't deserve this - I suspect I would be harsher if I had a similar experience. However, I still wonder: is the press' role one of informing on the basic facts or of expressing their opinions?
In 2005, I had an email exchange with Mr Simon Kolawole of ThisDay newspapers. At the height of the external debt forgiveness/repayment work one by the last administration, he had written (what I considered) an unbalanced criticism of the government's policy. I sent him an (I admit, very critical) response and he sent an incredible response. I reproduce both my email and his response here because it seemed to me again evidence of the media getting personally involved in situations that their profession only requires them to express factual views!
My original email:
Dear Sir,
I have read through your article in ThisDay (11 July 2005) and am quite surprised by your logic. At first, I thought it was just another case of journalists writing rubbish (and it wouldn't be the first time in your newspaper's history) but later, I realised that it really has to either be poor understanding of the concepts or just a plain desire to be different in a way that draws attention to oneself.
The first (and fundamental) concept is that when you borrow money, you have an obligation to repay under the terms as agreed. It really is that simple. We can debate the morality of rich nations collecting money that would have been applied to developing poorer nations, but if you loaned me money, you would expect me to pay back with the agreed interest. The fact that the lender peddles the loan or encourages the borrower to get indebted is insignificant. Your article suggests that Nigeria has the option of repudiating its debts (in agreement with our legislators' opinion) but this is really not true. While countries would not declare war on Nigeria for that reason alone, there are significant implications: to Nigeria and Nigerians. Just as an indication, I was unable to borrow money from UK banks to pay my school fees at a top business school because Nigeria has been classified as NCCT by OECD's money laundering assessment. Things like that can be more damaging than a simple refusal to advance Nigeria more loans.
The second concept is the time value of money. You say Nigeria has paid $1 billion yearly and should continue to do so. Well, do you believe that our total indebtedness will increase or reduce during that time with that payment schedule? By exiting the loan market at this time is our unique opportunity to relieve future generations of the burden of debt servicing. If you think about it, most governments (including the US government) prefer to borrow today, and let future generations repay. This government's departure is quite unusual. While I can not reasonably determine if it is altruistic, it is most un-African.
A third point to consider is: where is the $12 billion coming from? This is a truly unique time in Nigeria 's history where we have significant revenues arising from high oil prices. What has become of this sort of windfall in the past? And can you be sure that whoever our next set of leaders are (post 2007) will not simply "blow" our treasury chest? I think the government is doing the right thing by applying those resources now to give us a future clean slate.
The most disappointing part of your article is your slur on Mrs Okonjo-Iweala. I have always felt amazed when people who have not done a single identifiable thing for their country stand back and slander others who have put their hands and intellect into doing something for their fatherland. I see it all the time: journalists say nonsense about footballers, yet they have never put themselves forward to excel in any area on behalf of their country! Now here we have a true lady who has literally given everything she has to achieve this one objective for her nation and you suggest that she is sabotaging her nation’s interest for the sake of the World Bank. I believe that is lower than even a journalist would go. You can say she is misguided, you may even believe she is incompetent. But saying she is serving the interests of the World Bank is ridiculous.
In the end, every great leader seeks a legacy for itself. Obasanjo has achieved his in removing the debt burden from our country. We may remain poor, but we do not owe anyone. You may disagree with the terms, but removing $ 18 – 20 billion is a considerable feat (considering the scepticism of the international community to Nigeria ’s ‘plight’). Think about it.
Kind regards,
Gbenga
Mr Kolawole's response:
Thank you so much for your mail. I never knew I write so much rubbish until your very enlightening letter. I wish I had gone to a better school. Can you blame me? I lost my father at the age of 4 and I became a burden on my extended family immediately. You can understand my plight.
Despite my poor understanding of issues, however, you appeared not to have read my piece, or maybe you were a little bit drunk so early on Monday morning. If you take a loan, you must pay, yes? What of Iraq that has its debts cancelled? What of the Tsunami-infested countries? What of Argentina that repudiated its debt? I doubt if you are aware of anything that goes on in the world, beyong Ajegunle.
