The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Definition of Federalism 

On the face of it, it appears that Nigeria is operating a Federal State/Federalism. Federalism is a system of government where power isn’t concentrated solely at the centre, that is, in the hands of a National/Federal Government, but shared between the National and Sub-National Governments, which in Nigeria, is the Federal, State and Local Governments. In AGF v AG Lagos (2013) LPELR-20974(SC) per Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, JSC (later CJN) the Supreme Court held thus: â€œThe purport of Federalism is succinctly put by the former constitutional Lawyer and scholar, Professor Ben Nwabueze, in his book ‘Federalism in Nigeria Under the Presidential Constitution’ thus:- “Federalism is an arrangement whereby powers of Government within a country are shared between a national, country-wide Government and a number of regionalised (i.e. territorially localised) Governments, in such a way that each exists as a Government separately and independently from others operating directly on persons and property within its territorial area, with a will of its own and its own apparatus for the conduct of its affairs. Federalism is thus, essentially an arrangement between Governments, a constitutional device by which powers within a country are shared among two tiers of Government”.

Appearances of Federalism in Nigeria 

Some of the elements of Federalism are present here – Nigeria is known as the Federal Republic of Nigeria; she has a written constitution that is supreme – see Section 1(1) & (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) and AG Lagos v AGF & Ors (2003) LPELR-620(SC) per Umaru Atu Kalgo, JSC, where the Supreme Court stated thus: â€œNigeria is no doubt a Federal Republic with a Federal Constitution
.”. Powers appear to be distributed, whether between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary (Federal and State) (see Section 4-6 of the Constitution) or between the Federal, State and Local Government (see Sections 5 & 7 of the Constitution); and there is the supremacy of Acts of the National Assembly (NASS) over State laws. Nigeria has a Bicameral Legislature – the House of Representatives representing the population, the Senate representing the States equally. There’s also the rigidity of the process of amendment of the Constitution, requiring the input of the State Houses of Assembly, that is, most of the nation (see Section 9 of the Constitution). 

Nigerian Reality: Quasi-Federalism/Centra-lisation/Unitary System 

1)Bloated Exclusive Legislative List

In reality, Nigeria operates at best, quasi-Federalism or some even argue, a Unitary system of governance, because hitherto, some key elements of Federalism glaringly missing from the structure, make it impossible to call it Federalism. Power is centralised in the Federal Government, with a bloated Exclusive Legislative list, not even Concurrent or the Residual Legislative List, which should be the case if true Federalism is being practised – that is, most things would be in the hands of the State and Local Government, with only items such as defence, currency, immigration, foreign affairs, perhaps some health and education, being in the hands of the Federal Government. The federating units – the States, would be the owners of all the resources within their own territories, as opposed to the strange arrangement that obtains where Section 1 of the Land Use Act 1978 (LUA) vests all land (albeit only the surface of the land) within the States in the Governors to hold in trust for the people, while Section 44(3) of the Constitution puts all the minerals underneath the land or therein, in the hands of the Federal Government. 

2)Lack of Fiscal Autonomy 

In short, Federalism envisages fiscal autonomy for the federating units, a situation in which the States have an independent source of revenue generation stemming from the control/management of their own resources, and from there, making contributions to the Centre, and not the opposite which currently obtains, where the Federal Government controls all the sources of revenue generation in all the States, and rather inefficiently too, while giving the States percentages from their own resources, and making them dependent on the Centre for monthly allocations. In AG Lagos v AGF & Ors (Supra) the Supreme Court stated thus: â€œNigeria is
a Federal Republic with a Federal Constitution, in which the Legislative powers of the Federal Government through the National Assembly, and the legislative powers of the State Governments through the State Assemblies, were clearly defined. These consist of the Exclusive Legislative list on which only the National Assembly can legislate; the Concurrent Legislative List which is shared between the National Assembly and the State Assemblies, and the remaining which is called the Residual list not included in the Exclusive or Concurrent List, which only the State Assemblies can legislate on”. In AG Lagos v AGF & Ors (2024) LPELR-80160(SC) per Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC, the Supreme Court held thus: “In the case of Attorney-General, Abia State v Attorney-General of the Federation (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 338) 604 at 674-675, Niki Tobi, JSC
said:- “The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, like most Constitutions, does not provide for a residual list
..Etymologically, residual merely means that which remains. In legislative or parliamentary language, residual matters are those that are neither in the Exclusive or Concurrent Legislative Lists; that is what remains, or is not covered by the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative Lists”.

The fact that Nigerian States don’t enjoy any meaningful fiscal autonomy, depending largely on monthly Federal allocations, and many of their resources have been left to lie fallow and dormant, has given a foothold to local and foreign illegal miners/prospectors to plunder these resources for their own benefit, such as some Chinese who were arrested in Kwara State for illegal mining running through all the local governments of the State, charged to court and convicted for their unlawful activities, Of course, some argue that it may be better to put the mineral resources of Nigeria in one questionable Federal Government, than in the hands of many State Governments, of whom concerns have been raised about capacity and accountability. 

For example, there is a former Governor of one of the Northern States, who is reported to have become fabulously wealthy from illegal gold mining done for his own personal benefit instead of that of the State, leaving his people to suffer in penury, illiteracy and insecurity. Furthermore, if you compare the areas where there are the most violent attacks, displacing residents who have fled to IDP camps for refuge, one will discover that they may very well be the areas most richly endowed with gold and rare earth minerals. This issue however, is a story for another day.

3)Neutrality of the Judiciary 

Additionally, a neutral Judiciary is another element of Federalism; but, quite regularly, the independence of the Nigerian Judiciary is called into question, whether at the Federal or State level. A recent case in view is that of the political parties’ deregistration case, in which Justice Lifu of theFederal High Court, Abuja, disobeyed the order of the Court of Appeal staying proceedings in the case pending the determination of an appeal in the matter scheduled for October 2026, and still went ahead to purport to deregister the parties, as if playing a script of those seeking to muster all opposition. 

Again, Justice Isha Dashen of the Federal High Court, Lokoja, who had given judgement compelling INEC to register another opposition party, NDC, set aside the judgement on the application of an allegedly unregistered political party that claimed that their logo was being used. while they weren’t joined in the initial suit. It is trite law that when a court delivers a ruling or judgement, it becomes functus officio on that application or in that case, that is, generally it lacks the power to revisit that ruling or judgement, and the only option left for parties is to appeal the decision. However, in Refuge Home Savings & Loans Ltd v Garkuwa & Ors (2023) LPELR-59982 (SC) per Adamu Jauro, JSC, the Supreme Court stated circumstances in which a court can set aside its judgement/decision/order thus: â€œThe power to do so may be conferred by Statute or Rules of Court, or may be exercised by the Court under its inherent jurisdiction. This power or jurisdiction may be exercised, where for instance, the judgement, ruling, order or decision sought to be set aside is null and void ab initio, or there was a fundamental defect in the proceedings which vitiates and renders the same incompetent and invalid”. The question is whether the party is unregistered, and if so, whether it can be entertained; and whether either of the two aforementioned conditions was present in the NDC case, necessitating the setting aside of the initial order. If not, a Judge blatantly abusing court process, would certainly raise questions about judicial neutrality, the lack of which undermines the rule of law, a strong pillar on which Federalism rests upon.

State Police Executive Bill 2026

To accommodate State Police, by virtue of Section 9(1) & (2) of the Constitution, Section 214 of the Constitution which provides for only one Nigeria Police Force (NPF), can be amended by two-thirds majority of the Senate and House, approved by resolutions at least 24 State Houses of Assembly, before going for Presidential assent.

The hitherto centralised Nigerian policing architecture established by Section 214, has been another factor evincing the fact that Nigeria isn’t really practising Federalism in the true sense of the word. While issues such as those arising from the creation of non-viable units (States) heavily dependent on the Federal Government for funding thereby weakening Nigeria’s Federalism, resource control and devolution of powers from the Exclusive Legislative List are yet to be addressed, one area where decentralisation has finally gained legislative traction, is policing. 

The detailed Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026 (SB. 1055) aka State Police Executive Bill 2026 (SPEB) has cleared NASS, and is awaiting approval by at least 24 State Houses of Assembly under Section 9(2) of the Constitution. The SPEB seeks to restructure Nigeria’s unitary policing architecture, starting from the amendment of Section 214 of the Constitution to create a dual Police system, Federal Police Service (FPS) and State Police Services (SPS).

The SPEB clearly divides the functions of the FPS and SPS. The FPS is responsible for FCT policing, enforcement of Federal laws, protection of Federal institutions/assets, and handling of inter-State, organised crime, terrorism, cybercrime, arms trafficking, border security, and other national-security matters. The duties of the SPS include enforcement of State laws, maintenance of public safety and order, prevention/detection of local offences, and protection of life and property within the State. The SPS assumes traditional internal security and local law enforcement duties set out in Section 4 (a)-(c) of the Police Act 2020,  previously carried out by the old NPF.

The SPEB provides for procedural safeguards where no State can begin operational policing by its SPS, until such SPS has been certified to have met the minimum standards set by an Act of NASS. And, until a State meets these requirements, the FPS continues to play the policing role there. 

The SPEB doesn’t appear to alter the internal organisational structure of the FPS; however, the highest rank of a Police Officer in the SPS, will be the Commissioner of Police of the State (see the new Section 215(4) of the Constitution). The State Police Commission is to appoint, promote, transfer, dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding offices in the SPS, other than the office of Commissioner of Police of the State, who is recommended by the National Police Council (NPC) to the State Governor for appointment subject to confirmation of the State House of Assembly. The process of appointment of the SPS State Commissioner, while it raises questions about the extent of State security autonomy, appears to be designed to act as a moderating national filter that provides some national oversight and standards, to prevent Gubernatorial capture of the SPS, as the NPC is to include all State Attorneys-General, Zonal Retired Commissioners and Civil Society Representatives. 

The SPS is expected to be primarily funded by respective State resources, but the SPEB allows the Federal Government to provide grants and financial assistance to support the SPS.

Conclusion 

The passage of the SPEB, marks a significant constitutional advance in decentralising security. Yet, true Federalism demands more than Police reform. It requires fiscal autonomy, resource control, and genuine devolution of powers. Until these deeper structural issues are addressed and State institutions demonstrate the capacity and will to govern responsibly, Nigeria will remain a quasi-Federal State in practice. 

State Police is a necessary step, but it is not a magic-wand cure for insecurity that has lasted for decades. Its effectiveness will ultimately be determined by implementation, funding, oversight, and political restraint at both Federal and State levels. 

SPEB is a welcome beginning, in the security sector. Whether it becomes a model for deeper Federal restructuring or merely another half-measure, will depend on how the implementing legislation is crafted and, more importantly, on whether political actors at both Federal and State levels, are prepared to relinquish control in pursuit of a more balanced Federation. 

By Bola A. Akinterinwa

            Colonisation, in its classical sense, now belongs to the garbage of history but it is being re-clothed with technology and show of power by the United States. The Israelo-American war on Iran clearly illustrates this point. President Donald Trump is telling the whole world that America is not simply the policeman of the world but also that America has more determinedly come to govern the world on the basis of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again.’  This policy of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ unnecessarily makes the rest of the world secondary in all U.S. strategic calculations. The U.S. is also recolonizing the world with the use of sophisticated modern technology as shown by the 2026 Israelo-American war on Iran.

            The United States’ new colonization is manifested by manu militari. It is transactional in character and does not allow for foreign competition with the United States. Any resistance to the U.S. policy is jettisoned by coercion. For example, President Donald Trump did not approve the issuance of U.S. visa to the award-winning Somali referee, Omar Abdulkadir Artan, and thus preventing him to officiate in the 2026 World Cup. The Palestinian Football Association president, Jibril Rajoub, suffered the same fate. In fact, the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and other 80 Palestinian officials, were denied visa to attend the UNGA under the pretext of national security. Whereas the United Nations in New York, as an Assembly of international diplomatic missions, has the status of extraterritoriality.

And true enough, the U.S. wants to reassert its political mainmise on the world, but the Chinese are resisting it and preparing strenuously to replace the U.S. as the new global leader. The U.S. policy of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ is vehemently opposed to this. In the same vein, and more importantly, Africa does not want re-colonisation but it is not in the position to avoid recolonization by high technology. Africa is only promoting the quest for strategic autonomy in various ramifications. Thus, the world is witnessing U.S recolonization attempts and Africa’s resistance through the promotion of strategic autonomy.

Manifestations of U.S. Neo-Colonisation

The first manifestation of U.S. neo-colonisation is expressed in the very person of Donald Trump as President of the United States. He sees the goodness and greatness of the United States through himself. What America should be is as understood, seen, and defined by him. In the eyes of Donald Trump, even though his popularity rating has declined to only 36%, the Joe Biden administration was a ‘total disaster’ in his eyes. With the re-election of Donald Trump, ‘America is back’ and is ‘in the golden age.’ Trump has said that he had rescued a ‘dead country,’ the United States, in less than two years (edition.cnn.com).

If the United States was dead and has now been resuscitated by Donald Trump, what should we mean by the resurrection of the United States in international politics? We contend here that it is simply recolonization in a new form, which is about foreign policy by coercion and use of threats of manu militari. It is about the removal of security threats in the United States to money-induced willing African countries that accept what is unwanted in America. It is about the disregard for international law, particularly in the area of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other sovereign states. More interestingly, it is about making policy declarations of braggadocio to threaten less powerful countries.

Let us, for example, look at the U.S.-Kenyan relationship in which Donald Trump wants to use Kenya as an instrument of U.S foreign policy projection. Last week, Kenya played host to serious political tension and heightened spread of Ebola outbreak. The politics of the spread is more problematic than the impact of the spread because the Kenyan government had to suspend the construction of a US-supported Ebola facility as a result of a local backlash. Put differently, Kenyans are saying that their country is not ‘an American colony.’ They therefore vehemently rejected the location in their country of the U.S.-funded isolation ward for Americans exposed to Ebola abroad.

The opposition to the U.S.-supported Ebola facility is understandable from the perspective that the outbreak of Ebola is about 1,500 miles away and bringing the Americans from far away Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or from neigbouring Uganda can lead to importation of Ebola to Kenya. The issue to address here is why the choice of Kenya? Why the opposition? Is Kenya no more the new replacement for the Francophone West African countries that have declared opposition to neo-colonialism and France unwanted in their countries? Why is Donald Trump seeking a special protection for Americans in another country rather than making all the Americans abroad to come together in the DRC to combat the pandemic? Are the people in the DRC not also qualified to be specially protected in the country? Is it not possibly because of the U.S. perception of the incapability of the DRC to effectively contain the spread of Ebola that efforts are being made to provide a special facility in Kenya? Is it not also possibly because the U.S. is foreseeing that there will not be an immediate end to epidemics and pandemics in Africa that a special hub is being contemplated for general use?

Most unfortunately, the Kenyan president, William Ruto, might have considered the fact of Kenya’s $1.6 billion health deal with the United States in setting aside a Kenyan court order to stop the construction of the isolation ward for Americans exposed to Ebola in the DRC. In this regard, we believe that Africa’s problem is here evident: The United States is engaging in a new form of recolonization and Africa is being made the first testing-epicenter of the agenda. Whatever is unwanted in Europe and America, Africa is persuaded and corrupted to accept it. From Rwanda, through Eswatini, to Sudan, unwanted convicted criminals in Europe and America are spreading in Africa in exchange for hard currency. Unbelievable but true: it is an exchange of money not for industrialization, but for maintaining the convicts, and by so doing, enabling financial public corruption and embezzlement by leaders.

What makes the United States that is not on record to be a classical colonialist think it is fit to be a new philosopher king in Kenya? Why will any reasonable African leader reject a court order in order to satisfy the needs of a foreign country and not the interest of his own people? Europeans underscore the protection of their own interests to the detriment of other foreign interests. But Africans cannot be said to have understood their own problems, not to say underscoring their own interests. After all, it was even a Kenyan academic, James NgĆ©gÄ©, who told us in his Weep Not Child published in 1964 that a White man is always a White man but a Black man is never a Black man. He rejected his name, James, and began to answer NgĆ©gÄ© wa Thiong’o in order to show the beauty of his African personality. He changed from writing his novels in English language to writing them in his native Gikuyu language. This was a good manifestation of self-decolonization by example.

Most unfortunately, however, President Ruto appears to have now presented himself as a promoter of United States’ new policy and instrument of recolonization. For instance, while a French doctor, who reportedly was infected by Ebola while treating Ebola patients in the DRC, had to return to France, his home country, the United States opted to transfer Americans yet to be affected by the pandemic in the DRC to Kenya, and not to the United States. What prevents the Americans that have been exposed to Ebola not flown to the United States where very sophisticated healthcare system exists? This is a reflection of imperialistic tendency.

Secondly, aggression is another instrument of U.S. attempt at recolonization in global politics. U.S. aggression in Venezuela and Iran is a good illustration of this observation. It is on record that, in an attempt to contain the influence of China in Venezuela, as well as control its vast oil reserves that have been internationally proven to be the largest in the world, President Donald Trump aggressed Venezuela in January 2026. The abduction by use of military force of President NicolĂĄs Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, allegedly for controversial drug purposes, cannot be justified under international law, except in the case of self-defence. In fact, the self-defence must be in response to an initial military aggression, which was not the case in the context of Venezuela.

Iran was also a victim of American aggression from 28 February 2026 through 17 June 2026 during which Iranian nuclear sites, government officials and leading physicists were bombed and killed in US-Israeli airstrikes. Iran was not the first aggressor. The United States and Israel were the first attackers. They started the war, the battles have been suspended, but there is no certainty about how the war could be permanently ended because of America First policy.     

Sudan is fraught with humanitarian crisis. What future? The unwanted Afrophobia in South Africa continues to generate more debates and disunity in the country. The Government of South Africa is not on the same page with the people of South Africa who want all immigrant foreigners to leave their country, a situation that has prompted many countries like Ghana, Nigeria, Malawi and Mozambique to evacuate their citizens. How do we reconcile African leaders’ sermons of continental integration and unity, on the one hand, and aiding and abetting disunity, on the other hand? Government is unable to make South African citizens stop their xenophobic and particularly Afrophobic tendencies. This inability only facilitates recolonization of Africa by whoever is interested to do so. However, some radicalizing countries are currently showing more concerns about the need to liberate Africa from every jot of neo-colonial and imperialistic oppression.

Africa’s Strategic Autonomy in Disunity

            A current illustration of the quest for strategic autonomy in Africa is the issue of Starlink, the world’s most advanced international satellite-technology company, in Namibia. The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (CRAN) has refused to license the Starlink, which is an American international communications company, to operate legally in Namibia. This is because the law regulating communications business clearly stipulates that any international company or multinational corporation that wants to operate in Namibia must accept only 49% equity participation while Namibians must have the rest, 51%. Starlink is American owned, consequently, it is an international company and, therefore, cannot be allowed to operate on the basis of 100% equity share.

When the Starlink attempted in March 2026 to appeal against the rejection of its application for license, the CRAN denied the various appeals by the Starlink, especially because the Starlink did not file a reconsideration appeal within the stipulated time. Even if the Starlink had filed its reconsideration appeal within the time required, there was nothing to suggest that the appeal would have been accepted because of the existing law. And perhaps most importantly, there is the fear of Namibia that its national security cannot but be threatened as a result of the possible centralization of strategic telecommunications infrastructure located outside of Namibia.

Put differently and interrogatively, who is going to control the data collected from Namibia if it is not Elon Musk? Will it not be the same Elon Musk who was born in South Africa and seen as a man with an apartheid mentality? He is also seen as a close friend of Donald Trump. When will Starlink not be used against Namibian interest if the national interest of the United States is at stake? Big telecommunications companies, like the MTC, are all complying with the Namibian regulation. Why should that of Starlink be different if it is not for a new hegemonic and imperialistic agenda?

Whatever is the case, Starlink has become an instrument of threats to national disunity in Namibia because the Starlink provides a high-speed satellite internet in which Namibians are most interested. The Namibian government, on the contrary, is most interested not only in creating more jobs for Namibians, but also in particularly protecting national sovereignty and avoiding national security implications. This is why the Namibian government has rejected the 624 appeals challenging the non-licensing of Starlink. Comparatively, while President Ruto of Kenya is pro-America to the detriment of Kenya, Namibians are re-affirming their beauty as Africanist Namibians. They are underscoring the protection of their national interest and trying to address the implications of Starlink’s possible insecurity linkages in the foreseeable future. Even if the Starlink were to agree to the requirement of only 49% equity share, Namibia is not likely to be able to still prevent the use of data collected from Namibians to the advantage of the U.S. as wanted by Elon Musk. This is why Africa needs to sit down and engage in more critical thinking regarding its future.

Second is the politics of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC was founded in 2002 under the multilateral Rome Statute to investigate, and if need be, to prosecute the gravest crimes of concern, such as international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. More importantly, the ICC is not simply an international tribunal, but also an intergovernmental organization.

In this regard, the United States is not a member of the ICC primarily because of the non-preparedness of the U.S. to subject any American military personnel and government to trial by any supra-American or supranational authority. Arguments of the need to protect national sovereignty and fear of possible politically-motivated prosecutions are the main rationales for non-membership of the ICC. Put differently, the Washingtonian government believes that the submission to an international court when there is no consent to that effect is necessarily a violation of U.S. national sovereignty.

But true, the U.S. took active part in the negotiations that led to the signing of the Rome Statute. President Bill Clinton reluctantly signed the Statute in 2000 but the Bush administration unsigned it in 2002, following the promulgation of the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA) passed by Congress in 2002 and referred to as the ‘Hague Invasion Act.’ The Act prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC and authorizes the President to ensure the release of any U.S. or allied personnel held by the ICC.

Most unfortunately, however, the U.S. has not only been sanctioning and imposing travel restrictions on ICC officials who have attempted to investigate suspected crimes committed by U.S. soldiers or committed by the allies of the U.S. In the same vein, Israel, Sudan, and the Russian Federation signed the Statute in 2000, but Israel unsigned it in 2002, while Sudan unsigned it in 2008 and Russia unsigned it in 2016.

Interestingly, the U.S. supported the same ICC’s March 2023 declaration of arrest of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, over his alleged individual criminal responsibility of unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Expectedly, Russia ignored the warrant of arrest, issuing its own warrant of arrest on ICC officials in reaction. Like the U.S., Russia is not a Member signatory to the Rome Statute. In all, 41 countries are not party to the Rome Statute, meaning that they are not subject to the obligations by the Statute. This raises the third issue of the Alliance of States of the Sahel.

Thirdly, if not more importantly and disturbingly, the three Member States of the Alliance des États du Sahel, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, have announced their withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC), considering that the ICC has become an ‘instrument of neo-colonialist repression.’ Although they had earlier indicated their intention to withdraw nine months ago, Niger officially submitted its instrument of withdrawal from the ICC on June 16, 2026. This means that, with effect from June 18, 2027 the withdrawal cannot but take effect. However, Niger is still pretty bound to comply with the obligations created by the Rome Statute. The obligations in this case cannot but be limited to the arrest and surrender of any person placed on the warrant of arrest. For example, if President Putin travels to any of the Member State of the Sahel. The likelihood again of any of the countries complying is, at best, remote. What is noteworthy about the withdrawal is its consideration as a means of ending ICC as an instrument of imperialism and neo-colonisation. As noted by Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, they want to establish ‘indigenous mechanisms for the consolidation of peace and justice.’

Fourthly, Burkina Faso broke diplomatic ties with France on Friday, 26 June 2026, allegedly for supporting ‘subversive networks’ and ‘terrorists.’ There is no mutual respect. There is no demonstration of sovereign equality. These are some of the reasons for this łŸĂ©Čő±đČÔłÙ±đČÔłÙ±đ. Without whiff of doubt, the break-up of diplomatic ties is not simply in protest against alleged France’s support for terrorism, but essentially as part of efforts being made to stop recolonization in various ramifications. In fact, the BurkinabĂ© Government introduced last week a new regulation compelling all students intending to go abroad for higher education to first obtain prior clearance from the Ministry of Higher Education in order to bring education in line with the Government’s development priorities. The Government wants an alignment of overseas academic training with national development priorities. This new regulation complements the mandatory ‘patriotic immersion programme’ for new university students.

France, in particular, and the United States and other European countries, in general, are the countries to which the Burkinabé often go to for higher education. The implication is that approval to go to France or to the United States cannot but now be subjected to rigorous checks. With deterioration of ties with France, Burkinbé students cannot be expected to have ready approvals to go for higher education in France.

This cannot but be so because Russian influence has replaced Franco-American influence in Burkina Faso, as well as in Mali and Niger. As the United States wants to be the most senior king in Africa and Africans are also showing non-preparedness to accept, what should be the way forward? Can any meaningful resistance be undertaken with a house divided against itself? Even within a country, Kenya, there is disagreement. Can there be any good future with an Africa divided against itself, and with the Kenyan Government consciously and ignorantly sustaining dependency to the detriment of the yearnings of Kenyan people?

QUOTE:

As shown above, President Donald Trump wants to control the whole world by manu militari. He wants to make Kenya a regional hub for disease containment but Kenyans are vehemently opposed to it. President Ruto of Kenya, probably because of President Trump’s determination to provide about $800 million in emergency funds for an Ebola quarantine facility in Kenya, is not fully complying with a Kenyan court order to stop the project. He has been ignoring popular protests against Kenya hosting it. Unfortunately, the United States bothers less about the concerns of Kenyans. The U.S. is mostly concerned about the need for Kenya to play host to the regional and global Ebola containment efforts. And true, before the presidency of Donald Trump, democracy was defined by freedom. Today, under Donald Trump when the U.S is celebrating 250 years of its existence, democracy is being defined, not by freedom, but by imperialistic dictatorship. Europeans and Americans are preaching democracy to Africa but they do not believe in it anymore. If they do, why did they support a military take-over in Chad when Idris Derby died? They rejected democracy because Idris Derby was considered ‘a reliable friend’ of the West. Imagine the hypocrisy. They are never interested in sovereign equality, a basic principle of international law. Africa wants the reform of the United Nations but the P-5 of the UN Security Council have not shown any interest by making Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter unworkable. Again, why should Donald Trump be supporting the agitations for independence of White South Africa? Africa is contemplating its own African Criminal Court. Why are the efforts being frustrated? What future is there for Africa with this type of situation?

BY Femi Akintunde-Johnson

At a bus stop somewhere in Lagos, a middle-aged woman stood before a roadside vegetable seller, clutching a small nylon bag containing three tomatoes, a handful of pepper and half a loaf of bread. She opened her purse, counted the notes inside, frowned and counted them again, as though arithmetic itself had suddenly become unreliable. Then, with an embarrassed smile, she removed one tomato from the bag and handed it back to the seller. “Madam, let me leave one,” she said quietly. “The children can manage.”

 A few kilometres away, a young office worker stared at his phone calculator, trying to determine whether it was more prudent to buy fuel for his ageing car or endure the daily combat of commercial buses. In another part of town, a parent stood before a school bursar, pleading for one more week to complete school fees. In the market, a trader had changed the price of a bag of rice for the third time in one week and was preparing for the familiar accusation of greed from customers who were themselves victims of the same economic torment.

 These are no longer isolated scenes. They are fragments of a national condition. The average Nigerian has become a full-time strategist. Before breakfast is contemplated, calculations have already begun. Which bill is most urgent? Which expense can be postponed? Which debt can be ignored for another week without provoking embarrassment? Which meal can be adjusted? Which journey can be cancelled? Which medicine can be purchased in half dosage or sachets, and supplemented with faith and optimism?

We have become a nation of reluctant mathematicians. Perhaps that is why some official comments questioning whether there is truly food shortage in Nigeria have been received with bewilderment and, in some quarters, quiet indignation. One occasionally gets the impression that there are now two Nigerias existing within the same borders. There is the Nigeria of briefings, spreadsheets and reassuring macro-economic pronouncements. Then there is the Nigeria where people buy tomatoes one at a time, where eggs have become occasional guests at the dining table, and where many families have learnt to stretch one pot of soup across several meals through methods that would impress the most gifted magicians.

  The issue, of course, is not necessarily whether food physically exists somewhere in the country. The issue is whether ordinary people can still afford it with any measure of comfort and dignity. A market can be overflowing with produce and yet remain inaccessible to millions. A man standing beside a full well with no rope or bucket is still thirsty.

 What is remarkable, however, is the extraordinary adaptability of Nigerians. We are perhaps one of the most inventive people on earth when confronted with adversity. Families that once enjoyed simple pleasures now reserve them for special occasions. Meat has become increasingly ceremonial. Rice has acquired a certain festive status in some homes. Transport routes are planned with military precision. Invitations to weddings and birthdays now trigger financial calculations. Some people avoid answering telephone calls because every ringing phone appears to carry another request for assistance or another social obligation they can no longer comfortably fulfil.

