Ambassador  Yu Dunhai

July 1, 2026 marks the 105th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Under the Party’s strong leadership, China has achieved the twin miracles of rapid economic growth and long-term social stability. In just a few decades, it has accomplished a development transformation unprecedented in human history, becoming the world’s second-largest economy and a key engine of global growth. Many international friends often ask what lies behind China’s remarkable success. The answer, above all, is the leadership of the Communist Party of China.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, China was plunged into national humiliation, internal turmoil and foreign aggression. The country was weak, its people suffered greatly, and the future of the Chinese nation appeared bleak. Founded in 1921 at this critical moment, the CPC courageously took on the historic mission of national rejuvenation. Since its founding, the Party has remained committed to seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation. United under the CPC leadership, the Chinese people have overcome immense hardships, transformed the country’s future, and fundamentally rewritten the course of modern Chinese history.

Over the past 105 years, the CPC has led China through an extraordinary transformation from standing up, growing prosperous, and becoming strong, creating one of the greatest epics in the thousands of years of Chinese civilization. Today, China continues to advance high-quality development. Its modern industrial system is becoming increasingly sophisticated, emerging industries are flourishing, and major scientific and technological breakthroughs continue to emerge. As the 14th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development concludes successfully and the 15th Five-Year Plan begins, Chinese modernization is gathering unstoppable momentum toward the long-range objectives set for 2035.

History and reality have fully demonstrated that the leadership of the CPC is the fundamental reason for China’s success in revolution, development and reform. Grounded in China’s national realities, the CPC has led the Chinese people in forging a unique path to modernization that differs from the Western model, thereby breaking the notion that modernization equals Westernization, expanding the choices available to developing countries in pursuing modernization, and providing practical, replicable Chinese experience for those seeking independent paths to development.

First, the CPC has consistently upheld independence and self-reliance, firmly keeping China’s future in its own hands. The Party has always insisted that the Chinese people should determine their own development path. China’s experience demonstrates that there is no one-size-fits-all model for modernization; simply copying another country’s model or relying on external forces cannot deliver lasting success.

Second, the CPC has always put the people first, laying the foundation for lasting stability and prosperity. The Party remains committed to a people-centered philosophy of development, with improving people’s well-being as its fundamental goal. China has eradicated absolute poverty, lifting more than 700 million rural residents out of poverty. It has established the world’s largest education system and social security system, with the enrollment rate for compulsory education approaching 100 percent, basic medical insurance covering more than 1.3 billion people, and basic old-age insurance benefiting nearly 1 billion people. These tangible improvements have enabled the Chinese people to enjoy an ever-growing sense of fulfillment, happiness and security.

Third, the CPC has maintained its vitality through self-reform. The courage to reform itself is one of its defining characteristics and greatest strengths. By turning the blade inward, exercising rigorous self-governance, and maintaining an unrelenting fight against corruption, the Party has fostered a clean political environment and a healthy social ethos. In the process, it has continued to grow stronger and more mature, remaining the strong leadership core of the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Fourth, the CPC has consistently pursued theoretical innovation. On the occasion of its 105th anniversary, the Party has established Xi Jinping Thought on Party Building as another major theoretical innovation in the new era, which provides important guidance for advancing Chinese modernization and realizing national rejuvenation. Guided by a global vision and drawing on both the successes and failures of political parties around the world, while offering profound reflections on the challenges of long-term party governance, this thought provides a Chinese solution for political party building and national governance. Guided by the vision of building a community with a shared future for mankind, the CPC and the Chinese Government have put forward the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, the Global Civilization Initiative, and the Global Governance Initiative, and have published a white paper on reform of the global governance system. Together, these efforts contribute Chinese wisdom and solutions to addressing the profound changes unseen in a century and the common challenges facing humanity.

For 105 years, the CPC has remained true to its founding mission. For 55 years, China and Nigeria have stood together through thick and thin as good friends and trusted partners. Since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1971, our two countries have weathered changes in the international landscape by standing firmly with each other in solidarity and mutual support. Our political mutual trust has continued to deepen, practical cooperation has flourished across a wide range of fields, and our partnership has brought ever greater tangible benefits to both our peoples. No matter how the international landscape evolves, the CPC and the Chinese Government have remained unwavering in their commitment to long-term friendship with Nigeria, steadfast in supporting Nigeria in pursuing a modernization path suited to its own national conditions, and resolute in promoting practical cooperation that improves the well-being of the Nigerian people. China and Nigeria have consistently supported each other’s core interests and major concerns. Through institutional platforms such as the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), we have strengthened exchanges on governance experience, promoted the alignment of China’s 15th Five-Year Plan with Nigeria’s Renewed Hope Agenda, and ensured the steady and sustained development of bilateral relations, bringing more tangible benefits to the peoples of both countries.

Standing at a new historical starting point, the CPC and the Chinese Government stand ready to work with Nigeria to carry forward our traditional friendship, deepen exchanges on party building and state governance, strengthen strategic communication, and further consolidate political mutual trust. By translating political consensus into practical cooperation, drawing on mutual learning between political parties to support national development, and building an even stronger partnership for mutual benefit, we will continue to advance the China-Nigeria Comprehensive Strategic Partnership to new heights and work together to promote the shared prosperity of China and Africa, as well as lasting peace and common development of the world.

Lindsay Barrett

The story of the growth of Nigeria from independence in 1960 to its present day manifestation as Africa’s most populous nation, sometimes regarded as a symbol of unrealized potential for the entire continent, cannot be properly told without mention of the problematic years of 1966 to 1975 under the leadership of General Yakubu Gowon. This remarkable saga is uncovered in nearly 900 pages and 36 chapters of narration by the General in a revelatory autobiography entitled MY LIFE OF DUTY AND ALLEGIANCE which has been published in Nigeria in the 92nd year of his life. The anecdotal accuracy and emotional intimacy of the story as narrated by the author exposes the demonstrably devout example of his attitude of humility and honesty towards governance that was unfortunately truncated with his overthrow. It is therefore very relevant that readers of the book should contemplate why the narrative commences not with his accession to power but with a reflective chapter on his removal from office. This formula of each chapter dealing with a critical event or decision in the course of his life and professional career in a random rather than chronological order enhances the historical veracity of the book and thus improves the intellectual experience that the narrative delivers.

In outlining his early life as the son of a pioneering native missionary evangelist in Northern Nigeria Gowon relates a very articulate recollection of colonial youth and education. This upbringing helped to build the character and attitudes that inspired his responses towards national service as a military officer later in life. The values of moral veracity and respect for order that he inculcated early in life were profoundly activated when he was persuaded to accept the responsibility for the restoration of discipline in Nigeria’s armed forces as a result of a coup d’etat in the planning of which he had played no part. An interesting consequence of a careful reading of this book is the eventual conclusion that some of the most important outcomes of well-known historical events might have occurred because of irresponsible human attitudes. General Gowon’s recollections of the breakdown of the Aburi Accord, which led to the outbreak of the Nigerian civil war is a case in point. His views might still generate disagreement from some quarters, but they are enunciated with convincing detail from his side, and the issue although one of the most controversial historical events narrated in the book is presented with extremely credible memorial recollection.

The author’s main desire appears to be to provide a fair and objective depiction of major experiences of his life as a leader building a post-colonial leadership role in West Africa which he inherited almost by accident. In order to tell this incredible story believably General Gowon and his editors have cobbled together a comprehensive document based largely on his reminiscence of events and dilemmas that are related in memorable anecdotes that are very convincing and vitally positive aspects of this remarkable book. As a consequence, the story told is replete with reflections, opinions and revelatory information about public affairs that are interpreted in terms of intimacy and lack of confidentiality that would be considered unusual in most political leader’s biographies. As a result, his comments on major issues such as the founding of ECOWAS and the conduct and conclusion of the Nigerian civil war as well as his views on the need for representative governance provide valuable insights for conscientious readers. The work coming at this late stage of his life also provides General Gowon with the opportunity to philosophise extensively on the depth of his devotion to the Christian faith that shaped his youth and now strengthens his belief in humanity’s future.

The lasting impression that one gets from a thorough reading of this voluminous work is that the author always advocated decency in human relationships in the formulation of government policy. He endured serial violations of his principles in the pursuit of his objectives. The tale of how he was hounded and accused of having plotted a coup while in exile, and how he was eventually cleared of the accusation, which he denies ever having been true, is a cautionary one. Anecdotes about his personal life, especially the deep and compassionate alliance that his marriage to his wife Victoria has proven to be, confirm the genuinely solid devotion to decency in human relations at the core of his being. Narrating the events and circumstances that led to the civil war, the ultimate duty of command of his entire career he expresses the belief that his duty was to restore peace and unity rather than to record a triumphant conquest. His adherence to these standards explains his relationship to the cerebral academic Ukpabi Asika who accepted his request to represent the Igbo ethnic group’s resistance against secession and persuade them to return to unity in the spirit of No Victor No Vanquished at the end of the civil war, which was the ultimate achievement of the Gowon story that has now been told by the man who lived it.

•A review by Lindsay Barrett

REUBEN ABATI

As Nigeria moves closer to the 2027 general elections, it is important to remind all the actors involved in this process to act in a responsible manner and not engage in any untidy or sharp practice that may raise doubts or anxiety about the integrity of the elections. An impression that our democracy is under assault in any form whatsoever is enough to derail the exercise and create a perception of wrong-doing or deliberate mischief. In particular, two recent developments relating to the judiciary – the Justice Peter Lifu case in the matter of the proposed deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party (AP) and 3 other political parties; and then the decision of the Federal High Court, Lokoja sitting as an appeal court over its December 10, 2025 decision on the registration of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).  Both are unfortunate, especially as the judiciary is considered a temple of justice whose officers are expected to be above suspicion like Caesar’s wife. The judex have a bounden duty to cloak their judgements with the clean garment of fairness, impartiality and justice, no matter whose ox is gored. They are not to descend into the arena. But it is now more fashionable than ever for litigants and observers alike to impugn the integrity of our courts. They claim to know our judges. The pervasive perception is that a Nigerian judge can be bribed, and the judiciary which is supposed to be an independent arm of government has now been joined at the hips with the machinations of the Executive, the ruling party, or the highest bidder. The injury is self-inflicted. The rule of law is threatened in the eyes of the ordinary man on the street.

In the Justice Peter Lifu case, it is argued that the learned Judge of the High Court simply overruled an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, delivered on May 22, 2026 to the effect that the suit – Incorporated Trustees of NFFL vs. INEC & Ors (FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2027) which was  filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators at the Federal High Court, Abuja requesting the deregistration of five political parties, for failing to meet necessary performance thresholds to be registered,  should be put on hold. Justice Lifu’s court ignored the Court of Appeal and went ahead to deliver judgment, directing INEC to deregister the political parties. It was a very angry Court of Appeal taking up the matter subsequently that accused Justice Lifu of brazenly violating “the hierarchy of courts”, thus committing “the gravest form of judicial misconduct”, in fact “judicial rascality.” The Appeal Court has now adjourned until July 7, for the hearing of the appeal and to enable parties in the suit to file and exchange their briefs of argument.

It would be difficult to argue that Justice Peter Lifu acted, without being aware of the previous decision of the Court of Appeal. There is also the matter of whether or not the former legislators had a locus standi in the matter. It would appear that the Nigerian Supreme Court prefers a more liberal approach to a strict approach on the subject of locus standi particularly where public interest is involved in pursuit of the protection of public rights (Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC, Fawehinmi v. Akilu) or where the issues raised concern the interpretation of the Constitution (Attorney General of the Federation v. Abubakar, Inakoju v. Adeleke; AG Ondo State v. AG Federation). However, some lawyers may well prefer a restrictive approach which will require the litigant to demonstrate the specific injury or damage that he or she may have suffered, and the arguments on this and allied issues were canvassed in court. Justice Lifu’s decision rested largely on his reading of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution, which gives INEC the authority to register or deregister political parties, with a view to “sanitizing the political space.”  But was there any prior scrutiny by INEC, due diligence and investigation by INEC to ascertain the claims against the five political parties or was it merely enough to consider the claims by third-party litigants?

Curiously, the learned judge seemed to have anticipated the response he received subsequently from the Court of Appeal when in his conclusions, he wrote inter alia that:

“If any party wants to suspend the operation of an order fixing a case for judgment, they must seek specific order staying the effect of those orders. Fixing a case for judgment is an order of Court. That order is still extant. In my considered view, this is the implication of the Court’s decision in the case of Zenith Bank Plc vs. John (2015)…Moreover and more importantly, the National Judicial Council by a circular …dated 16th June, 2025 directed as follows:-

Henceforth, matters that have reached an advanced stage or have been adjourned for judgment should not be transferred, irrespective of complaint by any of the parties”

“The implication of the above directive is very discerning to a legal mind. Judgment of a Court should not be delayed or stayed or suspended. The judex is a man under authority. He complies implicitly with superior directives particularly as a public servant and judicial officer in line with his oath of office. In the absence of any specific order putting on hold the judgment of the Court coupled with the fact that there is no inferred abuse of Court process and counsel has adopted all their processes while the Court has statutory time to deliver its Judgment, I hold that there is no legal impediment to the delivery of the Judgment of this Court.”

The Court of Appeal thinks otherwise, relying exclusively on the principle of the hierarchy of courts and its own intervention. The Superior Court pointedly accused Justice Peter Lifu of “judicial rascality.” The public and the affected parties think that judicial rascality as alleged must not just be talked about, it must be sanctioned. But here is Justice Peter Lifu quoting the authority of the National Judicial Council. Is the NJC superior to the appellate Court when no wrongdoing has been established against it? There are many Nigerians out there who believe that there is more than meets the eye in Justice Peter Lifu’s judgment and this is where the Nigerian judiciary runs into troubled waters again and repeatedly.  Mr. Atedo Peterside succinctly summarizes this general public sentiment when he wrote in his X handle that “the cure for judicial rascality is disciplinary action. Glossing over rascality whilst relying on Appeal Courts alone to overturn obnoxious judgments encourages more judges to go into the lucrative business of delivering procurable obnoxious judgments”. The very suggestion that judges are running “a lucrative business” and that they can be “procured” is more the reason why steps must be taken to protect the integrity of the same institution that is described as the “last hope of the common man.”  The NJC is saddled with the assignment of ensuring the discipline of judges. Is the NJC asleep or awake? The word “rascality” should never be used together in the same phrase with the judiciary. This is the main problem. Nigerians have become so skeptical they are even now saying that the people should not expect impartiality from a judiciary that has been over-motivated with mansions as official residence in Abuja and elsewhere.

My inclination is to defend the judex and assume that they may well be victims of group libel and/or blackmail, precisely because it would be an overkill to tar the entire judiciary with the same brush. But there is trouble with this submission when you consider the kind of somersault that we have now just witnessed in the Federal High Court in Lokoja on the matter of the eligibility of the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party. The alleged culprit in this case is Justice Isa H. Dashen who has now overturned an earlier judgment delivered on December 10, 2025 by the same court ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the NDC. It has now suddenly occurred to the Federal High Court in Lokoja that its earlier decision was constitutionally defective because the Peace Movement Party (PMP) was not joined, hence denied a fair hearing, and the NDC which was registered had stolen the PMP logo.  On Friday, the Court said the NDC should be de-registered, the status quo should be restored, pending when all legal issues are resolved, and INEC, the NDC, and the PMP should be joined as parties. This is extremely shocking. The NDC as a political party and its leaders have screamed out loud and clear that they will be rushing to the Court of Appeal because there has been a miscarriage of justice and that Justice Dashen’s judgment was arrived at per incuriam, that is in error, more so as it appeared to have acted as an appellate court over its own judgment. By so doing, the court exercised a jurisdiction that it did not have, jurisdiction being the bone, pith and marrow of the judicial process.

The general rule in Nigeria is that once a court has already delivered a final judgment in a case, it is already rendered functus officio on that particular matter. In other words, it no longer has the power to modify a final order it already made.  It cannot act as an appellate court over its own decisions (Adegoke Motors Ltd. vs. Adesanya).  The same principle about the hierarchy of courts indicated in the earlier case reviewed, also applies here, and that is why an appellate court assumes the authority to review decisions made by the lower courts. It is trite law that there are exceptions to this and in this particular matter, the rule will apply to (a) circumstances where the earlier summary judgment was obtained by fraud. There is no clear evidence that the Federal High Court judgment directing INEC to register the NDC in December 2025 was obtained by fraud (b) where the defence has a meritorious case for non-appearance and judgment was entered, but again that didn’t happen in this case, (c) where judgment was given without service on the main party; (d) where a miscarriage of justice can be established, (e) where there has been a lack of jurisdiction, the fons et origo of the entire process, and (e) where there have been clerical mistakes, ambiguities or errors requiring clarification, that is the slip rule. Without all of this being established, the Court of Justice Dashen constituted itself into an Appeal Court, and acted as a judge and jury in its own case and decided that the matter of the PMP must be addressed de novo. The main issue is the right to fair hearing.  Incidentally, the PMP is not even a registered political party in Nigeria. If the PMP insists, as it does that the NDC used its two-finger victory logo, the best it could have done would have been to file a suit for “passing off” and the Court could have in the circumstance ordered that the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) should change its logo.    

Beyond legalese, there is also something to be said for discretion and proportionality. What is proper in the eyes of the right-thinking, reasonable members of society? What is fair?  If the PMP was denied fair hearing, the appropriate place to go would have been the Appeal Court. The NDC was registered as a political party, its officials were restored. The party has taken part in electoral processes to date: membership registration, party congresses and primaries, due submissions to and interactions with INEC, the emergence of candidates, the emergence of Presidential candidates only for a Court in Lokoja to show up and upturn all of that. The judge should have been more circumspect, given the tense political atmosphere in the country. The case is now before the Court of Appeal. The NDC leadership is convinced that the party will remain on the ballot, and that there has been a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of court process by the Federal High Court in Lokoja. There are clear legal issues that the Court of Appeal would address: whether or not the court was functus officio, whether or not there has been an abuse of court process and whether or not the process/outcome is sound in law? The Court will do its work and hopefully expeditiously, and so we wait.

Meanwhile, it is being argued that the two cases cited above about the eligibility or validity of opposition political parties and their bona fides can be traced to the Tinubu administration’s plan to impose a one- party state on Nigeria. At least two Presidential candidates claim that there is a grand plan to stop them at all costs because they constitute a threat to Tinubu. The leadership of the ADC and the Labour Party have also expressed misgivings about the courts. This is the perception. But in reality, Tinubu may not even be the one interfering in every instance. He may in fact be innocent and it could be the system overreaching itself or certain unscrupulous agents acting in Tinubu’s name, in a bid to leave nothing to chance. The best that the President can do as a leader is to leave the institutions of state better than he met them and for it to be said that he gave democracy a chance, and allowed peace, justice, and fairness to reign no matter the odds. The stability of the country should be more important to all political gladiators. The judiciary must be above reproach. Where allegations of outright misconduct can be established against judges, sanctions must be applied to sustain public trust and the rule of law. 

Unlike the situation twelve years ago when the issue of state police divided Nigeria Governors Forum right down the middle, there appears today to be a more ready acceptance of the idea. Many Nigerians want us to move forward from the present situation of a single, federal police force to a dual, separate state and federal police forces with separate command structures and, if possible, clearly demarcated responsibilities.

Let me correct myself here; move backwards is more like it. Up until the late 1960s, we had in this country a local police force in each Native Authority [known in the North as Yan Doka, literally “sons of order”] and a federal Nigeria Police known in the North as Yan Sanda, literally “sons of baton.” Policemen in those days rode on bicycles and carried batons, unlike today, when each one of them has a rifle, sometimes a machine gun and they ride around in armoured personnel carriers, but are still unable to stem crime as effectively as the Yan Doka did.

Although there appears to be wider support today for the state police idea, there are still several K-legs that I see with the current push to amend the 1999 Constitution and enshrine the idea. One K-leg is the timing, when general and presidential elections are looming. Only four years ago, then presidential candidate Bola Tinubu was very unhappy when the Buhari Administration approved the Central Bank’s plan to change the currency on the eve of elections. It caused massive economic and social disruption; splitting Nigeria Police at this time is likely to cause at least as much disruption. Pray, why not wait until the election is over, and then you have all the time in the world to plan this tumultuous change?

The opposition Africa Democratic Congress [ADC] has already decried what it called the rush rush manner in which the police reform is being pushed. The Presidency had set up a committee that studied the idea and made recommendations. In the olden days, such a committee’s report would have been published in the newspapers, together with a government White Paper that will say which recommendations were accepted and which ones were rejected or modified. In the days of military rule, when there was no Parliament, the soldiers relied a lot on published committee reports and white papers to get public reaction and input. White Papers on everything from Langalanga train disaster to plane crashes to communal riots to student disturbances were readily published in the newspapers in those days.

Even though the state police idea appears to have gained ready support from Presidency, state governors and National Assembly, the Presidency hurriedly sent a constitutional amendment bill to the National Assembly and, in one day, the Senate passed it. There were no public hearings. This is very important because there are many other stakeholders in this police reform project, as well as a lot of Nigerians who can make critical inputs into this matter.

For example, twenty-five years ago when I was Editor of New Nigerian in Kaduna, this matter of the relative efficiency between the old Yan Doka and the present Yan Sanda once came up. We thought one person who will have a rich perspective of the matter was Walin Kano Alhaji Mahe Bashir Wali. In the 1960s he was the Wakilin Doka [i.e. head of the Kano Native Authority Police], and after the police reforms, he transferred to Nigeria Police and rose to become Deputy Inspector General. Our Features Editor Auwalu Umar Danbatta went and interviewed him in Kano. He asked Wali why the Yan Doka were more effective in combatting crime than the Yan Sanda, and Wali said population explosion is a factor. Our villages and towns were once relatively small, and anyone entering a village must report to the Village Head, introduce himself, say where he was coming from, what his business in the town was, who is hosting him, and when and where he will go from there. These days, when some of our state capitals and largest cities have hundreds of hotels, plus the constitutional freedom of movement, one can enter any town he likes, lodge in a hotel for as long as he wants, transact any business he likes and depart at his own time without telling anybody.

Not only has Nigerian society quantitatively increased in population, but it has also qualitatively transformed in criminal sophistication, up to and including the coming of armed robbers, kidnappers, insurgents, bandits, Yahoo boys and secessionists. Nigeria Police, with all its phenomenal increase in manpower, much larger budgets, much more mobility, more sophisticated domestic and foreign training, heavier weapons and greater use of tech gadgets, is still at its wits end combatting crime. Will state police be better in this regard?

One advantage that state police is touted to have, in relation to the Federal police, is better knowledge of the locality. It is assumed when state police come on board, every state will staff it with locals, what we call indigenes. Certainly that will help in some ways, even though there are other ways in which Nigeria Police could gain this knowledge of the locality too, by incorporating traditional rulers and local vigilantes into the scheme. That you are a local native alone does not give you exceptional knowledge of the criminals in the area. Which is why, state police forces must still aim to build intelligence capacities like Nigeria Police currently has, plus the assistance it gets from intelligence and security agencies and the military. The late Marafan Sokoto Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi, a career policeman who once headed the Nigeria Security Organisation [NSO], precursor of today’s DSS, NIA and DIA, throughout his lifetime emphasized the centrality of intelligence gathering in fighting crime. Which is why, conferences being held in his memory today are called Umaru Shinkafi Intelligence and Security Summit.

Stuffing state police with locals will have its advantages but it might also have some K-legs as well. Every state in Nigeria has its own share of ethnic, religious, political and traditional disputes. Native policemen can easily be sucked into these, unless if they receive training and indoctrination so sophisticated that they rise above these, which is doubtful. Can a nine month training at a Police Academy wipe out ethnic and other sentiment? One reason for worry is that in many inter communal disputes across the country, ex-servicemen often play a central role, wielding firearms to fight for their communities. If even military training is unable to erase such sentiments, is it likely that state police training can do so?

It is not for nothing that policemen, including Commissioners of Police, are posted around the country, usually outside their own states of origin, but usually also to areas of cultural similarity, to enhance understanding. Look, in the long years of military rule in this country, Military Governors were almost never sent to their states of origin. That at least guaranteed some neutrality, or the appearance of it, in local disputes. Imagine when a communal dispute arises and the state police DPO is a native of one of the warring communities. However much he strives to remain neutral, the opposing community will never agree, and will loudly allege that he took sides with his native community.

The biggest fear around the state police idea is that state governors could abuse it by lending it to their partisan causes. Even now, some governors have been alleged to goad federal security officials to arrest and detain their political opponents, to deny them freedom of movement and assembly, and to intimidate anyone who supports an opposition party. Imagine what will happen if a state governor appoints the Commissioner of State Police, fully funds the force and can initiate the Compol’s removal.  

