By Idowu Ephraim Faleye +2348132100608
Who should be blamed for the collapse of the Odua Textile Industry? Is it fair to point accusing fingers at Ekiti State Government for refusing to revive a company that stopped functioning before the advent of the Fourth Republic? These are questions that continue to generate strong emotions whenever the abandoned factory is mentioned. However, before anyone rushes to blame successive administrations, it is important to examine the facts, understand the economic realities behind the industry’s collapse, and separate public sentiment from the truth.
For many years, one question has continued to come up whenever people discuss industrial development in Ekiti State: why has the Odua Textile Industry not been revived? To many people, the answer appears simple. They believe successive governments in the state have failed to bring back a once-thriving company that provided employment and contributed to the economy. While that opinion is understandable, it does not tell the complete story. The truth is that the collapse of Odua Textile was caused by deeper economic and structural problems that no state government, no matter how well-intentioned, could easily solve.
It is easy to look at the abandoned buildings and silent factory premises and conclude that the government has neglected its responsibility. However, public policy should not be judged only by what people wish to see. It should also be judged by what is practical, economically sensible, and sustainable. Governments are expected to make difficult decisions based on available resources and long-term realities. Sometimes, refusing to revive a failed enterprise is not a sign of failure but a recognition that the conditions that once supported that business no longer exist.
One important fact that many people forget is that Odua Textile became moribund long before the return of democratic rule in 1999. By the time the Fourth Republic began, the company had already lost its strength and was no longer operating as a viable business. Its decline was not caused by any governor elected after 1999. The problems had accumulated over many years until the company finally collapsed. Therefore, blaming present-day governments for a problem they inherited is neither fair nor historically accurate.
To understand why the company failed, one must first understand how a textile industry operates. Every textile factory depends on a steady supply of cotton, which serves as its principal raw material. Without cotton, machines remain idle and workers have nothing to process. Unlike some other states in northern Nigeria where cotton is cultivated in large quantities, Ekiti State is not known as a cotton-producing state. That single fact placed the factory at a permanent disadvantage from the very beginning.
Industries around the world are usually located close to the source of their raw materials. This is not an accident but a basic economic principle that reduces production costs and improves efficiency. When a factory must transport its main raw material over long distances, transportation costs rise and production becomes more expensive. Those extra costs eventually make the products less competitive in the market. A textile company that depends on imported cotton from distant locations will always struggle against competitors located near cotton farms.
This reality was captured many years ago during a visit by former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo to Ado-Ekiti as a result of the feud between governor Fayose and Ekiti PDP elders (Majeobaje Group). During that visit, members of the Majeobaje Group appealed to him to help revive the Odua Textile Industry. It was a passionate appeal because many people still hoped the company could be brought back to life. Obasanjo listened carefully before asking one simple question that immediately changed the conversation.
He asked, “How much cotton do they harvest in Ekiti?” That question was brief, yet it carried a powerful economic message. Everyone present understood exactly what he meant. Without sufficient cotton production, the foundation required for a successful textile industry simply did not exist. The discussion reportedly ended there because the answer exposed the biggest obstacle to reviving the factory.
Many people interpreted Obasanjo’s response as a refusal to help, but it was actually a lesson in economic reality. No responsible leader should invest billions of public funds into a business that lacks its most essential raw material. Doing so may satisfy public emotion for a short period, but it would almost certainly end in another failure. Governments have a duty to spend taxpayers’ money wisely. They must invest in projects that have a realistic chance of succeeding rather than projects driven only by nostalgia.
Another reality that cannot be ignored is the changing role of government in modern economies. Across the world, governments have gradually reduced their direct involvement in commercial enterprises. This is because experience has shown that governments are generally better at creating opportunities than managing businesses. Running a successful company requires speed, flexibility, innovation, and constant adaptation to market conditions. Those qualities are often difficult to achieve within the structure of the civil service.
Government-owned businesses frequently face challenges that private companies rarely experience. Decisions may be delayed by bureaucracy, while appointments are sometimes influenced by politics instead of competence. Financial discipline may also become weak because losses are often covered with public funds. Over time, such enterprises become inefficient and eventually depend on government subsidies simply to survive. Instead of generating wealth, they become a burden on taxpayers.