Even language has changed. The phrase “we are managing” has become one of the most commonly spoken expressions in the country. It is uttered by civil servants, traders, professionals, artisans and pensioners alike. Yet hidden inside those three words lies an entire catalogue of sacrifice and anxiety. Because managing is not living.

Working is one thing; coping is another. Working suggests that effort leads eventually to comfort, fulfilment and progress. Coping simply means finding ingenious ways not to collapse under the weight of circumstances. Increasingly, millions of Nigerians are not pursuing prosperity. They are merely negotiating survival. And survival is exhausting.

A country under prolonged economic stress also suffers emotionally. Anxiety becomes normal. Tempers shorten. Patience evaporates. Relationships come under pressure. Young people become uncertain about their future and older people begin to wonder how decades of labour have culminated in such pervasive insecurity and economic vulnerability. Parents lose sleep over school fees. Workers fear unexpected illness because healthcare has become an expensive proposition. Pensioners perform impossible calculations with pensions that have long lost their purchasing power.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that survival itself now consumes time and energy that should ordinarily be devoted to productivity, creativity and ambition. Citizens who should be thinking about investments, innovation and self-improvement are instead preoccupied with transport fares, electricity bills and the next market visit. A nation permanently focused on immediate survival gradually loses some of its capacity to dream.

No country becomes prosperous because its citizens become experts at enduring hardship. Indeed, there is a subtle danger in our celebrated resilience. We have suffered for so long that we have almost romanticised our ability to cope. We applaud ourselves for surviving conditions that ought never to have become normal. We praise resilience without sufficiently interrogating the circumstances that constantly demand it. There is a difference between resilience and resignation. One inspires progress; the other merely accommodates decline.

Government officials would therefore do well to exercise greater sensitivity when discussing economic realities. Citizens are not asking for miracles. They understand that economies pass through difficult periods and that reforms often come with painful adjustments. What they seek is empathy and evidence that those making public policy genuinely understand the burdens being carried by ordinary households.

The woman who returned one tomato to the seller was not asking for luxury. The young man calculating transport costs was not demanding extravagance. The parent pleading for more time to pay school fees was not seeking special treatment. They were simply trying to preserve a measure of dignity in difficult circumstances.

And perhaps that is the real issue before us. The cost of our present economic realities cannot be measured only in inflation figures, exchange rates or growth projections. It must also be measured in postponed dreams, abandoned ambitions, strained relationships and the quiet humiliations that now populate everyday life.

 When citizens spend every waking day engineering their own survival, something profound happens to the social contract. People begin to lose confidence not merely in the economy, but in the promise of tomorrow itself. And a nation whose citizens have stopped believing that tomorrow can be better is a nation standing on very dangerous ground.

No people should have to make a full-time profession out of survival. Citizens deserve the opportunity not merely to endure life, but to live it; not merely to manage, but to aspire; not merely to survive another day, but to look towards a new day with confidence, purpose and hope.

Insecurity has ravished and humiliated Nigeria enough. Let’s arrest it frontally now, writes MONDAY PHILIPS EKPE

One of the most unfortunate fallouts of the reign of terror that has bedevilled Nigeria for close to two decades is its numbing effect on the populace. What used to scare us and elicit commensurate thoughts and actions to tackle it has somehow resulted in attitudes that range from denial to resignation, diffusion to helplessness and anxiety to phobia. And, at other times, to arguments over its proper categorisation and semantics. Just imagine why the sweat over the campaign by some individuals to remove the label of terrorism from bandits. As if we always need a situation in the magnitude of the 9/11 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, masterminded by Osama bin Laden in which thousands of people were massacred within minutes, to qualify for terrorism.

Introducing such trivialities can only complicate a matter that has literally brought the country to its knees. Call it terrorism, insurgency, kidnapping or banditry. The strain that binds them together is the impact on the people, particularly the unarmed. The practitioners of these evil trades are mostly wielders of arms and ammunitions, the types that even those authorised to monopolise the ownership of instruments of violence do not possess in good volume and quality. An average Nigerian wakes up in the morning and can no longer take his safety for granted.

It’s that bad. If our declared demography is to be believed, up to half of the population – a chunk of the youth segment – don’t know any other life outside managing to keep safe. If not from personal experiences or of those known to them, the news they’re constantly exposed to are crippling enough. And don’t doubt for a second the gravity of this pervasive insecurity or the concerns it has generated everywhere. It’s now common to hear some television anchors and reporters in the southern part of the country worry about the menace “getting too close” to their homes (comfort zones). Really? So, Damaturu and Maiduguri are not home enough?

Time was when bombings, wanton murders and wholesale destruction of towns and villages were classified by some persons as the preserve, the self-inflicted lot of the north, beginning from the north-east. But, to the discerning, there weren’t any strong grounds to embrace such myopic, sabotaging thoughts. For one, Nigeria is a single geographical entity. Even those who doubt and disparage its nationhood must come to terms, at least in their sober moments, with this “rude” reality. No physical borders between the states. And, certainly, no official encumbrances of the movement of goods, including cattle, and human beings. It was, therefore, always going to be a matter of time for the criminalities to attain a nationwide spread if they were not confronted head-on.

The basis for this prediction is well-founded and in our recent history. Take the abductions of people to press for ransom or some other blackmails. Many Nigerians would remember that this crime as a regular national pastime has its origins in the Niger Delta. Something that started ostensibly as a tool for corporate agitations was soon hijacked by the hoodlums there for filthy lucre. With time, kidnapping moved upwards, first to the south-east where its mercantile values were fully explored. By the time it got to the north, this nocuous vocation was received by more vicious criminals who treated life (they still do) as a casually dispensable item. Although kidnappings still take place in many parts of the nation, the ones up north have remained largely more organised, audacious, brutal and relentless.

The severity of this national dilemma demands that we can’t afford to politicise it any further. This sort of handling has its roots in the mischaracterisation that began during the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan when the crisis was believed in certain quarters to have been cooked by some northern interests to get rid of a president from the south. Curiously, such harmful opinions have begun to emerge. Since President Muhammadu Buhari, a northern, didn’t have respite while his administration lasted, what’s the impetus for that insinuation today? The duty to lead the country away from this destructive mindset rests on President Bola Tinubu. He shouldn’t blame the opposition now as he was in the vanguard of calling Jonathan’s government “clueless” in those days.

His Democracy Day speech this year is largely predictable except for one issue related to Nigerians’ cardinal need to stay alive and well. Hear his advice to the reprehensible death professionals in our midst: “To bandits, kidnappers, and sponsors of terror: Surrender or face the full force of the Nigerian state. These windows of surrender will not remain open forever.” Ha! That is bland! Sir, at this point, advising these merchants of human blood shouldn’t be a part of your job description. Yours is to preside over their own elimination in order to sanitise Nigeria. The interminable engagements of our security operatives with them haven’t yielded the desired results. The felons are all over the social media displaying their victories freely. The souls of the officers and men who have been neutralised in the course of withstanding these odious elements and those of the hundreds of thousands of citizens sent to their early graves mustn’t be further traumatised with knee-jerk responses.

Actually, hearing that from the president makes him resemble someone pandering to people like Sheikh Abubakar Gumi who have been campaigning for negotiating with bandits, a position that hasn’t produced any meaningful outcomes and is never likely to. And to his compatriots, Tinubu declared: “No mercy will be shown to those who trade in the blood of Nigerians. At a time like this, let us not assign blame or point fingers. Crime has no ethnicity. We must stand united and be assured that the enemies of our nation shall soon be history. We will triumph over terror and continue to build a more prosperous nation.” A tiring presidential refrain that has survived Jonathan, Buhari and, now, Tinubu himself.

Excuses for the failure to combat these existential challenges have gone on for too long. Prominent among them is that our soldiers are faced with asymmetric war rather than the conventional one they are trained to prosecute. Their syllabuses and training ought to have since been reviewed to reflect the present realities that bully us unendingly with contempt. After all, ours isn’t the first country that harbours characters who hide behind religion to torment and subjugate others. Or cause massive havoc with other motivations. Talks of rejigging our security architecture have gone on forever. Promises to adequately equip and motivate the military personnel are broken records. Most Nigerians find the idea of reintegrating “repentant” terrorists into the society ridiculous and shameful. It’s time to prioritise workable solutions above politicking.

Dr Ekpe is a member of ÌÇĐÄÊÓÆ” Editorial Board

X: @monday_ekpe2

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

The Good Old Days

It is obvious that, in Nigeria, the whole legal profession of today is certainly not like that of the good old days. Whether it is the Bar or the Bench, there has been a marked deterioration in both; things appear to be in disarray. Last week, I discussed the somewhat embarrassing controversies  surrounding the preparations for 2026 Nigerian Bar Association election into national offices. This week, it’s the behaviour of Lawyers and Judges. 

Abuse of Court Process

I had a conversation with a member of the National Judicial Council (NJC) a couple of years ago, towards the end of CJN Olukayode Ariwoola’s tenure, when forum shopping and conflicting court orders were in high fashion. I agree that it takes two to tango, that in the first place, it is the Lawyers who bring these faulty matters before the Judges, whether it is forum shopping or lack of jurisdiction, whatever type of fundamentally flawed matter that shouldn’t be brought for one reason or the other, and without the Lawyers initiating this abuse of court process, Judges who engage in  judicial rascality may not have the opportunity to make the mischief that they do. 

I raised the question of why erring Judges can only be brought before the NJC by way of petition, particularly if the case is a high- profile one in the public space. I suggested that the NJC should be able to issue a query to any Judge accused of judicial rascality in such circumstances, to come and explain themselves without having to wait for a petition that may not come, or may be aborted midway, as one of the complaints is that, sometimes, Complainants withdraw their petitions, mostly under pressure. In Obasanjo & Anor v Olugbode & Ors (2025) LPELR-81518 (SC) per Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JSC, the Supreme Court held inter alia that: â€œThe term “abuse of court process” is an elusive concept, in the wide domain of litigation. It exhibits variegated forms, and is disobedient to one single definition
.It connotes the proper and improper use of judicial process by a party in litigation, to interfere with due administration of justice. Generally, the employment of judicial process is only regarded as an abuse when a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process, to the irritation and annoyance of his adversary and the efficient and effective administration of justice”.

Justice Lifu and the Deregistration of Political Parties: Judicial Rascality 

Presently, the case that is trending, is that in which Federal High Court Judge, Peter Lifu J. in a case concerning the deregistration of certain political parties, went ahead to order that they be deregistered, despite a Court of Appeal order staying proceedings in the case pending the determination of the interlocutory appeal scheduled to be heard in October 2026. This failure to adhere to judicial hierarchy, has been described as judicial rascality. The Court of Appeal invoked the authority of Owoniyi v Aiyewunmi 2025 16 N.W.L.R. Part 2011 Page 237 per Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, JSC, on the Supreme Court’s position on the defiance of superior orders/hierarchy, to describe Lifu J’s conduct as â€œthe highest form of judicial impertinence”. Kindly, read a full discussion of this rascality in Dr Eyimofe Atake’s article on Page 6.

Another example of judicial rascality is the recent Court of Appeal ruling in the Neconde/Nestoil matter, where a decision on an ex-parte application was reportedly delivered in the absence of the record of proceedings from the trial court.

First Bank and General Hydrocarbon Limited: Counsel’s Rascality

But, Lawyers too, are not really sanctioned for bad behaviour in Nigeria. Again, like the NJC, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) depends on petitions. This doesn’t necessarily have to be the case, as there are still other ways to seek to enforce discipline at the Bar. In the UK (England and Wales) for example, Judges can refer Solicitors to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and Barristers to the Bar Standards Board, for pursuing frivolous, vexatious or abusive claims, for disciplinary investigation. Obviously, where the Judges and Lawyers alike are jointly involved in the abuse of court process as is usually the case here, Judges referring Counsel for disciplinary action would be highly unlikely.

Recall the case of First Bank (FBN) and General Hydrocarbon Ltd (GHL) that I discussed in January 2025? This is a classic example Counsel’s rascality! After Allagoa J. had delivered judgement on 12/12/2024 in a matter involving both parties, restraining FBN from inter alia, obstructing or preventing any loan facilities or funding for the exploration or operation of OML 20 and from taking steps to enforce any security, receivables etc against GHL, pending the hearing and determination of the ongoing arbitration proceedings between GHL and FBN, instead of going on appeal, the same group of Senior Advocates representing FBN secretly went forum shopping for their gift during the Christmas vacation, and obtained an ex-parte interim order dated 30/12/24 from Allagoa J’s brother Judge of the same Federal High Court Division, Dipeolu J. freezing the accounts of GHL and others, contrary to Allagoa J’s earlier decision handed down based on arguments from both parties. See the case on Okafor & Ors v AG Anambra & Ors (1991) LPELR-2414 (SC) per Adolphus Karibi-Whyte, JSC on multiplicity of actions on the same subject-matter. 

GHL subsequently filed two motions on notice, praying the court to set aside the abusive ex-parte order of 30/12/24. In his ruling, citing the case of Polaris Bank Ltd v Bellview Airlines Ltd & Anor (2021) LPELR-56258 (CA) in support of his position, Dipeolu J. stated that FBN had failed to make full disclosure of Allagoa J’s earlier judgement in the course of moving their ex-parte application, thereby withholding material facts which would probably have resulted in the ex-parte order not being granted. What amounts to rascality, professional misconduct and abuse of court process, if not the actions of FBN’s Counsel regarding this matter?  If it was in the UK, Justice Dipeolu would have referred FBN’s Lawyers to the LPDC. GHL could also petition against FBN’s Counsel, for this abuse of court process. But, as suggested for the NJC, why can’t the LPDC query Lawyers and ask them to come and explain their actions, where their alleged wrongdoings are in the public space? 

What is clear is that, the present processes of discipline of Judges and Lawyers are not particularly effective, as they do not serve as a deterrent to misconduct. These institutional failures are compounded, when extra-judicial tactics enter the equation.

Prejudicial Extra-Judicial Comments: Ms Chimamanda Adichie’s Statement 

While the list of what constitutes abuse of court process isn’t exhaustive, it also covers situations where trial Lawyers make extra-judicial comments that may be prejudicial to the court proceedings, or may interfere with the fair trial of a case. Such behaviour is a breach of the ‘sub judice’ rule, that is, Section 33 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 (RPC). Usually, one finds that it is Lawyers who want to garner support from the unknowing public because their cases may be weak in law, that deploy such tactics to win sympathy. Nevertheless, it appears that Section 33 of the RPC only applies to Counsel who are trial Lawyers in a matter, and are prohibited from making prejudicial statements (fair comments are allowed by all), and don’t directly apply to litigants and others. Therefore, Counsel can decide not to discourage their clients from making statements that they as trial Lawyers are prohibited from making, as some type of tactic to win in the court of public opinion, at the very least, even if they can’t win in a court of law. See for instance the 2023 Presidential election petitions, and the parallel court of public opinion trials.

As unseemly as prejudicial extra-judicial statements of a litigant may be, I’m not sure if or where it falls when it comes to abuse of court process – maybe ‘contempt ex-facie curiae’? I suppose opposing Counsel can issue and file in court, a “Cease and Desist Notice” to demand that such litigant refrain from making categorical, inflammatory, prejudicial statements and stop acting as the Prosecutor, Judge and Jury in their own case, so that the Judge may be constrained to issue a gag order if necessary, as was done to Donald Trump during his  trial before he became President.

Recently, my attention was drawn by several people, to a statement allegedly issued by Ms Chimamanda Adichie which apparently made the rounds on social media, about the events surrounding the death of her son, Nkanu. She started by stating that losing a child is a parent’s worst nightmare. I agree with her entirely, on that point. Only God can bring comfort and healing, for such an indescribable loss. As a Parent, I empathise and sympathise deeply, that such an awful thing has happened. 

I was referred to Paragraph 15 of Ms Adichie’s statement particularly where she stated thus: â€œNot long after, an article appeared in the Nigerian press which any reasonable person would assume was orchestrated by Euracare, claiming our son had died of meningitis. It was a cheap and ugly strategy to deflect from the truth”. 

Ms Adichie could certainly not have been referring to my article of January 20, 2026: â€œBaby Nkanu: Negligence or Meningitis?”, because firstly, she was the one who brought the sad death of her son to the public space, thereby making it a topical legal issue for discussion; secondly, as a Lawyer, I am trained to stick to the facts and evidence, not avoid them. Thirdly, nowhere in my article did I state that Meningitis was the cause of Nkanu’s death. Even the title of my aforementioned article is a question, not a statement of fact. What I did say was that Ms Adichie had in an earlier statement, mentioned that in anticipation of Nkanu’s evacuation to Johns Hopkins Hospital, USA (JH), they had requested for a Lumbar Puncture (LP) and an MRI. I said: â€œThe request shows that Nkanu was in a serious condition, and JH suspected that he may have had Meningitis or some neurological symptoms, which is what LP diagnoses, with the MRI to provide detailed images of the brain and spinal cord to check a possible spread, if indeed, that was the case”. I also said: â€œAnd, to determine whether a Propofol overdose was indeed, the cause of Nkanu’s death, or what the cause of his death is, an Autopsy, that is, a postmortem examination upon his death would be required”.  This is self-explanatory.

Counsel to Ms Adichie was given a right of reply to my aforementioned article, and in my response to it, I concluded vehemently thus: â€œFinally, I restate the fact that I have only sought to examine the highlights of this unfortunate occurrence vis-Ă -vis the provisions of the law. I, in no way, attempt to apportion any blame, nor did I ever state that I know Nkanu’s cause of death. I simply asked pertinent questions”. I submit that my article was simply a statement of legal principles and an interrogation of issues, and I take exception, if anyone describes it as otherwise. 

In her recent statement recalling the events surrounding Nkanu’s death, Ms Adichie notably omitted reference to the fact that contrary to Section 48(1) of the Coroner’s System Law of Lagos State 2007, he was cremated before any autopsy could be performed, to determine the cause of his death. Would they have been able to carry out such cremation, if the unfortunate death had occurred in USA where they reside? I think not. That act of wilfully destroying his body in what qualifies as a Coroner’s case, is a serious offence that carries a 15 year imprisonment sentence upon conviction. 

It was therefore bizarre, to read in paragraph 19 of her statement that Euracare wasn’t approaching the Coroner’s Inquest scheduled for sometime in April, with the seriousness the process demands. This is a classic example of deflecting from the truth, gaslighting, transferring the blame, diverting attention from the fact that by virtue of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, all parties are entitled to a fair hearing, which, on the part of the hospitals involved in this case, particularly Euracare, must necessarily involve an autopsy, in order for them to defend themselves by attempting to disprove the allegation of negligence/administering an overdose. This fundamental right may have been breached by those who cremated Nkanu, and are also the Petitioners in the case. If an autopsy had been performed, Nkanu’s cause of death would have been definitively established, and this discourse may have been needless. 

Would any reasonable party sit and fold their arms in light of such serious allegations levelled against them, or seek to establish the fact that they may be unable to effectively challenge the allegations or have access to relevant information, because an autopsy cannot be performed? In Maikaba v Arto Pharmaceutical Chemist Ltd & Ors (2026) LPELR-83073(SC) per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC, the Supreme Court held: â€œThis Court again, in Obasan v Abudu & Ors ((2023) LPELR-59944(SC)), emphasised that the right to fair hearing is so fundamental that its breach renders any proceeding, decision, or judgement null and void, irrespective of how well-conducted the proceedings might otherwise appear
.a nullity ab initio, and cannot be salvaged”. 

Conclusion 

The persistent culture of forum shopping, judicial defiance of hierarchy, and unbridled extra-judicial commentary, demonstrated by the cases of Justice Lifu, the FBN/GHL saga, and the public discourse surrounding Baby Nkanu’s death, erodes public confidence in the administration of justice. When grieving litigants cremate a body in a clear Coroner’s case, thereby denying the hospital they accuse of negligence the autopsy essential to fair hearing, the rule of law itself is undermined. The attempt by the party levelling the accusations, to dismiss such a fundamental breach of a right that is critical in legal proceedings as a mere diversionary tactic, only compounds the injustice.

It is time for structural reform. The NJC and LPDC must move beyond a purely petition-driven regime, by incorporating ‘suo motu’ powers to query erring Judges and Lawyers in notorious, high-profile matters. Discipline that fails to deter, is no discipline at all. Only proactive accountability anchored in due process and professional integrity, can restore the Bar and Bench to the standards of the “good old days”, and rebuild the citizenry’s faith in the justice system.

Bola A. Akinterinwa

Deregistration is one of the sanctions often meted out to political parties when they breach any critical provision of the electoral code. Some electoral laws require that political parties secure a number of seats in the parliament to qualify to exist as a political party. Parties can also be required to meet certain constitutional performance benchmarks without which an infracting political party may be deregistered. When political parties are considered inactive, they can also be sanctioned. It was because of inactivity, in early 2025, that 53 inactive political parties were deregistered by the Electoral Commission in South Africa. The parties failed to renew their registrations, field candidates, respond to official enquiries, etc. Similarly, the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), and the Registrar of Societies are on record to have deregistered non-compliant parties for various reasons of not holding conventions, updating office bearers, and not providing officially required information.

More importantly, deregistration cannot take place if a political party had not initially been registered and recognized. Registration of political parties is the legal process enabling the electoral management bodies to guide the parties in the sponsoring of candidates, during elections, and when engaging in governance. In this regard, qualifications for registration vary from one country to another. However, some common requirements include the provision of a list of verifiable membership or sponsorship of the party; evidence of geographical spread of the party, a party constitution that must not only promote democratic culture and national unity, but that must also be consistent with the National Constitution of the country may be required. Payment of a non-refundable processing fee may also be required. 

Generally, the conditions required for registration are hardly the reasons for deregistration or de-recognition of a political party. Often, reasons for deregistration result from strategico-political calculations of a country’s leader or from parties’ infractions. But, most disturbingly, when political parties are deregistered, disorderliness and uncontrollable insecurity is often generated. This was the case in Guinea Bissau and Benin Republic in 2025.

De-registration in International Relations 

In Nigeria, there are six major requirements for the registration of an association to be recognized as a political party. First, a would-be political party must get and fill the INEC’s designated forms. Second is the payment of N50 million required as administrative processing costs. Third is the provision of evidence of reflection of Federal Character to show that there is no regional or ethnic dominance at the level of the party’s National and State Executive Committees. Fourth is that the party’s name and symbols must not be in conflict with an already registered and recognized political party. Besides, the names and symbols must not have any religious, professional, and ethnic connotation. Fifthly, the political association must show evidence of location of its national headquarters in the Federal Capital Territory. And sixthly, the association must show a membership list clearly reflecting openness to all Nigerians regardless of origin, ethnic, gender, and religion background. 

Apart from these main requirements, a political association must submit about fifty copies of application for registration as political party. The submission must include the names of all the National and State Executive Committee members, the minutes and proceedings of the meetings during which the executive members were elected. A copy of the association’s constitution must not only be provided, the minutes of the National Executive Committee that approved the wanted proposed name of the party, the constitution, the manifesto, and the logo, must also be provided. It is after the registration process has gone through the name search, that the association has also paid the application fee and submitted its forms, that the INEC has completed its 60-day verification process, and that the INEC is not left with any jot of doubt about the veracity of the information provided that an association can be officially registered as a political party. In this regard, a formal Certificate of Registration is issued. However, when such a Certificate is issued, it does not have a permanent character as it can always be withdrawn in the event of any identified infraction by the party. 

It should be recalled that it was the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL) that filed a case against the INEC, asking the court to make the INEC deregister five political parties on the consideration that the five parties had failed to meet the constitutional requirements of Section 225(a). On June 15, 2026 Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja gave an order to the Independent Electoral Commission to deregister five opposition political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord (A), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP). INEC is on record to have been against the case filed by the NFFL as a co-defendant in the matter. The same INEC agreed with the ruling of the appellate court that there should be a stay of execution of Justice Lifu’s judgment.

Court rulings and judgments are always very interesting in Nigeria, especially when concerning registration and recognition of political parties and qualifications to contest elections. As reported by the European Union election observers, the 21 April 2007 presidential elections were ‘the worst they had ever seen anywhere in the world.’ The elections were reportedly fraught with ‘rampant vote rigging, violence, theft of ballot boxes and intimidation. In fact, the INEC reportedly declared Alhaji Atiku Abubakar ineligible to contest in the presidential elections, considering that Nigeria’s Constitution barred any indicted candidate from running for any election. 

A High Court over-ruled that the INEC had no legal capacity to disqualify any candidate from contesting. The position of the Appeal Court was different: the INEC had the necessary powers to disqualify any indicted candidate. The overall thinking and decision of the Supreme Court on the matter was that the INEC has no constitutional powers to disqualify any candidate, a judgment that enabled the candidature and participation of Alhaji Abubakar. This means that there is nothing to suggest any legal wrong doing by Justice Lifu. He was legally correct in his judgment. We believe that the dynamic of the court decision to de-register the five political parties is essentially political, but only using the factor of illegality or breach of Section 225(a) of the Constitution as a pretext.

At a distance, I see Justice Lifu as a very God-fearing man who makes all efforts to imbibe Godliness, fairness, and justice in various human or inter-personal relationships. I had this impression when he was the trial judge for many years of the case brought against Pastor Mobiyina Oshoffa of the Celestial Church of Christ by the registered Board of Trustees of the Celestial Church of Christ of which I was the Secretary. Justice Lifu made strenuous efforts to prevail on the Board that the dispute be settled out of Court as Christians. Unfortunately, he was transferred from Lagos to Abuja and the case had to be re-assigned. My thinking in the context of this issue of de-registration of political parties is that Justice Lifu might have considered how political parties behave and how they make life difficult for people in applying the law as it is just for the purposes of sanity. Let us look at the specific case of the ADC.

The ADC, founded by Chief Ralph Okey Nwosu, was officially registered as a political party in 2006, that is, about 20 years ago. Before then, in 2005, the ADC answered the name ‘Alliance for Democratic Change’ when it was first formed. This meant that the word ‘Change’ was replaced with ‘Congress’ for the purposes of INEC registration and election in 2007. The ADC had Professor Pat Utomi, a vibrant scholar with vision, as its candidate, but the ADC only scored 50,849 votes representing only 0.14%. In the 16 April 2011 elections, Peter Nwangwu was the ADC’s presidential candidate. He scored 51,682, again representing about 0.14% of the total votes cast. In 2015, ADC’s standard bearer was Mani Ahmad. His performance was worse with only 29,666 votes, representing 0.10%. In 2019, ADC chose Obadiah Mailafia as its candidate. The percentage score increased from 0.10% to 0.36% with 97,874 votes. This is still very far from the minimum 25%s constitutionally required. In 2023, the most relevant year of consideration, the ADC had Dumebi Kachiku as its candidate. His votes were too insignificant to the extent of not being recognised for official documentation. Based on this example, the extent to which Justice Lifu’s judgment can be faulted factually, is, at best, limited. What may be controversial is Justice Lifu’s non-compliance with the order of the Appeal Court.

In our thinking, the reasons for the deregistration of the five political parties are, a priori, legal, but there is no ruling out the possibility of political intendment, simply because of Justice Lifu’s blunt refusal to comply with the higher order of the Appeal Court which directed a stay of execution of all court proceedings before the ruling of Justice Lifu. And true again, many political observers may consider Justice Lifu’s judgment as political, considering the insinuation that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) is often seen as a master strategist. As such, he might have influenced the court judgment in instructing the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the five political parties. The ultimate objective cannot but be to destabilize and weaken the opposition parties in the preparations for the 2027 general elections.

True enough, Justice Lifu has apparently and reportedly considered that the deregistered parties failed in 2023 to score the constitutionally required 25% of votes, as provided in Section 225(a) of the Constitution of Nigeria. More important, Justice Lifu has reportedly also considered that there was no valid stay of order that had been served on his court by the time of delivery of the judgment and that the case was fit for determination. Put differently, if the Court of Appeal had, on May 22nd 2026, ordered the Federal High Court to stop its court proceedings and delivering any judgment, why was there no valid stay of action before Justice Lifu by the scheduled time of judgment on June 15, 2026?

Whatever is the case, how do we explain the position of the 3-man Court of Appeal that unanimously set aside the ruling of Justice Lifu? The Appellate Court’s ruling appears to have been largely influenced by Justice Lifu’s non-compliance with the higher Appeal Court order, rather than by the public presumption of illegality of the judgment of Justice Lifu. This presumption is sustained by the appellate court: in the eyes of the Appeal Court, Justice Lifu had not only engaged in judicial impertinence and judicial rascality for acting contrarily to the order of a superior court, but has also brazenly disregarded a higher judicial authority. 