One telling example is how State Independent Electoral Commissions have become the institutional sick babies of this Republic. In nearly every state where SIECs conducted local government elections, the ruling party in the state swept every available seat. Some people who are wary of the state police idea fear that, given the secessionist sentiment in some areas, state police could become tools in such bids. What we can say here however is that since we will still have a single, federal military force, that should be able to combat any such tendencies.

Let me also advise the Presidency; please do not over hype the notion that creating state police will overnight, or even in the short or medium term, end the scourge of insecurity currently bedeviling the country. Just like we are agitating for local police nearly 60 years after we abolished them, somewhere down the road Nigerians may agitate for a return to single Federal Police.

So, by all means let us go forth [to the past] and try the state police idea, but please seek greater input from all sectors of Nigerian society, not just governors and MPs, but especially from current and ex-servicemen. And then, please wait until after the 2027 election before you begin to split police forces.

How staff theft is quietly killing Nigeria’s service economy — and what it will take to stop it

There is a saying Nigerians know in our bones: every day for the thief, one day for the owner. It is meant to be a reassurance. Justice is slow, the proverb suggests, but it is coming. Sit tight. Be patient. Your day will arrive.

Through Nidacity, I spend roughly ninety percent of my time with entrepreneurs — in their businesses, on their platforms, at their elbows as they try to build something real. And what I have concluded, after months of those conversations, is that the old proverb needs updating.

In Nigeria’s service economy today, it is every day for the thief — and no day, ever, for the owner. This is not simply a story about declining values or individual morality. Criminologists have long understood that behaviour is shaped less by the severity of punishment than by the certainty of consequences. We have built an economy where the consequences of stealing from your employer are, for most participants, essentially zero. And we are living with the results.

What the Entrepreneurs Are Actually Saying

Founders in hospitality, retail, and food service — hotels, restaurants, logistics operations, beauty businesses — are a resilient bunch, but their conversations almost always arrive at the same place. Not electricity, though that comes up. Not interest rates, though those do too. What makes the eyes go flat, what produces that particular exhausted fury that only comes from a problem with no visible solution, is the theft. Staff theft. Internal theft. The quiet, systematic, organised extraction of value from businesses by the people they hired.

For my podcast, I have interviewed two hotel owners, both victims. One had a fifteen-year employee he had treated like family — bought him land, paid school fees, covered medical bills. It did not matter.

The impunity is staggering. And it is not accidental. It is the logical outcome of a system with no consequences.

The Victim-Blaming Must Stop

Better controls. Tighter reconciliation. CCTV. I hear this so often as a recommendation that I have started laughing. I qualified as a Chartered Accountant in 1993 and am a former internal auditor. With the greatest of respect to those offering these prescriptions: you do not understand the size of this problem.

The person running two restaurants is not a surveillance operative who can abandon her floor to watch twelve hours of CCTV footage every day. Suggesting she should reveals exactly how completely we have outsourced the problem to its victims.

To those who ask how much the staff are being paid: I pray that you will one day open a business in Nigeria and find out that it had nothing to do with salary or benefits. The woman who opens a bank account in a name similar to her employer’s business and arrives to work with her own POS terminal is not hungry or desperate. She is a thief, and a well-prepared one. The first money she steals is her insurance — set aside to settle the police if she is ever caught.

And to those who insist the auditors should have found it: I ask how many small businesses can afford an auditor? And even some that can find their auditor is part of the same collusion.

What is most disturbing is the pattern of coordination. Very few of these thefts are solo operations. The person currently awaiting trial on remand whom my team interviewed had recruited the security guard and three regular customers into a systematic five-year operation against a woman whose only crime was trying to build something. This is organised crime — more disciplined in its structure than most legitimate businesses.

If we opened the floodgates and asked business owners to share their stories, I think we would have a day of national shame.

Members of the public have a small but real role to play: be in the business owner’s corner. Be suspicious of the non-working POS machine followed by an offer to pay into a personal account. Avoid cash. Do not collect the personal phone number of staff, or encourage them to do private work on the side at the expense of the employer whose generator is running.

The Police Problem

This is where the conversations with Otunba Femi Okenla — entrepreneur, Nidacity podcast guest, and owner of the IBIS Hotel — and Ayodele Ogundele of Davies Hotel became something I could not unhear.

He told me what it costs to get the police to prosecute someone caught stealing from your business. Not the theoretical cost. The actual, itemised, out-of-pocket cost he personally paid: logistics, the informal fees understood by everyone involved to be the price of admission to a system that is theoretically free. He paid them — not because he wanted to, but because the alternative was watching the thief walk out and the next employee draw the obvious lesson.

What Otunba Okenla described is not an exception. It is the structure. The police will not pursue a staff theft case without inducement. Courts move at the pace of an institution never designed for its current caseload on its current budget. By the time a case resolves — if it ever does — the business has absorbed the original theft, financed the prosecution, lost a staff member, found a replacement, and is running on less capital and more cynicism than it started with.

The rational conclusion is unavoidable: theft works. The expected cost of being caught is so low that the calculation is not even close. This is not a moral peculiarity. It is basic criminology. When consequences are absent, behaviour follows. We have built — or failed to build — an environment in which internal theft is, for many participants, essentially risk-free. What we observe is the predictable result.

Most business owners simply sack the thief, who walks free to find another job. The cycle continues, and the thief re-enters the workforce more experienced and emboldened.

What It Costs the Economy

We frame staff theft as a business problem. It is that. But it is also a labour market problem, an investment problem, and a youth employment problem — and the connections deserve to be stated plainly.

The scale of this problem is not Nigerian folklore. It is documented global economics. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners — the world’s recognised authority on occupational fraud — estimates that organisations lose approximately five percent of annual revenue to internal theft and fraud. The median loss per case in their most recent global study exceeded US$145,000. Small businesses suffer disproportionately, because they lack the internal controls that larger organisations deploy. Nigeria’s weak enforcement environment almost certainly pushes the cost higher still. When businesses that account for roughly 48 percent of Nigeria’s GDP and employ well over 80 percent of our workforce are being systematically weakened from the inside, staff theft stops being a private matter between an employer and a dishonest employee. It becomes an economic policy issue.

Nigeria’s service sector is the natural engine of entry-level employment for young people without capital or connections. Hotels need porters. Restaurants need floor staff. These are real jobs — the first rung of the formal labour market, the roles that build credit histories, generate pension contributions, and create the track record that allows someone to borrow, to grow, to become something other than a daily earner with no institutional footprint.

The entrepreneur who has been repeatedly stolen from is not a neutral actor when she hires next. She hires fewer people. She pays less, because the margin that would justify a better wage has been extracted. She automates where she can, not because the technology is obviously superior but because a machine does not steal from the till. She does not expand, because expansion means more people and more people means more exposure to a risk she has learned is unmanageable.

There is a second consequence that rarely gets named. Owners who are scared to expand beyond what they can physically supervise are already a tragedy. But the more dangerous trajectory is this: increasingly, employers tell me they believe expatriate supervisors or foreign middle managers are less likely to participate in internal theft. Whether that perception is fair is almost beside the point. Perceptions shape hiring decisions. If that perception solidifies, Nigerians risk being systematically relegated to entry-level positions in the very sectors — service and light manufacturing — that have the capacity to absorb workers at scale. That is not a hypothetical. It is already happening.

The Hope: State Police and the Possibility of Consequence

I am not a pessimist. But the hope I am about to describe is contingent on political will, and political will is never guaranteed.

The ongoing establishment of state police forces is, for Nigeria’s service economy, the most significant governance development of this decade — if the political will is there to use it. For the first time, individual states will be able to design their own enforcement priorities, set their own prosecution standards, and — if they choose — create fast-track mechanisms for commercial crime that the federal structure has never been capable of delivering.

A caveat is required. State police are not a panacea, and history offers no automatic comfort here. Poorly governed forces could simply replicate the same dynamics that make federal policing so costly and so unreliable for the business owner trying to report a theft today. The value of state police for commercial enforcement depends entirely on design: transparent commercial crime units, investigators who are trained in financial crime rather than generalists pressed into service, and measurable performance standards that allow the public to hold them to account. Without those features, we will have devolved the problem without solving it. With them, we could materially change the calculation that currently makes internal theft essentially risk-free.

My argument to state governments is direct: staff theft is not a victimless crime against wealthy business owners. It is a tax on the employment capacity of the most labour-intensive sectors of your economy. Every business that fails because the margins were stolen closes jobs and reduces tax payments. Every business that does not expand because its owner was burned once too often never hires. The cost falls on the person waiting for work, not just the person who built the business.

A state that creates a credible, accessible, fast-track mechanism for prosecuting internal business theft — one that does not require the owner to personally finance the investigation — will see investment move toward it. Entrepreneurs who have been burned elsewhere will be willing to try again. The deterrent effect of genuine consequences is, in every jurisdiction that has studied it, more powerful than any camera. Cameras record. Courts decide.

The difference between a recording and a consequence is the difference between a business that keeps hiring and one that quietly gives up.

Every day for the thief. That has been the reality. But it is not a law of nature. Nigeria is not short on entrepreneurs — it is getting short on confidence that what is built will be protected.

It is time to start.

Kemi Adeosun is a former Minister of Finance of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and former Commissioner for Finance of Ogun State. She is the founder of Nidacity.com and the Dash Me Foundation. She writes from Lagos.

My office is located somewhere in the Alausa axis of Ikeja, Lagos state, so I find myself driving around the state’s seat of power regularly in search of my daily 2k. One day on Nurudeen Olowopopo Way, the traffic lights stopped us. The car in front of me ended up on a zebra crossing. Two men dressed in grey uniform appeared from nowhere and started talking to the driver. Before you could say Jack, one of them had opened the door and jumped into the car. As the traffic lights released us, they led the driver and the car away. I shook my head and muttered: “Another collection of uniformed officers.” I later learnt they were members of the Lagos State Neighbourhood Safety Corps (LNSC).

I started thinking: how many uniformed officers does an average Lagos motorist encounter every day? We have the regular police with checkpoints everywhere. We also have unusual police officers in mufti and balaclavas. Sometimes, the way they dress makes you wonder if they are robbers. We come across officers of the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC). They, at times, waylay motorists at street corners. We also have officers of the Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA). I used to see VIO officers too. Not sure I have seen them recently. We also have military officers on joint patrols at strategic places. All these come at a cost to motorists, especially commercial drivers.

Fasten your seat belt: a fresh collection of uniformed officers is on the way. The states are closer than ever to having their own police forces. We will have the federal police on the one hand and the state police on the other. In May 2024, speakers of the 36 state assemblies announced their support for the proposal. The National Assembly has now approved an amendment to the 1999 Constitution. The deal is almost done. Only 24 of the 36 states are required to endorse it by a simple majority of their assemblies. All that will be needed thereafter is for President Bola Tinubu to sign the dotted line. He has been an advocate of state police for decades. No need to guess if he will give his assent.

Why do we need state police? One recurring argument is that every state should police itself. It is argued that without state police, we are not practising “true federalism” and that we are simply running a unitary system. The US is usually cited as the example of a federation where policing is national and subnational. Another argument is that our police, as currently structured, cannot function efficiently because of centralised bureaucracy. With state police, governors will indeed be the chief security officers of their states and will be in control of policing in their domains, including recruitment, appointment and funding. They will, in theory, have no say in operational matters.

People have also argued that Nigeria is too large, both in landmass and population, to be policed from Abuja. The current state of insecurity — terrorism, insurgency, banditry, kidnapping for ransom and the like — is blamed by some campaigners on the policing structure. It is said that introducing another level of policing controlled by the states themselves will go a long way in tackling the intractable state of things. In all pro-state police arguments, one unmissable theme is that the Nigeria Police Force, also known as NPF, has failed to secure the nation effectively and efficiently. And the major reason, as it is often argued, is that it is too centralised to cater for our security needs.

These arguments are not entirely new. I wrote on the subnational police issue two years ago, quoting broadly from the book, ‘The Police in Modern Nigeria, 1861-1965: Origins, Development, and Role’, authored by Prof Tekena Tamuno, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Ibadan who died in 2015. Hon S. Akinola, representing Ijesha (Western region) in the Federal House of Representatives, proposed ethnicity-based policing during a legislative debate in 1955. He wanted police officers to be deployed along ethnic and linguistic lines across the country. In other words, Igbo officers would police Igbo land, Yoruba would police Yoruba territories, and Hausa would police Hausa domains.

Akinola also proposed that police should be regionalised and placed under a “Regional Authority” rather than being “remotely controlled by the big man in Lagos” — in reference to the inspector-general of police. Lagos was the federal capital at the time. This proposal was under the limited self-rule that Nigeria enjoyed pre-Independence. Chief Obafemi Awolowo, premier of the Western region from 1954-60, was particularly piqued that while the constitution vested him with the responsibility of maintaining law and order in his domain, he was denied the power to manage its policing. He warned that the federal government could become “authoritarian” under that policing structure.

Instructively, the Western and Northern regions had local police which operated only at the local government level and did not bear arms. In 1955, members representing Asaba, Warri and Benin in the Western House of Assembly complained about the partisan activities of local police in areas not under the control of Awolowo’s Action Group. The opposition Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) also opposed regional police at the 1958 constitutional conference based on its experience in the north. The Willink Commission opposed it as well, and its report was adopted by the conference. The military take-over of 1966 effectively ended all forms of local policing and centralised everything.

Where do I stand on state police? Much as I strongly accept that we need to significantly improve internal security, I have always opposed the campaign for state police because I fear possible use and abuse by governors. My principal witness is the state electoral commissions which conduct local government elections. I don’t know of many states where opposition parties win council elections, except there is a special “underground” arrangement. If a state has an APC governor, the headline after council elections is usually: “APC wins all councils”. If it is PDP, it is usually: “PDP clears all LGAs”. State police in the hands of governors may just be a headache for the opposition in their domains.

But someone once countered my argument by saying even governors use the federal police against their political opponents. That is true. Moreover, federal government also uses the police against political opponents, including governors. That is also true. Therefore, whether federal or state, the police are still subject to misuse and abuse. I have no counterargument to that. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that guardrails will prevent abuse. By law, the IGP is not supposed to take operational instructions from the Nigerian president. But is that the case? We have guardrails against human rights abuses, bribery, corruption, conflict of interest and every bad thing. How well do they work?

Still, there is no need to kick against the pricks: state police is an idea whose time has come. There is no stopping it. I believe we have gone past the stage of debating the desirability of state police. The critical political consensus that was stalling it has now been secured. And if state police would help reduce insecurity by just 10 percent, that would be a gain. The real challenge is: how do we make it work for Nigerians? What are we going to do differently in terms of recruitment, welfare, training and operational efficiency? What sort of technology are we going to adopt to achieve the best possible results? How are we going to make sure the guardrails against political abuse do not fail?

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

LOGO IMBROGLIO

A federal high court sitting in Lokoja, Kogi state, has curiously ordered the deregistration of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) because of a complaint by the unregistered Peace Movement Party (PMP). The association claimed its V-sign symbol was stolen by the NDC and that INEC should not have registered the party. I do not, for the life of me, think a party should lose its registration because of a logo. That looks reckless in my view. NDC’s argument is that PMP is an unregistered party but the issue here seems to be intellectual property. Instead of allowing this controversy to drag on unnecessarily, the NDC can design a different logo and shame the devil, isn’t it? Sorted.

STARMER STYMIED

British politics can be brutal at times. After two years in office, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been forced to fall on his own sword following a groundswell of rebellion against him in the Labour Party. Mr Andy Burnham, his rival, is waiting in the wings to take over in a matter of weeks. Starmer led the party to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election and the economy is not faring badly, but his stock has been falling with the rise of the anti-immigration Reform Party. The Labour Party was thoroughly whipped in the May council polls. Then Starmer could not come clean on his decision to appoint Mr Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US last year amid damaging allegations. Ruthless.

TUNJI BELLO AT 65

Mr Olatunji Bello, chief executive officer and executive vice chairman of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), will be 65 on Wednesday. I can’t believe it is already five years since we celebrated his 60th birthday with a book of tributes. How time flies! The political scientist, lawyer, environmentalist and — not forgetting — accomplished journalist has always made his mark wherever he has set foot. Meanwhile, he is a longsuffering supporter of Arsenal FC, which means he also deserves my felicitation that his favourite club finally won the English Premier League after what looked like 1,000 years of trying and failing. Double congratulations. Cheers!

NO COMMENT

There is an interesting development in the pipeline. Primate Babatunde Ayodele, who spends most of his time prophesying on politics, recently said Mr Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), would be betrayed by Dr Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, his running mate. Kwankwaso was so furious that he threatened to file a N10 billion defamation suit against Ayodele. But the primate has come up with a fascinating response: “I wish to state clearly that the purpose of my prophecies has never been to defame, malign, or attack anyone’s personality. I only speak based on what I receive from the throne of God.” Will he produce his witness to testify in court? Hahahaha.

EDGY OPTIMIST By Obinna Chima

Leadership is often measured by electoral victories, political alliances and the ability to navigate the complex terrain of governance. Yet, history reserves its highest honours for leaders whose impact transcends politics. That is, those who build institutions, inspire confidence, create opportunities and leave enduring legacies that outlive their tenure. It is within this context that the leadership of Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, deserves to be examined.

As he marked his 61st birthday two days ago, the occasion presented an opportunity to reflect on a style of leadership that has increasingly distinguished itself through pragmatism, empathy, resilience, respect and an unwavering commitment to public service.

Lagos is a unique state. The state which is home to more than 20 million persons continues to expand as climate change and insecurity push more persons and families to south-western Nigeria, even as people migrate in search of greener pastures. Party? Lagosians party hard. Equally, the city’s music industry has also conquered the world while the dynamism of its entrepreneurial spirits

Another unique aspect of Lagos rarely spoken about is its remarkable religious tolerance. Most of the biggest churches in the country and the world are located here. Mosques are situated in almost every corner, just as the adherents to traditional practice do their thing in peace. That is why Lagosians will tell you that there is no city like Lagos and argue that the megacity does not lack anything.

Yet, beneath its vibrancy lies a unique set of challenges. From perennial traffic congestion and the pressures of rapid urbanisation to an ever-growing population driven by migration from every part of Nigeria and beyond, the demand for housing, transportation, healthcare, education, security and other critical infrastructure continues to rise. Balancing these competing demands while sustaining economic growth and maintaining the state’s status as Nigeria’s commercial capital remains one of the greatest tests of leadership in Lagos.

That is why governing such a dynamic and demanding state demands vision, resilience, administrative competence and the ability to make difficult decisions in the larger public interest. All these Governor Sanwo-Olu has demonstrated in the past 2,578 days.

His THEMES+ agenda, which stands for Traffic Management & Transportation, Health & Environment, Education & Technology, Making Lagos a 21st Century Economy, Entertainment & Tourism, and Security & Governance, and the ‘Plus’ representing an added focus on social inclusion and gender equality, continues to propel all his administration does for the progress and development of Lagos State.

Sanwo-Olu’s styles have also engendered inclusion and greater participation in government’s implementation strategies. Dynamic, goal oriented, accessible, responsive, humble and loyal to the party and Lagosians, the governor has succeeded in mobilising human and material resources in fuelling the fire of development in the state.

Additionally, through his humility, simplicity and candour, Sanwo-Olu has fostered inclusion, encouraged wider participation in state affairs and presided over an atmosphere of tranquility in the Centre of Excellence.

In an era where governance is often overshadowed by political grandstanding, the Lagos Governor has largely allowed projects and policies to speak for themselves.  Infrastructure development has remained one of the defining features of his administration. From the completion and expansion of critical road networks to the operationalisation of the Blue Line Rail and the progress on the Red Line Rail, the Ojota-Opebi Link Bridge, Lagos State Geographic Information Service (LAGIS) building, the Lekki Deep Sea Port, road expansion programmes and ongoing energy investments, Lagos has continued to make strategic investments that will improve productivity, reduce commuting time and enhance economic competitiveness for decades to come.

Education and youth empowerment have equally received sustained attention. Initiatives such as the Lagos Fresh Food Hub in Abijo, Ajah; new schools, the renovation of the Tolu Schools Complex in Ajegunle and Maracana Stadium, comprising 19 mini-football pitches-built side by side in Ajegunle are all aimed at improved learning environments and outcomes. The greater emphasis on technical and vocational education reflects an understanding that the future competitiveness of Lagos depends largely on the quality of its human capital.

In the area of economy, the hallmark of Sanwo-Olu’s administration has been the deliberate effort to position Lagos as Africa’s preferred investment destination.  At the recently held Invest Lagos 3.0 Summit, Sanwo-Olu stressed that agreements reached during the two-day event represented practical commitments capable of unlocking investments, creating jobs and accelerating economic growth.

“The answer to whether Lagos is Africa’s business gateway is no longer theoretical. It is reflected in the partnerships forged, commitments secured and confidence demonstrated by investors over the past two days,” he had said.

Under Sanwo-Olu, Lagos continues to strengthen its role as a strategic gateway connecting Nigeria to Africa and global markets through sustained investments in transportation, logistics, energy and digital infrastructure. Today, Lagos is working towards establishing the Lagos International Financial Centre, which aims to position the state as a global hub for finance, trade, investment and to maximise opportunities presented by the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

Another defining attribute of Governor Sanwo-Olu’s leadership is his ability to maintain a harmonious and productive working relationship with his Deputy, Dr. Obafemi Hamzat, for almost eight years, a rarity in Nigeria’s political landscape that sometimes end in bitter public confrontations and institutional instability.

Today, with Sanwo-Olu’s backing and the confidence he has inspired within the political establishment, Hamzat has emerged as the All Progressives Congress (APC) Governorship candidate in the 2027 election, a contest many political observers believe he is well positioned to win. Should Hamzat ultimately emerge as Governor next year, he would become the first Deputy Governor in Lagos State to succeed his principal. Such an outcome would reinforce institutional continuity, preserve the State’s development trajectory and deepen ongoing reforms in Lagos.

Clearly, leadership beyond politics is measured by the ability to inspire confidence. Investors seek predictability. Citizens seek stability. Young people seek opportunity. ������Ƶes seek enabling environments. When these interests converge under responsible governance, economic growth follows naturally. Lagos continues to enjoy this advantage because its leadership has consistently projected stability, continuity and openness to innovation.

Indeed, one of Sanwo-Olu’s most understated qualities is emotional intelligence. In the past seven years, he has generally maintained a measured tone that reflects maturity, administrative discipline and he has not allowed his emotions to drive public policy.

Therefore, as Nigeria continues its search for models of effective subnational governance, Lagos remains an important reference point. Its successes are products of long-term planning, institutional continuity and leadership committed to incremental but consistent progress. While challenges undoubtedly remain, as they do in every major city in the world, the trajectory remains encouraging.

Sanwo-Olu stands as a public servant whose leadership continues to demonstrate that the true measure of governance lies not in political rhetoric, but in the lasting value it creates for society.

By Okey Ikechukwu

Our task in today’s engagement on this page is to say three things essentially. The first is that the current Comptroller-General of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), Dr Bashir Adewale Adeniyi (MFR) has shown exemplary leadership, innovative policy initiatives and unmistakable capacity for global competitiveness. The second is that he stands forth today as a professional who understood a system, grew through the ranks in it, and deliberately set out to honestly reinvent and upgrade it. Finally Adeniyi can be described as one of our best in public service today, by any standards; and one whose tenure extension is well-deserved.

It is most probably because he is accomplished at home and recognized by his proven capacity to lead customs service globally that he got the further months tenure extension announced by the Presidency about a week ago. This marked the third intervention of tenure for the man. His tenure, which was due to expire on August 31, 2025, was extended by one year. That was in July, last year. Then, as mentioned earlier, the President granted yet another six-month tenure extension for him, until February 2027.

Adeniyi is currently the Chairperson of the World Customs Organization (WCO). He is expected to use this new extension to fully consolidate ongoing reforms and complete some critical, sector-defining initiatives of his administration. The ongoing modernisation of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), for instance, is so fundamental and so far gone in detailed execution that putting it under the possible risk of derailment via a leadership transition at a time of political gymnastics and electoral contestations seems unwise.

The story is most probably the same for the implementation of the National Single Window Project and the execution of Nigeria’s obligations under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) protocol. Thus, the extension can easily be seen as the president’ recognition of the CG’s focus, broad and exemplary understanding of the sector and his steadfast commitment to redefining a sector he knows very well and is creatively remodeling.

The expectation is that the extension will further strengthen the NCS in stabilizing most of the commendable initiatives under Adeniyi and further driving the strategic mandates of trade facilitation, revenue generation, and border security. The desire to allow the CG entrench and drill down these  key reforms and other endeavours designed to streamline cargo clearance processes, improve revenue collection and enhance the ease of doing business in Nigeria is founded on the rigour and tenacity with which he has pursued everything he set his mind to since becoming the CG.

