I am a student of development, and from both study and experience I can state clearly that no capitalist system in history has progressed without some level of corruption. The real issue is not the mere existence of corruption, but how societies manage its consequences—especially capital formation, institutions, and investment.
In 2005, I attended a course on National and International Procurement at the International Law Institute (ILI), Georgetown, Washington DC. During that course, we were taught that Nigeria was not among the ten most scientifically determined corrupt countries in the world. India, in contrast, was established as one of the most corrupt.
Motivated by this paradox, and using my personal funds, I travelled to India in 2007 to understand why India was developing despite corruption, while Nigeria was not. I spent three weeks in Bombay, Hyderabad, and Delhi. My conclusion was clear: Indians are, in many respects, more corrupt than Nigerians—yet they are developing—while Nigeria is not. The reasons are structural, not moral, and they include the following:
ALSO READ: Dangote Refinery: MRS stations drop pump price to N739 in Lagos
1. Consumption and Extravagance:
Indians are far less extravagant than Nigerians. They do not engage in excessive luxury consumption or conspicuous spending the way we do. Wealth is more often reinvested rather than displayed.
2. Patriotism and Capital Retention:
Indians are far more inward-looking and patriotic in economic terms. While Nigerians export their wealth through capital flight, Indians attract and retain capital, including capital from countries like Nigeria.
3. Education and Skills:
India has strong educational institutions, particularly the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), which produce skill-tested graduates who directly support industrial and technological development. In contrast, Nigeria largely trains theory-based graduates—even in polytechnics.
4. Institutions and Democratic Sustainability:
India has relatively strong institutions that sustain not just elections, but long-term development and policy continuity.
5. Electricity Capacity:
India has grown its electricity capacity to about 350 GW, compared to Nigeria’s 4–5 GW. This single factor alone explains much of the divergence in industrial and technological outcomes.
6. Grid Infrastructure and ICT Development:
India leveraged its national grid—similar to Nigeria’s Transmission Company (TCN)—to support ICT and technological development. Using its Optical Ground Wire (OPGW), India deployed broadband to villages and remote areas, enabling schools and communities to access affordable internet. This partly explains why many CEOs and MDs of global ICT companies are of Indian origin. Incidentally I fought Dangote on our Fibre including in various court but I disagreement with him was not personal. I wanted to use our Fibre to advance national development like India did and is doing.
This same logic informed my actions when I became Managing Director of TCN. I terminated a long-standing agreement that ceded TCN’s fibre-optic infrastructure to private individuals who refused to pay concession fees. I awarded a contract to rehabilitate the OGPW so it could be used to support national development, just as India did. We faced legal battles, but we won. Unfortunately, immediately after my removal, the contract was reinstated and the fibre returned to the same defaulters.
To further support this position, I was a member of the Nigeria Global Illicit Financial Flows Study in 2012, representing the African Development Bank. The study revealed that a significant portion of Nigeria’s so-called private sector is deeply involved in capital flight—moving Nigerian wealth abroad. This insight shaped my approach as MD of TCN, including efforts to connect Eko Atlantic, recognizing that much Nigerian money was chasing luxury real estate abroad rather than being invested domestically. Regrettably, as of today, Eko Atlantic remains largely at the same stage it was when I left, largely because funds saved for the project were later stolen.
Given this reality, Nigeria’s biggest problem is not corruption alone—it is capital flight. Our only real hope lies in large-scale domestic private-sector development, such as the Dangote Refinery, cement production, and similar industrial investments. Even if some of the capital involved originally came from questionable sources, once it is invested locally—creating jobs, infrastructure, and value chains—it serves a developmental purpose, as it has in other capitalist societies.
After the refinery, we should expect Dangote to move into steel and electricity. Importantly, Dangote never operates in isolation for long. Others—such as BUA and similar players—inevitably follow. This is why fears of monopoly are largely short-term and transitional, not structural.
Nigeria must deliberately encourage productive private-sector expansion to unlock its development potential. Otherwise, we will remain stuck—debating corruption endlessly while capital continues to flee.
I apologise for the length of this write-up, but I felt it necessary to fully explain my position. I look forward to reactions to this short article please.
Dr. UG Mohammed PhD, FCA