Earlier in April, I came across a couple social media posts about the terrible recommendation by the World Bank that Nigeria should reopen its fuel market to imports to promote competition. The context of these opinions was that the Dangote Refinery is a home-grown solution for energy independence, it should be irresponsible of such international body then to recommend that Nigeria encourages importing instead of relying on national sources.

I fully agreed with that opinion and took some time to look at 'why' they were making such recommendation. In retrospect, that was only shallow curiosity, but it was curiosity all the same. I should add that it was also lazy curiosity since what I did was assume that the bank had the same intentions as the last time they made similar recommendations to the Nigerian Government. That's reference to the Structural Adjustment Program of the 1980's.

At some point, I wanted to see for myself the report that generated all these news. I thought it was similar to the referenced issue and I'd see some loan request from the Nigerian Government and the conditions which the bank was imposing.

A few notes before we continue:

• I think it's highly problematic how news reports can be selective. I read this reporting on the issue, after following this search. You see how it focuses on the inflammatory recommendation, the juice for the news cycle. You see how it fails to provide a link to the actual report containing the contentious recommendation. At least, it mentions the report by name and I use that to find what I'm looking for.
• I also have mixed opinions on how "parrot-like" other reporting can be. There are two to three paragraphs dedicated to belaboring one paragraph from the source without adding any value.
• I think it is interesting how the organisation can make a statement in response to the initial backlash, saying something without really saying anything. It did not apologise or retract its statement, if anything it repeated the same observations from the report without really defending it.

Moving on, I read the report that supposedly started all of this and the first few pages would leave you wondering how they could come up with nothing else news-worthy from the report.

Some of them:

Nigeria has had positive GDP growth for the last four years. It does not feel like it under Tinubu's government, but apparently that's the case.

I would have argued that this was not the case. I mean, we very clearly saw price increase for PMS, ostensibly because of said conflict, so how does the World Bank figure otherwise. Actually though, we do see a downward trend growing deeper.

Some positive news damped by the thief of joy–comparison.

You should read the rest of the report.

The blurb.

I would have remained grossly uninformed without chasing down the source. I would have remained in the group parroting soundbites without substance.

It is very easy to be deceived.