He has been working closely with the NCS Board in overseeing the promotion of qualified officers to the rank of Comptrollers Customs, while also ensuring compliance with statutory retirement provisions. This process is particularly attentive to the imperative of merit-based elevation since he assumed office as CG.

The compulsory retirement of officers who had reached the mandatory retirement age of 60 years or have completed 35 years in service has not created any problems throughout his tenure.

When, and after, he was appointed Comptroller, and later Deputy Commandant of the Nigeria Customs Command and Staff College, some observers noted with satisfaction his record of service before the promotion and appointment, as well as his record of performance thereafter. Take, for instance, what happened when, as Assistant Comptroller General in February 2020, he superintended the seizure of $8.07 million. This was raw cash being illegally taken out of Nigeria through the E-Wing of the international airport tarmac.

Adeniyi could easily have asked for a cut and made a deal with the criminals. He did not. He would most probably not be CG, or Customs boss of the world, today if he had accepted a bribe, looked the other way and walked home with his loot. He stood his ground, carried out his duties, did not put on any airs thereafter and simply went about his duties like everyone else.

As a graduate of International Relations, he went ahead to give a good account of himself as image maker of NCS. I first met him during a capacity building programme we organized for NCS management over a decade ago. He was always neatly turned out, simple in mannerisms, organized, and only took notes whenever something struck him in the course of any presentation. I recall pointing out to my colleague during the lunch break that a particular Participant (Adeniyi) was a possible future CG of NCS. We talked about it for a while, I shared my reasons, responded to the issues he raised and rested the matter. Adeniyi later got to know this aftet his emergence as CG. The rest is history.

With a 30-year career span at NCS, Dr. Adeniyi’s milestones and his leadership vision for reforming the Service make a compelling case for his extension. He operated as an insider who knew the system. The achievements he recorded in just two years, how he rose through the ranks, and his, sometimes exceptionally innovative interventions could only be accomplished by someone who grew to maturity in the system whose problems knewso well.

His appointment as CG apparently coincided with the implementation of the new NCS Act, which provides that only a serving Customs officer from the rank of an Assistant Comptroller General can become a Comptroller General. Adeniyi has turned out to be the first lucky beneficiary, and also the midwife for 5he entrenchment, of this Act. From when he became Acting CG to his confirmation as substantive CG, the NCS saw significant strides in trade facilitation, revenue upsurge, improved security, enhanced staff welfare and other Key Performance Indicators.

The ports were shorn of cargo congestion as soon as he tuned up. The repeatedly bemoaned traumatic experiences of maritime stakeholders who often recall with tears the grind of clearing of goods became a thing of the past. He did not confront port congestion head-on by making a motivational speech, or announcing a 3, 4 or 21 one-point agenda, no!

He simply stepped forward with a template he had thought through, inaugurated a committee to dispose of overtime cargo from the ports and, forthwith, had terminals that had long been burdened with longstanding cargo decongested. He did not just issue instructions and address a conference, but saw to it that what needed to be done was actually done.

These were his words to the aforementioned committee on overtime cargoes: “The disposal of cargo exceeding its allotted time can now only occur through a court order, and through public auction or tender, which will be widely publicized through national newspapers, television, and the service’s official website”. He is the only CG I know that has received the greatest criticism from acquittances, friends and associates, for being “very unreasonable” and always refusing to arbitrarily give out seized vehicles and good “in the exercise of his powers”.

To complement the existing Automated Systems for Customs Data (ASYCUDA), which protects the country by combating fraud and illegal trafficking of prohibited and restricted goods, Adeniyi introduced the Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) Programme. The time-release study to enhance the efficiency of the service, in addition to providing statistical information on foreign trade transactions, enhances  customs’ revenue earnings.

The pilot phase of the AEO programme demonstrated significant improvements in cargo clearance times, with AEO-certified companies achieving an average release time of 43 hours, five full hours ahead of the target clearance time of 48 hours. The authorities cheerfully announced, thereafter, that “This represents a remarkable 66.9% reduction in cargo clearance time compared to pre-AEO status, where clearance took five days, and notably outperforms regular Economic Operators (EOs) who require seven days for clearance”.

Adeniyi saw beyond this limited but very significant achievement and once said: “Our comprehensive time-release study has been concluded, and the report is currently under review with plans for release before the second quarter of the year. Additionally, our enhanced strategic partnerships with various customs administrations worldwide are yielding tangible results through intelligence sharing, leading to major interceptions at our ports. These partnerships have also opened up capacity-building opportunities for our officers and laid the groundwork for expanded engagements in the coming months”.

Concerning trade facilitation, which is core mandates of the Service, Adeniyi’s tenure saw processed imports with a Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) value of ₦60.29 trillion in 2024, which was an impressive 117.4% increase, from the ₦27.74 trillion the year before. The details revealed 1,262,988 import transactions, handling a total mass of 15.35 billion kilograms. It also showed a export trade performance with the total CIF value skyrocketing to ₦136.65 trillion in 2024, as against ₦42.77 trillion in 2023. Many found this benumbing 219.5% increase totally incomprehensible. “How was this possible”? Some asked.

It is interesting that, for the period under review at a point in his ongoing tenure, the number of export transactions remained relatively stable at 38,199, when compared to 38,294 in 2023. What changed was a dramatic increase in export volume. While 12.35 billion kilograms were processed in 2024, to 3.70 billion kilograms in 2023; representing a 234% increase in export mass. Evidence of accruing high revenue was also evidence of growth in our export trade, as well as the increasing competitiveness of Nigerian products in the international market.

Considering that the total trade value handled by the NCS in 2024 was ₦196.94 trillion, as against the ₦70.50 trillion in 2023, this 179.3% increase or growth in trade value, achieved with fewer but more valuable transactions, we can understand why the CG used these indices as basis for his statement that it is now possible for us to speak today of “…some degree of increasing sophistication of Nigeria’s international trade and the effectiveness of our trade facilitation measures”.

Then there is the B’Odogwu, the NCS indigenously developed customs clearance platform with the support of Customs’ concessionaires under the Trade Modernization Project. Indigenously developed? Yes! A platform processing transactions resulting in an aggregate revenue collection of ₦31 billion as of December 2024? Yes! Evidence of how homegrown solutions are gradually enhancing our operational efficiency and ensuring seamless trade facilitation? Yes! All under Adeniyi.

In the area of revenue collection, the year 2022 saw the service crossing the ₦2 trillion revenue threshold, netting ₦2.6 trillion. It moved up to ₦3.2 trillion in 2023 and, by 2024, ballooned all the way to ₦6.1 trillion, above its targeted revenue of ₦5.07 trillion by 20.2%. It is interesting to note that the increase in 2024 revenue collections was achieved despite significant concessions, totalling ₦1.68 trillion, granted to support various sectors of the economy.

And this was done and achieved through enhanced monitoring mechanisms and strategic reforms, designed to block loopholes and eliminate abuses in the concession granting process. This ensured that only genuine and truly eligible enterprises benefited from the declared and granted incentives.

We could go on to talk about the many, more recent acheivements, gains in smstaff welfare, recognition and reward for exceptional service, celebration of excellence and general motivation of a now-seriously-high-performing workforce under Adeniyi. But there is no need for that, because it will all detract from the actual purpose of this write-up. You can get the records from NCS.

Anyone who means well for Nigeria should keep an eye on Dr. Bashir Adewale Adeniyi, for future high profile leadership roles, preferably with international flavour; after his stint at NCS.

DIALOGUE WITH NIGERIA BY AKIN OSUNTOKUN

First the good news, there is an often ignored critical dimension to debates on the political history of Nigeria and on which Nigeria can justifiably take pride. The default preference of (International) Western scholarship is the evasion of any evidence that runs counter to their narrative of the unrelieved incapacity of Africa in general and Nigeria in particular for exemplary political leadership.(The last on which local and foreign scholars now swear is ‘Nigeria and Prebendal politics by Richard Joseph)

Before I go to my inference, I will ask the question of how any honest observer of Nigerian politics will characterise the decade running from the 1950s to the early in terms of political leadership in Nigeria? . When I asked this question of the one and only Premier of the Northern region, Sir Ahmadu Bello from AI, this was the response I got:

“The creation of the civil service during the period of Ahmadu Bello is one of his major achievements. He regarded the Northern civil service as a meritocracy, which should be above petty political quarrels, and certainly above corruption. The civil service had a rigorous code of ethics, and came to serve as a counterbalance to both politicians and traditional leaders. The trans-ethnic nature of the civil service provided the backbone for Northern Regionalism and for northern development efforts, which were based on the principle of equal distribution of opportunities”

When I asked the same question of the Eastern region from AI as well, I was referred to the testimony of Dr Sam Amadi. It goes as follows: “The path to this future goes through the past. We need to go back to the 1960s when Eastern Nigeria was the fastest growing economy in the world, outperforming the likes of Singapore, Bangladesh, and Taiwan. There was something different about that burst of entrepreneurial energy by the government of Eastern Nigeria under Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe and M.I. Okpara and Nnamdi Azikiwe and a clique of well-educated technocrats”. I have no reason not to concur with this testimony

Representative of Northern opinion leadership, a group of ten opinion and intellectual leaders the ‘North’(Attahiru Jega, et all) issued a press release recently “expressing our alarm at the increasing threats to the Nigerian Nation, its democratic order and the rule of law’. The most germane observation was:

“Our assessment of the state of the Nation reveals that Nigeria stands at a dangerous crossroads where rising insecurity, an alarming level of electoral manipulation by government, and the weakening of democratic institutions are converging into a national crisis that threatens the country’s survival. The legislative branch has been placed under near total control of the executive branch. The judiciary appears to have lost both its independence and its integrity. There are no checks on the powers of the executive who now govern as they please without accountability or respect for the people’s concerns.  Institutions have been compromised, weakened, and subordinated to the interests of the executive arm of government”.

Fair enough, but how do you remedy this anomaly without constitutional reforms that target the fountain of this deviant behaviour i.e. hypercentralizatio of powers at Abuja?. The fact that this omission is deliberate is discernible from their studied silence on the most prescriptive contemporary security measure in Nigeria today, namely the recommendation of state police whose introduction unavoidably entails constitutional reform. When the issue of decentralisation and devolution of powers is mooted, the stock response is leadership is the problem, not the constitution. But then how do you ensure the emergence of good leadership-when the factors that determine the outcome of elections in Nigeria are hardly noble.

The realistic alternatives to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the near future are Atiku Abubakar and to a lesser extent, Peter Obi. Right away and even before the election, the former spectacularly fails the test of moral leadership, a Northern hegemonic defiance of presidential power rotation between the North and the South, not to mention other conspicuous baggage. And If, by some quirk of fate, the latter emerges the President, would he not have to grapple with the challenge of status-quo compromised National Assembly and Judiciary? How does he, for instance, get his budget passed in the face of respondents, many of whom expended billions to get a seat in the Senate and House of Representatives? As I keep saying, this poses the problem Nigeria faces as a systemic crisis requiring a wholesale constitutional overhaul of the polity.

If, at all, the Yoruba are keeping quiet and all the criminalisation of Tinubu is valid then it is a sad commentary on the capacity of Nigeria to endure as a nation. You can force a horse to the river, you cannot force it to drink. It has to do with the fact that there is a difference between a Yoruba Presidential aspirant and a sitting President of Yoruba extraction. Without the certainty of the restructuring of power relations in the constitution and given the context of Nigeria’s realpolitik, it is a tough call to make.

 The Igbo had been locked in separatist isolation until the emergence of Peter Obi and I have flagged this emergence as a desirable newfound moment of Nigerian political development. But here is a caution.The inevitable sugar high enthusiasm for Obi must not be allowed to fade into the perception of incipient regional chauvinism.There is a lesson to learn from history. The ‘first love’ instinct of the North is a bromance with the South West and the logic is predicated on the amalgamation of Nigeria and the concept of overlapping cleavages of tribe and religion. We do not need a repeat enactmentant of transferred aggression.

I once randomly came across a quiz that asked the question of what factor mostly binds communal relations, the answer was religion, more so in Islam where the concept of Umaa (community of Islamic faith) transcends any other consideration. It is far more convenient for the North to gang up with the South West against the South East. This is the enduring lesson from the civil war and the trap was set by the British colonialists. This follows from what was bequeathed to us by the colonial begotten Independence constitution, that the federal government would require a gang up of two against one.

The other is the population census contrivance which gives the North the choice of first refusal in political decisive situations. Dr Taslim Olawale Elias made the point on the floor of the Nigerian house of representatives in 1962-”I think I would remind you that the only region, perhaps in practice not in theory, it may be difficult for the house to secure a two thirds majority to deal with is the Northern region” (reference p 39 in Awolowo ‘travails of democracy’. In my capacity as the campaign manager of the Peter Obi presidential campaign, I once tried to woo a foremost theocrat from the North to Obi’s political platform. He retorted with the exclamation, Haram!

The trap I mentioned earlier finally sprung in 1962. The irony of history is that it snapped from the omission and commision of arguably the most intellectually productive commentator on the politics of Nigeria namely Obafemi Awolowo. The bait was his decision to exit his most utilitarian position as Premier of the Western region for an awkward ambition to become the Prime Minister of Nigeria. Because it takes two to tango, we have to ask the question, was Nigeria ready and structurally designed to become amenable to his desire to replicate his transformational leadership at the national level?

The answer of course is no. Despite Ahmadu Bello’s unparalleled leadership impact on the Northern region, the truth is that the region was potentially unresponsive to the utility of Awolowo’s vision. The irony again is that this observation can be extrapolated from his scholarship on the uniqueness of Nigeria. It would have taken nothing short of a revolution for the ‘North’to accept the offer of the modernisation model of the Western region. Recall that the first successful negotiation between Frederick Lugard and the Sokoto caliphate was precisely the premise that the North will be insulated against the replication of the Western modernisation model of the South.

Further evidence transpired at the inauguration of Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe as Governor General of Nigeria in 1960.

“At the ceremony, the Prime minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa unleashed a derisive attack on me “He referred to me as ‘someone who called himself Leader of Opposition’, and proceeded to pour scorn on my role. I gave an impromptu speech, as he did, and do not now recall the exact words I used”.

“I said that I did not call myself the Leader of the Opposition. It was the electorate of Nigeria who decided the place I then occupied in the affairs of the country. Besides, in regard to the occasion that we were celebrating, it was ironic that Sir Abubakar occupied the office of Prime Minister. Because, it was on record that it was only recently that he was persuaded to support and embrace the demand by Nigerian and African nationalists, who were fully represented at the luncheon that Nigeria should become an independent sovereign State”.

On the third leg of the triad leadership that once made Nigeria proud, I reserved the best for the last, Obafemi Awolowo. I did because in addition to his practical transformational leadership of the Western region was his luminous exegesis on the case for Federalism in Nigeria. I hereby quote excerpts from his ‘thoughts on the Nigerian constitution’ as represented by my mentor, Lade Bonuola, in his RAM column in the Guardian.

‘As it has been continually proven, Nigerians have not moved away from Awolowo as the issue and they do not seem to be in the mood to move away from him as a reference point. They refer to his exemplary discipline, exertion, his application to work, and, as some would say, to his effulgent dignity and integrityI Hear the objections. “It’s impossible. The northern elites will never agree. The political class benefits too much.”

‘These are the same objections they raised against Awolowo in 1951 when he proposed free education. He did it anyway… They said Cocoa House would collapse. It still stands. They said Western Region would go bankrupt. It prospered. Awolowo said a unitary constitution would “have the effect of repressing healthy rivalry among different regions.” He then said: “Rivalry is the soul of development and progress.”.. “Any experiment with a unitary constitution in a bilingual or multilingual country must fail in the long-run.”.. “If a country is bilingual or multilingual, the constitution must be federal and the constituent states must be organised on a linguistic basis.” If a country is unilingual and uni-national, the constitution must be unitary.”

EXPRESSO By STEVE OSUJI

Nothing really. Yes, for one who has watched Lagos evolve from Baba Lateef Kayode Jakande, the inimitable LKJ, to the current charade in the Round House, we can confidently say nothing.

Kadiri Obafemi Hamzat, KOH, who will be the next governor of Lagos State in 2027 if our Lord tarries, may never be able to impact the mega state appropriately no matter how hard he tries.

THE MONSTER THAT VANQUISHED LAGOS…

Let’s start from the beginning. As we say in my place when a problem becomes intractable and defies all solutions, it is said that the monster that vanquished him is still holding him. In street parlance, we say: the thing wey kill am, still hol’ am. More appropriately, the thing wey kill Lagos no gree release am!

Femi Hamzat as we knew him is the current deputy governor of Lagos State. He’s a hard-core Lagos establishment fella having been in the system since 2005. He is a dyed-in-the-wool Tinubu acolyte though more educated and technocratic than the ‘apes obey’ kind. Though a naturalised Lagosian, he’s of Ogun roots and indeed, he’s royalty.

Well read, studied up to doctoral level in IT and Computing in England, he is steeped in the Lagos state bureaucracy. Femi is arguably the best man for the Lagos top job come 2027.

But as the whole world knows, the big job in Lagos has long ceased to be owned by the man on the seat. Since 1999, this most important subnational assignment in Nigeria has been hijacked by a godfather, a leviathan who determines whom to hand it to each election circuit.

Right now, Femi has been graciously given the nod. He’s the anointed one and it’s a fait accompli. By hook or by crook, Femi will be the next governor of Lagos State.

So long as there’s a semblance of an election, whether the people want him or not. If you don’t vote, they will vote on your behalf. This has been the pattern since 1999. The owner of Lagos has seized the entire space. He commands all the strongholds in the state so much so that no opposing party can win election in Lagos state today. It’s doubly difficult now that Baba is the lord of Asia Rock, Abuja.

It’s not enough to be in his party, you will do well to be in his corner, then in his good books and finally, work your pants off to earn his approval for the guber diadem.

This is what Femi has achieved. He has Baba’s nod, he has the party ticket in his suit pocket.

Odds are that he will win the election.

Then what?

TICKET TO NOWHERE:

Nigerians know too well what happens when a godfather avails you an election ticket and goes on to help you grab the chair. The Lagos example is in full view of all.

Babatunde Fashola and Akinwunmi Ambode lived in the days of innocence. They managed to get away with some exploits – developmental exploits for the state and people.

But Governor Ambode was almost going to overreach himself. He got on the overdrive in his first term. He sidelined the bogus Governor’s Advisory Council, GAC.

Where in the world does an elected governor of a state surrounded by a GAC telling him what to do. That sounds like a GAG! That’s no longer democracy.

Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the first governor at the dawn of the 4th Republic in 1999 didn’t have a GAC. He would never have accepted one. You wouldn’t dare. He was like an emperor. But today, he is the god_father of the state. He has hamstrung all the governors after him with GAC, a bunch of party stalwarts who have little vision for the state and very narrow ideas about development. They think politics, they eat politics. But policy is almost anathema to them.

Yet an elected governor is supposed to take direction and indeed, directives from this crowd that in turn, derives its powers from one man. What manner of democracy is this?

POOR, POOR LAGOS 

Lagos has suffered immensely from this twisted arrangement. Most of her contemporaries have left her far behind in the last three decades.

For instance, Shenzhen in Guangdong Province, China was a fishing village in 1979. Lagos was already a major city basking in petrodollars.

Today, Shenzhen is described as a ‘hypermodern metropolis’ with its population jumping from a mere thirty thousand to about 17 million.

It leads innovation and technology with futuristic facilities and amenities. Lagos is a slum in comparison

On the contrary, Lagos has deteriorated so much in the last 30 years of Tinubu’s iron clasp hegemony.

Today, Lagos still contends with mundane things like managing of human wastes, unpaved dirt roads and primitive environmental stench.

The last seven years have been a curse in the annals of Lagos State. These are years better to be forgotten. With the ousting of Ambode after the first term and the installation of Jide Sanwoolu, it was as if the state shut down. One wonders if the incumbent is allowed to dream dreams or actualise a project of his own vision. It’s obvious that he’s devoid of a mind of his own and probably can’t sign off on a couple of millions without clearance from above. A state governor who has little influence on the state legislator and who has no say on the running of the LGAs is obviously, not fit to be.

But this is the state of Lagos today.

Yet Lagos generates enough resources to track benchmark cities like Dubai even if it doesn’t match them.

Naira has rained in trillions in the last three years. Local councils can be mandated to pave a hundred streets each per year. But they hardly do anything.

For many years, our communities are bereft of any form of government presence in Lagos. And nobody cares. Yet LGA receive hundreds of billions monthly. Where’s all the money gone?

WHAT CAN HAMZAT DO?

It’s too early and even presumptuous to talk about KOH as governor now but the earlier these questions are asked, the better for all. What really is the seat in Alausa worth today?

Before Tinubu became president, a governor in Lagos could bluff a little, hiding under Abuja. But when your godfather has become a god, you might as well worship him on all fours.

So long as Tinubu remains president of Nigeria, any governor in Lagos is a robot with its console in Aso Rock, Abuja.

Just as Sanwoolu has been a puppet, so will Femi Hamzat be for four years if he wins. And one wagers that all things being equal, he may serve for just four years as a  placeholder (fidihe) for a certain Mr. SEYI YOUKNOWWHO.

The hegemony has to be sustained onto generations doesn’t it!

KOH, EKO E RE!

Kadiri Obafemi Hamzat, this is your Lagos today, as we say in Lagos. Your hands would be tied to your back as governor.  Even Fashola with his high-octane work ethic was able to snatch some legacy from the jaws of the godfather.

Ambode too moved earth massively in just a few years, laying some markers before he was short-circuited.

You’re never gonna get a moment in the sun. You will bear the title governor but you would be voided of the power and authority to governnir execute.

You have a good education; great hands-on experience, technical capacity (though not Fashola’s charisma, you’re accused of a touch of haughtiness) but these qualities will amount to nought without executive powers. E KOH E RE!

LASTLINE:

HOW MANY NIGERIANS ARE HELD IN THE FOREST?

In some thick, dark forests in Zamfara, Borno, Kwara and Oyo, to name the ones we know, hapless Nigerians are held in captivity without any hope of coming out alive.

Oyo is particularly pathetic. Little children who are still under the shadows of their mothers, taken away 40 days on. Trauma what is thy colour?

In Zamfara, frustrated elders who couldn’t go to their farms anymore chose to dialogue with the bandits to strike a truce.

At the venue, on the appointed day, the elders were marched into the bush by the bandits. All fifty of them. Their governor,  Mohammed Lawal has disowned them. “You’re on your own,” he told them in a public statement. They are still there. But if the elders know the bandits, how come Mr Governor doesn’t know them?

In Kwara, there are at least three different cases in three different communities of Omugo, Woro Adanla  with varying numbers of compatriots still stranded in the bush with their captors. For many, ongoing since last year, the state may have given up on them, or forgotten them even. Who will deliver the people?

Whence a country?###

Olusegun Adeniyi

There is a detail buried in a press briefing in Kaduna last Thursday that I found rather troubling. It was offered by the former National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) Director General, Brigadier General Maharazu Tsiga (rtd). He was in the state to honour the memory of his late colleague, Major General Rabe Abubakar (rtd), who was abducted alongside his wife on 30 May 2026 in Katsina State but later died in captivity on 13 June. Tsiga had himself spent 56 harrowing days in the hands of bandits last year and in Kaduna, he shared a particular experience. While in captivity, according to Tsiga, he witnessed an early morning exchange in which a bandit leader, referred to as Kachala, received a phone call concerning the purchase of ammunition. Curious, Tsiga said he asked the bandit leader how such transactions were conducted and whether he could be involved. Tsiga was told, in clear terms, that being a retired officer, he was no use to bandits and that their business was with those who still occupy positions of authority.

That statement, if taken seriously, opens a window into the structure of Nigeria’s insecurity problem. It suggests that the machinery sustaining armed groups in parts of the country is not operating in isolation. It points to a network that extends beyond the forests and frontlines, into institutions and offices that are expected to uphold the law. But this is not the first time such insinuations have surfaced in public discourse. What is different here is the source—a retired general speaking from direct experience as a captive. This, of course, is not to malign our soldiers who daily make sacrifices to keep our nation secure; it is to admit that there are a few bad eggs within the system.

Over the years, Nigerians have asked difficult questions. How do criminal groups maintain access to sophisticated weapons? How do ransom payments move in such volumes without traceable consequences? How do these networks persist despite repeated military operations across affected regions? How come bandits invade some communities not long after troops leave? While Tsiga’s account does not answer these questions, it adds a disturbing layer that cannot be ignored. There is also the bitter irony to his revelation. Tsiga regained his freedom through contributions reportedly mobilised by colleagues, including many of the serving and retired officers who were with him in Kaduna last week. But the real concern is his confirmation of what many Nigerians have always whispered: there are insiders who trade in official arms and ammunitions with criminals.

