DIALOGUE WITH NIGERIA BY AKIN OSUNTOKUN

In the autumn of 1994, while serving as a visiting editor at Deutsche Welle, I presented a paper on the June 12, 1993 presidential election annulment crisis and media partisanship. At the material time Nigeria was steeped in the polarising crisis of the annulment of the June 1993 presidential election. My argument was that the character of the Nigerian press could not be understood without its history. That history dates back to its origins in the pre-independence anti-colonial nationalist struggle. It was birthed as an instrument of agitation and propaganda against the imposition of colonial rule. Of the three leading figures of Nigeria’s independence (Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo and Ahmadu Bello) for instance, two of them, Azikiwe and Awolowo started their political careers as journalists.

This prescriptive role was captured in the foreword to “The path to Nigeria’s freedom” (authored by Chief Obafemi Awolowo), by the British colonialist pundit, Dame Margery Perham. While restating the responsibility of the British colonialists to play a guardianship role in piloting Nigeria to independence, she bristled “Britain will not do this successfully if Journalists and others use the immense powers and influence now in their hands, to destroy the goodwill and confidence between the British and Nigerian communities”.

After the Independence of Nigeria in 1960, the Nigerian press found itself replaying a similar role of opposition for much of the protracted rule of military dictatorship. In the absence of civil democratic rule, the media, inadvertently, expanded to fill the vacuum created by the suspension of institutional opposition. Beyond the conventional role of holding the government accountable, much of the radical populism of the contemporary Nigerian media is explained by this evolutionary path.

On arrival at Osogbo to conduct a town hall meeting for candidates competing in the off-season Osun state governorship election, the other day, we were met with a glancing allegation of a general (Arise News) bias against the All Progressives Congress, APC. The accusation was news to me. As a media veteran of sorts, I could not see a justification for the allegation other than the measure of one or two personal idiosyncrasies. I waved it aside until it became a random observation by friends and acquaintances on being apprised of my appointment as Director of politics of Arise News.

What is true is this. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the APC are the personification of the dominant status quo powers in Nigeria today. And like all other status quo powers ante bellum, they are liable to be the focus of adversarial press.This is compounded by the aggravating governance style lapses of the government, by omission and commission. A crucial dimension to the liability are the long term economic stabilisation policies of the government which have inevitably fostered acute pains and deprivation on the vast majority of Nigerians-hopefully in the short term. Steeped in the immediate gratification and resource curse syndrome of the Nigeria, the introduction of these measures constitute a culture shock.

Against this background and at par with the pledge by former President Muhammadu Buhari to fix the naira at one to one parity with the dollar, was the pandering of some presidential candidates in the forthcoming election to restore the ruinous regime of oil subsidy if elected president.

My oft stated view is that Nigeria is suffering from a systemic crisis and unless it is apprehended as such, all efforts to tame its surface manifestations are going to come short. Nigeria is grappling with an innate alienation and lack of empathy for the Nigerian state by the peoples comprising Nigeria. It is a rentier state crisis that has lent itself to the mockery of the country as “I Chop, You Chop” (I eat,you eat) society… who behave as though they were transients in a huge national boarding house and seem to believe in the “survival of the fastest” and place considerable social and political premium on gluttony’

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration governs at a particularly challenging time. The removal of fuel subsidy, exchange-rate reforms, rising food prices, unemployment, insecurity, and the general cost-of-living crisis have affected millions of Nigerians. These are matters of major public interest. Any credible media organisation is obligated to report them, examine their consequences, and give citizens an opportunity to express how they are affected.

ARISE News, like other broadcast platforms, regularly features debates involving government officials, policy analysts, civil society voices, opposition politicians, business leaders, and ordinary Nigerians. Naturally, some of these guests will be critical of the administration. Others will defend its policies and argue that the reforms, though painful, are necessary for long-term economic recovery.

It is also necessary to distinguish news dissemination from the views of guests, columnists, analysts, and programme anchors some of who choose to channel the partisan distemper of opposition groups and views.These do not represent the editorial position of the television station.

Government officials are often invited to explain policies, clarify decisions, and respond to allegations or public concerns. When they appear on air, they should expect serious questions. Many come unprepared and for whatever reasons, others are inexplicably reticent in joining issues. A journalist who asks difficult questions is not necessarily an enemy of the government. In fact, such questioning can help public officials communicate more clearly and address gaps in policy implementation.

The Tinubu administration deserves recognition where its policies produce positive outcomes. But it must also be held accountable where Nigerians experience hardship or where public concerns remain unanswered. This is not opposition; it is the normal responsibility of a free press.

Equally, journalists have a duty to be accurate, balanced, and responsible, ensuring that criticism is rooted in facts rather than malice or political hostility.

ARISE News should therefore be assessed by the balance, accuracy, and professionalism of its overall coverage—not simply by whether every report or an individual opinion is favourable to the government. Criticism is not hatred. Scrutiny is not sabotage.

Whether ARISE News is “anti-Tinubu” should therefore be judged by its overall coverage: 

Does it air government responses and interviews with APC or administration representatives? 

Does it report positive developments and policy explanations as well as failures? 

Does it distinguish opinion by guests or anchors from verified news reporting? 

Does it allow differing political perspectives on its programmes? 

The Economist View from abroad

•Political cynicism, a divided opposition and religion all play a role

With just over three months to go until Nigerians vote for a president, the incumbent does not look particularly worried about his re-election prospects. On September 29th Bola Tinubu (pictured), who expects to win a second term in January, returned from Paris after a month-long stay in Europe. He had previously extended his “working holiday” by several days, raising eyebrows at home.

On the face of it, Mr Tinubu’s cool is surprising. Nigeria is suffering a worsening security crisis, with people kidnapped and killed by bandits or insurgents on a near-daily basis. His economic reforms, though lauded by investors, have yet to make life better for most of the country’s 240m people. Add to that political challengers who are more popular than him, especially in the northern states worst affected by violence and economic deprivation, and the president should be quaking in his suede loafers. That he is not says less about him and more about Nigeria’s complicated electoral dynamics.

Listen to this story

With just over three months to go until Nigerians vote for a president, the incumbent does not look particularly worried about his re-election prospects. On September 29th Bola Tinubu (pictured), who expects to win a second term in January, returned from Paris after a month-long stay in Europe. He had previously extended his “working holiday” by several days, raising eyebrows at home.

On the face of it, Mr Tinubu’s cool is surprising. Nigeria is suffering a worsening security crisis, with people kidnapped and killed by bandits or insurgents on a near-daily basis. His economic reforms, though lauded by investors, have yet to make life better for most of the country’s 240m people. Add to that political challengers who are more popular than him, especially in the northern states worst affected by violence and economic deprivation, and the president should be quaking in his suede loafers. That he is not says less about him and more about Nigeria’s complicated electoral dynamics.

To understand the misery over which Mr Tinubu and his ruling All Progressives Congress (apc) have been presiding, consider Borno, in Nigeria’s north-east. The poor state, which the apc also runs, is in the grip of an insurgency that has raged unchecked for two decades. Jihadists fight both the government and each other. Rival factions make money by kidnapping schoolchildren and extorting or looting cash and grain from already poor farmers. Such violence has wrecked the economy, leaving young people jobless and traders without customers. One 27-year-old in Maiduguri, the capital, complains that he is forced to travel to neighbouring Chad to sell his grain, as locals cannot afford it. Youngsters “pack all their things and leave Borno state” for Chad, Cameroon or Ghana, he says, “because if you sit down here, there is no food in this country.”

Mr Tinubu’s re-election pitch is focused on reforms, such as the abolition of a pricey fuel subsidy, that have brought a degree of stability to Nigeria. Inflation has fallen, government revenue is rising and investment is picking up. But in Borno the reforms—combined with a lean harvest, aid cuts and rising energy prices following the wars in Ukraine and Iran—have made life harder. The annual inflation rate in August was still around 15%, with food inflation closer to 20%. Few people can afford enough to eat, prompting a hunger crisis in Borno and in neighbouring states (see map). The un’s World Food Programme reckons malnutrition in the state is at its worst level for a decade.

Dr Nura Tukur, who runs a clinic for the starving operated by Save the Children, a charity, says there has been a sharp increase in the number of malnourished women and babies admitted over the past three years. July was the worst month since the clinic opened in 2016. Aisha Umara, who arrived several months ago with two starving triplets (one had died on the way), is now healthy enough to breastfeed. But her two six-month-olds still weigh just 2.5kg each. They are unlikely to survive being discharged to a home with no food in a village ruled by jihadists.

All this has hurt Mr Tinubu’s reputation in the north, where his party has traditionally done well, even though he personally lacks a base there. In the election in 2023 he won 54% of the vote in Borno. But recent polling by sbm Intelligence, a risk-advisory firm, suggests he is now less popular in the state than Peter Obi, another presidential candidate from the south, and Atiku Abubakar, a candidate with a big base in the north-east.

Some of Maiduguri’s residents say they are prepared to “fight back” at the ballot box in January. Yet in general, Mr Tinubu’s unpopularity will probably not be enough to dislodge him from the presidency. Incumbents, with access to the ruling-party machinery and plentiful cash to dole out goodies, have tended to have an advantage in recent Nigerian elections. It helps that the opposition is splintered and disorganised. Mr Obi has failed to form a coalition with Mr Abubakar. “Because it’s not a united ticket, that anti-apcvote is not coalesced into a single vote,” says Joachim MacEbong of Control Risks, a consultancy. In Maiduguri some people say they do not even know who else is on the ballot besides Mr Tinubu.

No need to deliver

It also helps that Mr Tinubu and his vice-presidential candidate (who is a former governor of Borno state) are both Muslim, as are most people in the north. “The fact that the president has stuck with the Muslim-Muslim ticket resonates with quite a number of people,” says Cheta Nwanze, the boss of sbm Intelligence. Even voters who like Mr Obi may rule him out because he is a Catholic; the fact that he has a Muslim running-mate may not be enough.

Perhaps most significantly, voters in the north may not be too concerned by Mr Tinubu’s record because they already expect little from the government. “Many people are living where there has been no real security, no real health care, no real schools. Over time, people’s expectations get lower and lower,” says Mr MacEbong. One mother in Maiduguri says she will vote for Mr Tinubu as a “thank you” for the medicine at the government hospital. With their home state badly governed for so long, many people are more likely to trust God and their families to improve their lives than a government that rarely has.

Such cynicism is not limited to Borno. As long as the security crisis remains unresolved and economic growth, which is expected to hit 4.1% this year, does not translate into concrete improvements in Nigerians’ daily lives, many voters will remain disappointed. Yet few will use the ballot box to express their disappointment. In Borno, where a journey to the polling station could easily entail an encounter with militants, most will probably not bother voting at all. In 2023 turnout in the state was below 20%, even less than the dismal 27% nationwide. In parts of the south, especially Mr Tinubu’s home of Lagos, plenty may swallow whatever bad feelings they have about their day-to-day struggles and vote for their “son”. No wonder Mr Tinubu feels safe enough to take extended holidays in Paris.

By Olusegu Adeniyi

On his 66th birthday in February this year, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai walked into the Abuja headquarters of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in response to an invitation. He remains in captivity as Nigeria marks its own 66th independence anniversary today. But his travails are with the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). The commission has not only barred the media from covering the three cases for which it has arraigned the former Governor of Kaduna State, he is also being treated more as a convict than as a detainee.

Before I continue, it is important to make a declaration from the outset on what this column is not about. It is not a plea for immunity. Neither is it a verdict on the ICPC allegations against El-Rufai. I have read the report of the Kaduna State House of Assembly. Those are specific and serious allegations for which their former governor has already pleaded not guilty and is entitled to his day in court. Nor will I defend what El-Rufai said on ARISE Television that “someone” he knows had tapped the telephone of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, and he had listened in on some conversation. So, for me, the question is not whether El-Rufai should be tried. The problem is how that trial has unfolded and what that says about the rule of law in Nigeria. I stated this much in May this year,
, and nothing seems to have changed.

Consider the sequence. On 12 February, security operatives attempted to arrest El-Rufai at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja, on his return from Egypt. His passport was reportedly seized. On 16 February, the Department of State Services (DSS) filed cybercrime charges against him at the Federal High Court, Abuja. That same day, El-Rufai honoured the EFCC invitation. At about 8pm on 18 February, the EFCC granted him administrative bail. He did not make it beyond the premises. Armed operatives waiting at the commission headquarters took him away, and before the night was over, the ICPC announced that El-Rufai was in its custody “in connection with investigations”. On 1 April, only days after he had been let out on compassionate grounds to bury his mother, DSS operatives took custody of him again.

Today El-Rufai faces four separate criminal trials in Kaduna and Abuja; three corruption cases filed by the ICPC and the wiretapping case by the DSS. Each, taken alone, may be defensible. Taken together, they look less like a prosecution than a relay race in which the baton is the defendant who, as I once surmised, is essentially being ‘roundtripped’ by three state agencies. Then there is the issue of bail. On 14 April, Justice Rilwan Aikawa of the Federal High Court, Kaduna, admitted El-Rufai to bail in the sum of N200 million with two sureties in like sum. One must be a Kaduna resident whose property must have a verified Certificate of Occupancy. The other must be a respected elder certified by the elders’ council. El-Rufai must also surrender his passport, report to the ICPC on the first Monday of every month and live at a named residence. The judge herself described the terms as “strict and extensive.” A week later, Justice Darius Khobo of the Kaduna State High Court refused El-Rufai bail outright. He cited the gravity of the nine-count charge and fears of interference with investigations, and held that the interests of justice were best served by keeping El-Rufai available for “an accelerated trial”.

In the Abuja case, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik’s bail conditions included a surety who is a federal civil servant not below Grade Level 17 and resident in either Maitama or Asokoro. That surety must also deposit the original Certificate of Occupancy of a landed property with the court and furnish three months’ evidence of salary authenticated by a bank manager. The defendant must also produce a letter of attestation from the chairman of the Kaduna State Traditional Council and two other members. That council, by the way, was constituted by El-Rufai’s successor, Governor Uba Sani! Which chief or emir would risk his royal stool (and all the attendant goodies) for a man that has already been indicted by the State House of Assembly and is, to put it mildly, not in the good books of the incumbent governor?

When El-Rufai’s lawyers returned in June to say that the directors they approached did not own houses in those Abuja Districts, the judge declined to vary the terms, insisting that such civil servants exist. The Judge evidently knows a lot about Abuja! Meanwhile, the law on this is not ambiguous. Section 165(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 provides that where bail is granted, the conditions shall not be excessive. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court which held that the principal function of bail is simply to secure the attendance of the defendant at trial. Even the five suspects arrested near a British air base used by American bombers on an alleged terror case that has drawn global attention were released on bail within a few days!

Let us now consider the arithmetic. Section 12 of the Cybercrimes Act provides, upon conviction for unlawful interception, a fine not exceeding N5 million or two years’ imprisonment, or both. The DSS closed its case in June after calling two witnesses. The court will rule on his no-case submission on 26 October. By then El-Rufai will have spent more than eight months in custody, convicted of nothing, on a charge that carries a maximum of two years!

Let me also make this clear: Judges rule on the applications before them, and each of these conditions may be defended on its own terms. But one court has refused bail outright, and two others have set conditions that have proved impossible to meet. The outcome is the same: a man whom Section 36(5) of our Constitution presumes innocent is being punished before judgement. When citizens can be detained in perpetuity simply by filing cases in different courts and before different Judges, the judiciary becomes, wittingly or unwittingly, mere tools for untoward practices.

It gets even worse. In June, a family member said that a doctor at the National Hospital, Abuja, had expressed concern that El-Rufai could be developing a serious medical condition. After a court-approved medical visit on 7 July, the ICPC accused him (El-Rufai) of using the occasion to meet political associates and arrested his personal physician, Professor Bello Abubakar, for allegedly making false statements. In August, El-Rufai filed a N10 billion fundamental rights suit alleging that his wife and son had been barred from visiting him. The ICPC insists that it has met its obligations, and that access to detainees is governed by certain regulations. I am in no position to adjudicate those claims. But when the doctor who attends to a detainee becomes a suspect himself, every physician in Nigeria has received a message.

What makes all this even more interesting is that El-Rufai is not an ordinary Nigerian. He was the Director General of the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) for more than three years, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory for four years and Governor of Kaduna State for eight. He is wealthy enough to retain a team of Senior Advocates of Nigeria. His son, Bello, sits in the House of Representatives. If a man with his means can spend 227 days in custody on allegations yet to be proven, we can only imagine what would happen to the ordinary citizen who steps on some big toes.

As it would happen, El-Rufai, of all people, should know the answer. The leader of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky, and his wife, Zeenat, were held in defiance of a December 2016 order of the Federal High Court, Abuja, that they be released. The Kaduna State Government under El-Rufai then prosecuted them for culpable homicide. On 28 July 2021, Justice Gideon Kurada upheld their no-case submission and freed them. Within two days, Kaduna State announced fresh charges with El-Rufai deploying every extra-legal trick to keep the El-Zakazakys behind bars. I recall this episode not to gloat or justify the whataboutery that El-Rufai’s opponents use to dismiss the call for justice. I recall it because it proves conclusively that the instruments of state have neither memory nor loyalty. They serve whoever holds them, and they are always, eventually, held by someone else. El-Rufai must have gotten the memo by now.

President Bola Tinubu needs no lecture as to what happens when the apparatus of state is turned against a critic. His years in exile during the dictatorship of the late General Sani Abacha are part of the democratic story that will be on full display this afternoon in Lagos at the premier of the documentary, MKO, produced and directed by my friend, Ose Oyamendan. But let’s be fair; this is not Tinubu’s call: This perversion of bail is a problem within the purview of the National Judicial Council (NJC) that appears to be looking away while the judiciary is being rubbished. Even if the Judges who have granted El-Rufai bail vary the conditions, he still has a case before a Judge who outrightly refused him bail!

Meanwhile, it is obvious that the ICPC is determined to keep El-Rufai in detention till ‘kingdom come’. The commission initially obtained a 14-day remand order, under oath, to charge him to court within the duration of that order. That order expired without charges being filed. So, the ICPC went to secure another remand warrant in rather controversial circumstances. In the interval, the ICPC claimed in court documents to have recovered wiretapping equipment from El-Rufai’s residence. While the Constitution grants a right to silence, the ICPC treated El-Rufai’s assertion of that constitutional right as evidence of non-cooperation and publicised the same as one of their justifications for keeping him in custody.

In a reflection titled ‘My Relationships and the Aftermath’, released last weekend, El-Rufai wrote about the silence of his friends and those he once supported. He said he bears no resentment towards them. I understand that silence; fear is a rational response for most politicians in a season like this. But silence is also how these things become normalized. The precedent being set in this case will not end with El-Rufai. It will be available to the next government, against the next political opponent. That political opponent may have no Senior Advocate on retainer: only a charge sheet, bail conditions nobody can meet, and a long wait for ruling in different courts.

That the judiciary is part of a process by which a citizen has been turned into a political ping-pong ball by prosecutors using the process of arraignment and bail application to orchestrate perpetual detention raises serious questions. The offences for which El-Rufai has been arraigned are bailable and many others facing similar charges are now Senatorial candidates of various political parties, plotting their way to the red chambers where they will join fellow travellers to make laws for the rest of us. On a day such as this, people who hold the levers of power in Nigeria should understand that as a citizen, El-Rufai is entitled to fair treatment by our courts and state institutions.

The context may be more personal but I believe we can adapt the words of the late South African President Nelson Mandela to argue that the freedom of a country and that of its citizens are intertwined. At 66, Nigeria should be old enough to understand that a state that can weaponise the judiciary and security apparatus against one of its most powerful citizens would have no qualms crushing its weakest. That explains why I believe that whatever one may think of Nasir El-Rufai [and I have had my disagreements with him over the years], we should all be interested in his case.

I wish Nigerians a Happy Independence Anniversary.

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

Tosin Olayinka

Political scientists who study presidencies have long drawn a distinction that ordinary citizens rarely notice. Alexander George’s classic work separated the “custodian-manager” from the “honest broker.” Bradley Patterson’s studies of the American White House staff describe the chief of staff as the person who turns a leader’s ambition into a working calendar. The consensus across that literature is that presidents are remembered for their vision, but they succeed or fail on the machinery beneath it. Nigeria’s machinery sits in the hands of Rt Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, CFR, and it is worth asking why he is so well suited to the job.

Few figures arrive at the Chief of Staff’s office with a résumé so precisely fitted to it. He served in the House of Representatives from 2003 to 2023 for Surulere I, was Minority Leader from 2007 to 2015 and Majority Leader from 2015 to 2019, and then became the 14th Speaker, serving until 2023. Consider what those roles teach. As Minority Leader for eight years, he learned to build coalitions without holding power. As Majority Leader, he learned to deliver a governing agenda through a chamber of competing egos. As Speaker, he learned to keep a national institution steady through a full electoral cycle. Those are the skills the Presidency demands: reconciling ministers who compete for attention, moving decisions to a busy principal, and keeping the executive on speaking terms with the legislature. He took office as Chief of Staff on 14 June 2023, and those tasks were already second nature to him.

The Renewed Hope Agenda is an ambitious programme. It covers subsidy removal, exchange-rate reform, tax overhaul, infrastructure financing and social investment, and none of it can be delivered by declaration. Each item must be sequenced, defended in the National Assembly, explained to the states, and reconciled with the party’s demands. A President sets priorities, and a Chief of Staff makes sure they do not stall between the desk and the field. This is where Gbajabiamila’s value is easiest to overlook, because good coordination is invisible when it works. His relationships across both chambers, built over two decades, shorten the distance between an executive proposal and a legislative outcome. His long loyalty to the President, which goes back to their Lagos days, lets him carry difficult messages into difficult rooms and be heard. In the language of organisational theory, he lowers the transaction costs of governing. In plain English, he helps get things done.

The Renewed Hope vision also rests on a social contract. Citizens who bear the cost of reform want to see the state answer them, and any Presidency that asks for patience must also find ways to put something in people’s hands. That thread links the Chief of Staff’s office in Abuja to a stadium in Lagos. This past Saturday, the 2026 Gbaja Mega Empowerment Programme filled the National Stadium in Surulere, and the scale was considerable. He said 3,905 beneficiaries received N250,000 each and 348 others received N500,000 each, while 61 beneficiaries received electric vehicles, 40 received minibuses, and 100 received laptops. The package as a whole comprised N1.15 billion in cash support and 279 vehicles, including minibuses, electric cars and electric tricycles. Security patrol vehicles, an ambulance, Toyota 18-seater buses and vocational tools for young entrepreneurs completed the offering, and about 5,000 residents of the Surulere constituencies benefited.

Look past the headline figure, and the design shows careful thinking. Much of it backs livelihoods rather than mere consumption. A minibus is a daily income, an e-hailing car is a small business, and a laptop is an entry ticket to the digital economy. The cash grants give traders working capital that no commercial bank would extend to them on comparable terms. The programme also leans towards the future. He said electric cars had been provided for e-hailing businesses, tied the effort to the administration’s environmental commitments, and promised electric vehicle charging stations in Surulere. An electric tricycle in a Lagos neighbourhood is a small piece of the energy transition, delivered directly to the people who will use it.

It was also built to be fair, which in Nigeria’s history of empowerment schemes is no small matter. Lists are too often padded and benefits too often diverted. The event was originally scheduled for June and postponed so that beneficiaries nominated through wards, community associations and trade groups could be verified. He said he did not want anyone to collect what was meant for another person. Delaying a crowd-pleasing event for the sake of integrity was more admirable than a rushed and impressive-looking rollout would have been. There is a human dimension too. Reflecting on his two decades in the House, he told the audience, “Everything I have become in public life, I owe to you.” Politicians often say such things. Fewer return with N1.15 billion’s worth of proof, and the event reminds us that a national office-holder is still, in the truest sense, accountable to a home constituency.