Nigeria has seen many examples of government-owned enterprises that struggled despite huge public investments. Several of them eventually required privatization because they could no longer compete effectively. This was not unique to Nigeria. Many countries around the world have reached the same conclusion after years of similar experiences. Governments increasingly focus on regulation, infrastructure, and social services while allowing private investors to drive commercial activities.
This does not mean the government has no responsibility toward industrial development. On the contrary, government plays a very important role in helping businesses succeed. That role, however, is different from owning and managing factories. Government is expected to create an environment where businesses can grow and investors can operate confidently. When that environment exists, private capital naturally flows into productive sectors of the economy.
Such an enabling environment includes good roads that allow goods to move easily from one place to another. It includes reliable electricity that reduces production costs and increases productivity. It also requires quality telecommunications, effective security, fair taxation, and clear government policies that encourage investment. These are the foundations upon which strong economies are built. Businesses thrive when these conditions are available, regardless of who owns them.
Even electricity, which was once seen as a government monopoly, has largely shifted toward private participation in many countries, including Nigeria. The reason is simple. Competition often improves efficiency and attracts investment. Private companies generally have stronger incentives to reduce costs, improve services, and adopt modern technology. The same principle applies to manufacturing industries such as textiles.
Technology presents another major challenge facing the old Odua Textile Industry. The machines that were installed many decades ago have become outdated by today’s standards. Manufacturing technology has changed dramatically, making older equipment less efficient and more expensive to maintain. In many cases, spare parts for obsolete machines are no longer produced. Even if they can be found, they often cost far more than they are worth.
Modern textile factories rely on highly automated equipment that produces faster, wastes less material, and delivers better quality products. These machines are controlled by advanced software and require skilled technicians to operate them. Replacing an entire production line with modern equipment would require enormous financial resources. That investment would still not solve the problem of inadequate cotton supply in Ekiti State. In other words, replacing the machines alone would not make the factory economically viable.
Supporters of reviving Odua Textile often focus on the jobs the factory once created. Their concern is understandable because employment is essential for economic growth and social stability. However, sustainable jobs are created by sustainable businesses. If a company cannot survive without continuous government financial support, the jobs it creates are only temporary. Eventually, the same workers will face another round of unemployment when the company becomes unsustainable.
Rather than investing huge public funds in reviving a factory facing multiple structural challenges, it may be wiser to support industries that match Ekiti State’s natural advantages. Every region has resources that give it a competitive edge. Economic development is strongest when investments are built around those strengths. Trying to force an unsuitable industry to survive often leads to wasted resources and repeated disappointment.
Ekiti State possesses enormous opportunities beyond textile manufacturing. Agriculture offers significant potential for agro-processing industries that use locally available crops. Tourism, education, information technology, and knowledge-based services also present opportunities for long-term growth. Small and medium-sized enterprises can flourish when supported with infrastructure, finance, and favourable policies. These sectors are more closely aligned with the state’s comparative advantages than cotton-based textile production.
None of this suggests that the history of Odua Textile should be forgotten. The company remains an important symbol of an era when regional governments invested boldly in industrial development. It deserves to be remembered for the jobs it created and the contributions it made to the economy. However, history should inspire future decisions rather than trap society in unrealistic expectations. We honour the past best by learning from it instead of trying to recreate conditions that no longer exist.
In the end, the debate should move beyond assigning blame to finding practical solutions. The evidence shows that Odua Textile did not collapse because Ekiti State governments lacked interest or commitment. It declined because it lacked access to its most important raw material, operated with outdated technology, and existed in an economic environment that had fundamentally changed. Reviving it without solving those structural problems would most likely lead to another costly failure. The wiser path is for the government to continue creating an enabling environment for private investment while focusing on industries that match Ekiti State’s natural strengths and offer a realistic foundation for sustainable economic growth.
*Idowu Ephraim Faleye writes from Ado-Ekiti+2348132100608*
Leave a comment