Time value for money? You don't seem to understand simple logic. If we invest $12 billion excess crude in the future of our children, what the hell is time value of money for creditors? Which will serve 135 million Nigerians better, $12 billion to Paris Club or to infrastructural development?
As for Okonjo-Iweala, you think she can do anything that will HURT the interest of World Bank and IMF? You must be an idiot to think that World Bank will send somebody to Obasanjo's government to do anything contrary to their interest. Soon, fuel price will be increased, according to the dictates of World Bank, which has been arguing that we remove subsidy on petroleum products for ages, yet US and Europe subsidise agriculture to the tune of 80% every year and the WB is ok with that. We can pay Paris Club $12 billion, but we can't subsidise fuel with less that $1billion.
You wrote: "I have always felt amazed when people who have not done a single identifiable thing for their country stand back and slander others who have put their hands and intellect into doing something for their fatherland..." I have no response to that, except that I'm sure you understand plurality of opinion in a democracy. Even under Abacha, we criticised him and his ministers.
By the way, do you know what my tomorrow may be? Who knows if I can contribute something to my fatherland too? Not what you think - I am not a politician and I will never accept political appointment. But as a journalist, I can stimulate debate, not this one-way praise-singing of a so-called debt relief that will hand over our oil fortune to a club of shylocks who have made too much money from our debts.
I sign off, Mr Wiseman.
Saturday, 23 February 2008
Improving surgical skills in Africa
I spent a delightful day recently in discussions with three individuals who are passionate about improving healthcare in Africa. The irony though, is that none of these individuals are African.
First person was my boss. Ok, so I have recently received my annual bonus but that only makes me ambivalent about praising him. The fact is, he has spent most of his professional life pursuing interests aimed at improving healthcare in Africa. These include sponsoring several training programs, funding training centres and institutes, channelling J&J corporate contributions to areas of need in Africa and supporting the surgical colleges of East and West Africa.
Second individual we were meeting is Professor Chris Lavy, an orthopaedic surgeon at University of Oxford. I have not met many people who have the energy and passion for doing things in Africa with an African perspective and he is certainly one. He set up an Orthopaedic hospital in Malawi many years back and is focused on helping children walk. He was also one of the founders of the COSECSA - College of Surgeons of East, Central and Southern Africa and has been a key supporter of their activities. We spoke about how to increase the number of surgeons produced in and practicing within the region. It is interesting to learn how much commitment there is among the African surgeons in the region to expanding access to surgical care in the region. Prof Lavy mentioned that he has passed on management of his hospital to another generation of managers to enable it grow and thrive in his absence... That is amazing leadership!
And finally, the three of us were gathered to attend a meeting with Baroness Lynda Chalker. I first heard Baroness Chalker's name during a visit she made to Nigeria while she was in government and my overwhelming memory of her (likely formed by media coverage) was of an extraordinarily powerful and tough lady! I have subsequently heard her speak at a Botswana investment conference and I was really impressed by her knowledge of and interest in Africa. None of these compare to the admiration I developed from meeting her and hearing from close quarters about her lifetime of service, and her devotion to the African continent. She had a lot of ideas on how COSECSA can achieve its goals and it was a good meeting. And during dinner, I found that she has a good sense of humour as well!
I came away from the meetings with all three people with a sense that Africa has many friends but that if the same passion that is present in those friends can infect a greater fraction of African leaders, there will be far more change than any amount of aid can produce.
First person was my boss. Ok, so I have recently received my annual bonus but that only makes me ambivalent about praising him. The fact is, he has spent most of his professional life pursuing interests aimed at improving healthcare in Africa. These include sponsoring several training programs, funding training centres and institutes, channelling J&J corporate contributions to areas of need in Africa and supporting the surgical colleges of East and West Africa.