Anyone who has watched Nigerian public life for long knows that prominence has a price. Only the tree heavy with ripe fruit draws stones; nobody wastes a pebble on a barren one. Gbajabiamila has stood at the centre of power for three years, so he has been a constant target of rumour, insinuation and the kind of fake news that spreads faster than any correction can follow. The sharpest test came with the controversy over the so-called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, an organisation whose legitimacy was widely questioned. A House of Representatives ad hoc committee said it found no evidence that he approved, established or participated in its activities. At Saturday’s event, he said the Police, the DSS and the ICPC had cleared him and that their reports are in the public domain. He described the season as one in which stories were written, strange accusations were made, and lies were told. Readers are free to weigh the findings for themselves, but his response speaks for itself. He did not retaliate or retreat. He said due process was followed despite pressure to reach conclusions before the investigations were finished, and then he went back to work and back to his people. Pressure has a way of revealing what a public servant is made of, and in his case it has hardened rather than broken him. The stones have not shaken the tree. If anything, its roots have gone deeper, its trunk is thicker, and its fruit is still ripening in the open for all to see. That offers a quiet lesson for anyone tempted to mistake noise for substance.

The honest verdict is a favourable one. The Chief of Staff’s office is defined by discretion, reach and trust, and Gbajabiamila has all three in unusual measure. He brings legislative experience that few in Abuja can match, and a personal history with the President long enough that the two men can disagree privately and still move together in public. As last Saturday showed, he has not let the gravity of high office pull him away from the streets that made him. Critics will note, as they always do, that generosity in an election season has political value. They are right, and nothing is shameful about it. Politics is the business of earning consent, and doing so with cars, laptops and working capital is a good deal better than doing it with rhetoric alone. The true measure of the programme will be whether those minibuses are still running and those small businesses still trading a year from now, and the care taken over its design suggests he expects them to be. Renewed Hope needs a President with a vision and a Chief of Staff who can turn it into daily work. Nigeria has both, and the second is too easily forgotten.

•Hon. Tosin Olayinka, LL.B (Hons), B.L., LL.M (London)

Programme Director,

Renewed Hope Global

WhatsApp: +234 704 117 6329.

©️ Renewed Hope Global

#RenewedHope

GLORIA FRASER

Nigeria In The World: Tinubu’s Foreign Policy And The Return of Diplomatic Influence

From regional leadership to global partnerships, economic diplomacy and Nigeria’s renewed international voice

“Nigeria affirms its rightful place among the world’s great democracies.”
— President Bola Ahmed Tinubu inaugural address, 29 May 2023

Foreign policy is the bridge between national ambition and international opportunity. But a bridge is valuable not because of how often a leader crosses it, but because of what travels across it—investment, trade, technology, security cooperation, influence and opportunity.

THE 4D DOCTRINE: DIPLOMACY WITH PURPOSE

Tinubu’s foreign policy is organised around Demography, Development, Diaspora and Democracy. Foreign policy must serve development.

THE WORLD AS NIGERIA’S MARKETPLACE

Tinubu has pursued investment diplomacy across India, China, the Gulf, Europe, Africa and Latin America. India produced announced investment commitments; China elevated relations to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership; Qatar, Türkiye and Brazil produced agreements across several sectors.
These are not all completed investments. An announcement is not a factory, an MoU is not employment and a pledge is not productive capital. Their value depends upon implementation.

The March 2026 UK State Visit—the first by a Nigerian leader in 37 years—produced agreements covering trade, investment, defence and culture, alongside a £746 million financing arrangement for refurbishment of the Apapa Quays and Tin Can Island port complexes.

AFRICA, THE CARIBBEAN AND STRATEGIC AUTONOMY

Africa remains the foundation of Nigeria’s global ambition. Tinubu’s ECOWAS leadership coincided with military coups and the subsequent withdrawal of Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, demonstrating both the responsibilities and limitations of regional leadership.

Tinubu’s 2025 visit to Saint Lucia strengthened Nigeria’s bridge to the Caribbean and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. Cooperation extended across education, tourism, culture, investment, health, trade and technology, including Nigerian scholarships for OECS students.

In January 2025, the Tinubu administration formally accepted Nigeria’s admission into BRICS as a partner country, opening another channel for South-South cooperation, trade, investment and engagement with major emerging economies. Together with expanding relationships with China, India, Brazil, Türkiye and the Gulf, this reflects strategic diversification—not abandonment of longstanding Western relationships.

As the Hausa proverb teaches, “Hannu daya ba ya daukar jinka”—one hand alone cannot lift a heavy load.

NIGERIA’S SECURITY COUNCIL AMBITION

Nigeria supports Africa’s longstanding demand for permanent representation on the United Nations Security Council and has presented its population, economic weight, regional leadership and longstanding contribution to peacekeeping as part of its credentials.

At the 80th UN General Assembly, Vice-President Kashim Shettima again advanced Nigeria’s case for permanent membership.
A Security Council created in 1945 cannot indefinitely ignore the under-representation of Africa. Achieving reform requires more than a strong argument. It requires coalitions and international support.

THE UNGA QUESTION: MUST THE PRESIDENT BE THERE?

President Tinubu’s absence from three consecutive UN General Assemblies has generated political and public criticism. The criticism deserves consideration because UN representation rules are not widely understood.

The UN Charter does not require the President of every member country to attend personally. Article 9 provides for Member States to have representatives in the General Assembly.

At UNGA 81, the United Nations expected only 71 Heads of State among its 193 Member States, alongside 45 Heads of Government, 11 Vice-Presidents, 50 Ministers and one Crown Prince.

Four countries illustrate the point clearly:

Nigeria: President Bola Ahmed Tinubu did not attend and was represented by Vice-President Kashim Shettima.

Egypt: President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi did not attend and was represented by Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly.

South Africa: President Cyril Ramaphosa did not attend and was represented by Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola.

Malaysia: Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, the country’s Head of Government, did not attend; Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan led Malaysia’s delegation.
Former Nigerian diplomat Ambassador Joe Keshi argues that the substantive question is not simply whether the President is physically present. With the Vice-President leading the delegation and national statement, Nigeria remains represented. Keshi also questions what repeated presidential attendance in previous administrations necessarily produced and cautions against unnecessarily large delegations and turning UNGA into a “jamboree.”

Presidential attendance unquestionably offers visibility and leader-to-leader access. But attendance is a choice, not a UN requirement. Where circumstances require presidential attention at home, representation by the Vice-President can be a rational allocation of executive responsibility. The better test is what Nigeria’s delegation accomplishes.

THE CPC CRISIS: DIPLOMACY UNDER PRESSURE

The United States’ October 2025 designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern over religious freedom created another diplomatic challenge. Christians and Muslims have been murdered amid terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal conflict and extremism. These overlapping causes cannot responsibly be reduced to one explanation.

OPPOSITION VIEW

Opposition figures question whether the frequency and cost of presidential foreign engagements have produced sufficient benefits for Nigerians. Peter Obi has argued that diplomacy should translate into measurable investment, factories, jobs and economic growth, while Atiku Abubakar has questioned Tinubu’s repeated absence from UNGA.

The appropriate measure is conversion: agreements into projects, diplomatic access into influence, investment commitments into productive capital and international relationships into measurable benefits for Nigeria.

LESSONS FROM REFORMING NATIONS

India demonstrates how strategic autonomy can maintain relationships with competing global powers. Türkiye combines Western alliances with active engagement across Africa, Asia, Russia and the Middle East. Brazil combines BRICS and South-South diplomacy with Western economic relationships.
Nigeria’s lesson is similar: avoid dependence on any single bloc while using diverse relationships to advance trade, technology, investment, security and national influence.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

“National leadership is measured not only by the country it inherits, but by the place it earns for that country among the nations of the world.”
— Princess Gloria Adebajo-Fraser, MFR

THE NATIONAL PATRIOTS’ POSITION

The National Patriots supports President Tinubu’s determination to reposition Nigeria internationally. Presidential travel should be judged by outcomes when it opens markets, attracts investment, repairs relationships, strengthens security cooperation and raises Nigeria’s influence.
Every major agreement should be transparently followed through, showing which pledges materialise and what projects and opportunities result.
We support strategic autonomy: strong Western relationships alongside deeper partnerships across Africa, China, India, Brazil, Türkiye, the Gulf and emerging economies.

Following the U.S. CPC designation, National Patriots addressed representations to President Donald Trump and the leadership or governments of Britain, the European Union and Canada, urging independent verification rather than automatic adoption of Washington’s position.
Our letter to President Trump bears the U.S. Embassy Abuja receipt stamp and registry acknowledgement. We do not claim National Patriots alone determined subsequent positions; we maintain that patriotic civil society should act when Nigeria’s international interests are threatened.

FINAL WORD

Tinubu has widened Nigeria’s international reach. The next test is conversion—turning visibility into investment, agreements into implementation, relationships into influence and diplomacy into tangible benefits at home.

The Great Reset cannot stop at Nigeria’s borders. A nation seeking renewal at home must also redefine its place abroad.

CHAPTER IN FOCUS

Nigeria’s foreign policy under President Tinubu combines the 4D doctrine with economic diplomacy, African leadership, strategic diversification and a campaign for greater influence in global institutions.

The enduring measure is whether Nigeria converts diplomatic access into investment, jobs, markets, technology, security cooperation and greater international influence.

Principal Sources: State House; Ministry of Foreign Affairs; United Nations; UN General Assembly Rules of Procedure; ECOWAS; African Union;yyy Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States.

•Princess Gloria Adebajo-Fraser, MFR
President, The National Patriots.
Special Adviser to Former President Goodluck Jonathan GCFR.
Vice-Chairman Strategic Communications Committee Buhari PCC 2019.
Member, Strategy Committee, Presidency 2023.

By REUBEN ABATI

“Hopes and Impediments” is the title of a 1988 collection of essays by the legendary writer, Chinua Achebe, and it is perhaps the most appropriate phrase to describe Nigeria’s present condition as the country celebrates its 66thindependence anniversary on October 1. At 66, Nigeria is “biologically”, a mature nation – no person that attains such an age is considered a toddler – he or she has seen many seasons and would have received some education, if not wisdom along the line. But how has it been with Nigeria? Has independence brought the country and its people useful lessons and enough hopes about the future? Is the country at a level, the place, where it should be in the comity of nations? What are the obstacles that it has had to deal with – how and why? At 66, the sad reality is that the country is at a crossroads, with fears and anxieties in the people’s hearts, grappling with what is otherwise taken for granted in many other countries. This year’s independence anniversary is being celebrated at a time when the country is busy searching for its elected President who has been away from the country in Europe on what has been termed a “working leave”, which was recently even further extended without the necessary constitutional cover.

The President’s prolonged absence has invited comparison with those earlier recorded moments when President Umaru Yar’Adua disappeared from the country without handing over to his Vice President (Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan) and everyone became an expert on Constitutional interpretation, resulting in the invocation of s so-called “doctrine of necessity”. The same concern about a missing President, perhaps an absentee President, was repeated during the period when President Muhammadu Buhari left the country for medical reasons, for a long stretch without transmitting a letter, accordingly, to the National Assembly. The three episodes speak to the same thing: the culture of “anyhow-ness” that drives the governance process in Nigeria. It is the “Kabiyesi” syndrome at work also, what the Yoruba summarise as “tani ma mu mi” , a military era hangover which means “who will dare question my authority?” And yet this is a democratic dispensation. Our leaders only remember to respect the laws of the land, when they are forced to do so. Respect for the rule of law is not a habit. It is something remembered only as is convenient. It is an option. President Tinubu’s spokespersons have assured us that he will return to the country today, about a month after he travelled on a working leave, in time to join the rest of us in celebrating the 66th Independence Anniversary. If he chooses to extend his arrival by another 24 hours, no one can do anything about that. Not the National Assembly. Not the Federal Cabinet. Not even the opposition parties.  Sixty-six years is long enough time for Nigerian leaders to learn to do the right things, at the right time, in accordance with the law and respect for the people. The crisis of power management and leadership is the bane of the Nigerian experience. The colonial rulers trampled upon the people. The military held the country hostage for decades. The civilians who took over have not fared better either. We used to say that certain things cannot happen here: that delusion has been shattered for what it is, worse things have happened here.

What has kept the country going, in the worst of seasons: military overthrow of the civilian dispensation (1966, 1975, 1983, 1985, 1993), failed coups (1976, 1990), the civil war (1967 – 1970), economic contraction (since the 1986 Structural Adjustment Programme), collapse of the oil sector, violence in the Niger Delta, multidimensional poverty, outbreak of health challenges (Ebola, COVID), electoral violence,  the theft of the people’s right to choose, ethnic and religious violence, Boko Haram, terror and insurgency –  has been the resilience of the people themselves, our capacity to thrive in the midst of chaos, the ability of the average Nigerian to look despair in the face and quickly adjust, reinvent and move forward. Too often, Nigeria has journeyed to the brink, the edge of disaster, only to pull back. We have spent more time as an independent nation – 66 years from October 1, 1960 – whereas colonial rule took all of 60 years (1900 – 1960), but it is part of our dilemma that many among us look back to the colonial era with nostalgia. Nigeria has actually gone through three distinct phases of colonialism: British colonialism first, internal military colonialism second, and third, the current embrace of self-imposed colonialism with the new rulers having handed over the state to Europeans, Asians and the World Bank/IMF in the search for solutions to the country’s economic woes. We are yet to find the right leadership mix. We do not have a properly structured leadership recruitment process. The best among us run away from politics, the field is dominated by those who have Godfathers in high places and enough money to buy the people.

This same country whose potentials were well advertised at independence and which once projected itself as the “giant of Africa” is now trapped in the woes of multidimensional poverty. Once a wealthy nation, we mismanaged our good fortune. Yet, the people have learnt to remain optimistic. The poorest of the poor in Nigeria nurses the hope that one day, he will have a breakthrough, and become prosperous. This is perhaps because this is one of the most religious countries on the surface of the earth. The spellbinders who call themselves religious leaders feed the people with hope, and even greater expectations in afterlife. The people pray when work is required. When they are overwhelmed by man-made challenges, they invoke the name of God. When things become really hard, they still call on God for a solution. Nigerians blackmail God for everything. It is the way God wants it. God’s will must prevail.  God’s time is the best. That is what Nigerians say but do our people really know God?  At a time, the world is discussing Artificial Intelligence and cutting-edge technology, most members of the Nigerian community are in churches and mosques, looking for miracles. When nothing works, or they think God is not answering them quickly enough, they kill, steal, loot and destroy whatever they can – in the name of God too. Or they hand over everything to God. For Nigeria to make progress, the people must stop blackmailing God and hold themselves and their leaders accountable. They must allow the institutions of state to work. The people must become citizens, and stop mocking God with their hypocrisy. While launching an Anti-Corruption Inter-Faith Manual, last week, the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission disclosed that the agency has many clerics in its case files who have been investigated, prosecuted or imprisoned.

Nigerians have not translated their optimism into collective action, and that is why the country is yet to fulfil its potentials, the people thrive better as individuals. The average Nigerian’s resilience works better at the individual level. We stand out as individuals pursuing private dreams, but not as a people, working together for a common purpose.  We seek personal glory, while treating the country as nobody’s property. We identify as local, ethnic champions, but our sense of Nigerian-ness is subdued. Nigerians have the ability to excel at whatever they do, be it crime or the professions, but we do not trust one another. Nigerians have excelled in virtually every field of human endeavour. They have even found a way to break into the Guinness Book of World Records, turning this into a sport. We may no longer qualify as the giant of Africa but we are ahead of many of the other 53 countries on the continent. But are many of us proud of the Nigerian identity? No. The Nigerian today is in every part of the world. The other day they even found a Nigerian in the Antarctica on a world expedition. One other Nigerian lives in Yakustk, Siberia, one of the coldest places on earth. He is married to a Chinese. There is no challenge too difficult for a Nigerian to take on. We are a nation of adventurous people. We are a nation of achievers in sports, literature, science, space exploration, arts and culture, music, performing arts, military service, name it. We are a source of envy for others, especially the South Africans. 

But with all our exposure and adventure, we have not been able to translate our knowledge into advantages at home. Our leaders travel all over the world. They see all that is good abroad, but they lack the commitment to make life better for the people. Those who chose to make a difference by returning home, by identifying with home, have been forced by the reality of daily life in Nigeria to flee. One US-based, accomplished, Nigerian patriot once came home to set up a farm in his state, and create jobs for his people. He was kidnapped on his farm and killed. His spouse took his body back to the United States in a casket. Many other professionals listened to the call of the motherland and came home to contribute their own quota to national development, they were frustrated out by the Nigerian factor: a hostile work environment, hospitals that can kill, irregular power supply, bad roads, poor infrastructure, a public education system that has failed, corruption in and out of government corridors. Many have died needlessly in an attempt to identify with this homeland: kidnapping is rampant, you could sleep on the highway because erosion has swept the roads away. In the North East and the North West, bandits and terrorists have set up operations, wreaking havoc. The country’s unemployment rate is so high, many of the people are busy trying to take advantage of anyone who can still earn a decent living. There are no standards. Fake products everywhere. Fake human beings. Fake government agencies. Living in Nigeria requires a special skill in the art of survival. The biggest challenge is perhaps the ethical disorientation in the land. Strong cultural values once held the fabric of society together. The old society frowned upon instant, unexplained wealth. The civil servants, as well as public servants of old were queried if they lived above their means. The government bureaucracy was run by professionals. Governors in the states made a name for themselves by serving the people. Political leaders and their parties had known identities and programmes. We are now in the age of empty slogans, and artful dodgers who want to get into power to serve their selfish interests. Those who cannot stand the stress are fleeing abroad. They call it “japa”.

On October 1, we have been told that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will watch the premiere of a documentary on the late Chief MKO Abiola, the martyr of Nigerian democracy. The annulment of the June 12, 1993 election which he won and he was denied victory is a sad reminder of much that is wrong in contemporary Nigeria. MKO Abiola preached hope and prosperity. The people are still optimistic that one day, it will be well with Nigeria, when the people’s votes will count and their will, as expressed through the ballot, will be respected. In 2023, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assumed office, again promising the people hope. He calls his contract with the people: Renewed Hope Agenda. He introduced a set of reforms through which he sought to build a new Nigeria. Three years later, he wants a second term of four years in office to enable him move the country from reforms to stability and consolidation. When he addresses the nation on October 1, his theme is: “From Reforms to Stability: Consolidating Nigeria’s Renewed Hope for Shared Prosperity” he will offer us again a diet of hope, and outline the achievements of his administration as justification for why he and his supporters believe that he deserves to remain in the Presidential Villa for another term of four years. Members of his ruling party, the APC, are campaigning with a sense of entitlement. They say there is no vacancy in the Presidential Villa. They do so because the opposition parties are not engaging the electorate with concrete alternatives. Out of the 17 other political parties on the ballot, many are relatively unknown. Three months to the 2027 general elections, many of them are yet to articulate any programme of action. Those that are better known merely mouth slogans, nothing concrete to hold on to, and so, the best that the people can demand is that the elections should be free, fair and credible. In all of these, the people themselves have become cynical about politics. They want money and gifts from the politicians.

When President Tinubu returns, he has one major, immediate task ahead: to ensure that his government provides a level playing field for democracy to thrive and that the coming elections are truly credible and fair. The longer-term assignment of making Nigeria a better place for all will require a whole of society approach. As Nigeria marks its 66th Independence anniversary, there should be no loud, wasteful, celebrations.

Where did FCT Minister Nyesom Wike get his idea of a political Rainbow Coalition, which he has unleashed on the political scene like a cat among the pigeons? No wonder that political feathers are ruffled and are flying in all directions, with APC governors, some ministers and top party officials throwing jibes at one another even when they have an uphill election battle ahead of them in a few months’ time.

Wike probably got his idea from America. In 1984, the extremely colourful Black American civil rights campaigner-turned politician Reverend Jesse Jackson, who passed away in February, formed what he called The Rainbow Coalition. It was a “multicultural initiative aimed at uniting marginalised racial and ethnic groups within the United States political landscape… in response to historical inequalities in political participation, particularly among African Americans who faced significant barriers.” Jackson brought together in his coalition various racial minorities, White liberals, left-of-center Democrats, trade unionists, feminists and LGBTQIA+ advocates to support his dynamic, but unsuccessful, run for US President in 1984. Or maybe Wike borrowed the idea from Kenya where, in 2002, and (LDP) together formed  National Alliance of Rainbow Coalition (NARC), whose candidate, won that year’s presidential elections with 62% of the vote.

Wike’s Rainbow Coalition is a poor carbon copy of Jesse Jackson’s. It has no clear racial, ideological, class or program underpinnings. Unlike Jackson, Wike is not running for president or any other elective post. In almost all respects, Wike is not Jackson. He is not a Reverend Father, but a rough and ready career politician. He does not have Jackson’s great personal history of being a very close aide of Reverend Martin Luther King Jnr. and of marching beside him during the epic American Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. If Wike did any marches, it was in the creeks of Rivers State to secure votes for himself or for candidates he supported, such as Rotimi Amaechi and Simi Fubara, all of whom he spectacularly failed out with.

Jesse Jackson was world famous for his quick thought and dazzling oratory. In 1984 when his opponents said that both Cuban President Fidel Castro and Syrian President Hafiz al-Assad used him to release US prisoners in their countries, Jackson said, “I don’t mind being used to free prisoners! I don’t mind being used to reunite families! I don’t mind being used in the service of peace!” On the other hand, the most quotable Wike quotes were when he told a Rivers traditional ruler to “Shut up! You, this small boy! You are nodding your head, with your head gear like Dan Fodio.” And when he told Navy Lieutenant Yerima to get out of the way so he could confiscate an Admiral’s piece of land.

Unlike Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, Wike Rainbow Coalition’s only publicly stated goal is to help President Bola Tinubu to get reelected in next year’s election. But with a very complicated caveat; while it fully supports the APC presidential candidate’s bid, it reserves for itself the right to field governorship, senatorial or other legislative candidates on the platforms of other political parties.

While the Presidency has yet to distance itself from this complicated arrangement, governors of the ruling APC are up in arms against it. Ogun, Kwara, Gombe and Imo APCs have already cried out over Wike’s activities in their states. After a meeting of the APC Governors’ Forum, their Chairman, Imo State Governor Hope Uzodinma, read a communique saying “The APC Governors Forum unanimously resolved that its members will not participate in, support or endorse any alliance or political arrangement capable of undermining the re-election of Mr. President, weakening the APC or adversely affecting any candidate of the party at all levels. In other words, the forum has no intention to support any candidate at any level that is not an APC candidate because our candidates who are contesting the election are being sponsored by our party.” It said its position “aligns with the expectations of Mr. President.”

At the weekend, both Zamfara State governor Dauda Lawal and Works Minister Dave Umahi also decried the Rainbow arrangement. While Lawal said Wike should either join APC or quit the federal cabinet, Umahi said there is nothing like Rainbow Coalition in his native Ebonyi State. On top of that, APC’s national working committee, after meeting in Maiduguri, also declared that it will work for APC candidates at all levels, a rejection of Rainbow Coalition.

While it is not yet clear if indeed the APC governors’ position “aligns with the expectations of Mr. President,” who appears to be very fond of Minister Wike, it is very clear that their position is diametrically opposed to Rainbow Coalition’s; it is either you support the total slate of APC candidates or you don’t, but cannot pick and choose who to support across a broad range of political parties. An individual voter can do that; in fact, sophisticated voters do that all the time, but a party man or woman is expected to support the party’s slate all through, otherwise, he is guilty of what in Nigerian politics is called anti-party activity.

