Connect with us

News

Lai Mohammed explains why “Nigeria Air” was Suspended

BellaNaija.com

Published

 on

BellaNaija - Federal Government is delivering on its Electoral Promises - Lai Mohammed

Lai Mohammed

Minister of Information and Culture Lai Mohammed has explained why the federal government suspended the Nigeria Air project.

According to Vanguard, Mohammed, who was speaking to newsmen at the Murtala Muhammed Airport in Lagos, said funded issues led to the decision.

He said:

A government will take a holistic view of any intended project and if the understanding of government at the beginning that the project will either be self-financing or would be financed by her investors and it turns out that such a project can no longer be financed by investors, either because they are not forthcoming or that such venture can no longer be viable, the government, this administration would do a rethink.

Now, the business of government in business is to provide enabling environment and it is not to become the sole source of finance, the sole source of funding and in addition, it is much more than funding in trying to get our national carrier.

We also need to look at the thinker aspect, overall. The Federal Government believes that this thing should be stepped down now till we get a better funding structure but a situation where this kind of thing would be funded by government, it can’t do it.

Mohammed said other aviation industry projects – airport concession, MRO, aircraft leasing company will be considered for execution.

“I think what we should do is to look at each of these other projects in their own merits and individually and look at whether they can still be executed, but I don’t think the government should be condemned or criticised if it decides to step down a particular project,” he said.

26 Comments

  1. Ngozi

    September 27, 2018 at 1:03 pm

    Yes investors are not forthcoming as they have stopped being in almost all critical sectors of the national economy. Your trial-and-error governance has squandered all the goodwill you touted at the beginning. A government that will not evaluate wholistically before politicking, in fact a government that has failed to govern but continued politicking as if still contesting election will have somersaults all the way.

    Nigerians deserve what they got. The biting hunger never even start, if you bunch of incompetents continue in government.

  2. GANNY OGUNSHAKIN

    September 27, 2018 at 4:01 pm

    I warned all prospective investors to be very careful of this Kalo-kalo project being introduced by the Nigeria government . People listened. refused to part with their hard earned money. Now Nigerian government’s Ponzi scheme is dead. no one has to suffer to recoup their losses.

  3. by_stander

    September 27, 2018 at 4:57 pm

    Mr minister you are right on one thing, government is not there to run businesses.

    but guess what – that’s exactly what you are doing.

    You have laws and policies that infringe on economic liberty and right to earn a living – which directly affects businesses. in other words you’re attempting to run businesses even so poorly providing funding.

    Those that benefit from it will not tell you that’s what you’re doing.

    Nigeria Air should be a case study to fix these laws and policies that are killing businesses and opportunities in your country.

    Unless of cause the only business you want left is government business and sharing of crude oil revenue.

    Does anyone have the figures for the existing local airlines?

  4. 9ja

    September 27, 2018 at 10:16 pm

    @By_Stander, for someone who was just a couple of days supporting the infringement of the “economic liberty and right to earn a living” of pot farmers/dealers, your present postulations are befuddling. Confused? So are we…LOL!

    • by_stander

      September 28, 2018 at 10:47 am

      Seems you are yet to understand inalienable rights – but let me see if i can enlighten you.

      i’m yet to come across hard science that says pot is good for you. if anything there is alot of science that says its actually bad.

      People that smoke it, pollute the air for other people. (this is my primary concern) i really don’t care what you do with it for medicinal purposes. Just don’t smoke that shit in my air space.

      The people you refer to, primarily are responsible for supplying the end users that will smoke it. Therefore facilitating infringement of the inalienable rights of others. (just like lawyers that facilitated bad laws)

      Now this is where it gets interesting, because the moment you infringe on the inalienable rights of others, your God given natural rights become alienable. Hence why they will need to be stopped i.e by directly infringing on their economic liberty to sell pot and infringe on their right to earn a living from selling pot.

      This stems from another inalienable right with scientific backing. (i was going to write about it with Accountant & ex-Fin.Minister Kemi Adeosun as an interesting case study, but decided to leave it out)

      Now if they (pot farmers/sellers/end-users) were able to find a use for it that didn’t involve polluting the air for others (not interested in using it), and they users make informed decisions to use it without causing them to loose their decision making ability and or negatively affecting the inalienable rights of others,, then that doesn’t concern anybody.

      for those following these discussions, I will like to highlight this is the sort of depth protection other industries have to provide, but do you know the one industry that does not provide anything close to this for their actions/services?

