1. The concept of FTZ all over the world is a noble one.
It has assisted Ireland, where the modern FTZ started, grown China, S/Korea, Taiwan, South Africa, Kenya, and Ghana. One would therefore wonder why FTZ is not working the way it should in Nigeria. The answer is simple; from antecedents, the line Ministry is not interested in growing the scheme. They have not shown concerns as supervising ministry both in policy, monitoring and evaluation etc.
2. FTZ scheme did not emerge in the context of comfort or abundance; instead, it was forged in a period of existential vulnerability when conventional policy pathways had collapsed, and survival demands bold departures from orthodox, prompting the government to envision futures beyond their immediate constraints
- That’s what calls for incentives
- Infrastructural development.
- As a matter of fact, revenue realised from FTZs operations should be ploughed into infrastructural development, because of our level of deficiency.
3. We either start doing it right or we leave it, and leaving it goes with heavy cost on the country, especially at this time of AFCFTA.
The consequences will be more on strategic economic losses. If our FTZs remain poorly coordinated, weakly monitored, and with policy inconsistency, investors will simply redirect their factories, logistic hubs, and regional HQs to other competing African countries. Therefore, resulting in loss of export earnings, reduced industrial capacity, diminished Job creation, weakened technology transport, and erosion of Nigeria’s leadership position on the continent.
In an era where trade blocs reward preparedness and penalise complacency, doing FTZs right is not optional – it is a strategic imperative for national competitiveness and economic survival.
4. Nigeria has all it takes to lead in FTZ development in Africa.
Nigeria’s comparative advantage in FTZ development is deeply rooted in its unique combination of scale, capacity and strategic location with a vast pool of human capital capable of driving industrial production, services, export manufacturing and knowledge transfer. In addition, Nigeria’s abundant natural resources – ranging from hydrocarbons to solid Minerals and agricultural raw materials – provide a strong foundation for value-chain industrialisation within the zones.
Beyond resources, Nigeria is strategically positioned as a natural gateway to West and central Africa, with a large domestic market that offers investors immediate scale while serving at a springboard into the wider AFCFTA market of over one billion people. If we match our strength with coherent policy direction, effective monitoring and evaluation, infrastructural alignment, trainings, and strong institutional coordination, Nigeria can set the benchmark for competitive, innovation – driven, and globally integrated FTZs, across the African continent.
5. All the stakeholders of the FTZ scheme in Nigeria also seem not to be doing what they are supposed to do.
The ministry, the authorities, the investors, the Authorities’ staff. Everyone has something to contribute, but not everyone is doing their bit very well. The worst is the Ministry that should always call for the numbers and ask about problem areas. Rather, the Ministry is busy accusing the FTZ operation in Nigeria of corrupt practices. This is Showing that the ministry does not know what to do to put its house in order. Take the example of the window of reform and review of FTZ in Nigeria since August, 2023; the ministry is been sitting on it. Such document is supposed to turn around the activities of the Free Zone Scheme which should have been treated with the seriousness it deserves. But here we are going to three years appointing the committee.
One of the persistent constraints to the growth and effectiveness of Nigeria’s Free Trade Zone (FTZ) scheme is the institutional weakness within the supervising Ministry. While on the surface, the Ministry appears to be performing its statutory responsibilities, particularly in the area of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and the routine collection of annual performance statistics, the reality suggests a deeper structural inadequacy that undermines the true objectives of the scheme.
The essence of Monitoring and Evaluation in a strategic economic programme such as FTZs is not merely the compilation of numbers or the production of periodic reports. True M&E should function as an instrument for policy intelligence, performance improvement, and strategic direction. It should identify bottlenecks, measure real economic impact, guide reforms, and stimulate growth within the Zones. However, when M&E is reduced to a bureaucratic exercise of data gathering and annual reporting, it creates only an illusion of performance rather than delivering measurable development outcomes.
In practice, the Ministry’s approach towards growing FTZs has largely been administrative rather than developmental. The emphasis appears to be on compliance, collecting figures from Zone Authorities, compiling activity reports, and maintaining formal oversight without translating these inputs into actionable policy decisions or growth-oriented interventions.
More importantly, effective oversight of FTZs requires strategic leadership, technical understanding, and proactive engagement. The supervising Ministry must go beyond requesting annual statistics; it must interpret the data, diagnose structural weaknesses, coordinate inter-agency support, and drive reforms that enhance competitiveness. Where such strategic capacity is lacking, the FTZ scheme risks stagnation, regardless of how many reports are produced or figures compiled.
The implication is clear: performance cannot be measured by activity alone but by impact. The Ministry may successfully collect numbers every year, yet fail to grow the scheme. True institutional effectiveness lies in converting information into policy action, supervision into support, and oversight into measurable economic transformation.
For Nigeria’s FTZ programme to realise its intended role as a driver of industrialisation, export growth, and investment attraction, Monitoring and Evaluation must evolve from a routine administrative function into a dynamic tool for strategic governance and continuous improvement.
6. The FTZ authorities have also fallen short in their first-line of responsibilities, which are training and publicity.
They are to train the staff to guide the zones, even customs and the ministry staff, and make sure that Nigerians know the importance of the scheme. You will be sorry for the country when you interact with the FTZs operatives. You will spot the ineptitude arising from lack of training. In a space of Three Years Nigeria can produce teams of professional FTZ workers and the effect will be seen in our zones.
Staff of the authorities should be trained to grow the scheme, not only as supervisors. For Free Trade Zones (FTZs) to deliver industrialisation, export growth, and investment attraction, the role of FTZ Authority staff must evolve beyond routine regulatory control. The traditional “supervisory” mindset, focused mainly on permits, inspections, and enforcement, is insufficient for a modern, competitive FTZ ecosystem. What is required in FTZ training of today is a development-driven, investment-oriented, and facilitative institutional culture.
In the areas of publicity, the authorities have not been performing, No TV programmes, no radio Programme and others. The scheme need to be better publicise the importance of FTZ to reduce the aggression from opinion leaders and other government agencies, that ordinarily should be assisting the scheme.
7. FTZs are dynamic institutions rather than static templates. This means that FTZs must continuously evolve in response to economic realities, policy shifts, technology, global trade patterns, and investors’ needs. They are not “one-of designs” that can be legislated once and left untouched
Concluding Line
“Free Trade Zones do not grow through regulation alone; they grow when regulators become facilitators, when administrators become development drivers, and when institutions shift from guarding the gates to expanding the frontiers of economic productivity.”