Wike’s Rainbow Coalition is a first in Nigerian politics. We have had political alliances since the First Republic, but not with one leg in this party and another leg in another party. In the First Republic, NPC and NNDP formed the Nigeria National Alliance [NNA], while Action Group and NCNC aligned to form United Progressives Grand Alliance, UPGA. Both were whole-party alliances approved by their parties from top to bottom.

In the Second Republic too, we had semi-formal party alliances, such as NPN-NPP Accord and the Meeting of Progressive Governors [[UPN, GNPP and PRP], but each party retained its slate of candidates. What we instead had were defections; if one had fundamental disagreements with his party leaders, he defected to another party. Even governors did so, such as Mohamed Abubakar Rimi of Kano and Abubakar Barde of Gongola, who defected to NPP, and Mohamed Goni of Borno and Clement Isong of Cross River, who defected to UPN. As for ministers, several NPP members served as ministers in Alhaji Shehu Shagari’s NPN government under the terms of the NPN-NPP Accord, but when the accord fell apart in 1982, some of them resigned and remained with their party, while others, such as Foreign Affairs Minister Prof. Ishaya Audu of Kaduna, defected to NPN and retained his ministerial seat.

In the Fourth Republic too, PDP Presidents accommodated ministers from other parties either to reward them for underground support or to broaden their political base. Such as, when President Obasanjo appointed key Alliance for Democracy [AD] leader Chief Bola Ige into his cabinet, first as Power Minister and later as Attorney General and Minister of Justice. President Umaru Yar’adua also took in a few ANPP members as ministers, so President Bola Tinubu’s appointing Wike into his cabinet wasn’t a first. Only that, he gave him a powerful portfolio, a lot of latitude, high visibility and apparently a lot of resources. Wike started by splitting the main opposition PDP down the middle, through a combination of endless litigation and sponsoring dissident factions. There are three likely reasons for this historic deed; one is to punish the party for denying him its 2023 presidential ticket; for subverting its North-South rotation agreement [which, to be frank, President Goodluck Jonathan first subverted in 2011 and 2015] and also by refusing to make Wike its presidential candidate’s running mate. He thus created the G5 alliance of PDP governors that did anti-party and supported Tinubu.

Wike’s Rainbow Alliance was initially confined to Rivers State. Having anointed, then fell out with Governor Simi Fubara, he retained control of Rivers PDP structures, including a majority of State Assembly members, then used his federal position to seize the Rivers State APC structure, then merged the two and added some smaller parties, under whose platforms some candidates contested Local council elections, and made himself leader of the Rainbow Coalition of almost all the parties in the state. When Governor Fubara tried the same game and defected to APC, Wike still sidelined him and denied him the reelection ticket. He instead got House of Representatives Minority Leader Kingsley Chinda to defect to APC and gave him the ticket.  

Thus far, things had worked very well for Nyesom Wike. But he stretched his luck to breaking point by extending the Rainbow Coalition experiment to the national scale, kept up his support for Tinubu but sponsored governorship and other candidates in various states on non-APC platforms. That brought the current, high-level conflict with APC governors.

President Tinubu must now be making algebraic calculations. He wants to keep Wike, but with 31 APC governors in the kitty, with PDP now comatose and with the major opposition parties unable to unite behind a single candidate, the large bank of Rivers State votes that Wike offers is no longer as tempting for Tinubu as it was in 2023. Oga Wike should pause and ponder; what he sees as brightly coloured Rainbow might turn out to be a dark Solar Eclipse.

By Paul Ibe

Chief Femi Fani-Kayode has written a lengthy polemic against Atiku Abubakar. Length, however, is not evidence. Nor does repetition transform opinion, disputed recollection or allegation into fact.

There are several claims in his opinion article that require correction or, at the very least, proper context.

 The “seven attempts” argument

It is correct that Atiku has sought the presidency in different political cycles since 1993. But Fani-Kayode blurs an important distinction for the purposes of mischief.

Atiku was not a presidential candidate in a Nigerian general election in 1993, 2011 or 2015. Those were contests for party nominations. He was actually on the presidential ballot in 2007, 2019 and 2023. Having emerged as the ADC candidate for 2027, the coming election will be his fourth general-election presidential candidacy, not his seventh.

This matters because Fani-Kayode then compares Atiku with politicians from other countries by counting their actual presidential-election candidacies while counting Atiku’s unsuccessful party primaries as presidential elections. That is not a like-for-like comparison.

Abdoulaye Wade, for example, contested Senegal’s presidential election in 1978, 1983, 1988 and 1993 before winning on his fifth attempt in 2000. He subsequently won again in 2007 and lost in 2012.

More fundamentally, Nigeria’s Constitution does not disqualify anyone because of the number of times he has unsuccessfully sought election. Section 137 bars a person who has already been elected President twice; it does not impose a limit on how many times an eligible Nigerian may contest.

The decision whether persistence represents experience, ambition or something else belongs to voters, not to Fani-Kayode’s theology.

Seven political parties? Not quite so simple

Fani-Kayode also claims that Atiku has belonged to seven political parties.

That calculation apparently treats the People’s Front of Nigeria (PFN) as a political party. It was, in fact, one of the political associations formed during the Babangida transition. It was never registered as a political party. The military government rejected the associations and created the SDP and NRC instead. The PFN tendency subsequently moved into the SDP.

Political movement between parties is certainly a legitimate subject for scrutiny. But Fani-Kayode is an unusual person to present changing parties as evidence of peculiar moral failure. He himself joined the APC, returned to the PDP in 2014, repeatedly denounced the APC afterwards and declared in 2019 that he would rather die than join it — only to return to the APC in September 2021.

Party switching may be criticised. But the standard should apply consistently.

What really happened in 2003?

Fani-Kayode presents his interpretation of the Obasanjo-Atiku conflict as though nobody disputes it.

The historical record is considerably more complicated. Atiku has repeatedly stated that PDP governors approached him before the 2003 election and urged him to challenge President Obasanjo for the party ticket, but that he declined. He repeated that account publicly in 2021, saying that he relied on the party’s understanding that presidential power should remain in the South-West for eight years.

Earlier, he similarly told an interviewer that the governors wanted him to run against Obasanjo and that he refused, preferring to remain his running mate.

Other published accounts confirm that powerful PDP governors did indeed consider replacing Obasanjo and approached Atiku. Accounts differ significantly, however, on Atiku’s exact conduct and the negotiations that followed.

Fani-Kayode is entitled to his recollection. He is not entitled to convert a disputed episode in Nigerian political history into incontrovertible proof of “treachery”.

Mambilla: what the tribunal actually said

Fani-Kayode also bundles Mambilla together with Siemens, Halliburton and other matters to create the impression of established corruption findings.

The recent Mambilla arbitration deserves much greater precision. The ICC tribunal examined the circumstances surrounding a $500,000 transfer made by Sunrise promoter Leno Adesanya through China Castle Investments to an account belonging to Atiku’s then-wife, Jennifer Douglas. The tribunal rejected Adesanya’s explanation because adequate contemporaneous documentation supporting the alleged foreign-exchange transaction was not produced. It described the circumstances as raising significant concerns.

That part should not be concealed. But neither should the sentence that immediately limits what can legitimately be claimed about Atiku.

The tribunal expressly stated that there was no evidence in the arbitration record that Vice-President Atiku Abubakar actually exercised his official duties in a manner that fostered the award of the contract to Sunrise.

The arbitration did not impose criminal liability on Atiku, nor did it find that he corruptly awarded the Mambilla contract to Sunrise. Indeed, the former Vice President did not have the final say in the award of that contract.

An investigation may examine whatever evidence exists. Investigation is not conviction, suspicion is not proof, and political commentary cannot manufacture a finding that the tribunal itself did not make.

The $1.2 million American engagement

Then there is Fani-Kayode’s description of a “foreign hired gun” supposedly employed for $1.2 million.

There is no secret contract to uncover. The engagement between Atiku and Washington-based Von Batten-Montague-York was publicly filed with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The filing states that the firm was retained for government-affairs representation and strategic advisory work, including policy positioning, briefing materials, institutional outreach and engagement with Congress and executive-branch officials. The twelve-month compensation disclosed in the filing is $1.2 million.

The same filing specifically requires compliance with FARA, US ethics requirements and applicable election laws.

People may debate the wisdom or cost of employing an international strategic firm. But calling a publicly registered professional engagement evidence of some sinister conspiracy adds heat, not facts.

The subsidy argument also misrepresents Atiku’s proposal

Fani-Kayode says Atiku wants simply to “restore the oil subsidy” and thereby destroy Nigeria’s economy. That is not the policy Atiku has publicly described.

His stated proposal is a production subsidy restricted to petroleum products refined in Nigeria, rather than a return to subsidising imported petrol. Atiku has said imported products would not qualify and that the programme would operate with a fixed spending ceiling, National Assembly approval and independent auditing.

There are legitimate questions about its cost, implementation and compatibility with the Petroleum Industry Act. Indeed, the Presidency itself has raised those questions.

That is precisely the debate Nigerians should have: fiscal cost, legality, crude pricing, domestic refining, transportation costs and what policy can sustainably reduce pump prices.

Calling a production subsidy identical to the old import-subsidy system avoids that debate rather than answering it.

And then there is the moral sermon

Much of Fani-Kayode’s article eventually leaves politics altogether and wanders into divine injunctions, biblical vengeance and declarations about whom God will or will not permit to become President.

Those propositions are matters of personal belief, not evidence.

And once political disagreement is turned into a judgment on personal character, consistency becomes important.

Fani-Kayode’s own public record has generated substantial controversy. His writings about the Igbo have attracted accusations of ethnic stereotyping and hate speech. His own published writings record the controversy. Academic research on hate-inducing political speech has also cited some of his ethnic characterisations.

His former wife, Precious Chikwendu, alleged domestic violence in an affidavit before an FCT High Court. Fani-Kayode categorically denied her allegations through his representatives. The responsible way to state that record is precisely that: an allegation was made and it was denied.

Similarly, when Fani-Kayode verbally attacked Daily Trust journalist Eyo Charles in 2020 for asking who was financing his travels, the incident was captured publicly and Fani-Kayode later apologised, saying his conduct was indefensible and that he had disappointed himself. Truth be told, the man has been disapointing himself for decades. That was why he ended up in Ghana in the first place for “drycleaning.”

None of those episodes proves or disproves anything about Atiku Abubakar. That is exactly the point. Political arguments should rise or fall on evidence rather than character assassination.

Let the facts compete

Fani-Kayode is free to dislike Atiku, disagree with his policies, question his political choices and prefer President Bola Tinubu. But history should not be rewritten to serve those preferences.

Atiku has sought presidential nominations repeatedly. That is true. He has changed political parties like Fani-Kayode. That is true.

The Mambilla tribunal raised serious questions about a $500,000 transaction involving his former wife. That too is true.

But it is equally true that Atiku has only appeared on Nigeria’s presidential-election ballot three times before 2027; that the tribunal expressly said there was no evidence before it that he used his official duties to facilitate the Sunrise contract; that his American strategic engagement is publicly registered under FARA; and that his present petroleum proposal is structured as support for domestic production rather than a resurrection of the old import-subsidy architecture.

Those distinctions matter. In public discourse, opinion is free. But opinion should never be presented as a substitute for fact. Paul Ibe is Media Adviser to Atiku Abubakar, Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress and Vice President Nigeria, 1999

When you hear that a megastar, someone you’ve long idolised, is coming to town, you want to be there by all means — to be right in the crowd, to watch him perform live on stage. You want to sing and dance along with him, and to, ultimately, acquire the bragging rights that you have seen him in the flesh. You want to ask your mates: “Have you ever seen him with your own eyes before?” That will be a badge of honour. This was something to look forward to. And that was me in 1981 when the late Chief Silas Bandele Daniyan, the Ojomu of Mopa, decided to bring King Sunny Ade (KSA), the juju music legend, to our hometown for the funeral of his mother, the late Mrs Abigail Oni Daniyan.

For kids like me, Daniyan was about to do Mopa proud again. He had already made us proud by serving as private secretary to Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, governor-general of Nigeria (1960-63), on secondment from the government of Sir Ahmadu Bello, the premier of the Northern Region and Sardauna of Sokoto. In the 1950s, the Sardauna had awarded him a scholarship to study economics at University of Hull, England. We believe he was the first economist from the north. He joined the northern civil service and rose to become cabinet secretary before his secondment to the Great Zik. He worked at the Nigerian Industrial Development Bank (NIDB) from 1964 to 1976, retiring as MD.

And now, Daniyan was bringing the legendary KSA to Mopa!

My grandfather, Chief Rowland Osaoloro Oludoyi, a veteran of World War II who was nicknamed “Odomode Soja” (“the young soldier”), had a strict curfew — you must be home by 7pm no matter where you were on the face of Planet Earth. It was a wake-keep and KSA would definitely not come on stage until past midnight — usually after the opening acts had entertained the guests. We thought there was no way on earth my grandfather would allow primary school kids to stay out that late, even though there were no Boko Haram terrorists or bandits at the time. But Baba himself was a fan of KSA, so it was no miracle that he reluctantly granted us a special dispensation to attend the event.

I attended the wake with much older cousins — but the fairy tale did not end well for us. At 9pm, it began to rain. Not drizzle. Rain. Rainstorm. It was an open-air event with just a few canopies. We ran back home wet, disappointed and dejected. We were told the following day that Sunny Ade came on stage past midnight, after the storm, and gave an amazing performance. We already watched his shows on TV and knew how electric he could be, especially with a guitar strapped across his shoulders. This was not the kind of experience you would enjoy through TV screens or third-party narrations. You needed to be right in the middle of it, soaked in the rhythm and lost in the rhymes.

For KSA, the Ondo prince born in Osogbo on September 22, 1946 to a church organist dad and a chorister mum who was also a trader, an event in 1981 changed his life. Island Records, the UK-based record label, had just lost a global star, the legendary Bob Marley, to complications of cancer. They needed to add another third-world artiste to their impressive line-up, which included U2, Grace Jones, Robert Palmer, Steve Winwood, Toots and the Maytals, and Black Uhuru. In 1982, they turned to KSA, who was already a megastar in Nigeria, with his own record label and a nightclub to boot. Island Records only “discovered” him in the same way Mungo Park “discovered” the Niger River.

KSA, who was born as Sunday Adeniyi Adegeye, was soon getting nominated for a Grammy after just a couple of LPs. It was a major break. His first for Island Records, ‘Juju Music’, released in 1982, happens to be my favourite of his over 100 albums, most of which I have listened to in my life journey. As kids, we were not free to listen to KSA: his lyrics could be X-rated — describing a woman’s bosom and waistline in very undressing ways, and sexual acts in barely disguised phrases. With our church minds as kids, we were more comfortable singing and dancing to the juju music of Ebenezer Obey, the Chief Commander. We could not repeat some of Sunny Ade’s lyrics before our elders.

The ‘Juju Music’ album was unusual. For a start, it had seven tracks. Popular Yoruba music leaned heavily on long-running one trackers covering a whole side of an album. That was what we grew up with. Once you started listening to a tape or an LP, you were stuck with it for 20 minutes. Radio stations would just play them in bits. No station would devote 20 minutes to one artiste. The long-running tracks were understandable within the party culture: people would dance for hours and there were instrumental interludes to stave off boredom. Martin Meissonnier, the producer, said the basic recording took just two days — although they had spent weeks trying to shorten the songs.

The Island Records influence saw KSA produce short tracks. This was considered commercially necessary: long tracks were difficult to fit into conventional radio playlists. Fela, the Afrobeat king, refused to adapt to the Western model and had issues with the record labels. He created the Afrobeat rhythm from jazz and highlife, imposing his fingerprint and personality on it with his percussion, multiple horns, pidgin English, and chants. Nobody was going to take that away from him. KSA was pragmatic: he needed to grow his audience. He retained the essence of African music — the melody, the architecture — but also accommodated the Western taste. It was a win-win.

A new Sunny Ade exploded in the 1980s, becoming perhaps Nigeria’s other global star after Fela. Exposed to more sophisticated studio equipment, advanced sound engineering and wider marketing network at Island Records, KSA took juju music to a new level. He had the freedom to explore his talent at a level not previously seen. My late cousin, Eyitayo Osho, was a big fan of KSA in the 1980s and often told me tales of his stagecraft and the wonders he did with the electric guitars. It was no exaggeration. His strength was not just the melodic singing: he was able to interlock rhythm, bass, pedal steel (Hawaiian) and lead guitars to create a groove. He introduced the Hawaiian guitar to juju.

KSA was a master of the talking drums, and he had some of the best drummers in Alhaji Timmy Olaitan, who usually took the lead, Rasaki Aladokun and Jimoh Gbadamosi. The Western audience could only enjoy the rhythm of the talking drums; for those who speak the Yoruba language, which is tonal, what a talking drum offers is more than a rhythm. It was a conversation. It was call and response. It is common for listeners to compose their own lyrics by imitating the talking drums. Music critics found in KSA a creative music artiste who stamped his authority on his genre. His use of Hawaiian guitar, in particular, was hailed for creating a bridge to several cultures beyond Africa.

For an artiste whose debut album in 1967 sold just 23 copies, no one could have predicted that he would go on to become a global star, drawing huge crowds to tours in Europe, America and Japan in an era when very few African acts were welcome on the world stage. His success opened the doors for many Africans. Unlike today when globalisation has catapulted many African artistes to the centre of global entertainment, KSA’s generation tilled the ground with bare hands. Today’s artistes are getting international collaborations with relative ease, unlike in KSA’s days. And to think Stevie Wonder played the harmonica on ‘Ase’ in KSA’s ‘Aura’ album in 1984. I bet you know Stevie Wonder.

Some Nigerians did not believe KSA would clock 80 — but he just did. And he is still looking strong and classy. There was the fear in 1991 that his rumoured lifestyle would ruin him one day. Maybe things were exaggerated, but he did seem to enjoy life to the fullest. But the troubling part was that he was actually rumoured dead. For a long while, he was out of circulation, having fallen gravely ill. Rumours were everywhere about how his lifestyle had ruined his life, even though without proof. He survived the ailment nonetheless, and he released a song, ‘Aye Nreti Eleya’, in 1992 as his response to the rumours and conjectures. He even had a word for us in the media for our intrusiveness!

KSA, whose songs were used as soundtracks in many Hollywood films in the 1980s, was nominated for the Grammy in 1984 for ‘Synchro System’, which I found to be a slower-paced remake of ‘Synchro System Movement’, released in 1974. He was the third African to be nominated for a Grammy, after Miriam Makeba and Hugh Masekela, both South Africans. ‘Synchro System’ was nominated under “best ethnic or traditional folk recording”. Clifton Chenier, the American pioneer of zydeco music, won it. KSA was again nominated in 1999 for ‘Odu’ under the “best world music” category, but Brazil’s Gilberto Gil got the prize. Regardless, KSA is always a king, even without the crown.

Happy birthday to the man affectionately known as the Minister of Enjoyment.

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

STIFLING STENCH

Lagos state is glamorously called the Centre of Excellence. It is the state I call home, so I would not like to say otherwise. But, yes, it has been a sad few months with refuse piling up everywhere and the state government absolutely unable to clear it. We have definitely gone backwards. We started overcoming the debilitating refuse collection problem in 2003 and we kept it going for a while — until recently. There is a clear capacity problem, worsened by poor planning and a lack of foresight. When the commissioner for the environment once derisively questioned a Twitter user if he had taken his bath “today”, I was shocked. That is what public communication has become. Putrid.

ON ‘OBIDEBT’

The unending media war between Prof Chukwuma Soludo, the Anambra governor, and one of his predecessors, Mr Peter Obi, is enjoyable but unnecessary. Obi, the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), appears to have boxed himself into a corner by always celebrating not leaving any debts behind as a governor. He even promised to withdraw from the presidential race if it is proved that he owed. Soludo is now releasing the records. By the way, debt is not a crime in public finance. The key thing is having the means to repay and ensuring that the funds are not misapplied or embezzled. There is no need to make a fetish of not borrowing. Simple. 

YAYI AND YEWA

I hope those salivating about the dream Oduduwa Republic are following events in Ogun state. Senator Solomon Adeola (Yayi), the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), has been told that he is not a Yewa but an Ekiti man and should go back to his state to contest. I know Mrs Aminatu Abiola, his stepmother, has dispelled the claim, but that is not my interest. It is the myth about “oneness”. Some people think if you break up Nigeria, there will suddenly be ethnic harmony in the new countries. No. If you harbour chauvinism in your heart, it will always find expression. A reminder, perhaps, that drawing a new border would not erase old prejudices. Fact.

NO COMMENT

Months after telling the whole world that President Bola Tinubu would attend the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), Dr Jimoh Ibrahim, Nigeria’s permanent representative to the UN, has changed tune. “What do you think President Tinubu is coming to do?” he said, after Tinubu failed to show up. “The presidents are allowed in the UN under UNGA for 15 minutes. Is that the reason why he should board the flight and be here for 15 minutes?” He said Vice-President Kashim Shettima, who represented Tinubu, attended high-level meetings. “This is the kind of engagement we want,” he added. But he didn’t know all this when he promised that Tinubu would attend? Wonderful.

EDGY OPTIMIST By Obinna Chima

The 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 81), an annual gathering that brings together 193 member states of the United Nations (UN) is underway in New York.

While this year, the theme of this high-level event is, “Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: A United Nations That Delivers for All,” it is instructive to note that the UN has continued to struggle to deliver equally for all with wars, humanitarian crises, widening inequalities and unresolved global challenges exposing the limits of a system created to promote peace, security and collective prosperity.

Alongside the assembly, the World Economic Forum will hold its Sustainable Development Impact Meetings, convening leaders from politics, business and civil society.

Every September, world leaders from UN member states gather at the organisation’s headquarters in New York to debate the most important global issues.

This year’s session takes place at a pivotal moment for multilateral cooperation. Geopolitical tensions, conflict, pressure on development financing, rapid technological change and a warming planet continue to test the international system.

The UN was created in 1945, following the devastation of the Second World War, with a central mission of maintaining international peace and security. The UN tries to accomplish this by working to prevent conflict, helping parties in conflict make peace, deploying peacekeepers, and creating the conditions to allow peace to hold and flourish. The UN Security Council has the primary responsibility for international peace and security.

Also established in 1945 under the Charter of the UN, the General Assembly occupies a central position as the chief deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the UN.  It provides a unique forum for multilateral discussion of the full spectrum of international issues covered by the Charter. It also plays a central role in the process of standard-setting and the codification of international law.

Since the first UNGA session convened on 10 January 1946 in London with 51 countries represented, the Assembly has grown to include 193 member states. In 2023, 88 Heads of State, 42 Heads of Government, and over 650 ministers attended the debate.

However, recent global developments have intensified calls for far-reaching reforms of the organisation. Escalating wars and geopolitical tensions across several regions continue to test the credibility of the body. Yet in many of these situations, the UN appears unable to move beyond issuing press statements condemning the attacks.

Since the joint Israeli and US attacks on Iran and the Iranian retaliatory strikes on Israel and the Gulf region, which led to disruptions and restrictions of movement around the Strait of Hormuz, a situation that disrupted global energy supplies, maritime trade and freedom of navigation, the UN’s response has largely centred on condemnation, calls for restraint, de-escalation, diplomacy and the restoration of freedom of navigation.

Yet, for countries and populations caught in conflicts beyond their control, repeated calls for restraint raise a fundamental question about whether condemnation without effective enforcement can deliver the peace and security the UN was created to guarantee.