Second individual we were meeting is Professor Chris Lavy, an orthopaedic surgeon at University of Oxford. I have not met many people who have the energy and passion for doing things in Africa with an African perspective and he is certainly one. He set up an Orthopaedic hospital in Malawi many years back and is focused on helping children walk. He was also one of the founders of the COSECSA - College of Surgeons of East, Central and Southern Africa and has been a key supporter of their activities. We spoke about how to increase the number of surgeons produced in and practicing within the region. It is interesting to learn how much commitment there is among the African surgeons in the region to expanding access to surgical care in the region. Prof Lavy mentioned that he has passed on management of his hospital to another generation of managers to enable it grow and thrive in his absence... That is amazing leadership!
And finally, the three of us were gathered to attend a meeting with Baroness Lynda Chalker. I first heard Baroness Chalker's name during a visit she made to Nigeria while she was in government and my overwhelming memory of her (likely formed by media coverage) was of an extraordinarily powerful and tough lady! I have subsequently heard her speak at a Botswana investment conference and I was really impressed by her knowledge of and interest in Africa. None of these compare to the admiration I developed from meeting her and hearing from close quarters about her lifetime of service, and her devotion to the African continent. She had a lot of ideas on how COSECSA can achieve its goals and it was a good meeting. And during dinner, I found that she has a good sense of humour as well!
I came away from the meetings with all three people with a sense that Africa has many friends but that if the same passion that is present in those friends can infect a greater fraction of African leaders, there will be far more change than any amount of aid can produce.
Monday, 18 February 2008
Between Ghana and Nigeria - caliberation using African countries
I have just returned to London following two weeks visiting Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone. During my visit to Freetown, my host described the country as being somewhere between Ghana and Nigeria. I found this description quite interesting and have given it some thought since I first heard it.
First, I loved Freetown. Beyond the anxiety of riding on a helicopter from the airport to the city, it felt a lot like home. I found it interesting that a lot of people had Nigerian names and the Creole sounded a lot like Nigerian pidgin English (not the Warri type though!). Their mountainous landscape made for spectacular views and their unspoiled beaches were amazing. Driving up the hills was quite nervous given the ever-present threat of falling off a cliff, but otherwise, it was fun.
The reason though that I found the description (between Ghana and Nigeria) interesting is that in this statement, I heard all that was good and bad about Nigeria. For a country just emerging from a bruising civil war, I felt remarkably safe. Power supply was erratic and a lot of people were clearly unemployed and poor. Yet, the people were warm and friendly. I would certainly go back again.
I was in Freetown attending a conference of the West African College of Surgeons. The conference itself was very successful - credit to the organising committee and I got to meet the Sierra Leonean president (if his walking past me with a smile admiring my exhibition stand qualifies as meeting him). This gathering of the cream of West Africa's health care professionals highlighted Africa's healthcare manpower challenges. IFC's recently published report (see http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/healthinafrica.nsf/Content/FullReport) show that a lot of private sector participation is required to improve healthcare in the continent. I look forward to being part of that improvement.
Between Nigeria and Ghana. I wish Nigeria was a lot more like Ghana! The spirit of the Ghanaian team at the Cup of Nations was commendable even if the talent to deliver was not available. The food, the warm people, the exciting nightlife, the... Great country Ghana!
First, I loved Freetown. Beyond the anxiety of riding on a helicopter from the airport to the city, it felt a lot like home. I found it interesting that a lot of people had Nigerian names and the Creole sounded a lot like Nigerian pidgin English (not the Warri type though!). Their mountainous landscape made for spectacular views and their unspoiled beaches were amazing. Driving up the hills was quite nervous given the ever-present threat of falling off a cliff, but otherwise, it was fun.
The reason though that I found the description (between Ghana and Nigeria) interesting is that in this statement, I heard all that was good and bad about Nigeria. For a country just emerging from a bruising civil war, I felt remarkably safe. Power supply was erratic and a lot of people were clearly unemployed and poor. Yet, the people were warm and friendly. I would certainly go back again.