The Cases of Guinea Bissau and Benin Republic 

In the mania Bissau Guineans insinuated that their President, Umaro Sissoco Emballo, had personally organized a coup against himself in order to prevent concession of electoral defeat to the opposition contender, the insinuation that PBAT also wants to weaken democratic competitiveness in Nigeria by using the pretext of court judgment to deregister political parties cannot but deepen the already intolerable situation of insecurity in Nigeria. Consequently, lessons must be learnt from the experiences of Guinea Bissau and Benin Republic. This is necessary because the ADC that has been unable to have the minimum 25% of the electoral votes is now the platform choice of all the opposition parties to challenge PBAT in the 2027 elections. Deductively therefore, it is believed that seeking to deregister the ADC is a good battle and war to destabilize the opposition before the 2027 election.

And true, before the general elections of 26 November 2025 in Guinea Bissau, President EmbalĂł dissolved the legislature in 2023 and in controversial circumstances. The dusts of the controversies were yet to settle before the Supreme Court came with its own order, shortly before the November 2025 election, which barring the biggest political party in the country, the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC), from participating in the general elections. This made the environmental conditionings of the election very fragile and the political environment very autocratic. The popular view was that President EmbalĂł would lose the election. 

But, in an attempt to remain in power, he faked a coup d’état. This belief was justified by many reasons: President EmbalĂł was the very first to tell the world that he had been overthrown. Besides, even though he was allegedly overthrown, he was allowed to fly to Senegal on November 27, that is, immediately after the alleged coup. How would a detainee be able to travel out without the complicity of the putschists?  

Put differently, and perhaps more interestingly, it was the close allies of President EmbalĂł that took over power and who suspended all the state institutions and installed General Horta Inta-A as the new president for one year. Guinea Bissau has not been able to put in place an environment of political stability since then. 

June 19, 2026 witnessed the continued house-detention of the opposition leader, Domingos Simoes Pereira, who has been detained since the November 2025 coup, His house arrest has been deepening the political crisis in the country, as well as raising serious tensions with the international partners of Guinea Bissau. Portugal, for instance, has called for his release, even though Pereira has been freshly accused of plotting a coup against the military government. Bissau government rejected Portugal’s call for his release as an unnecessary interference in the affairs of Guinea Bissau. And perhaps more concernedly, it is probably only in Africa that someone can be under detention and still be able to effectively engage in coup planning. Without doubt, it was the military that ousted President EmbalĂł. It was under President EmbalĂł that Pereira was prevented from acting as the PAIGC leader. 

It is useful to recall here that Pereira was already preparing to stand as the main opposition candidate in the 2025 elections before his political party, the PAIGC, was barred from participating in the election. The Electoral Commission alleged that the party had failed to submit its required application on time. Earlier this month, June 2026, a military court reportedly ordered the continued house-arrest of Pereira, purportedly for engagement in coup making. As this allegation appears difficult to believe, Nigeria ought to be in the forefront in battling political chicanery in Africa. Africa is talking about zero tolerance for unconstitutional changes of government, yet it is the same African leaders that are organizing coups against themselves for self-protection and stay in power. 

The background to the coup of December 7, 2025 in Benin Republic has a similar environmental background of government trying to make life difficult for the opposition in order to intimidate the opposition parties. First, President Patrice Talon had excluded Les DĂ©mocrates, the main opposition party from participating in the then forthcoming April 2026 elections. There was no visible intention of people to engage in the use of violence to protest the ban. One major rationale for this is the belief in the culture of always achieving change through political and civil society action rather than by use of force, which was evolved in the early 1990s. In fact, the use of force to oust President Patrice Talon was not at all popular. This prompted the efforts of Nigeria and other intervening countries to help quickly contain the coup within 24 hours.

Secondly, there is no disputing the fact that President Patrice Talon paved the way for his ally, Romuald Wadagni, formerly the Minister of Finance, to succeed him. Wadagni was elected last April with more than 94% of the total votes cast. True, there was a low turnout as a result of the inclement political environment. The election of Wadagni has left the country still divided in terms of the political legacy left by President Talon. There have been massive dismissal of members of staff of the state-run media. A great part of the population of Benin live in poverty. They have limited access to basic social services, particularly in the area of sanitation, healthcare, and education. The issue of food insecurity cannot be over-emphasised. And more importantly, President Talon, who was initially popularly elected, could no more enjoy the same popularity during his second tenure in office basically because of President Talon’s erosion of political freedoms. This is in spite of the fact that he is still on record to have presided over a strong economic growth and services in Benin.

All these problems were there before the last April 2026 election. Reasons given for the failed coup by the Military Committee for Refoundation (CMR), led by Lt. Col Pascal Tigri, were that the government of President Talon had not been able to nip in the bud the deteriorating security in the northern part of Benin and the neglect of the fallen Beninese soldiers. Although at the request of President Talon, Nigeria promptly provided airstrike assistance to neutralize the coup, BĂ©ninois problems still remain there. President Wadagni wants to reconcile with the Member States of the Alliance of Sahel States. This is good in itself as many of the terrorists being chased away are coming to settle down in Nigeria. The political tension and animosity being created with deregistration must not be allowed to be complicated by Benin’s own terrorism. 

From the foregoing, it can be seen that the genesis of every coup-making, as shown in the examples of Guinea Bissau and Benin Republic, cannot be separated from either deregistration of political parties or preventing and undermining the major opposition parties from taking part in presidential elections. It was the case of the PAIGC in Guinea Bissau and Les DĂ©mocrates in Benin. The two parties are the major opposition parties in their countries. Consequently, seeking to prevent opposition parties from performing their constitutional duties cannot but have dangerous implications beyond the arguments of legality or illegality. True, their legal recognition is stopped if deregistered. With deregistration, they cannot field candidates for election. The registered members are disenfranchised. In short, a deregistered party is no more a corporate legal entity and can neither conduct any official business as a party. Every candidate of a deregistered party is necessarily and immediately disqualified. Above all, the democratic space cannot but be reduced, thereby undermining democratic pluralism. It is therefore most welcoming to have the deregistration of some political parties reversed by the appellate court, even though there is no evidence yet, of any technical legal fault committed by Justice Lifu. The law must find new ways of making political parties perform beyond the exercise of deregistration which has the potential to generate political tension.

Femi Akintunde-Johnson

There are moments in the life of a nation when an idea that once appeared controversial suddenly becomes inevitable. State police appears to have reached that threshold in Nigeria. After decades of heated arguments, political suspicion and constitutional foot-dragging, both chambers of the National Assembly have now moved decisively towards one of the most consequential security reforms since the return to democratic rule in 1999. The overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives and the broad support in the Senate suggest that something fundamental has shifted in our national psychology. Perhaps it is simply that insecurity has finally become everyone’s problem.

For years, the clamour for state police was often dismissed as a sectional agenda or a dangerous proposition capable of creating “governors’ armies”. But every fresh report of mass abductions, marauding attacks, school invasions and entire communities living at the mercy of criminals has steadily weakened the arguments against decentralised policing. There comes a point when a nation must admit that doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting a different outcome is not strategy. It is foolish stubbornness.

The truth is uncomfortable. A single, centralised police force headquartered in Abuja and expected to effectively police more than 220 million people spread across nearly one million square kilometres was always going to struggle. It is not necessarily a question of incompetence. It is a question of arithmetic and geography. Nigeria’s security challenges have become too diverse, too localised and too adaptive for a one-size-fits-all policing model.

Banditry in Zamfara is not identical to cult violence in Rivers. Kidnapping along the Abuja-Kaduna corridor does not present precisely the same security demands as farmer-herder conflicts in Benue or piracy in the Niger Delta. Every state has its peculiar security ecosystem, local intelligence networks, social dynamics and criminal patterns. Yet, we have persisted with a command structure that often places operational authority hundreds of kilometres away from the communities under threat.

The appeal of state police therefore rests on a simple proposition: security works best when those responsible for maintaining order understand the terrain, know the communities, can gather intelligence quickly and are directly answerable to the people they protect. In principle, the proposal makes eminent sense.

To be fair, the architects of the proposed legislation have not approached the matter casually. The bill attempts to build safeguards into virtually every stage of the process. A state cannot simply wake up and announce the creation of a police force. There must be enabling legislation passed by the State House of Assembly and compliance with nationally prescribed standards. Commissioners of Police cannot be unilaterally appointed by governors. The National Police Council remains involved in vetting and oversight. State Police Service Commissions are designed to include representatives of the Nigerian Bar Association, the Nigerian Union of Journalists, the Nigeria Labour Congress, traditional rulers and human rights bodies.

On paper, these provisions are thoughtful and reassuring. Yet, Nigerians have learnt to be suspicious of paper assurances. Our country has never suffered from a shortage of beautiful laws. Our difficulty lies in implementation and institutional culture.

The principal fear surrounding state police remains valid. Could some governors weaponise state police against political opponents? The concern is hardly academic. We have seen local government structures captured by state executives. We have witnessed traditional institutions bullied into compliance. We have watched legislative assemblies transform themselves into departments of protocol and applause. We have seen anti-graft agencies selectively energised and conveniently sedated. Why should citizens automatically assume that state police would be immune from similar pressures?

A governor armed with coercive powers and unconstrained by effective institutions could potentially turn state policing into an instrument of intimidation. Opposition figures may suddenly discover unusual traffic violations. Protesters may become enemies of public order. Journalists could find themselves attracting curious security attention. Elections could become more complicated affairs than they already are.

These fears are not imaginary. Neither, however, are the dangers of maintaining the status quo.

Entire communities are currently under-policed. Intelligence gathering is frequently weak. Response times are often painfully slow. Governors, who are constitutionally designated as chief security officers of their states, routinely discover that they possess impressive titles but limited authority. Citizens naturally direct their anger towards governors during security crises, yet the governors themselves frequently lack operational control over the policing architecture within their territories. It is rather like appointing someone captain of a ship and withholding access to the steering wheel.

The question therefore is no longer whether decentralisation carries risks. Every exercise of power carries risks. The question is whether the risks of reform are greater than the dangers of inaction. Judging by our present circumstances, that answer increasingly appears to be no.

Still, if state police must succeed, additional safeguards are imperative. First, appointments into senior positions should involve transparent and competitive processes, with clearly published eligibility criteria and fixed tenures protected from arbitrary dismissal. Security institutions perform better when officers owe loyalty to the law rather than to political benefactors.

Second, state police budgets should be subject to rigorous legislative scrutiny and annual public reporting requirements. Secretive institutions operating with armed powers and weak accountability mechanisms are invitations to abuse.

Third, independent civilian complaints bodies should be established in every state, with powers to receive petitions, investigate misconduct and make binding recommendations. Citizens must possess avenues of redress outside the very institutions accused of wrongdoing.

Fourth, recruitment should reflect local diversity and be protected against ethnic, religious and political monopolisation. No community should perceive a state police force as belonging exclusively to one section of the state. The moment policing becomes identified with one ethnic bloc, one religion or one political tendency, public trust collapses.

Fifth, there should be periodic federal and judicial reviews of state police operations, with measurable benchmarks on professionalism, human rights compliance and operational effectiveness. Autonomy should never mean absence of accountability.

Finally, there must be severe constitutional consequences for proven misuse of state police powers. Governors and senior officials who deploy security institutions for partisan persecution should face sanctions significant enough to deter future abuses.

The larger truth, however, is that no policing architecture can compensate for decades of social and economic neglect. Security crises do not emerge from thin air. They feed on unemployment, collapsing industries, educational dysfunction, social dislocation and governance failures. Millions of young Nigerians leave schools and universities each year and encounter an economy that often has little use for their talents. Frustration becomes vulnerability, vulnerability becomes exploitation, and exploitation sometimes mutates into criminality.

State police may improve response and intelligence capabilities, but it cannot substitute for governance. A nation cannot arrest its way out of every security crisis.

Yet we must start somewhere. The proposed reform is not foolproof. No honest observer can claim otherwise. It carries risks. It will require vigilance. It will demand mature institutions and responsible political leadership. There will undoubtedly be attempts at manipulation and abuse.

But there also comes a time when fear of possible misuse should no longer paralyse necessary action. Nigeria’s security landscape has changed dramatically. Our policing philosophy must evolve accordingly.

Perhaps the better question is not whether state police can be abused. Almost every institution in Nigeria can be abused. The real question is whether we can summon enough wisdom, safeguards and civic vigilance to ensure that an imperfect reform becomes better than an increasingly inadequate status quo.

That is the test before us. And if our present insecurity has taught us anything, it is that the luxury of doing nothing expired a long time ago.

Leading any entity requires more than ambition and opportunity. Nigeria must now rediscover the relevant values, writes MONDAY PHILIPS EKPE

Quagmire. When that word was first used in 1566, it simply meant a ground that couldn’t be trusted to support anything of sizable weight or volume. Stand on it and it’s sure to give way. Slippery, soft, shifty, sneaky. Thereafter, it absorbed several connotations until it morphed into a lexical item with more robust meanings: a precarious situation, predicament, hole, bind, box, something unreliable or worrying. Any random poll amongst Nigerians on the primary dilemma they’re in today would finger political leadership, especially. Try the much you can to explain to them the complicity of followers in the incompetence, mediocrity or callousness of their own leaders, they won’t budge. Blame here is often single dimensional.

“It’s our so-called leaders o!” It’s hard to think or argue otherwise, quite frankly. Now, one man has taken up the challenge to critically look at the present and prospective occupants of political drivers’ seats as the nation prepares for yet another general election cycle. Robert Abdullahi-Johnson, PhD, author, publisher and former university lecturer, has just released some thought-provoking books (unveiled in Abuja on Thursday, June 18). Leadership Renaissance in Nigeria, in particular, is set to be on the front seat of discussions on leadership-related issues in a country destined by nature and geography to, at least, lead Africa with dignity.

But, before recovering its seemingly lost claims to continental leadership, Nigeria must first keep a date with its own shadows, the demons that have sought to sabotage its tremendous potentialities. Dr Johnson’s choice of “Renaissance” in the title suggests renewal, revival and resurgence. Some sort of rebirth. Meaning, the nation once had vibrant, visionary leaderships. And that the condition of our rulership or statecraft at the moment can’t lead us to fulfilment of any proud reckoning.         

One can’t seriously contradict those hypotheses. True, never in our political history did we have saints as leaders. As it is common with humanity, they were people with their own idiosyncrasies and shortcomings which sometimes ran counter to the public good. In our collective pursuit of nationhood, some of them chased narrow, sectional interests instead. Yet, generally, compared with what obtains now, most of them were way ahead in the practice of representative governance. Their differences notwithstanding, titans of the First Republic managed their regions’ socio-economic and political rivalries fairly successfully.

The Second Republic which lasted just a little above four years also had its own flowers. Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim decamped from the Nigerian People’s Party (NPP) led by Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe to form the Great Nigeria People’s Party (GNPP) and became its presidential flagbearer. His slogan, Politics Without Bitterness, ought to have since become a national menu in the hope that it might checkmate today’s murky, venomous, diatribe-ridden politics.   

Even General Sani Abacha, arguably Nigeria’s most vilified and roundly demonised ruler, did parade his own pluses. Against the wishes of some people, history may still be kind to him on some grounds. His reprehensible human rights record and the country’s pariah status under him didn’t stop Abacha from presiding over one of the country’s glorious moments of fostering regional peace and security. Not to mention relative domestic economic stability. 

Then came the dawn of the current democratic dispensation. Considering the fact that Nigeria had just escaped from the longest grip of military governments, President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration from 1999 to 2007 probably stood no chance of performing better than it did. That it remains a reference point and also unequalled in critical indices after many years indicate our dire need of pragmatic, purposeful leadership at various levels of government. So, Johnson’s intervention is timely.

Many of his thoughts are indeed worth pondering over. On religion, ironically among the nation’s albatrosses: “Nigeria will be a better nation when the power of love replaces the love of power. Leadership in Nigeria since independence has often been shaped less by competence, capability and merit, and more by considerations of ethnicity, religion, regional balance and power rotation between north and south, as well as between Muslims and Christians. This has contributed to the manipulation of religion for political purposes, the rise of ‘stomach infrastructure’ politics, religious discrimination, widespread ignorance, underdevelopment, poverty and growing insecurity
.

“Neither Islam nor Christianity is inherently anti-progress or averse to development. This is evident in the levels of advancement seen in countries and societies such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Rome, United Kingdom, and the United States. It is a serious indictment that our elite will go to these countries to educate their children and nurse their sick, then come back home to set us on a path of destroying one another and our meagre infrastructure in the name of differences in our faiths. Dual theology made us less productive; it has awakened varied and conflicting cultures, often resulting in community clashes, which hitherto were peaceful neighbours.”

On indolent leaders: “Political leadership should not be entrusted to individuals who possess a ‘bakwomi’ mentality, those marked by indifference, complacency, and a lack of urgency in the face of failure. Such leaders are not disturbed when goals are missed or targets are repeatedly unmet, make empty promises, and remain comfortably in office for years without meaningful results or accountability. It is equally troubling when individuals in authority sit through critical national or international assignments that portray Nigeria negatively, yet show little concern or drive to initiate change or improve outcomes.”

On intolerance: “The pain of our current democratic experience is that we have democracy without democrats. For many Nigerian political leaders, democracy is expressing your views and insisting that it is the only valid viewpoint. Tolerance for opposing or counter views is very limited, if at all available.”

The writer’s “Oracle for Leaders” – philosophical, emphatic and conclusive – is rendered thus: “Human history gives lengthy endorsement to the fact that no generation can rise above the level of its leadership. Nations rise and fall according to the effectiveness of their governments. These truths are also applied to businesses, organisations, churches, families, and individuals. When leadership falters, followers are hunted, scattered and become easy preys for predators; and when leaders are destroyed, the enemy prevails. It is imperative, therefore, that men and women, young and old, called to be leaders must be leaders of integrity.”

Over to the longsuffering masses of Nigeria. With some push, their quagmires, mainly self-inflicted and elite-induced, would give way to strong personal and institutional foundations that could engender and sustain genuine progress. 

Dr Ekpe is a member of ÌÇĐÄÊÓÆ” Editorial Board

X: @monday_ekpe2

Condolences

Before I go into the Word for Today, I must express my heartfelt condolences to the family of Rtd Major General Rabe Abubakar, who died over the weekend, in the captivity of a gang said to be led by one Kachallah Muhammadu. We saw the video showing the late General in captivity, with a painful looking swollen foot. It is extremely sad and disheartening, to see someone who served this country as a soldier, lose his life this way. May Allah forgive him his shortcomings, and grant him Jannah. 

Introduction

I  have always tried to stay away from the politics of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), outside being just a member in right-standing. However, as a member of the NBA with no stake in any camp aside from the camp of due process and credible elections, it has become impossible to ignore the recent controversy concerning the upcoming NBA elections for national officers, scheduled to hold on July 20, 2026. The NBA elections go beyond the Association. Our elections should serve as a precedent for national elections, seeing as Lawyers are considered to be the vanguards of rule of law, and must therefore, be a shining example of everything good about democracy in their affairs – fairness, transparency, integrity and credibility, so as not to erode public trust. 

Upcoming NBA Elections: Matters Arising 

All disputes, except those excepted by the Constitution, can be litigated in the courts – see Section 6(6)(b) & (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) – and, of course, Lawyers are the ones who represent litigants. Both Petitioners and Respondents alike, call upon Lawyers to represent them in their election petitions. It would therefore, be absurd, if those who are called upon to handle these situations, appear to be incapable of upholding the rule of law in their own affairs, when in actuality, the primary purpose of the NBA and legal practitioners is defending the rule of law – see Part 1 Clause 3(11) of the NBA Constitution 2015 (as amended in 2025)(NBA Constitution).

Incidentally, This Day Lawyer’s interview of the week on page 8-10, is with the Chairman of the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA),, Aham Ejelam, SAN, who seeks to clarify the second and third matters arising listed here.  

1) Establishment of 2026 ECNBA

Unfortunately, there have been complaints concerning how the  ECNBA, the body that conducts the NBA elections was constituted/members appointed, with some alleging that it was done in breach of the NBA Constitution – see Part II Clause 10(3) of the NBA Constitution; Fawehinmi v NBA & Ors (No. 2) (1989) LPELR-1259(SC) per Andrews Otutu Obaseki, JSC on the role of the NBA Constitution, being to regulate its affairs. 

2) Selection of IT Companies

The choices alleged to have been made by the ECNBA with regard to the IT Companies that will conduct the elections, Mikrodigital Connect for electronic voting and Thanelinc Nigeria Limited for Data Protection, have been called into question by two of the three Presidential candidates, and apparently, for good reasons too. The challenges of the candidates, point to calls for due diligence, transparency and unimpeachable processes for the conduct of the elections. The complaining Presidential Candidates, have demanded that the appointments of these companies be reviewed and set aside. 

Mikrodigital is alleged to be a sole proprietorship, an unknown business name and not a limited liability company, lacking competence or any track record whatsoever in electronic voting; also very low on corporate governance, as it is alleged to have owed the Corporate Affairs Commission fees for six years (2020-2025) since its registration in 2019, the arrears cleared between May 31 and June 1, 2026, coinciding with the period of Mikrodigital’s selection to conduct the elections. 

In a Press Statement issued on Friday, June 12, 2026, the ECNBA defended itself by stating that Mikrodigital defeated 18 other companies to win the selection process. Naturally, this has made people ask what type of organisations the other 18 contenders are, if the winner doesn’t appear to be an ‘A’ list company. The ECNBA stated emphatically that its decision to select Mikrodigital was based on ‘Demonstrated performance’ – an important question to ask, would be whether demonstrated performance should be holistic, or just performance at an interview. 

It has also been alleged by one of the Candidates, that the sole proprietor of Mikrodigital, the Secretary of the ECNBA and the DG of the Campaign Council of one of the Presidential Candidates, all share strong ties to the same Nigerian State. While ordinarily, such connections should not matter in principle, they fuel understandable concerns, particularly in light of questions over why Mikrodigital – a company seemingly skating on thin ice – was chosen to handle the electronic process in the first place.

Another allegation levelled against the other company selected as the Data Protector, Thanelinc, was that there are no public records of its registration with the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) as a Data Protection Compliance Company, and requisite certification to conduct the data protection role that it was selected for by the ECNBA. See Sections 5 & 33 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDP Act). It appears that Thanelinc’s data protector role aligns with the framework of those that may require registration with NDPC. However, in the aforementioned Press Statement, the ECNBA didn’t state categorically that Thanelinc had the NDPC  registration. In law, such an allegation must be directly controverted. The way to have put this particular allegation to rest, would have been to simply provide the NDPC registration details of Thanelinc. This was not done. 

While I’m not in a position to confirm or deny the allegations levelled against these two companies, another important question is, why choose companies that may not be perfect for the assignment and have clouds hanging over their heads, in the first place? 

If the allegations are found to be true, then it is troubling that the ECNBA selected companies that may, prima facie, be unfit to conduct our NBA elections credibly. Even if according to the ECNBA, their live performance was decisive, due diligence on corporate governance, financial standing, and regulatory compliance should precede demonstrations. Holistic evaluation (past verifiable projects in such high-stakes elections), matters for public confidence.

3) Voter Authentication/NIN Issue

The issue of using the National Identification Number (NIN) for voter authentication/accreditation, which the ECNBA allegedly agreed to with stakeholders, but didn’t incorporate into the voting process, has also been raised. A way in which members could maybe use the NINs as a secret password to enter the voting platform, so that the NBA, IT Companies, and no other third party has access the NINs.

The argument on one side is that, with only the SCN + OTP, the election can easily be compromised. That those in control of the voting process can feed in SCNs of members without their knowledge (as the SCNs of all members who have paid their practicing fees are readily available at the NBA Secretariat, while those who have paid their Branch dues are also available at the Branch Secretariats), create alternative email addresses/phone numbers where the OTPs can be sent to, and cast votes for the hackers’ preferred candidate using members’ hijacked details. This was one of the accusations levelled against the 2018 ECNBA, in which for example, using the details of several members of the NBA Ahoada Branch, their OTPs were allegedly sent to fake emails instead of their registered accounts, and others voted in their stead/they were unable to vote. 

But, with the NIN, unless the member makes their NIN available to others, they do not readily have access to it, thereby making it almost impossible to use the details of members to vote in their absence, because of the missing NIN link. 

One of the responses of the ECNBA to this complaint, is that the NBA Constitution provides that all NBA Members are eligible to vote once they are members of a Branch and have paid their Bar Practicing Fees. That NIN as an authentication tool, may therefore appear to be inserting an additional condition (which isn’t part of the NBA Constitution). Concerns were also raised by the ECNBA about female Lawyers who may have married, but haven’t changed their NINs, and Lawyers in Diaspora who may not have NINs. Is this really the case? No. It isn’t. Adding NIN isn’t necessarily an extra eligibility requirement, but a security measure. It doesn’t alter eligibility, it enhances and strengthens it. Now, the ECNBA insists that there are time constraints and incorporating NIN is no longer feasible, given that the elections are just a little over a month away. While practical hurdles may exist, the ECNBA could have initiated earlier harmonisation or phased integration. Credibility demands addressing systemic risks, rather than defaulting to convenience.

In Fawehinmi v NBA & Ors (No. 2) (Supra), the Supreme Court held inter alia that the NBA Constitution isn’t a statutory instrument nor a subsidiary legislation, but a private document regulating the NBA’s affairs. It therefore, goes without saying that, the NBA Constitution is inferior to the laws of the land. By virtue of Section 16(a) of the National Identity Management Commission Act 2007 (NIMC Act), it is mandatory that every Nigerian citizen must enrol for and obtain an NIN, and this is obviously applicable to Nigerians living abroad, as they are not excepted. It is possible to obtain NIN in about 40 countries outside Nigeria, and NIN is also a prerequisite for the renewal of passports – see Section 27 of the NIMC Act. This is a law, which all Nigerians are bound by. As for the change of circumstances of female Lawyers, such as change of surname as a result of marriage, Section 22(1) of the NIMC Act provides that they must notify NIMC of this development, and the NIMC Regulations stipulate that this notification must be done within 30 days of such change. 

Therefore, the argument about the disenfranchisement of thousands of eligible NBA members who don’t have NIN, or Nigerian Lawyers in the Diaspora who do not have the NIN, or married female Lawyers who haven’t regularised their status with NIMC but are eligible to vote, that they would be excluded from voting in the elections, appears to fall flat on its face. It is even an offence punishable by a fine of N100,000 or 6 months imprisonment or both, for those required to obtain the NIN, not to – see Section 30(1)(a) & (2) of the NIMC Act. How then, can the ECNBA justify the non-use of NIN as a security tool, because of Lawyers who have violated the law and failed to do what is legally compulsory for all Nigerians? Is that not undermining the rule of law? After all, the NIMC Act is an 11 year old law, not one that was enacted last week.

Pertinent Questions 

If Lawyers, Officers in the Temple of Justice, cannot conduct credible elections, then, who can? If Lawyers, whose primary purpose in society is to uphold the rule of law, blatantly disregard it regularly to achieve their own agendas/goals, then such society, sadly, will very easily descend into a Hobbesian State. 

Conclusion 

The NBA exists first and foremost, to uphold the rule of law. When those who are called upon to defend justice in Nigeria cannot conduct their own affairs with transparency, fairness, and integrity, they lose the moral authority to lecture the nation. Lawyers cannot demand from others, what they refuse to practice themselves.

For the 2026 NBA elections to be credible, the process must not only be fair, it must be seen to be fair. Anything less erodes public confidence in the Bar, and sets a dangerous precedent for our national democracy. 

The ECNBA, the candidates, and all members of the NBA must rise above personal and sectional interests. Our elections must reflect the highest standards that we preach to the rest of the country. Nothing less is acceptable. All that is required is a level playing field for credible elections, where those candidates who win ‘fair and square’, emerge victorious. I however, request that Lawyers read the interview of the ECNBA Chairman, for more information on the preparations for the upcoming elections. 

Bola A. Akinterinwa

For various reasons of psychology of human differences, people do their things at different times, under different conditions and purposes. As such, interests do conflict with one another. This is why international politics is a conflict system. This is also why conflict resolution remains a major issue in political governance. Africa, in general, and Nigeria, in particular, has become a terra cognita of crises and conflicts, fragile economies, and struggle to shift from linear economy to circular economy. Linear economy is about taking, using, and disposing of model (take-make-dispose model) while a circular economy is about eliminating waste and pollution by particularly keeping materials and products in use possibly for a long period in such a way as to regenerate natural systems rather than doing away with resources. Circular economy enables sustainability, job creation, cost savings as well as efficiency. It is particularly because of the need for sustainability that Government adopted the policy of bank recapitalization, which is also expected to nip in the bud the fragility of the economy and make the country safe from the politics of non-nuclearisation and economic round tripping.

