Gov. Chukwuma Soludo’s assertion that the Southeast geopolitical zone contributes around eight percent to Nigeria’s gross domestic product (GDP) has drawn sharp critique from human rights activist Prof. Chidi Odinkalu. However, a British-trained lawyer and law academic contests this criticism, arguing that Soludo’s economic assessment rests on solid data and should not be dismissed as misguided or insensitive.
The defense highlights that Soludo, a trained economist and former governor of Nigeria’s Central Bank, likely based his figures on data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), which tracks state-level GDP and Internally Generated Revenue (IGR). According to available figures, the Southeast’s IGR stood at N142.95 billion in 2023, significantly lower than Lagos State’s N815 billion. Value Added Tax (VAT) contributions and other fiscal metrics also support the estimate that the Southeast’s share remains between eight and twelve percent. Other regions like the South-South and Southwest have higher contributions, partly due to oil and industrial activities, which the Southeast lacks.
The legal expert notes that Soludo’s main point was an economic observation rather than a political judgment. Soludo suggested that even if the Southeast were to secede, Nigeria’s overall economy would continue functioning because major GDP drivers include oil from the South-South zone, Lagos’s dominant economy, and agricultural sectors from other regions. This statement compares to economic models where the global oil supply adjusts even if OPEC stops operating.
Criticism targeting Soludo’s data for insensitivity, the scholar argues, conflates economic fact with personal offense. He urges that, if Odinkalu disputes the numbers, the debate should focus on strategies to expand the Southeast’s economic output, possibly increasing its GDP share from eight to twenty percent, rather than rejecting the claim outright.
Attributing an economic critique to political motives, particularly from a human rights perspective, risks muddying the discourse. The legal commentator calls for separating economic analysis from political grievances, emphasizing the importance of engaging with facts to foster constructive development discussions rather than politicizing economic data.