The recent debate surrounding the characterisation of Kannywood as a “rice sharing industry” has generated necessary reflection within Nigeria’s northern film ecosystem. While calls for respect and recognition are valid, the larger issue confronting the industry goes beyond emotion or symbolism — it is about structure, sustainability, and economic vision.
Let us begin by separating humanitarian goodwill from institutional development.
There is no doubt that respected figures such as Ali Nuhu and Abdul Amart have supported colleagues in times of need. Notably, such assistance has often been carried out quietly, without cameras, publicity stunts, and social media amplification. That discretion deserves respect. However, philanthropy — no matter how sincere — cannot substitute for policy, industry architecture, or economic planning.
The fundamental question remains: how does rice distribution strengthen an entertainment industry?
Food support may address temporary hardship, but it does not build studios, expand distribution networks, fund post-production, train technicians, improve intellectual property systems, or create export pipelines. It does not generate scalable revenue models. It does not transform film into a structured creative economy.
Film is not merely entertainment. Film is business. Globally, cinema functions as an industry — driven by capital investment, structured financing, distribution frameworks, audience analytics, branding strategy, and international market positioning. When we reduce filmmaking to “showbiz” alone, we risk neglecting its economic engine.
Nigeria itself offers precedent. During the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan, the Federal Government introduced Project ACT Nollywood — a structured intervention focused on capacity building, grants, distribution support, and industry formalisation. That initiative impacted both Nollywood and Kannywood, not only in production quality but in distribution systems and professional training. It demonstrated that government engagement, when policy-driven and strategic, can elevate the creative sector beyond survival mode.
This is the model that deserves discussion. The debate should not revolve around whether assistance happened in the past or whether individuals showed kindness. The real question is whether Kannywood is being positioned as:
- A structured creative economy sector
or
- A welfare-dependent ecosystem
Humanitarian gestures are noble. But industry development requires capital structuring, regulatory clarity, professional governance, and separation between politics and professionalism.
Politics operates on influence and cycles. Professionalism operates on standards and sustainability. Likewise, packaging is not branding. Branding is identity, strategy, and long-term positioning.
If Kannywood is to compete regionally and globally, it must be discussed in the language of investment, co-production treaties, export markets, digital streaming infrastructure, intellectual property enforcement, and skills development. Not rice.
The international community increasingly recognises creative industries as GDP contributors, employment generators, and soft power tools. For Northern Nigeria’s film sector to be taken seriously on platforms such as BBC or Al Jazeera, its narrative must shift from symbolic relief efforts to structural economic reform.
This is not an attack on individuals. It is a call for maturity in discourse. The industry deserves:
- Policy-driven funding frameworks
- Transparent grant systems
- Distribution expansion into global markets
- Film finance literacy
- Strong guild structures
- Public-private investment partnerships
Kannywood has talent. It has audience loyalty. It has cultural depth. What it requires now is economic architecture.
Rice may sustain a household for days. Structured investment sustains an industry for generations.
* Mikail Isah Bin Hassan is a film director in Kannywood
