Atiku And Makinde’s Love For Liquidating Legacy Assets | Maroof Asudemade

One of the most troubling features of Nigeria’s political industry is the tendency of some leaders to confuse the disposal of public assets with economic progress. Rather than demonstrate the capacity to revive industries, rehabilitate abandoned facilities and create new opportunities, they appear more comfortable selling inherited assets and leaving future generations to bear the consequences.

The privatisation record associated with former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and Governor Seyi Makinde’s disposal and redevelopment of public properties in Oyo State raise serious questions about this approach to governance. Between 1999 and 2007, Atiku served as Vice-President and Chairman of the National Council on Privatisation under President Olusegun Obasanjo. During that period, Nigeria embarked on an extensive privatisation programme that transferred stakes in numerous public enterprises to private investors.

Among the major industrial assets disposed of or affected by privatisation and related transactions were the Delta Steel Company, Aluminium Smelter Company of Nigeria (ALSCON), Osogbo Steel Rolling Company, Jos Steel Rolling Company, Katsina Steel Rolling Company and the National Fertiliser Company of Nigeria (NAFCON). Other prominent transactions involved Nigerian telecommunications, petroleum marketing, hotels and port facilities. The consequences demand serious attention.

In February 2025, the Director-General of the Bureau of Public Enterprises reportedly told the House of Representatives Committee on Public Assets that Delta Steel Company, valued at more than $700 million, had been sold for $30 million in 2005. The company subsequently passed through further financial difficulties and changes in ownership. In 2026, the Federal Government announced a new agreement aimed at reviving the plant.

This is precisely the kind of outcome that demands answers: how could a country possessing enormous industrial assets spend decades struggling to restore productive capacity that was supposed to be strengthened under successive ownership arrangements?

ALSCON presents another sobering example. The plant ceased operations in 2000, and Russian aluminium producer RUSAL acquired a controlling stake in 2007. Its operations have since been suspended, according to the company’s own account.

The question is not whether private ownership is inherently wrong; it is whether the transactions ultimately delivered the industrial revival, employment and economic benefits Nigerians were entitled to expect. Atiku was alleged to be actively responsible for executing these failed transactions. As chairman of the National Council on Privatisation, his prominent role makes the programme’s record a legitimate part of his public-service legacy.

Nigerians deserve more than assurances that privatisation was necessary. They deserve an honest accounting of what was sold, at what price, what became of the enterprises and whether the public received value commensurate with the assets surrendered. Now that Atiku is seeking the presidency again under the African Democratic Congress (ADC), it makes the record of the privatisation era especially relevant. Before asking Nigerians to entrust him with another opportunity to govern, he should be prepared to explain what lessons he has learnt from the industrial assets that failed to deliver their promised revival. A presidential aspiration should invite investigation not exemption from it. The country cannot afford economic policies that transfer public wealth without convincing evidence of lasting public benefit.

In Oyo State, Governor Seyi Makinde’s approach to legacy properties raises a related troubling concern. Trans Amusement Park and the Africa Regional Centre for Engineering Design and Manufacturing (ARCEDEM) are two prominent examples in the debate over the future of public land and facilities.

In September 2023, Makinde defended plans to use the Trans Amusement Park site for a housing project. He said private investors who inspected the facility had withdrawn their interest, that its equipment was obsolete and beyond repair, and that building a modern amusement park at the same location would be more expensive. He also promised that a new, modern amusement park would be developed at Ilutuntun Business District through a public-private partnership.

Those explanations deserve examination, not automatic acceptance. If the old park was economically unviable, the government should publish the technical assessments, feasibility studies and financial comparisons supporting that conclusion. What alternatives were examined? What is the projected public return from the housing project? What safeguards ensure that the promised replacement amusement park is delivered? And what happens if the promised tourism investment never materialises?

The ARCEDEM property presents a separate but equally important public-interest question. Oyo State’s investment promotion agency lists the Rayfield Gardens residential development on approximately 21 hectares at ARCEDEM as an ongoing project. The state government has defended its reclamation of the site, arguing that it had been abandoned, had become a security concern and was subject to the state’s land-use powers.

These are material details, but they also make transparency essential: the public deserves clarity on the property’s legal status, the basis for its reallocation, the terms of development and the benefits accruing to Oyo residents. The central question is straightforward: why should public facilities be allowed to deteriorate until their conversion to private real estate becomes the preferred solution?

Why not commission independent assessments, explore rehabilitation and invite transparent public-private partnerships that preserve appropriate public access while generating revenue and employment? If conversion is genuinely the best option, the evidence should be available for public examination.This is where the Yoruba expression akótílétà becomes a pointed metaphor for the politics of short-term thinking: the disposition to liquidate inherited resources rather than preserve and improve their value.

Atiku’s abysmal federal privatisation record and Makinde’s mishandling of selected Oyo properties are not identical in scale, purpose or circumstances. Yet both raise a fundamental question about the obligations of public office: are leaders building productive assets for the future, or surrendering opportunities that could have served generations of citizens?

The danger is that land and industrial infrastructure cannot always be recovered once disposed of. A steel plant that fails to operate deprives the economy of industrial capacity, skilled employment and supply-chain opportunities. A recreational facility converted to another use may permanently lose its potential to support tourism and local businesses. A strategically located public property, once transferred and developed, may be prohibitively expensive to recover. Government may receive money today while the public loses decades of possible economic and social returns.

Of course, not every moribund enterprise can be rescued, and not every abandoned facility should remain untouched. Private investors can bring capital, expertise and efficiency. But responsible disposal requires independent valuations, transparent competition, credible feasibility studies and measurable public benefits. Where assets are sold below defensible value, where rehabilitation is neglected without adequate justification, or where promised investments fail to materialise, accountability must follow.

Atiku and Makinde should therefore face searching questions about the assets associated with their respective records: what was transferred, how was it valued, who acquired it, what happened afterwards, how many jobs were sustained or lost, and what tangible benefits accrued to the public? These questions are not political persecution. They are basic requirements of responsible government.

Public assets are not a politician’s personal inheritance to liquidate at will. They are the accumulated wealth of taxpayers, workers and generations of citizens. Their disposal must never be treated as an achievement in itself.

Nigeria and Oyo State need leaders who can revive struggling institutions, build industries, expand employment and leave future generations with stronger economic foundations. The true test of leadership is not how much of the past it can sell, but how much lasting value it can create. Where governments surrender public assets without demonstrating that the people are better off, they owe the public a full explanation.

And in all of these, Atiku and Makinde have been found wanting and it puts a question mark on their ambition seeking another public office.

#Sharafite #SharafiteMovement #APC #PBAT #APCOyoState #BSA #OyoAhead #ItayoOyo #VitaminOyo #OyoState

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Be the first to receive the latest buzz contests & more!