On Tuesday, 9th June, 2026, Professor Femi Otubanjo, Research Professor at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, gave a lecture at 11 am on “Nuclear Weapons: from Instrumentis Belli to Causas Bellorum under the NIIA’s Foreign Policy Lecture series. On the same day at 2 pm, Professor Clement Olawole Oluwasuji delivered the Adekunle Ajasin University’s 65th Inaugural Lecture, entitled “Nigeria’s Fragile Economy: Removing the Contours and Roadblocks to Sustainable Development.” On Wednesday 10th June, 2026 Professor Adeboye Akanni Akinwunmi similarly delivered the 7th Inaugural Lecture of the Achievers University, Owo. His lecture was titled ‘Re-capitalisation in the Nigerian Financial System: For Whose Benefit?’ Thus, while politicians are much preoccupied with 2027 elections, academics are much concerned with issues of political governance and economico-security questions. In this regard, where do we place state insecurity and stomach infrastructure or insecurity?

Fragile Economy, Re-Capitalisation and Nuclear Weapons 

Without whiff of doubt, the linkages between and among Nigeria’s fragile economy, re-capitalisation, and nuclear weapons are closely or strongly intertwined. On the one hand, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) is simultaneously pursuing a fragile economic recovery, carefully managing the financial sector, and also cautiously executing a peaceful nuclear energy policy.

True, Nigeria’s economy is mono-cultural. Nigeria is basically an oil nation-state. Gas is increasingly being developed to complement the oil economy which accounts for more than 90% of Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings. However, the economy is not only fragile but also at risk. The PBAT administration has taken a number of measures to address the problem of fragility and risk, such as removal of fuel subsidy and unification of exchange rate. but the measures taken have not stopped the economy from remaining vulnerable to high inflation, deepening poverty, high debt service, low revenue and excessive reliance on oil revenue. As of May 2026, Nigeria’s economy is still largely defined by fluctuations in global oil prices and production, insecurity and conflicts in the country, recidivist inflation, and declining purchasing power.

As noted by Dr. Samer Matta, the World Bank’s Senior Economist for Nigeria, at the 2026 Nigeria Economic Summit Group, macroeconomic stabilization alone is insufficient to improve the welfare of the household. Reportedly in his words, ‘growth is welcome, but if it does not reach the poorest, it will be meaningless.’ Additionally, Dr. Matta had it that ‘policy focus must go beyond aggregate growth figures. Reducing inflation, improving the quality of spending, and implementing social protection programmes are essential to ensure that economic gains reach households.’ And perhaps more importantly, Dr. Matta underscored the point that ‘monetary policy alone cannot close the gap between macro stability and living standards. We need coordinated fiscal, structural, and social measures to ensure inclusive growth.

In the eyes of Professor Oluwasuji in his Nigeria’s Fragile Economy (Akungba: AAU, 2026), the fragility of Nigeria’s economy is defined by two major factors: location of Nigeria’s economy in the core-periphery of the global economy and the monolithic nature of the economy. As regards the core-periphery of the global economy, Professor Oluwasuji has it that ‘there are two distinct worlds in that village –the industrialised world with 20% of global population but consuming 70% of its metals, 85% of its woods and 60% of its food and accounting for about 83% of its GDP, 81.2% of world trade, 94.6% of all commercial lending, about 81% of both its domestic and saving and investment and 94% of all research and development.’ However, in his further thinking, ‘the region which accounts for 10% of the world’s population and is potentially very rich in natural and human resources, contributes only one percent of world’s GNP, and accounts also for one percent of its trade’ (vide p. 13 et s.).

On the monolithic nature of the economy, Professor Oluwasuji has observed that whenever there are socio-economic agitations in Nigeria or when the global economy is fraught with recession or meltdown, Nigeria’s economy cannot but be nosedived and crippled simply because Nigeria’s economy ‘is dependent on oil production alone.’ 

In his own inaugural lecture, Professor Akinwunmi distinguished between and among a capital structure with 100% equity, 75% equity, 50% equity, and a capital structure with 25%  equity. Explained differently at the level of banking re-capitalisation, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) put in place a 24-month capitalization programme which was concluded on 31st March, 2026. The sum of N4.65 trillion was raised in new capital. 33 of the 37 banks met the new banking requirements. 72.55% of the sum was raised locally while the balance of 27.45% was sourced by international investors. Banks that could not meet the requirements had the option to merge with another bank or to downgrade their license from being international to national.

In this regard, the CBN required, with effect from April 1, 2026 new banking capitalisation. International commercial banks are to have N500 billion capital base, national commercial banks must have N200 billion while regional commercial banks and merchant banks are to have N50 billion each. National non-interest banks are to have N20 billion while regional non-interests banks must have N10 billion. The exercise was carried out as a risk-based capital regime to achieve high-quality capital (paid-in-shares), as well as to ensure the resilience of the banking sector to economic shocks, improve asset quality, and increase their lending capacity particularly to the SMEs and agriculture. 

However, as a result of Nigeria’s inclement financial environment, especially in terms of high inflation, banks often lend more to the Government rather than to the private sector. This hinders real sector growth. In early 2026, Nigeria’s total public debt was put at N159.28 trillion ($111 billion) with the banks’ lending as much as N15.66 trillion of it. The domestic debt was put at N84.85 trillion, representing about 53% of the total debt stock. And perhaps more disturbingly, Government has put in place the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS), as well as its state-level counterpart, the State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS) to help reduce poverty and create new jobs. The efforts have not been to good avail.

Currently, PBAT is not only addressing socio-political and military insecurity in the land but also giving priority attention to economic recovery and abject poverty reduction over nuclear weapon-driven defence. Nigeria has no interest in the development of nuclear weapons but in the development of nuclear energy capability for peaceful purposes. And true enough, it is Nigeria that is currently presiding over the Conference on Disarmament that is promoting negative security assurances of the non-nuclear states).  

As regards, nuclear weapons and national security, Professor Femi Otubanjo has posited that ‘while nuclear deterrence has helped prevent direct military confrontation among the major nuclear powers, disputes surrounding the acquisition, deployment, and prevention of nuclear capabilities have increasingly become sources of conventional wars, diplomatic crises, sanctions, and preventive military actions.’ Professor Otubanjo underscores the point that nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to humanity and that no one ‘would be spared the consequences of total nuclear war. In this regard, he differentiated between two types of nuclear bombs: fission weapons or atomic bombs which involves the splitting of heavy atomic nuclei such as uranium with atomic weight 235 (uranium-235) or plutonium with atomic weight 239 (plutonium-239).

The second type is the fusion weapons, also known as hydrogen bombs and thermonuclear weapons. Fusion weapons use ‘nuclear fusion where light nuclei combine to form heavier nuclei,’ and are therefore more powerful. What appears to be most thought-provoking in the analyses of Professor Otubanjo is the biblical dimension, referring to chapter 16:6 of the Book of Revelations which teaches about the gathering of forces opposed to God for a final confrontation at Armageddon. But Jesus returns and defeats the forces of evil and establishes his reign (Rev 19). Satan is bound for a thousand years and released briefly and then finally defeated (Rev 20). This biblical reference raises not only the question of the second coming of Jesus Christ, but also what the prescriptions of Jesus Christ will be for Nigeria’s fragile economy, re-capitalization and non-nuclearisation policies beyond the challenges of economic sustainability and identification of the beneficiaries of recapitalization.

State Insecurity versus Stomach Infrastructure

Security in its classical sense involved the protection of a state’s territorial integrity and sovereignty from external military threats, and particularly from threats to the government. Greater attention, at times, is given to state security to the detriment of the survival of the people. This situation prompted some Third World scholars to call for the re-definition of the Europeanised state-defined security to include human beings, hence the introduction of human security in the international relations lexicon. Human security underscores the safety, well-being, and dignity of individuals against the threats of poverty, diseases, environmental hazards, etc. 

In Nigeria, for example, people talk first about security of the stomach, meaning that, while state security requires ensuring security by military means, human security cannot but be by provision of good food and sustainable amenities. The polsci.institute has asked: ‘if a country’s borders are secure yet its citizens still die from hunger, disease, repression, or violence at home, can we honestly say the people are secure?’ Without doubt, this question underscores the importance of the fragility of Nigeria’s economy as a problematic and the justification of the need for regular re-capitalisation.

Political governance under PBAT is fraught with crisis of insurrection, boko haramism, and armed banditry which compel the quest for foreign assistance. The assistance of the United States has been noteworthy: the U.S. has reportedly, in collaboration with the Nigeria government, neutralized 200 ISIS militants in a joint counterterrorism strikes across northeast of Nigeria. The neutralization has not deterred new attacks. The situational reality of insecurity has strengthened the agitations for state police and compelled the House of Representatives to quickly approve the state police bill.  In fact, the Senate has similarly ordered the crackdown on Tik Tok bandits in order to reduce the high level of insecurity in the country: misinformation-driven security threats and attempted abduction of WAEC candidates in Kogi State during which a Vice Principal was killed. There was also the case of kidnapping and beheading of a Christian Mathematics Teacher, Michael Oyedokun, of the Community High School in Ahoro-Esinele, near Ogbomosho in the Orire Local Government Area of Oyo State, on May 15, 2026. It was an armed attack on three schools along the Ahoro-Esinele and Yawota axis. 

The teacher was killed in captivity when he had no ransom to pay and the video of the beheading has been generating nationwide protests.

And true enough, the anger in the land appeared to have prompted an online call by one Nigerian for a coup d’état against PBAT. The Nigerian has been arraigned before a court in Lagos. Simply calling for a coup is a non-solution to Nigeria’s problem of fragile economy and insecurity. Arresting the caller is also not a solution. The problem of institutional corruption in Nigeria is deep seated. Political chicanery is endemic and is also begging for action. The threatening agitation for state police is now pricking the conscience of the National Assembly, especially because of the sharp rise in the level of brutal kidnappings leading to inhuman beheading and the fear of possible kidnapping of NASS members. The fear of possibly being kidnapped is a major dynamic for the fast-tracking of the state police bill.

It is good news to learn that the DSS and the Army have been able to foil ESN attacks, recover rocket launcher, 11 AK-47 rifles in Enugu. It is also good newsthat the Edo State government has begun the recruitment of 5,400 security corps, and has employed 500 forest guards. Will all these measures remove the threats of possible dismantlement of Nigeria? Can they address the international politics of nuclear non-proliferation? To what extent does Alhaji Abubakar Atiku’s call for state of emergency on security impact on people after the killing of the Kogi school Vice Principal? 

The Permanent Five Members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) have constituted themselves into an unofficial exclusive nuclear club without structures. They are referred to in international relations as the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS). They do not want any new member. They do not want any other state to acquire nuclear capability but they cautiously facilitate their allies to acquire nuclear capability. All countries that want to acquire nuclear power for whatever purpose are prevented from doing so. In this regard, they distrust several countries like North Korea and Iran. They talk about acceptance of acquisition of nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but the process of producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and for weaponisation is not different.

Acquisition of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes requires a low-level uranium enrichment (3% to 5%) while it requires a high level of uranium enrichment (80% to 90%) for war purposes. The primary material needed for nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is low-enriched or highly monitored plutonium whereas a weapons-grade highly enriched uranium or specialized plutonium is required for war purposes. In terms of delivery systems, an enclosed stationary containment structures of naval reactor vessels is required for peaceful purposes while missiles, gravity bombs, or submarine launched warheads are required for war purposes. Thus, the main difference between nuclear energy for peace and war lies in the ‘speed of the chemical-physical reaction and the enrichment level of the nuclear fuel.’

Consequently, for Nigeria to have agreed to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes does not mean she cannot easily change to war purposes because the underlying technologies often deployed are very connected. They create ‘a dual-use dilemma in which a peaceful infrastructure can be easily redirected for weapon development. This is precisely the reason for the vehement opposition of the United States to the acquisition of nuclear capability by Iran and many others. Why should Nigeria not be allowed as an influential and regional power to acquire nuclear capability for war under the pretext that Nigerian authorities may become radicalized and therefore may not be trusted? Why a fragile economy and not a vibrant economy? To what extent has regular re-capitalisation been helpful to good governance? Has recapitalization really been achieving its targeted objectives?

Whatever is the case, the Vice Chancellor of the Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba, Professor Olugbenga E. Ige, in his citation and assessment of the scholarly contributions of Professor Olasuji noted that, ‘today, we add the name of Professor Clement Oluwasuji to that distinguished list of inaugural lecturers
 More important, he said, ‘we are living through a season of profound economic reconfiguration in Nigeria – subsidy removal, exchange rate reforms, and rising costs of living. In such moments, what the nations needs is not slogans or sentiment, but rigorous, evidence-based thinking. That is what a university provides. That is what Professor Oluwasuji will offer today.’  And true enough, Professor Olasuji proved beyond every reasonable doubt that he went through various schools of thought and the schools, indeed, also went through him.

In the same vein, what the Acting Vice Chancellor of Achievers University, now generally recognized as the ‘University of the Future,’ Professor Aremu Oyesoji, said of the Achievers University 7th Inaugural Lecturer, Professor Adeboye Akanni Akinwunmi, is not different. He particularly noted that Professor Akinwunmi is ‘a distinguished scholar, seasoned banker, accomplished administrator, and an exemplary academic  whose life and journey reflects resilience, excellence, and unwavering commitment to national development through education and finance.’ More importantly, he said, ‘from a rural village classroom to the pinnacle of academia and professional banking, Professor Adeboye Akanni Akinwunmi embodies the ideals of scholarship, leadership, and national relevance.’ The deductive beauty from the evaluations of both Vice Chancellors is that both scholars work in Achievers University which has become a major hub, a terra cognita, for seasoned scholars to meet, lecture, and provide insights into the future beyond conjectural methodologies.

In essence, Professor Adeboye Akinwunmi has rightly argued that ‘re-capitalisation does not guarantee improved efficiency and ethical conduct because, without sound corporate governance, prudent risk management and effective supervision, increased capital may not translate into improved performance.’ For instance, ‘out of N5.731 trillion of total currency in circulation in Nigeria as of January 2026, N5.21 trillion (90.91%) compared to 93.3% recorded in December 2025, was outside the banking system. By implication, it is difficult for the Central Bank to control inflation and reduce the lending capacity of the Bank. A major consequence of this is higher inflationary pressure and economic inefficiency. In the same vein, Professor Clement Oluwasuji has argued that the challenge of strategic development has never been because of a shortage of policies or plans, ‘it has been the weakness of execution and the inconsistency of leadership.’ As such, what is the implication of inconsistency in Nigeria of today? Will there be a United States of Nigeria one day? Professor Femi Otubanjo has also reminded of the 1985 statement of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev that ‘ nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.’ Will there not be a World War III that will be nuclear-driven? If there will be, why should Nigeria not have nuclear capability for both peace and war purposes? The sermon of nuclear non-proliferation is preached, yet nuclear capability is constantly re-technologised and improve. Nigeria, quo vadis? The economy must not be fragile, recapitalization must be specially sustained, and Nigeria must be a major nuclear power. This should be a national and electoral debate for the 2027 elections.  

Femi Akintunde-Johnson

As the world gathers for another FIFA World Cup, Nigeria will be watching from the sidelines. For a country that once treated qualification for football’s greatest spectacle almost as a birthright, our absence from the tournament is itself a reminder that standards can slip when ambition is not matched by preparation. Yet, even without the Super Eagles on parade, millions of Nigerians will immerse themselves in the month-long festival. Viewing centres will overflow. New loyalties will be adopted overnight. Armchair coaches will emerge from every street corner. Old arguments will be renewed and fresh rivalries invented. For a few weeks, generators will hum a little longer, neighbourhood football analysts will suddenly become tactical geniuses, and many citizens will temporarily outsource their worries to ninety minutes of football.

The difficulty, however, is that while football offers distraction, it does not suspend reality. Even as the world celebrates goals, trophies and sporting excellence, Nigeria continues to wrestle with a more sobering challenge. Across different parts of the country, communities remain vulnerable to attacks, abductions and violent criminality. Families continue to mourn loved ones. Farmers remain uncertain about venturing onto their lands. Travellers still calculate risks before embarking on journeys. Fear, unfortunately, has become an unwelcome companion in the daily lives of far too many citizens.

 It is a troubling contradiction. While billions gather to celebrate one of humanity’s most unifying events, significant numbers of Nigerians remain preoccupied with a far more fundamental concern: personal safety. While some citizens are studying match fixtures and debating which nation will lift the trophy, others are studying escape routes, avoiding certain roads and wondering whether their communities might be next.

  That reality should concern us beyond the immediate security implications. It speaks to the image of the nation itself. Countries do not build reputations merely through slogans, public relations campaigns or colourful speeches at international gatherings. They build reputations through the lived experiences of their people. A nation that cannot consistently reassure its citizens about their safety will struggle to convince outsiders about its stability.

This is why security remains one of the most important components of national branding. Investors pay attention to it. Tourists pay attention to it. Members of the diaspora pay attention to it. Foreign governments certainly do. More importantly, citizens pay attention to it. No amount of promotional messaging can compensate for a deficit of public confidence.

The World Cup therefore presents both an opportunity and a warning. Across Nigeria, viewing centres, sports bars, recreational hubs and public gathering spots will attract large crowds throughout the tournament. These places represent the joyful side of football culture. They also represent potential soft targets for those who thrive on disruption, fear and publicity. This is not a call for panic. It is a call for vigilance.

Security agencies must recognise that periods of mass public gathering require enhanced intelligence, visible policing, improved surveillance and proactive deployment. State governments and local authorities should work closely with community leaders and operators of viewing centres to ensure that basic security measures are not treated as optional extras. Early detection, information sharing and rapid response capabilities become even more critical during periods when large crowds gather routinely.

At the same time, citizens have responsibilities. Suspicious activities should be reported promptly. Rumours should be verified before they are circulated. Community awareness should be encouraged without descending into paranoia. Security is ultimately the responsibility of the state, but public vigilance remains an important layer of protection.

Yet, it would be unfair to place the burden primarily on ordinary Nigerians. The greater responsibility rests squarely with the government and the security establishment. Citizens deserve confidence that every available resource is being deployed to identify, disrupt and neutralise criminal networks. They deserve assurance that ongoing operations are not merely reactive but increasingly preventive.

This is why many Nigerians struggle to understand explanations suggesting that certain criminal elements remain difficult to track because they employ sophisticated anti-surveillance or anti-tracking technologies. Such claims may contain elements of truth, but they inevitably raise difficult questions. How is it that individuals capable of terrorising communities often appear boldly on social media platforms displaying weapons, flaunting proceeds of crime, conducting public gatherings and, in some cases, taunting the state itself? How can those visible enough to project influence online appear invisible when accountability beckons?

These questions are not attacks on security agencies. They arise from public frustration. Citizens naturally expect that in an era of technological advancement, international intelligence cooperation and sophisticated surveillance capabilities, the space available to violent criminals should be shrinking, not expanding. At a time when governments across the world are collaborating on intelligence and security matters, Nigerians should not be left wondering whether bandits are technologically better equipped than the state pursuing them.

The truth, however, is that insecurity in Nigeria did not materialise overnight. It is the product of decades of accumulated neglect. A rapidly growing population continues to outpace available opportunities. Industries that once provided employment and stability have either collapsed or weakened significantly. Universities, polytechnics and colleges continue to produce hundreds of thousands of graduates annually, yet the economy struggles to absorb them meaningfully. We celebrate convocation ceremonies with fanfare, but often pay scant attention to what happens after the gowns are folded away. The result is a growing army of frustrated, under-employed and unemployed young people, many of whom become vulnerable to manipulation by criminal, extremist or opportunistic actors.

Added to this are the exploitation of religious sentiments by extremists, persistent security lapses and compromises, policy inconsistencies, weak enforcement mechanisms and the unfortunate tendency of some political actors to encourage or empower violent groups for short-term advantage. History repeatedly teaches the same lesson: violence rarely remains loyal to its sponsors. The monsters created to intimidate opponents today often become the threats that haunt entire communities tomorrow.

The conversation around state police must equally move from endless debate to responsible implementation. The complexity of Nigeria’s security challenges increasingly demands a policing structure that is closer to communities and more responsive to local realities. Such a system must be carefully designed, adequately funded and protected by robust safeguards against political abuse, institutional excesses and the familiar temptations that have undermined many public institutions. No state should be left behind because of financial limitations; a national security priority deserves national support.

As football captures the imagination of the world over the coming weeks, Nigerians will laugh, celebrate, argue and dream along with everyone else. They deserve that joy. But they also deserve something more fundamental. They deserve the confidence that they can gather peacefully, travel safely, work productively and sleep without fear.

 The world may be watching the World Cup. Nigerians, meanwhile, are watching something else. They are watching to see whether those entrusted with power will demonstrate the same urgency towards protecting lives as politicians routinely display in pursuing office. Because no trophy, no slogan and no carefully managed national image can substitute for the simple assurance that citizens are safe in their own country.

That, ultimately, is the Nigeria worth qualifying for.

Democracy Day can only make sense if the nation learns and adapts its historical significance adequately, writes MONDAY PHILIPS EKPE

Ask Nigerians what they think about the current system of government that was warmly welcomed back on May 29, 1999. Those who witnessed it would most likely express their disillusionment. Those born within this Fourth Republic, especially the Gen Z, would either be lost for the right words or spew out some invectives and then return to their phones – social media – for succour. What else do they turn to, anyway? They live with the consequences of government’s underperformance daily and find it hard to imagine that the country wasn’t always this discomfiting and inhibiting. They practically know no other life.

But the real tragedy of our own variant of democracy is not just that its dividends have remained largely elusive, what one of its finest moments is begging to teach us has been ignored for too long. For the record, Nigeria had always marked May 29 as Democracy Day since 2000 before the government of President Muhammadu Buhari changed it to June 12 in honour of the presidential election of 1993 believed to be the nation’s freest and fairest which was won by Chief Moshood Abiola but was annulled by the then Military President Ibrahim Babangida. In trying to right that wrong, Buhari officially declared Chief Abiola the winner, awarded him the highest national honour and effected the date change.

Many people saw those moves differently, however. To them, the former leader was only pandering to the sentiments and agitations of western Nigeria, Abiola’s home base, to secure crucial votes in his 2019 re-election bid. Anyway, scheming and politics are regular bed-mates. But as I’ve argued elsewhere, the justifications for shifting democracy’s commemoration date from the anniversary of the last exit of soldiers from political power under such a partisan atmosphere may later wear off and give way to resentment, if not widespread noncompliance. Here’s why. As momentous as June 12 is, it hasn’t been properly established as a true national monument, a moment in which the fault lines that are still trying to crush the Nigerian spirit melted in the face of the country’s unanimous and overriding hunger for a return to civil rule.

Another catalyst for the decisive, popular resolve demonstrated 33 years ago was the very personality of Abiola. There was something about his mass appeal which swept across Nigeria like frankincense. Here was a billionaire, easily among Nigeria’s richest and one of its most colourful, who refused to lose touch with the downtrodden. I still wonder whenever I pass through Toyin Street in Ikeja, Lagos what made the place suitable for his residence when he could comfortably acquire luxuriant, palatial homes in Ikoyi, Victoria Island and elsewhere. His campaign tagged “Hope 93” was simply magical. Both rich and poor queued up from Lagos to Sokoto, Maiduguri to Calabar, to press their thumbs into the Social Democratic Party (SDP) spaces on the ballot papers. No Moslem-Moslem ticket dichotomy. No my-turn, your-turn syndrome.

There’s a whole lot to unpack about June 12, if not for the sake of the old who may have taken an eternal stand, it could be for those who were then either unborn or mature enough to digest that historic period. Political historians should be interested in how a true national mandate quickly became minimised to a regional one. What made Abiola succeed where Chief Obafemi Awolowo, arguably the west’s most revered leader, failed. How such an ambitious, monumental, albeit aborted, occasion was reduced to an “injustice” done to a section of the federation. Sadly, that sentiment seems to have attached itself permanently to this somewhat sacred date. The nation appears to have squandered a chance to forge genuine nationhood based on the positives of that election. Something could unravel down the line that might challenge the suitability or credibility of the official date to celebrate our democracy.

A little here and a little there, the quest for rotational presidency began during the legendary democratic struggle of the 1990s like Siamese twins. The immediate beneficiary of that circumstantial blackmail, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), made a kill of the sentiment and rode on it to power; an attitude that has now degenerated to entitlement, otherwise called “emilokan” or “awalokan”. Never mind that rotation hasn’t yet found its way into the constitution. It’s already etched on the psyche of many Nigerians. If only that would lead us to a desirable destination. No one is sure that it will. What is certain is that, in a metaphysical sense, Nigerians are still in search of an Abiola figure, someone truly loved by majority of the people for his humanity, vision and drive. A nationalist devoid of known myopic inclinations and practices.

Fast forward to the present. Three decades are long enough to move any individual, institution or country either upwards or downwards in any index of development. The fear, uncertainties and authoritarianism experienced during military incursions into government left Nigerians with no viable options than go for democracy. They had gone through colonial rule. Endured the foibles and excesses of the First Republic politicians which ultimately resulted in the coup of 1966. Watched the shortcomings of the administration of Alhaji Shehu Shagari that served as the pretext for the comeback of the khaki boys. Were almost overcome by the recklessness and dictatorship of jackboot leaderships from December 1983 to 1999. General Abdulsalam Abubakar’s hand-over to President Olusegun Obasanjo on May 29, 1999 couldn’t have come at a better time. A huge relief that has been going southwards, unfortunately.

One doesn’t need to be a sceptic or pessimist to wonder whether what obtains now is worth celebrating. But then, the very concept of perfection is otherworldly. Meaning, the way forward will always be fraught with challenges. Luckily, our past wasn’t always despicable. So, to make progress, learn from June 12 we must. Nigerians are capable of setting their differences aside and speaking with one voice. The present election umpire can exhibit probity. Public perception is indispensable here. The political class can display maturity in this game against all odds. Alhaji Bashir Tofa, Abiola’s opponent who accepted the result without drama and one of the most unappreciated leading lights of that era, deserves to be emulated by the opposition.

Away from grandstanding and belabouring his role in the restoration of our democracy, President Bola Tinubu should lead the way in ensuring that Abiola and indeed the rest slain heroes did not pay the ultimate price in vain.    

Dr Ekpe is a member of ÌÇĐÄÊÓÆ” Editorial Board

X: @monday_ekpe2

‱ Warns that his govt’ll pursue anti-graft war with vigour 

‱Pledges prudent financial architecture, stronger support for nation’s anti-corruption institutions

‱ Inaugurates multi-billion naira economic, infrastructure projects in Ekiti 

‱Shettima rallies support for Oyebanji’s reelection as gov

Deji Elumoye in Abuja

PPresident Bola Tinubu on Tuesday declared total war on corrupt public officials, saying there is no hiding place for them in his government.

Speaking during the unveiling of the EFCC Zonal Directorate Office Complex in Ado Ekiti, the Ekiti state capital, Tinubu, who was represented by Vice President Kashim Shettima, reaffirmed the federal government’s commitment to strengthening anti-corruption institutions and ensuring accountability across public and private sectors.

He issued a blunt notice to corrupt officials in the country, warning that his administration will pursue the anti-graft war without retreat.

He described the new EFCC facility as a strategic investment in institutional capacity, public trust and national development.

“The message is clear: there are no hiding places for the corrupt. Nigeria will not tolerate graft, and such conduct will be punished under our laws,” he stated.

The president restated his resolve to actively pursue domestic fiscal reforms and overhaul Nigeria’s financial architecture to ensure the execution of programmes aimed at removing economic distortions, stabilising macroeconomic indicators, and restoring investor confidence.

Tinubu said Nigeria’s long-term prosperity depended on the credibility of its public institutions, warning that development becomes impossible when corruption obstructs the relationship between citizens and the state.

The president said, “Nigeria’s future rests on the strength of the institutions we build and the faith we invest in them.

“No nation can rise above the integrity of its public systems because development is defeated when corruption is allowed to stand between citizens and the promises of the state.”

He stated that the Economic and Financial Cries Commission (EFCC) was established to protect the economy from criminal enterprises and preserve public confidence in governance, adding that government will continue to provide the institutional support required for the commission to carry out its mandate effectively.

Commending Executive Chairman of EFCC, Mr Ola Olukoyede, and members of the commission, Tinubu praised their persistence and professionalism in advancing Nigeria’s anti-corruption agenda.

According to him, the fight against corruption cannot succeed through rhetoric alone but requires strong institutions, modern facilities and operational support.

He stated, “Our administration considers it important that law enforcement agencies, which are critical to our collective safety, security, prosperity and general well-being, should have the necessary facilities to enhance their efficiency.”

The president expressed confidence that the inauguration of the Ekiti zonal directorate office complex would strengthen the commission’s effectiveness and encourage officers to intensify efforts against economic and financial crimes.

He described anti-corruption agencies as strategic partners in the administration’s broader economic reform and national security agenda.

Tinubu highlighted recent outcomes achieved by EFCC, including actions against cyber-enabled financial crime, illicit financial flows, and organised criminal networks.