Wars have dire economic consequences. History shows that while bombing may remove rulers, they  rarely improve the lives of ordinary people. This is evident in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Since the First World War, which saw the creation of the League of Nations in 1920 and thereafter, the UN, rules have been made to bring order to chaos, and human societies have long sought to craft and formalise them.

The Charter of the UN, its founding document, places emphasis on the territorial integrity and political independence of states. These widely agreed principles are meant to prevent war, especially wars of choice.

But the unequal nature of the Security Council, persistence of proxy wars and violent conflict have shown how enforcement of international law remains uneven, especially when powerful states act outside collective mechanisms.

That is why given the profound changes in global  politics, economics and security since its establishment 80 years ago, the United Nations must reform its structures and processes to align its goals with present realities.

Nigeria, like many other members countries and regional groups are demanding a fundamental restructuring of the United Nations Security Council. They strongly believe the composition of the security council must reflect the realities of the contemporary world rather than preserve the distribution of power established at the end of the Second World War.

Many of the UN’s institutional arrangements and decision-making mechanisms still reflect a bygone era, failing to adequately respond to the complex challenges and power dynamics that have emerged over the past several decades.

The main focus should be the reform of the Security Council, the most powerful UN institution with the most potential for bringing change. The UN Charter was written as a result of the bloodiest conflict in modern history, and what should be learnt from that is that the international system should not wait until after wars end to build institutions that ensure peace.

The UN Security Council ought to be the cornerstone of peacekeeping policy and the growing trend of unilateral interventions severely erodes the aspiration of collective security founded in the UN system. It also sets a dangerous precedent that larger powers can usurp smaller ones should they choose to do so.

That is why world leaders at UNGA 81 must work towards enthroning an international system where military intervention is not governed by the temperaments of individuals, as opposed to an international framework. The world becomes a far less stable place when policies are based on the mood of powerful Presidents instead of multilateral decision-making.

Multilateralism is the only realistic way to address the problems of today. Alone, no country can prevent a pandemic, stabilise the climate, secure resilient supply chains, regulate Artificial Intelligence, ensure financial stability or deliver sustainable development. Alone, no country, however powerful, can build lasting peace.

The focus should be how to enthrone multilateralism that is strong, effective, representative and capable of delivering for people. Equally, the world needs multilateralism that protects human rights, strengthens democracy and advances gender equality.

Equally, Agenda 2030 is in danger. Progress towards its Sustainable Development Goals is falling behind, putting the UN’s ambition of achieving inclusive and sustainable development by 2030 at risk. Eq

 Inequality continues to widen, leaving millions of people behind as wealth and opportunities remain unevenly distributed. Hunger and poverty also persist, underscoring the widening gap between the UN’s development aspirations and the realities confronting vulnerable populations.

Therefore, reforming the UN is imperative to restore credibility, strengthen accountability and ensure that international decision-making delivers tangible results for all nations and peoples, not just FOR the most powerful.

By Okey Ikechukwu

At the time he wrote The Politics of Biafra and the Future of Nigeria nearly ten years ago, Hon Chudi Offodile probably thought he was just contributing to enlightened discourse on the following three issues: (1) The Biafra and Igbo question against the background of obvious persecution and (not-so-obvious) self-inflicted problems; (2) The convoluted relationship crisis between the various ethnic groups in Nigeria, with emphasis on avoidable historical missteps, and (3) The challenges of nationhood and inclusive leadership in a fractured and fractious nation that has been on the path of nihilism for far too long.

Offodile’s book presents thoughts that should be made general knowledge and (possibly) recommended as compulsory literature for his Igbo kith and kin. Yes, compulsory reading because this presents a unique re-consideration and re-interpretation of the very history of the Nigerian State. It uses the Biafran experience as a peg on which to hang many things that should have since been said and done about the Federal Republic of Nigeria; but which have been left unsaid and undone.

One of the things I noted after reading the book back then was that it stood out in its attempt to refocus Ndigbo on their real problems. The author called for realism.  He invited Ndigbo to reinvent their sense of history, instead of always settling for hysteria in their public political commentary. And the book was well received. It was well publicized. It was also reviewed by several individuals.

I refrained from public commentary on the book at the time  for three main reasons, as follows: (1) There were already enough reviews and comments, one or two of which were so “misrepresentative” of the thrust of the work that I thought it was best to let the season pass, (2) Sometimes the best way to help a cause is to bring it up when it will attract the greatest attention – which is when no one else is talking about it, and (3) I did not think that Offodile’s passionately argued narrative should suffer the indignity of being treated as exciting “seasonal” literature and nothing more.

A work that makes a serious attempt to connect the history of the Nigeria–Biafra War with the unresolved political questions of contemporary Nigeria, and which examines the war and the evolution of Igbo political thought in a post-war Nigeria which also addressing the continuing debate on restructuring, federalism and self-determination deserves more than passing attention.

One important question that stares at us from Offodile’s book is this: “What does the Biafran experience tell us about the political structure and future of Nigeria, and especially the future and fortunes of Ndigbo within it?” A superficial reader can easily assume from the title that the book offers a conventional account of the Biafran War. This was the mistake of some commentators and reviewers, as they expressed their views without fully understanding the book under reference.

The author was not satisfied to simply navigate the subject of Igbo identity, the two military interventions of 1966, the Aburi accord and its aftermath, the civil war and its politics, and the roles played by such key Nnamdi Azikiwe and Emeka Ojukwu. He was also not satisfied to merely take the reader through the realities of post-war Igbo politics and the emergence of later-day self-determination movements, no! He rounds it all up by resolutely leading the conversation towards the possibility of a better and greater Nigerian future, with restructuring as an issue for serious consideration.

Offodile challenges dated interpretations, caked perspectives and fossilized assumptions about the nature and causes of the Igbo problem in Nigeria. He examines the historical and political roles of Nnamdi Azikiwe Emeka Ojukwu, and Gowon, while not leaving out Achebe over aspects of pre-independence NCNC politics and Azikiwe’s historical role. And it must be said here, for the record, that one of the core strengths of this book is the writer’s bold interrogation of respected individuals and views.

His discussion of the Aburi question is particularly important because he does not pussyfoot on this event that led to one of the greatest crises in Nigeria’s history. And it is from this singular fact that the author deftly ventures into his discourse on  federalism, trust, political leadership and the consequences of failing to reach a durable constitutional settlement in a nation like Nigeria.

And it all fits the book’s broader perspective and argument, namely, that the best way to understand the Biafran crisis is to first admit that it was not just a purely and exclusively ethnic conflict. It had an underlying political economy, a dimension that can be traced to a crisis of constitutional structure, the question of political power and competing ideas about how Nigeria should be governed.

Concerning federalism, the book posits a dramatically consequential proposition that calls for an “inclusive, equitable and proper federal structure”. Beyond that, he warns that failure, or refusal, to reform Nigeria’s political structure holds the prospect of continuously generating lasting instability and unending demands for self-determination.

Offodile avoids the very convenient and lazy approach of presenting the Biafra question simply as: “Should Nigeria remain one country or should Biafra return? He notes, instead, that we may need to consider this more unsettling and complicated question: “Can Nigeria be restructured sufficiently to make coexistence more politically rewarding and acceptable to its constituent units”?

And it is here, and also in this regard, that the book establishes its stature and relevance as a work of great national significance. It is not about Ndigbo or the South-East, no! It pushes forth an embedded problem in the question of how to accommodate diversity within a functioning federation. With that, what stands forth is no longer partly or exclusively Igbo issue, but a Nigerian problem.

Then comes Offodile’s telling submission on Igbo politics. His criticism of aspects of Igbo political leadership after the war has every leg to stand upon. He does not join the bandwagon of those who hold marginalization and “external” forces responsible for all Igbo problems in Nigeria since after the civil war.

His bold assertion that the quality of leadership in Igboland has a hand in the matter has more than passing merit. His submissions on the roles played by internal political failures in contributing to, reinforcing or orchestrating the problems are mostly spot on.  

He distances himself from the wholesale thesis of Igbo victimhood being touted by presumed defenders of Igbo interests. This level of objectivity, insight and the courage to speak up adds fillip to the strength of this book. It makes it a strong, rigorous and radically important contribution to the conversation because a historically serious account has to be able to examine both external structures and internal agency in any political or historical engagement.

As for those who have argued that Offodile made his political, constitutional and other preferences very obvious in the book, I ask: “Why would any self-respecting individual put pen to paper unless he has something he believes and want to say. To say that his advocacy of restructuring and competitive federalism means that he has taken sides in a debate he is moderating is to overlook that fact that he convened the debate simply in order to push a point of view.

He was not making any neutral, antiseptic submission, but he is not subjecting the reader to a detached historical reconstruction. He set out to push a particular narrative and a particular conception of what Nigeria’s political future should be and how to go about it. That only invites reflection and possible alternative points of view. It shows that the author did not set out to perform an academic exercise.

A determined advocacy validates itself if, in making its case, it tenders cogent arguments without precluding other points of view. He has given his interpretation to complicated events and is inviting the reader to on a journey that should interest anyone who is interested in war and military history, power politics and much more.

It is to the eternal credit of the author that he drives home the point that the idea of Biafra goes far beyond a dared historical event that ended in January 1970. The Politics of Biafra and the Future of Nigeria gives us a perspective on Biafra that exposes it as an unresolved political national blight, with implications that continue to influence and also haunt our politics to this day.

In connecting the civil war to later movements, such as MASSOB, and to contemporary arguments about restructuring and self-determination, Offodile argues that the political conditions that precipitated the original crisis have not been properly, or adequately, addressed. He also implies that historical grievances can always reappear in new political forms in the steady match of national events.

All things considered, Ndigbo should take another look at Chudi Offodile’s book, as reviewed above. It questions received wisdom or (more appropriately) received ignorance, it emphasizes the true political history of the Biafran crisis, it presents Azikiwe and other actors in a new light, it establishes undeniable linkages between the Civil War to post-war Igbo politics and argues that Nigeria’s constitutional structure remains central to the country’s political difficulties.

This book invites the reader to move from “Who was right in the Civil War?” to the more challenging concern of determining the type of political arrangement can create the right ecosystem for Nigerians to live together as one people. And it is against this background that the book has become even more relevant today.

Ndigbo, Remember Offodile’s Book.

BY Mukhail Adetokunbo Abiru

Nigeria’s economic management has reached an important inflection point. After a difficult period of painful but necessary macroeconomic adjustment, there are now clearer signs that the foundations of greater stability are being established. Inflation has fallen substantially, the foreign exchange market is functioning with greater efficiency, external buffers have been rebuilt, the banking system has been recapitalized, investor confidence has improved and economic growth has strengthened. Against this background, two recent developments deserve particular attention: the Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank of Nigeria on fiscal-monetary policy coordination, and the decision of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) to reduce the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) by 350 basis points, from 26.5 per cent to 23 per cent.

I commend both developments. Taken together, they suggest that Nigeria’s economic policy conversation is gradually moving from emergency stabilization towards the more difficult task of converting macroeconomic stability into broad-based prosperity.
The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank of Nigeria is particularly significant. The agreement provides for greater consultation, information sharing and joint assessment of policies between the fiscal and monetary authorities, with the stated objectives including inflation control, improved government borrowing and liquidity management, and protection of private-sector access to credit. Importantly, the initiative is intended to make coordination more institutional and less dependent on the personalities occupying public offices at any particular time. This is the right direction.

It goes without saying that fiscal policy and monetary policy are different instruments, operated by different institutions and governed by different mandates, but they ultimately operate on the same economy and affect the same citizens, businesses and investors. Fiscal policy influences aggregate demand through taxation, public expenditure and borrowing, while monetary policy influences financial conditions through interest rates, liquidity, credit conditions and the foreign exchange environment. It is therefore neither desirable nor realistic for the two arms of economic policy to operate in complete isolation.

Coordination, however, must not be confused with subordination. The independence of the Central Bank of Nigeria, particularly its operational independence in the conduct of monetary policy, must remain sacrosanct. The purpose of coordination should be to ensure that fiscal and monetary policies do not inadvertently work at cross-purposes.
This is why the new framework should go beyond the signing of an MoU. The collaboration should be institutionalized through a permanent Fiscal-Monetary Policy Coordination Council comprising the Ministry of Finance, the CBN and other relevant economic management institutions, with clearly defined terms of reference. Such a body should meet regularly, operate on the basis of transparent protocols and focus on macroeconomic forecasts, debt-management implications, liquidity conditions, inflation risks, foreign-exchange developments and the financing implications of major government programmes.

There should also be systematic sharing of high-quality data and economic projections. Differences in assumptions about oil prices, exchange rates, revenue performance, liquidity, debt-service costs and inflation can produce conflicting policy signals. A common macroeconomic information framework would help reduce such inconsistencies without compromising the confidentiality of monetary-policy deliberations.

Another useful reform would be to strengthen the transparency of the coordination process. The public should know the broad objectives and institutional responsibilities, even though the CBN’s confidential deliberations and market-sensitive information must remain protected. Parliamentary oversight can also play a constructive role by requiring periodic reports on macroeconomic coordination, without seeking to direct monetary-policy decisions.

The National Assembly, in particular, has an important constitutional role to play here. Through legislation, budget scrutiny and oversight, Parliament can help create the institutional environment in which fiscal discipline, debt sustainability and monetary-policy credibility reinforce one another. The objective should be a system in which coordination is predictable and rules-based, rather than dependent upon informal relationships between individual officeholders.

The Case for the 350-Basis-Point Rate Reduction
The MPC’s decision to reset the MPR at 23 percent from 26.5 percent is equally significant. The decision followed several months of monetary restraint. At its July 2026 meeting, the MPC had retained the MPR at 26.5 percent, after a 50-basis-point reduction in February. The latest decision therefore represents a much more substantial recalibration of the policy rate. The CBN simultaneously adjusted the standing facilities corridor while retaining the existing cash reserve requirements.
The timing is important. The Nigerian economy has spent a considerable period under aggressive monetary tightening. That tightening was painful, but it was necessary to restore macroeconomic credibility and address significant inflationary and external imbalances.

The results are increasingly visible: headline inflation has fallen to 15.39 percent in August 2026, from 15.43 percent in July and 23.14 percent a year earlier. Month-on-month inflation declined much more sharply, from 1.57 percent in July to 0.71 percent in August, while core inflation also moderated. The external position has strengthened materially. Nigeria’s overall balance of payments recorded a surplus of $3.51 billion in the second quarter of 2026, while the current-account surplus rose to $7.54 billion.

Foreign-exchange conditions have also improved. The gap between official and parallel-market rates has narrowed considerably, reflecting improved price discovery and greater liquidity in the formal market. In September, for example, the reported parallel-market premium was around 4.6 percent at one point, while the CBN has previously reported periods in which the gap between the formal and bureau-de-change markets remained below 5 percent.
External reserves have also been rebuilt impressively. Gross reserves stood at $55.25 billion as of September 18, 2026, according to the CBN, representing the highest level in about 18 years and sufficient to finance over 11 months of imports of goods and services.

The banking system is stronger as well. The CBN’s recapitalization exercise concluded with 33 banks meeting the new capital requirements and the sector raising approximately N4.65 trillion in fresh capital, with participation from both domestic and international investors. This has materially strengthened the industry’s capital buffers and its capacity to absorb shocks and support economic activity.

Investor confidence has likewise benefited from the broader reform process. Moody’s recently revised Nigeria’s sovereign outlook from stable to positive, citing improvements in the country’s external position, foreign-exchange market, reserves and monetary-policy transmission. S&P Global Ratings upgraded Nigeria to B in May 2026, while Fitch affirmed its B rating with a stable outlook in April.

Economic growth has also remained positive. Real GDP expanded by 4.43 percent year-on-year in the second quarter of 2026, up from 3.89 percent in the first quarter, reflecting improved performance in both the oil and non-oil sectors.
These developments should not be interpreted to mean that Nigeria’s economic challenges have disappeared. Inflation remains well above the levels Nigerians would consider comfortable; food prices remain a major concern; energy costs are volatile; unemployment and household purchasing power remain serious issues; and fiscal and structural constraints continue to limit the economy’s productive capacity. Indeed, renewed increases in international oil prices and domestic fuel costs illustrate how vulnerable the economy remains to external shocks.
But there is an important distinction between an economy in macroeconomic distress and an economy that has achieved sufficient stability to begin recalibrating policy. Nigeria increasingly belongs in the latter category.

From Stabilization to Welfare
This is where the next phase of economic management becomes critical. Macroeconomic stability is not an end in itself. It is a platform for improving the lives of citizens.
For the ordinary Nigerian, lower inflation, a more stable naira, stronger reserves and better sovereign credit assessments are important, but they become truly meaningful only when they translate into jobs, affordable credit, increased production, lower business costs, higher real incomes and improved household purchasing power. Consistent with the renewed Hope Agenda of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the central question before the fiscal and monetary authorities should therefore now be: How do we convert macroeconomic stability into improved welfare and productive economic activity?

This is particularly important because there are already signs that demand remains weak in important segments of the economy. The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria has reported that manufacturers were struggling with nearly N2 trillion in unsold inventory, with firms reportedly cutting prices and margins in an effort to move products amid weak consumer demand. This is a warning that deserves serious policy attention.

An economy cannot achieve sustainable growth simply by producing goods; there must be sufficient purchasing power and access to finance to enable those goods to be bought. If manufacturers cannot sell, they will reduce production. If production falls, employment suffers. If employment and incomes weaken, demand becomes even weaker. This can create a damaging cycle of low demand, reduced production and declining investment.

The significant reduction in the MPR is therefore welcome because, if effectively transmitted through the financial system, it can help reduce the cost of borrowing for businesses, improve access to credit, encourage investment and working-capital financing, reduce the cost of government domestic borrowing and stimulate aggregate economic activity.
But the crucial phrase is effective transmission. A reduction in the policy rate that does not translate into lower lending rates and increased productive credit would have only a limited impact on the real economy. Monetary policy must therefore move beyond the announcement of a lower benchmark rate to ensuring that the financial system actually transmits the benefit to households and businesses.

This is especially important following the successful recapitalization of the banking industry. The recapitalization was designed not merely to make banks bigger and safer, but also to create institutions with greater capacity to finance the expansion of the Nigerian economy. Banks raised N4.65 trillion in new capital precisely to strengthen resilience and enhance their capacity to support economic growth.

The next test, therefore, is credit deployment. If banks have stronger balance sheets but private-sector credit remains prohibitively expensive or inaccessible, an important objective of recapitalization and monetary easing will have been missed.

Building a Sustainably Lower-Interest-Rate Economy
Nigeria must, however, recognize that the CBN alone cannot create a permanently low-interest-rate economy. The policy rate is only one component of the price of credit. Sustainable reduction in lending rates requires an ecosystem in which inflation, fiscal deficits, government borrowing, bank operating costs, credit risk, infrastructure constraints and expectations all move in a favourable direction.

First, fiscal authorities must strengthen fiscal discipline. Government borrowing competes with the private sector for available domestic liquidity. A credible medium-term fiscal framework, stronger revenue mobilization and better expenditure efficiency will reduce pressure on domestic financing and create more room for private-sector credit.
Second, government must deepen the domestic debt market while extending the maturity profile of public borrowing. Predictable debt issuance and effective cash management can reduce volatility in the money market and help establish a more stable yield curve.

Third, the CBN should strengthen monetary-policy transmission. Banks must be able to price loans transparently, while competition in the financial system should be encouraged. Greater development of credit infrastructure, including reliable credit information and collateral-registration systems, can reduce the risk premium embedded in lending rates.
Fourth, Nigeria must address the structural cost of doing banking business. Electricity, security, technology, logistics and compliance costs ultimately enter into the price of financial services. A more efficient economy will produce a more efficient financial system.

Fifth, the country should expand targeted credit-guarantee and risk-sharing mechanisms for productive sectors such as manufacturing, agriculture, housing, small and medium-sized enterprises and export-oriented businesses. Such interventions should be transparent, commercially disciplined and designed to address identifiable market failures rather than become vehicles for politically directed lending.

A New Policy Compact for Shared Prosperity
The Nigerian economy now requires a new policy compact. The first phase of the reform process was necessarily about restoring macroeconomic stability and rebuilding confidence in an economy facing significant internal and external pressures. The next phase must be about consolidating those gains and translating them into shared prosperity and improved welfare for Nigerians.

I commend President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for the courage and determination with which his administration has pursued some of the most consequential economic reforms in recent decades. These reforms have not been without significant short-term costs, but the emerging evidence of lower inflation, stronger external reserves, improved foreign-exchange market conditions, a stronger banking system, improved investor sentiment and sustained economic growth suggests that the economy is increasingly responding to the reforms.

The reforms, however, must be sustained. Economic confidence is hard won but can be easily eroded by policy reversals. What Nigeria needs at this stage is continuity, predictability and institutional discipline. The objective should be to consolidate the foundations that have been laid while making the necessary adjustments to ensure that the benefits of reform are increasingly felt by ordinary Nigerians.

The hard work of stabilization has produced meaningful gains. The responsibility now is to preserve those gains, sustain the reform momentum of the Tinubu administration and ensure that macroeconomic stability becomes a durable foundation for investment, job creation, lower-cost finance and better livelihoods.

•Mukhail Adetokunbo Abiru is an Economist, Chartered Accountant and a Distinguished Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He currently chairs the Senate Committee on Banking, Insurance & Other Financial Institutions.

By Dakuku Peterside

If King Jaja of Opobo were alive in Nigeria today, where would he stand in a country wrestling with diplomatic pressures, economic uncertainty and deepening social tensions—and what would he do about them? Would he negotiate, confront, build, or find a way to turn adversity into leverage?

History is most useful when it refuses to stay in the past. More than a century after his rise in the Niger Delta, Jaja’s story still speaks with surprising urgency to the Nigerian present: to the enduring struggle over power and resources, the quest for economic independence, the demands of leadership, and the harder, quieter work of building institutions when the odds are stacked against them. His life raises a question as contemporary as it is historical: what might Nigeria look like if its leaders approached power, sovereignty, and economic independence with Jaja’s audacity?

That question acquires added meaning as Opobo Kingdom prepares for the coronation of His Majesty, King Charles Douglas MacPepple Jaja, Jeki VI, as Amanyanabo on September 26, 2026. A coronation naturally looks backwards—to ancestry, memory, and tradition. But the most fitting tribute to the Opobo legacy would be to look forward: to ask what King Jaja’s example demands of a nation still struggling to convert abundance into prosperity and formal sovereignty into genuine economic agency.

Jaja’s achievement was extraordinary not merely because he rose from adversity to become a powerful king and merchant. It was extraordinary because he understood the architecture of power. Palm oil was not simply a commodity; it was the foundation of a political economy. Whoever controlled access to the hinterland, the channels of trade, the terms of exchange, and relationships with foreign merchants possessed more than wealth. He possessed leverage.

From Opobo, Jaja built a formidable commercial and political order. He organised people, secured trading routes, cultivated alliances, and resisted efforts by European interests to bypass African middlemen and dictate the terms of commerce. His struggle was not an argument against trade with the outside world. It insisted that engagement must not become surrender, and that partnership must not strip a people of the right to defend their interests.

This is where Jaja ceases to be merely a historical figure and becomes a mirror held up to modern Nigeria. The commodities have changed; the underlying question has not. Who determines the terms on which Nigerian resources enter the world economy? Who owns the technology? Who provides the finance? Who processes the raw materials? Who controls distribution? Who captures the most profitable stages of the value chain? And how much of the wealth generated from Nigerian soil remains in Nigerian hands?

For decades, the country has often mistaken possession for power. Yet having crude oil is not the same as controlling the petroleum value chain. Growing cocoa, sesame, cashew, or tomatoes is not the same as building industries that process, package, brand and distribute them. Deposits of lithium, gold or iron ore do not automatically confer prosperity. A resource becomes national power only when knowledge, capital, infrastructure, and institutions are organised around it.