On an issue like this, it may be important to add a caveat, especially because there are those who enjoy negative stories about our country. This is not a challenge peculiar to Nigeria. The only difference is about accountability. In other countries, when such criminal behaviour is detected—and there are always efforts to stay ahead of the criminals—culprits are brought to justice. On 30 March this year, for instance, a United States Marine was charged with stealing ammo and weapons, including a shoulder-fired missile system, and conspiring to sell them in his home state of Arizona. According to federal prosecutors, the officer used his position as a technical specialist at the School of Infantry West to steal at least one Javelin missile system, thousands of rounds of military-grade ammunition and other weapons-related material between February 2022 and November 2025.

While conducting ‘sting operations’ to detect such crimes and holding culprits accountable are the standard practice in most countries, that has not been the case in Nigeria and over the years, I have had to wade in on this vexatious issue with the most recent being ‘The Enemies Within’ (February 2020) and ‘An Army at Crossroads’ (May 2021). I wrote the latter following the arrest and parade by the Zamfara State Police Command of a notorious 30-year-old gun runner from Niger Republic, Shehu Ali Kachala. The suspect claimed he was importing the weapons into our country through the assistance of some unnamed Nigerian military personnel. He also said he had sold 450 rifles and 8000 live ammunitions to different criminal gangs in Zamfara, Kaduna, and Niger States. Two months earlier, the Zamfara State Government announced that a Nigerian soldier and his girlfriend were caught supplying ammunition and military uniforms to armed bandits. The soldier was reportedly arrested through community-driven intelligence. Up till now, we still do not know how the two cases were resolved.

In September 2016, General Lucky Irabor, (who later became the Chief of Defence Staff but at that period, Theatre Commander in Maiduguri) said some soldiers were selling arms and ammunition to Boko Haram in what he described as “a betrayal of the Nigerian people”, even though he gave no further details. In November 2017, a State Security Service (SSS) Director, Mr Godwin N. Eteng, made chilling revelations before a House of Representatives Joint Committee investigating the influx of small arms and light weapons into the country. “We had a situation where in one of the armouries belonging to one of the armed forces, many pistols just got missing with quantities of ammunition and all the pistols are new. In the armoury, no place was broken into, but the weapons were missing,” Eteng told the lawmakers.

In June 2019, the police command in Kaduna State arrested a Lance Corporal serving in one of the military units in Jaji Military Cantonment, allegedly for selling arms to kidnappers. A year later in 2020, the Conflict Armament Research (CAR), an international conflict research group, released a report that some of the weapons with which herdsmen and farmers fought were traced to “stockpiles of Nigerian defence and security forces”. Of the 148 different weapons discovered and analysed, according to the report, “Nigerian-manufactured small-calibre ammunition—including cartridges manufactured as recently as 2014—is the second-most prevalent type of ammunition in this data set.” It then concluded: “Four of the weapons in the data set were previously in service with Nigerian national defence and security forces. CAR has established this through formal tracing and the analysis of secondary marks applied to the weapons, which identify their users.” 

What the foregoing suggests is that we learnt no lesson from Niger Delta where militancy was sustained for several years, essentially due to arms and ammunitions that were procured from official armouries. Breaking that syndicate helped in no small measure to weaken the capacity of the militants before the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua came up with the amnesty deal. In my book, ‘Power, Politics and Death’, I detailed a report of the Board of Inquiry convened by then Chief of Army Staff, the late Lt. General Luka Yusuf, which investigated huge theft of arms at 1 Base Ordnance Depot (1BODK), in Kaduna. The report concluded that “some of the soldiers involved in the theft of weapons actually escorted the stolen arms in uniform to their destination in Niger Delta.” 

The investigation was itself spawned by allegation that an arms syndicate which involved some soldiers and officers of the Nigerian Army, had been breaking into the arms sheds in 1BODK, the Ordnance Sub Depot (OSD) in Jaji and the Ordnance Field Park (OFP) in Calabar to steal weapons. Some of the stolen arms and ammunition included among others, GPMGs, Sterling SMG, Bren LNG, AK 47 rifles, grenades, and rocket launchers, as well as several fragmentation jackets. At the end, about a dozen military officers were court-martialled and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. 

As an aside, without understanding the context of the Niger Delta amnesty deal by my late principal, part of which I explained in my 2022 column, Tompolo and the Amnesty Deal  – ������ƵLIVE, some Northern governors have been quick to offer all kinds of ‘amnesty’ packages to criminals. But even when Niger Delta militancy is completely different from the pure criminality that goes by the fanciful name of ‘banditry’, the Yar’Adua amnesty was preceded by a strong military offensive that left the militants with no option except they were prepared to die. The Niger Delta Amnesty deal was offered by the Nigerian State from a position of strength.

To address the current security challenges that we face as a nation, we need a firm resolve from the leadership, at all levels, and a coherent national policy. I stated this much in my column, ‘when the state kneels before the gun’, following the publicised meeting in Gemi Forest between chairman of Safana local government area in Katsina State, Abdullahi Sani Safana (alongside some traditional rulers) with bandits. If some government officials believe that offering ‘carrots’ to bandits is the solution while others believe in a law-and-order approach, the problem will continue to defy solution. Indeed, that approach has led to a situation in which many communities would rather deal directly with bandits for their survival with dire consequences.

Right now, about 50 residents from Magamin Diddi village in Maradun Local Government Area, Zamfara State, are in the hands of bandits. According to reports, following incessant attacks and desperate to access their farmlands during this raining season, these community elders went to the adjourning Muntsira forest to meet a bandit leader named Jammo. They have not returned home after more than two weeks. “They did not inform the authority before embarking on such dangerous step they have taken,” Zamfara State Governor, Dauda Lawal told BBC Hausa Service during the week. “They are on their own…who sent them to negotiate? It certainly was not the government. We have consistently stated that we do not support negotiations with terrorists.”

I plead with Governor Lawal not to abandon those Zamfara elders to their fate. If top government officials could go to these forests for meetings with bandit leaders, I don’t think the Zamfara elders should be criminalized for what turned out to be a desperate misadventure. But here is the bigger issue: If banditry has become so entrenched, it is not only because of those who carry arms in the forest. On Monday, the US designated a Nigerian national and three companies operating in the country as alleged facilitators of financial activities linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). That explains why Tsiga’s account of communication between abductors and external actors, especially references to procurement of ammunition, demands scrutiny. Who facilitates such access? Who benefits from its continuation? And why has it proven so difficult to dismantle these supply chains despite years of military operations?  

To answer those questions, what is required is not only operational response but structural interrogation of the ecosystem that sustains violence. The question Tsiga has raised albeit indirectly, is whether there exist, within the structure of state and society, actors who enable the persistence of armed violence for personal or political gain. And until that question is answered with courage and evidence, the country will continue to treat symptoms while ignoring the disease. It will also be difficult to rid our country of kidnappers, bandits, and sundry other criminal cartels.

The Angry Judge

There is hardly any aspect of our society that does not come with its own peculiarities, and our judicial system is no exception. One recurring challenge is the tendency by some lawyers—whether out of desperation, overzealousness, or poor judgment—to prolong litigation unnecessarily. Matters that have been concluded often find their way back into the courts through creative legal maneuvers. The situation becomes even more troubling when lawyers attempt to challenge decisions of the Supreme Court under the guise of seeking a review. In some instances, fresh proceedings are initiated at lower courts on matters that have already been conclusively settled by the apex court. Such conduct not only clogs the justice system but can also test the patience of judges who are expected to protect the finality and integrity of judicial decisions.

Yet, while such actions may understandably cause frustration, judges, in my view, must exercise restraints as frequent displays of anger can undermine the dignity of the courtroom and discourage those seeking justice. Yes, firmness is an essential judicial quality, but excessive hostility can also create an impression of bias, discourage open engagement, and ultimately weaken public confidence in the fairness of legal proceedings.

This issue came into sharp focus on Monday when a Justice of the Supreme Court reserved unusually harsh words for S.M. Danyaro, a lawyer who had filed what was described as one of the most “thoughtless and irresponsible applications” ever brought before the court. The apex court not only dismissed the application but also ordered Danyaro to personally pay N50 million in costs, describing the filing as “vexatious, abusive and unprofessional.”

Although Justice Jamilu Tukur delivered the lead ruling, it was the concurring judgment of Justice Chioma Nwosu-Iheme that attracted widespread attention. In expressing her displeasure, she described Danyaro as “juvenile” and suggested that his application was so lacking in merit that it was “bereft of commonsense,” while questioning whether he (Danyaro) deserved to be called a legal practitioner.

The case originated from a Supreme Court judgment delivered on 4 June 2025, which nullified a Kebbi State High Court decision reinstating Al-Mustapha Jokolo as the 19th Emir of Gwandu. While the Court of Appeal had upheld the reinstatement, the Supreme Court, by a narrow three-to-two majority, ruled that Jokolo had failed to comply with Section 5(4) of the Kebbi State Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law. The provision requires an aggrieved party to first submit a formal complaint to the governor before commencing legal proceedings. It was this judgment that Danyaro sought to revisit through an application that ultimately drew the court’s ire. The controversy that followed has centred less on the legal outcome and more on the language used by Justice Nwosu-Iheme. Should judges openly display such emotions in their judgments?

We must admit that judges are entitled to feel frustration because they are human beings, not machines. This is more so when they are confronted with conducts that undermine the administration of justice. Almost on daily basis, Judges in Nigeria encounter frivolous applications, abuse of court processes, and actions that consume valuable judicial time and resources. In such circumstances, irritation may occasionally find expression in judicial language. However, why this is understandable, the judicial office, in my view, demands a higher level of restraint because judges do more than resolve disputes; they embody the impartiality, dignity, and authority of the law itself.

The language of a judgment often carries almost as much weight as the decision it contains. A ruling may be legally impeccable, yet its impact and public acceptance can be diminished if readers perceive it as driven by emotion rather than careful reasoning. This concern is not merely theoretical. In her paper, ‘Shame, Angry Judges and Social Media Effect’, Professor Maxine Goodman of the South Texas College of Law, Houston posed the question: “What is it about judges and anger?” She observed that there are countless examples of judges losing their tempers and lashing out at lawyers, litigants, and court personnel. According to Goodman, some judicial outbursts are triggered by provocation, while others arise from the pressures of emotionally charged cases. Occasionally, however, judges appear to lose their composure without any obvious cause. More importantly, Goodman notes that public perceptions of fairness are often shaped not by the outcome of a case but by how individuals are treated throughout the process. This means that even where a decision is legally sound, harsh or emotional language may create an impression of partiality and undermine confidence in the institution.

In the present case, few would seriously dispute the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss Danyaro’s application and sanction him. The legal correctness of the ruling appears difficult to challenge. The real debate concerns the language employed in expressing that decision. Critics argue that such strong words risk overshadowing the legal reasoning and shifting public attention away from the issues at stake toward the temperament of the judge. Supporters, however, contend that a forceful judicial rebuke is sometimes necessary to discourage irresponsible litigation and uphold professional standards within the legal profession.

The challenge, therefore, lies in balancing judicial humanity with restraint. Judges must be free to condemn conducts that threaten the integrity of the legal system, but they should do so in a manner that preserves public confidence in their neutrality. Firmness does not require hostility, and strong criticism need not become personal. Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Justice Nwosu-Iheme’s remarks serves as a reminder that judicial temperament is an essential component of the administration of justice because the authority of the court rests not only on the correctness of their decisions but also on the measured and impartial manner in which those decisions are delivered. Therefore, a judge’s words should command respect because of the strength of their reasoning. Not on the intensity of the emotion behind them.

• You can follow me on my X (formerly Twitter) handle, @Olusegunverdict and on www.olusegunadeniyi.com

Kingsley Moghalu

Nigeria stands today at a moment of both promise and peril. The current administration’s macroeconomic reforms—unification of exchange rates, removal of fuel subsidies, and efforts to stabilize the naira and attract foreign direct investment—have created a fragile degree of macroeconomic stability but not (yet), despite the best intentions, transformative outcomes in reality. For  all the intellectual firepower of Nigerian economists, the size of our domestic market, our entrepreneurial dynamism, and the abundance of human and natural resources, the country has not achieved the structural transformation that would place it on a sustainable path to shared prosperity. Manufacturing still contributes only about 7-10 percent to GDP. Youth unemployment remains alarmingly high. Debt service obligations consume a crushing proportion of government revenues. Poverty affects over 100 million citizens. Per capita income growth has stagnated even as aggregate GDP figures struggle upward but can’t seem to cross an invisible barrier. Why?

The answer, I submit, lies in a profound intellectual and policy fallacy: the dominance of the concept of “economic man,” or “Homo Economicus”. This idealized figure—a perfectly rational agent who acts purely in self-interest to maximize personal utility, possesses complete information about all options and outcomes, enjoys unlimited cognitive capacity, maintains stable preferences, and always chooses the option yielding the highest net benefit—has been the foundational assumption of classical and neoclassical economics since the 19th century.

This model has been exported to developing countries through Washington Consensus policies of liberalization, privatization, and minimal state intervention promoted by the IMF and World Bank. There certainly is a place and context for economic man. So I am not advocating socialism. But, in contexts like Nigeria’s, it has proven not merely incomplete but actively harmful. It assumes strong institutions, perfect information, and rational actors insulated from historical, cultural, and political realities—conditions that do not obtain. Real human beings operate under “bounded rationality”, cognitive biases, and social influences, as demonstrated by the work of the Nobel Laureates Herbert Simon, Daniel Kahneman, and Richard Thaler. In environments marked by institutional fragility, information asymmetries, ethnic diversity, colonial legacies, and elite capture, narrow self-interest frequently manifests as rent-seeking, primitive accumulation, and predatory extraction rather than productive investment and wealth creation.

The result in Nigeria has been policy that sounds theoretically sound but delivers disappointing outcomes: rapid liberalization without institutional adequate levels of industrialization led to deindustrialization and import dependence; an obsession with aggregate GDP growth masked per capita stagnation and deepening inequality; subsidies and welfare interventions in a structurally weak fiscal state exacerbated debt vulnerabilities without building productive capacity; and a rentier political economy, fueled by oil revenues, perpetuated elite bargains over nation-building. Despite periodic reforms and world-class economic minds, transformational outcomes have remained elusive because the underlying model misdiagnoses the problem and prescribes the wrong medicine.

True economic transformation and the wealth of nations in African countries like Nigeria must instead be anchored on three interconnected pillars that directly challenge the assumptions of Homo Economicus.

The first is competent governance and sound institutional foundations that create the enabling environment for genuine prosperity. Markets do not exist in a vacuum; they require security of life and property, an independent central bank and an efficient judiciary that enforces contracts and upholds the rule of law, transparency and accountability mechanisms that curb corruption, and a meritocratic civil service capable of consistent, long-term policy implementation. Without these, even the most elegant economic models collapse under implementation failures, policy reversals, infrastructure deficits, and elite capture.

Resource-rich contrasts illuminate the point. Botswana, at independence in 1966 one of the world’s poorest countries, discovered massive diamond deposits and through prudent management—forming the transparent Debswana 50:50 joint venture, channeling revenues under sustainable budgeting principles, establishing the Pula Fund, and maintaining low corruption and strong democratic institutions rooted in visionary leadership—achieved upper-middle-income status and broad-based progress. Nigeria’s oil experience, by contrast, fueled Dutch Disease, deindustrialization, corruption, volatility, and environmental degradation and poverty because governance and institutional quality lagged. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, now exceeding $2 trillion, invests petroleum revenues abroad under strict transparency and ethical guidelines. Its Handlingsregelen fiscal rule limits structural non-oil deficits to the expected real return (~3%), ensuring intergenerational equity and shielding the economy from shocks through meritocratic bureaucracy and broad consensus. Nigeria’s Nigerian Sovereign Investment Authority (NSIA – an  acronym I coined at a fiscal-monetary planning meeting on the wealth fund in the boardroom of the Central Bank of Nigeria in 2012 or so) , managing around $3 billion, is a positive step but remains under-scaled. These examples demonstrate decisively that governance determines whether resources become a blessing or curse. Nigeria must build pockets of effectiveness in key agencies, reform the civil service for meritocracy and insulation from politics, strengthen judicial independence, and entrench transparency so that self-interest is channeled toward productive ends.

The second pillar is a foundational nationhood, political, economic, and social philosophy—a coherent worldview that drives greatness and collective ambition. Nations are not built by technocratic fixes alone, the rotation of power among political elites, or by importing models wholesale. They rise when leaders and citizens share a clear sense of purpose and direction that transcends parochial interests. As I have argued in my books Emerging Africa and the Build, Innovate, Grow (BIG), Nigeria has suffered from an intellectual and philosophical deficit. We have adopted borrowed philosophies—neoliberal prescriptions or GDP-centric planning—without adapting them to our nationhood challenges marked by pseudo-federalism and ethnic pluralism. Policy often prioritizes short-term political survival or elite accommodation over long-term national interest. Democracy in contexts of widespread poverty and weak institutions risks degenerating into plutocracy.

What is needed is a deliberate African economic philosophy integrating nation-building, self-reliance, productive ambition, regional integration via AfCFTA, technological innovation, and export-oriented value addition. Such a philosophy rejects the notion that markets alone, populated by rational maximizers, will deliver development in late-industrializing settings. It recognizes the state’s legitimate role as a developmental actor that shapes markets, corrects failures, and aligns private incentives with national goals—precisely the approach that powered East Asia’s rise.

The third pillar is a deliberate focus on human development and human capital—education and skills, healthcare equity and access, potable water, and reliable electricity—as the indispensable foundation, followed by an emphasis on innovation and manufacturing, with GDP growth pursued as an outcome rather than the primary target. The Homo Economicus model encourages a narrow obsession with GDP figures (the so-called  “GDP delusion”) that can mask profound human underdevelopment. Africa’s population boom, often celebrated as a demographic dividend, becomes a liability when millions lack skills, health, or opportunities to be economically productive. Misplaced subsidies and consumption support in structurally weak economies exacerbate fiscal distress without creating sustainable enterprises. And yet, removing these abruptly, without proper planning to absorb the human impact of such policies, can increase poverty rates.

We must invert the conventional sequence. First build the human and physical foundations: world-class education systems blending academic excellence with vocational and technical skills aligned to priority sectors; equitable healthcare that enhances productivity; universal access to clean water and sanitation; and, above all, reliable, affordable electricity powering homes, businesses, and industries. Then improve access to affordable finance.  These are investments in economic complexity and competitiveness, not mere welfare. Only on this base can we realistically pursue innovation ecosystems and manufacturing-led growth.

The East Asian developmental states provide the clearest demonstration. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore achieved rapid industrialization and poverty reduction from the 1960s to 1990s not through laissez-faire markets but through strong, autonomous state intervention. They employed targeted industrial planning, selective protectionism for infant industries via time-bound tariffs, directed credit and subsidies tied to performance (export targets, with support withdrawn for failure), exchange rate policies favoring exports, close but disciplined state-business collaboration (embedded autonomy), and massive early investments in education, vocational training, and infrastructure. South Korea’s manufacturing share rose dramatically; Taiwan became a global semiconductor leader. They deliberately “got relative prices wrong” in the short term to build long-term productive capacity, compensating for weak initial private sectors. Pragmatic heterodoxy trumped ideological purity. For this to have happened, of course, the state itself and its functionaries had to be competent, visionary, and disciplined— leadership and governance factors.

Nigeria can and must adapt these lessons. Our federal democracy, diversity, scale, and rentier legacy present distinct challenges, but principles travel. Focus smart industrial policy on priority sectors with linkage potential—agro-processing, textiles, pharmaceuticals, basic metals—using WTO-compliant time-bound protection, performance-linked incentives, and export mandates. Strengthen backward integration initiatives with Asian-style accountability. Prioritize power sector resolution and logistics as foundational enablers. Integrate with AfCFTA for regional access while building local competitiveness. Draw from partial successes like Ethiopia’s industrial parks. Combat rent-seeking through transparent digital tracking of incentives and performance contracts. Andrew Nevin’s concept of “Flourishing” offers a powerful complement: shift public policy from a narrow GDP lens to a broader framework centered on human dignity, well-being, and brain capital. GDP should measure the success of flourishing societies, not drive policies that undermine human capability. Growth that leaves millions in multidimensional poverty or depends on commodity rents rather than broad productivity is not flourishing—it is an illusion.

The path forward requires intellectual honesty and leadership courage. We must reject the fallacy that assumes perfectly rational maximizers will aggregate to national prosperity absent strong institutions, a guiding philosophy, and foundational human capabilities. Instead, embrace a contextual, developmental approach: build competent and accountable governance; articulate and internalize a coherent national economic philosophy rooted in our realities and ambitions; and sequence investments toward human flourishing first, then innovation and manufacturing. Fiscal rules and sovereign wealth management must follow and adapt examples such as Norway’s, Chile’s and Botswana’s. Recent reforms have opened a window; history will judge whether we use it to address root causes or apply new bandages to an old model.

Nigeria possesses the human talent, market scale, and resource base to become a prosperous, diversified, upper-middle-income economy within a generation. Achieving this demands that we move beyond the economic man fallacy and construct the institutional, philosophical, and human foundations of real transformation. The choice is stark but empowering: continue with policies that assume conditions we do not have, or build the conditions—and the worldview—that make prosperity possible. For the sake of our children and the future of our country, we must choose wisely and act decisively.

•Professor Moghalu, a former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, is the CEO of Sogato Strategies LLC and President of the Institute for Governance and Economic Transformation (IGET Academy).

REUBEN ABATI

The World Cup 2026 kicked off June 11, and as of today, 13 match-days after,  in the middle of the second round of the group matches, we have witnessed the beautiful game on display – the first World Cup to take place in three countries: the US, Canada and Mexico, 16 cities, 104 games, over a period of 39 days, and the most expansive with 48 teams instead of the 32 in the last World Cup in Qatar, and arguably also the most expensive World Cup ever. This is also the most controversial World Cup in recent memory, organized against a background of complex issues: including US immigration policies, high cost of tickets with FIFA President Gianni Infantino not properly offering any explanation beyond the mercantilism of the world football body, geopolitical conflict between the United States and Iran, both at war, and the menace of the hostility of the immigration, border and customs officials in the United States.

Some of the participating countries were subjected to the worst humiliation ever on their arrival in the United States, and before then, officials and fans were denied visas and entry. The Senegal national football team, The Teranga Lions, were subjected to very strict, hands-on security screening as they alighted from their aircraft. Somalia’s FIFA-graded referee Omar Artan, Africa’s Men’s CAF Referee of the Year who would have been the first Somali official at the World Cup, was turned back and repatriated at the Miami International Airport, Florida. He comes from a country considered a piece of garbage by President Trump, his possession of valid documents did not matter. The players from Uzbekistan were received, as if they were common criminals, with drug-sniffing dogs, and metal detectors when they arrived at their training venue in New York! Players from Iran, whose country has been at war with the United States were told that they could not enter the United States. This was reviewed and they were only allowed to go to Mexico, and for their matches, they could only come in and go out after, strictly not allowed to sleep over in the United States. They have now played two Group G matches against New Zealand (2-2) and Belgium (0-0) at the Los Angeles Stadium in Inglewood, California, Los Angeles only to cross the border back to Tianjun in Mexico.

Their final upcoming group-stage match is against Egypt on Friday, is in much farther-away Seattle. Iran has remained unbeaten after two games, and that was without their officials who were denied entry.  This is a statement of defiance, and self-assertion in the face of hardship by the most oppressed team in the tournament so far.  When the Iranian team arrived in Mexico, there was even an ongoing internal protest by activists fighting the government of President Claudia Sheinbaum. In their two matches, Iranian dissidents in the US displayed the country’s pre-revolution lion and the sun flag. The World Cup is called the most beautiful game for a purpose given its place as a symbolism and a celebration, a melting pot, of global unity, friendship and togetherness. Ian Wright, the former Arsenal and England striker, now a pundit, had however described this year’s tournament as “a World Cup of chaos”. Wright was referring to the pre-tournament drama: the visa denials/controversies, the travel disruptions and the high-ticket prices.

The New York Times in an editorial described the World Cup 2026 as “Trump’s nightmare”.  This is one World Cup tournament in which Gianni Infantino’s FIFA has acted and behaved so far like a lickspittle, lackey of the United States and President Donald Trump.  It is a shame and an even bigger one considering the fact that this same Infantino’s FIFA gave President Donald Trump a Peace Prize on December 5, 2025 for having taken “exceptional and extraordinary steps for peace and global unity.” Trump called the prize “one of the great honours of my life”. It is doubtful if he has lived up to that honour with his country’s hosting of the 2026 World Cup Tournament and the hostile and discriminatory conduct of US immigration, border and customs enforcement officials. Nor has he done so with his upending of the global order and diplomacy with the role of the United States in the geopolitical crisis in the Middle East. The good news is that it is football that is winning nonetheless. Founded in 1930, the prestigious game has continued to write its own history against all odds, in a unique and memorable manner and it is no different with what we have seen so far this year, after more than 36 matches and about 123 goals, and what we may still see before Sunday, July 19, when the final match is played at the Metlife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, near New York in the United States.