I was in Freetown attending a conference of the West African College of Surgeons. The conference itself was very successful - credit to the organising committee and I got to meet the Sierra Leonean president (if his walking past me with a smile admiring my exhibition stand qualifies as meeting him). This gathering of the cream of West Africa's health care professionals highlighted Africa's healthcare manpower challenges. IFC's recently published report (see http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/healthinafrica.nsf/Content/FullReport) show that a lot of private sector participation is required to improve healthcare in the continent. I look forward to being part of that improvement.
Between Nigeria and Ghana. I wish Nigeria was a lot more like Ghana! The spirit of the Ghanaian team at the Cup of Nations was commendable even if the talent to deliver was not available. The food, the warm people, the exciting nightlife, the... Great country Ghana!
Re: Time to Dis-Virgin Nigeria
I have followed the Virgin Nigeria/MMA2 issue with interest and experience a mixture of amusement, surprise and disappointment both at the dispute and the coverage it has received in the media. In a piece by a Mr Bello-Barkindo in Thisday Newspaper, I am really quite shocked.
To state my position on the issue, I feel that in a dispute as this one where there is a legal basis (MOU signed by the Nigerian government) for Virgin Nigeria to hold on to its position, the government should be looking for a strategic solution rather than trying to coerce the airline into compliance. Quite simply, the Nigerian government has more to lose than the airline. In particular, the government's credibility as a respecter of agreements entered into is at stake and this extends beyond the immediate conflict. In that situation, I would try to negotiate a solution with the airline, which would probably include a pay-off and some other concessions. To deny that a move away from the MMA will affect the airport hub model is amusing because the complexity of integrating operations across the physically separate premises for passengers, the airlines and ground handling is probably exponentially more than from operating in one site. Hence, Virgin Nigeria is being asked to make a move that will potentially affect their commercial performance and quite rightly is resisting the move. The best approach in my view for the Nigerian government is to do the business impact analysis that Virgin Nigeria presumably is performing and figure out ways to make the relocation attractive to the airline.
I also own up to being a fan of economics and game theory and make assumptions that individuals (or organisations) tend to make rational choices that are in their own self or commercial interest.
In a world where cynicism about the role of the media (is it true reporting or news placement by spin doctors?) I find reporting on this issue really more emotional than factual. I haven’t read anyone present an interview with an independent aviation operations expert; financial expert and/or a credible airline industry person. By credible and independent, I assume firstly that they know what they’re speaking about. Rather, I am reading Mr Bello-Barkindo’s piece, which is a mix of excited activism; poor analysis and unsupported allegations.
I am not an expert on airport safety so cannot comment on the safety or suitability of the MM2. I have flown through there as a passenger and found it sufficiently attractive and certainly a whole lot better than the old airport (and perhaps in some respects even better than the MMA). Unless any contrary evidence is supplied, I have to assume that Virgin Nigeria would only refuse to move if it has a genuine reason to. And it is difficult to dismiss their concerns about safety for two reasons: regardless of ownership structure, the airline bears the Virgin name and so the brand owners will be extremely reluctant to jeoperdise their reputation (Nigeria’s air safety reputation over the last few years is less than inspiring). Second, the investment by Virgin in the airline – both for local and international flights is at risk if any safety issues arose from either side. As a rational investor, I would take every legitimate step to protect the airline’s safety record first before any other consideration.
The problem for the Nigerian government is that the claim about airport security is not credible. Unless it can point to security lapses caused by Virgin’s presence or even a more general security threat at the airport, how does it explain its original willingness to allow the airline operate from MMA? National security is a vague term but surely suggests that the government perceives some type of threat. Other countries deal with this threat by tightening security at the airport not kicking out airlines! My suspicion is that a claim of expanding capacity by relocating local flights would have more traction.
Taking some of the issues Mr Bello-Barkindo raised in turn:
Why would an airline want to “…bury… the beauty of MM2…”? What evidence does he have of this? And what rational reason can he supply?
He says Virgin Nigeria was given a “superfluous concession”. What does this mean? Was the right to operate flights from MMA a “concession”? If this was considered a concession, why weren’t clauses inserted in the agreement that gave the government opt outs?
