FG budgets N6.04bn payroll for idle Ajaokuta steel. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language / Framing effect

Using subtly evaluative or loaded wording that nudges readers toward a particular interpretation without explicitly stating an argument.

1. "This reinforces the company’s long-standing status as a non-performing public enterprise sustained almost entirely by salary payments." 2. "These provisions fall far short of what would be required to revive a heavy industrial complex designed to anchor Nigeria’s steel and manufacturing value chain." 3. "More than 40 years later, budgetary allocations show it functions largely as a payroll institution, with successive governments funding salaries while production remains at zero." 4. "Despite its inactive status and reports of an ineffective workforce, the company continues to receive substantial annual budget allocations from the government." Why this is problematic: - Phrases like "non-performing public enterprise," "functions largely as a payroll institution," and "fall far short" embed evaluative judgments rather than neutrally describing the situation. - The article does not present any counter‑argument from the Ministry of Finance, Budget Office, or Ajaokuta management that might justify the current payroll structure (e.g., security, maintenance, legal obligations to staff), so the framing leans toward a critical narrative without fully balancing it.

4 suggestions

Replace evaluative labels with neutral descriptions tied to verifiable facts. For example: change "This reinforces the company’s long-standing status as a non-performing public enterprise sustained almost entirely by salary payments" to "This aligns with the company’s history of receiving allocations in which personnel costs constitute the majority of spending, while steel production has remained at zero."

Rephrase "These provisions fall far short of what would be required to revive a heavy industrial complex" to something evidence‑based and sourced, such as: "Industry experts interviewed by [source] estimate that significantly higher capital investment would be required to revive a heavy industrial complex of this scale; the current capital allocation is N410.8bn."

Change "it functions largely as a payroll institution" to a more neutral formulation: "budgetary allocations indicate that most spending has gone to personnel costs, while the plant has not produced steel."

For "reports of an ineffective workforce," specify and attribute: e.g., "Despite its inactive status and reports from [named oversight body or report] that many staff are underutilised, the company continues to receive substantial annual budget allocations."

Hasty generalization / Overstatement

Drawing a broad conclusion from limited or anecdotal evidence, or stating a conclusion more strongly than the evidence clearly supports.

1. "These projects, though ongoing, are not linked to steel production or industrial output." 2. "More than 40 years later, budgetary allocations show it functions largely as a payroll institution, with successive governments funding salaries while production remains at zero." 3. "Despite its inactive status and reports of an ineffective workforce, the company continues to receive substantial annual budget allocations from the government." Why this is problematic: - The statement that constituency-style projects "are not linked" to steel production may be broadly true, but the article does not show any analysis of potential indirect links (e.g., local infrastructure that could support operations). It asserts a categorical conclusion without explaining the criteria for "linked." - Describing the company as "functions largely as a payroll institution" is an interpretive generalization from budget structure; it may be accurate, but it is presented as a definitive characterization rather than as an inference. - "Reports of an ineffective workforce" is vague; the article cites one lawmaker’s observation of "hardly 10 people" present, but does not provide systematic audits or performance data to justify the broader label "ineffective workforce."

4 suggestions

Qualify categorical statements and tie them explicitly to available evidence. For example: "These projects, though ongoing, are not directly tied in the budget documents to steel production or industrial output" instead of "are not linked."

Recast interpretive characterizations as clearly labeled inferences: "Based on the pattern of allocations, in which personnel costs dominate while production remains at zero, critics argue that the company now functions largely as a payroll institution."

Specify the source and scope of claims about workforce effectiveness: "Despite its inactive status and observations by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and other lawmakers that many staff appear underutilised, the company continues to receive substantial annual budget allocations."

Where possible, add data or official audits to support such claims, or explicitly note the absence of such data: "No publicly available performance audit of the workforce was cited in the budget documents."

Appeal to emotion / Narrative fallacy (mild)

Using emotionally charged or story-like framing to make a policy situation feel like a simple narrative of failure or waste, potentially oversimplifying complex structural issues.