    • 9ja

      September 29, 2018 at 1:40 am

      @By_Stander, you know what else pollutes the air? Cars, factories, airplanes, firewood, food, etc.

      I am not a scientist either, but many studies have found that pot is a useful ingredient in treating a range of symptoms from pain to seizures. Even the US’s FDA has approved THC, a key ingredient in marijuana, to treat nausea and improve appetite. It’s available by prescription Marinol (dronabinol) and Cesamet (nabilone).

    • by_stander

      September 29, 2018 at 11:43 pm

      Your argument for local air pollution by weed smokers because Cars, factories, airplanes, etc.do the same is weak, and here is why – its the same reason banning of cigarette smoke went through.

      everyone uses cars (automobile) – automobiles also come with exhaust filters that chemically removes toxins with a catalyst, that is why you can stand next to a car (automobile) . its also why its important to do an MOT at least once a year. There are also regulations surrounding emissions which means the automobile industry invest heavily in R&D. Not to mention it will be a foregone issue once electric cars become common place.

      Airplanes are too far removed to cause local air pollution even if we assume they don’t have filters.

      Same as factories, and that’s why there is zoning permit requirements for places where you can build a factory with high emissions. on top of which they too would usually filter what goes out into the environment.

      Can you say all of these for your local weed smokers?

      in any case the keywords are “available” “by” “prescription” – and i’m sure you’re not going to smoke it and pollute the air for everyone else that isn’t interested in getting high.

    • 9ja

      September 30, 2018 at 5:45 am

      LOL…By_Stander has left substance and started chasing shadows. We are discussing the criminalization of a medicinal herb (other pollutants are just generalized examples) and you are blathering on about government-imposed emission regulations, which is rather rich for someone who first post on the thread was to bemoan laws/policies “which directly affects businesses”. Dude, obviously your driveling thesis has not been fully cooked! LMBAO!

  5. by_stander

    September 30, 2018 at 2:59 pm

    @9ja The BellaNaija thread depth will not let me reply directly to you, so i’m doing it here.

    your last response sounds like you trying to troll me – so i’m must say, you dropped a notch in the original “sincerity level” i had for you.

    You dont step up to me with silly arguments that are not based in science!

    my response was to the issue you raised about other sources of air pollution – which i clarified are not in the same class as your weed smoker by virtue of science and emission regulations.

    as a matter of fact i clarified earlier that if a weed smoker were to find a way to do their smoking without polluting the local air space – i couldn’t give a damn what they were doing and it did not concern me or anyone so long as they did not cause a secondary harm that infringed on the inalienable rights of others.

    You can look but i guarantee you will not find a flaw in my arguments for inalienable rights or inalienable rights itself for human beings.

    That you even try to find a flaw is mind blowing,

    We are discussing the criminalization of infringing on the inalienable rights of others by polluting the local air space – so i don’t know what the hell you think we are discussing here.

    its the same way we will be discussing the criminalization of people using a knife to stab other people while we realise that a knife can be used in surgery to save lives.

    My discontent for unconstitutional laws and policies that affect businesses, are to do with laws and policies that infringe on economic liberty and right to earn a living by providing a monopoly to Lawyers and Accountants. Those laws have no scientific bases for existing apart from shackling businesses and providing financial benefits to 3rd parties through mandatory unregulated fees.

    The result of which is the reality you currently live in your N20k minimum wage society. But those two professions will not come out and say they are responsible for this mass casualty disaster. They keep silent as if they are not aware of what their profession has done and is doing to the nation.

    Meanwhile everyday they give us insight into their thought process the last example being ex-finance minister who is an accountant and communication minister who is a Lawyer. These are the sort of “professionals” we are giving critical decision/law making/influencing authority to.

    in my opinion, professions which are completely outdated and make up their own fantasy, so that everyday we can be distracted by things that are not even relevant in fixing the problem.

    There is scientific bases for economic liberty and right to earn a living which includes a person’s liberty to do business so long as that business will not infringe on the inalienable rights of others.

    If you are finding all these things hard to understand i suggest you enroll in formal education. but i can not understand how any human being would find these very simple things difficult to understand.

    unless maybe you have a motive not to understand that human beings have inalienable rights.