For the Nigerian reader, the main concern would be that the country’s national team, the Super Eagles did not make it to the 2026 World Cup. The Eagles lost their wings during the preliminary, qualifying stages due mainly to the gross incompetence of the Nigeria Football Federation, a congenital ailment that no one can confirm as having been cured, and of course the casual approach of the average Nigerian to everything that requires seriousness, a habitual ailment in its own special category. The result is that Nigerians are spectators at this year’s World Cup and the provider of special talents for more serious countries. There are at least about 15 players of Nigerian descent at the World Cup fighting for the glory of other nations. They include Bukayo Saka, Eberechi Eze and Noni Madueke (England), Jamal Musiala, Felix Nmecha (Germany), Folarin Balogun (United States), Michael Olise (France); Manuel Akanji, Noah Okafor (Switzerland), Tani Oluwaseyi, Promise David, Owen Goodman (Canada), David Alaba, Carney Chukwuemeka (Austria), Antonio Nusa (Norway), and Ime Okon (South Africa). These are global elite players who were either born abroad by a Nigerian parent, or who left Nigeria for greener pastures elsewhere and made good, and of course as we always do, we are quick to claim any Nigerian DNA doing well in any part of the world be it in sports, politics or academics. Back home, Nigeria does not provide an enabling environment for its people to shine and excel. The country is blessed with an abundance of talents in all fields of human endeavour but there is a perennial leadership crisis that rewards the dregs of society and frustrates the gifted and committed. And the country pays a heavy price.

Nigerian newspapers have of course been busy lamenting Nigeria’s absence at the World Cup. Martins Oloja of The Guardian says it is “a shameful absence”. He cannot be more correct.  Premium Times newspaper in an editorial titled “Another World Cup without Super Eagles” (June 15, 2026), laments that “this is the Super Eagles’ second failure in a row, to participate in the global football tournament.” It is indeed, the newspaper adds, “a true and poignant reflection of the abysmal depths our football has plumbed, and the incompetence of those entrusted with its administration.” Again, I concur. On June 11, 2026, Vanguard newspaper published an editorial: “2026 World Cup without Nigeria” noting that “Nigeria fell short during the two-year qualification journey and got eliminated in Africa’s playoff final.” Earlier, Nigeria’s Punch Newspaper had also written an editorial titled “An Uncertain World Cup” (March 9, 2026) in which it also noted that Nigeria’s Super Eagles “failed miserably”. 

But now that the World Cup 2026 is in full swing, it is not so uncertain anymore. Nigerians who are now bystanders at the year’s most important cultural event are not just spectators, they have also shifted their passion to the fumbling performance of South Africa at the World Cup. There is no love lost between South Africans and other Africans on account of the wave of xenophobia targeted at other Africans in South Africa who have now been given a June 30 deadline to leave or face the wrath of the indigenous people.  When South Africa lost their first game to Mexico in the opening match of the tournament at the Mexico City Stadium on June 11, there was jubilation across Nigeria. About 258 Nigerians resident in South Africa had just been evacuated, the same June 11, and brought to Lagos by the Nigerian authorities. There has been no information about a second batch that is meant to be evacuated a week later, and that speaks to the typical shabby manner in which the Nigerian government is wont to handle such serious matters of public interest. When will the second batch return?   South Africa lost their first game against Mexico, and got a point in their second match against Czech Republic. But there is no strong indication that the Hugo Broos men would make it to the knock-out stage, even after facing South Korea on Thursday, and that makes Nigerians very happy, a major comment indeed on the so much-vaunted idea of African brotherhood and solidarity.  Nigerians however are not as contrarian with the performance of the nine other African countries in this year’s World Cup or the fact that Africa has benefitted from the expansion of representation at the World Cup after Qatar in 2022: Senegal, Tunisia, South Africa, Algeria, Morocco, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Egypt, Cape Verde and DR Congo. 

So far, Africa has tried to put up a good showing. Tunisia is out, after a poor performance. Algeria lost 3-0 to defending champions, Argentina in a match that did more to advertise Lionel Messi’s GOAT status in football. Morocco has been impressive against Brazil and Scotland. Cote d’Ivoire stood up to Germany but lost. Senegal lost 3-1 to France but they were not disgraced. Ghana managed to beat Panama. Egypt trounced New Zealand.  Cape Verde and DR Congo have been impressive.  DR Congo held Portugal to a 1-1 draw despite the presence of Cristiano Ronaldo in the Portuguese squad.  In fact, Ronaldo was close-marked out of the game. He has been sulking since then.  Cape Verde, a country of just 525, 000 people appearing at the World Cup for the first time, the second smallest country in the tournament, has also so far surprised everyone with its performance in Group H alongside Spain, Uruguay and Saudi Arabia. This small country caused a major upset, by drawing 0-0 with Spain, a global football powerhouse, in their first ever World Cup match. In their second group match, they drew 2-2 with Uruguay, another giant and a two-time World Cup winner. Cape Verde’s talisman is a 40-year-old goalkeeper called Vozinha who saved seven onslaughts by Spain and was so remarkable that the United States had to waive the visa bond for his mother to enable her travel to the United States to watch her son, making history at the World Cup.  Everyone is talking about Cape Verde, and it is not just about the players but also the beautiful ladies from this island country who have shown so much beauty, charm, colour and enthusiasm off the pitch. 

This is a World Cup of emerging surprises. Apart from Cape Verde, another country of interest is Curacao, the smallest country to reach the World Cup. It has a population of just 156, 000 people. The small Caribbean Island country is a self-governing entity of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Most of its players were either born in the Netherlands or elsewhere, but this team, known as the Blue Wave, managed to put their island on the map. They lost 7-1 to Germany, but they held their own in a draw with Ecuador. Their main star is Eloy Room, the goalkeeper who made 15 saves in one match, and gained the attention of the world!. The defeat by Germany, the draw with Ecuador, and the one point that they gained already looks like victory to the Curacao team. The Dutch king was so excited, he danced with the team. This is perhaps the most culturally diverse World Cup ever, and the celebrations in the streets, the joyfulness of the fans and the excitement in the stadiums provide the necessary evidence. It is also likely to turn out as a profitable enterprise with the United States, hosting 78 of the104 matches, pocketing most of the returns from tourism and hospitality. With the exception of Ronaldo who is still working hard to make a difference, the usual stars are standing up to be counted: Harry Kane (England), Lionel Messi (Argentina), Erling Harland (Norway), Kylian Mbappe (France), Folarin Balogun (United States) , Vinicius Junior (Brazil), and Lamine Yamal (Spain). 

History is also being made. Messi is now the all- time top scorer at the World Cup after scoring goal No. 17 in his country’s match against Austria. Mohammed Salah helped Egypt to secure their first ever World Cup win to beat New Zealand, 3-1 and was player of the match for the first time in his career. Jeremy Doku (Belgium) took time off from the World Cup to witness the birth of his son, Praise, and hence missed the Belgium vs. Iran match on Sunday. Harry Kane drew level with England’s all-time scorer, Gary Lineker with ten goals at the World Cup. But as the Three Lions face Ghana today, Kane has to worry not about football, but a famous Ghanaian shamanist, Nana Kwaku Bonsam, who has vowed that he would target Kane spiritually to prevent him from scoring a goal against Ghana. This. is what makes this World Cup so unique: the competitiveness across all fronts – from the field of play, to street dramas and voodoo, the beautiful game remains what it is: a fine blend of culture, fun, politics and excitement. 

From the political scene, to the judicial chambers, to the criminal arena, to social media space and on to marital beds, stories emanating out of Nigeria last week ranged from the curious to the incredulous, to the puzzling and on to the dubious in short order.

There was this story that Benue State Government appointed “Her Excellency Mrs. Scholastica Ben-Sor” as “Coordinator, Office of the First Lady,” a veritable first in the history of rigmarole Nigerian public service. This post is curious. Benue State has had no First Lady since May 2023, because the Governor, Hyacinth Alia, is a Roman Catholic Reverend Father who has sworn an oath of priestly celibacy, so he has no wife.

Nor is this a new thing in Benue State. From January 1992 to November 1993, the state similarly had no First Lady, because Governor Moses Adasu was also a Roman Catholic priest. Protocol katakata erupted because First Lady Mrs. Oluremi Tinubu was to visit Benue State last Friday, so the state government hit on the idea of appointing a shadow state First Lady to receive her. They got that idea from Malawi. During Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda’s long reign as President of Malawi, which ended in 1994, he had no wife, so he instead appointed Miss Cecilia Kadzamira as Official Hostess. That position carried with it all the duties, powers and privileges of a First Lady. Like Malawi, like Benue.

Trust Nigerian politicians to start fighting for a post a year before it is due. Members of the 11^th National Assembly will only be elected early next year and will be inaugurated in June, but a battle has already started for its Senate President’s job. Godswill Akpabio rammed through a change in Senate rules meant to disqualify two men who are likely to challenge him next year, namely Adams Oshiomhole and Hope Uzodinma. Akpabio is however assuming that he will be re-elected from Akwa Ibom; he is assuming APC will get a majority; he is assuming that his patron President Bola Tinubu will be reelected; he is assuming that APC will re-zone Senate Presidency to South South; and he is assuming that incoming senators, at least 80% of them first timers, will reward him for making the 10^th Senate a lapdog of the Presidency. Too many assumptions.

Last week, the rapidly growing opposition Nigeria Democratic Congress [NDC] adopted a novel anti-defection policy, which compels all its candidates to sign indemnity forms and sworn affidavits pledging not to defect to another political party after securing electoral victory. It said the measure is designed to strengthen party discipline, promote loyalty and curb the wave of defections that has weakened several political parties in recent years. Insofar as defection is one of the biggest epidemics in Nigerian politics, this was a far-sighted move indeed.

But then, late last week, NDC’s leaders eroded its import by exempting its presidential candidate, Peter Obi and his running mate, Rabi’u Musa Kwankwaso, from signing the anti-defection oath.  Why, NDC? Obi and Kwankwaso are some of the most politically travelled politicians in Nigeria. Obi started in APGA, went to PDP, migrated to Labour Party, went on to ADC, and ended up in NDC. Kwankwaso started out in PDP, migrated to nPDP, went on to APC, returned to PDP, crossed over to NNDP, and recently came to NDC. Yet, you exclude these two men from signing the anti-defection oath?

Last week, a Southwark Crown Court jury in London acquitted former Nigerian Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, of all six bribery and corruption charges. UK’s National Crime Agency had accused Mrs. Alison-Madueke of receiving over £100,000 in cash, millions in luxury goods, Harrods shopping sprees and private jet flights from oil and gas figures seeking lucrative contracts in Nigeria, but the jury acquitted her and her two co-defendants of all the charges. Mrs. Allison-Madueke was the most powerful Oil Minister here, to whom President Jonathan ceded full control of the oil cash cow when two presidents before and two presidents after him all kept the Oil Ministry on a short leash. Her acquittal after 13 years brings hope to many other Nigerians facing charges of mega billion corruption; former Humanitarian Affairs Minister Mrs. Sadiyya Umar Faruk, recently declared wanted by EFCC, must be confident that she will be acquitted by 2039.

There was this storm on Facebook last week about Fatima, a beautiful young Yobe lady, that nobody is coming forward to marry her because she is the daughter of the late Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau. Just because her father destroyed whole communities, killed hundreds of thousands of people including soldiers, policemen, clerics, village heads, young vigilantes and anyone who refused to join his insurgent group, destroyed untold numbers of public infrastructure, private homes and businesses and generated two million IDPs, what has that got to do with Fatima, who was about two years old when her father launched his murderous insurgency? Didn’t the law state that no one is punished for someone else’s guilt?

My worry for Fatima, however, is that Nigerian judges appear to find guilt by association. Late last week, a Federal High Court in Abuja convicted and sentenced the mother and sister of late bandit kingpin Kachallah Ibrahim Battujo to forty years in prison each.The mother, Safiya Salihu and the sister, Halima Abdullahi, were convicted under Section 26 of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Prohibition) Act, 2022 of passing information on phone to Battujo in aid of his terrorist acts. Justice Hauwa Yilwa also convicted the two women of concealing information, because they visited the bandit kingpin’s camp in the forest, saw him in possession of firearms, but failed to report to the police. The court however discharged them for having received ₦490,300 from Battujo and for also going on Hajj to Saudi Arabia sponsored by Battujo.

You see, my fear for Fatima Shekau is that a judge might say the ram that was slaughtered at her naming ceremony was procured by her father after overrunning a hamlet in the Chad Basin, and she is therefore guilty of benefitting from terrorist activity. In the olden days in Nigeria, if a son arrived from the city with an expensive gift for his father, the old man will ask him if he got it from his salary. These days, when radio stations broadcast daily news of leaders on trial for stealing mega billions, which village elder will ask such questions?

There was this uproar in once-peaceful Plateau State last week when a State High Court ruled that a Hausa person born and raised in Jos North Local Government Area should legally be recognized as an indigene. Justice C. Donglong, who delivered the landmark judgment, ordered Jos North LGA to issue a Certificate of Indigene to Fatima Baba Akawu, an ethnic Hausa woman who had been denied one. The denial, despite that Fatima was born in Jos, violates the constitutional right to freedom from discrimination under Sections 25(1)(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution, alongside the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. But while the Hausa community celebrated, the Berom Educational and Cultural Organisation (BECO), Middle Belt Forum and former Governor Jonah Jang strongly criticized the ruling.

This contest between constitutional citizenship and locally-formulated indigeneship has caused rumpus in many parts of Nigeria. In Jos, it has led to several rounds of bloodshed over the decades. While a Nigerian is a citizen that can reside and exercise citizenship rights anywhere in the country, but to get admitted into a school or to land a civil service job, one is often required to produce an indigeneship certificate. Plateau State once passed a law that stated which tribes are indigenous to the state, so anyone outside those is denied an indigeneship certificate, a severe pain for other groups. Courts alone cannot end this tango.

There was this curious case last week when Justice Oluwatoyin Odusanya of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja ended a five-year legal tussle over the estate of late First Foundation Hospital CEO Dr. Tosin Ajayi by declaring Mrs. Adenike Ajayi as the sole lawful widow. The competing claim by former beauty queen Helen Prest was that for a long period prior to his death in 2020, Ajayi was separated from his wife, and that separation legally terminated their marriage. The High Court however ruled that prolonged separation does not automatically end a marriage; that regardless of how many years a couple lives apart, a legally contracted marriage remains valid under the Matrimonial Causes Act unless formally dissolved through court-ordered divorce proceedings.

While this ruling makes sense to judges and lawyers, many tradition-bound Nigerians must be shaking their heads and wondering, “What else ends marriage, if husband and wife have been living apart for many years?” Indeed, what is marriage, apart from a wife moving in with the husband, eating together, confronting issues together, procreating and raising children till death [or legal divorce] does them apart? Let us hope this court ruling will not lead to husbands and wives all over the country living apart and only rushing back to claim inheritance when the spouse passes away.

What the IMF’s 2026 Nigeria report says about us — and what it would take to make the patient actually feel it

Picture a man who has just left his cardiologist. Blood pressure down, cholesterol down, the arrhythmia that nearly killed him three years ago stabilised by months of disciplined treatment. The doctor is pleased.

He walks out and still feels terrible. His chest is tight. He is exhausted by the time he climbs the stairs. He cannot understand how the chart says he is recovering when his body insists otherwise.

This is, more or less, the conversation Nigeria has just had with the IMF.

What the Chart Says

On June 1, the Fund’s Executive Board concluded its 2026 Article IV consultation — the annual physical every member country submits to — and the chart looks genuinely good. Strong reforms over the past three years have built real macroeconomic resilience, in the Fund’s own language. The currency, after the trauma of unification, has found something closer to a stable footing. External reserves have risen from $40 billion at the end of 2024 to more than $50 billion today, giving the Central Bank significantly more room to manoeuvre than it had only a few years ago.  The banking sector is undergoing recapitalisation and most institutions are on track to meet the new requirements. Growth is humming along respectably — 4 percent in 2025, with a projected 4.1 percent this year, ahead of the global average.

Read only the vital signs and you would conclude Nigeria has done the hard, unglamorous work of getting well.

In a narrow sense, it has.

I do not say that performatively. I have sat in rooms where these numbers were the difference between a federation that could pay salaries and one that could not. They matter. They are not theatre.

What the Patient Feels

But the same report, in the very next breath, says something that should stop the celebration mid-sentence: conditions for many Nigerians remain difficult.

Not “some.” Many.

Then come the numbers that explain why the man on the stairs still cannot breathe properly. Sixty-three percent of Nigerians now fall below the national poverty line. Twenty-seven million faced food insecurity last autumn. Inflation, which had been falling for the better part of a year — a trend every commentator, myself included, had begun to treat as settled — turned and rose again in March, back to 15.4 percent, driven in part by renewed global food and fuel price pressures.

This is the gap the chart cannot show: the difference between an economy whose instruments read “stable” and a household whose weekly shopping basket reads “impossible.”

Both are true at once.

That is not a contradiction. It is two patients examined with two different instruments — one a blood-pressure cuff, the other a scale the family checks every time it returns from the market.

Why the Same Shock Cuts Both Ways

Here is the part of the report that deserves more attention than it has received, because it explains why the next six months may widen this gap rather than close it.

The Fund notes that higher global fuel, food and fertiliser prices will improve Nigeria’s exports and fiscal revenues while, in the same breath, aggravating the poverty and food insecurity already described.

Read that twice.

The identical global event — the conflict in the Middle East and the commodity-price shock associated with it — fattens the federal purse and empties the household plate through entirely different channels. There is no rough justice here, no automatic mechanism by which the gain to government filters down to compensate the family paying more for garri.

I wrote a few months ago about the village arithmetic of this war — the fertiliser bought this month determining the harvest brought in by November, with no second chance. The IMF report is the same arithmetic scaled to the nation: the oil windfall the Federation Account registers as good news is, structurally, the same event as the price spike a mother registers at the market stall as bad news.

Both entries are correct.

Neither is the whole truth without the other.

What Treating the Patient Would Actually Look Like

A doctor who tells a patient, “Your chart looks good, see you next year,” while the patient is doubled over in the waiting room has not finished the consultation.

The honest doctor goes further: what do we do about the pain in the meantime, while the deeper treatment takes hold?

Two priorities, in order of how quickly they could be felt.

First: protect the harvest, not just the headline rate.

The IMF identifies fertiliser and food prices as a key transmission channel through which global shocks are reaching ordinary households. That suggests a policy response focused on agricultural inputs rather than broad-based subsidies.

A temporary, time-bound waiver or subsidy on imported NPK and phosphate inputs — financed directly from the additional oil revenue the same global shock is generating — would not fix Nigeria’s agriculture. But it would mean the windfall reaching Abuja’s accounts this quarter reaches a Kano smallholder’s planting decision this quarter too, rather than sitting in reserves while she rations urea in April.

It follows the same stabilisation principle that underpinned the Excess Crude Account: save windfalls during good periods and deploy them when shocks hit.

Second: make the relief visible, timely and felt where the squeeze actually lands.

It is genuinely hard for a family to feel 4.1 percent growth.

Cash-transfer programmes often look good on paper but can miss those under the greatest pressure. In Nigeria today it is increasingly the urban poor — squeezed by rent, transport and food costs — not only the rural poor.

A targeted transfer delivered through the NIN-linked payment infrastructure developed for recent social-support programmes, timed to the months the IMF identifies as highest risk, would not need to be large to matter. It would need to be timely. It would need to be visible.

The same logic extends to public transport. The daily commute is effectively a tax on the working poor that a single windfall-funded intervention could ease well before any structural solution arrives.

Neither proposal closes the gap overnight.

But a family does not need the whole disease cured to feel less afraid. It needs to see that someone has noticed the specific pain it is in and has done something about it this month — not merely promised the whole body will feel better eventually.

The Doctor’s Other Instructions

To its credit, the Fund’s directors did not stop at diagnosis.

They were specific about what the second phase requires: tackling insecurity, cutting red tape, lifting agricultural productivity, closing the infrastructure gap — electricity chief among them — and increasing health and education spending.

None of this is new.

It is the same structural list I have returned to in piece after piece this year: power, collateral, the dependency ratio, the savings pool.

Macro stability without that work produces exactly the gap this report describes.

A good chart should not remove urgency from the harder work that follows it.

What “Stable” Should Not Be Allowed to Mean

There is a real risk in this moment, and I want to name it plainly.

Stable macroeconomic numbers are easy to announce and satisfying to defend at a press conference. They photograph well.

The danger is not that the government celebrates the chart. The chart deserves some celebration; getting here was neither cheap nor easy.

The danger is mistaking the chart for the whole examination — declaring the patient recovered because the instruments attached to him say so while he is still telling you, in plain language, that he cannot climb the stairs.

“The danger is not that the government celebrates the chart. The danger is mistaking the chart for the whole examination.”

The IMF’s report does not let anyone make that mistake if read in full rather than in headline.

It says the vital signs are improving and the patient is still in pain in the same document, without resolving the tension between the two.

That refusal to resolve it tidily is, I think, the most honest part of the report.

What Comes Next

The next six months will decide whether this gap narrows or widens.

If the conflict in the Middle East persists, the same dynamic will keep operating: fiscal relief flowing into Abuja’s accounts, price pressure flowing into Kano’s, Lagos’s and every market stall in between.

Inflation’s brief retreat may turn out to have been a pause rather than a settled trend. Nigeria’s reserves may continue to climb while the queue for affordable rice grows longer.

None of this is fate.

It is a question of whether the second-phase reforms move with the urgency the first phase did, and whether practical interventions such as those outlined above are attempted this season rather than next.

The currency was stabilised because the alternative was unthinkable.

The household’s plate has not yet been treated with the same urgency because its crisis does not appear on a single chart a Governor can present to a Board.

It shows up instead in twenty-seven million separate places, none of which file a report to Washington.

Kemi Adeosun is a former Minister of Finance of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and former Commissioner for Finance of Ogun State. She is the founder of Nidacity.com and the Dash Me Foundation. She writes from Lagos.

A phone chat with Dr Lasisi Lagunju, editor of Saturday Tribune and ace columnist, on Friday morning sent me into melancholy. He had joked that he hoped I was not in “Okunland” as he did not have N135 million to pay if I was kidnapped by bandits. Kogi West has been experiencing bandit attacks for a while. An in-law, Pastor Ranti Ige, 67, was murdered in November 2023 on his way from Lagos to Isanlu, Kogi state, for the funeral of his friend. The bandits shot at the car, killing him instantly. They kidnapped the other occupants and demanded ransom. The information sent to us was that “Fulani herdsmen” had killed the man we adoringly called “Boda Ranti” as kids. He was such a lovely soul.

Just a decade ago, if anybody had told me a time would come when road travels would come with anxiety and hypertension, I would have filed it under “exaggeration”. I used to travel by road a lot in my years as a student and as a reporter on the field. There were only two things we feared in those days: armed robbery and accidents. Robbers did not usually kill: they would just ask the passengers to declare their assets and collect whatever they considered valuable. Road accidents were common, mostly because of insane speeding and other forms of reckless driving, but the good work of the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) on the highways helped in no little way to reduce the incidence.

No, I am not talking about 1914. I drove with my younger brother and childhood friend all the way from Lagos to bury my grandfather in 2012. I had no fears. Although Boko Haram was in full swing, it was limited to the north-east and frequent bombings in Kano and the FCT. Even though we heard that the terrorists had cells in Okene, Kogi Central, which shares a boundary with Kogi West, we did not experience any attacks. Ten years ago, I went to bury my grandmother, this time driving from the Abuja axis and passing through lonely and bad stretches of roads between Okene and Kabba. There were no serious fears of being ambushed by bandits or terrorists. The story has changed completely.

I have watched Nigeria move from one level of insecurity to the other in the last 25 years: the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) uprising in the fight for “restructuring” and Yoruba secession; religious riots in the north, particularly in Kaduna, Kano and Plateau states, in the early 2000s in which tens of thousands died; unrest by Biafra campaigners in the south-east; Niger Delta militancy in the mid-2000s that led to the bombing of oil installations and mainstreamed kidnapping for ransom; Boko Haram terrorism in the north-east, accentuated by the Maiduguri uprising of July 2009; and cattle rustling in the north-west that probably gave birth to banditry, or maybe the other way round.