In a business transaction, I am shocked that a journalist would describe the Nigerian representatives as “magnanimous”. If this is correct, then all those involved were either incompetent or worse: saboteurs. Their job was to secure the best possible deal for the country and so their brief did not allow for magnanimity.
I sense that Mr Bello-Barkindo is suggesting that by moving Virgin Nigeria to MM2, the Nigerian government is withdrawing an unfair advantage the airline currently enjoys over other local airline operators. I am inclined to agree with this because international passengers (less price sensitive and paying foreign currency) are less likely to leave MMA to catch flights on the other airlines. I think this is a legitimate concern but again, this should have been considered at the point of initial negotiation. In any case, Virgin Nigeria’s profits are shared with the Nigerian government (and other Nigerian shareholders) so it perhaps has an incentive to promote this advantage.
I think the most absurd part of Mr Bello-Barkindo’s write up is his claim that “…it feels entitled to a special treatment as an old colonial master. It also does not wish Nigeria well…” He also accuses Mr Branson of interference. For me, this is the kind of ‘cop – out’ that unenlightened individuals latch onto whenever they wish to explain away their own short comings. I expect that a journalist would rise above this and stick to facts. A problem of this claim is that given the influence the media have on public perception, it propagates the kind of unnecessary animosity that hurts Nigeria’s efforts at being an investment destination.
It is unfortunate that Mr Bello-Barkindo made racist allegations against Virgin Nigeria and I hope that he is able to support this with evidence. He says the airline applied stringent rules – presumably designed to exclude Nigerian pilots. Are those rules different from the ones applied by Virgin in other countries? I am amazed that on the issue of safety, a journalist will be so flippant. Given the incidents of the last 3 years and the low level of trust in Nigerian air travel, I suspect that most people would avoid flying in aircraft where pilots hold inferior qualifications to others. It does injustice to the families of those who have perished in Nigerian air disasters to say pilots should be allowed to fly aircraft when they have not been properly trained (just because the Nigerian aviation industry is comatose!). Hope Mr Bello-Barkindo won’t mind his tailor perform heart surgery on him given that open-heart surgery is not currently performed in Nigeria.
There are several other unsubstantiated claims made in the write up which could be criticised but I feel the point is clear – people like Mr Bello-Barkindo do not help in resolving this matter. Instead, they fail in their roles as journalist and whip up sentiments that in addition to complicating the immediate issues create problems that last long after Virgin Nigeria and the Nigerian government kiss and make up.
To state my position on the issue, I feel that in a dispute as this one where there is a legal basis (MOU signed by the Nigerian government) for Virgin Nigeria to hold on to its position, the government should be looking for a strategic solution rather than trying to coerce the airline into compliance. Quite simply, the Nigerian government has more to lose than the airline. In particular, the government's credibility as a respecter of agreements entered into is at stake and this extends beyond the immediate conflict. In that situation, I would try to negotiate a solution with the airline, which would probably include a pay-off and some other concessions. To deny that a move away from the MMA will affect the airport hub model is amusing because the complexity of integrating operations across the physically separate premises for passengers, the airlines and ground handling is probably exponentially more than from operating in one site. Hence, Virgin Nigeria is being asked to make a move that will potentially affect their commercial performance and quite rightly is resisting the move. The best approach in my view for the Nigerian government is to do the business impact analysis that Virgin Nigeria presumably is performing and figure out ways to make the relocation attractive to the airline.
I also own up to being a fan of economics and game theory and make assumptions that individuals (or organisations) tend to make rational choices that are in their own self or commercial interest.
In a world where cynicism about the role of the media (is it true reporting or news placement by spin doctors?) I find reporting on this issue really more emotional than factual. I haven’t read anyone present an interview with an independent aviation operations expert; financial expert and/or a credible airline industry person. By credible and independent, I assume firstly that they know what they’re speaking about. Rather, I am reading Mr Bello-Barkindo’s piece, which is a mix of excited activism; poor analysis and unsupported allegations.