He cited the commission’s dismantling of a foreign-controlled cryptocurrency syndicate in Lagos, along with other enforcement actions, as evidence of growing institutional capacity and improved coordination in tackling financial crime.

The president linked anti-corruption efforts to economic recovery and investor confidence, stating that recovered assets have contributed in expanding support for government intervention programmes.

He said, “Through aggressive asset tracing and recovery, the Commission has made resources available for critical social investment programmes such as the Student Loan Scheme, NELFUND and CREDICORP.”

Earlier, Olukoyede said the creation of the Ekiti Zonal Directorate will address longstanding operational challenges affecting both Ekiti and Ondo states, as well as improve the speed and efficiency of investigations and prosecutions.

He described the inauguration as a major milestone in the commission’s efforts to decentralise operations and bring anti-corruption enforcement closer to the people.

Tinubu stated that “the edifice we are ‘commissioning’ today is the crystallisation of a unique vision in institution-building and consolidation”.

Governor Biodun Oyebanji said the state government provided significant support for the zonal office, including office accommodation and a 220KVA standby generator, as part of its commitment to transparency, accountability, and inter-governmental collaboration.

Oyebanji stated that the establishment of the zonal office had fulfilled the promise made by the state government after EFCC expressed interest in situating a directorate in Ekiti.

Earlier, on arrival in the state, Shettima, on behalf of Tinubu, performed the ground-breaking of the Ekiti Knowledge Zone (EKZ) in Ekiti State.

He said the project aligned with the administration’s Renewed Hope Agenda and reflected the administration’s commitment to expanding opportunity through education, technology and innovation.

Tinubu stated that Nigeria’s long-term prosperity will depend less on natural resources and increasingly on the country’s ability to invest in knowledge, innovation and human capital.

The president said the policy programmes of his administration were turning the country away from dependency and brain drain towards an economy powered by innovation, human capital, and home-grown enterprise.

He described Ekiti as one of Nigeria’s strongest symbols of intellectual achievement and educational aspiration, even as he said cross the country, Ekiti had earned a reputation for producing generations of scholars and demonstrating the transformative power of education.

The president stated, “Ekiti is known not for the accident of mineral wealth, but for the discipline of the mind; not for inherited privilege, but for the stubborn faith that education is the ladder by which ordinary families climb into history.”

Tinubu expressed appreciation to African Development Bank (AfDB) for supporting the initiative, saying the institution’s involvement reflects growing confidence in Nigeria’s human capital potential and the development possibilities within subnational economies.

The president praised Oyebanji for responsible governance, fiscal discipline, and strategic leadership that helped bring the project to fruition.

Earlier, Oyebanji said the knowledge centre will advance industrialisation, technology, entrepreneurship, and sustainable economic growth in the state.

He stated that the EKZ will strengthen equity and seal the state’s place “as a destination of choice for innovation, research, investment, and enterprise”.

The governor added, “The zone is far more than a physical development. It’s a platform for opportunity. It will stimulate enterprise, foster innovation, create pathways for technological industry, and attract both domestic and international investment.”

Meanwhile, Shettima strongly advocated the re-election of Oyebanji in the June 20 governorship election in Ekiti State. He thanked the people of the state for voting massively for Tinubu in the 2023 presidential election.

He spoke on Tuesday when he inaugurated the 1.2-kilometre Asiwaju Bola Tinubu Flyover at Okeyinmi Ado-Ekiti, on behalf of Tinubu, as part of his one-day working visit to Ekiti State.

Inaugurating the flyover named after the president, Shettima recalled that in the 2023 presidential election, Tinubu got 201,494 votes from Ekiti State.

He said the state’s presidential election results trended for over 24 hours before other states started polling.

“Ekiti gave us 67 per cent of their total votes. No candidate got 25 percent in Ekiti State besides the APC candidate (President Tinubu). And in Ekiti, we won all the three senatorial seats and the six members of the House of Representatives seats. Ekiti is a land of promise.”

The vice president said Tinubu deserved open commendation for his transparency in ensuring that states got what they were due to get, pointing out that what he got in Borno State in eight years was what some states had gotten within one year, following the removal of fuel subsidy.

Shettima stated, “And I want to commend the president because this project was completely funded by state resources, which is a reflection of the commitment made by the president to ensure that states get what they deserve to get on a monthly basis.

“States are able to execute landmark projects without borrowing a dime from financial institutions. We have to show gratitude (to the president).”

Declaring his public endorsement of the governor, Shettima emphasised the strong confidence of the federal government in Oyebanji’s leadership, even as he demanded support for the continuation of the administration in the state.

Assuring that he would return to the state for Oyebanji’s re-election campaign, the vice president said, “Ekiti is a land of equity. Ekiti is the most educated state in the Nigerian federation. I believe you will reciprocate the landmark accomplishments of Governor Oyebanji in the next couple of weeks.

“I will be back in Ekiti on Tuesday. I will go around the northern community in Ekiti to mobilize votes for Governor Oyebanji because he deserves to be re-elected.”

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Definition of Gaslighting 

‘Gaslighting’ has become the order of the day in public life, shifting from just being a form of emotional abuse in domestic settings, to governance. While there is no universal definition of gaslighting, it involves falsehood and appears to be a form of manipulation, denial, trivialisation or outright lies by one party (the ‘Blamor’) to mislead the other party, and if the matter is blameworthy, unfairly shifting the blame to the other party (the ‘Blamee’), thereby making the Blamee question themselves, believing that they may truly be to blame, or that they got the facts wrong, or, at times, even questioning their own sanity. 

So, for instance in a domestic setting, the Husband, X (Blamor) who has had a drinking problem in the past, starts coming home late from work; Y, his wife (Blamee) smells alcohol on X, tells him she’s noticed that he’s started drinking again; X denies it, says he has been working late on an office project, and that Y is paranoid, imagining things, and must have smelt her perfume instead. And, because of X’s vehemence in refusal, Y starts to doubt herself – did she really smell alcohol? Is she being paranoid? Is she being unnecessarily suspicious? X gaslights Y by denying the reality (lying), attacking her credibility and effectively shifting the blame from himself onto Y by making her look unnecessarily suspicious and paranoid (diversionary/delay tactic.).

Gaslighting in Litigation 

Ironically, gaslighting-like tactics may be part and parcel of our legal profession, particularly in litigation, as litigants are always pitched against themselves, holding on to polarised positions on the same subject-matter. 

Recently, I read in the news that in the sad case of the death of author, Chimamanda Adichie’s son, Nkanu, their Counsel, in arguing that the Coroner’s Inquest should be adjourned to a definite date for report and not ‘sine die’ (without a date; indefinitely) as the Magistrate Coroner did, so that the judicial review application can be taken by the High Court, Adichie-Esege Family Counsel was reported in the news to have said: â€œHe who is innocent, does not fear an open inquest”. Though this is true, it smacks of gaslighting, as the Blamor (Adichie-Esege Family Counsel) appears have weaponised public sympathy to deflect from evidentiary weaknesses. A suitable response from the Blamee (Euracare’s Counsel) could however, have been: â€œHe who is innocent does not fear an open inquest, by destroying key evidence”! After all, what is good for the goose, is certainly excellent for the gander. 

In this circumstance, gaslighting seems to be the deflection from the seriousness of cremation/destruction of evidence criminalised by Section 48(1) of the Coroners’ System Law of Lagos State 2007, which in the first place is the basis of the application for judicial review, while appearing to lay emphasis on the application as some form of diversionary tactic.

Gaslighting in Governance 

Gaslighting in governance or State Gaslighting, is the State as the Blamor, manipulating, denying, deflecting, distorting or minimising facts that are a reality, thereby eroding public trust and psychologically abusing the Blamee, which in this case, is the public. For instance, Nigerians are complaining of economic hardship, while the Government claims that the economy is improving and things are getting better, attempting to create an impression that the people may be exaggerating their condition, and may not know what they are saying. This creates confusion, as official statistics which tend to contradict everyday realities are used. After all, in 2018, during the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, Nigeria was declared to be the poverty capital of the world; but, today, the Tinubu administration can insist there’s an improvement, as Nigeria appears to have moved up about three notches on the poverty index, and Government keeps repeating the mantra that, in a period of rebuilding, there’s sacrifice, hardship and pain. 

State gaslighting can also occur when Government exaggerates minor successes, while ignoring major omissions or failures, or deflecting from other issues related thereto. The removal of the corrupt fuel subsidy regime and the unification of the foreign exchange rates, are regularly cited as successes of the Tinubu administration, while the negative effect on Nigerians of the inflation caused by the removal of the subsidy, is almost ignored, and simultaneously, Politicians/Government Officials live lavish lifestyles on scarce State resources. 

Gaslighting in governance rewrites the narrative, contradicting realities, and can be damaging to democracy. It discourages accountability, because if there’s no problem as the State may falsely seek to maintain, there’s no need for a solution. So, in effect, a lethal combination of State gaslighting and the non-justiciability of Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) – see Section 6(6)(c) thereof, leads to a gross lack of accountability and a very frail State.

Security Gaslighting 

But, the truth is that, State gaslighting is not new to governments all over the world; and so, it has always been an active part of the Fourth Republic, particularly with regard to the problem of insecurity.

1) Obasanjo Administration 

Following the killing of about 10 Policemen by Youths of Odi Bayelsa State in November 1999, in the early days of the tenure of President Olusegun Obsanjo, GCFR, the military response, ‘Operation Hakuri’, which followed, razed the town, killing hundreds of innocent civilians, if not more. The Government/Military justified their actions in the guise of targeting criminals who ambushed security. agents and the fight against oil bunkering, while minimising/denying the excessive force used by the soldiers and human rights abuses; there was a lack of accountability.

2) Yar’Adua Administration 

The extra-judicial killing of the leader of the Boko Haram group, Mohammed Yusuf, by the Police in July 2009 during the administration of President Umaru Yar’Adua, is said to be a contributing factor to the escalation and spread of Boko Haram’s terrorism, including their quest  for revenge. 

The initial claims by the Police, about how Yusuf died, first, allegedly in a shoot out while trying to escape, proved to be an outright lie, gaslighting, as Nigerians saw the video of how he was executed as he was alighting from a van. 

President Yar’Adua, in fairness to him, ordered a probe into the matter for the sake of accountability, but unfortunately, he didn’t live long enough for anything to come out of it. Though Boko Haram had showed violent tendencies before the 2009 extra-judicial killing, the incident amplified it. 

To date, some of the more reasonable underlying reasons for the grievances of Boko Haram such as poverty, unemployment and corruption, not only remain unaddressed by the State, they persist, and the group has since metamorphosed into a full-blown criminal, vicious killing and kidnapping machine. 

3)  Jonathan Administration 

The administration of President Goodluck Jonathan, GCFR, was accused of gaslighting the people, by minimising the threat level of Boko Haram. Though they did take some steps, such as declaring a state of emergency in three States in the Northeast in 2013, namely Borno, Yobe and Adamawa (see Sections 14(2)(b) & 305 of the Constitution), and also employed the services of foreign military contractors, some still argued that the steps were reactionary when they should have been proactive or preventive, if not for the initial downplay.   

4) Buhari Administration 

The failure of successive administrations to address the aforementioned underlying causes of violence and insecurity in society, while failing to handle Boko Haram decisively, also opened the doors for other violent groups to come onto the Nigerian scene. 

The issue of his stand against corruption and the increasing  insecurity, were the main reasons adduced for electing President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, who Nigerians believed would do better in the fight against corruption and the area of security, being a seasoned soldier. Alas! This wasn’t to be. 

The Buhari administration gaslighted Nigerians by claiming to have ‘technically defeated’ Boko Haram, thereby attempting to make Nigerians doubt the severity of insecurity. The foreign contractors engaged by the Jonathan administration, were terminated. Some argued that Herdsmen attacks were also treated by the Buhari administration, with kidgloves. The term ‘Banditry’ was popularised, and even though it may be stronger than simple theft, it is a few notches less than terrorism. However, the Boko Haram attacks continued, with its offshoot, ISWAP and even Al Shabab joining, while the Herder attacks, which were minimised/downplayed to Farmer-Herder clashes, also escalated – see State v Haruna Usman Judgement delivered on May 8, 2017, per Nasiru Ajanah J. (CJ, Kogi State as he then was); SC/CR/1026/2022 Sunday Jackson v The State Judgement delivered on March 7, 2025 per Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC (Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC Dissenting).

According ACLED statistics, more than a couple of thousand terrorist attacks occurred in Nigeria between 2015 and 2023, including the 2018 Dapchi girls kidnapping; the 2019 Presidential election day attacks in Maiduguri, Borno State and Geidam, Yobe State; the March 2022 Kaduna-Abuja train attack leaving about 8 people dead and 60 hostages; the May 2022 Rann Town, Borno State Boko Haram attack leaving up 50 people dead; the St Francis Xavier Catholic Church, Owo attack in June 2022 leaving 40 dead and many others injured and the ISWAP July 2022 Kuje Prison break, freeing over 800 inmates. 

5) Tinubu Administration 

The Tinubu administration, even though it appears to be putting in some effort to fight terrorism by tweaking the security apparatus, deploying more personnel, working with the Americans, there is a lot more to be done. The pupils and students kidnapped in Oyo and Borno have been in captivity since May 15, while one of the Oyo teachers, Mr Michael Oyedokun was brutally murdered by the terrorists. Terrorism appears to have spread into the Southwest that hitherto, was ‘safe’.

I’m not sure that the usual State gaslighting ‘things are improving’ narrative, or the Minister of Defence giving their administration a generous 65%-70% pass mark in security, this time around, is convincing. People are able to see what is going on in real time, as videos spring up on social media regularly showing different violent incidents, the most recent and gory being the murder of soldiers in Borno State. 

Conclusion

While placing the entire blame of Nigeria’s decades-long insecurity crisis squarely on the shoulders of President Tinubu and his administration would be unfair, the buck inevitably stops at his table, being the incumbent. However, less politicking and premature campaigning are required now, which to tell the truth, at the moment come across as being rather insensitive, when toddlers are in the captivity of cruel and ruthless terrorists. While we rejoice with the family of the former Minister of Power, the Adelabus, on the safe return of their family members, how come they could be rescued in a short timeframe, while toddlers in a such dangerous situation, proven and confirmed by the fact that their Teacher was beheaded, have been languishing in the forest for 4 weeks? 

Today, many recall with fondness, former First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan breaking down in tears, and her now famous words in pidgin English, which have become a household way of expression of anguish when something bad occurs: â€œThere is God o! The bloods we are sharing, there is God o!”, because of her expression of frustration when the Chibok Girls were kidnapped in 2014.

Nigeria urgently requires less State gaslighting – fewer denials, minimisations, deflections, manipulation of narratives, and far more decisive actions to fight insecurity. While the Tinubu administration may be exerting more effort than some of its predecessors to fight insecurity, particularly its immediate predecessor, rejigging the security architecture and seeking international partnerships, the results appear to be inadequate in the face of the daily atrocities that Nigerians are facing, even in previously safer zones. It is also troubling that a significant number of local collaborators and regrettably, some traditional leaders, are assisting these violent terrorists, whether as active members of their gangs and/or for financial gain.

Technology-driven solutions, are available. Satellites can be deployed to monitor forests and borders, drones for schools, by both Federal and State Governments, even subscribing to broad-area monitoring platforms, costs going up to maybe $100,000 per annum. This is a small price to pay, and can easily be drawn from State security votes. Instead of Governors complaining that they have no control over the security agencies, they should invest in tools that do have control over, which is making use of technology, because by virtue of Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution, the security and welfare of the people within their States, is the primary purpose of their government. A former Governor once shared with me that, during the Yar’Adua administration, he obtained a waiver from President Yar’Adua, and imported arms and ammunition for the use of the Police in his own State, resulting in a considerable reduction the crime rate there.

If the Government is able to substantially reduce the level of insecurity in Nigeria, the people would be desperate to renew its mandate in 2027; campaign would be unnecessary, as the tangible improvements in the security and welfare of the people would be more than enough of a manifesto. After all, one never gets enough of a good thing!  Nevertheless, we cannot also engage in gaslighting, by ignoring or minimising the orchestrated escalation of violence across the country as the elections draw nearer, by enemies of the State to make this government even less popular.

Bola A. Akinterinwa

There are speculations that the name, Nigeria, has the likelihood to be changed to ‘United States of Nigeria’ by end of December 2026, that is, under the current political dispensation. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PMB) has reportedly denied any intention to send a draft bill to that effect to the National Assembly. However, Vie Internationale considers that, in the event of a change of name, it will only be change-in-continuity: change of name and continuity of the well-known national problems.

There are always different reasons for changing the name of a country.  Turkey changed its name in 2022 to TĂŒrkiye for two reasons: First, people jokingly liken Turkey to chicken, which is not appreciated. Secondly, the Turkish people want to disassociate themselves from the English word, Turkey. The Republic of Macedonia changed its own name in 2019 to Republic of North Macedonia for better geo-political identity to enable differentiation between Greece and qualification requirements to join the European Union. Czechia, as from 2016, is the new abbreviated name for the former Czech Republic, which is still in use. Like Ivoiriens rejected ‘Ivory Coast’ in favour of ‘CĂŽte d’Ivoire,’ the French translation, Cape Verde similarly changed its name in 2013 to Cabo Verde, the Portuguese translation. In the same vein, Swaziland changed its name to the Kingdom of Eswatini. 

Grosso modo, every change of name is driven by protection of national interest: the adoption of the French name, Cîte d’Ivoire is to underscore the character of French speakingness. At the United Nations where sitting arrangement is by alphabetical order, the English name, Ivory Coast, puts the country at a sharp corner, and not in a well visible place. The French name puts the country at the centre, hence the request for a change to Cîte d’Ivoire. What is the rationale for changing Nigeria’s name? Reportedly, sustainable true federalism

Futility of United States of Nigeria

There is no big issue with seeking to have Nigeria become United States of Nigeria, but there is problem with the likely aftermath, which is futility of the exercise. In discussing the futility of the new name, what should we mean by a United States of Nigeria? The notion and concept of a State in international law and relations considers a ‘State’ as the unit of analysis in official diplomacy. First, a State cannot exist in the absence of a permanent population, a well-defined territory over which authority can be exercised, and a government that is independent and capable of executing the internationally-contracted obligations by the State. 

With these three definienda – spopulation, territory, and government – a State exists, but cannot enter into international diplomatic relations in the absence of international recognition, either in terms of recognition of state or recognition of government. When a State exists, the issue of attributes are necessarily raised. For instance, does the State have the highest authority? Is it sovereign? Is it dependent or independent? These questions are raised because there can be a union of population, government, and territory, as it is the case with overseas territories of some metropolitan countries, and yet, they are not sovereign. 

There is also the notion of Westphalian sovereignty which talks about nation-state sovereignty. Put differently, we have state, sovereign state, and nation-state, which should not be confused with a sociologically-defined state. Sociological definition underscores cultural affinity, common language, etc. It is important to note that nation-states already existed in Africa before colonisation, even though they were referred to as empires: Ethiopian Empire, Ghana Empire, Mali Empire, Songhai Empire, Benin Empire, Kanem Empire, etc.

It is against this background that Marcus Garvey first used the notion of ‘United States of Africa’ in his poem, ‘Hail, United States of Africa,’ in 1924. As of 1924, most of African countries were dependent territories. Apart from Liberia and Ethiopia, which Italy attempted to colonise with its aggression of 1936, and were not colonized, all others were dependent territories without sovereignty. Consequently, when Marcus Garvey talked about United States of Africa, he was only dreaming of States that would not only be independent and sovereign, but also come together to be united.

President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana talked about Union of African States in the mania of the United States of America. He wanted a common African government that would encompass political and economic unity in order to achieve and ensure true independence and development. This was the background to the holding of the All-African People’s Conference held in Accra, Ghana in 1958. The Conference was the first pan-African conference to be held on African soil. At the conference, Nkrumah called for the creation of a United States of Africa, and no more Union of African States. Thus, from 1958 through 1965, Nkrumah and his advisor, a Trinidadian activist and writer, laid the foundation for further sensitization on the need for a United States of Africa. This could not work because of the conflicts of interest between the Monrovia and Casablanca schools of thought.

Additionally, Muammar Gaddafi, as Chairman of the African Union, in February 2009, was reported by the BBC to have told the AU Assembly of Heads of State as follows: ‘I (Gaddafi) shall continue to insist that our sovereign countries work to achieve the United States of Africa.’ He proposed ‘a single African military force, a single currency and a single passport for Africans to move freely around the continent.’ As good as Gaddafi’s suggestion might have been, there were still strong oppositions to it. The enmity between the proponents and opponents was divisive and not helpful to continental integration. 

On the one hand, for examples, President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal anticipated in 2011 that the United States of Africa could be a reality by 2017. The African Union believed that building a ‘United and Integrated’ Africa would be achievable by 2025. In fact, the territorial scope of Africa was redefined to include the African Diaspora in the Caribbean (Haiti, Jamaica, Dominical Republic, and the Bahamas), etc. On the other hand, Wikipedia has it that ‘a week before Gaddafi’s death during the Libyan civil war, South African President Jacob Zuma expressed relief at the regime’s downfall, complaining that Gaddafi had been intimidating many African Heads of State and Government in an effort to gain influence throughout the continent and suggesting that the African Union will function better without Gaddafi and his repeated proposals for a unitary African government.’ 

This point by President Zuma reminds one of President Robert Mugabe’s postulation that ‘Africa without Nigeria is hollow.’ Is Africa without Libya not similarly hollow? The death of Gaddafi during the Battle of Sirte in October 2011 did not put an end to the quest for a United States of Africa. His death has not solved the internal imbroglio in Libya. And true enough, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe came to reassure of his preparedness to sustain the quest for the United States of Africa. Most unfortunately, he died not a long time after his decision to revive the Gaddafi project. While Ghana, Senegal, and Zimbabwe gave active support to the project, South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria opposed it vehemently. And true enough again, the Maghrebin countries did not show much interest in the United States of Africa project. Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya were not much interested. They showed much interest in pan Arabism, Arab nationalism, Berberism, and Islamism. 

Whatever is the intimidation by Gaddafi, the animosity of President Zuma was unnecessarily too deep to have wanted the downfall of Gaddafi. Wishing the downfall of any African leader and at the same time be talking about African unity and integration is very conflicting. This alleged intimidation by President Zuma and his wishes for the downfall of Gaddafi is also an issue in Nigeria. There has been, at least, one coup d’état aimed at removing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu from power alive or dead. The coup failed. But who are the major coupists? Will the change of name of Nigeria remove the animosity vis-Ă -vis PBAT? This is most unlikely. 

What about insecurity? There is no convincing evidence of any preparedness of Government of Nigeria since the time of President Goodluck Jonathan to nip insecurity in the bud. President Jonathan knew that there were boko haramists in his government and he told the whole world about it. The United Arab Emirates gave the identities of those funding terrorism in Nigeria to the Government of Nigeria under President Muhammadu Buhari. The Government even publicly claimed to know all the funders. In the same vein, Alhaji Sheikh Gumi, an Islamic scholar, has reportedly justified in different ramifications armed banditry and terrorism while Sheikh Gumi is claiming to be only engaged in facilitating peaceful dialogue with the terrorists to end blood-shell. As he put it, ‘I never met bandits alone’ (TVC News, 26 May, 2026). 

More disturbingly again, how do we explain the case of Mrs. Grace Ogunleye, the Vice Chairman of the Ilejemeje Local Government Area in Ekiti, who reportedly stage-managed her own kidnapping in order to raise funds for political and personal financial obligations? She was declared missing following the abandonment of her vehicle on the Ipere-Iludun Ekiti Road. Police investigation, after being rescued unhurt, showed that the kidnapping was fake. This led to her arraignment on June 4, 2026 before a Chief Magistrate Court in Ado-Ekiti. Mr. Pius Dada, the Chairman of the Council said the fake kidnapping was ‘embarrassing, unfortunate, and unacceptable’ (The Premium Times Nigeria, June 4, 2026). Mrs. Ogunleye is an elected leader, and there are many Grace Ogunleyes in most Nigerians who want money by hook or by crook. Her case is still better than a Federal Government who collected funds for construction of houses that were not meant to be built. Changing of Nigeria’s name can be good but cannot be good enough to solve Nigeria’s problems. The implication of changing Nigeria’s name, if need be, is serious.

Beyond United States of America and United States of Africa

The National Anthem cannot but be the first victim of any change of name. It will no longer be ‘Nigeria We Hail Thee’ but ‘United States of Nigeria, We Hail Thee.’ In ‘Nigeria We Hail Thee,’ the operational defining word in the anthem is ‘Nigeria.’ It is in Nigeria that ‘though tribe and tongue may differ, in brotherhood we stand.’ In ‘United States of Nigeria,’ the operational words are ‘United States.’ Are there disunited States in Nigeria? Can Nigeria be simply referred to as U.S.? Can Africa really answer the name U.S.A. as an abbreviation? Without any whiff of doubt, it has become necessary to go beyond the politics of United States of America and the United States of Africa. 

First, the life-style of the Nigerian elite is largely influenced by that of the Europeans and Americans. Socio-behaviourally, it is mostly Europeanised. Politically, it is Americanised. Nigeria has adopted the American-styled presidential system. While a true federal system can be said to exist in the United States, the same cannot be said to exist in Nigeria. We noted already in 2011 how then Governor of Lagos State, Senator Ahmed Tinubu began the struggle for a true federal system in Nigeria (vide Bola A. Akinterinwa, ed., Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Struggle for True Federalism in Nigeria (Ibadan: Vantage Publishers, 2011). Nigeria is yet to witness true federalism. In fact, it is still under PBAT that more constructive efforts are now being made to achieve true federalism with the renewed determination to devolve more powers to the constitutive states of Nigeria, especially in terms of state police.

Africa, in general, and regional organisations like the ECOWAS, in particular, pattern their political governance after the Europeans. The ECOWAS Treaty was done in the mania of the 1957 Rome Treaty that established the European Economic Community of Six. The structure of the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community also followed the pattern of the Rome Treaty. For instance, when the Organisation of African Unity was in place, it was the use of Secretary-General and Secretariat that was in vogue. When the European Economic Community changed its usage from Secretary-General and Secretariat to President and Commission, African leaders also did the same thing. Thus, Africa has always been a copy-cat, an intellectual consumer. 

This situation has enabled a stronger mainmise of Europe on Africa. 

  In this regard, is there no particular lifestyle that is peculiar to the various peoples of Nigeria that can be promoted, especially in the mania of WAZOBIA? Can there not be something like Nigeriano-authenticism? It has become necessary to live beyond the imported lifestyle of the United States of Africa, and even beyond the lifestyles of other African peoples. Let Nigeria be Nigerian in appearance, in behavior, in mentality, and sovereign in governance.

Secondly, there is the issue of security partnership. The United States of America, in collaboration with Nigerian authorities, carried out air strikes against ISIS terrorists in Nigeria on December 25, 2025 in Sokoto State. In the words of General Dagvin Anderson, the AFRICOM Commander, ‘U,S. Africa Command is working with Nigerian and regional partners to increase counterterrorism cooperation efforts related to on-going violence and threats against innocent lives.’ The air strikes were targeted at the Islamic State-Sahel (ISSP) camps which were associated with regional attacks on security forces and civilians.’ Additionally, on May 17 and 18, 2026 kinetic strikes against the ISIS in Northeastern Nigeria were also carried out. Several ISIS leaders were reportedly killed.

And perhaps more significantly, General Anderson had it that ‘AFRICOM in coordination with the Armed /forces of Nigeria, bravely and valiantly conducted a successful mission that resulted in the elimination of Abu-Bilal al-Minuki, and multiple other ISIS leaders
 This operation underscores the exceptional value of the US-Nigeria partnership.’
 Make no mistake, our two nations will relentlessly pursue and neutralize terrorist threats and are committed to protecting our people and interests.’

As good and exceptional the value of Nigeria-U.S. partnership might have been, there is nothing to suggest any acquisition of technology transfer, and particularly capability to neutralize insurgent terrorism on the part of Nigeria. This means that there is still the need to go beyond the so-called goodness of the partnership. The United States, as a senior partner in the collaboration, owes it a functional duty to ensure that Nigeria is able to sustain the anti-ISIS fight in the absence of the U.S. In the same vein, even if the partnership were to be on an equal footing, for as long as the ISIS is not yet completely neutralized, the success President Donald Trump is talking about is, at best, temporary. Most unfortunately, however, the success of the killing of ISIS leaders and the joint operation has not stopped ISIS attacks on innocent civilians in Nigeria and the Sahel region.