Jaja grasped that distinction in the nineteenth century. Nigeria still struggles with it in the twenty-first. We export too many raw materials and too many talented people, then import finished goods, technology, and expertise at a premium. We celebrate production figures while neglecting the deeper question of value retention. We speak proudly of a large market, but a market that mainly consumes what others produce is not yet an economic power; it is an opportunity someone else has captured.

Economic self-determination does not mean isolation, hostility to foreign investment or a retreat from global commerce. Jaja himself traded internationally and understood the value of external relationships. The lesson is not to close the door, but to negotiate through it with clarity and strength. Foreign capital should enlarge domestic capability rather than permanently replace it. Partnerships should leave behind skills, technology, supply chains, tax value, and competitive Nigerian enterprises. Trade should be a bridge to production, not a substitute for it.

This requires something more demanding than patriotic rhetoric: organisation. Jaja’s power did not rest on courage alone. It rested on system commercial networks, political relationships, rules, and a disciplined community capable of coordinated action. His story therefore exposes one of Nigeria’s deepest contradictions. The country does not lack exceptional individuals; it lacks enough durable institutions capable of turning individual brilliance into collective progress.

Too much of Nigerian public life is built around personalities. A reform gathers momentum because a particular minister, governor or agency head is committed to it, then weakens when that individual leaves. Programmes are announced with ceremony but without the budgets, data, professional capacity, and accountability needed to survive. Roads are commissioned without maintenance systems. Training is delivered without pathways to jobs. Policies change before businesses can plan around them. In such an environment, ambition produces episodes, not transformation.

Jaja’s example challenges leaders to build beyond themselves. Are they creating personal networks or public institutions? Are they distributing favours or expanding productive opportunity? Are they reacting to the latest crisis or reducing the nation’s vulnerability to the next one? The difference between governance and nation-building lies precisely here. Governance can manage today. Nation-building equips tomorrow.

For Nigeria, the practical implications are clear. Population must be converted into human capital through serious investment in education, health, and technical competence. Ports, roads, railways, waterways, and digital systems must connect producers to markets. Reliable energy must become an economic foundation rather than a private burden carried by every household and enterprise. The law must protect contracts and property regardless of status. Public policy must reward those who produce, innovate and employ—not merely those with privileged access to power.

The lesson is especially urgent in the Niger Delta. The region that supplied the palm oil at the centre of Jaja’s power later became the heart of Nigeria’s petroleum economy, yet many of its communities remain marked by pollution, poverty, unemployment, and inadequate infrastructure. This is more than a development failure; it is a moral contradiction. A region cannot indefinitely bear the environmental and social costs of national wealth while receiving only fragments of its productive promise.

Honouring Jaja in the Niger Delta should therefore mean more than preserving palaces, titles, and ceremonies. It should mean building a new regional economy around modern ports, maritime services, fisheries, agro-processing, gas-based industries, environmental restoration, and youth enterprises. It should mean enabling host communities to participate meaningfully in the governance and benefits of the resources around them. Heritage is most alive when it becomes a platform for human progress.

Jaja’s fate also supplies a warning. His resistance to expanding British commercial and imperial power culminated in his arrest and exile in 1887. This episode reminds us that economic power is never uncontested. Nations that occupy strategic territory, possess critical resources, or command large markets must expect pressure. The answer is neither theatrical defiance nor timid compliance. It is intelligent statecraft: knowing what must be defended, what can be negotiated and what capabilities must be built so that negotiation is not conducted from weakness.

This is why Nigeria’s diplomacy cannot be separated from its domestic competence. A country dependent on others for essential goods, critical technologies, capital, and even basic infrastructure enters international negotiations with limited room to manoeuvre. Sovereignty is proclaimed in constitutions, but it is strengthened in factories, laboratories, farms, classrooms, ports, and reliable institutions. Flags symbolise independence; productive capacity sustains it.

Still, Jaja should not be romanticised. He belonged to a particular era, and no nineteenth-century political-commercial order can simply be transplanted into a diverse modern federation. The purpose of history is not imitation. It is illumination. Jaja helps us see that resilience is not merely surviving adversity; it is converting adversity into organised capacity. Leadership is not merely occupying authority; it is using authority to expand a people’s agency.

The coronation of King Charles Douglas MacPepple Jaja, Jeki VI, therefore offers Nigeria more than a cultural spectacle. It offers a moment of national reflection. The Opobo tradition represents dignity anchored in achievement, authority joined to responsibility and sovereignty reinforced by economic capability. Those values deserve more than ceremonial praise. They demand expression in the choices of governments, businesses, communities, and citizens.

If King Jaja were alive today, he might recognise Nigeria’s predicament immediately: a gifted people operating below their collective power; a resource-rich nation capturing too little of the value it creates; a sovereign state still negotiating too often from dependence. He would probably understand, too, that outrage without organisation changes little.

His challenge to the present generation would not be to recreate his world. It would be to recover his strategic imagination—to build institutions that outlive their founders, enterprises that compete beyond Nigeria’s shores, and an economy that gives citizens a meaningful stake in national prosperity. Jaja’s legacy remains unfinished because Nigeria’s central task remains unfinished: turning potential into power, resources into shared value and political independence into economic self-determination.

Dr Dakuku Peterside, Leadership Architect and Management Turnaround Expert, is the author of the book Leading in a Storm

Olusegun Adeniyi

In October 2023, Nigeria won its case against Process & Industrial Developments (P&ID) Limited which had been seeking enforcement of a fraudulent $11 billion judgement debt in its favour. The Commercial Courts of England and Wales affirmed the claim by the federal government lawyer, Mark Howard, that the company obtained the contract “by telling repeated lies and paying bribes to officials.” But Justice Robin Knowles also said something instructive about the political/business environment in Nigeria. “This case has also, sadly, brought together a combination of examples of what some individuals will do for money. Driven by greed and prepared to use corruption; giving no thought to what their enrichment would mean in terms of harm for others,” Justice Knowles said before defining the ‘others’ he was referring to. “Others that in the present case include the people of Nigeria, already let down in so many ways over the history of this matter by a number of individuals in politics and administration whose duty it was to serve them and protect them.”  

Last week, an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal in Paris dismissed the $2.35 billion compensation claim against Nigeria made by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited (SPTCL). The company’s promoter, Mr Leno Adesanya, according to the ICC tribunal, had masterminded a “corrupt deal” with some public officials and private individuals to scam his country. While I have no time to read the entire 619-page judgement, flipping through the pages is revealing enough. As I wrote in the past, what some of these businesspeople do is target a thriving sector, procure some civil/public servants (not only with cash but also ‘bedroom services’ as former presidential spokesman, Garba Shehu, revealed in his Monday column, How and Why Sunrise, Leno Lost in Paris – ������ƵLIVE), get them to sign some dubious ‘contracts’ that are skewed against Nigeria and when they fail (as they are designed to), approach the courts for enforcement. That’s how many idle billionaires have been created in the country.  

If there is anything that the failed P&ID and SPTCL scandals have exposed, it is that in the Nigerian deep state, public sector corruption is most often enabled by private sector operators. That explains why Nigeria has over the years paid billions of Dollars on spurious judgement debts. These high rollers are quite aware that the incentives for corruption and related crimes are high because it is a low-risk, high-reward enterprise. But perhaps more importantly, even in instances where such dirty deals blow open, private sector kingpins most often go unpunished. Afterall, a former Minister of Power, Mr Saleh Mamman is currently serving a 75-year jail term for laundering $24.7 million and £18.5 million in a scandal associated with these same power projects.

I have always believed that any serious interrogation of corruption in Nigeria must look at the role of the private sector. An X user who goes by the name ‘Arthur of Camelot’ recently shared a story which I find instructive because the character involved could be the son of one of those businessmen who point fingers simply because they don’t hold public offices even when they contribute a lot to the corruption in the system: “My friend was going on about ‘if Nigeria was working, this would happen and that will happen’ and another friend interjected saying, ‘bros, if Naija dey work, your papa go dey prison by now’…that put a dampener on festivities and we started separating a fight.”

Meanwhile, one of the interesting aspects of the Paris judgement on the SPTCL scandal is the issue of business culture in Nigeria. It reads like an intellectual engagement between a witness brought by Adesanya, Prof Sope Williams (described an anti-corruption expert) and my friend, Ebenezer Obadare, a senior fellow for Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States, who testified for Nigeria. This is the way the tribunal framed their exchanges: “The Tribunal fully appreciates that the thrust of Prof. Williams’ evidence is that the facts underlying Nigeria’s corruption allegations should be considered against the background of the specific Nigerian cultural context, while the essence of Dr. Obadare’s evidence is that Nigerian culture cannot be used to justify the alleged acts of bribery and corruption.”

I find the arguments of both Williams and Obadare quite fascinating, but there is also a context to it that many may not even be aware of. It is a notorious fact that many Nigerian businesspeople tell their foreign collaborators that securing contracts in Nigeria involves bribery. And in the process, they sully the image of our country. Interestingly, that ‘culture’ matter also surfaced in the $182 million Halliburton bribery scandal. French court papers revealed how British lawyer, Mr Jeffrey Tesler, served as the conduit between Halliburton’s subsidiary KBR and the officials responsible for approving the $6 billion turnkey contract for the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) project in Bonny, Rivers State. Following his conviction in 2015, Tesler also made allusion to this ‘cultural’ thing that Adesanya’s witness was trying to sell in Paris. “There is no day when I do not regret my weakness of character. I allowed myself to accept standards of behaviour in a BUSINESS CULTURE (emphasis mine) which can never be justified. I accepted the system of corruption that existed in Nigeria,” Tesler lamented. “I turned a blind eye to what was happening, and I am guilty of the offences charged.”

Now that another multibillion-dollar scam against Nigeria has been foiled abroad, there are certain lessons we should not ignore. One, we must change the ‘culture’ by which some Nigerian business people believe it is okay to dupe their country or pay bribe to secure contract. Two, we must put in place a well-articulated National Arbitration Policy that makes it difficult for those who devise these crooked schemes. Three, all pending arbitrations against Nigeria should be thoroughly reviewed and seriously challenged, if they are suspicious. Four, we must institute measures to ensure that Nigerian public officials who sign contracts on behalf of the rest of us are not those who would sell the country cheap. Tying Nigeria to scandalous obligations is the kind of action that would normally attract capital punishment for erring public officials in some countries! 

Finally, the anti-corruption measures must be strong enough to bring to justice corrupt private sector actors. Until authorities in the country begin to expose and prosecute these traitors, they won’t desist from their nefarious activities. But beyond that, we must also begin to build a new culture of ethics in both the private and public sectors in Nigeria.

Death and the 37 Miners

In February this year, a police officer attached to a joint Mining Marshals patrol was killed by artisanal miners at a site linked to Millennium Metals Mining Company in Katcha Local Government in Niger State. The Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Mr Oladele Alake, who set up the Mining Marshals, vowed then that offenders would face “the full wrath of the law,” and the federal government indeed responded by strengthening the unit’s operational capacity. Seven months after one avoidable death hardened a crackdown, 37 young men were arrested for engaging in ‘illegal mining’ in the same state. They died in circumstances that can only be described as very cruel.

Last weekend, the Northern Senators Forum issued a strong statement on the miners’ deaths. While they may have overstated their case with allusion to what happened at Auschwitz (the largest concentration camp operated by Nazi Germany during World War II) I agree with them that history “has taught humanity how horrifying confinement can become when helpless people are deprived of dignity and treated as though their lives have no value.” Stripped of all pretensions, we all know that those young men died not because of the ‘crime’ they committed but rather because of their social status.

Meanwhile, this has been a brutal year for artisanal miners in Nigeria. In February, a gas leak at an illegal site in Zurak, Wase Local Government Area of Plateau State, killed 37 people and hospitalised 20 others. In August, an abandoned tin pit collapsed at Kassa, Barkin Ladi Local Government Area of the same Plateau State, killing seven. And on the very day the dead were still being counted in Niger State, more than 20 miners, among them, women and children, were reportedly buried alive at Mayo Kam in Taraba State’s Bali Local Government Area. Add these together, and a pattern emerges: Desperate miners are dying in droves, sometimes killed by the ground they dig, and now, unforgivably, killed by the state that claims to regulate them.

I am aware that the Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo (who remains one of the bright lights of the current administration), has moved quickly to suspend the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) Niger State Commandant Siyaka Aniviye, who made a reckless statement after the tragedy. Tunji-Ojo has also constituted a ten-member independent committee to investigate the deaths. But to the extent that this is yet another episode in a declining national psyche that treats human lives as no more than mere statistics, I won’t be surprised if nothing comes out of the investigation. We have been on this road several times before. On Saturday 15th March 2014, for instance, more than half a million jobless university graduates were herded to stadia and other venues across the nation to write aptitude tests for about 4500 openings in the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS). And because of overcrowding and shoddy arrangement, there were stampedes leading to the death of 19 people, including expectant women. It was a tragedy aided by a combination of desperation and impunity.

Drexel Nigeria Limited to which the contract was outsourced had asked each of the candidates to pay N850 as “application charges” and N150 as “transaction charges” making a total of N1,000 to be eligible to apply for a job in a government agency in their own country. Because all that concerned these ‘consultants’ was the money involved, there was no real plan for these applicants. Nobody perhaps captured that tragedy as succinctly as Dr Mohammed Hakeem, a brother to one of the deceased. A lecturer at Federal Polytechnic, Nasarawa State at the time, Hakeem said his late sister, who had previously been defrauded of N150,000 while seeking the same job, died for nothing: “I make bold to say that the (job) slots for which my sister has been used as a sacrificial lamb had been allocated to those that matter in Nigeria.”

Following that tragedy, an investigation was ordered by the federal government. But as usual, nobody was held accountable. Five years later, the Minister of Interior who hired the consultants that presided over the death of those innocent Nigerians was elected to the Senate. And he has since then—following reelection in 2023—been making laws for the rest of us!

So, what should accountability actually require on this current tragedy? First, Nigerians deserve to read the pathologists’ findings themselves so as to ascertain what exactly happened. Second, if negligence is established, in the size of the cell to which the miners were camped, the hours it took to notice them dying of suffocation, or the conditions of the arrests themselves, the consequence must go beyond reassignment. And it must reach not only Commandant Aniviye but whoever sets detention capacity and medical provisioning across NSCDC facilities nationwide, since Minna is unlikely to be the only cell with such problems of poor ventilation and overcrowding.

Third, families of the deceased deserve more than condolences. There must be a prompt, dignified release of their dead, and some form of restitution that acknowledges the state’s role in this tragedy. And fourth, because a raid-and-detain posture toward mostly poor artisanal miners has now become fatal, Alake may need to keep his own counsel on the issue. When a gold mine collapsed in Sudan’s West Kordofan two weeks ago, Alake, who is currently the chairman of the Africa Minerals Strategy Group, declared that “human life must always supersede resource extraction.” Reacting to a collapse that killed more than a hundred miners in the Central African Republic some weeks earlier, Alake said much the same, warning that such tragedies must not become statistics the continent mourns today and forgets tomorrow. Now, his charity must begin at home. Everything must be done to help these poor Nigerians not to continue dying (including from health hazards) while chasing a living.

On the immediate issue of 37 miners who lost their lives in Niger State, we must ensure that those whose commission or omission led to the tragedy are held to account. Only then can we reclaim our collective humanity as a nation. 

Aig-Imoukhuede at 60

For almost a decade (until I left in April 2024), I was a member of the Leadership Advisory Board of the African Institute for Governance (AIG). Chaired by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, it is a subsidiary of the Aig-Imoukhuede Foundation promoted by Access Bank co-founder and current chairman, Mr Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede. The Not-for-profit, private sector-led AIG started in 2014 with the annual award of scholarships to six high-potential public sector leaders (Grade Level 13 and above) from Nigeria and Ghana to study at the Oxford University Balvatnik School of Government. Then it collaborated with the Office of the Head of Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF) to organise locally designed executive training programmes for participants in Lagos and Abuja. With the overall aim of building the capacity of civil servants across the continent but focusing more on Nigeria, the foundation has extended its reach beyond government ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs) to academic institutions, civil society and private sector entities.

Over the years, Aig-Imoukhuede and his wife, Ofovwe have committed tremendous financial resources as well as their time and energy to the idea of transforming the public bureaucracy in Nigeria for efficient service delivery. It is a profound national service. As he therefore joins the Sexagenarian Club today at 60, I can only wish Aig-Imoukhuede a happy birthday, long life and good health.

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

Tunde Rahman

To some, especially in the opposition camp, it may seem like a brewing political storm, but the brouhaha in Abuja over Nyesom Wike’s Rainbow Coalition and the Progressive Governors Forum’s pushback is not a crisis. It is a sign that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s political architecture for 2027 is active and working.

To fully grasp this, you must understand the President and why many see him as a master strategist.

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, has been unambiguous. He has not asked to join the All Progressives Congress. He has not asked the APC Governors for an alliance. As a PDP leader serving in an APC government, he is building a Rainbow Coalition- a platform of PDP, APC, and other party members whose sole mandate is to deliver votes for President Tinubu’s re-election.

In Rivers State, the APC itself has endorsed this model, perhaps because Wike controls both APC and PDP structures in the state. The APC in the state has laid bare a convincing premise for its embrace: all politics is local, and the coalition is needed to protect President Tinubu’s votes.

Many may dislike him for his guts, style and the controversies he seems to cultivate, but in my view, the FCT Minister is not weakening the APC. He is broadening Tinubu’s base beyond the APC, into places the APC cannot ordinarily reach. As former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Chibudom Nwuche, rightly called it, it is a “political masterstroke that is broadening the President’s support base”.

Conversely, the APC governors led by their Chairman, Senator Hope Uzodimma, have also declared that their commitment is “exclusively to all APC candidates”. They emphasised that they would not support any arrangement that undermines President Tinubu’s re-election.

They are right. As party leaders in their states, their job is to protect the APC ticket from governor to House of Assembly. But they are worried that a coalition that helps President Tinubu at the top but fields PDP candidates against APC candidates at the bottom could confuse voters and put APC candidates in jeopardy.

That is a legitimate organisational concern. It is not anti-Tinubu. It is pro-party discipline. Both are right to want to protect their turfs and their respective interests.

This is where President Tinubu’s genius comes in.

This situation can be aptly described as two legs of one body. The APC Governors are the first leg, the official party structure, delivering the party vote in 31 states. Wike’s Rainbow Coalition is the second leg, the extra-party structure, delivering votes from PDP strongholds, from Rivers to Oyo to parts of the North.

Does it imply the president shouldn’t care less about what fate befalls candidates of the APC at various levels? By no means!

President Tinubu does not need to choose between them. He needs both. In 2023, he won in Rivers without the structure fully formed as it is at present. In 2027, he will have both the Progressive Governors Forum and the Rainbow Coalition mobilising for him in different territories.

As Bolaji Adebiyi argued in an article in Thisday on Friday, Wike has demonstrated organisational capacity by fielding PDP candidates in 26 of the 28 states where elections will be held in January, even in several states where opposition parties like the African Democratic Congress and Nigeria Democratic Congress cannot field candidates. The essay noted that such an individual cannot be shoved aside. His support is as important and strategic as it was in 2023.

This rift will not hurt President Tinubu as the opposition may expect, because what matters is whether the coalition will deliver votes for the President. In my view, it can. Those hoping the disagreement will cause a political rift in the Villa should perish the thought.

The President is on vacation in France and is expected to broker a truce himself when he returns, because he is the only leader both sides listen to.

This is not a house divided. It is a big tent that allows mutual accommodation.

The APC Governors will run the official campaign. Wike will run the coalition campaign for non-APC voters who love the President and want him re-elected. Both tendencies report to the same Commander-in-Chief.

In the end, the Rainbow Coalition and the Progressive Governors Forum have one overriding mission: the election of President Tinubu for a second term. Both will have one communique and it will be titled “For President Tinubu’s re-election.” This is not brouhaha. It is a winning strategy.

•Rahman is Senior Special Assistant to President Tinubu on Media and Special Duties.

Femi falana

On 4 September 2026, a Nigerian cleric, Bishop Michael Taiwo Fakunle, was brutally assassinated by unknown gunmen in Johannesburg. After reportedly issuing threats against him, his killers went to his home and shot him dead. Barely 24 hours later, another Nigerian, Mr James Uchechukwu Nwankwo, reportedly died after being subjected to what has been described in the press as “gruesome interrogation techniques” by officers of the South African Police Service (SAPS) in Johannesburg.

According to the Nigerian High Commissioner to South Africa, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, Bishop Fakunle and Mr Nwankwo were the seventh and eighth Nigerians killed in South Africa in 2026, with four of the eight allegedly killed by South African police officers. He further stated that more than 100 Nigerians had been killed in South Africa between 2022 and 2026, including more than 30 allegedly killed by officers of SAPS and the South African Defence Force.

Chief Fani-Kayode stated that, despite repeated expressions of concern, “not one person has been arrested, detained, prosecuted or brought to justice” for these crimes. He called on the South African Government to do more to protect Nigerians and ensure that those responsible for the killings are brought to justice.

The response from Abuja has so far been limited to condemnation of the latest killings. Yet the Federal Government has a constitutional and international human rights obligation to protect Nigerians and to take effective measures  to secure justice when their rights are violated abroad. It is particularly disturbing that this continuing crisis is taking place against the background of a fresh deadline reportedly issued to African nationals, including Nigerians, to leave South Africa by 30 September 2026.

The Federal Government cannot continue to issue statements of condemnation after every killing while taking no effective legal steps to secure accountability and justice.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party guarantee the right to life and protect the dignity and security of every person. The obligations to investigate unlawful killings and torture, prosecute those responsible where there is relevant admissible evidence and provide effective remedies to victims and their families, including adequate compensation and guarantees of non-repetition is well established under international human rights law.

In Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011), the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights found Burkina Faso responsible for failing to properly investigate the assassination of investigative journalist Norbert Zongo and his companions and ordered reparations to their families and beneficiaries.

Similarly, in the Apo Six case, The Incorporated Trustees of Fiscal and Civic Rights Enlightenment Foundation v Federal Republic of Nigeria (ECW/CCJ/APP/02/14), the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice found Nigeria responsible for serious human-rights violations arising from the killing and ill-treatment of Nigerian citizens during a security operation in Abuja and awarded compensation to the victims and their families.

Having established that the South Africa Police Service and South Africa Defence Force killed 30 Nigerians from 2022 to 2026 without any investigation and prosecution of the murderers, the Federal Government ought to drag South Africa before the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights. After all, the South Africa Government recently sued Israel at the International Court of Justice over the genocidal attacks unleashed on unarmed Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Armed Forces.

These cases demonstrate that failure to investigate serious violations of the right to life and other fundamental rights can engage state responsibility.

In view of the continuing killings and alleged abuses of Nigerians in South Africa, I urge the Federal Government to urgently consider instituting proceedings against South Africa before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Nigeria and South Africa are parties to the African Charter and have ratified the Protocol establishing the African Court. Nigeria can therefore explore the possibility of bringing an interstate case concerning the failure to protect Nigerian nationals from serious human-rights violations and to ensure effective investigation, prosecution and remedies.

This is not a new proposal. In July 2026, I called on Nigeria, Ghana and other African countries affected by xenophobic attacks to institute proceedings against South Africa before the African Court and seek appropriate remedies, including provisional measures and compensation. In May 2026, I also petitioned the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights over the continuing xenophobic attacks and other violations in South Africa and requested that the matter be referred to the African Court.

The Federal Government should now move beyond diplomatic protests and pursue these available regional mechanisms. Nigeria ratified the Protocol establishing the African Court in 2004 but has not made the declaration under Article 34(6) accepting direct applications to the Court from individuals and non-governmental organisations.