What we are dealing with today is beyond imagination. While Boko Haram has been largely contained to Borno state and the insurgents have been unable to seize the state capital since they launched their quest nearly 20 years ago, we now have various terrorist franchises: the Islamic State West African Province (ISWAP), an affiliate of the Islamic State, and the Jama’atu Ansarul Muslimina fi Biladis Sudan, a branch of Al Qaeda. Both of them broke away from Boko Haram. While ISWAP operates in the Lake Chad Basin and the Alagarno Forest in Borno state, Ansaru dominates the north-west and north-central zones and is apparently responsible for the Ogbomoso kidnappings.

As things stand now, I am not sure the security agencies know the extent of what they are dealing with. Or maybe they know but are simply overwhelmed. These groups mutate so rapidly that their evil machinations can be daunting. Whether they are bandits or insurgents, their mode of operation is similar. Whereas terrorists often make a political demand and insurgents seek to control territory, bandits are thought to be just after the loot: steal the cattle and collect the cash. But when bandits establish links with terrorists, they become deadlier. They kidnap for ransom to raise funds for their partners in crime. It is getting increasingly hard to distinguish between regular bandits and terrorists.

Not forgetting, of course, that there are low-grade kidnappers operating in the neighbourhood. Most recently, the younger sister of Chief Bayo Adelabu, former minister of power, and her two sons were kidnapped on the streets of Ibadan. The kidnappers were immediately classified as “Fulani jihadists” and “Fulani terrorists”. As it turned out, they were Yoruba criminals. However, there has been a deliberate campaign by some commentators and opinion leaders — noticeably since 2015 — to attribute every crime and every ethno-religious crisis to “Fulani jihadists” and “Fulani terrorists”. While we were busy debating this, the bandits and terrorists continued to grow bigger and stronger.

We politicised insecurity to score political points. When President Goodluck Jonathan was in office, he accused his opponents of fuelling insecurity and they, in turn, accused him of being “shoeless” and “clueless”. The All Progressives Congress (APC) promised to end Boko Haram just like that, saying the insurgency festered because Jonathan was “incompetent”. The truth is that everybody was playing politics with insecurity. That is why, as we approach 2027 elections, I shake my head anytime I see politicians grandstanding and claiming they have some secret formula to end insecurity in the land. Or when President Bola Tinubu’s followers blame the opposition for insecurity. Déjà vu.

Truly, some security experts believe Jonathan was close to crushing Boko Haram in his last days in office reportedly by using mercenaries. However, when the cash payment for their services was flown by private aircraft to South Africa, a prominent Nigerian politician with connections to President Jacob Zuma allegedly leaked the information and the money was seized. The deal ended. When President Muhammadu Buhari assumed power, he was persuaded that we did not need mercenaries, that the military could do the job. They did their best, but terrorism soon mutated beyond the Sambisa forest and insecurity spread on a new scale to other parts of the country.

Whatever progress we recorded in the early years of Buhari disappeared over time as we continued to politicise insecurity, framing everything with ethnic coloration. Even with all the facts before us today, some are still twisting the story and ignoring the reality that these bandits, terrorists and insurgents are a threat to all Nigerians, no matter their religious affiliations or the tribal marks on their faces. We are dealing with a bunch of lunatics, drug addicts and degenerates who shoot and loot for fun. They take pleasure in unleashing horror and terror on their victims while claiming to be doing some good for God. When you mix religion with psychosis, that is usually the end product.

“When do you think this madness will end?” Lasisi asked me. I had no answer, but I repeated what a friend told me: that the insecurity will, like a flu virus, run its full course before things normalise. But Lasisi reminded me that it is not just one virus we are dealing with. For 20 years, we’ve been saying “12 million children are out of school”. They have graduated from “no school”. Many are doing their post-graduate in terrorism. The factory producing the miscreants remains open, oiled by poverty and unemployment. By all means, we must launch a full-scale war on insecurity. We must overhaul our security architecture and strategy. But until this factory is ultimately closed down, we will not be free. 

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

DIEZANI THE PASTOR

After spending 11 years on “lockdown” in the UK, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke, former minister of petroleum resources, has been found not guilty of bribery charges by an English court. In the court of public opinion, she was guilty as charged; in the eyes of the jury, there was no conclusive evidence. It was difficult for the UK National Crime Agency (NCA) to prove the five counts of accepting bribes and a charge of conspiracy to commit bribery before London’s Southwark Crown Court. Suspicion may be very heavy, but it — unfortunately — does not replace evidence. The former minister waxed lyrical and spiritual after the acquittal, quoting Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man that he should lie…” Life.

ETHIOPIA EXCHANGE

Hon Abike Dabiri-Erewa was in a jubilant mood a few weeks ago when the governments of Nigeria and Ethiopia finally agreed to sign an MoU for the transfer of Nigerian prisoners in the Horn of Africa to their motherland. Since 2022, the chair of the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NIDCOM) had been drawing attention to their plight. Senator Victor Umeh, as chair of the senate committee on the diaspora, twice raised the issue on the floor of the senate. It is good news that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has seen it through. Our prisons might not be better than Ethiopia’s, but home is home. Most importantly, Nigerians living abroad need to come to their senses and stop disgracing us. Enough.

FAKE NEWS FIESTA

Last week, I asked Ms Ebunoluwa Olafusi, Fact Check editor of TheCable: “How do you guys manage to fact-check misinformation at this dizzying pace? Me, I have given up.” She laughed, but I meant it. I am so tired. It is one piece of fake news every second. AI has sadly worsened matters. Someone got AI to create an image of bandits handing over General Rabe Abubakar’s body to Katsina state officials. Just one look and I realised the small coffin was being held at unnatural angles. It would have dropped, given that the deceased had a bulky frame. Yet some people believed it and started sharing and commenting. Fake news thrives best when it feeds into people’s mindsets. Pathetic.

NO COMMENT

Senator Adams Oshiomhole has been talking a lot recently but he seemed to have gone too far in a TV interview where he quoted some senators as saying they neither signed nor endorsed the report recommending Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for suspension last year. “There are one or two or three senators who said they didn’t sign, but our names were there, how? Some said they may have attached an attendance register, which is inappropriate,” he said on camera. For whatever reason, he later issued a statement to say he had been misquoted. This may be the first time someone is denying his own words that are on video. At least, he didn’t blame it on AI this time. Hahahaha.

By Tunde Rahman

Twenty-seven years into unbroken democracy, Nigeria’s federal structure remains our best tool for managing diversity and delivering development. But federalism is neither a contest between Abuja and the sub-nationals, nor is it a zero-sum competition for relevance. It is a covenant, an agreement to work together – keep some powers and grant some others to the central government for proper coordination.

The principle of federalism, as articulated by constitutional scholars like A.V. Dicey and K.C. Wheare, rests on three pillars: devolution of powers, supremacy of the constitution, and non-centralisation. 

In Nigeria, this division of power plays out through the Exclusive, Concurrent and Residual Lists. Defence, immigration, currency and foreign policy, among others, reside with the centre while education, health, land and local roads lie with states and Local Government Councils.

Many will argue that Nigeria is over-centralised, that the centre in Abuja has excessive powers. This may be difficult to disprove. Yet, devolution of power is not division of purpose. When the centre and sub-nationals work at cross-purposes, citizens pay the price. When they collaborate and align, real development can occur. Alignment does not mean surrender of autonomy. It is the exercise of joint responsibility so that the roads can be well paved, schools can be built and stocked with learning materials, and society generally can be better.

The days when a state government would not touch a project by the central government because of different party affiliation – as was the case in some states during the Second Republic – should be gone for good.

The significance of collaboration, strategic partnership and alignment between the centre and states came into sharp focus last week during the Renewed Hope Ambassadors’ National Media Tour of Legacy Projects undertaken by the Federal and State Governments in the South East. The tour, which took the team to Ebonyi, Enugu and Abia States, was instructive, particularly with respect to the gains of centre-states collaboration and alignment.

Three of the many landmark projects the team inspected during the South East tour illustrate the importance of strategic partnership between the centre and the sub-nationals.

In Enugu State, for instance, the President Bola Tinubu administration, under the Renewed Hope Agenda on road infrastructure, embarked on a 23-span flyover bridge project at Eke Obinagu Junction along the ever-busy Enugu-Abakaliki Expressway to eliminate traffic gridlock at the junction. That ongoing project with a 345-metre bridge length and 1.05 kilometres (dual service road) cost N25.3billion. To complement and align with the Tinubu government on the project, Enugu State is dualising the 21.5-kilometre part of the Enugu-Abakaliki Highway and constructing five bridges.

It is also instructive to note that the flyover bridge project by the Tinubu administration and the dualization of the same Abakaliki-Enugu highway were the triggers for Ebonyi State Governor Francis Nwifuru’s decision to construct the Ezillo-Ezzaegu road. This construction takes off from the Abakaliki-Enugu dual carriageway in Ishielu Local Government and has opened up four rural communities.

In Abia State, a slightly different but no less remarkable story of alignment abounds. The 50-kilometre Umuahia-Ohafia road cutting through Bende is a Federal Government Road. While the Tinubu administration was constructing the road, Abia State Governor Alex Otti decisively intervened by providing an imposing bridge across the Asaga area in Ohafia to strengthen the road further. The new bridge replaces the old Omenuko Bridge, where, in 1985, popular Reverend Uma Ukpai (who passed away on October 6, 2025, at age 80) lost two of his children and a cousin. They were travelling to attend a Christian crusade but accidentally drove into the river abutting the bridge.

It also emerged during the tour that President Tinubu has graciously approved the concessioning of the Akanu Ibiam International Airport, the first of its kind to be so concessioned. Incidentally, the concessioning documents were signed in Abuja by the Minister of Aviation, Mr Festus Keyamo, and the concessionaire on the day we went round the already-abandoned international wing of the Enugu airport. The presidential gesture is aimed at reviving the international wing of the airport built by former Minister of Aviation Stella Oduah during the regime of President Goodluck Jonathan. The imposing edifice has literally been moribund since then.

We inspected many projects in the three states mentioned earlier. Governor Peter Mbah of Enugu has been very intentional with the projects he is putting in place under a broad vision, where one project logically connects to another to create a modern, efficient and prosperous Enugu.

The team inspected the 40-kilometre Owo-Ubahu-Amankanu-Umualor-Ikem dual carriageway, a virgin road created by cutting through forested areas; the New Enugu City, a 10,000-hectare smart city conceived to decongest Enugu metropolis with a dual carriage road infrastructure already in place; the modern Enugu International Hospital; tractor assembly and service plant; Smart Green School GTC Campus I; and the Command and Control Centre where movement and security within the entire Enugu city and its forests are monitored via AI-embedded cameras to nip crime in the bud.

Governor Nwifuru has turned the entire Ebonyi State into a huge construction yard with ongoing projects like the iconic Vanco Junction Flyover/Tunnel Bridge, ICT University, Oferekpe in Izzi LGA, the Aeronautic and Aerospace University in Ezza South LGA, Amanze Housing Estate, the 24-kilometre Umuogudu Oshia-NIGERCEM road, and the International Trade Centre that has been redeveloped into a 182-bed international hotel, among others.

Abia State is no different in terms of the infrastructure and legacy projects. Among the projects inspected in the State were the strategic 67.6-kilometre Umuahia–Uzuakoli–Akara–Ohafia Road, a major transportation corridor linking several communities across the state; Ohafia–Umuahia Federal Road; the newly-commissioned Nnenna Oti Bus Terminal in Umuahia, a modern transportation hub designed to transform public transportation in Abia State; and the Renewed Hope Housing Estate in Umuahia, a flagship Federal  Housing Authority project comprising 1,200 housing units. That initiative represents one of the largest housing development schemes under President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Housing Programme. The Abia State Government provided the land and paid compensation to affected landowners, while the Federal Housing Authority is undertaking the construction.

What all the highlighted projects have shown is the fact that Nigerians do not experience “federalism.” They experience roads, hospitals, schools and markets. A federal highway that stops at a state border, or a Primary Health Centre without drugs, helps no one. The Universal Basic Education Act requires states to provide counterpart funding. Where states align or provide matching funds, classrooms appear. Where they don’t, federal allocations lie unused.

Terrorism, banditry, kidnapping and climate displacement do not respect state boundaries. The Nigerian Armed Forces can degrade terrorist command centres, but sustainable peace requires state intelligence, community policing and local reintegration programmes like Operation Safe Corridor. No one level of government can secure Nigeria alone.

Even on the economy, the investors will see “Nigeria,” not “Rivers or Lagos State.” Conflicting taxes, permits and regulations raise the cost of doing business. That is why the Tinubu government has reformed the tax system, collapsing the multiple taxes and eliminating several outdated ones.

That is why alignment through PEBEC and state Ease of Doing ������Ƶ reforms has helped push non-oil exports to $12.8 billion, a 21% increase.

Misalignment produces duplication, abandoned projects, court battles and “us-versus-them” politics. It turns policy into confusion and budgets into waste. 

In a federal system, the distance between policy and people is closed by coordination –or widened by its absence.

Federalism does not ask Abuja to do everything, nor does it ask states to do nothing. It asks each tier to do what it does best – together. 

*Rahman is Senior Special Assistant to President Tinubu on Media & Special Duties.

Engagements with Chidi Amuta

The raging insecurity all over Nigeria has altered our reality. We now count our lives in days, weeks and months. At the beginning of each month these days, most of us receive these silly “Happy New month” greetings and prayers. We now celebrate our lives in bits and pieces, not knowing what the future holds. Those who set out from home to work or to the next destination never arrive till they really get there in one piece. Some arrive in unplanned destinations like forests and other ungoverned spaces while total strangers randomly phone relations and friends asking for impossible ransoms. Those caught in the hideouts of bandits and transactional bad people have lost every sense of belonging to a nation.

In our search for a more secure reality and some freedom, something more fundamental has tragically changed. The bulging community of criminals, terrorists and bandits have overcome an ancient limitation. They have conquered the fear of the uniform as a symbol of the authority and supreme power of the state.  The uniform of the soldier, the policeman and the other armed forces used to frighten the civil populace and deter bad people because they represented the supreme coercion and licensed ferocity of the state. Not anymore. The presence of uniformed government security agents has become a joke, more or less. The defeat of the uniform is what lies at the core of the hopeless insecurity we are now facing.

It was late Afrobeat musician, Fela Ransome-Kuti, who innocently heralded the demystification of uniforms in the public mind. He had this famous song which stripped the uniform of the mystique of fear and aura of authorized violence: “Uniform na cloth, Na tailor dey sow am…”. Thereafter, common street urchins began to reduce their fear of uniforms and perhaps developed the courage to confront people in government uniforms. That was perhaps the unconscious beginning of the reign of defiance of the state and its uniformed messengers and agents. But demystification of the uniform was only a sign of the defiance of the authoritarian state. Present disregard of the uniform of government force is a sign of something more dangerous. It is the face to face affront of the Nigerian state as an overriding sovereign authority.

In the multiple recent encounters between our security forces and the growing army of criminals and outlaws, people in uniform have become targets of choice. In fact, soldiers and security forces are not just targets of forces arrayed against the state. They have become prime targets. In recent times, even army generals have fallen on the swords of terrorists, insurgents, bandits and other armed rascals.

The logic is of course simple: when you humiliate the most decorated and trained armed and uniformed emissaries of the state, you have cowed the state and the civil populace  is a sitting duck. Men, women and children become soft targets for abductions, kidnappings and senseless killings.  When you have frightened the soldiers and policemen, you casually invade schools, churches and other public places and take hostages.

In the last two years, countless military contingents have been ambushed and liquidated. Military formations have been besieged, attacked and overrun by bandit and terrorist squads who have killed people in uniform and looted their weapons to reinforce an ever burgeoning army of non-state trouble makers. The situation is worse. An increasing number of senior military officers have been targeted and either killed or captured in the battle fields of insurgency or abducted by bandits on patrol on highways or urban neighbourhoods.

There are hardly any reliable statistics of ‘active duty casualties’ in our encounter with insecurity.  Recent assessments reveal that between 2016 and 2026, a total of 16 senior military officers have been killed by terrorists: 3 Brigadier Generals, 2 colonels, 10 lieutenant colonels and one major. A few of these made major headlines like the case of General Ubah who was captured by jihadist terrorists and executed in full camera view by Boko Haram/ISWAP. Just last week, former Defense spokesman General Rabe Abubakar who was abducted by terrorists in Katsina state along with his wife was reported dead in captivity before his injured wife was released by their captors.  

In my view, what is emerging is a conscious strategy by terrorists and bandits to target the military in order to demonstrate their match -up with the state. In a number of the operations, terrorists have attacked strategic security institutions to further drive home their strategic focus and increasing advantage. Clearly, we are dealing with an adversary with a clear strategic compass and well defined geo strategic aim. 

A rough head count of casualties that have been inflicted by the adversarial forces as against those that have been sustained by government’s security forces is an unsettling equation that shows the state in very unflattering light. Government seems to be playing ping -pong with the non-state actors and criminals. Clearly, it seems that the Nigerian state is increasingly being outgunned by forces audacious enough to challenge the authority of the state. The state’s presumed monopoly of violence and coercion has  long been punctured. What is now being contested in various theatres across the national space is the control of the state over the territory of the nation. Sovereign authority without absolute territorial control and integrity is a caricature.

An incremental loss of territorial control seems to be in progress and is following a disturbing strategic pattern. What began in the North Eastern zone and fringe border states of Borno, Yobe and Zamfara has stridently spread to the mid section states of Niger, Kwara, Kogi, Plateau, Benue and Nasarawa states. The previously impenetrable forests of the South West have witnessed terrorist attacks in  Ondo and now Oyo States with attacks targeted at Churches and schools. The recent terror attacks especially in the South West have tended to be sectarian and doctrinal (religious and educational).

There have of course been sporadic attacks on individuals and residential locations in the Abuja capital area. These are red flag attacks possibly designed to send the message that as parts of the federation totter under instability and insecurity, the power base in Abuja cannot afford to sleep easy.

It is therefore, naïve and simplistic for the Nigerian government to continue feeding on the foolish narrative that  what we are witnessing is just a wave of insecurity that will go away with increased budget spending on security. Even more foolish is the thinking that, after all, ‘every nation faces different forms of insecurity at one point or the other’.

What confronts Nigeria is a real existential threat. Our unity is in jeopardy. Jihadists are waging a sectarian onslaught on what unites us.  Our prospects of development are threatened as educational institutions are being invaded. Our survival as a secular republic is at stake as pressures are mounting to introduce theocratic elements into our judicial systems.  Our future as a democracy is at stake. Democracy without freedom is a farce. Rhetorical freedom without security of lives and property is a joke. Democracy in a state where violence restricts the freedom of individuals to move about is the enthronement of a state of nature.

Those politicians who are ignoring the security of the nation and fixating on the ritual of elections need urgent attention. When national security comes into neck-to-neck competition with democratic ritual, statecraft is challenged to make a wise choice.

The recent decision by the Borno State Government to reintegrate 720 men who were formerly alleged to have been involved in acts of terrorism, their 992 spouses, and 2,050 children, who were said to have repented, deradicalised and rehabilitated in Maiduguri, has continued to attract outrage.

According to the state government, during the programme, the repentant insurgents were made to swear by the Holy Quran never to return to their old ways before they were given a second chance in their communities.

The Special Adviser to Governor Babagana Zulum on Security, Brig-Gen Abdullahi Ishaq (rtd), said, the event marked another milestone in the Borno Model Non-Kinetic approach to the fight against terrorism in the Northeast as well as the country in general.

“It has been a success story since 5th July 2021, when the good people of Borno State, under the stewardship of our dynamic leader, Prof. Babagana Umara Zulum, agreed to forgive and accept their sons who are willing to drop arms and embrace peace.

“Today, the Borno Model is adjudged to be one of the most effective non-kinetic programmes in the history of mankind, with over 350,000 persons that willingly exited the bush and surrendered to the military.

“A total of 720 men, 992 spouses, and 2,050 children who had repented and surrendered to troops are to be reintegrated after many of them were deradicalised, disarmed, and rehabilitated at the Hajj Camp in Maiduguri and acquired various skills.

“Their way back from the bush began with a call from their colleagues encouraging them to surrender, embrace peace, and re-unite with their parents,” Ishaq said.

He added that those affected had hitherto exited from the bush and reported to the nearest military location for initial profiling, and those with weapons surrendered them to the troops.

While the Borno State Government, just like some other states in the northern part of the country, say programmes of this nature, which align with the Nigerian Army’s ‘Operation Safe Corridors,’ have persuaded thousands of insurgents to abandon violence and embrace peace, it reignites a national debate over the wisdom and long-term implications of granting former terrorists a second chance.

Beyond the emotional outrage it has provoked, the development raises profound questions about justice for victims, safety of communities, effectiveness of deradicalisation, and ultimately, what kind of future Nigeria seeks to build in its battle against terrorism.

The issue, therefore, is about balancing peace with accountability and determining whether reconciliation can secure a more stable and united Nigeria. It also raises difficult questions about national security and morality.

For over a decade, terrorism has left deep scars across the country. Thousands of innocent Nigerians have been murdered. Women have been widowed. Children have been orphaned. For instance, in Oyo recently, a teacher was beheaded by his abductors, just as several others have been killed in Borno, Kogi, Kwara and Zamfara STATES, among others, over the years. We have seen communities in Niger, and Kwara States displaced. Schools have been destroyed. Farms have been abandoned. Dreams have been buried. Families have been shattered.

With all these painful memories and enduring scars, can a nation truly heal when those who inflicted such unimaginable pains are rewarded with freedom, rehabilitation and opportunities, while victims and their families remain trapped in grief, poverty and neglect? How will many of our gallant soldiers that bear visible marks from battles with bandits and others with distasteful memories feel seeing those that harmed them asked to walk freely? What message are we passing to families of those soldiers that paid the ultimate price in service to our country? These questions which are begging for answers, speak to the future of Nigeria.

Violent crimes in their myriad forms, leave an indelible mark on individuals and society as a whole. They are pervasive forces that touch lives in ways both seen and unseen, often with consequences that ripple far beyond the initial act. The bruise fades, but the invisible wounds carved by violence can echo through generations, reshaping minds, breaking bodies, and unravelling the very fabric of communities.

These victims deserve justice. They deserve support. They deserve to know that the country values their pain. Unfortunately, the current policy on repented terrorists sends a different message.

Rear Admiral Dickson Olisemelogor, a retired naval officer, in a recent newspaper interview, captured it aptly when he warned that such reintegration programmes could be a ploy by perpetrators of insurgency to gather intelligence and infiltrate security agencies.

He explained: “The idea of reintegrating de-radicalised deviants into society is good. However, what I see in our own case is disengagement rather than deradicalisation. The boys are pulled out of their groups and given some soft landing by engaging them in various government agencies without addressing the causes of their anger. To me this is a big mistake.

“Deradicalisation entails changing the person’s ideology and must be seen over a period of time that the person has actually changed. Additionally, the person’s grievances must be addressed like issues of unemployment, land dispute, religious intolerance, etc.

“As far as I am concerned, most of the so-called repentant Boko Haram boys are not de-radicalised because they come out when military pressure or hunger knocks hard on them. Some are purposely sent to gather intelligence and infiltrate security agencies. This is the reason they return to their old group or even form a new terror group once they have the opportunity.”

Also, a Kano-based businesswoman, Aminat Saudi, who reportedly lost six of her relatives in Borno State due to activities of the insurgents, questioned the moral balance of the programme.

She said: “Aside from fears that this repentant approach could be part of the terrorists’ strategy to infiltrate sectors of the economy, no one is talking about the victims of their wicked act.

“What happens to the families of those killed by the repentant terrorists? What happens to the houses burnt, farmland destroyed and those who are living with parts of their bodies dismembered? Who refunds the ransom paid by victims of these so-called repentant terrorists? Until these questions are addressed, the Safe Corridor philosophy won’t be seen as anything other than being sympathetic to terrorists.”

Indeed, no country can build lasting peace by ignoring the cries of victims. Peace without justice is merely silence.

The family whose breadwinner was slaughtered does not easily understand why the killer should receive rehabilitation and empowerment. The widow whose husband was executed before her eyes struggles to comprehend why those responsible should be reintegrated into society without visible consequences. The child who lost both parents may see such policies as a betrayal.

Several countries in Africa battling violent crimes have experienced recidivism among former extremists whereby some of those that claimed to have repented later went back to join their former terror groups and became a problem to the society. We cannot afford such risks.

Terrorists who genuinely repent should face transparent judicial processes. Confessions should be verified. Accountability should be visible. Restitution should be explored where possible and if possible, the communities should have a voice in decisions affecting them. Real peace is built on justice, trust and accountability, because a country that appears to reward perpetrators of violent crimes weakens social trust.