    • 9ja

      October 1, 2018 at 5:04 am

      PS: And just btw, marijuana is not only smoked but can be baked into brownies, cookies and other such confectionary, as well as consumed through several other means. Since you are not personally privy to what those folks whose arrest you supported were going to do with the marijuana they were transporting, all this gibberish about smoke bothering non-users and polluting the air is just polemic sophistry in a crude attempt to disguise your substantive validation of the self-assumed power of governments to artificially choose economic winners and losers (which btw is why cigarettes are NOT “banned” – despite your incorrect assertion above – but merely regulated).

    • by_stander

      October 1, 2018 at 4:54 pm

      When next you are in London please pick any public pub and light a cigarette – if the manager gets to you before the police and tells you to put it out. tell them this about your cigarette “smoke”


      btw cigarettes are NOT “banned” – despite your incorrect assertion – but merely regulated).

      and carry on smoking.

    • by_stander

      October 1, 2018 at 5:03 pm

      Then you will know whether or not there is a ban on smoking in public areas. You will also find out why this ban exits and how harmful your smoke is to the people around you.

    • 9ja

      October 2, 2018 at 12:37 pm

      @By_Stander, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing…LOL!

      Your post references the false “banning of cigarette smoke” but as I am getting to hip to your semantic sophistry I am not surprised to witness the attempt to twist it into smoking in public places. And yet even then, smoking is NOT banned in the UK (and why limit yourself to the UK as if it is the only nation in the world) even in public spaces because one can actually smoke on the street! Rather, smoking is banned in certain places (enclosed public spaces and offices). That is the very definition of REGULATION! Next, you might start arguing that surgery is “banned” because you cannot legally perform one without an appropriate medical license. LOL!

    • by_stander

      October 1, 2018 at 5:32 pm

      Just in case you still are not clear, DO NOT and you should NOT smoke in a public place in the UK as doing so can get you into serious trouble with UK law enforcement.

    • 9ja

      October 2, 2018 at 9:57 pm

      Chasing shadows again….

      So scientists have now been added to accountants and lawyers? Of the stark IRONY is that it is actually lawyers who took NBC (Coca-Cola franchisee in Nigeria) to a court of law to establish the danger posed to consumers. LOL!

    • by_stander

      October 3, 2018 at 11:50 am

      Anybody that infringes on the inalienable rights of human beings is within scope. however i do not believe there is a systematic process in place to do this in science.

      Turns out infringing on the inalienable rights of human beings falls squarely under fake science i.e quackery. And its very difficult to pass it off as good science to industry peers.

      am sure you heard of ‘peer review’?

    • 9ja

      October 2, 2018 at 10:01 pm

      And just in case you still are not clear, you can smoke on a PUBLIC street or park in the UK (which last I checked were still “public places”). The law applies only to ENCLOSED public places and work places. But given you aversion to law, one can understand your ignorance thereto. IRONY of course is that the “ban” (regulation actually) that you support/propagate is actually a product of law and lawyers. LOL!

    • by_stander

      October 3, 2018 at 12:34 pm

      —> Given your aversion to bad laws that infringe on inalienable rights of human beings <—

      there i fixed it for you.

      also i'm happy you think that lawyers do medical researches etc. You deserve an award for that one. and i hope these superstar lawyers find us cancer cures e.t.c

      : ) )

    • 9ja

      October 3, 2018 at 11:20 pm

      Yet more evidence that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous…

      Just as you apparently did not know that an executive President does not have to review every single file or circular to be held responsible for the actions of his administration and the government that he heads, lawyers do not need to personally undertake medical research to utilize the knowledge therein. SMH ?‍♀️

    • by_stander

      October 6, 2018 at 1:01 pm

      You know who else thinks knowledge and education is “dangerous” ?

  6. 9ja

    October 1, 2018 at 2:21 am

    @By_Stander, pardon me as I take a pass on reading your dissertation….LOL!

    Dude, you can indulge in all manner of semantic sophistry but you either believe that government should play a regulatory role or it does not. Period. All this squirming around trying to finesse that basic presmise is laughable. A basic underlying philosophy is admirable but dogma isn’t. Meaningful intellectual curiousity requires the capacity to occasionally re-examine our worldview and be open to a variety of opinions. On the other hand, dogma…SMH

    • by_stander

      October 1, 2018 at 4:46 pm

      LOL now you’re making me laugh out loud, you think inalienable rights of human beings is “semantic sophistry””?

      you either do not understand the use of the word “sophistry” or are confused about the scientific facts that back inalienable rights of human beings..