I am not an expert on airport safety so cannot comment on the safety or suitability of the MM2. I have flown through there as a passenger and found it sufficiently attractive and certainly a whole lot better than the old airport (and perhaps in some respects even better than the MMA). Unless any contrary evidence is supplied, I have to assume that Virgin Nigeria would only refuse to move if it has a genuine reason to. And it is difficult to dismiss their concerns about safety for two reasons: regardless of ownership structure, the airline bears the Virgin name and so the brand owners will be extremely reluctant to jeoperdise their reputation (Nigeria’s air safety reputation over the last few years is less than inspiring). Second, the investment by Virgin in the airline – both for local and international flights is at risk if any safety issues arose from either side. As a rational investor, I would take every legitimate step to protect the airline’s safety record first before any other consideration.
The problem for the Nigerian government is that the claim about airport security is not credible. Unless it can point to security lapses caused by Virgin’s presence or even a more general security threat at the airport, how does it explain its original willingness to allow the airline operate from MMA? National security is a vague term but surely suggests that the government perceives some type of threat. Other countries deal with this threat by tightening security at the airport not kicking out airlines! My suspicion is that a claim of expanding capacity by relocating local flights would have more traction.
Taking some of the issues Mr Bello-Barkindo raised in turn:
Why would an airline want to “…bury… the beauty of MM2…”? What evidence does he have of this? And what rational reason can he supply?
He says Virgin Nigeria was given a “superfluous concession”. What does this mean? Was the right to operate flights from MMA a “concession”? If this was considered a concession, why weren’t clauses inserted in the agreement that gave the government opt outs?
In a business transaction, I am shocked that a journalist would describe the Nigerian representatives as “magnanimous”. If this is correct, then all those involved were either incompetent or worse: saboteurs. Their job was to secure the best possible deal for the country and so their brief did not allow for magnanimity.
I sense that Mr Bello-Barkindo is suggesting that by moving Virgin Nigeria to MM2, the Nigerian government is withdrawing an unfair advantage the airline currently enjoys over other local airline operators. I am inclined to agree with this because international passengers (less price sensitive and paying foreign currency) are less likely to leave MMA to catch flights on the other airlines. I think this is a legitimate concern but again, this should have been considered at the point of initial negotiation. In any case, Virgin Nigeria’s profits are shared with the Nigerian government (and other Nigerian shareholders) so it perhaps has an incentive to promote this advantage.
I think the most absurd part of Mr Bello-Barkindo’s write up is his claim that “…it feels entitled to a special treatment as an old colonial master. It also does not wish Nigeria well…” He also accuses Mr Branson of interference. For me, this is the kind of ‘cop – out’ that unenlightened individuals latch onto whenever they wish to explain away their own short comings. I expect that a journalist would rise above this and stick to facts. A problem of this claim is that given the influence the media have on public perception, it propagates the kind of unnecessary animosity that hurts Nigeria’s efforts at being an investment destination.
It is unfortunate that Mr Bello-Barkindo made racist allegations against Virgin Nigeria and I hope that he is able to support this with evidence. He says the airline applied stringent rules – presumably designed to exclude Nigerian pilots. Are those rules different from the ones applied by Virgin in other countries? I am amazed that on the issue of safety, a journalist will be so flippant. Given the incidents of the last 3 years and the low level of trust in Nigerian air travel, I suspect that most people would avoid flying in aircraft where pilots hold inferior qualifications to others. It does injustice to the families of those who have perished in Nigerian air disasters to say pilots should be allowed to fly aircraft when they have not been properly trained (just because the Nigerian aviation industry is comatose!). Hope Mr Bello-Barkindo won’t mind his tailor perform heart surgery on him given that open-heart surgery is not currently performed in Nigeria.
There are several other unsubstantiated claims made in the write up which could be criticised but I feel the point is clear – people like Mr Bello-Barkindo do not help in resolving this matter. Instead, they fail in their roles as journalist and whip up sentiments that in addition to complicating the immediate issues create problems that last long after Virgin Nigeria and the Nigerian government kiss and make up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