The absence of the declaration denies Nigerians and eligible civil society organisations an important avenue of regional judicial redress. The Federal Government should therefore make the Article 34(6) declaration as a matter of urgency. It is difficult for Nigeria to demand effective regional justice for its citizens abroad while refusing to provide its own citizens with direct access to the African Court where the legal requirements for such access are otherwise satisfied.

The Federal Government should also establish a mechanism, involving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Nigerian mission in South Africa and the Federal Ministry of Justice, to document all cases involving the killing, torture and other serious abuses of Nigerians’ rights in South Africa and monitor the progress of investigations and prosecutions.

The South African Government has a duty to protect Nigerians and other African nationals within its jurisdiction and to uphold their human rights.

Unless the South Africa Government is called to order by the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, the brutal killings of Nigerians and other African migrants will continue unabated and with almost total impunity. But the Nigerian Government must also do its part to stop the violence and travesty. The Federal Government must protect Nigerians, demand accountability from South Africa and use every available regional legal mechanism to secure justice and effective remedies for the victims and their families.

REUBEN ABATI

The high- level meetings and debates of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) open today at the UN Headquarters in New York, United States, with about 300 heads of states and governments, Vice Presidents, Ministers, and at least a Crown Prince in attendance. This is the 81st UNGA, the UN having been established in June 1945. The event itself began on September 8, with different forums having been held involving institutions, the private sector, and civil society organizations, underscoring the collective ownership, at a person-to-person level, of the programmes and objectives of the institution. What begins today is the debate among leaders about many of the central issues of our time. This 81st session of UNGA will be against the background of increased tensions and uncertainties in the world, war in Gaza, Ukraine, the Middle East, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan, the increasing threat and fear of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the future of humanity, climate action and the urgency of environmental protection and safety, and the perennial questions about the legitimacy, effectiveness and representativeness of the United Nations. The question is: can the UN stop conflicts and division and save the world? This year also brings to full term the tenure of the Portuguese diplomat and politician, Antonio Guterres, as UN Secretary General. With his tenure ending on December 31st, this would be his last UNGA as Secretary-General, a process is on-going to elect a successor. Nigeria’s Amina Jane Mohammed, Nigeria’s former Minister of Environment (2015 -2016) who was appointed as a Deputy Secretary General in 2017 by Antonio Guterres will also be stepping down after nine years of service at the UN. This UN Secretary General has had a good run – he has consistently established himself as an unrelenting advocate for peace, human dignity, a safer world, the protection of the international rules-based order, climate action, multilateralism and inclusiveness. He has served as a voice of reason in a turbulent decade. Amina Mohammed who holds the second highest national honour of Nigeria, the Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON) has been a dependable, hardworking Deputy Secretary General, a great achievement for the centering of women and an outspoken promoter of skills acquisition and sustainable development goals. As she steps down from her international duties, Nigeria should be proud of her, and find new opportunities for her to continue to contribute to the growth and development of her country and the world.

The United Nations is at a crossroads. It is in crisis. It was established in 1945, to promote international peace, security, development and co-operation, essentially to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, after the horror of World War II. Over the years, the UN established institutions to promote these objectives within the framework of the brotherhood of humanity and multilateralism. But today, there is skepticism about whether or not the United Nations is still serving its original purpose. It suffers from a credibility and trust deficit. The world today is divided, fragmented, multilateralism is threatened. Old alliances are collapsing. Energy prices are rising. The international rules-based order is failing, as countries like the US, Russia, and Israel routinely disregard international law, with no enforcement mechanism to check them. The binding resolutions of the UN are breached with impunity by powerful states. The Permanent Members, known as the P-5 of the UN Security Council and their allies, if not surrogates, have imposed a curious ethic: that might is right in violation of the UN Charter. When they are not checkmating themselves: Russia vs the US, or US vs. China, they block whatever does not align with their power of control. Skeptics thereby argue that the UN General Assembly is at best an inefficient, debating society. But that same debate will begin today and it is worth listening to. Today, Guterres will welcome the UN community of 193 member-nations in an opening address, and there will be statements by US President Donald Trump and French President Emanuel Macron. On Wednesday, speakers will include Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and on Thursday, the Vice President of Nigeria, Senator Kashim Shettima, who is representing Nigeria. I will comment on Nigeria’s participation shortly. On Thursday, there will be country statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, to the discomfiture of New York Mayor Zoran Mamdani who had to be reminded by higher powers that he does not have the authority to stop Netanyahu from entering New York. Meanwhile, the same US Government that sees Israel as an ally and Netanyahu as a friend has stopped the Iranian delegation from entering the United States, for the second year in a row and President Mahmoud Abbas can only address the UNGA by video on Thursday. The treatment of Palestine which enjoys an observer status, along with the Holy See, is in violation of the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement.

Whatever may be the shortcomings of the United Nations, there is no doubt that the world still needs it, perhaps now more than ever as a stabilizing force. In its 81 years, it has been a catalyst for development, in the defence of causes and projects that remind us at critical moments of the common humanity that binds us. Its many organizations may not have always saved the world from conflict, and war but they have proven to be strong intervention agencies in many areas: peacekeeping, support for vulnerable persons and institutions, health, humanitarian aid, education, support for women, climate action, sustainable development, a force for decolonization and the promotion of equity and justice. On all counts, the UN has been more successful than the League of Nations which preceded it. Not surprisingly the UN has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts through the UNICEF, ILO, IAEA, the UN Commission for Refugees as an institution, and its officials for their personal distinction. The fact that its relevance is still appreciated was made clear when US President Trump proposed the Board of Peace Initiative in January 2026 to oversee a peace plan for Gaza and promote peace building around the world. Many countries (including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Ireland, New Zealand, UK, European Union, and the Vatican) declined membership because of Trump’s claim that the Board could potentially replace the UN. The United Nations Security Council in its Resolution 2803 had welcomed the BoP but Trump had proposed himself as the Board’s President for Life! Even the about 27 countries that joined Trump’s Board have not expressed a desire to abandon the UN.

What is established as a growing concern among many UN members is the demand for a reform and restructuring of the institution, a subject of interest and discussion over the decades, which is likely to feature again prominently in the debates. The Allied Powers that established the UN (US, UK, France, China and Russia) were the victors of World War II, but the landscape of power has since changed in a multi-polar reality, and the question has been the need to change the structure of the UN to reflect the new reality and recognize the new powers that have emerged. The UN Security Council is dominated by the Permanent Five who exercise a veto power. By the 1970s, Third World nations whose numbers had increased in the UN formed a Group of 77, and began to assert influence. Successive Secretary Generals responded by introducing one form of reform or the other. Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1992 -1996) initiated a reform of the UN secretariat. In 2011, Ban Ki-Moon established a Change Management Team to work on a reform agenda. His successor, Kofi Annan worked along the same lines. This last Sunday, the outgoing Secretary General Antonio Guterres called for permanent African representation on the Security Council and sweeping reforms to global governance structures. The sentiment among major regions like Africa and Latin America is that they are excluded. Others have called for the expansion of the Security Council, or that the UN headquarters should be taken away from New York. Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan are also asking for permanent seats, the G4 Nations are asking for a modernization of the Security Council. The UN Security Council is considered anti-democratic, unrepresentative, and inequitable. But there are two obstacles. Any reform will require the approval of two thirds of the UN membership which may be difficult to get. The P5 with their veto power also do not want any reform. They are not willing to give up their power. When Kofi Annan appeared to be serious and determined about the restructuring of the UN bureaucracy to address charges of inefficiency, the US threatened to withdraw its UN dues. The US has always behaved like the primary power in the UN, a hegemonic, self-assertion that has seen its worst expression under President Trump’s unilateralism.

The UN today is an assembly of divided interests. It is therefore instructive that Nigerian Vice President, Senator Shettima, who is leading the Nigerian delegation this year, as he did in the last two sessions- 79th and 80th – has said that Nigeria’s focus will be guided by its national interest, commitment to multilateralism and President Tinubu’s call for reforms of global institutions. This should be a good pitch, and on national interest, that should be an opportunity for the Tinubu administration to project itself on the global stage, this being an election season. But rather than seek to contribute to the debate, Nigerian opposition politicians have been more concerned by the fact that President Tinubu is not attending the UNGA. This should not be an issue. Nigeria loses nothing by being represented by its Vice President. Besides, Senator Shettima has proven to be well-suited for international engagements as has been seen in his appearances on the world stage at such events as the World Economic Forum, this same UNGA, the African Union and most recently at the BRICS summit in New Delhi, India, where on every occasion he acquitted himself honorably. And by the way, President Tinubu is not the only Head of State who has sent a delegation. He is in the same company as China’s President Xi Jinping, who meets President Trump on Wednesday but will be represented at UNGA by his Deputy. President Putin of Russia and Prime Minister Narendra Modi won’t be there either. With Vice President Shettima in New York, President Tinubu who has been away on a working leave for three weeks should actually be on his way back home, and not tarry any longer in Europe!

As the debates begin at the UN General Assembly, the future of the UN and humanity itself should remain in focus as encapsulated in the theme: “Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: A United Nations That Delivers for All.” The process for finding a successor to Antonio Guterres is already in motion. It is important to choose the right candidate: a Secretary General that will inherit the institution with its merits and imperfections but with the capacity, strength and vision to draw it closer to its original mandate and rebuild trust. At the end of a third straw poll, a secret, informal vote, held last Friday, out of the eight candidates who indicated interest in the office (including two from Africa- former Senegalese President Macky Sall, and Uganda politician, Olara Otunnu), the race has now been reduced to three leading candidates – Costa Rica’s Rebecca Gryspan, followed by Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett of Guyana, and Argentina’s Rafael Grossi. The winning candidate will need at least nine votes in the 15-member Security Council and must not be vetoed by any of the Permanent Five. The removal of this autocratic hold on the UN by a minority is the most urgent task before the UN in addition to the menace of war and the emerging threat of Artificial Intelligence. The UN Charter is also in need of a review to delete certain provisions in Chapter XIII of the Charter, and the now obsolete “enemy clauses” in Articles 53 and 107.

MATTHEW KUJU & ERIC KUJU

A year ago, precisely on Tuesday 23rd September 2025, the drums fell silent in Alushi, Nassarawa Eggon Local Government Area of Nasarawa State.

On that day, Nasarawa State lost a political colossus, Nigeria lost a patriot, and the Eggon Nation lost its most illustrious son. At age 70, Senator Solomon Sunday Akku Ewuga boarded his final flight, after a prolonged illness, leaving behind a vacuum that is still deeply felt.
Today, as we mark one year of his passing, we do not mourn as those without hope. We celebrate a life that was fully lived, a journey that was well-travelled, and a legacy that will endure for generations.

Indeed, one year has passed since Senator Solomon Akku Ewuga departed this world, yet his presence remains remarkably alive in the memories of those whose lives he touched and in the political history of Nasarawa State which he helped shape.

Although time has a way of softening grief, it also sharpens perspective. With the passing of months, as the void created by his demise became even more obvious, we had to move beyond those beautiful titles the distinguished statesman held or the elections he contested. It is the enduring impact of a life devoted to people, public service and the pursuit of a better society that has become more prominent.
Across Nasarawa State, the Middle Belt and beyond, Senator Ewuga’s name continues to evoke conversations about leadership, sacrifice, courage, accessibility and service. For some, he was a politician. For others, he was a lawyer, journalist, public administrator, mentor, benefactor and friend. To countless ordinary citizens, he was simply a man who answered his phone, listened to their concerns and tried, in whatever way he could, to help.

Born in 1955 in Nassarawa Eggon, Ewuga was a bridge-builder long before he ever entered politics.
He did not just collect titles; he built a tapestry of expertise.

He was Programme Officer, Head of Current Affairs, Nigeria Broadcasting Corporation (later, Plateau Broadcasting Corporation, Jos, 1978-82; and General Manager, Plateau Publishing Company Limited, Jos, 1988;

He founded one of Northern Nigeria’s pioneering indigenous advertising agencies, Adpure Nigeria Limited, and later, as a barrister, stood as a pillar for justice.

This rich, diverse foundation shaped the statesman he would become.

When he finally stepped into the political arena, he was no empty suit; he was a man who understood the power of words, the mechanics of business, the rule of law, and the heartbeat of the grassroots.

His political journey was a masterclass in nation-building.

His public life spanned decades and several chapters of Nigeria’s democratic journey. He belonged to a generation of leaders who entered politics not merely as a means of personal advancement but as an extension of their commitment to public service. From his early involvement in national politics to his role in the constitutional processes that preceded the creation of Nasarawa State, Senator Ewuga became part of the story of a people searching for representation, inclusion and progress.

His political journey was marked by both triumphs and disappointments. He served as Deputy Governor of Nasarawa State, Minister of State for the Federal Capital Territory and Senator of the Federal Republic. Yet perhaps the most defining aspect of his career was not the offices he occupied but the persistence with which he pursued his convictions. He remained active in public affairs for decades, refusing to retreat from the arena even when circumstances were unfavourable. Whether one agreed with his political choices or not, few questioned his courage, resilience and unshakeable belief in the causes he championed.

One year after his passing, many still remember his extraordinary ability to connect with people. He possessed a rare gift for building relationships across political, ethnic and religious divides. Friends and associates often recalled that his concern for people extended far beyond political calculations. He maintained friendships that survived disagreements, nurtured relationships that transcended party lines and offered assistance without always expecting recognition.

Perhaps no testimony captures his character better than the recurring observation made by many who knew him: he spent much of his time seeking opportunities for others rather than for himself. In his remarks at Senator Ewuga’s funeral on the 1st of November 2025, Nasarawa State Governor, Engr. Abdullahi Sule perhaps put it best when he observed that Senator Ewuga often came to him to seek opportunities for other people and rarely for himself. Throughout his life, he appeared to derive more satisfaction from opening doors for others than from seeking favours for his own benefit.

His generosity was not always visible in public records, but its evidence remains scattered across the lives of individuals he helped. Former students who received educational support, young politicians who found mentorship under him, professionals who benefited from his encouragement and ordinary citizens whose burdens he helped to lighten continue to bear witness to that legacy.

Beyond politics, Senator Ewuga represented a style of leadership that is becoming increasingly rare. He remained accessible. In an era when public office often creates distance between leaders and citizens, he maintained a reputation for openness. Many people have testified that no matter how ordinary they were, Senator Ewuga would pick their calls, return missed calls and respond to messages. That simple habit earned him a place in the hearts of many.

His influence also extended to the development of future leaders. Across generations, many prominent figures in Nasarawa State politics acknowledge the role he played in shaping their political journeys. Some received direct mentorship. Others learned from observing his methods, his communication skills and his ability to mobilise people around ideas and causes. As National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda described him, he was a father, mentor and moral compass to many people across the country.

SEN EWUGA: FRIENDS ACROSS THE NATION

Senator Solomon Ewuga did not have friends — he had a federation of friendships.

His address book was Nigeria itself. There was hardly a State in this vast contraption called Nigeria where Solomon Ewuga did not have a brother, a sister, a friend, a confidant, a political son, a former classmate, a fellow comrade who would open his door for him at midnight without asking why he came.

From the mangroves of Bayelsa to the dunes of Borno, from the red soils of Enugu to the savannahs of Sokoto — he had planted friendships like trees, and those trees grew. He was not a man who made friends because he needed something. He made friends because he was something. He was naturally, effortlessly, human. He could speak Hausa with the Hausa, and Eggon with the Eggon. He could laugh with the Igbos over business, and reason with the Yorubas over politics. He could sit with a General and discuss strategy, and sit with a corporal and discuss life. That was his gift — he had no tribe when it came to friendship. His tribe was called humanity.

That is why his death was not just an Eggon loss. It was not just a Nasarawa loss. It was a Nigerian loss. When the news of his death broke in Cairo, phones rang in Lagos. They rang in Kaduna. They rang in Port Harcourt. They rang in Maiduguri. They rang in Sokoto and in Asaba. Old friends wept in old cities, remembering a man who once ate in their houses, who once slept on their couches when he had no hotel, who once gave them his last kobo when he himself had little. How many men can boast of that? How many men can live 70 years and have footprints of friendship in all 36 States as Ewuga did? He did not just live in Nigeria. Nigeria lived in him. And today, if you go to any State in this Federation and mention his name — Solomon Ewuga — someone will say: “Ah! Ewuga? He was my friend. He was my brother.” That is not just popularity. That is immortality.

Perhaps nowhere is Senator Ewuga’s absence felt more keenly today than in the unfolding political season ahead of the 2027 elections.
Senator Solomon Ewuga was a towering political colossus who bestrode the landscape of Nasarawa State like a giant. He was not just a participant in the political evolution of the State; he was one of its chief architects — charting paths, breaking grounds, and setting milestones that still define Nasarawa’s political identity today. His influence transcended the State, earning him national reverence as a statesman of uncommon wisdom and courage.

Like the baobab tree that provides shade for many, his political canopy covered the young State from its formative years. He was not a bystander in the birth of Nasarawa State — he was a frontline soldier in the trenches of the struggle that gave birth to it. He did not just watch the agitation for Nasarawa State; he carried it on his shoulders. He was there at its birth, helped lay its foundations, and at every critical turn in its journey, his voice counted and his footprints remained. A political pathfinder and a national figure, his name is written in gold in the story of Nasarawa State and Nigeria.

For decades, politicians across party lines looked up to him for guidance and strategy. He served as mediator when matters became too confrontational. He was a rallying point. And he did this beyond the boundaries of political party, religious or ethnic affiliations. Many aspiring leaders sought his counsel before making major political decisions, while others depended on his endorsement, knowing the weight his words carried among the electorate.

Those who knew the dynamics of Nasarawa State politics understood what it meant when Senator Ewuga publicly identified with a candidate. During his funeral, a renowned grassroot politician, Hon. Mary Enwongulu, captured a sentiment widely shared among many when she remarked that anybody whose hand Senator Ewuga raised was almost certain to win election in Nasarawa State. She recalled that wherever Senator Ewuga went, the political tide often shifted. Former Minister of Information, Labaran Maku, similarly described him as a political hurricane and tornado whose influence was impossible to ignore. The political activities that culminated in the 2011 general elections perfectly capture his influence when he almost single-handedly shifted the tides in favour of the then newly formed Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) and away from the ruling PDP.

Today, that familiar figure is no longer there.

Many politicians who, under normal circumstances, would have travelled to Alushi or Abuja seeking his guidance, support or strategic advice, no longer have that option. There is no longer that towering political mentor whose blessing could reassure a nervous candidate, whose intervention could reconcile rival camps, or whose political instincts could help chart a path through uncertain terrain.
His absence has created a vacuum that is difficult to ignore. For many, it feels as though every politician in Nasarawa State must now find his or her own path without the possibility of Senator Ewuga’s unique touch, influence and ability to rally support. There is no one to raise hands the way he did. No one to clear political pathways in quite the same manner. His presence is sorely missed.

Yet there is another side to that reality. Throughout his long political career, there were also those who blamed their setbacks and disappointments on Senator Ewuga’s influence. For years, he served both as an inspiration to admirers and as an explanation for critics. Today, even that excuse has disappeared. Those who once attributed their political misfortunes to him can no longer do so. His absence has left everyone to test their popularity, capacity and ideas directly before the electorate.

As campaigns gradually gather momentum across the State, one question naturally lingers in many minds: What role would Senator Solomon Ewuga have played in the politics of 2027 if he were still alive?

Would he have emerged once again as a bridge-builder among competing interests? Would he have thrown his weight behind particular candidates? Would he have used his influence to unite old allies and rivals? Those questions will remain unanswered. They belong now to the realm of history’s unanswered possibilities.

HIS ENDURING LEGACIES

If we were to etch Senator Ewuga’s legacies on marble, they would be these:

A. The Legacy of the Bridge-Builder: In a state as diverse as Nasarawa, Ewuga was a unifier. Eggon by birth, he was Nasarawa by heart. He related freely across religious and ethnic lines. As Governor Abdullahi Sule said at his funeral in Alushi, “He was a global citizen who related with everyone freely.” He never played tribal politics.

B. The Legacy of Mentorship: Governor Sule captured it best: “Whenever Ewuga visited me, it was to ask for one thing or the other for others or a community and not for himself.” He raised an army of young politicians, journalists and administrators, many of whom are leaders today. He believed in nurturing the next generation.

C. The Legacy of Resilience in the Face of Tragedy: Senator Ewuga knew pain. Several times, the ballot spoke loudly for Solomon Ewuga – but the system refused to listen. Several times, he won in the hearts of the people, won at the polling units, won in the open glare of the day – yet was robbed in the dark corridors of power. His electoral victories were not just contested; they were deliberately, cruelly, and unjustly denied him. He lost his beloved daughter, Adzuayi, a pilot, in a tragic plane crash in Cameroon in 2022. He survived a brutal kidnapping that left him physically challenged for years in September 2021. Yet, he never became bitter. He remained humane, generous, and committed to God and humanity – a true reflection of his faith.

D. The Legacy of Political Adaptability with Principle: In December 2023, after decades in PDP, he joined the APC – not out of desperation, but out of a desire to remain relevant and contribute to nation-building at the centre. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in his condolence message delivered by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Senator George Akume – his classmate at St. Louis College, Jos and University of Ibadan – described him as a “committed patriot and prominent stalwart of the APC.”

There is yet another reason why the memory of Senator Ewuga feels especially significant at this moment.

On October 1, 2026, Nasarawa State will celebrate thirty years since its creation. As citizens commemorate three decades of the State’s existence, it is only fitting to remember the men and women whose efforts helped make that historic achievement possible. Among them was Solomon Akku Ewuga.

Long before he became Deputy Governor, Minister, Senator and elder statesman, he was among the young leaders who participated in the processes and engagements that contributed to the creation of Nasarawa State. Thirty years later, the State stands as an irrefutable statement to the sacrifices, vision and determination of that generation.

As Nasarawa celebrates its 30th anniversary, remembering Senator Ewuga goes beyond the usual formalities of honouring the dead. We now have an opportunity to reconnect with the ideals of service, sacrifice and community-building that helped shape the State from its earliest days.

His life offers an important lesson for the youth. Today’s young people often encounter stories of Senator Ewuga as an accomplished politician and elder statesman. What is sometimes forgotten is that before he became any of those things, he was once a young man with ideas, convictions and a willingness to participate in public affairs. He did not wait until old age to contribute to society. He invested himself in causes larger than himself and accepted the responsibilities that came with citizenship.

Young people can learn from his commitment to education, public engagement, perseverance and service. They can learn that leadership begins long before one occupies public office. They can learn that meaningful contributions to society are not reserved for a privileged few but are open to every citizen willing to commit time, energy and talent to the common good.

Politicians too can learn from his life. They can learn from his accessibility. Despite the offices he occupied and the stature he attained, he remained approachable. They can learn from his communication skills. Few politicians of his generation connected with ordinary people as naturally as he did.

Most importantly, they can learn from his commitment to investing in others. Long after political victories are forgotten and electoral contests fade into memory, it is the people a leader raises, mentors and empowers that become his most enduring legacy.

ONE YEAR AFTER, WHAT REMAINS?

If the measure of a man’s life were to be taken from the multitude that mourned him – from the sheer, uncountable ocean of sympathisers who abandoned distance, status, tribe and creed to converge on the sleepy hills of Alushi for his funeral and burial Saturday, November 1, 2025 – then indeed, the death of Senator Solomon Sunday Akku Ewuga, was not just a death.

It was groundbreaking. It was earth-shaking.

For on that day, Alushi was no longer a town. Alushi became a map of Nigeria.