Thirdly, at the level of the United States of Nigeria, the issues involved that should first be addressed are self-destructive. There is the question of institutional corruption at all levels, particularly at the levels of the Customs, Road Safety, Internal Revenue officials who are most terrible. I make this observation based on personal experiences. I was told by the Nigeria Immigration Service to pay an import duty of N4.5 million on one Tokunbo Toyota Highlander which we duly paid through the clearing agent. One day, I was stopped along Shagamu-Ore expressway by some immigration agents who checked my vehicle particulars and told me that I did not pay fully the required import duty. I asked them why the vehicle was released to me if I had not made full payment. I never took bribe and will never give one. I was delayed and I asked for the prosecution of the case. I should not be held responsible for whatever deal that might have been struck by my clearing agent and the Immigration or Custom agents even with the sum of 2 million naira. I did not go to the port. I only learnt that the amount I paid was only N2 million when I was stopped for checking. The truth is that my vehicle was brought to my house. Why should I be punished for the stealing of government funds by government agents. I have evidence of payment of N4.5 m to my clearing agents. No United States of Nigeria can thrive on this type of self-destructive corruption.

Fourthly, I bought one Boxer Motor Cycle in April 2026 and wanted to have it officially registered. The registration official gave me a private account number into which to pay the required sum of N22,000. I asked for official receipt since it was a private account number I was required to pay into. No receipt was to be issued. In fact, I learnt there were no plate numbers to be issued since I was not prepared to pay into the account given to me. Whoever wants a registration number and accepts to pay into the private account can always have a fast-tracked service. By so doing, one is being forced to join the corruption racket. No nation-building on the basis of a society free from political chicanery is possible. Changing the name of Nigeria without first addressing the attitudinal disposition of the people is meaningless.

Fifthly, I witness the case of one electrical and solar engineer who was stopped by Road Safety officials in the Iwaraja area of Ilesha. The officials inspected his tyres and said two of them had expired. Consequently, he was issued an offence ticket because he refused to settle them. The engineer, a lecturer at the Department of Electrical and Information Engineering with the Achievers University, Owo, and who has been slated to defend his doctoral dissertation this week at the Federal University, Oye, Ekiti, went to verify the alleged expiry date of his tyres, and also went further to check the tyres of the Road Safety vehicle. He discovered that the Road Safety vehicle had all its tyres expired in 2011 compared to his own that expired in 2013. The engineer tried to take the picture of the Road Safety tyres, but the Road Safety officials vehemently opposed. This is how officials of government behave in Nigeria. This is the management of Nigeria by manu militari corruption. Change of Nigeria’s name cannot solve this type of problem. Most government officials are now financially hungry.

Sixthly, the behavior of Government at various levels cannot but be most disturbing when the Government also behaves like another hardened criminal, not to say armed robber.  The Federal Government of Nigeria advertised houses to be built in between March/April 1994 and December 1994 when the allocation was to take place. People, including me, made deposits. My wife took a Universal Trust Bank salary advance to make up for the new deposit when Alhaji Lateef Kayode Jakande was replaced by General Abdulkareem Adisa as Minister of Works and Housing. Alhaji Jakande wanted to build a three-bedroom semi-detached house for only N200,000. A deposit of 20% was required and the houses were to be built not by award of contracts, but by direct labour.

General Abdulkareem Adisa jacked up the building cost to N800,000, hence the required deposit of N40,000 was increased to N160,000. Lateef Jakande who honestly wanted to provide accommodation for the needy was prevented from doing so. General Adisa took over and since 1994, no house was built, hence no allocation of houses could take place. No refund of deposit to me. No information is given on the situation. From 1994 to 2026, we have 32 years of very fraudulent silence on the part of the Federal Government. Yet the Government is preaching the sermon of patriotism and national unity. How can the Government be defrauding the people and at the same time be asking the people to be patriotic and united? Why are we changing the name of Nigeria to give the impression that no crime had been committed by Nigeria against depositors of money with Nigeria? Does the United States of Nigeria want to claim innocence of the fraud against the people?

Seventhly, in 2004, then President Olusegun Obasanjo introduced the policy of monetization. Houses occupied by civil and public servants were sold to them if they had evidence of having lived in their official quarters for, at least, six months before the introduction of the policy. My quarters was sold to me and I paid for it fully at once. Official remissness, driven by apparent corruption saga, has not enabled the issuance of the relevant Certificate of Occupancy. But it is most convenient for the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, to always threaten to retrieve ownership of legitimately acquired land and houses simply for non-payment of land use. And unfortunately too, no Nigerian is showing concerns about the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of Government. I have refused to ‘settle’ anyone the Nigerian way in order to secure my Certificate of Occupancy because I purchased and fully paid for my accommodation. What type of a new Nigeria with a new name are we talking about when the Government has not been able to issue Certificate of Occupancy to buyers since 2004 or since more than 24 years? One really needs to go beyond the culture of treating ‘làpálàpá’ (wring worm) while ignoring ‘ùtù’ (leprosy) in the governance of Nigeria.

Finally, besides, what really does the government want to tell the people of Nigeria when the House of Representatives passed a bill that makes it impossible to challenge politicians accused of fraudulent certificates? Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 provides that no court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit or matter concerning the internal matters of a political party, especially in disputes over party leadership, membership, and internal nominations. As good-intentioned as the rationales for the law may be to stop frivolous litigation – stopping the granting of interim or interlocutory injunctions, as well as payment of mandatory fines for a violation of this law – the main problem is that the law enables silence over internal practices in the political parties. This is directly telling political parties to engage in various electoral malpractices. What happens to party crimes?

An eventual change of name from Nigeria to United States of Nigeria is not likely to address the problem of inequality of protection, inequality of dignity, and inequality of treatment under the rule of law, which have characterised political governance in Nigeria under the Fourth Republic. A change of name will not stop, but strengthen, boko haramism and agitations for separation. Consequently, it is a desideratum to stop copying Europe and the United States of America, as well as overcome the challenges militating against the making of a United States of Africa. Seeking to change the name of Nigeria to United States of Nigeria has merits and demerits. However, whatever the merits and demerits, the new name does not have the potential to remove the factors of national disunity and disintegration, There are also the reasons of many languages and religions, institutional corruption, unending conflicts, civil unrest, tribalism, as well as increasing level of poverty. We strongly believe that the objective of a United States of Africa cannot but remain a dream. In the same vein, the making of a united and enduring United States of Nigeria cannot thrive for as long as the approach to national unity is by manu militari. National unity must never be coercive as a policy as it is provided for in the 1999 Constitution as amended. The Constitution provides for indivisibility and indivisibility of Nigeria, meaning force must be used to enforce national unity. Use of force only engenders civil war. United States of Nigeria, if it is to be, must not be coercive. Doing so is futility.

Femi Akintunde-Johnson

Not long ago, a friend sent me a photograph of a pot of stew. Now, Nigerians send photographs of food all the time. Some do it to celebrate culinary excellence. Others do it to torment friends and relatives who may be surviving on garri and optimism. This particular photograph, however, came with a curious instruction: “Please zoom carefully. The meat is somewhere inside.”

I laughed. Then I stopped laughing. Because beneath the humour was a reality that millions of Nigerians now understand all too well. The country’s economic crisis is no longer something discussed only by economists, policymakers and television analysts. It has moved permanently into our kitchens, our markets and our dining tables.

Food has become one of the most accurate measures of how difficult life has become. The evidence is everywhere. Families that once bought a crate of eggs without much thought now purchase them in cautious instalments. Rice is increasingly treated with the kind of strategic planning once reserved for major family ceremonies. A pot of soup now requires financial calculations, consultations and, in some cases, divine intervention.

 In today’s Nigeria, preparing certain meals can feel remarkably similar to executing a government project. Resources must be sourced. Stakeholders must be considered. Costs must be reviewed. And after completion, sustainability remains uncertain.

Of course, Nigerians are adapting, as they always do. We are a people with an almost supernatural ability to adjust to changing circumstances. We have mastered the art of stretching provisions beyond their intended lifespan. We know how to make one loaf of bread perform duties for which it was never designed. We have elevated substitution to a national skill.

Indeed, the average Nigerian mother now possesses budgeting skills that could impress an international financial institution. Unfortunately, neither party has enough money.

Yet beneath the jokes lies a more troubling question. How did food become this expensive? The obvious answers are familiar enough. Inflation. Fuel costs. Transportation challenges. Exchange-rate pressures. Supply chain disruptions. They all matter. They all contribute.

But increasingly, there is another factor sitting quietly at the table with us. Insecurity.

The connection is easy to miss from the comfort of an urban supermarket or a neighbourhood market stall. But it exists. Somewhere in Benue, Plateau, Niger, Zamfara, Borno or countless other communities, a farmer decides that cultivating a portion of his land is no longer worth the risk. Somewhere else, an entire farming community is displaced by violence. Elsewhere, transporters avoid certain routes because the dangers outweigh the potential profits.

Months later, consumers hundreds of kilometres away find themselves staring in disbelief at the price of tomatoes, pepper, onions, beans or yam. 

The chain may be long, but it is not complicated. When farmers cannot farm safely, food becomes scarce. When food becomes scarce, prices rise. When prices rise, families eat less or eat differently. And when that happens across an entire nation, food inflation ceases to be merely an economic issue. It becomes a social concern, a health concern and, ultimately, a security concern in its own right.

The irony is difficult to ignore. Nigeria remains blessed with vast agricultural potential. We have the land, the climate, the manpower and the markets. Yet many of those responsible for feeding the nation increasingly find themselves battling challenges that have little to do with farming and everything to do with survival.

No farmer should have to choose between cultivating crops and protecting life. No nation should become comfortable with such a choice. Sadly, we seem to be drifting towards that comfort.

Perhaps that is one of our most remarkable national traits. We adapt so effectively that we sometimes stop questioning the conditions that require adaptation in the first place. We celebrate resilience, and rightly so. Nigerians have earned every compliment for their perseverance.

But resilience should never become an excuse for accepting dysfunction. There is a difference between applauding people’s strength and ignoring the burdens they carry. The woman who feeds six people with resources meant for three deserves admiration. The fact that she must perform such miracles every day deserves scrutiny.

The young graduate who skips meals to save transport fare demonstrates discipline. The circumstances that make such sacrifices necessary deserve attention.

The retiree who carefully calculates every food purchase displays prudence. The economy that turns basic nutrition into a luxury item deserves interrogation.

Food occupies a special place in Nigerian life. We celebrate with it. We mourn with it. We negotiate over it. We express hospitality through it. In many homes, asking a visitor whether they have eaten remains one of the most sincere expressions of care.

That is why rising food insecurity strikes at something deeper than household budgets. It affects dignity. 

There is a certain quiet anxiety that comes with entering a market and discovering that yesterday’s budget has become today’s fantasy. There is a particular frustration in watching meals become smaller while expenses become larger. There is a subtle erosion of confidence when ordinary necessities begin to feel like privileges.

These are not merely economic statistics. They are human experiences. And that is perhaps what worries many Nigerians most. Not simply that food is expensive. But that expensive food is gradually becoming normal.

The danger of normalisation is that it dulls urgency. We begin to see extraordinary hardship as ordinary reality. We stop asking difficult questions because the answers seem too distant or too complicated.

Yet some truths remain simple. A nation that cannot adequately secure its farmers will struggle to feed its people. A nation that struggles to feed its people will eventually confront consequences that extend far beyond the marketplace. And a nation that allows food to become increasingly inaccessible to ordinary citizens is confronting more than an inflation problem.

It is confronting a quality-of-life problem. A security problem. And perhaps, at its core, a governance problem.

The next time someone jokes about the disappearing meat in a pot of stew, we will probably laugh. Nigerians always do. But after the laughter fades, it may be worth remembering that the joke is not really about meat. It is about the state of the nation.

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Rescue the Children, Now

I must join my voice to that of all the others, appealing to Government and all the security agencies to secure the release of every child in Nigeria who is in the hands of terrorist kidnappers. To date, about 91 Chibok girls and Leah Sharibu, the lone remaining Dapchi girl, are unaccounted for, and they appear to have been forgotten. 

On May 15, 2026, 39 children ranging from age 2 to 18, and 7 teachers were kidnapped from 3 schools in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State. One of the teachers, Mr Michael Oyedokun was killed in an extremely gruesome manner by the kidnappers. May his soul rest in peace. And, may God comfort the family he left behind. Amen. About 40 children were also kidnapped from school, in Borno State. 

It is more than heartbreaking and heart wrenching, to imagine little children, particularly such small ones, being left to the elements and harsh conditions in the forest for over 2 weeks. They are too small, to be put through such hardship and suffering. No innocent person, at any age, deserves to go through such hell. The dissemination of videos showing the brutal treatment of victims by these terrorists and the execution of Negotiators, is a way of spreading fear amongst Nigerians to gain more power and attention, to create distrust, discontent and possibly, to recruit followers taking advantage of the, “if you can’t beat them, join them” mentality.

The primary purpose of Government, is the security and welfare of the people – see Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution). While we pray for God to take control and protect these innocent children and teachers, and indeed, all those who have been taken into captivity by these kidnappers, we ask Government to do their job. If the same amount of time and energy that is spent by Politicians/Government Officials on plotting to stay or come into power by any means necessary, is devoted to strategising on how to secure the lives of our people, everyone would have been rescued by now. 

Twiddledee and Twiddledum/Hassan and Hussein

If there are any terms that can depict closeness/inseparable pairs even more than Twiddledee and Twiddledum, that’s what we should use to describe All Progressives Congress (APC) and African Democratic Congress (ADC)! They are two peas in a pod. Maybe Hassan and Hussein? Hickory Dickory? Molly Polly? Just as APC counters were jumping from 1 to 1,000 and so on, so did an ADC counter in the North, when counting for Alhaji Atiku Abubakar during the ADC Primaries! We saw the video clips. They all shamelessly worked to the answer. These two political parties are Siamese twins, birds of the same feather, and even if they may quarrel like Tom and Jerry, they are a pair! In fact, irrespective of which party they belong to, majority of Nigerian politicians, with very few exceptions, have rolled off the same assembly line, and they are all members of the Twiddle Family – many peas in one pod! Even in the brand new party, Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), there were complaints about how some candidates emerged, with allegations that some positions went to the highest bidders. 

Then, the same people who defect from party to party with fluidity, recycle the same godfatherism, display a gross lack internal democracy in whichever party they belong to, and use the same cheating style to win elections (both internal and external), turn around to bring election petitions, crying foul when they are beaten at their own game and lose at the polls! 

Non-Justiciability of Intra-Party Matters

However, it appears that nomination of candidates is an intra-party affair, so, unsuccessful aspirants can only cry disenfranchisement and rigged primaries; it appears that they cannot go to court. See Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 (EA). In Kabir v APC & Ors (2024) LPELR-61712(SC) per Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, JSC, the Supreme Court held inter alia that: â€œâ€Š.the question of membership of a political party and sponsorship of a candidate for an election, squarely falls within the purview and contemplation of domestic affairs of a political party, thus, not justiciable. This proposition of law has been settled and reiterated beyond per adventure by this court, in a plethora of authorities
.it is
.indeed, a No Go Area for courts, as they lack jurisdiction to delve into such affairs or matters”. See also Anyanwu v Emmanuel & Ors (2025) LPELR-8.0882(SC) per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, JSC. 

The pronouncements of the Apex Court are as clear as crystal, on the justiciability of these two issues – membership of a political party and sponsorship of candidates for election; yet, Lawyers, experienced ones at that, and even Senior Advocates mostly, still take these issues to court repeatedly for adjudication, sometimes deliberately adding a twist to mask issues that are already well established and require no more litigation. To tell the truth, it appears that many of the adults in the room, whether politicians or Lawyers, are responsible for eroding Nigeria’s institutions for their own selfish gain. 

Relitigation of Decided Cases

In the case of relitigating decided cases or issues in Nigerian political cases, at times, the doctrine of Res Judicata or Issue Estoppel may apply, as sometimes, the same/similar parties relitigate the same subject-matters already decided, and this is one of the elements that must exist to plead Res Judicata or Issue Estoppel. ‘Res Judicata’ means ‘a matter judged’; it concerns the legal principle of not relitigating a matter or issue that has already been judged by a court of competent jurisdiction, or settled by the Supreme Court. 

Even if the first element of same/similar parties isn’t fulfilled, the  second and third elements usually obtain in political cases, that is, the matter has been decided on its merits, and the subject-matter of the subsequent case is the same as the one that has been decided upon – see Tiput v Dawamkat & Anor (2025) LPELR-81992  per Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, JSC where the Supreme Court held inter alia in respect of Res Judicata that: â€œThe three essential elements are: (1) an earlier decision on the issue; (2) a final judgement on the merits; and (3) the involvement of the same parties, or parties in privity with the original parties…”; also see Anchorage Leisures Ltd & Ors v Ecobank (Nig) Ltd (2023) LPELR-59978 (SC) on Issue Estoppel.

And, even if fresh parties/strangers relitigate decided issues, this is an abuse of court process or violating the principle of ‘stare decisis’, that is, â€œto stand by things decided and not to disturb settled points” – see Edede v AGF & Anor (2025) LPELR-82109(SC) per Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein, JSC. In Emenuwe v State (2024) LPELR-62735(SC) per Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC, the Supreme Court held thus: â€œIt is an abuse of the court’s process to bring an appeal on issues which have been firmly settled by several pronouncements of this Court over the years, merely for the purpose of re-statements of the established principles on the said issues”. So also, is it an abuse for a litigant to relitigate an identical matter that has been decided against him, even if it isn’t res judicata, or matters that are covered by issue estoppel – see Arubo v Aiyeleru & Ors (1993) LPELR-566 (SC) per Philip Nnaemaka-Agu. 

Unfortunately, we will still see a great deal of this vexatious type of abuse of court process, during this new electoral cycle. How do we classify election petitions vis-Ă -vis res judicata and issue estoppel? Some argue that election petitions are ‘sui generis’ that is, unique, and that repetition may arise because of evolving facts in each scenario. Possibly. But, even though the actual Petitioners/Respondents may be different, their political parties are recurring decimals in petitions, past and present, at least, PDP since 1999, APC since 2015, and along with INEC, they are usually joined as parties, while there are serial Petitioners who jump from party to party, and have been parties in some of these decided cases under different political parties. 

In Obi & Anor v INEC & Ors (2023) LPELR-61532(SC) per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC, on the issue of the nomination of Senator Kashim Shettima as APC’s Vice Presidential Candidate, the Supreme Court held that â€œâ€Š.this issue has been dealt with by this Court in PDP v INEC & 3 Ors delivered on the 26th day of May, 2023. Appellants appeal on this point, amounts to an attempt to relitigate the point on nomination of Senator Shettima, this certainly offends the settled position of the law that there must be an end to litigation, this issue having been fully settled by this Court. The Appellant will not be allowed to relitigate this issue
.”. This decision appears to establish the principle that, even if the parties are different, the same issue mustn’t be relitigated, particularly when the Supreme Court has decided on it. 

For instance, in Nyesom Wike v Dr Dakuku Peterside, APC, INEC & PDP (2016) LPELR-40036 (SC) per Kudirat Kekere-Ekin, JSC (now CJN), the Apex Court held that a Petitioner complaining of non-compliance with the Electoral Act â€œmust prove it polling unit by polling unit, ward by ward, and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. He must show figures that the adverse party was credited with, as a result of the non-compliance”. But, in Obi & Anor v INEC & Ors (Supra), the Petitioner had alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 (EA 2022), questioning the results in over 18,000 polling units. But, instead of proving it â€œpolling unit by polling, ward by ward”, the Petitioner had only 13 witnesses, out of which only 3 filed their witness statements on oath along with the Petition and testified, contrary to Paragraph 4(5)(b) 1st Schedule to the EA 2022. 3 witnesses, even if it was 13, testifying about 18,000 polling units where they weren’t physically present, based on third-party information amounts to relying on hearsay say evidence, which is inadmissible in court – see Sections 37 & 38 of the Evidence Act 2011; Okoro v State (1998) LPELR-2493(SC) on the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence. The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal had observed that specific polling units weren’t named, nor were alleged authentic results provided; the polling agents who were alleged to have complained about the results weren’t named or called as witnesses. In short, the standard of proof set in Nyesom Wike v Dr Dakuku Peterside, APC, INEC & PDP (Supra) was not met with regard to non-compliance in Obi’s case, as the Petitioner failed to adduce the requisite evidence; yet, the petition was still brought to court, with full prior knowledge that they hadn’t met the necessary threshold of proof. This is an abuse of court process.  

In a jurisdiction such as UK, Counsel that attempts to relitigate issues that have already been settled by the Supreme Court, or bring only 5 items instead of the 500 items that may have been established by the Supreme Court to be required to maintain an action, apart from the fact the lower court must swiftly strike out such matters, Counsel that filed such a frivolous case may face disciplinary action from their professional body, and both Counsel and Client can face financial penalties, such as paying heavy costs to opponent’s Counsel, as such behaviour undermines the principle that there must be finality to litigation. It is also a waste of valuable judicial time. 

The Jonathan Eligibility Case

Recently, in a case filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking to disqualify former President Goodluck Jonathan, GCFR from running in the 2027 Presidential election, Justice Lifu upheld President Jonathan’s eligibility to run and struck out the case, following the UK pattern by awarding N21 million costs against the Plaintiff, N20 million payable to President Jonathan and N1 million to the Attorney-General of the Federation. Justice Lifu cited the previous judgements of the Federal High Court, Yenagoa and the Court of Appeal, stating that the present case is an abuse of court process and that the Court of Appeal being a superior court, the Federal High Court is bound by the doctrine of stare decisis. This aligns with the principles against relitigating of settled issues, respecting judicial precedent and penalising abuse of court process.

Conclusion 

The kidnapping and terrorist epidemic crisis in Nigeria, is a national shame. The recent Oyo incident shows how far this epidemic has spread, nationwide. There must be targeted forest clearance and combing, to fish out these criminals from their hideouts across the country’s forests, while a better school protection framework including perimeter fencing, CCTV, trained security, amongst others, must be deployed to schools, particularly soft targets in the rural areas. The welfare of the most vulnerable, children, must be a priority, over and above political machinations. There must be more preventive measures and effective rescue, as opposed to a recourse to regular ransom payments, that make this criminal enterprise more attractive to these wicked criminals. Though, the truth is that, out of desperation, any parent or person in such a position would do anything to secure the release of their loved ones, even paying ransoms.

The incessant spectacle of politicians defecting from one political party to another like interchangeable twins, while Lawyers relitigate settled Supreme Court issues which amounts to abuse of court process, only deepens institutional decay and erodes public trust. It is time for the courts to discourage frivolous litigation through heavy costs and discipline, while the legal profession should endeavour to uphold higher standards like in UK and Canada, by coming down heavily on its erring members who engage in this unholy practice. Only then will the “go to court” taunt which has become a common joke, even for nonsensical cases and 1000 election petitions out of which only a few can be proved, will be curbed. 

According to PLAC analysis, for the 2023 election petitions, almost 90% of them failed, and just over 70% failed because the requisite burden of proof couldn’t be discharged. It is against the Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers to pursue frivolous actions, particularly when they know they cannot discharge the evidentiary burdens. As Counsel, it is not enough to claim to be doing your client’s bidding, as such behaviour can amount to professional misconduct, which when punished accordingly, will serve as a much needed deterrent. 

Bola A. Akinterinwa

Governance is the art of government. Government is the institution while governance is about how the institution functions. It is about system of rules, structures, especially decision-making, processes, accountability, management of resources and information to build public trust. In terms of typology, there are three main types: public sector governance, which deals with the management of resources, delivery of services, and enforcement of rule of law by Government.  The second type is corporate governance, which is about business involving the direction and control of companies in the balancing of interests of shareholders, customers, suppliers, and customers. The third category is global governance.

Global governance is about the application of international rules, conduct and management of processes, and administration of institutions in order to maintain global peace and security. The rules, processes, and institutions are not centralized and are basically tools for the management of global affairs, such as climate change, human rights, peace and security, economic security, etc. Global governance is sometimes referred to as ‘governance without government,’ and, therefore, largely relies on cooperation, rather than on any supranational government. Global governance is not at all state-centric and is mostly concerned with questions that transcend national borders.

More concernedly, in addition to the state-, or nation-state, actors, there are also international organisations, such as the United Nations (UN), African Union (AU), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), European Union (EU), World Trade Organization (WTO), World Health Organisation (WHO) which deals with health crises, International Monetary Fund (IMF) which deals with financial management. There are also the non-governmental organisations and multinational corporations.

Thus, global governance is complex and challenged by problems of power imbalance, lack of, or poor enforcement mechanisms, coupled with increasing nationalism. In spite of its consideration as inefficient and pro-market, as well as not responding to the concerns of the needy, there is no disputing the fact that global governance still helps in controlling, if not, in preventing international chaos. It is in an attempt to ensure efficient global governance that the idea of regionalism was promoted and considered a possible and potent mechanism in ensuring good global governance. 

Regionalism and Global Governance 

The study by Timo Behr (Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, FIIA) and Juha Jokela (Programme Director of the European Union research programme at the FIIA), on Regionalism and Global Governance: The Emerging Agenda, has provided a summary of an expanded analytical definition of regionalism beyond the scope given by Joseph Nye. Nye defined regionalism purely from the perspective of geographical contiguity. As he put it in 1968, ‘a region consists of ‘a limited number of states linked by a geographical relationship and by a degree of mutual interdependence.’ More important, he said a region is the ‘formation of interstate associations or groups on the basis of regions.’ 

From the work of Behr and Jokela, both of the Institut Jacques Delors (Notre Europe) founded in 1996 as a European Think Tank, the definienda go beyond geography to include intensive economic, political, and cultural interactions, shared political values and perceptions, as well as ideational character of regions. Grosso modo, the consideration of regionalism as a potent tool for the conduct and management of international questions led to its promotion in international relations to the extent that both concepts have sometimes become intertwined. Put differently, regional organisations are main pillars of modern international system. They complement global institutions by helping to manage international problems at the regional levels. They are also important actors in global governance. Their operations are multi-layered. Their growth prompted the redefinition and emergence of what is now called new regionalism. The old regionalism was trade-focused in essence, while modern regionalism is new and multifaceted as from 1990. New regionalism underscores political security, normative institution-building, and social questions.

What is important to note here is the differentiation between regionalism and regionalization: regionalism concerns ‘intergovernmental top-down, political and usually highly institutionalized practices,’ regionalization is about the ‘societal, bottom-up and often economically-driven process that is in constant flux,’ in the words of Behr and Jokela.

Even though regionalism and regionalization are sometimes interchangeably used, it is important to note that there is a strong linkage between regionalism and global governance: there is the first linkage and argument that a single state is incapable of handling complex international issue. Consequently, such issue requires collective international intervention, which may also require going to the extent of negotiating an international treaty on the issue. The popular thinking is that, through a strengthened regional cooperation, most nations can jointly and effectively solve economic, political, security, and environmental problems than by acting single-handedly. In essence, regionalism is an effective instrument for the promotion of global governance. Besides, with a well-structured regional integration, peace, prosperity, as well as global influence can always be fostered. 

For example, one main objective of the UN is the maintenance of international peace and security. The achievement of this objective in Africa has been largely helped by the AU, in general, and the ECOWAS, in particular, in the area of maintenance of continental stability and regional peacekeeping. In the same vein, while the EU serves as a model for comprehensive political and economic integration, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) underscores regional diplomatic and economic cohesion. Thus, regionalism involves many pursuits and stages. It begins with the establishment of Free Trade Area (FTA), Customs Union (CU), and then to Common Market (CM), Economic Union, and ultimately to the level of total policy integration. 

In this regard as well, Yaroslav Lissovolik has noted in his Regionalism in Global Governance: Exploring New Pathways, published in 2019, that there is neither vertical nor horizontal connectivity between regional organisations and global institutions. As he put it, ‘regionalism is a force that has largely eluded regulation from the multilateral international organisations, while at the same time taking on ever greater authority in driving economic integration blocs and the global organisations. Additionally, Lissovolik has it that ‘aside from the low degree of vertical connectivity with global institutions, there is also a lack of horizontal coordination among regional economic blocs, which hampers the implementation regional/continental integration projects.’ 

What really does regionalism and global governance mean in Africa? The main purpose of specially promoting both regionalism and regionalization in Africa, and particularly for signing the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community and dividing Africa into five regions is continental integration, continental unity with the expectation of being able to speak with one voice. Today, can South Africa come out to seek nomination to represent Africa at the UN Security Council? This is most doubtful. Can there be really people-to-people direct relationships in the face of this developing hostilities? Can Africa really stand in the face of the emerging new American world order? Can Africa speak with one voice? How do we explain some Francophone countries rejecting France and France quickly shifted to the Anglophones and France was friendly accepted? The warm reception of France in Kenya encouraged President Macron to boast of the attendance of Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Without any whiff of doubt, Africans should begin to learn and avoid being divided against themselves. Africans should learn how to be Africans and authentic in the mania of Joseph Mobutu Seseko. They should not befriend foreigners in order to spite their African counterparts and countries. Doing so is nothing more than accepting to be divided and accepting recolonization by technology and investment partnerships.   