      Just incase you were “curious” to know, inalienable rights of human beings is not a “view” that will change until you change what it means to fundamentally be a human being e.g replacing our entire biology with synthetics.

      You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? as a matter of fact i will argue your assertion is a projection of your mindset.

      there is nothing about inalienable rights that requires a human being to be clever, as a matter of fact you have to be extremely and completely dumb/idiotic or mentally disabled not to understand inalienable rights of human beings.

      This is why it’s usually highly probable that people that infringe on the inalienable rights of others have a motive for doing so.

      You keep saying you’re skipping this skipping that, but here you are still completely clueless and believing you can have an “opinion” on what the inalienable rights bestowed upon man by his creator are.

      or are you making comedy?

      There is no such thing as “variety of opinions” when we’re talking about natural rights or natural law of nature – only very real scientific facts that back inalienable rights of human beings.

      Time to get your head out of that fantasy and acquire some real world knowledge

      On issues of government regulation – going by the original requirement for government and state. Government exist to protect the citizens of the state, as you can not have a state or government without human beings,

      Regardless of the political system, the inalienable rights of human being affords human beings protection by the state. the dumbest argument you can make is to say “you either believe that government should play a regulatory role or it does not”.

      Its primarily why i believe we need people with science backgrounds and or need disincentives and consequence for lawmakers and everyone including lawyers involved in the process of creating laws that infringe on the inalienable rights of others.

      let them start putting their names next to the laws they create and the reason why they create the laws. there should always be at least one living sponsor (anyone 18 and above or subject to) for any law to be active. and let all those involved be subject to criminal proceedings when the law is found to infringe on the inalienable rights of human beings without any statute of limitation.

      Your comment sounds like that of a person without any skill sets that believes that you need a sledgehammer for everything. i wont be surprised if these are the people we currently give authority to, to make critical decisions/law on our behalf.

      As part of protecting our inalienable rights yes we sometimes need government regulations however we do not need overreaching, unnecessary, unjustified, impractical, mostly bad etc regulations that further infringe on our inalienable rights and certainly do not need people monopolizing laws for financial benefit.

      If science says that infringing on inalienable rights of human beings is bad, then from a security standpoint i would argue that this can be a vector i.e a state security loophole into which a nation can be sabotaged if we do not start taking inalienable rights of human beings seriously.

      Its time to start treating the action of those involved and financially benefit from laws that infringe on the inalienable rights of human beings as treason.

      it doesn’t feel like we have a system that creates a burden to protect the inalienable rights of human beings by those in position of authority. that’s why anyone feels they can be in these position whether qualified or not – also they couldn’t care less to research the possible outcomes of their actions/decisions, they just have and go with their “variety of opinions” and then blame God for the mass casualty disaster afterwards.

  7. 9ja

    October 2, 2018 at 12:44 pm

    Sorry that I have to take yet another pass on the lengthy dissertation…

    However, might interest you to learn (and I use the term liberally) that even Coca-Cola (with their real scientists and all) is reportedly getting into the marijuana-infused drink business.

    • by_stander

      October 2, 2018 at 4:20 pm

      “Marijuana-infused drinks” don’t bother me, because i have the option to choose not to buy them.

      but good luck to you buying same from thesame company that mixed ascorbic acid and benzene compound. – “with their real scientists and all”

      : ) )

  8. 9ja

    October 2, 2018 at 10:07 pm

    @By_Stander, more IRONY is using the UK as a gold standard in anything, given that lawyers constitute the largest contingent of professions represented in the UK Parliament. SMH

    • by_stander

      October 3, 2018 at 11:40 am

      Lawyers and Accountants in United Kingdom do not monopolize UK laws for financial benefit. at least not from the prospective of economic freedom and right to earn a living.

      But i will not be surprised if they are predisposed to doing so without a systemic deterrent. the UK has a long history.

      at this point i would have further discussed some fundamental concepts. but know you will just “skip” the knowledge makes it a complete waste of time to explain anything to you.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Cabo Verde Airlines launches Flights to Beautiful Visa-Free Cape Verde

Star Features

Advertisement
css.php