1. "More than 40 years later, budgetary allocations show it functions largely as a payroll institution, with successive governments funding salaries while production remains at zero." 2. "However, due to mismanagement, the project remains incomplete over 45 years later." 3. The overall narrative arc from 1979 conception, near-completion in 1994, to repeated revival promises and continued payroll spending, is presented as a story of mismanagement and waste, with limited exploration of structural, legal, or geopolitical factors. Why this is problematic: - The phrase "due to mismanagement" is strong and causal but not backed in this article by specific evidence (e.g., audit reports, court findings, or detailed examples of mismanagement). It fits a familiar narrative of government failure without unpacking the complexity. - The long-term story is framed as a continuous failure, which may be broadly accurate, but the article does not systematically present all relevant factors (e.g., contract disputes, global steel market shifts, legal constraints, or security issues) that might have contributed.

3 suggestions

Replace unsubstantiated causal attributions with sourced or more cautious language. For example: change "However, due to mismanagement, the project remains incomplete" to "However, various reports and inquiries have cited mismanagement, contractual disputes, and policy inconsistencies as reasons the project remains incomplete," and cite at least one specific report if available.

Clarify when a statement is summarizing a commonly held narrative rather than established fact: e.g., "Critics often attribute the prolonged non-completion to mismanagement" instead of stating it as an uncontested cause.

Add brief mention of other documented factors (if available) or explicitly acknowledge information gaps: "Publicly available documents do not provide a single agreed explanation for the prolonged non-completion."

Omission of key information / Unbalanced reporting (moderate but limited)

Presenting mainly one side of a policy controversy or failing to include relevant contextual information that could change how readers interpret the facts.

1. The article highlights: high personnel costs, low capital expenditure, zero production, and a lawmaker’s observation of very few workers on site. It also notes experts who "insisted that the best option was to privatise the company." 2. It does not present any detailed justification from the Budget Office, Ministry of Finance, or Ajaokuta management for maintaining the current payroll levels (e.g., legal obligations to staff, safety and maintenance requirements, security, or ongoing technical work that may not be visible during unscheduled visits). 3. It mentions MoUs and revival plans (with Russia and China) and the N35bn plan to restart the Light Mill Section, but does not include any official response to the specific allegation that "hardly 10 people" were seen despite N4.2bn in personnel costs. Why this is problematic: - Readers are given strong reasons to view the spending as wasteful but are not given equally detailed explanations from the government side, which could include contractual obligations, severance liabilities, or technical maintenance needs. - The article ends with experts favouring privatisation, but does not present counter‑expert views (e.g., arguments for strategic state ownership, national security, or industrial policy considerations).

4 suggestions

Include official responses or explanations from the Ministry of Steel Development, Budget Office, or Ajaokuta management regarding the size and role of the workforce, especially in light of the senator’s observations. If such responses were sought but not provided, state that explicitly.

Present at least one counter‑view to the privatisation recommendation, if available, or note that government policy currently favours a different approach and briefly summarise its rationale.

Clarify the limitations of the lawmaker’s anecdotal evidence: e.g., "Her unscheduled visits provide a snapshot but may not capture full staffing patterns across shifts or departments; however, no comprehensive public audit of staff presence has been released."

Explicitly distinguish between what is documented in budget figures (which are well presented) and what remains unclear (e.g., exact staff numbers, job descriptions, and on‑site work patterns).

Unsubstantiated claims / Conflating correlation with causation (mild)

Stating or implying causal relationships or factual claims without providing supporting evidence within the article.

1. "However, due to mismanagement, the project remains incomplete over 45 years later." 2. "Despite its inactive status and reports of an ineffective workforce, the company continues to receive substantial annual budget allocations from the government." ("ineffective workforce" is asserted but not substantiated beyond one senator’s observation.) Why this is problematic: - The article does not cite specific investigations, audit reports, or court findings that directly attribute the project’s incompletion to mismanagement, yet it states this as the cause. - It implies that the workforce is ineffective based on limited anecdotal evidence, without presenting systematic performance data or independent evaluations.

3 suggestions

Support causal claims with citations or soften them. For example: "Various government reports and expert analyses have cited mismanagement among the factors contributing to the project’s incompletion" and reference at least one named report if possible.

Clarify the evidentiary basis for workforce assessments: "Some lawmakers, including Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, have questioned the effectiveness of the workforce, citing visits where few staff were observed on site. However, no comprehensive public performance audit was referenced in the budget documents."

Avoid categorical labels like "ineffective workforce" unless backed by robust evidence; instead, describe the specific observed issues (e.g., low on-site presence, unclear duties) and attribute them to named sources.