They came. They came from Lafia and from Abuja, from Jos where he once edited headlines, and from Lagos where he once debated the future. They came from the creeks of the Niger Delta and the savannahs of the far North.

The poor farmer came in his worn-out sandals, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the billionaire industrialist in agbada.
He was a man who knew no strata. He blended. He belonged.

To Solomon Ewuga, there were no high tables and low tables – there was only one table, and that table was humanity.
The millionaire in agbada and the okada rider in dust-covered jeans both found a friend in him. The Professor in the university and the illiterate farmer in Alushi who could not spell his own name both found a listener in him. The First Class Chief and the village youth leader both found a confidant in him.

He spoke the language of the palace and the language of the market. He laughed with equal sincerity in the boardroom and at the village square. He could sit on a golden chair in Abuja today, and tomorrow sit comfortably on a wooden bench in Alushi, eating roasted yam with his kinsmen – and feel no difference.

That was his magic. He did not climb down to people. He lived among them.

And so, when death came, the mourners could not be stratified. Because his life was never stratified.

That is why when you looked into the crowd that came to bury him at Alushi, you saw the sociology of Nigeria in one place.
You saw the rich who came in Land Cruisers.

You saw the poor who trekked kilometres to get there.

You saw the powerful who came with sirens and security.

You saw the powerless who came with nothing but tears.

You saw Christians, Muslims, traditionalists — all weeping for the same man.

He related to all, and so all came for him.

He was a bridge across social divides in life; even in death, he became the bridge that brought all divides together under one roof, to mourn one man.

That is the true definition of a leader.

Following his passing, the Senate observed a minute silence in his honour. The Federal Government sent a delegation to his family. But his real monument is not in Abuja. His real monument is in the peace that still holds in Nasarawa State. In the young Eggon youth who dares to dream because Ewuga showed it is possible. In the history of Nasarawa State, which cannot be written without a full chapter on Solomon Ewuga.

As we remember him today, we pray for his gentle soul. We stand with his wife, Josephine, daughter, Akayi, the Eggon Traditional Council, and the entire people of Nasarawa North Senatorial District. Senator Solomon Ewuga has not died. He has only transited. For as former President Olusegun Obasanjo said: “His legacies speak volumes of the indelible mark he left on the sands of time.”

Today, as family members, friends, political associates and admirers mark the first anniversary of his passing, the occasion presents an opportunity for reflection. It invites us to look beyond partisan differences and political contests and to focus on the values that defined his life: service, generosity, courage, loyalty, accessibility and commitment to community.

History will continue to debate his political battles, analyse his strategic decisions and assess his place in the evolution of Nasarawa State politics. But beyond those debates stands a more enduring reality. Senator Solomon Akku Ewuga lived a life that touched countless others. His influence did not end with his passing because it survives in the people he helped, the leaders he mentored and the communities he served.

As Nasarawa State celebrates thirty years of existence and reflects on the journey that brought it this far, the memory of Senator Solomon Akku Ewuga stands as an indicator that while we cannot overemphasize the importance of strong institutions in the building of lasting legacies, we must also never forget the contributions by individuals whose lives inspire others to serve.

May his memory remain a blessing, and may his example continue to inspire generations yet to come. As we remember him today, we pray for his gentle soul.

•Matthew Kuju & Eric Kuju
Eggonnews Communications, Lafia, Nasarawa State

This weekend was Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corp’s [NSCDC] worst hour since the Oga at the Top saga nearly ten years ago, when its state commandant in [I think] Ogun State was asked to name his organisation’s website. He said only his “Oga at the Top,” the Commandant General, will know it. The episode made the Corp’s analogue-age officers a laughing stock among digital-age Nigerian youths.

What happened in Minna, Niger State at the weekend however made NSCDC not an analogue joke but a monumental national tragedy. It was the worst such tragedy in official custodial hands in Nigeria since March 1980, when fifty suspects suffocated to death in the back of a police Black Maria van, in the premises of a Lagos magistrate’s court. They had been brought to the court to be arraigned for various offences, but there was delay, so the policemen left them in the van, in the hot sun, for three hours, ignored their shouts, bangs and cries for help, until fifty of them suffocated to death.

According to NSDC’s Niger State Command, “In its renewed efforts to rid the state of illegal mining activities, conducted a ‘burst operation’ on 15th and 16th September, 2026, leading to the arrest of suspected illegal miners and the recovery of exhibits.” The operation, it said, “yielded significant results, with scores of suspected illegal miners arrested and various exhibits recovered.” Significant results! In the wake of the death in its men’s hands of 37 very young persons, it was a wonder indeed that anyone will say “significant results” were yielded from the Corps’ so-called burst operation at the M.I. Wushishi and Lukoto areas of Niger State.

The statement, signed by NSCDC’s Niger State Commandant Suberu Siyaka Aniviye, said, tongue-in-cheek, “However, in the early hours of 17th September, 2026, scores of the detained suspects were found dead, following a suspected outbreak of disease.” If ever there was an insulting statement by a public officer, this was it. Scores of the detained suspects were found dead! People were in your custody; you herded them into a dungeon fit for a Nazi extermination chamber, you apparently went home and slept soundly with your family, and the men you posted on guard duty apparently disappeared too because they didn’t hear the shouts and pleas for help from the detainees who cried out that they were suffocating, only for you to return the following day [or perhaps, for your officers to report to you at home the following day] that scores of the detainees had been found dead.

Mr. Aniviye also jumped to a conclusion, far ahead of the Presidency and the Interior Ministry’s pledge to conduct an open, thorough and impartial probe, by saying the boys died “following a suspected outbreak of disease.” I see. I flipped through the NSCDC’s enabling Act to see if it is a secret Medical agency capable of carrying out autopsies. If so, it must have more capacity in that regard than all the Teaching Hospitals combined, because they normally take days to assemble a team of pathologists, examine medical records and conduct an autopsy to determine the cause of death, but NSCDC’s Niger State Command did all of that in record time and with apparent great skill.

Mr. Aniviye, your men raided what you said were illegal mining sites. A mining site in Nigeria, whether legal or illegal, is not exactly a five-star hotel. There you find mostly able-bodied young men, stripped down to their pants, in the hot sun, drenched in sweat, covered in dust and soot, walking barefooted among sharp rocks and crevices, wielding heavy diggers and shovels, having eaten only groundnuts, mangoes and the occasional gari bought on credit from young girl hawkers who come in from nearby villages, digging for days and weeks and months hoping and praying to dig up a precious stone that will turn their lives around, mostly without success. Yet, they were mostly in tolerable good health and in good physical conviction, but within hours of being taken to an NSCDC cell they died, and the Commandant says it was due to a disease outbreak, which was absent at the mining site.

The Federal Government of Nigeria, which these days is earnestly looking for money from every pocket, every dingy shop and under every rock crevice, has been fighting to stamp out illegal mining, which it says robs the public till of billions if not trillions of naira. The question to ask however is, has illegal mining been designated in law as a capital offence punishable with death, alongside armed robbery, insurgency, ritual murder and coup plotting? Even kidnapping, banditry, pipeline vandalism and baby factories are not yet capital offences, except in some forward-looking states. In any case, even a suspected capital offender must first be placed through the custodial, investigative and then the judicial process, not just ferried post-haste into an overcrowded den with poor ventilation.

The story got worse than that. One survivor said a NSCDC officer sprayed a chemical, possibly a disinfectant, in the crowded cell. Pray, do you spray Shelltox or Mobil insecticide to kill pests when people are inside a room? Another survivor of the sordid episode said they were so thirsty that they drank their own urine in the cell. The last time I read about anyone drinking his own urine, during our school days, was then Prime Minister of India Morarji Desai in 1977. He did so willingly, as some sort of therapeutic medicine, being a Hindu mystic, but the Minna detainees were drinking urine out of necessity. Niger State Governor Mohammed Umaru Bago said blood and bruises were found on some of the corpses; doctors may later determine that that is consistent with suffocation and banging of heads against the wall by men who struggled, cried, fainted, then collapsed and died.

Mr. Aniveye concluded his insulting statement by saying, “The Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, Niger State Command, remains fully committed to the enforcement of human rights and subscribes to international human rights charters, while remaining steadfast in the enforcement of its core mandates, including the protection of lives and property, as well as critical national assets.”

Wonderful. Enforcement of human rights, by herding suspects into a crowded den to die well before any judge got to examine the evidence against them? Which international human rights charters? Those subscribed to by Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Benito Mussolini’s Italy, Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot, Ratko Mlajic’s Bosnian Serb Army or more recently, the Israeli Army in Gaza?  Enforcement of NSCDC’s core mandates, which include usurping the powers of the police and judiciary and sidestepping constitutional rights of suspects to presumption of innocence and fair hearing? Protection of critical national assets? Which national assets are more critical than human lives? If youths can be killed in this way, who is left to benefit from oil refineries and pipelines, power stations, GSM masts, rare earth minerals or coastal roads?

Riots broke out in Minna when parents and relatives gathered at the general hospital and could not obtain the remains of their boys for burial. Hoodlums then attacked some public property, including policemen and vehicles of the Niger State Transport Authority, both of whom had nothing to do with the tragedy, and Governor Bago had to declare a 12-hour curfew.

The Presidency and the Interior Ministry responded with unusual speed to this tragedy, with Interior Minister Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo paying a quick visit to Minna, condoling with the people and government of Niger State. A probe panel headed by retired DSS Deputy Director General Jonathan Kure, with a Professor of Histopathology, a former Law School director general and activist Deji Adeyanju as members, was instituted at the weekend and given two weeks to submit its findings. Another probe was began by the National Human Rights Commission. Tunji-Ojo also suspended Commandant Aniviye and nineteen of his fellow officers and men. Among those suspended were the Niger State Command’s Officer in Charge of Station Guard; Arresting Officer/Officer in Charge, Investigation; Head, Intelligence/Investigation; Officer in Charge, Legal; Night Duty Officer and many guards. Only a thorough investigation will exonerate some of them, if any.

I am not sure mere suspension will send enough message to their colleagues all over the country. I have a suggestion, Mr. Tunji-Ojo. Why not lock them up at least for a night in the same cell where they held the hapless illegal miners? Not to die, no, but just to get a little taste of it.

Sending a message is important because there is reason to believe that similar tragedies could yet unfold in some other parts of the country. At the weekend, a long feature article in Punch reported how officials of the Lagos State Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, Lagos State Environmental Sanitation Corps and agents of the Kick Against Indiscipline, while enforcing a state government order to rid the state of beggars and hawkers, conducted mass arrests and herded suspects, including under-aged ones, into Back Maria trucks [though they have repainted them green]. Someone should step in before we have a third Black Maria moment in Nigeria soon.

GUEST COLUMNIST BY IBRAHIM M. IDA

There is an old Hausa saying, ‘nagari na kowa, mugu na kansa’ – A good person belongs to everyone, while a bad person belongs only to himself. This saying succinctly captures the place of character in the Hausa moral imagination. A man’s worth is not ultimately measured by the office he occupies, the wealth he commands, or the company he keeps, but by the goodness he leaves in the lives of those he encounters. It is in this enduring sense that I have come to regard Hon. Ibrahim Kabir Masari as a true ‘mutumin kirki’ – a good man.

I was recently approached by a national newspaper to say what I know about Hon. Ibrahim Kabir Masari, Special Adviser to the President on Political Matters. I gave a brief tribute, but I subsequently felt that more should be said about a man I have known closely for more than thirty years. What follows is therefore not an assessment based merely on his present office or public prominence, but the reflection of one who has known him across different seasons of his life.

The expression ‘mutumin kirki’ was examined with particular insight by the distinguished scholar Anthony H. M. Kirk-Greene in his Hans Wolff Memorial Lecture of 1973, subsequently published as a monograph in 1974. For Kirk-Greene, the concept goes far beyond the ordinary compliment of calling someone a good person. It is a moral assessment of the whole man, reflected in his conduct, relationships, judgement, restraint and inner character. In the Hausa understanding, goodness is something that must be lived before it can be attributed.

It is against this deeper measure that I have known Ibrahim Kabir Masari. Over more than three decades, I have observed in him a striking consistency between what he says and what he does. He values gaskiya – truthfulness and sincerity, and in my experience does not readily abandon the truth because it may be inconvenient. His sense of amana – trustworthiness and keeping faith, is equally evident in the seriousness with which he approaches relationships and responsibilities entrusted to him.

That character is especially visible in his dealings with people and institutions. I have watched him demonstrate ladabi – courtesy and respect, towards constituted authority and, in particular, towards the traditional institutions of Katsina and the wider country. In the presence of the Governor of Katsina State, the Emir of Katsina, the Emir of Daura and other traditional rulers, his conduct reflects genuine respect rather than mere political etiquette. There is in him an understanding that authority carries its own dignity and that respect for institutions is itself a mark of character.

The more revealing portrait, however, is often found away from formal occasions. Masari relates with ease to relatives and kinsmen, ordinary citizens and local politicians, just as he does to governors, legislators, senior officials and national political figures. He does not appear to need an occasion to establish his importance. There is a natural ease in his interaction with people, and that ability to sustain relationships across different levels of society has been one of the notable features of his public life.

He also possesses a discerning eye for talent and potential. He has, on occasions, recognised capable individuals and helped open doors for them; the emergence of people such as Engr. Muttaqa Rabe Darma is one example that comes to mind. To me, this reflects an important aspect of political wisdom: the ability not merely to recognise who is prominent today, but to discern who may serve meaningfully tomorrow.

His karamci – generosity and hospitality, is another quality I have encountered repeatedly. I have seen it expressed not simply in personal generosity but in his willingness to support people, institutions and causes he considers worthy. His interventions in education, including his major philanthropic donation to establish an Islamic University in a desperately needed environment, are among the more visible expressions of a disposition that, in my experience, long predates his present political prominence. Such an act was not isolated, as he has done many worthy acts before and since. Regrettably, instead of commendation, selective irritation was expressed by political opponents. As could only be expected, the irritation did not stem from the generosity itself, but from envy and petty jealousies. Critics chose to align the gesture to the political and socio-economic context of his wealth, wrongly inferring that it was accumulated through exploitative practices or political favouritism, and viewing the generosity not as pure altruism but as a calculated effort to buy goodwill. I make bold to say that none of these applies to Hon. Ibrahim Kabir Masari.

Public life, naturally, brings its own complexities. Political relationships can be affected by different interests, expectations and constituencies, and Katsina has not been immune to such pressures. There have been perceptions of differences between political interests associated with Hon. Masari and those of Governor Dikko Umar Radda.

I have had the privilege of speaking to both Gov. Radda and Hon. Masari on these reported differences, and each has assured me that they are friends and have been political associates in the same camp for so long that any talk of a serious political difference between them is simply mischievous wishful thinking. People may say that such declarations of ‘no problem’ are themselves politics. To me, however, the manner in which Hon. Masari accepts and defers to Gov. Radda as the Jagoran APC in Katsina State, and the manner in which Gov. Radda accords Hon. Masari the respect and courtesies due to a national leader of the APC and a very high political office holder, is a clear manifestation of their mutual respect. Indeed, local opponents try very hard to create the existence of an imaginary bad blood and to attribute political incidents in Katsina either to the state leadership or to Masari’s associates. All these are political machinations, because no such bad blood exists. What both leaders and their associates have before them is one common goal: to ensure that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Gov. Radda and all APC candidates triumph massively in the next general elections in Katsina and across Nigeria.

That restraint connects naturally with another quality I associate with Masari: hakuri – patience and forbearance. Public life brings criticism, disagreement and misunderstanding, but he has often preferred restraint to confrontation and patience to unnecessary public quarrels. In an age when public life can reward noise, such composure is easily overlooked; nevertheless, it remains a quiet mark of character.

His political influence has likewise been expressed more through relationships than spectacle. He has cultivated connections that have enabled him to bring people together, open doors and create opportunities for individuals from Katsina and other parts of Northern Nigeria. In the area of bringing Northern people closer to the President in terms of political patronage – appointments, career jobs, and business opportunities – I do not think anyone surpasses him. Whatever one’s political perspective, the capacity to build and sustain relationships across different circles of influence is an important part of his public persona.

All these qualities bring me back to ‘mutumin kirki’, because the expression asks a question deeper than political success: what kind of man is he when the office is put aside? After more than thirty years of knowing Hon. Ibrahim Kabir Masari, I have seen a man who values relationships, respects elders and institutions, gives generously where he can, recognises ability, exercises patience under pressure, and places considerable importance on trust.

Today, he occupies an important position in the political life of Nigeria as the President’s Special Adviser on Political Matters. The office brings visibility, influence and responsibility, but offices are transient. Administrations change and appointments end. What endures is the character of the person who occupied the office and the memories he leaves in the lives of those with whom he has travelled the journey.

That is why I return to the old Hausa wisdom: ‘nagari na kowa’ – a good person belongs to everyone. For me, Ibrahim Kabir Masari is not defined primarily by his proximity to power or the prominence of his office. He is better understood through the quieter things: the relationships he sustains, the trust he carries, the people he helps, the institutions he respects, the talents he recognises and the restraint with which he conducts himself.

In the final reckoning, titles may tell us where a man has stood, but character tells us who he has been. Offices may place a man in history, but the lives he touches determine how he is remembered. After three decades of watching Ibrahim Kabir Masari move through the changing landscape of public life, I can therefore say, with the confidence of personal knowledge rather than political convenience, that the description that comes closest to the man I have known is one drawn from the wisdom of our people: ‘mutumin kirki’ – a good man.

Sen. Ibrahim M. Ida, Ph.D., CON

Wazirin Katsina

Postscript by Waziri Adio

The campaigns for the 2027 presidential election officially kicked off on 19^th August 2026, as stipulated in the timetable of the electoral management body. More than a full month or above 20% of the five-month campaign period has thus been exhausted. The parties, as mandated by INEC, concluded the selection of their presidential flagbearers in May, close to three months before the official commencement of the presidential campaigns. The intensity might have heightened and the convenient disguises might have fallen off, but there is still not much to separate one period from the other. We could as well still be in the pre-campaign period.

To be sure, two political parties have named their presidential campaign councils while some are still consulting. And there has been a marked increase in political statements, appearances and interviews, in consultations with and endorsements by some constituencies, and of the usual accusations and counter-accusations. But it is clear that the parties and their candidates are yet to engage the full-campaign gear. They are pacing themselves, and for understandable reasons. Presidential campaigns in a big and diverse country like Nigeria cost a lot of effort and money. Proper pacing is necessary for those who want to go the distance, sustain the momentum and stay competitive. 

Nigeria’s official electioneering period—that window between when parties select their candidates and the voters make their choice at the polls—used to be three to four months. The official window was extended to six months in the 2019 electoral cycle, then to almost nine months for the 2023 elections with the 2022 Electoral Act. Nigerians live for elections. While a long electioneering period has some upsides, it is, on the balance, ill-advised in a country that is so fixated on elections. A long campaign period advantages the deep-pocket and diverts attention from actual governance. In any case, no party or candidate will run an intense campaign throughout this expanded window. We saw that in the 2023 cycle and we are seeing it again.

I still try to wrap my head around the elongation introduced by the 2022 electoral law. Policy changes should be informed not by mere fancy or examples from elsewhere but by clarity on the problem we are trying to solve and a deep understanding of the operating context. I still struggle to understand the problem we were trying to solve with the 2022 amendment and how the solution to that problem was to mandate primaries earlier and create a long gap between the selection of candidates, the commencement of campaigns and the conduct of elections. I am not sure a post-mortem of the 2023 election shows that the goal of that policy change was achieved. Did we just try to fix what was not broken?

Ensuring that all court cases are concluded before the winner is sworn in might be a better issue to address. If that is the case, I think it will be better that we hold elections early to allow for enough time for the resolution of disputes arising from the elections. We have done this before. The Special Election Tribunal and the Supreme Court ruled on the 1979 presidential election before Alhaji Shehu Shagari was sworn in as the president on 1^st October 1979. This appears to me to be a more important problem to try to solve than having an over-extended electioneering period that puts the country in a suspended election mode for close to a year.

From all indications, the concentrated campaigns for 2027 will not start until three or two months to the January 16^th presidential election. So, that extra time is an unnecessary distraction to the country. This provision needs to go at the next review of the electoral law. For practical reasons, political parties and their candidates are more likely to see the presidential race as a sprint than as a marathon. The time, energy and resources available to candidates (irrespective of their position, age and stamina) are not infinite. So, the parties, the candidates and their strategists are most likely to conserve their finite resources for a time that will grant them the most impact. And that is likely closer to the election.

Apart from the slow-start, there are other defining characteristics of the first month of the 2027 campaign season. Some of these are hints of things to come while some may change.

The first pattern is that this is a campaign that is so far thin on robust policy discussion. Yes, there have been announcements and promises. But promises are not exactly the same as policies or policy proposals. A major talking point of the past one month has been the promise to restore petrol subsidy by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). Atiku and his handlers have said that he would subsidise petrol production and not consumption by providing subsidised crude oil to local refineries in exchange for lower prices of refined products at the pump.

The Atiku promise resonates with many Nigerians still reeling from high prices resulting from the shocks and the after-shocks of the removal of subsidy on petrol by President Bola Tinubu. Some of Atiku’s handlers have mentioned fancy things like ‘following the barrels’ but they and their principal have not convincingly addressed legitimate questions about how much his subsidy will cost, how it will be paid for, where he would find the barrels to be subsidised, what the trade-offs will be, and how this proposal will not end up returning the country to a precarious fiscal situation and further impoverish the poor. In the absence of such details which can be assessed against reality, it is difficult to bump the Atiku promise to the policy column. If there is a plan, it should be in the open at the time he first made the promise or shortly after. It is a lame rebuttal to insist that those criticizing or asking questions about the promise have not read the details that have not been provided.

The second pattern is related. The low-policy campaign period has been rich in promises, especially populist ones. Promising heaven to voters has always been part of electoral politics. But promises have a special appeal in moments of stress: voters are more disposed to buying them. Besides, we live in the age of populism now. With high cost of living as a major stress point in Nigeria today, most Nigerians are eager for relief and are less questioning. This puts the incumbent on the back-foot and hands the challengers an advantage. The challengers are better placed than the incumbent to promise to make things better. So, it has been raining promises, and one particular candidate has taken the lead in the promise league, inspiring other challengers to join the race. Promises sell, and populist promises even sell more. It is thus no surprise that the candidates have been busy hawking them like cooked groundnuts in harvest season.

Most of the promises are not backed by details of the steps, the costs and the opportunity costs. It is instructive that none of the leading candidates (including the incumbent) has unveiled their detailed blueprints or manifestoes in the first month of the 2027 presidential campaign. Beyond just spewing sometimes vacuous slogans and catchphrases at every stop, they (especially the challengers) have had enough time to articulate in detail what they stand for and what they plan to do differently if elected into the highest office in the land.

None of them is a first-timer in this race, but even first timers should not just wake up and join the presidential race without showing that they have thought deeply about what ails their society and they have well-thought-out and practical solutions to offer. Some of these leading candidates hide behind the need for consultations and incorporate diverse perspectives. These are convenient excuses. The political class of the Fourth Republic has not really prioritised manifestoes as what distinguish their parties from the pack, the basis for convincing voters to choose them over their competitors and the blueprint for governance if elected. Parties of the first and second republics stood as distinct entities in terms of their manifestoes and ideologies. Now, manifestoes are afterthoughts, developed merely to fulfil all righteousness. The current crop of politicians put higher store in promising what they think the people want to hear and most times, they just make up the promises on the go.

