By Foster Akpore
On 25 December 2024, Senator Adams Oshiomhole distributed 11,000 bags of rice to residents in Edo‑North senatorial district as a Christmas outreach. The gesture was widely reported as palliative support amid economic strain, a welcome gift for many families. Yet the choice of rice highlights a persistent economic blind spot among southern politicians: the failure to align political largesse with local production and value creation.
Nigeria’s food economy is striking in its contrasts. The country produces a wide range of staples, livestock and fish, but remains dependent on rice as a key dietary item, with local rice meeting only about 57 per cent of national demand. This shortfall drives demand for rice from northern farms and, increasingly, from imports.
At the same time, agricultural statistics show that livestock, poultry and fish sectors are major components of Nigeria’s food system. According to the latest FAO farm survey, the country has a livestock population of roughly 273 million animals, with goats numbering nearly 139 million and poultry production approaching 684 million birds nationwide. Fish production remains significant as well, led by catfish at about 27 million tonnes.
Yet southern farmers struggle with market access, insecurity and weak procurement linkages. In contrast, rice and other northern staples swirl through political gift‑giving because they are visible, standard and easily sourced. The result is a consumption‑driven approach that sends money and value outward, rather than circulating it within the communities that elected these leaders.
The logic here is straightforward. Constituency gifts should do more than fill bellies for a week. They ought to stimulate local supply chains, support smallholder producers, and reinforce market confidence among farmers. If the bags of rice had instead been replaced or complemented with locally produced goat meat, poultry or fish, the economic impact would stretch far beyond a one‑time festive handout. It would create income for producers, foster local jobs in processing and distribution, and keep traditional food‑based livelihoods viable.
This is especially important against the backdrop of rising insecurity in southern farming regions, where arable land is under threat from violent incursions, often blamed on roaming herdsmen from the North. In such an environment, political actions that sustain local agriculture take on added weight. Supporting beef from northern herdsmen while local goat and poultry farmers struggle reflects a shallow understanding of local economic conditions and community sentiment.
Leaders who distribute rice or imported beef without a strategic eye risk deepening the very consumption patterns that undermine resilience. Instead, policymakers should use the leverage of public funds to back farmers in the south, link procurement contracts to local cooperatives, and build value chains that reduce reliance on distant or external production.
Christmas goodwill should extend past charity. It should prompt leaders to see the long view, where economic empowerment trumps symbolic handouts, and where public spending underpins productive capacity, not just consumption.
In a nation rich with agricultural potential, embracing that logic is not optional, it is essential.