By Okey Ikechukwu

After reading the media reports on a conference organized by retired military officers described as associates of late Major General Rabe Abubakar (rtd.) calling for “comprehensive reforms” of Nigeria’s security architecture, following the retired general’s death in the hands of bandits, the question that came to my mind was this: “Are these gentlemen paying close attention to what they were saying, as military professionals?

In their call for “stronger security institutions, improved collaboration among security agencies, and increased investment in intelligence gathering and border control” did they think through the implications of their blanket statement and what it says about them in real terms?

But let us, before addressing the issues arising from the press conference, first extend our heartfelt condolences to the family, friends, colleagues and associates of the late Major General Rabe Abubakar. This was a fine officer and decent gentleman I knew personally. Professional, softspoken and totally bereft of any military swagger. My first contact with him was during a television programme, when he came on a joint talk show as military spokesperson.

His tragic death in the hands of criminals offends our every sense of what is right and is a painful loss to his loved ones and to a nation he served with distinction throughout his military career. As a retired officer, his place as part of the reservoir of human capital and institutional memory for national development, and even the training of military personnel, has been denied the nation by this unfortunate incident.

The nation has lost a patriot whose years of dedicated service to the defense and security of the country deserve to be remembered with honour and gratitude. We pray for him as a departed fellow human whose good deeds mark him out. We also pray that his family, friends and all those mourning him today find the strength and fortitude accept the obvious pain, in unconditional obedience to the Will of God.

The chorus among those who knew him, both professionally and personally, is: “He was a good man”. As I write, his wife, Hajia Amina Rabe Abubakar, who survived the ordeal of days of uncertainty and privation is currently recuperating; after being rescue by security personnel.

While acknowledging that it was obviously against this backdrop of grief, sense of bewilderment, sympathy and respect for the memory of the deceased that the “friends, colleagues and associates” of the late senior officer made their public statements, one is constrained to point out that a greater sense of propriety would have been advisable. Their concern about insecurity, especially in the face of such a heavy loss, is understandable. But the timing, implications for the conveners personally, as well as  the purpose and substance of the media output arising therefrom left many who gathered a few days ago to review issues surrounding that unfortunate incident wondering what exactly the organizers hoped to achieve.

Where were these friends of Rabe from the moment he was kidnapped, until his unfortunate demise? That was when needed them, assuming there was anything in the form of material intervention that would have ameliorated the situation.

Three things were in the air when Rabe was abducted alongside his wife by bandits. First, the nation followed the tragic developments with great concern, wondering how anyone would be so daring as to abduct an army general, and even detain him upon knowing his identity. The second was that Nigerians expected his friends and associates to quickly rally and make visible efforts towards securing his release.

The third was that the public believed also that there must be some ongoing efforts to rescue him, but with great care being taken to avoid massive collateral damage, in the form of civilian casualties. We did not see his now-visible friends in public in some form of mobilization, evident engagement with the authorities, or any structured interventions on his behalf. Then, all of a sudden, they were talking about stronger security institutions without telling anyone exactly what they meant by that. 

I personally find it unacceptable that senior military personnel, serving or retired, should, in anyway whatsoever, be seen mouthing the hollow chatter about “security architecture” we often hear from many ignorant politicians. That has been the pattern in the last fifteen years.

For the record, it is much easier to gather before television cameras after a tragedy, look badly shaken and concernedld, make general statements about national security and go home feeling important and believing that one has done something, than to actually do something worthwhile in the circumstances. The more impactful and far more meaningful thing is to stand forth, and in support of a colleague, when there is still an opportunity to influence events.

If these retired officers undertook significant efforts behind the scenes it might have made a difference, who know. So, if anything, they owe the public an explanation. What they were doing from the moment the news broke is not in the public domain. Their  sudden, organized, emergence after the General’s death inevitably raised questions and invites scrutiny.

The timing of the conference is another issue. The gathering was held after Rabe’s demise. His wife had also already been rescued through the efforts of security forces. So, what practical purpose is served by the conference? Was it to help them organize a funeral, or organize support for his wife and family? The conference offered little indication of any concrete supportive initiatives, or ideas.

If it was it intended to honour his memory, then why did discussions quickly drift into broader political narratives that appeared only tangentially connected to the tragedy? What was particularly striking here was how quickly attention shifted from the late General Abubakar to arguments about regional perceptions of insecurity, selective outrage and the politics surrounding security discourse.

For one media report carry the headline as “Stop Blaming North For Insecurity, Rtd Generals Tell Nigerians”, it must mean that this entire engagement raised this uncomfortable but unavoidable question: “Was the conference truly about General Abubakar, or was his death merely the occasion for advancing pre-existing and as-yet-unclear narratives and motives?

At the aforementioned discussion on this matter, several participants  who expected such a gathering to focus on his life, his service, lessons from his ordeal, support for his family, and recognition of those who contributed to the rescue of his wife wondered why their conversation revolved around the familiar talking points that have featured repeatedly in political speeches and public debates on insecurity.

One would also have expected greater emphasis on what led to the rescue of Hajia Amina Rabe Abubakar, what delayed it, etc. They would even then have been in a position to, after professional consultations with serving colleagues, helped in ensuring that tragic events do not overshadow public education on the courage, professionalism and sacrifice of those involved in difficult operations.

What makes the episode even more surprising is the calibre of the individuals involved. These are not ordinary citizens unfamiliar with matters of statecraft, public policy, security management or strategic communication. They are men who have occupied important public offices, served at strategic levels of national responsibility, worn senior military ranks, represented government institutions and participated in decision-making processes that shaped public affairs.

Several of them also hail from the same state as the late general and were therefore expected to appreciate the personal and emotional dimensions of the tragedy. If anyone should understand the importance of timing, judgement and strategic  in communication in moments of crisis, it ought to be members of this group.

Their collective experience should have informed a more constructive response—one centred on supporting the family, honouring the deceased, commending those who secured the rescue of his wife and advancing practical recommendations for preventing similar tragedies.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the organizers ought to have known better. Their experience and standing should have guided them towards actions and utterances capable of making a tangible difference, either during the late general’s captivity or in supporting his family after the tragedy. Instead, what emerged was a public intervention that many may regard as ill-timed, poorly conceived and disconnected from the immediate concerns arising from General Abubakar’s death.

One cannot help but wonder what the late General Abubakar himself would have made of the spectacle. A professional soldier who devoted his life to service, discipline and national unity might well have expected his friends and colleagues to rally around him during his hour of need, not after his death. Rather than becoming the focal point of a campaign for his rescue, he became the subject of a conference convened only when there was nothing left to rescue except his memory.

Indeed, many Nigerians may feel that if the late general could speak today, he would be deeply disappointed that individuals claiming to be his friends chose to find their voices only after his death. At a time when solidarity, advocacy and collective action might have mattered most, there was little public sign of such efforts.

The tragedy is therefore not merely that a distinguished officer lost his life, but that those who now claim friendship appeared absent during the period when that friendship was needed most.

The fundamental issue, though, is not whether retired officers should express themselves the way they did. At the end of the day, Nigerians are entitled to ask some simple questions.

Until convincing answers are provided, many will continue to view the conference as an exercise that came too late, achieved nothing, tried to politicize security and raised more questions than it resolved. It is a sad irony that a gathering purportedly organised in honour of a fallen officer may ultimately be remembered less for celebrating his life and service and more for raising troubling questions about the judgment, timing and purpose of those who claimed to speak in his name. 

Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar

I, General Abdulsalami Alhaji Abubakar (GCFR), on this occasion of my 84th birthday wish to appreciate all Nigerians for all their love and support all through these years.

On this special day, I have had to pause and reflect over the state of things in our dear country. As an officer of the Nigerian Army, the recent tragic death of General Rabbe, along with that of so many others, marks a defining moment for us as a country.

This is very significant to me having served in the Armed Forces of Nigeria, fought in Nigeria Civil War and led Nigerian troops in peace keeping operations in other countries. I acknowledge that many nations of the world are passing through series of economic and security challenges, and Nigeria is no exception. What is needed now is to support efforts to maintain order in the country.

It is clear that the success of attaining this objective must be inclusive. The armed forces and all other security agencies have been very strong in the fight against terrorism. But this is not their fight alone. Every citizen has a stake and it is my plea that Nigerians unite to fight against terror.

Over the years, politicization of security matters has worsened the situation and this has brought us to where we are today. Let us join forces with Government and Security agencies at all levels to defeat these evil ones, who do not recognise ethnicity, religion, political party, communal life or other forms of identity. Propaganda for political and other selfish gains is also giving oxygen to terrorist groups. The use of fake news on social media to propagate false narratives has served to encourage terrorists and other criminal groups. The success of one terrorist group encourages another, and unless we have a rethink, we will continue to promote this crisis.

I urge the armed forces and security agencies to continue their efforts, resolve and firmness in this fight and not to be discouraged. I urge Government should in every manner continue to take decisive actions and resolve to bring tragedy to an end.

Nigeria is the only country we have. I joined the army to defend it with my life. I am a firm believer in a united and peaceful Nigeria. At my age, it was and is still my dream that we hand over to our children a united and prosperous nation.

I appeal to all our citizens to remain calm and law abiding. The task ahead requires our collective vigilance. I pray for comfort to the families of our fallen heroes.

Once again, my family and I remain deeply grateful for your support. May Allah help us rebuild our dear country. God bless Nigeria.

Gen. Abubakar is a Former Head of State, Federal Republic of Nigeria

Olusegun Adeniyi

In my column of 17 March 2021, ‘Kidnappings Incorporated!’, I shared the story of Nuhu Tanko, a gardener at the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre in Abuja, whose two brothers were abducted on New Year’s Eve 2020 while on the road from Dakunu village in Chukum Local Government of Kaduna State. The masked abductors were more than 50 in number, all on motorcycles and armed with at least two guns each. In the Katarimape forest where the brothers were held along with three other captives, they were tied hand and foot, given a cup of water each day, and some scraps to share. Their families were told to produce ten million naira or prepare their graves. Following three weeks of negotiation, the sum of N450,000 was raised for each of the five victims, totalling N2.25 million. The ransom was dropped at a location in the forest as directed by the kidnappers. “It’s like bandits have taken over our village and the surrounding communities,” Immani Tanko recounted after regaining freedom. “They kidnap people, kill and rape women, even if the women are pregnant.” 

In that same column, I also shared the story of Mallam Iliya Gwaram who was in captivity at the time the abducted Jangebe schoolgirls in Zamfara State were brought to the kidnappers’ camp. He recognised his daughter but they had to pretend not knowing each other. He recounted his ordeal after the girls were eventually taken away: “I never cried in the whole of my life like I cried that day because I felt it was the last time I would see my daughter.” I also shared, in that column, the chilling report of the Zamfara State committee on banditry whose members included a retired Inspector General of Police. The pauperisation of local government, abandonment of political thugs after elections, collusion of rogue security officers with bandits, and the ease with which court orders freed arrested criminal kingpins were some of their findings. The committee recommended that ten military officers be court-martialled for what it called “dirty involvement in escalating the menace of armed banditry, mismanagement of recovered livestock, and unholy relationship with criminals.”

I chose to title that column ‘Kidnappings Incorporated’ because, even in 2021, the evidence was already clear: Abduction for ransom had ceased to be a crime of desperation. It had become an industry. Structured. Profitable. Scalable. And protected, including by those who were supposed to be fighting it. Sadly, what I described as an emerging industry five years ago has metastasised into a fully operational enterprise.

On 30 May 2026, armed bandits ambushed a vehicle on the Karaduwa–Matazu Road in Katsina State. Inside the vehicle were Major General Rabe Abubakar (rtd), who served as Director of Defence Information from 2015 to 2017, and his wife, Hajiya Amina Abubakar. Their driver was shot and barely escaped with his life. Two weeks into their captivity, the bandits released a video. It showed Abubakar, his wife with him, visibly frail, apparently injured in the leg, surrounded by armed men, while appealing directly to the Katsina State Government to meet the kidnappers’ demands: release three detained fighters and return livestock allegedly seized during military operations. It was one of the most humiliating images this country has been made to absorb in recent memory. At the end, the General died in captivity. Then the Katsina State Government informed the public that the late General died of “natural causes”.

When a man is kidnapped, held against his will, denied access to medical care, paraded before a camera to deliver his captors’ political ultimatum, and dies before the state can secure his release, calling that death “natural causes” is a moral evasion. Diabetes and hypertension may well have been part of the General’s medical history. But what created the conditions in which those ailments became fatal? Kidnapping. Captivity. Trauma. The systematic removal of access to whatever medications and care a 61-year-old man with such diagnoses would have required. Therefore, the bandits did not need a gun to finish the General. They simply placed him in an environment where his pre-existing conditions could do the work for them. And then comes the detail that should make every Nigerian stop and ask a very hard question. Within 48 hours of the announcement of the General’s death, troops located Hajiya Amina, engaged the bandits and rescued her. At least that is what Nigerians have been told.

Forty-eight hours!

The General was in that forest for two weeks. And yet the same help that could not reach him in 14 days reached his wife in two. I do not raise this point to diminish the bravery of the soldiers who conducted that operation, or to ignore the complexities of jungle rescue. I raise it because the Nigerian public deserves an honest accounting of what “concerted efforts” actually looked like in practice, and whether the urgency that characterised the rescue of Hajiya Amina was present from day one. And talking about accountability, in the plea video of the Abubakars from the forest, there were evidently other captives. What happened to them?

But let’s go back to the statement. If the Katsina State Government had said, ‘We are devastated by the death of a gallant officer. We will not rest until his wife is brought home alive,’ that would still have been inadequate. But it would at least have acknowledged that what occurred was a crime, not a medical episode. Instead, what we received was the administrative equivalent of a death certificate, as if an autopsy was performed on the corpse by bandits. But let us not allow the specific outrage of one lousy statement to distract us from the broader catastrophe that produced it. Because the death of Abubakar is not a stand-alone tragedy. It is a data point in a crisis that has been compounding for years.

In that 2021 column, I described kidnapping as an industry. Five years on, the industry has filed its returns, and they are staggering. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) Crime Experience and Security Perception Survey 2024, between May 2023 and April 2024, an estimated 2.2 million Nigerians were abducted, and approximately 600,000 killed across the country with about N1.42 trillion paid in ransoms. Between July 2024 and June 2025, SBM Intelligence also recorded at least 4,722 kidnappings across 997 incidents nationwide. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project reported that Nigeria accounted for 58 percent of all abductions in West Africa between 2019 and 2023.

These are the statistics of a country that has, in large part, already ceded territory, economy, and daily life to organised criminal enterprise. No fewer than 140 police officers died from violent attacks, accidents, and other duty-related incidents within a one-year period in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) alone, the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Olatunji Disu, told Nigerians two weeks ago. And now, even retired army generals are no longer beyond the reach of kidnappers. In February 2025, former NYSC Director-General, Major General Maharazu Tsiga (rtd.) was abducted from his hometown in Bakori, Katsina State, alongside at least nine other civilians. Even traditional rulers are now abducted right in their palaces.

Five years ago, I highlighted the Zamfara State committee’s recommendations. I am not aware that anybody has addressed the systemic rot the committee identified—fake mobile subscriber registrations, release of criminal kingpins by compromised courts, and political abandonment of unemployed youth who had served as thugs. What I am aware of is that the industry has continued to expand across the country because the conditions that produced it were never dismantled.

Now, let me address one important issue here. There is an argument some will make that the insecurity crisis is the product of decades of government neglect, poverty, corruption etc. I do not dispute that argument which I have written about many times. But that argument cannot be allowed to become a comfortable alibi for the criminal. Because there are now operators in this enterprise who are not the product of poverty alone. They are the product of impunity. They have drawn the rational conclusion that abduction is a low-risk, high-reward business. The industry has attracted investment. It has attracted structure. It has attracted, according to multiple security analyses, the interest of opportunistic networks who see kidnapping for ransom as both a revenue stream and a political tool. That is the challenge we must confront as a country.

In January 2022, then Kaduna State Governor Nasir el-Rufai, advocated a radical solution to the menace. “I have always believed that we should carpet-bomb the forests; we can replant the trees after,” El Rufai said in what many considered a scary proposition at the time. “Let’s carpet-bomb the forests and bomb all of them. There will be collateral damage, but it’s better to wipe them out and get people back to our communities.” With the manner in which these criminals have converted the forests into ‘campuses’ for stolen school children, not a few people are beginning to think that something must give.

We must confront this existential threat, most especially to the education of our children. The script remains the same: the dawn raid on motor cycles by gunmen who herd innocent children into the bush, release of videos by the criminals, the promise that “no stone will be left unturned,” and then the national amnesia until the next set of school children is abducted. Amnesty International has documented at least 17 separate mass abductions from Nigerian schools since Chibok in April 2014, with no fewer than 1,700 children as victims. Other tallies run higher.

To end this menace, we must find the resolve and resources to dismantle the criminal enterprise entirely. And we must begin by clearing the forests of the violent ‘landlords’. Then we must follow the money, prosecute the collaborators, and refuse to negotiate on terms that make the next abduction more likely than the last. I understand the unbearable trauma of having loved ones held captive by some animals, and I will not stand in judgment over any family that does what it must to bring their abducted people back home. But as a matter of state policy, the ransom economy is the engine of this entire enterprise. Every payment is a business plan for the next abduction.

Now that these criminal gangs have opened a flank in the Southwest, President Bola Tinubu needs nobody to interpret for him the Yoruba adage I used for the late President Muhammadu Buhari when his state of Katsina was being taken over by bandits: ‘Ẹni tí yóò ya’ni l’áṣọ, t’ọrùn rẹ̀ lá á kọ́ wò’. Crudely translated, it means before you take seriously someone who promises to robe you in a beautiful apparel, you will first check out what the person is wearing!

As I have repeatedly argued on this page, the connecting thread for the variants of violence we are witnessing across Nigeria is the loss of what Max Weber described as “the legitimate use of physical force” to criminal cartels. Therefore, authorities (at all levels) must muster the requisite capacity and political will to effectively confront those who have made it their business to trouble the peace and security of Nigeria. 

Sandra Adio at 50

The CEO of Metro Bakery and Restaurant,Mrs Sandra Adio was 50 on Tuesday and she chose to mark the day with the children of my wife’s Not Forgotten Initiative (NFI) School which provides free and purpose-driven education (with one meal a day) to children from underserved communities in Abuja. For the past eight years, Metro has provided meals for the children (now about 140) once every week. Meanwhile, what I find remarkable about Sandra is the beautiful balance she strikes between being an exemplary wife and mother, and a formidable entrepreneur in her own right. She has been to my friend, Waziri Adio, a helpmate in the truest sense of the word and a worthy partner in building a home filled with love and values.

But Sandra is far more than what happens within her home. She is also a woman who dared to dream, and more importantly, dared to turn those dreams into reality. The Metro story is one I have had the privilege to witness from its humble beginnings. I remember that Saturday in December 2014, when I had the honour of offering the opening prayer at what was then just a small bakery. At the time, Metro had three staff members. Today, that number has grown to about 80 workers, creating in the process more than a hundred other indirect jobs. From a space where she baked bread in Lugbe, Sandra has built a thriving enterprise with three distinct arms in multiple locations: bakery, pastry line, and restaurant.

This happened because Sandra combined her God-given talent (learned at the feet of her enterprising late mother, Mrs. Kate Odigue) with training, hard work, and an openness to innovation. And she has built this impressive empire without losing herself. She remains warm, humble, and accessible.

At 50, I celebrate Sandra Adio’s legacy of excellence, entrepreneurial courage, and beautiful humanity. I celebrate a woman who proves that it is possible to be an excellent wife and mother while also building something significant outside the home. I celebrate a life that inspires, encourages, and shows others, especially young women, that with faith, hard work, and determination, anything is possible. Here is to you, ‘Madam Metro’, five decades of grace and grit. May your second half be even more remarkable than your first. And may you continue to be a blessing to your family, community, and all whose lives you touch.

• You can follow me on my X (formerly Twitter) handle, @Olusegunverdict and on www.olusegunadeniyi.com

Femi falana

The June 12, 1993, pro-democracy struggle in Nigeria is widely remembered for the resistance to military rule and the eventual transition to civilian governance. However, dominant narratives often overlook two critical aspects: the foundational role of the Campaign for Democracy (CD) and the post June 12 Struggle’s international human rights litigation  in a U.S. court which remains  a benchmark for assessing access to justice in weak legal systems through foreign courts.

The National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) was established in May 1994 largely by politicians who supported Chief Abiola’s plan to claim his mandate. While NADECO is frequently credited for the later stages of the struggle, it was the CD that initiated and sustained grassroots mobilization from the outset, keeping the momentum alive until the Joint Action Committee of Nigeria was formed and led by Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN. Their contributions remain underrecognized in mainstream historical accounts. 

Equally overlooked is the international legal case filed against General Abubakar for human rights violations by the military junta. Though he is often commended for facilitating the 1999 civilian transition, the case against him represents more than a legal challenge: it is a crucial part of Nigeria’s democratization story and the global campaign to end impunity and authoritarianism.

Acknowledging these neglected dimensions is essential to understanding the full scope of the June 12 legacy and reinforcing the global principles of justice and democratic accountability. Thus,

Abiola v. Abubakar or Enahoro V Abubakar has become a leading authority in global legal discussions involving international law, particularly in human rights and universal jurisdiction. It underscores the evolving concept of universal jurisdiction, where certain crimes (e.g., torture, extrajudicial killings) are considered so serious that they can be tried anywhere.

This paper therefore, explores the intersection of Nigeria’s June 12 democratic struggle and transnational human rights litigation through the lens of the  case brought before a U.S. federal court. It is also  an attempt to present an analysis of the litigation arising from the brutal detention and death of the winner of the 1993 Presidential election in Nigeria, Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, the wrongful death of his wife, Kudirat Abiola as well as the unlawful detention of Chief Anthony Enahoro and Dr. Arthur Nwankwo.

A related article entitled: “ The Docking of the Nigerian Legal System in the U.S.” by Funke Aboyade (published in This Day of May 9, 2006), gave a vivid analysis of the case that tested the limits of international jurisdiction, human rights accountability, and the credibility of Nigeria’s judicial system.

In February 2001, Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar traveled to Chicago ostensibly to deliver a public lecture at Chicago State University (CSU). While prodemocracy activists led by Omoyele Sowore and several other US based Nigerian activists trooped to the venue of the program to prevent the lecture from taking place, some notable members of the Nigerian Pro-Democracy Network (NPDN) led by Prof. Eddie Oparaoji, Dr. Kienuwa Obaseki and Dr. Kofi Egbo as well as National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) chieftains, Chief Anthony Enahoro and Dr. Arthur Nwankwo including Hafsat Abiola – Costello (daughter of M.K.O. Abiola).

The Plaintiff’s lawyer  who was also a member of the NPDN and NADECO, Kayode Oladele saw  a unique opportunity to establish personal jurisdiction under U.S. procedural rules over Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar since the international human rights violation case they wanted to file against him and  Gen. Ibrahim Babangida whom they thought would be accompanying Gen. Abubakar to the US for the program   required defendants to be properly served within U.S. jurisdiction. To them, Gen. Abubakar’s physical presence in Chicago, Illinois became legally significant.

While Gen. Abubakar was comfortably seated in the hall and exchanging pleasantries with other guests, the process server, who also disguised like a guest entered the venue and handed over the Court processes to him. Before Gen. Abubakar knew what was giving to him, the process server took his pictures with the Summons and Complaints in his hands and immediately dashed  out of the venue. That was how  General Abdulsalami Abubakar found himself at the center of an unexpected legal storm. He became subject to U.S. jurisdiction, enabling the case to proceed – one that would unfold not in a courtroom in Nigeria, but in Chicago, Illinois in a protracted litigation that would take about seven years to resolve.            

Writing on the unlikely venue, the US  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago summarized it as follows:  “A courtroom in Chicago, one would think, is an unlikely place for considering a case involving seven Nigerian citizens suing an eighth Nigerian for acts committed in Nigeria. It sounds like the sort of fare that would be heard in a courtroom on the African continent.   But this case ended up in Chicago, and that leads us to consider the claims of seven Nigerian citizens against a Nigerian General over alleged torture and murder in Nigeria”.

The plaintiffs and Complainants, Hafsat Abiola, Chief Anthony Enahoro, and Dr. Arthur Nwankwo initially filed the lawsuit against former Nigerian Heads of State, General Ibrahim Babangida and General Abdusalami  Abdulsalami Abubakar but the case against Babangida was later dropped because Babangida could not be served in the US. He did not make the trip.

In the Complaint, they alleged wrongful death, torture, arbitrary detention, and inhumane treatment ostensibly orchestrated by the Military during the regimes of Generals Babangida, Sani Abacha and Abubakar.