In the contest between policies and promises, it is a no-brainer that promises have the edge in the current political climate. However, the effectiveness of piling on promises as an electoral strategy is not guaranteed, especially as everyone else seems to be making them. It is one thing to say what the people want to hear, it is another thing for a critical mass of the voters to believe the candidate making the promise or think that the promise can be actualised. Nigerians have been treated over and over to unfulfilled promises. Making promises on the dime may thus not have the desired effect and may even be counter-productive if the candidate comes off as too desperate to do or say anything just to win. Also, the strength of other factors that decide electoral outcomes will determine how far afield the promises can go and how sticky they can be. 

The third pattern that has been observed in this low-intensity phase of the 2027 campaign is that this electoral cycle will be heavy on attacks and negative campaigning. Demarketing the opponent is part and parcel of electoral politics the world over, especially in our politics where the emphasis has been more on personalities than on ideas. But there is already indication that the campaign will be more toxic this time than in 2023 or in previous electoral cycles of the current republic.  

The parties, the candidates and their affiliates will dig into the past, institute court cases, twist words and images with AI, sponsor division and push false narratives about those in the other camps. They seem prepared to do all these not only to show that they or their candidates are a better fit for the office than the others but also to take away the moral high ground or at least to dilute opinion of those not yet committed to any side. From what we have seen so far, this is unlikely to be one-sided. Unlike the last time, all the leading parties seem prepared not just to instigate attacks but to return fire for fire. We still have about four months before 16^th January 2027, enough time to see which of these patterns will be sustained, de-emphasized or amplified.

 Garba Shehu,


There are good reasons why Leno Adesanya and his company, Sunrise Power Transition Company lost their case at the International Chamber of Commerce, ICC, an outcome that sparked widespread nationwide celebrations across Nigeria.
The ICC threw out the USD 2.35 billion claim by Sunrise on the Mambila Hydro Electric Power Project over the weekend and, as widely reported, and also rejected a USD 400 million settlement claim, ordering instead, the company and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria about USD 11. 82 million in legal and other expenses.

As a news person -perhaps the only one- in the Nigerian team present at the January 15 2025 sitting of the tribunal in Paris, one was privileged to witness the universe of corruption, falsehood, deceit and lies by Sunrise and its owners melt on the floor of Ritz Carlton Hotel’s meeting rooms.
At the hearing, Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari featured as strong pillars of the country’s defense against this  flagship scheme similar to the P & ID in using international arbitration to steal billions of dollars from the country using fraud, deceit and lies, and as did some others including Buhari Ministers, Engineer Sulaiman Adamu and Babatunde Raji Fashola.

It was, however, clear from day one that Leno and company would lose this case following the failure of all the witnesses they invited, including, of course a beautiful lady from Senegal  allegedly providing comfort to one of their government contacts. (Senegalese beauties were allegedly on offer in addition to cash).
At a stake in Paris was the extraction of USD 660 Million and a second one to follow for USD 2.7 billion from the country’s treasury through bogus claims of failed contracts.

The two past Presidents, alongside other key witnesses were prevailed upon by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to rise to the occasion of defending the nation against fraudsters whose stock in trade was to bribe and get government contracts, only for them to use such projects to obtain huge sums of money as costs for settlement using arbitration.
In the year before, the English Supreme Court saved Nigeria from the theft of USD 11 billion through similar schemes, and President Tinubu vowed “ not again.”

The team to Paris was led by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN.
At its meeting of 21 May 2003, the Federal Executive Council, FEC, chaired by the then President of Federal Republic of Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, considered a memo for the issuance of Mambila contract to Leno and his company, and refused to give its approval, asking that the memo be withdrawn while noting that the establishment of new power plants must be done through a competitive process.  

In spite of the above backgroud, on 22 May 2003 – the next day and seven days before the end of President Obasanjo’s first term – the Minister of Power and Steel at that time, Dr. Olu Agunloye, sent Mr. Adesanya of Sunrise a letter purporting to indicate a preliminary ‘approval’ for Sunrise to have a role in the construction of the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station with a value of USD 6 billion.

As far as credibility and reputation are concerned, Sunrise got the so-called “award” without any prior expertise on such projects or any real assets.
Documents placed before the tribunal by Nigeria included filed statements by Sunrise at the Corporate Affairs Commission, CAC  that the company had no turnover in 2017, 2018 or 2019, and had total net declared assets of only N1,000,000 (one million Naira).

At the time they received the “award,” the financial position of the company was N318,685 on 3rd December, 2004 and N270,370 as of 31st December, 2005.
A new Minister wrote to Leno Adesanya of Sunrise to confirm the non-approval of the FEC, on 3 September 2003 and therefore had no contract whatsoever with government.

A new tender process was initiated and the contract was awarded to two Chinese companies, CGGC and CGC.
At a later meeting between president Muhammadu Buhari and the Chinese leader, Xi Xiping the Nigerian president requested funding by ChinaExim bank of the Mambila project, and requested President Xi to nominate credible companies to execute the contract. President Xi gave an instant commitment of the Chinese government to promoting the promote the project.
Sunrise wahala began by demanding payment of (1) GBP 33 million as the costs that it had allegedly incurred “on preparation for the execution of the project”; and (2) USD 1.2 billion, which allegedly represented 20% of the USD 6 billion estimated cost of the Project “as projected profit of our client [Sunrise] on the project.”

Sunrise sought to prevent the Project from moving forward by taking the following steps: One, filing a claim at the Federal High Court against Nigeria’s Minister of Power, the Attorney-General of the Federation, CGGC, and CGC and two, they sought an order preventing any development of the Project except through Sunrise and, in the alternative, claimed the sum of USD 960 million in alleged damages.
As a result of the Sunrise litigation, the project was held up for all these years. ChinaExim withheld funds – as would any lender – pending the resolution of the legal tussle.

In order to move the Project forward, Nigeria entered into settlement discussions with Sunrise, CGGC, and CGC.  The settlement discussions were inherited by the administration of President Buhari.
In those discussions in 2012, the Federal Ministry of Power entered a ‘General Project Execution Agreement’ with Sunrise and Sinohydro (another Chinese contractor that Sunrise had involved) (the “GPEA”), an initial agreement with Sunrise relating to the Mambilla Project.  

On the 14th January, 2015, a letter was  signed by the Federal Ministry of Power supposedly giving approval for Sunrise to be engaged as the local content partner on the Project.
On 9 November 2019, a meeting was held between, on the one hand, Sunrise, represented by Mr. Adesanya, and, on the other, Nigeria’s Attorney-General and Minister of Justice and the Minister of Water Resources in London.  
At that meeting, it was made clear to Mr. Adesanya / Sunrise that any settlement negotiated would, of course, depend on approval by the president.

At this meeting, Mr. Adesanya offered to accept a figure of USD 500 million, and the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Water Resources – no doubt under pressure to settle the dispute so that the Project could proceed – made a counter-proposal of USD 100 million ( based on claims that they had incurred expenses between USD 70-80 million).
After a series of meetings, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and the Ministers of Power, Finance and Water Resource agreed to propose the sum of USD 200 million as a full and final settlement of Sunrise’s claims, subject, understandably to approval of the President. This proposal was accepted by Sunrise.

On 25 March 2020, a second document entitled ‘Addendum to the Term[s] of Settlement’ was signed between Sunrise and representative of Nigeria.  Again, the document provides for a potential doubling of Nigeria’s liability by another USD 200 million in case of delayed payment.

On 31 March 2020, the ‘Terms of Settlement’ and ‘Addendum to the Term of Settlement’ were presented to President Buhari for the first time for his approval.  Upon reviewing the documents, the President decided not to grant approval.  In a hand-written and signed note dated 20 April 2020, the President withheld his approval for entry into these documents, on the basis that “FG [the Federal Government] hasn’t got USD 200m to pay [Sunrise]”.

Despite repeated attempts, President Buhari wasn’t convinced that Nigeria should pay USD 200, or even higher to someone who did nothing but merely presented an unauthorized contract document.
From here, Sunrise commenced another arbitration against Nigeria alleging a violation of the terms of settlement, at which it asked to be paid USD 680 million.

President Tinubu welcomed the tribunal verdict as the removal of the “biggest legal hurdle” in the path of the 3,960MW Mambila power project, describing it as an affirmation of Nigeria’s determination not to succumb to the “predatory and exploitative claims by local and international entities and their enablers and funders.”
Well said.

The next steps he needs to take, in national interest and in honor of the late president whose heart was in the Mambila project until his death, is to urgently link up to the Chinese leader,  to get him to fulfill his longstanding promise to fund the power project.

• Shehu is a former presidential spokesman

Engagements by with Chidi Amuta

In Nigeria today, the market of memoirs is now a field jammed with a buffet of titles by political mammals. And politicians in these parts have a penchant for poisoning most things they come into contact with. Anything hugged by Nigerian politics never remains the same. It is mangled, disfigured or rendered unrecognizable. Politicians’ memoirs are either rehearsals of the onset of the next campaign or a catalogue of regrets and blames heaped mostly on others. It can even be an undisguised campaign for yet another chance in a new electoral cycle. 

But whatever else it pretends to be, a memoir must be readable. It must arrest the attention of the audience not only in the curiosity of the life and things remembered and chronicled. The style of its delivery and rendition must appeal and retain attention. A good memoir must not be a narrative terror, a punishing tale or  humdrum lifeless storytelling. Nor should it be a series of linguistic atrocities unleashed on a hapless audience. In my view, the reading public has committed no offense for which it has earned the excruciating punishment of atrocious writing paraded as memoirs.

The obligation to enrich public discourse through a memoir deserves a refreshing style and elegant narrative.  The experience that gives birth to a memoir as in real life itself often lives in two modes. The life story itself is often a straightforward narrative . It is the trajectory of a life lived in prose which is typical of most life journeys. But the personal private experience of the voyager is a series of reflections that capture the inner poetic essence of man as ‘spiritual’ being. We tend to elevate our experiences to the level of the philosophical and poetic when our experiences touch on the mysteries of death, coincidence, providence or the inevitable encounters between mortal man and what Shakespeare calls “the more than man”. This is perhaps why we resort to poetic quotes from Holy books or classical literature when we are overwhelmed by the imponderables of life. The bare life story is a narrative in prose but one that is at best animated by the poetic essence of life when we encounter bumps that are beyond our normal comprehension. No life  worth memorializing can escape the realms of the mysterious and the inevitable. War, natural disasters, death of loved ones, epidemics and inexplicable occurrences happen in most life times. It is these unknowns of a normal life that invite the poet or philosopher in us all. As America’ s poet laureate  Robert Frost  puts it, “Poetry is when an emotion has found thought and thought has found words”

Reputed Indian-born writer, Salman Rushdie, elaborates on the duality of the language  of the memoir as follows: “The journey across the frontier from poetry land into proseville seems to go through Memoiristan “ In other words, Memoiristan as memory land is the abode of all memoirs and it lends itself to this duality of expressive possibilities- prose and poetry in fluid interface. 

Rushdie correctly identifies the memoir as an emerging art form with its own increasingly distinctive generic attributes. “Memoirs …have become  a major art form , allowing our perceptions of the present to be remade through the personal life experiences , the extraordinary lives of memoirists…”

HOMAGE is therefore my attempt to mediate the duality of the prose of my life’s story and the poetry of my inner reflections on what I have been through. 

 It is more. In this book, I wade through a forest of linguistic and stylistic possibilities and provinces. At times, I am a story teller, narrating my journey. At other times, I am a poetic subject overwhelmed by ancestry and origins through the timeless imagery and metaphor of the ancients. Some other time, I am the historiographer relating personal experience to the progress of national history. Still at other times, I am the journalist interrogating world leaders.

I must confess that HOMAGE is an experimental book from a linguistic and stylistic perspective. It seeks to fuse the methods of prose, poetry, journalism and history without losing the centrality of my life’s story. 

I must also confess that this mixture reflects my diverse disciplinary exposures over the years as a literary scholar, political history student and journalist with over three decades of experience in the last field. 

The original compulsion to do HOMAGE came from my family and friends. My children could not quite understand the contradictions in my life: A father who trekked over five miles a day to go to primary school and now has to drive his kids to the best private schools in an air-conditioned Mercedes; a father who grew up in the bush village of Umuguru thrilled by the drumbeats of native festivity but whose musical taste is now universal and contemporary, ranging from Beethoven to Mozart and Strauss; from Rex Lawson and Victor Olaiya to the best Western R&B, from The Beatles to Hugh Masekela, Daddy Lumba, Flavor to Davido,  WizKid and Burna Boy.

My reminiscences of the war years fueled their curiosity about Nigerian history even further. Till this moment, my children even in their early adulthood cannot understand how anybody could have survived the Hades of blood and fire to earn the cushioned life in which thy grew up.  More demand pressure for this memoir came from friends and relations who have followed my career and writings  in various titles over the years. They were eager to gain insights into “‘where you are coming from”. These followed up with occasional reminders from people like Prof. Charles Okigbo, Yunus Mohammed, Chido Nwangwu and Darl Uzu. I am not sure if HOMAGE meets these high expectations and curiosities. Some of my friends waited anxiously for this memoir to be completed and published but are now gone: Biodun Jeyifo, Emeka Obasi , Ngozi Anyaegbunam and Doyin Abiola deserve post humus acknowledgment. I heard your yearnings loud and clear. This offering is a homage to your illustrious spirits and abiding friendships.

To the rest of you, especially the youth of our nation, who will find time to read and share these memories, this is also a HOMAGE to you and to the future of the nation that has given us all so much.

EDGY OPTIMIST BY Obinna Chima

The Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr. Olayemi Cardoso, this Tuesday marked his third year in office. Cardoso was appointed CBN Governor on September 15, 2023, he assumed duty in acting capacity on September 22, 2023 and was confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 2023.

Cardoso’s three years at the helm of the CBN have no doubt delivered notable progress.  Under his stewardship, the central bank has implemented a series of measures aimed at enhancing market transparency, improving financial stability, fostering a more secure investment environment, and shifting towards a market-driven exchange rate regime.

His pursuit of price and exchange rate stability, which are the foundations of any sound economy, appears to be paying off. These twin objectives are critical to achieving macroeconomic stability, strengthening investor confidence and reducing uncertainty across the economy. When prices and the exchange rate are relatively stable, businesses can plan with greater certainty, make investment decisions with more confidence and manage costs more effectively, ultimately supporting higher economic output. Indeed, every economy functions more efficiently when there is price stability, and this has been a central objective of the reforms pursued by the CBN under Cardoso.

The CBN under Cardoso has remained resolute in its fight against inflation by maintaining hawkish monetary policy stance. By adopting aggressive monetary tightening, the CBN also targets to curb excessive money supply, a key driver of inflation, especially as the country enters another election cycle.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures the rate of change in prices of goods and commodities, which had surged following the major economic adjustments of 2023 and 2024, has embarked on a downward trajectory. The latest data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) released this week, put headline inflation at 15.39 per cent in August 2026, compared with 23.1 per cent at the beginning of the rebased CPI series in 2025.

Cardoso made tackling inflation his paramount mission, holding onto orthodox monetary policy with his belief that it is an essential path to achieving sustainable economic growth in the mid-to-long term, as well as improving the standard of living of ordinary Nigerians.

Equally, when Cardoso assumed office, the naira was confronted with severe distortions arising from multiple exchange-rate windows, limited liquidity and substantial uncertainty over access to foreign exchange. The CBN responded with a series of measures designed to unify and improve the functioning of the forex market, including the move towards a willing-buyer, willing-seller system, the clearance of verified forex obligations and tighter oversight of the Bureau de Change segment.

 The CBN also inaugurated the Nigerian Foreign Exchange Code (FX Code), which was to entrench accountability and compliance in the country’s foreign exchange market. This contributed positively to the stability in the forex market. He also introduced the Electronic Foreign Exchange Matching System (EFEMS), which sets clear and enforceable standards for ethical conduct and governance in the forex market. All these were aimed at reducing arbitrage and restoring confidence in the forex market. A recent survey by Bloomberg showed that the naira is heading to its best performance in almost a decade as the reforms in the market continue to boost investors’ confidence and drive global capital inflows into the Nigerian economy.

Perhaps an even more compelling measure of the changing external position is the growth in Nigeria’s external reserves. The country’s external reserves rose to $54.08 billion as (of) AT September 3, 2026, from the $41.50 billion recorded on the same date in 2025. This represented an increase of $12.58 billion or 30.3 per cent, year-on-year.

External reserves movement showed that the latest position represents a significant strengthening of external buffers over the past year, with reserves adding more than $12.5 billion between September 2025 and September 2026.

The build-up has also been substantial since the beginning of the year. Reserves stood at $45.61 billion on January 5, 2026, indicating that the latest figure of $54.08 billion represents an increase of approximately $8.48 billion, or 18.6 per cent, in about eight months. At its current position, Nigeria’s external reserves have returned to a level last seen nearly 18 years ago, when it stood at $54.21 billion on December 22, 2008.

Today, the CBN under Cardoso is closing in on its target of attracting $1 billion in monthly remittance inflows. Inflows through International Money Transfer Operators (IMTOs) rose to a record $947 million in July 2026. The July figure was the highest monthly remittance inflow ever recorded through formal channels and brings the country within touching distance of the $1 billion monthly milestone set by CBN under Cardoso’s leadership.

Remittance inflows through IMTOs also reached $3.8 billion in the first seven months of 2026, representing a 50.2 per cent increase over the $2.5 billion recorded in the corresponding period of 2025.

The changing perception of Nigeria in international financial markets provides another important dimension to Cardoso’s three-year assessment. Nigeria has received a series of positive signals from international credit-rating agencies in recent time.

For instance, just this week, leading global investment banker, JP Morgan included the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN)  bonds in its freshly launched Government Bond Index–Emerging Markets Edge (GBI-EM Edge), relaunching the country into the bank’s bond benchmark after 11 years. Similarly, S&P Global Ratings upgraded Nigeria’s sovereign rating to B from B- in May 2026, citing structural reforms and improving creditworthiness. Also, Fitch Ratings affirmed the country’s B rating with a stable outlook in April 2026. In August, Moody’s retained the B3 rating but revised Nigeria’s outlook from stable to positive, citing stronger external resilience and economic growth.

The clearest sign of improving market accessibility came from FTSE Russell, which confirmed that Nigeria would be reclassified from ‘Unclassified’ to ‘Frontier Market’ status, effective Monday, September 21, 2026. The decision is particularly significant because Nigeria was removed from the FTSE frontier-market classification in 2023 due to concerns around forex accessibility and capital repatriation.

There has also been a visible improvement in monetary-fiscal coordination in the past three years as the Fiscal and Monetary Policy Coordination Framework (FMPCF) continue to work towards improving synergy between monetary and fiscal policies, in order to achieve better economic management. The Financial Services Regulation Coordinating Committee (FSRCC) has also been strengthened with regular inter-agency meetings and collaborations.

Nevertheless, despite these gains, the CBN is still far from where it ought to be. Inflation remains stubbornly at double-digit due to structural weaknesses in the system. In the next two years, the challenge for Cardoso will be to ensure that the success of price and exchange rate stability translates into sustained improvements in the real economy and the living standards of Nigerians.

Recently, some banks have alleged that the CBN imposed punitive fines on them, raising concerns within the industry over the regulatory sanctions. This needs to be looked into as it undermines confidence in the banking system and the credibility of the regulatory framework. It could also raise questions about the consistency and transparency of regulatory enforcement. The CBN should therefore clarify the matter and ensure that regulatory actions are fair, transparent and properly understood by all stakeholders.

Today there are two versions of the N1000, N500 and N200 notes in circulation, a fallout of the naira redesign policy. This cannot continue forever and Nigerians are looking up to Cardoso to fix this.

From the foregoing, however, while challenges remain, Cardoso’s three-year tenure has delivered measurable gains in price and exchange-rate stability, stronger external buffers and renewed confidence in Nigeria’s financial markets. The task now is to make these gains endure and translate into greater prosperity for Nigerians.

Ibrahim B. Babangida

I am most elated to identify with my dear friend, Dr. Chidi Amuta, as he presents his memoir: “Homage: Return To Familiar Places” to our public. In addition to being a fine writer, public intellectual and significant journalist of international repute, Chidi Amuta is one of those intellectuals that can be categorized as a national asset. His mind as a fertile ground of ideas and unusual insights.

In his writing, he is bold and courageous when necessary. He assumes rational and balanced positions on national issues. Sometimes, he looks power in the face and states his stand fearlessly. He is infinitely creative, very resourceful and has a mind that understands Nigeria and its contemporary problems and challenges. But in all situations, he maintains an admirable candour and civility of expression even when expressing rational dissent.

I have known Chidi as a close friend and also followed his writing career for over four decades. During this period, I have found his writing compelling reading. Not only is his prose refreshing, his logic is often irresistible as he opens our eyes to unusual possibilities in our national conversation. In being his creative and intellectually resourceful self, he has remained consistent in his national outlook. His outlook on Nigeria remains flawlessly nationalistic. His thought process is above ethnicity, region, religion and partisanship.

Even in acknowledging his sense of balance, Chidi comes from an ideological background that can be described as left of center, hence he never ceased to joke about my favourite stance and choice of “A little to the right and a little to the left”! We share the conviction that Nigeria is essentially a social democratic polity. We love equity and justice but would advocate fair reward for hard work and honest enterprise.

Therefore, when he informed me that he was writing his memoirs, I waited anxiously for the outcome. I looked forward to this book as something that would be a delight to read because of the man’s craft as a writer and his refreshing vision and objectivity. I am glad to say that in many ways the book that we are gathered to make public today will not disappoint Chidi Amuta’s many readers. The book is literary and refreshing in style. It is deep in insight as well. It offers us an insight into the modest life of this fine writer and notable intellectual. As we read through this volume, we follow his trajectory from a modest rural childhood to the ups and downs of the educational process. We follow him to a brilliant career in academia, journalism and public affairs. He remains a major voice in the areas of public communication, journalism and public affairs analysis and commentary. 

His experiences especially in the war years reflect the tragedy in our national history at a very trying moment. ChidI Amuta relates to this national tragedy as a personal setback. In his subsequent post-war experience of national life, we share with him the sense of relief that Nigeria survived the turbulent years.

Since getting to know Chidi in our period of national service, I have enjoyed his close collaboration at critical moments in our national life.  His loyalty is rock solid just as his solidarity and abiding friendship are values that I commend to younger generations of Nigerians. His loyalty is only matched by his very enviable dedication to work and service which can never be in doubt.

In many ways, Chidi Amuta approximates my notion of an individual who embodies the Nigerian dream. It is the dream of an individual who rises from very humble ordinary beginnings to become nationally recognizable. With no silver spoon, this writer has by dint of skill and hard work become a nationally recgnised name. In the process, he has become truly significant and perennially relevant. 

A memoir is a challenge to human memory. The challenge is even more weighty when the subject of the memoir in question is himself a writer. Writers especially journalists earn a career by minding other people’s business. Therefore,  when they are challenged to recall their life experiences, it is hard for a writer to decide on what truths and secrets they should reveal to the public  and which to keep unto death. In HOMAGE, Chidi Amuta is able to walk this tightrope  beautifully in a book rich in memory. He reveals harmless secrets about others while simultaneously telling an intimate personal story that appeals to all. HOMAGE    appeals as an intimate  life story, a piece of national history, beautiful prose, arresting narrative and modern journalism.

I therefore most enthusiastically commend this memoir to our public as a treasurable piece of national history. Most importantly, HOMAGE is a beautiful celebration of one remarkable Nigerian life. I commend this book and highly recommend it to our reading public, our youth especially, in their search for role models from among our departing generations.

Congratulations Chidi and please keep writing so that in our life time, we may begin to right the wrongs of our history.  

Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, GCFR, former President and Commander-in-Chief, wrote the goodwill message to Amuta on the occasion of the public presentation of his memoir, Homage: Return to Familiar Places, on September 12, 2026.