British Aid to Nigeria

Following this post immediately below, I decided to find out how much money the UK pisses up the wall on aid to Nigeria: £141m per year, increasing 116% over 5 years to £305m.

Put simply, the British government taxes single mothers working minimum wage so Nigerian senators can enjoy a $44k per year “wardrobe allowance”.  But there’s no room to cut the government budget, apparently.

Nigeria isn’t the only place where the population should be outraged.

This entry was posted in Nigeria, UK. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to British Aid to Nigeria

  1. Duffy says:

    What, if anything does the UK get for it’s money? Access to markets?

  2. Tim Newman says:

    Duffy,

    I am not sure and I think it varies from country to country, but I believe there are some strings attached to the foreign aid regarding trade and the purchase of British goods. Unlike the Norwegians who donate more per capita than anyone else on earth, but are too squeaky clean to try to reap at least some benefit from it. Mercedes dealerships and Lear Jet salesmen the world over must be thanking their lucky stars for Norway and Sweden.

  3. John Brocklehurst says:

    I don’t know what your position is in general on aid spending and there is definitely an honest debate to be had about it.

    However, DfID doesn’t channel any aid through the Nigerian government because they know exactly what would happen. It is all done through NGOs and private contracts. So hopefully none of it goes on wardrobe allowances. (Fingers crossed!)

    That’s not to say aid spending in Nigeria (or anywhere) is perfect, because it is not and never will be. But alongside increased spending on aid, the coalition Gov has focused on not spending it through other governments and has cut direct ‘budgetary aid’ very significantly.

  4. Umbongo says:

    According to href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-14/nigeria-s-oil-revenue-rose-46-to-59-billion-in-2010-on-improved-security.html>this Nigeria received $59 billion from its oil exports in 2010. Of course, substantial costs were incurred in producing this (on the assumption that this is a gross figure) but the Nigerian authorities were entitled to – and did – receive a substantial part of the proceeds. Could John Brocklehurst (who is, from the tenor of his comment, a fan of compulsory foreign aid by the British taxpayer) explain how aid not channelled through the Nigerian government does not in fact benefit that government and all the other corrupt individuals and organisations in Nigeria? After all, money is fungible and goods are saleable: any amounts expended in Nigeria using UK taxpayers’ money is balanced by an amount NOT expended by the Nigerian authorities from Nigeria’s vast income but (almost certainly) diverted to better things (like Swiss bank accounts and the import of luxury items for the authorities’ friends and relations). Accordingly for every £100 taken from a UK taxpayer, the Nigerian government has £100 which does not have to be (and almost certainly isn’t) spent on aid donees but can (and will be) used to line the appropriate Nigerian pocket (or pay for an item of wardrobe). Furthermore, as has happened in Somalia and Kenya (and probably everywhere else outside Northern Europe and North America) NGOs pay substantial sums to terrorists or just local strongmen as blackmail to be left alone and/or to be able to transport food to NGO clients.

  5. Emil says:

    It’s not pissed, it’s bribe; the investment was recovered, just not by the single mothers that paid the money in the first place.

    Any time “help” is given without an enforceable contract stating exact how those money should be spent, it is bribe, not help.

Comments are closed.