The complaint  further alleged that the Nigerian regime under General Abacha maintained a “hit squad” targeting pro-democracy activists, with M.K.O. Abiola and his wife, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, among its casualties. Abiola died in  military custody under suspicious circumstances, and Kudirat was assassinated in 1996. The plaintiffs contended that the Nigerian legal system was incapable of holding the perpetrators accountable or delivering justice, thus justifying resort to U.S. jurisdiction under the relevant US laws, the  Alien Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1350) and Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA).

In order to support their Claim, the Plaintiffs paraded a long list of witnesses which included President Bola Tinubu, Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, Prof.Wole Soyinka, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (who was initially listed as a co-Plaintiff but later dropped because he couldn’t attend his deposition as required by the Court) and me amongst others.

Originally enacted in 1789, the ATCA confers jurisdiction on U.S. federal courts over legal actions filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law while the Torture Victim Protection Act ( TVPA 1991) further codifies a civil cause of action for victims of torture and extrajudicial killing by individuals acting under authority of a foreign government.

In order to defend Gen. Abubakar, the Nigerian government hired  a team of defense lawyers led by Kevin B. Duckworth of the law firm of Jenner & Block, regarded as one of the topmost law firms in the US   and a US based Nigerian lawyer, Mr. Ephraim  Ngwuonye. The plaintiffs lawyers were led by a prodemocracy activist , Kayode Oladele who later became a member of the Nigerian House of Representatives, assisted by Austin Agomuoh and Akin Ogunlola.

The US government  represented by the US  Department of Justice also entered an appearance and filed a statement of interest (at the Court of Appeals).

Abubakar filed a motion to dismiss raising two key defenses: (i.) Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — arguing, among other things, that his alleged acts fell outside the court’s jurisdiction under the TVPA and ATCA without exhaustion of Nigerian domestic remedies and (II.) Sovereign or head-of-state immunity, claiming he could not be sued in U.S. courts under the principle of Sovereign immunity.

The District Court Judge rejected these defenses and also noted that the US  State Department had not intervened to suggest immunity for General Abubakar, thus allowing the case to proceed to trial.

General Abubakar subsequently appealed.  At the Court of Appeals, the U.S. government, through a Statement of Interest filed by the Department of Justice, urged caution in allowing foreign officials to be sued for acts conducted in their official capacities. However, the US Department of Justice did not oppose the court’s jurisdiction. The intervention only reflected U.S. concerns about the potential foreign policy implications of allowing human rights suits against foreign heads of state but acknowledged the legitimacy of the statutory framework under ATCA and TVPA. It did not provide any serious defense in favor of Abubakar.

The Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals decision, Abubakar v. Abiola (No. 03‑3089) addressed Gen. Abubakar’s immunity defense under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court held individuals do not qualify for FSIA protection, hence,  Gen. Abubakar could be sued in his personal capacity despite being a former head of state.  Separately, the Court affirmed that he could not rely on sovereign immunity for acts of torture and extrajudicial killing. It also clarified that TVPA claims require domestic exhaustion. The Court of Appeals further ruled that  exhaustion of remedies under TVPA is a question of fact for the judge, not a jury, which must be addressed before the case moved forward . As a result, the Court of Appeals remitted the case back to the lower court to determine whether Abiola had satisfied exhaustion requirements.

Abubakar filed a stay of proceedings before the District Court and further appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the US Supreme Court through a Petition for Certiorari (under the US Constitution, appeal to the Supreme Court is not by right) but his Petition for Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court and the case was remanded to the District Court for evidentiary hearing in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals as required by the Torture Victims Protection Act.

To resolve this on remission , the presiding Judge, Matthew F. Kennelly convened a rare evidentiary hearing, effectively placing the Nigerian judiciary itself on trial. Thus, an evidentiary hearing was conducted by Judge Kennelly to assess the adequacy, availability, and effectiveness of Nigeria’s judicial remedies in this specific context.  This  puts the Nigeria’s legal system on trial in a global arena, exposing both its strengths and deep flaws. It also  raised questions about National legal sovereignty vs. international accountability and whether international justice mechanisms should fill gaps left by compromised or dysfunctional domestic legal institutions.

It also echoed broader themes from international law, such as the universal jurisdiction concept and the rise of transnational justice, where violators cannot hide behind borders or national immunity.

At the Evidentiary Hearing, two expert  witnesses (Femi Falana for the Plaintiffs and Adebayo Adaralegbe for the defendant) testified in open Court while a Nigerian-US legal consultant, Emmanuel Ogebe gave a sworn  deposition on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

Dr. Adebayo Adaralegbe of Babalakin & Co testifying for the defense, argued that the Nigerian judiciary had demonstrated independence and effectiveness, citing landmark human rights cases and the domestication of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. During cross examination, Plaintiffs’ lawyer, Kayode Oladele scrutinized Adebayo Adaralegbe’s public writings on judicial integrity, contrasting them sharply with recorded cases of corruption and executive meddling, including the deposition by another plaintiff’s expert, Emmanuel Ogebe that “corruption is a way of life in the Nigerian Judiciary.” 

Oladele also brought attention to the Nigerian Bar Association’s boycott to protest government interference, and the Academic Staff Union of Universities’ strike in Ilorin, both symptomatic of government trampling on institutional autonomy. He cross-examined Adaralegbe on high-profile cases where courageous judges were stripped of security, transferred, or removed, narrowing the judiciary’s ability to rule independently. on Habeas Corpus Suppression: Oladele’s cross examination delved into how mechanisms like habeas corpus were overridden during military rule through decrees, emphasizing that legal tools were stripped or rendered ineffective when politically inconvenient.

Finally, he pressed Adaralegbe on why his doctoral work and legal commentaries omitted well-documented judicial failures—suggesting a discrepancy between theoretical assurances and lived realities.He also reminded Dr. Adaralegbe  of the controversial recusal of Justices in MKO Abiola’s original habeas corpus appeal in the Supreme Court—a move widely viewed as politically motivated.

In short, Oladele’s cross examination revealed that Adaralegbe’s portrayal of Nigerian courts was overly idealized.

In my testimony, I interpreted Nigerian laws and explained how international human rights norms were being violated by various military junta. I informed the court that I had personal experience with the Nigerian government’s repression, having been detained and persecuted several times during the military rule. I further told the Court that with my extensive knowledge of the treatment of political detainees, including Chief M.K.O. Abiola, whose prolonged detention and eventual death were central to this particular case, human rights violation, detention and repression by the military were rampant throughout the period under review.

My  evidence provided firsthand insights into how state power was abused by the military regime under which Abiola was held.

I also provided critical evidence regarding the conditions of Abiola’s detention, his torture, and the legal and political context in Nigeria under the military rule. This evidence corroborated the allegations made by Hafsat Abiola about the arbitrary detention, torture, and lack of medical care that contributed to her father’s death.  In addition, I testified that the military’s actions violated international human rights norms, making the plaintiffs case stronger under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA).

Led in evidence by Oladele, I described systematic executive interference, judicial intimidation, delays, and the routine disobedience of court orders by Nigerian authorities. Oladele introduced and tendered through me, US State Department and Amnesty International findings describing police brutality, detention without trial, and prison conditions to corroborate my  testimony and showcasing a broader environment of impunity thus fortifying the plaintiffs’ evidentiary footing and shifting credibility to my testimony.

The Court in its ruling  relied heavily on my evidence because in the opinion of the Court, I  had personal knowledge of the human rights abuses by the junta and that my testimony was consistent, corroborative, and crucial in establishing that M.K.O. Abiola’s detention and death amounted to serious human rights violations under international law.

The Court believed that my testimony was instrumental in bridging the gap between domestic experiences in Nigeria and the international legal framework being applied in a U.S. courtroom.

While the evidentiary hearing did not immediately result in a final judgment, it was a landmark in its own right. It confirmed the plausibility of Abiola’s death constituting an extrajudicial killing under the TVPA, strengthened  the plaintiffs’ claims that Gen. Abubakar could not invoke sovereign immunity to shield himself from liability. It also brought factual attention to how international human rights norms were flouted during Nigeria’s military regimes.

Having failed to stop the case from proceeding to trial, the Nigerian government during the administration of President Umar Yar’Ardua who had just taken over from President Obasanjo initiated

 diplomatic channels to navigate the situation and resolve the matter. Thus after seven years of rigorous litigation, the Plaintiffs were persuaded by President Yar’Ardua to withdraw the case from the US Court in national interest.

Though eventually settled out of court, the case served as a model of strategic litigation aimed at holding powerful individuals accountable, even when domestic remedies are unavailable. The courts  also demonstrated willingness to reject broad immunity claims for former officials engaged in grave human rights violations, thereby reinforcing the principle of individual accountability in international human rights law. 

Though an offshoot of the June 12 Struggle, Abiola v. Abubakar is now an international legal precedent that  contributes  to the body of transnational human rights jurisprudence. It is a popular case  in the legal discussion of extraterritorial  jurisdiction and the erosion of immunity for egregious human rights abuses globally. It exemplifies how foreign  litigation and transnational legal mechanisms can fill accountability gaps where domestic systems fail. It remains a significant episode in the global struggle for justice for victims of state repression.

Abiola v. Abubakar exemplifies how the quest for justice can transcend national borders when domestic remedies are unavailable or ineffective. By invoking U.S. statutes and international legal norms, the plaintiffs in this case challenged the boundaries of impunity and reasserted the global relevance of Nigeria’s pro-democracy struggle.

The legacy of June 12 continues, not only in Nigerian political life but also in international jurisprudence.  This case reinforces the role of transnational litigation as a mechanism for accountability, especially in contexts marked by repression and legal dysfunction.

Finally, credit should be given to late Chief Anthony Enahoro, late Dr. Arthur Nwankwo, Hafsat Abiola -Costello and their team of lawyers led by Kayode Oladele  (who later as a member of the House of Representatives introduced and co-sponsored the Public Holiday Amendment Act that statutorily shifted the Democracy Day from May 29 to June 12)  for exemplifying how the quest for justice can transcend national borders when domestic remedies are unavailable or ineffective.

By invoking the U.S. statutes and international legal norms, they challenged the boundaries of impunity and reasserted the global relevance of Nigeria’s pro-democracy struggle under the military repression.

Paul Ejime

We had warned in April 2024 that the political partnership between President Diomaye Faye and Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko in Senegal might not stand the test of time. Their falling out after two years has vindicated that prediction, which was based on the history of godfatherism in African politics.

Kenneth Kaunda was considered the father of Zambia’s independence, but after governing the country for 27 years, his nationality was questioned by his successor, labour leader Frederick Chiluba. In the name of politics, Chiluba had claimed that Kaunda was a Malawian, not a Zambian. This false claim was only reversed two years after Kaunda lost the presidency to Chiluba in 1991.

West Africa is replete with godfatherism gone sour, including President Adama Barrow vs former vice president Ousainou Darboe in the Gambia, Governor Chris Ngige of Nigeria’s Anambra State vs Andy Uba, and Godwin Obaseki vs Adams Oshiomhole of Edo State, also in Nigeria. However, Rivers State in Nigeria’s Delta region holds the record for the most pitfalls in political godfatherism. Former governors Peter Odili, Rotimi Amaechi and Nysom Wike, now the Abuja Minister, and serving governor Sim Fubara are among the dramatis personae.

In The spiritual side of Aso Villa, Reuben Abati, a former presidential spokesman, wrote about “…something supernatural about power and closeness to it.” Aisha Buhari, Nigeria’s former First Lady, also blamed powerful “cabals” that “hijacked” the government of her husband, late General Muhammadu Buhari.

Superstition or speculations aside, Faye and Sonko, as former tax collectors, were friends who came to power in 2024 riding on the crest of the PASTEF party – the “African Patriots of Senegal for Work, Ethics and Fraternity,” founded by Sonko, who continues to enjoy a cult following, especially among Senegal’s restive youths.

Established in 2014, the Patriots pledged allegiance “to the fundamental principles and values of the Republic of Senegal, as defined by the Constitution freely adopted by the Senegalese people…” They commit to “strengthening …national unity…” and “…consolidation of Senegalese democracy,” and also promise to “contribute to the emancipation… …political, cultural and economic unity of the African peoples.”

Sonko’s self-acclaimed anti-establishment stance and fight against corruption cost him his tax administration job. He later served as the mayor of Senegal’s southeastern Ziguinchor in Casamance, home to the MFDC separatist group, which signed a historic peace deal with the Dakar government in 2025.

Graduating to a firebrand politician, Sonko had bruising running battles with the government of former President Macky Sall, who probably had an axe to grind with him. As a tax administrator, Sonko handled a case involving Sall’s younger brother, Aliou Sall. Four years after the elder Sall assumed the presidency, he issued a decree in August 2016 sacking Sonko from the civil service for “breach of the obligation of professional discretion.”

Sonko contested the 2019 presidential election and lost but came in a surprising third. His endless battles with the government landed him a two-year jail term,  which ruled him out of the 2024 presidential vote.

Bassirou Diomaye Faye’s story from prisoner to Senegal’s youngest president in 20 days is not straightforward. After losing his job as a tax administrator, he became a freelance opposition activist who also ran into trouble with the authorities and was jailed for “defaming magistrates and contempt of court” over Sonko’s legal trials.

The pair, thus, ended up in jail and were only freed 20 days before the 24th March 2024 presidential election. The Sall regime had also dissolved Sonko’s PASTEF, for allegedly organising violent anti-government protests. This only strengthened the Sonko-Faye political bond and convinced Sonko to pick Faye and rally his supporters behind him. Faye contested the presidential election as an independent candidate and defeated Sall’s anointed candidate.

Many commentators felt it was a political miscalculation by Sonko, already an MP, to have accepted an appointment in Faye’s cabinet as Prime Minister, instead of playing the kingmaker until Faye served out his mandate. However, Sonko claimed he made the offer, but Faye rejected it, preferring that both men work as a team in his cabinet. Faye has not refuted this claim.

Perhaps, having anticipated his inevitable split with Faye, Sonko did not resign his seat in parliament, and shortly after his dismissal as Prime Minister on 22 May 2026, the gulf between the two men all but deepened. In an apparent “show of popularity”, Sonko has returned to parliament and resumed his seat, and following the resignation of the parliamentary Speaker, he has also assumed that position and has been talking tough.

As the more politically exposed of the duo, Sonko is using his communication and oratory skills to a telling effect, blaming Faye for the pair’s falling out. He claims that he never received any salary as Prime Minister (this has not been contradicted) and that Faye deviated from PASTEF’s philosophy.

Faye is also accused of nursing an ambition for a second mandate and allying with the political structure of Macky Sall, his and Sonko’s erstwhile common political foe.

Areas of disagreement between Sonko and Faye include Faye’s decision to bring to Senegal on political asylum, Guinea-Bissau’s former president, Umaro Embalo, who organised a self-military coup in November 2025 to avoid an electoral defeat. Sonko’s objection forced Embalo to flee Dakar to Morocco.

Sonko was believed to be behind the closing of French military bases in Senegal and the controversial passing of Senegal’s anti-LGBT law. He and Faye also disagreed on the management of a special government fund, with Sonko insisting on full public disclosure. The first two measures did not go down well with Paris and its Western allies. Faye’s critics believe he panders too much to France, which he has visited several times since assuming office, unlike Sonko’s pan-Senegal and pan-African sentiments and insistence on the PASTEF project.

What commentators have not emphasized enough is the possible roles played by Macky Sall and France in Senegal’s hidden debt to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Under his administration, Senegal accumulated an estimated US$13 billion debt, a debt-to-GDP ratio of 132% at the end of 2024. The Faye-Sonko government tried to navigate the situation by selling bonds through the Dakar-based Central Bank of West African States, BCEAO, which uses the CFA franc, controlled by the French Treasury. But this did not stop the IMF from suspending its US$1.8 billion credit facility to Senegal required to restore public finances.

IMF’s facility/bailout is notorious for its conditionality, such as subsidy removal, downsizing/retrenchment, currency devaluation, inflation and high cost of living, resulting in hardship for the poor masses.

Faye is said to favour fact-tracking negotiations with the IMF, while Sonko advised caution. Before paying the debt, Senegalese citizens are entitled to ascertain the roles played by Sall and France, why, how and under what conditions it was incurred. African countries have unsavoury experiences of dubious debts accumulated by some governments against national interests.

Faye has since dissolved the Sonko-led cabinet and replaced it with a new 30-member structure. Several members of the old cabinet are retained, but PASTEF has boycotted the new government.

With its commanding majority of 130 members in Senegal’s 165-seat Parliament, PASTEF can censure or frustrate Faye’s government if he chooses to go it alone.

Local elections are scheduled for 2027 ahead of the presidential vote in 2029. Under the constitution, Faye could invoke his presidential powers to dissolve parliament in November, two years after its inauguration, while PASTEF could also use its majority to call for an early vote or impeach the president.

Like Faye, Sonko intends to run for the presidency in 2029. Addressing PASTEF’s Congress after his split with Faye, Sonko claims: “Our (PASTEF) revolution is currently under threat precisely because… not everything that is happening in Senegal at the moment is solely down to internal factors…” However, he insisted: “…no attempt to sabotage this revolution will succeed because the people, standing shoulder to shoulder with PASTEF, will provide the necessary guarantees so that we can finally liberate our country.”

In the interest of Senegal, and to avoid a looming seismic political crisis, Faye and Sonko owe a duty to themselves and the scores of their compatriots who sacrificed their lives or were clamped into jail during PASTEF’s national protests that preceded to sink their differences and rise above personal egos.

Also, what is playing out in Senegal is a warning and an instructive lesson to other African countries, including Nigeria, the World’s most populous Black nation, on the dangers of external loans. There might be nothing wrong with debts if only they are incurred transparently and for development-linked projects, activities or programmes for the common good.

The African alternative framework to structural adjustment programmes (AAF SAP), espoused by Nigeria’s late Professor Adebayo Adedeji in 1989, is still relevant today.

•Ejime is a Global Affairs Analyst and Consultant on Peace & Security and Governance Communication

In the very weekend in which the insecurity situation in the country was further magnified by the death in bandits’ custody of retired Major General Rabe Abubakar, a top security official made a jarring attempt to pass the buck to God. Minister of State for Defence Mohammed Bello Mutawalle was quoted as having said in a BBC Hausa radio interview that “only God can ultimately bring an end to Nigeria’s insecurity challenges.” It is good that he added the word “ultimately.” Ultimately, the final solution to all matters rests with the Almighty, but before that, there are many things that people should do for themselves, beginning with those vested with the authority and the resources to take care of human problems.

This is not the first time that a Nigerian buck appeared to be passed to God. In 1980, when President Shehu Shagari nominated the eminent statesman Alhaji Isa Kaita to be chairman of the Code of Conduct Bureau, he appeared before a Senate committee for screening. A senator asked the elder statesman what was the solution to pervasive corruption in Nigeria, and he answered that “only God can solve the problem of corruption in Nigeria.” Although the newspapers grabbed that statement and made it look like that was the only thing he said, in truth, Alhaji Isa Kaita did not assign all responsibility to God. After all, he was a prominent member of the generation of political leaders that believed first and foremost in the force of personal example, in well-crafted systems, in meticulous selection of persons for appointment to all positions, in forceful enforcement of rules and regulations, in active supervision of subordinates’ work, and in meting out severe punishment for infractions.

It was US President Harry Truman [1945-53] who famously kept a small wooden sign on his Oval Office desk. Inscribed on it was the message, “The Buck Stops Here”. Truman was tired of buck passing in the sprawling US federal government, by civilian and military officials, by civil servants and political appointees, by diplomats and professionals. Everybody was fond of passing the buck, but the President could not pass the buck anywhere upstairs, since the Constitution vested him with all the Executive powers of the Federal Government.

On top of the abduction and very tragic death in bandits’ captivity of General Abubakar, insecurity in the country is currently further dramatised by the ongoing case of 39 students and seven teachers of Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State, still held in the Old Oyo National Park, according to Governor Seyi Makinde; the 42 school pupils abducted by Boko Haram insurgents in Mussa, Askira-Uba Local Government Area of Borno State; as well as many other kidnap incidents in Zamfara, Sokoto, Katsina, Kwara, Niger, Kogi and Taraba states, among others.

Unlike Malam Isa Kaita, who outlined many things that humans could do about corruption before matters reach God’s desk, Minister Mutawalle passed the insecurity buck to several other quarters before he passed it to God. He passed the buck to opposition politicians, whom he said have used “insecurity to incite people… Some members of the opposition appear pleased with the situation. They do not care about the people. What matters to them is portraying the government as a failure for their own political interests and deceiving people into believing they alone can end insecurity.” Since it is the duty of the opposition to point out any lapses of government, why not deny them that chance by ending the insecurity?

During the Buhari era, I briefly earned the ire of my senior colleague Malam Garba Shehu when I said in a meeting that in ancient Japan, the Emperor was blamed even for earthquakes. At a subsequent meeting, Malam Garba misquoted me as having said that the Japanese Emperor accepted blame for earthquakes and implied that President Buhari should do the same. What I actually said was that ancient Japanese “blamed the Emperor” even for earthquakes and any other calamities. With good reason, because the Emperor was the Chief Priest of the Shinto national religion, so if misfortune befalls the country, the belief was that he did not do enough to appease the ancestors. Luckily for our President and his ministers, there is no national religion in Nigeria for him to be the Chief Priest. In fact, the Constitution forbids a state religion; it however vests the President with “all the Executive powers of the Federation,” which may sound to some people like the equivalent of a National Chief Priest.

Coming back to our Minister Mutawalle, when the President called you and appointed you a Minister, for that matter of Defence, did you tell him at that stage that only God can solve the insecurity situation? When you were given a fat salary and allowances, an armoured official car, a bullet proof helmet and a retinue of military guards, why didn’t you turn them over to God, since he is the One that can end insecurity? When the Federal Government’s budget allocated hundreds of billions of naira to your ministry, did you ask God to be the Accounting Officer?  

Why did you accept that spacious office in the Defence Ministry, complete with an ADC, personal and military assistants, staff officers, even snipers and military bodyguards, when you knew that the task the president gave to you can only be done by God? I saw pictures of you visiting your native Zamfara State early in your tenure, with a whole battalion of soldiers surrounding you on the bandit-infested Funtua to Gusau highway, and more soldiers surrounding your personal house at Maradun. Since it is only God that can solve insecurity problems, what were you doing with all those soldiers? Some people were even saying that since you had no security experience in your previous career, the only reason why the President posted you to Defence Ministry is so that you can have soldiers as escorts and be able to visit your home state. Otherwise, even as Governor of Zamfara for four years, all you had were Mobile Policemen, and that apart from the President who is Commander-in-Chief, it is only the Defence Ministers that have military escorts. You should have said then that you did not need soldiers, that since God provides security, you will rely on Him to provide protection to you as you visit Zamfara State.

You see, Oga Mutawalle, ordinarily I wouldn’t have taken you on the pages of a newspaper because of solidarity, that you being from Zamfara and I being from Kebbi, we are from the same, bedeviled extreme North West corner of Nigeria. However, I fear that if I do not say something now, I will not be able to say anything when other ministers borrow a leaf from you and try to pass the buck to God for their ministerial challenges. For five decades now we have been blaming NEPA and its successor companies for being stuck at 3,000KVA power generation and inability to distribute a good part of it. Even the great politician who said we should not vote for him again if he does not provide reliable power during his first term, we are misquoting him, because he was talking about providing solar power to State House, which he has achieved. What if a Power Minister now comes and says only God can provide power?  In this election season, some Muslim politicians are already [mis]quoting the Holy Quran’s Chapter 3, Verse 26, that Allah gives power to whom He pleases. One politician implied that Allah gives electric power to whom He pleases!

Already, a resurgent Ebola epidemic has started in DR Congo and could easily spread to other parts of Africa, including Nigeria. The last time Ebola came here, then President Goodluck Jonathan blamed “that crazy man Sawyer,” who arrived with it from Liberia, infected and killed our sister, Dr. Adadevoh. This time, if Ebola comes or if COVID 19 resurfaces, a top Health official here is likely to say that only God has the solution to epidemics. Even though here in Nigeria we sometimes manufacture our own solutions, like one crazy night in 2014 when millions of Nigerians went out at midnight and took bath with salt water, because one young woman said in a social media post that salt bath is the cure for Ebola.

Very soon, a top Education official will come up and say that only God can solve the problem of out of school children, now said to number up to 20 million. Remarkable thing is, is it not itinerant Muslim clerics who pick poor people’s children from the rural areas, take them to hostile city environments ostensibly for religious learning, only to unleash them in the streets to beg for food? Are these clerics not supposed to be closer to God than the rest of us, yet they are the ones subverting His message? Ok, how did countries such as Cuba, Albania, USSR, North Korea and China achieve near 100% literacy, even when the Communist ruling parties in those countries were all atheistic and did not even believe in God? Next time a top official tries to pass the buck to God, we should swallow it with a bucket [not pinch] of salt.