Divided Africa and Development 

Disunity of people of Africa began with the arbitrary partitioning of land and people of Africa during the 1884-1885 colonial Scramble for Africa. The Scramble completely disregarded ethnic, linguistic, and cultural boundaries, as the European colonialists only used longitudes and latitudes in dividing Africa into spheres of influence. One major problem of the Scramble is its outcome of ethnic tension and political instability. Civil conflicts and economic disparities have not at all helped collective development. The Scramble unnecessarily forced different ethnic groups into single nation, thereby fostering competition, rather than sustaining unity.

President Emmanuel Macron told Africans while in Kenya that if colonization was responsible for Africa’s setback before independence, other reasons cannot but be now responsible for the non-change in status. He cannot be more correct. However, if during the same summit held in Kenya, he still had the effrontery to advise in the mania of a colonial master, telling his audience not to make noise or disrespect guests, this simply means that his colonial garment is yet to be thrown into the garbage of history.

Another manifestation of disunity and development setback is the ethno-religious division that have led to civil wars. Many countries are at war with one another. Somalia has not known peace for decades. So has the Democratic Republic of Congo. Disunity in these countries has not only hindered economic growth and development, but has also empowered foreign countries to have a free hand to exploit Africa’s resources, as well as interfere and intervene in the domestic affairs of sovereign African states. Sudan began to witness peace when South Sudan was carved out from it. But the fragile peace has been thrown into the dustbin of history. Sudan is therefore still in trouble. Africa’s shame and problem has been to the extent that African leaders have to accept unwanted convicted criminals from the United States and Europe. Eswatini and Rwanda are cases in point. They accepted some convicted people in exchange for a paltry sum of money. What type of leaders are there in Africa of today, accepting people declared unwanted in foreign countries? Is it presidential poverty or the people’s poverty that explains national impoverishment for accepting foreign convicted   people? Indeed very shameful!

Africa of today is challenged by critical development setbacks, ranging from deepening politics of Afrophobia and disintegration, on the one hand, to the gospel of African unity and integration, on the other. The politics of xenophobia, and particularly afrophobia, not to mention Nigerianophobia, cannot be consistent with the spirit of African unity, African oneness or with African integration. They are directly conflicting and only worsen Africa’s development setbacks.

And true enough, Africa’s development setbacks are most disturbing. They are about political instability in various nooks and crannies of Africa. They are about economic stagnation, which is largely derived from political chicanery, me-tooism, institutional corruption, environmental degradation, and social challenges. In Africa, democracy is no more an asset or legacy, but a heavy burden dividing the people of Africa in an unprecedented manner. Coups d’état in Africa from the 1960s until the 2020s were largely prompted by perceptions and allegations of poor governance, corruption, and political selfishness on the part of government officials and politicians. The story is different today. The reasons for forceful change of government in Africa are no more majorly internally-driven but external-driven.

Based on the experiences of Mali. Burkina Faso, and Niger, the people are much against France and her alleged engagement in neo-colonisation. They complained openly and were oppressed by their governments. In fact, rather than address the people’s complaints, the ECOWAS was only talking about non-constitutional change of government. The people talk about their right to sovereignty, but to no avail. The military juntas took over power with popular support. Consequently. While the ECOWAS wrongly believes that it was fighting the coupists, it was only fighting the people that should be protected. Thus, it is the people in each of the three countries that are against the ECOWAS as a supranational authority.

Right from the time President François Mitterrand of France made democratization a conditionality for the grant of French aid in the 1990s, African leaders have been encouraged to develop a democratic culture in their countries. The quest for democratic governance got to the extent that a policy of zero tolerance was adopted by the ECOWAS. When the policy was adopted in the case of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger Republic, the three countries decided to withdraw their membership of the ECOWAS. The withdrawal was the consequence of the ECOWAS threat to use force to compel the military junta in Niger to return to civilian rule. The three countries refused to return to the ECOWAS in spite of much diplomatic pleas. They have organised themselves into a confederation and have signed the Alliance of Sahel States

Diversus, a Latin word, meaning diversity, is neither a blessing nor a burden in Africa. Africa is a terra cognita of diversity in various ramifications. Africa’s diversity has generally been poorly managed, especially in the area of education and technology. As pointed out by Takalani Samuel Mashau et al, of the University of Venda, ‘with diversity and disunity in the continent, African countries have realized and embraced the fundamental importance of education because without it, there can be no meaningful development. Education is the cornerstone for sustainable development; it is a tool for producing and managing human resources, for inculcating values, thus ensuring the common bond of humanity in the global village.’ But what is the situation of education today in Africa? 

According to the UNESCO, even though primary school completion rates have increased from 52% in 2000 to 69% today, more than 100 million children are still out of school. Learning poverty crisis remains severe with about 80% of 10-year-old unable to achieve basic literacy. Many schools have no electricity and water. From the perspective of the UNICEF, more than 15 million primary and secondary school teachers are still required by 2030. At the level of higher education, in spite of the increasing enrolment in tertiary education at a rate of 9%, Africa’s higher education and employment growth rate of 9% is still far below the 38% global average. What is mostly required is capacity-building in the area of technology and African youth-focused attention in the area of digital transformation.

Africa needs competency-based learning and greater attention on foundational learning in order to reduce drop-out rates. Unfortunately, however, African leaders are investing less in education than needed, with an annual funding shortfall of $77 billion. The problem of widespread poverty, as well as system unemployment which majorly explains the infrastructure deficit and the widespread internal displacement is another kettle of fish entirely. All these challenges undoubtedly raise many questions and eyebrows, especially in light of Africa’s high debt servicing rate, limited fiscal space, and reduced official development assistance.

And true enough, Africa is divided by many issues. Politics divides and hunger also divides. Several millions of people suffer from widespread food insecurity. Severe economic and debt crises still abound. So are humanitarian emergencies. Famine conditions, costs of living, conflicts and challenges of internal displacement, armed violence and refugee crises, etc. all hinder Africa’s development.

In essence, with the projection of an economic growth rate of 4.2% in 2026, compared to 4.4% in 2025, there is still not much to write home about in the various regions of Africa: East Africa remains the leader with 5.9%. West Africa follows with 4.7%. Central African region has 3.8% while 2.1% is estimated for Southern Africa. And perhaps more disturbingly, life cannot but be difficult if the cost of fuel, food, and fertilizer is on the increase.  Africa is talking about African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) in order to promote trade and manufacturing. To what extent can this be made possible continentally with the deepening trend of Afrophobia in South Africa? Ghana has made arrangements to evacuate its citizens from South Africa for fear of afrophobia in that country. Benin Republic is making strenuous efforts to reconcile with the Member States of the Alliance of Sahel States (ASS), while ECOWAS cannot easily reconcile with the ASS. France was declared persona non-grata but has been replaced with other powers, particularly Russia. French and American military bases have also been sent packing and both the Americans and French are desperately looking for alternatives. President Emmanuel Macron has come up with a new France-Africa Forward Summit as a new paradigm. Which way forward Africa? The African Credit Rating Agency was launched in January 2026 with the objective of providing a more accurate risk assessments. Will this help Nigeria that now has a policy of more and more borrowing? Time will tell. 

Femi Akintunde-Johnson

There is something about the current Nigerian atmosphere that feels profoundly unsettling. Not merely because people are being abducted, killed, displaced and traumatised across different parts of the country. Not merely because communities that once considered themselves relatively safe are suddenly looking over their shoulders. Not merely because fear has become a regular travelling companion on our highways and byways. What feels particularly disturbing is the growing impression that while ordinary Nigerians are counting the dead, many politicians have already moved on to counting delegates.

The contrast is impossible to ignore. On one side are grieving families, frightened communities, disrupted livelihoods and anxious citizens wondering where the next attack might occur. On the other side are the familiar sounds of political drums warming up for another electoral season: meetings, alignments, consultations, endorsements, consensus arrangements, strategic defections, coalition talks and political mathematics. The usual cacophonous orchestra of ambition, performed with impressive confidence over a nation that is still trying to catch its breath.

One begins to wonder, at what point did Nigerian politicians become comfortable campaigning over corpses? For many years, insecurity felt like a distant tragedy to some parts of the country. It happened somewhere else. Another state. Another region. Another community. People watched disturbing television reports, shook their heads sympathetically, offered prayers and continued with their lives. Increasingly, however, that distance is disappearing. Communities once considered relatively insulated are becoming uneasy. Parents are more anxious. Travellers are more cautious. Farmers are more apprehensive. ÌÇĐÄÊÓÆ”es are recalculating risks. Fear, if we are honest, has become one of Nigeria’s fastest-growing industries.

The tragedy is that fear does not merely affect movement; it alters psychology. It changes how people think, invest, relate and plan. It erodes confidence, weakens trust and quietly inserts itself into everyday routines. A nation can survive economic hardship for surprisingly long periods. What eventually becomes corrosive is when citizens begin losing confidence in their collective safety and future. Yet, just as these anxieties deepen, the political class appears increasingly engrossed in its favourite pastime: the pursuit of power. There is nothing wrong with politics; democracy requires organisation, competition and coalition-building. What is troubling is the emotional detachment from the lived realities of those whose votes are being courted.

A citizen worried about surviving a highway journey is unlikely to lose sleep over consensus candidacies. A farmer uncertain about returning safely from his farm is not particularly fascinated by zoning calculations. A parent struggling to protect children from both economic hardship and physical danger is not especially moved by the latest wave of defections. Yet public discourse often suggests otherwise, as though these are secondary inconveniences rather than matters of life and death. One can almost imagine a future historian concluding that Nigerians were under attack while their politicians were under consultation.

 Even more troubling is the quietness of many civic and religious voices. Where is the sustained moral pressure? Where is the collective outrage? Where are the institutions that once forced uncomfortable truths into national consciousness? To be fair, statements are issued, prayers are offered, condemnations are expressed, sermons are preached and press conferences are held. Then the nation moves on, until the next tragedy arrives and the ritual begins again. Perhaps we have all become victims of repetition fatigue, where even horror loses its shock value because it arrives too frequently.

There is hardly a week without reports of abduction, violent attacks or communal tragedies. Over time, Nigerians have begun to consume insecurity the way they check weather forecasts: with resignation rather than surprise. That should worry us deeply. When abnormality becomes routine, societies begin to lose moral direction. When killings become statistics, compassion weakens. When fear becomes normal, freedom shrinks. When citizens feel abandoned, trust evaporates. And when trust evaporates, every institution begins to suffer silent collapse.

Yet beneath this visible surface lies a deeper structural failure. Insecurity in Nigeria did not descend from the sky one rainy afternoon. It has been cultivated over decades by a toxic combination of factors – the product of accumulated pressures that have been ignored for too long. A rapidly expanding population continues to outpace planning and opportunity. A dying industrial base has failed to absorb the energies of a restless youth population. Educational institutions continue to produce millions of graduates annually into an economy that has neither structured pathways nor sufficient absorption capacity. Unemployment and underemployment remain dangerously high, creating a pool of frustration that is too often exploited or misdirected.

Layered onto this are the manipulation of religious sentiment for political and ideological ends, persistent security lapses and occasional compromises within the system itself, inconsistent or poorly conceived government policies, and the unfortunate reality that political competition in some instances has, directly or indirectly, encouraged violent actors who later evolve beyond control. What we are witnessing is not merely insecurity; it is the accumulated consequence of neglected warnings and deferred responsibility.

The response must therefore go beyond military deployments and emergency statements. Nigeria urgently requires a massive vocational, technical and digital training revolution capable of absorbing millions of young people into productive enterprise. Agro-allied incentives must be expanded deliberately to make agriculture and food production attractive, modern and profitable, especially in safer regions where opportunity is vast but underutilised. Long-deferred structural solutions such as a properly implemented ranching system must be pursued to reduce the recurring cycle of farmer-herder conflicts that has claimed countless lives and displaced entire communities.

Religious institutions, too, must reflect more deeply on their societal role. Beyond building ever-larger auditoriums and worship centres, there is an urgent need to invest in skill acquisition programmes, vocational hubs and community-based economic empowerment initiatives. Faith cannot exist in isolation from the material conditions of its followers. In a period where danger is increasingly creeping into once-safe spaces, spiritual leadership must also translate into practical social responsibility.

 Ultimately, before the next coalition is announced or the next endorsement is staged, the nation must confront a more uncomfortable question: what are we doing, collectively and deliberately, to ensure that Nigerians remain alive, productive and hopeful? Until that question receives honest attention, the noise of politics will continue to compete with the silence of blood. And that is not a contest any serious nation should ever become comfortable losing.

MONDAY PHILIPS EKPE writes that considering the unrelenting misbehaviours of the political class, Nigerians must actively engage in the current electoral cycle

With the short supply of tangible, measurable achievements in the real sectors of the economy and the actual ingredients that determine the joy and happiness of the people, politicking has been on the nation’s menu since the start of this administration. But putting the whole blame on the government of President Bola Tinubu would be unfair. And the attempts by the president and his team to exonerate themselves from the frustrations moving ferociously across the country are both uncharitable and disingenuous.

Just like the billboards that surfaced in Abuja and elsewhere as far back as June/July 2023 seeking a second term for Tinubu, Nigerian people whose lives were viciously ruffled under the late President Muhammadu Buhari started early to wonder where their salvation would come from. The discerning among them knew early that Tinubu’s ‘bold’ twin decisions to remove oil subsidy by fiat and float the vulnerable naira would result in more agony and an uncertain future. By the way, no matter how well-intentioned reforms may be, if they’re not accompanied by matching optics and actions, they would crush the people’s spirit and demonstrate to them the folly of hoping for transformational outcomes.

So, the quest for those to provide answers to the country’s myriads of challenges appeared on the scene rather too soon, a condition that hasn’t been helped by the craze of political office holders to remain on their seats by all means. Seeking re-election is constitutional and it isn’t new, surely. Only that, this time, politicians have done so without visible proofs that they’ve invested commensurate energies or anything close in combating the nation’s snowballing insecurity, unemployment, inflation, decaying infrastructure and despondency of the citizenry. Political power has been substantially altered to mean the most lucrative avenue to amass wealth without qualms, bereft of the decency to cover up selfish and myopic motives. Impunity in wrong doing continues in the face of glaring institutional failures. All to the discomfiture of a helpless populace.

What exactly can the people do at this point other than waiting and wishing that things would be different this time? But, will they? There’s hardly any cause for optimism at the moment. Take for instance the flocking of erstwhile opposition state governors into the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). To be clear, such occurrences aren’t new to our polity. However, none before now equals the quantum of the ‘earthquake’ that gives credence to the apprehension about Nigeria’s mutation to a one-party state. As things stand, only Abia, Anambra, Bauchi, Osun and Oyo state governors haven’t joined the bandwagon. Even then, some of them have publicly declared their loyalty to Tinubu and his ambition to remain in office beyond next year.

Many of the cross-carpeting state chief executives never took those steps with their own people on their minds. This clearly self-centred gamble aimed at securing their return tickets or shielding them from law enforcement agencies when they finish their terms has only enhanced the possibility of civilian authoritarianism, a phenomenon alien to our democratic history even with all its shortcomings. Self-interest may not totally be divorced from any human activity but with fewer and fewer deliveries of governance benefits, these actions do portend a widening gulf between the long-suffering Nigerian masses and their leaders or, arguably better named, rulers.

For most of the governors, the popular pretext for jumping from their original ships into APC was the need to hook up with the government at the centre for enhanced access to federal might or an escape from their sinking former bases. Yes, while their ex parties eventually descended into protracted crises that are yet to be resolved, the fabled dividends waiting to be extracted from Abuja simply haven’t shown up. Instead, those enmeshed in, say, security issues have degenerated further. The governors’ decampments don’t look like public-spirited sagacity.

The omnibus that APC has become ought not to be concerning if the opposition parties were to be on their own feet. The conspiracy theory that drives discussions about the troubles of People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party (LP), African Democratic Congress (ADC) and others is rooted in allegations of presidency’s meddling and outright sabotage through subterfuge and abuse of legal processes. Those accusations could well be true by half. And what happens to the other half? The answers are now unfolding.

Opposition politicians who love to play the victim are engaged in misconducts of their own. The final result of the ADC presidential primary conducted on Monday May 25 hasn’t been announced over 48 hours after, having been reportedly pronounced inconclusive. The two men who ran against the frontrunner, Wazirin Adamawa, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar – Mr Chibuike Amaechi and Alhaji Muhammad Hayatudeen – have since rejected and distanced themselves from the outcomes of the exercise. If this debacle is not resolved fast, it will be tragic indeed. To think that just before Mr Peter Obi and Dr Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso left the ADC coalition for the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), the former was seen by many political watchers as having the capacity to truly challenge the party in power.

Sadly, these foibles are only one part of the troubling atmosphere preceding next year’s general polls. The umpire, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), has done little to correct its widespread image as a pal of Tinubu and his party, an assumption that may actually not subsist under scrutiny. After the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Senator David Mark-led faction of ADC in the status quo ante bellum case that had put pressure on its integrity, INEC complied promptly. And few days ago, it countered the bogus claims made by the APC National Chairman, Prof Nentawe Yilwatda, about his party’s membership strength. Perhaps, Nigerians who have been constantly drawn into pessimism and cynicism against their wish can hold onto this as a sign of hope.

Equally worrying is the conduct of the primaries generally. One hallmark of APC’s outings was the deliberate distortion of figures as the voters were counted. Moving from number one to 10 to 200 and then 1000 was an unfortunate corruption of the glorious Option A4 mode of voting which produced the famous June 12, 1993 presidential election. That such was also registered during ADC’s turn that followed signalled a frightening degeneracy and national shame.

These missteps call for vigilance. Average citizens and ordinary party members who are sometimes complicit should step out and own the processes. They have worshipped power wielders and peddlers enough. This season hasn’t started well but too much is at stake to squander through collusion, apathy, docility and a fatalistic disposition.       

Dr Ekpe is a member of ÌÇĐÄÊÓÆ” Editorial Board

X: @monday_ekpe2

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Lack of Love for Country: Vandalism, Imported Pride and Cultural Self-Neglect 

The things Nigerians do, whether the elite or masses, point to the fact that many of us have no love for ourselves or our country. The social contract between the State and the Citizens, has long been broken by both sides. Just as successive governments have failed to achieve the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy set in Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution), so also have the people failed in the duties set out for citizens in Section 24 of the Constitution, amongst others. 

For instance, when governments put in infrastructure such as expressways and trains for the benefit of all, and at inflated costs too (see Section 15 of the Constitution on the State’s mandate to abolish corrupt practices and abuse of power), the people go and steal the metal railings, under the bridge iron rods (which hold up the bridges along with concrete, without which a bridge can collapse), manhole covers and rail track clips (without which the trains can derail). Perpetrators couldn’t care less if fellow citizens die, as a result of bridge collapse or train derailment. I’m not interested in football, but I find it strange that no one talks about Enugu Rangers, IICC Shooting Stars, Kano Pillars or Stationery Stores anymore; it’s all about Arsenal and Manchester City or United! – our local brands that gave us pride back in the day, are nowhere to be found. We have got into the habit of loving imported things, and neglecting our own. 

In governance, Nigeria has also adopted foreign styles – laws from the British and the legislative system from the Americans, but they have been adulterated, distorted or spoilt in their implementation, being observed in their breach. 

Consensus Candidacy: Elite Anointing Dressed as Democracy 

Last week. I read Dr Dakuku Peterside’s article, â€œElite Capture and the Death of Democracy”. He was spot on. He more or less stated that the Nigerian brand of consensus candidacy, not being what consensus candidacy should be in the true sense of the word, is killing democracy, and instead, entrenching autocracy, is fostering division, bitterness and the quest for revenge amongst the unfavoured aspirants who may have felt cheated out of their candidacies, on account of opaque and unfair processes – in short, eliciting the opposite of what consensus candidacy is supposed to achieve. 

The Obi/Kwankwaso ticket for the 2027 Presidency, and the candidacy of Alex Otti for Abia State Governor 2027 may be examples of consensus candidacy, where the Obi/Kwankwaso ticket appears to be agreeable to their party, NDC and for Otti, Abia State stakeholders generally.

Dr Peterside also referred to everlasting debts payable by present-day so-called consensus candidates to their godfathers who chose them, to the detriment of the Nigerian people. See Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 (EA) on direct primaries and consensus candidacy. I concur. 

Today, the concept of consensus candidacy has been abused. Many Nigerians watched a video where a direct primary was being conducted, and the person counting the number of those who were in the queue for the favoured candidate, shamelessly jumped from No. 54 to 101 in his count, while another counter in an Akwa Ibom State primary jumped from 12 to 1,000! Openly Cheating! We also saw videos of those who alleged that their supporters were denied access to venues where the direct primaries held, to vote for them. We saw former Minister, Isa Pantami, weeping like a new born baby because he didn’t emerge as the APC consensus Gubernatorial candidate of Gombe State. Will the losers end up engaging in anti-party activities? Or will their parties be able to assuage them, with promises of compensation?

To buttress Dr Peterside’s submissions, it can safely be argued that a combination of the EA’s Sections 29(5)(restriction to only fellow aspirants who partook in primaries, to challenge constitutional qualifications as a pre-election matter – meaning that those who emerge from ‘consensus candidacy’ cannot be challenged); 75 (powers of INEC to register political parties); 84(2)(direct primaries and consensus candidates); 60(3)(counting of votes and transmission of results); 138 (restrictive grounds of election petition) & 139(1) (effect of non-compliance with the provisions of the EA) and/or their faulty implementation, have the ability to make  elections less competitive and credible, thereby, further lending credence to the argument of anti-democracy, or civilian autocracy. 

Other Laws Observed in their Breach and Twisted Doctrines

It is unfortunate that, whether at the bottom or top of the ladder, many Nigerians appear to have a penchant for observing our laws in their breach, or manipulating provisions to suit their own purposes. Just as we see it in the ongoing election process, we also observe the same pattern in many other areas. How can Nigeria experience true progress, in such circumstances? 

Most concepts/doctrines that were developed to improve governance, are twisted in Nigeria. For example, instead of the doctrine of separation of powers which is part of the Constitution – see Sections 4,5,6 & 7 thereof, some are arguing that today, on a Federal level, the Executive, Legislature and sometimes the Judiciary are one, while on the State level, the four arms of government, Legislature, Executive, Judiciary and Local Government are all rolled into one, so much so that the landmark decision in AGF v AG Abia & 35 Ors (2024) LPELR-80019(SC) per Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC, sought to pry away the Local Governments (LG) from the State Governments by removing the financial impediment caused by Section 162(5) & (6) of the Constitution. 

In any event, how can we really expect true, external democracy from people who are unable to practice internal democracy within their associations? We cannot. How can an internal system that is borne out of inequity, ‘elite cartels’, the highest bidder takes all, opaqueness and lack of accountability, give rise to legitimate, optimal democratic governance? It cannot. 

INEC Overreach 

Even INEC isn’t left out of the chicanery. Recently, we saw a Judgement Order delivered on 20/5/26 per M.G. Umar J. in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 Youth Party v INEC, against INEC. It is at the least bizarre, that INEC would use its Guidelines to attempt abridge (shorten) statutory timelines, including, but not limited to the submission of the names of candidates (see Section 29(1) of the EA), particularly with a Professor of Law and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria at the organisation’s helm of affairs. It is actions such as this, that paint INEC in a bad light, as it gives the impression that INEC is trying to hem the parties/politicians in as quickly as possible, despite the fact that its actions were inconsistent with the EA. 

INEC, in its Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Elections, tried to impose earlier timelines on conduct of party primaries; submission of candidates’ personal particulars and lists; withdrawal/replacement of candidates and  related processes like membership register submissions – even giving a May 10, 2026 deadline for submission of party membership registers, when they are to be submitted 21 days before each party’s primaries, congresses or conventions (see Section 77(4) of the EA), meaning that there’s even no universal date for submission of registers, as different parties are holding their primaries on different dates. 

It is trite law, confirmed by a plethora of authorities, that just as the provisions of a statute cannot supersede that of the Constitution (see Section 1(1) & (3) of the Constitution), the provisions of Guidelines which at best, may be referred to as subsidiary legislation, cannot supersede that of substantive legislation. In Nyesom Wike v Peterside (2016) LPELR-40036(SC), the Supreme Court held that the directives, guidelines and manual issued by INEC, cannot be elevated above the provisions of the Electoral Act. In INEC v PDP (2022) LPELR-57389(CA) per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA, the Court of Appeal held inter alia that, though INEC’s timetable has the force of law as it is made subject to the provisions of the Electoral Act, it cannot override the Principal Act (which is the Electoral Act). 

For example, only in the case of death or withdrawal of  candidates, is substitution of candidates permitted by the EA. Section 31 of the EA gives a candidate a deadline of 90 days before the date of an election to withdraw, while Section 33 thereof gives the political party 14 days within the date of the death or withdrawal of a candidate, to conduct another primary. So, for the Presidential and National Assembly elections scheduled to hold on January 16, 2027, candidates have till sometime in mid-October to withdraw, while those for Gubernatorial and State Houses of Assembly holding on February 6, 2027, have up to early November to withdraw.

El Rufai Bail Irony and Rule of Law Hypocrisy

I saw a video of our learned colleague, Mrs Nasiru El Rufai, calling the public’s attention to the fact that her husband had been in custody for 89 days, and that his bail conditions are onerous. Her concerns are legitimate. Bail is a constitutional right, based on the presumption of innocence (see Section 36(5) of the Constitution). 

However, it appears that one of Malam’s bail conditions is that a Grade Level 17 civil servant who owns a property in Asokoro or Maitama, should be the one to stand surety for him. This is practically impossible, as it would certainly invite EFCC/ICPC scrutiny on such a surety. Granting an individual bail on conditions that may be impossible to fulfill, means that the court wants such a person to stay remanded in custody. Section 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) provides inter alia that a Defendant charged with an offence whose punishment exceeds 3 years imprisonment upon conviction shall be entitled to bail, except in certain circumstances such as a high likelihood of jumping bail, interfering with the investigation or witnesses. 

In Akaolisa v Okuma & Anor (2025) LPELR-81140(SC) per John Inyang Okoro, JSC, the Supreme Court held that: â€œ…bail is a constitutional right available to an accused person, which effect is not to set the accused free from the criminal trial, but to release him temporarily from custody and entrust him to attend to his trial upon satisfying the conditions attached thereto”. Also see Suleman & Anor v COP Plateau State (2008) LPELR-3126(SC) per Niki Tobi, JSC. If bail is a constitutional right, then it cannot be taken away through the back door by the courts by setting impossible bail conditions.

However, isn’t it ironical that this is happening to Malam El Rufai? I remember in 2019, when the Kaduna State High Court granted bail to the El Zakzakys to travel to India for medical tourism, a trip that subsequently failed, the same Governor El Rufai/Kaduna State Government, under the guise of ‘strict supervision of the bailees’, sought to add their own additional bail conditions to those that the court had set, including asking for two prominent sureties – an Emir or First Class Chief and another, within Kaduna State. Now the shoe is on the other foot. 

If we had strong institutions, courts would set bail conditions  based on consistent legal principles, not extraneous considerations. 

Conclusion: Strong Institutions Over Strongmen

The moral of Nigeria’s story of self-sabotage, may have started with a mutual betrayal of the social contract between the Government and the people. Though the betrayal may be more on the side of government and on a larger scale in this country, it is however, not unique to Nigeria. The country is desperately in need of stronger/strong institutions, not strong persons/personalisation of power. 

Progress is possible, with a cultural shift from rewarding incompetence and corruption – playing straight mustn’t be allowed to continue to lose to shortcuts; accountability and better enforcement of laws; more autonomy for INEC, political party funding and expenditure reforms; a completely independent Judiciary; alleviation of poverty of the people thereby reducing desperation, by means of job creation/increased opportunities and more economic reforms, and most importantly, restoring security all over the country. 

P.S. Governor Uzodinma

The other day, I saw a post that Imo State Governor, Hope Uzodinma’s tenure ends on 15th January, 2028, and yet, he won the Imo West APC Senatorial ticket for an election that will hold almost a year before his tenure ends. The truth of the matter is that Section 66(1)(f) of the Constitution allows this, as it provides that Governor Uzodinma only has to resign 30 days before the date of the election! This type of move however, intensifies the perception that many have about politicians – that they desire perpetual incumbency. 

Femi Akintunde-Johnson

Four years ago, in the heat and hysteria preceding the 2023 elections, I attempted to outline the type of president Nigeria did not need. At the time, the political atmosphere was already thick with noise, rehearsed promises, elite conspiracies, emergency defections and the usual carnival of manufactured hope that accompanies our electoral cycles.

  Today, looking around in 2026, one uncomfortable truth confronts us: the faces may change, the slogans may mutate, the party logos may be redesigned, but the political culture remains stubbornly familiar.

  Nigeria still suffers from an elite recycling programme cleverly disguised as democracy. The same actors migrate from one platform to another with astonishing flexibility. Yesterday’s sworn enemies become today’s strategic allies. Men who once accused one another of corruption now exchange warm smiles at political conventions and thanksgiving services. Defections are announced with the emotional weight of football transfers, while supporters are expected to defend these ideological summersaults with straight faces.

  In Nigeria, political memory is deliberately short because amnesia is profitable. The tragedy is not merely that politicians defect. Democracies survive defections. The tragedy is that many defections in Nigeria are completely empty of philosophical conviction. There is hardly any ideological centre holding the major parties together beyond access to power, patronage, contracts and influence.

Our politicians switch camps so frequently that ordinary citizens now struggle to remember who insulted whom last year. And somehow, everyone suddenly claims to be “acting in the national interest”. 

The “national interest” in Nigeria usually appears shortly before elections and disappears immediately after swearing-in ceremonies. Meanwhile, the citizens continue carrying the burden of elite experiments and political opportunism.

That is why Nigerians must become more careful about the type of leadership they romanticise. We have repeatedly mistaken noise for vision, arrogance for strength, propaganda for competence, and ethnicity for qualification.

A politician speaks aggressively and supporters scream, “Strong man!” Another shares money recklessly and crowds shout, “Man of the people!” One quotes scripture fluently and suddenly becomes “God-fearing”. Another speaks polished English on television and is immediately crowned “brilliant”.

Yet governance is far more demanding than public performance. Nigeria has suffered repeatedly from leaders who campaigned like revolutionaries but governed like bewildered tenants trapped accidentally inside Aso Rock.

That is why the country still does not need another president obsessed primarily with power acquisition rather than institutional transformation. We do not need another leader surrounded entirely by praise-singers, image launderers and professional excuse manufacturers masquerading as advisers.

We certainly do not need another government addicted to propaganda while citizens drown in economic and psychological exhaustion. 

 There is a dangerous tendency among sections of the Nigerian political class to confuse public relations with governance. Once criticism emerges, the machinery activates instantly: statistics are weaponised, critics are insulted, social media warriors are mobilised, and carefully edited videos suddenly appear explaining why citizens should actually be grateful for their suffering.

But hunger is stubbornly difficult to gaslight. Transport fares do not reduce because of motivational speeches. Market prices do not collapse because hashtags are trending. Citizens cannot cook press statements for dinner. And Nigerians are increasingly tired of governments that appear more emotionally invested in defending perceptions than confronting realities.

Perhaps even more dangerous is the growing normalisation of mediocrity in public leadership. Standards have fallen so low that basic administrative competence is now celebrated as extraordinary brilliance.

A governor pays salaries consistently and is treated like Nelson Mandela reborn. A public official answers journalists coherently and citizens almost organise thanksgiving services. We have become so traumatised by dysfunction that normal governance now feels miraculous.

 Yet Nigeria’s problems are too serious for ceremonial leadership and cosmetic reforms. The country still does not need a president imprisoned by provincial thinking and sectional anxieties. We cannot continue reducing a complex federation of over 200 million people into an endless tribal arithmetic competition where competence becomes secondary to ethnic negotiations.

Every election season, political merchants dust off the same emotional weapons: “It is our turn.” “Protect your own.” “They want to dominate us.” “Our region has been cheated.”

And millions of suffering citizens, united by poverty but divided by sentiment, begin fighting one another emotionally while the elite negotiate comfortably behind closed doors.

The rich politician from the North and his wealthy counterpart from the South often share far more common interests with each other than with the poor citizens screaming online in their defence. But ordinary Nigerians continue inheriting elite quarrels that never improve their living conditions.

That is one reason the country still does not need leaders who deliberately exploit division as political capital. Nigeria’s fragile condition demands bridge-builders, not identity merchants profiting from tension and suspicion. Nor do we need another president emotionally disconnected from the daily struggles of ordinary people.

One of the recurring tragedies of Nigerian governance is the frightening distance between official comfort and public suffering. Citizens battle inflation, insecurity, unemployment and collapsing purchasing power, while sections of the political elite carry on with astonishing extravagance.

Convoys grow longer. Government luxuries expand. Public officials speak casually about hardship from air-conditioned podiums protected by armed escorts and imported comforts. And then they ask citizens to “be patient”.

Patience is easier to preach when your generator never goes off. This is why empathy matters in leadership. Not performative empathy. Not staged market visits for cameras. Genuine understanding of how policies affect human beings beyond spreadsheets and economic briefings.

A country already battling deep distrust cannot afford leadership that appears emotionally absent. And then there is the matter of courage.

Nigeria still does not need another hesitant leader paralysed by political calculations while urgent national problems deteriorate. The country has suffered enough from delayed decisions, timid responses, selective outrage and endless committees established mainly to postpone accountability.

Leadership requires the courage to confront entrenched interests, even when politically inconvenient. But courage is scarce where political survival becomes more important than national survival.

Perhaps the most worrying reality today is that many Nigerians are becoming psychologically detached from democracy itself. Elections no longer inspire excitement in the way they once did. Citizens participate, yes – but often with diminished expectations.

Too many people now approach politics like disappointed football fans watching a familiar match-fixing scandal. 

They vote cautiously. Hope cautiously. Trust cautiously. And sometimes, not at all. That emotional withdrawal should alarm every serious political actor in Nigeria. Because democracy weakens dangerously when citizens stop believing their participation can meaningfully shape outcomes.

Still, despite everything, one cannot completely dismiss the quiet awakening happening beneath the frustration. Young Nigerians are more politically aware than previous generations. Citizens question power more aggressively. Information travels faster. Propaganda faces stronger scrutiny. Public conversations are no longer controlled entirely by traditional gatekeepers.

The establishment notices this. That is why political messaging has become more aggressive, more sophisticated and more emotionally manipulative.

The struggle for Nigeria’s future is no longer merely about winning elections. It is increasingly about controlling perception, emotion, fear and attention. And that is why Nigerians must think more deeply before the next electoral cycle gathers full momentum.

The country does not merely need another “electable” figure. Nigeria needs leadership with discipline, clarity, emotional intelligence and institutional seriousness. Leadership that understands governance is not revenge, not conquest, not compensation for years spent chasing office. Leadership that sees power as responsibility rather than entitlement.

  Most importantly, Nigeria still does not need another president who treats citizens as spectators to governance rather than stakeholders in nationhood. Because after decades of squandered opportunities, exhausted promises and recycled political theatre, Nigerians are no longer searching for perfection.

  They are simply searching for evidence that their country can still be governed with honesty, competence, fairness and urgency. And that should not be too much to ask of a nation so richly blessed, yet so tragically mismanaged.

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Recently, two developments captured my attention – the appointment of Retired Major General Adeyinka Famadewa as President Tinubu’s Homeland Security Adviser (HSA), and Hon. Farouk Lawan’s reported bid to secure the All Progressives Congress (APC) ticket, to return to the House of Representatives. 

Homeland Security 

Did the President read my piece of November 25, 2025 â€œInsecurity and Six Suffocating Challenges”, in which I had stated that the third suffocating challenge was the lack of a Ministry of Homeland Security? I had argued that such an agency/dedicated structure is required to defend Nigeria’s internal security against terrorism, kidnapping, herdsmen attacks and insurgency – a central agency working with the different security agencies who presently appear to work almost in silos, such as the Police, SSS and NIA etc –  â€œensuring cohesion between them for a more effective response to internal security, as opposed to the amorphous system that Nigeria currently operates
.”. 

The primary purpose of government is the security and welfare of the people (see Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution), and by virtue of Section 151(1) & (3) thereof, the President is empowered to appoint Special Advisers to assist him in performing his functions; they hold office at the President’s pleasure, and shall cease to hold office when the Presidency ceases, unless, of course, their services are terminated beforehand. 

Given the persistent failure of our existing security architecture, this new office of the HSA represents a necessary attempt at a more coordinated response to internal threats. Understandably, concerns have been raised about duplication of efforts, or an overlap between the National Security Adviser (NSA), Interior Ministry and the HSA. As one amusing and mischievous headline I saw over the weekend called the situation between the NSA and HSA ‘Kishiya’, which in Hausa refers to co-wives of the same husband/rivals! These roles need not clash or rival each other. A solidary, cohesive and coordinated relationship, is most likely to achieve better, effective and harmonious results. 

While the NSA has a broader national and international scope, coordinates foreign security policy, concentrates on external threats, intelligence, and is the principal Advisor to the President on national security, a HSA should concentrate more on operations and execution, the day-to-day protection of the people and country from internal security threats, terrorist attacks and the like, and coordination among the domestic security agencies, particularly the SSS (see Section 2(3) of the National Security Agencies Act 1986).   Issues such as border control, customs and immigration remain firmly in the hands of  the Ministry of Interior, so there need not be any overlap. 

I saw a video in which a Northern man said that the HSA shouldn’t have been from the South West, but from the South East or South South, and that the NSA had been sidelined. If he knew anything about the functions of the different security agencies, he would know that if anyone may have complained about Kishiya, it could be the DG SSS, not the NSA. Even the functions of the Police aren’t necessarily the same as Homeland Security – see Section 4 of the Nigeria Police Act 2020.

I generally do not like engaging in discussions about ethnicity. I’m a firm believer in the brightest and the best for any position, and I believe that we have the brightest and the best from every part of Nigeria. But, the bitter truth is that Nigerians are very tribalistic people. If they had the chance, they would do worse than those who they are criticising. Most Ghanaians I know – I don’t know what part of Ghana they are from – they just say they are from Ghana. The moment we start to ask ourselves whether we would choose to fly with an incompetent Pilot because we are from the same village, or attend the same Church or Mosque and endanger our lives, or instead, fly safely with the best Pilot, irrespective of their ethnicity or religion – I know that the answer would be the latter; the moment we also start to look at governance and positions in the same light, Nigeria will become a better place! 

The man in the video said that, Yoruba would be the spoken language in security meetings; I guess the same way Hausa has been the spoken language at most security meetings since Nigeria gained independence! 

In case the man in the video may have missed out on history, allow me to make a few observations – out of a total of 29 Nigerian Chiefs of Army Staff (COAS), 21 have been from the North. Lt General Alani Akinrinade had been the only South West COAS, a position he held for only 6 months, while Lt General Azubuike Ihejirika from the South East, held the position from 2010-2014. Late Lt General Taoheed Lagbaja, the second South West COAS,was appointed by President Tinubu in 2023. Out of 10 NSAs, apart from Rtd Colonel Kayode Are (South West) who held the position in an acting capacity for only two weeks, and late General Andrew Azazi (South South), the 8 other NSAs have been from the North. From NSO to SSS, out of 13 DGs, 7 have been from the North; before the present DG, Adeola Ajayi, only Colonel Are had been DG SSS. Even INEC, Prof Joash Amupitan, SAN from Kogi State (North Central), is the first Yoruba speaking INEC Chairman. The plan was that INEC should be headed by the minority ethnic groups, but this was broken when Profs Humphrey Nwosu and Maurice Iwu from the South East were made Chairman, and then Profs Attahiru Jega and Mahmood Yakubu (who had an unprecedented two terms) from the North West and North East respectively. 

Ultimately, merit must be the motivating factor in appointments, though inclusive representation helps to build unity in a diverse nation, such as Nigeria. 

Conviction, Pardon and Elections 

As the commencement of the electoral cycle leading up to the 2027 general elections progresses, seeing the display of Nigerian politicians across the political parties, many wonder how many of them are qualified to run for any positions, and what will be the fate of the country in their hands. While I don’t want to sound like a pessimist and say the future looks bleak, in Nigerian parlance, I can safely say things look “one kind”, that is, not too encouraging. 

1) Hon. Farouk Lawan

And, when I say qualified, I’m not referring to educational qualifications, but the qualification of a person such as Hon. Farouk Lawan, who was convicted by the FCT High Court in 2021 for receiving a $500,000 bribe out of a $3 million solicitation, to remove Zenon Petroleum from the list of firms allegedly indicted for fuel subsidy. The Supreme Court eventually upheld Lawan’s 5 year sentence. Having served his prison sentence,  Lawan was released in October 2024. In October 2025, he received a pardon from President Bola Tinubu, GCFR. By virtue of Section 175(1) of the Constitution, the President can grant such pardon – see Falae v Obasanjo & Ors (No. 2) (1999) LPELR-6585 (CA) on the main types of pardon – 1) a free/full pardon that is without conditions; 2) a pardon that is subject to conditions and 3) a commutation of sentence. 

Lawan is said to want to contest and reclaim his former House of Representatives seat representing Bagwai/Shanono Federal constituency, Kano. We must therefore, assume that he was granted a free pardon under Section 175(1)(a), not subject to any conditions, in which case Section 66(1)(d) of the Constitution which bars a person convicted of an offence involving dishonesty from running for an election within a period of less than 10 years before the date of an election to a legislative house, would be inapplicable to Lawan. 

In Falae v Obasanjo (No. 2) (Supra), the Court of Appeal held: â€œA pardon is an act of grace by the appropriate authority which mitigates or obliterates the punishment the law demands for the offence, and restores the rights and privileges forfeited on account of the offence
.The effect of a pardon is to make the offender a new man (novus homo), to acquit  him  of  all  corporate  penalties  and forfeitures annexed to the offence pardoned”. In FRN v Achida & Anor (2018) LPELR-46065(CA), the Court of Appeal defined Pardon inter alia as: â€œâ€Š.the act of officially nullifying punishment, or other legal consequences of a crime”. This  means that, ‘de jure’ (by law), Lawan appears to be unencumbered and free to run, as President Tinubu’s pardon has not only made him a new man, it appears to have obliterated and nullified the 10 year impediment of Section 66(1)(d) of the Constitution in relation to him. But, ‘de facto’, Lawan was convicted of bribery/corruption, and the pardon cannot wipe away this reality. 

2) Senator Jolly Nyame

Contrastingly, in a recent Federal High Court (FHC) case in the Jalingo Judicial Division – FHC/JAL/CS/6/2026, Senator Jolly Nyame who had been convicted on corruption charges relating to misappropriation of public funds in 2018, was granted a pardon by late President Muhammadu Buhari in 2022 under Section 175(1) of the Constitution, on age and health grounds and thereafter, released from prison. The FHC held that Nyame’s pardon was Presidential clemency based on health grounds and not a full pardon, thereby rendering him ineligible to run for the Taraba North Senatorial seat until 2028, thereby insisting that the 10-year post-conviction period under Section 66(1)(d) of the Constitution must be allowed to elapse; that Nyame’s pardon didn’t obliterate the legal consequences of his crime – see FRN v Achida & Anor (Supra). 

Is the FHC decision confusing the grounds for Nyame’s pardon, with a pardon that is subject to conditions? See Falae v Obasanjo (No. 2) (Supra). With respect, one can argue that they aren’t the same. There are always grounds for exercising the prerogative of mercy in favour of a pardonee, such as the convict turning their life around in prison by learning a trade or getting an education, good behaviour, terminal illness, old age etc. A pardon that is subject to conditions, on the other hand, is one in which such pardon may require restitution or repayment of misappropriated funds, or other terms attached thereto. 

Can Nyame’s case be distinguished from Lawan’s, because Lawan had completed his sentence before he was pardoned, while Nyame was pardoned before he completed his sentence? Or is it that, no matter the grounds for exercising the prerogative of mercy, or whether the sentence is completed or not, once it’s a free/full pardon, the legal consequences are obliterated, in which case the FHC decision in Nyame’s case may easily be reversed on appeal? Nevertheless, some argue that giving any person that has been adjudged to be dishonest the ticket of APC whose campaign mantra is supposedly ‘fight against corruption’, shows hypocrisy and insincerity, and it should be discouraged. 

Conclusion 

The appointment of a HSA is a welcome and timely development. If properly structured with clear terms of reference, it has the potential to bring much-needed focus, coordination, and operational efficiency to Nigeria’s internal security architecture — something that has been conspicuously absent for years. However, the success of the HSA will probably depend on on the clarity of the mandate of the office, and how well a synergy between the different agencies is achieved. 

In the long run, a Presidential pardon may restore a person’s legal rights, but it cannot restore public trust. When an elected official, convicted of accepting a bribe to manipulate State policy, seeks to return to the same National Assembly where laws and policies related thereto are made, it sends a troubling message; and, if such a person is given the ruling party ticket for that matter, it sends an even more troubling message that, in Nigeria, consequences for the powerful are temporary, or even non-existent.

As we head into the 2027 elections, the real question is not whether Hon. Farouk Lawan is legally eligible to contest, but whether a political party that rode to power on the promise of fighting corruption can/should, in good conscience, field a candidate with such a record. 

The growing perception that the system protects its own, even after conviction, as well as encourages this new pattern being formed by politicians who the law has adjudged to have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, being given a new lease of life without facing the legal consequences of their actions, are quite damaging to Nigeria’s democracy. It tells Nigerians that, some people are indeed, somehow above the law. Already, this perception exists in the minds of many, in relation to so-called repentant terrorists who are forgiven, and not prosecuted.

By Bola A. Akinterinwa

Francophone Africa used to be considered an exclusive backyard of France in international relations. The exclusiveness of Francophone Africa as backyard is first explained by France’s quest for Grandeur de la France (Greatness of France), the need for France to remain a global power, and the need to respond to the challenges of the Cold War. Thus, the quest required evolving a special relationship with Francophone Africa which is called FrançAfrique.

FrançAfrique, was first used in 1943 by the Editor-in-Chief of l’Aurore newspaper, Jean Piot, to imply the strategy of uniting France and Africa with the ultimate objective of renewing and strengthening French empire. This conception was redefined in 1955 by President FĂ©lix HouphouĂ«t-Boigny, to make it look good, rather than condoning it as a negative re-colonisation. HouphouĂ«t-Boigny defined it as celebration of shared language, economic, and cultural values. However, in the eyes of François Xavier Verschave, FrançAfrique was an embodiment of a very fraudulent or corrupt system. As he put it, ‘FrançAfrique symbolized a shadowy system of corruption, patronage and political interference.’

In spite of this, France could not and still cannot sustain her needed great power status without carrying the former colonies along. FrançAfrique was therefore re-coined Franco-African Summit and Jacques Foccart, who was a major player in the making and execution of FrançAfrique, still continued with the implementation of Franco-African Summit policy. Foccart was not only African Affairs advisor to the French President, from 1958 to 1974, but also an advisor to Prime Minister Jacques Chirac between 1986 and 1988. Franco-African Summits underscored partnerships and gave the impression of non-domination by France even though the instruments of French hegemony were still manifest.

With the emergence of troubled misunderstanding between France, on the one hand, and Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, on the other hand, over France’s inability to contain jihadism in the Sahel, and particularly, France’s active support for the ECOWAS sanctions over unconstitutional changes of government in the three countries, relationship with France has been severely damaged. This is the background to the 2026 FrançAfriquess Forward Summit.

The 2026 France-Africa Forward Summit

The first issue that is noteworthy in the 2026 France-Africa Forward Summit is the name. ‘France-Africa Forward Summit’ is the new name for Franco-African Summit that was introduced in 1973 by the late French President, George Pompidou. The concept of Franco-African Summit, as noted earlier, replaced the usage of FrançAfrique, which was predicated on many pillars. It should therefore not be confused with the 2026 name which is consciously to close the chapter of Franco-African relations and open a new framework of relationship.

First, Franco-African Summit has a pillar of military interventions, which involved the signing of bilateral accords with pro-France countries. The bilateral accords were to defend and sustain the friendly governments. France often assist them to continue to stay in power by different lawful and unlawful means. Operation Manta in Chad and Operation Serval in Mali are good illustrations of this observation. 

When the name FrançAfrique became politically controversial, President Felix HouphouĂ«t-Boigny of the CĂ”te d’Ivoire first used FrançAfrique to promote Franco-African closer rapprochement. Emphasis was particularly placed on Franco-African partnerships that were promoted from 1955 until 1998 when François Xavier Verschave, a social activist, redefined it to condemn France’s interventionist neo-colonial system. Verschave saw FrançAfrique as secretive and corrupt. In his eyes, FrançAfrique was nothing more than French neo-colonialism. Africans have become much suspicious about neo-colonialism as shown in the anti-France sentiments in the ASS countries. This explains why Emmanuel Macron has to design the 2026 summit differently. For instance, Aljazeera had it that ‘France’s influence in Africa has faded.’ This is a truism and Macron appears to be much aware of it. This is one reason why Macron is trying to lay a new foundation for restoring French influence without any jot of arrogance.

Attitudinally, he is not only courting a special relationship with Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) but also boasted before the summit took place that PBAT would attend the Kenya Summit. And true enough, PBAT attended, flying directly from Paris to Nairobi. Additionally, Macron has been presenting himself as a true friend of Africa who really wants to help Africa. As he put it, ‘we are not simply here to come and invest on the African continent and alongside you – we need great African business leaders to come and invest in France.’ Macron has always given the impression of feeling at home whenever he is in Africa, especially having worked in the Embassy of France in Lagos before he became President of France. At the Kenyan summit, the  has it that Macron ‘is betting on business to shake off its colonial baggage.’ More importantly, ‘he cooked with a Kenyan influencer and ran with Eliud Kipchoge, a long-distance runner. He even danced to a live performance of Jerusalema, a South African hit. Emmanuel Macron’s trip to Kenya from May 10th to May 12th certainly felt different.’

Participation wise, more than 7,000 participants were there. In terms of issues raised, they were basically as raised by Macron in 2017 in his transformation of the partnership: promotion of mutually beneficial partnerships on an equal footing. According to the , the issues are about ‘promoting mutually beneficial partnerships on an equal footing; forging ties through our youth and our diasporas; encouraging the scaling up of private investment on the African continent to address financing needs (development, climate, etc.), and facing our shared history head-on, through the unprecedented work undertaken since 2017 on memory and the restitution of cultural property looted during the colonial period’

More importantly, the ElysĂ©e said that ‘€23 billion in investments in Africa have been announced, corresponding to the creation of more than 250 direct jobs in France and Africa, and many more indirect jobs. Of the €23 billion, €14 billion are French investments in Africa; €9 billion are African investments in Africa’ (). And most importantly, the French have made it clear that ‘by making the mobilisation of private capital in Africa a priority, the Africa Forward Summit builds, in particular, on the Paris Summit on the Financing of African economies in 2021, the Paris summit for a New Global Financing Pact in 2023, and the African Union-European Union (AU-EU) Summits held in Brussels under the French presidency of the European Union in February 2022 and in Luanda in November 2025. It marks an important step towards ensuring that the voices of African countries are heard ahead of the G-7 Summit in Evian in June 2026.’

Of what use will the voices of African countries be at the G-7 summit in its true sense of it? To an extent, Macron may be right by positing that ‘the challenges faced in Africa and in Europe are the same’ and that ‘we want peace, prosperity and sovereignty.’ Are the challenges really the same? Which countries in Europe want prosperity for Africa? What is the policy of the European countries on migration from Africa? Emmanuel Macron has also said that ‘Europe has fought for peace, prosperity and sovereignty. ‘Following the Second World War, it built the European Union, first to ensure peace, then formed the common market to ensure prosperity. Today, the European agenda is one of strategic autonomy, so as not to depend on Chinese or American domination and try to stick to a middle path in line with international law.’  This point is interesting. However, if France does not want dependence on the Americans and on the Chinese why should Africans be made dependent on France or on the European Union? As told by Macron, what the French want to do is not to bring aid. That approach is a thing of the past. We can see that many countries of the north, some on ideological grounds, some due to fiscal difficulties, are no longer delivering the planed aid. That is a reality. We must bring greater clarity to relations between the North and South.’ This is the first basis of the intellection provided by President Macron at the 2026 Summit. 

Emmanuel Macron’s New Intellection

One cannot easily comprehend President Macron’s new intellection on the matter without first expatiating on the implications of both FrançAfrique and Franco-African Summit policies. It should be recalled that FrançAfrique is predicated on a pentagonal legs: African Cell in which the French President, his close advisers and the French Secret Services are only involved; the leg of Franc Zone, according to which the currencies of most Francophone Africa are pegged to the French Franc; Cooperation frameworks, which are basically a series of agreements that facilitate political, economic, military and cultural ties between France and Africa; Stability guarantor, which makes France an enabler and guarantor of regional stability; and more importantly, Personal Networking, which is about personal diplomacy on the basis of one-on-one relationship with African leaders.

And for various reasons, FrançAfrique entered into dĂ©suĂ©tude. One of the reasons is the factor of Cold War which ended in 1989. The end of the Cold War made the use of Africa not as compelling as of when the Cold War was active. The end of the war raised the relevance of Africa as a source of raw materials for the development of Europe and to which Nigeria’s Commissioner of External Affairs, Dr. Okoi Arikpo, was vehemently opposed. 

Another reason was the deepening budgetary constraints in France. Francophone African leaders want aid, either because of the argument of one school of thought that emphasis should be placed on development aid from France as a means of French pay back for colonial exploitation or because of arguments of unavoidable principles of interdependence. Put differently, the factor of political independence of many colonial dependencies has necessarily reduced the direct control of France over financial mineral resources of the countries.

Besides, the factor of France being an original Member of the European Economic Community that evolved into the European Community, and then to the European Union,s created many obligations for France to tow common policies which curtailed the free hands of France in Francophone Africa. This factor was made more difficult with the death of the major implementers of the policy, such as Jacques Foccart and François Mitterrand. In the absence of the catalytic agents, FrançAfrique cannot but be thrown into the garbage of history. If it is equally borne in mind that the management and conduct of the FrançAfrique was fraught with corruption under President ValĂ©ry Giscard d’Estaing in Africa, there was no way the need for an alternative policy attitude would not have remained a desideratum. President d’Estaing was accused in 1979 by Le Canard Enchain, a satiric French newspaper of having received large quantity of gold and diamond from Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic who was supported by the French Government and who was accused of unnecessarily lavishing public funds on his coronation.

 France adopted the new policy of making changes within continuity. The changes are tactical in operation, and therefore are constantly changing, while the ultimate objective is continual. France’s hegemonic influence is to be sustained while the tactical means of ensuring the hegemony often change. To begin with, the name of FrançAfrique was changed to Franco-African Summit with a new content. The first Franco-African Summit took place in Paris in 1973 with the Franc Zone and Euro-African relations as thematic focus. The 1975 Summit was held in Bangui, Central Africa Republic, and it focused on African economic problems. Dakar, Senegal, played host to the 1977 summit which focused on African security questions. The Summit of 1980, held in Nice in southern France, was quite notable as it addressed the establishment of a ‘Francophone Community.’ The 2010 Summit that also took place in Nice, addressed Africa’s role in global governance.

As good as these developments might have been, discontent with France’s behavior and exploitations in Francophone Africa has not ceased. This largely prompted President Emmanuel Macron in his 2017 speech in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, to re-define Franco-African Summit to underscore economic partnership, innovation, and co-construction of projects. The re-definition of the format of the Summit requires involving non-Francophone countries. In fact, the ties with Africa have been strategically expanded. The definition of the ties allows for the holding of the summit outside of the Francophone world. In this regard, the 2026 Kenya summit was the first time such a summit would take place outside of France and the Francophone world.

Like the 9-10 October 2021 France-Africa Summit, that took place in Montpellier in France during which the door was opened to a new generation of African youths and the diaspora to have an open and direct discussion with President Macron, so was the case in 2026 Summit. As noted by Aymar N. Bisoka, David Mwambari, and Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni in their article entitled “From Summit to counter-summit: imperialism, FrançAfrique and decolonization,” in Review of African Political Economy of 13 December 2021, ‘for the first time in history, the summit between France and African countries was held with no African Head of State.’

And perhaps most interestingly, if not disturbingly, President Macron approached the Cameroonian historian and political scientist, Achille Mbembe, to prepare a report for ‘the New Africa-France Summit, on 9 and 10 October 2021.’ And most significantly, ‘as part of the preparation for the summit, Mbembe had to lead a series of discussions in twelve African countries and the diaspora, ahead of the actual event, around themes of common interest.’ As explained by Mbembe, ‘the aim of these discussions with African and diaspora youth was to ‘directly and openly question the fundamentals of this relationship and to redefine it together.’ And true enough, four days to the commencement of the summit, Mbembe submitted a ‘140-page report containing thirteen proposals for ‘refoundation’ of relations between France and Africa. These proposals focus on an innovation Fund for Democracy, a House of African and Diaspora Views, migration, employment, intercontinental economic transparency, the transformation of development aid, the voice of Africa on climate change, the narrative of Africa, the rethinking of the relations between Africa and Europe, the restitution of stolen works of art, among others.’ 

This quotation raises many questions and interesting issues that informed the holding of the 2026 France-Africa Forward Summit held in Kenya. First, why was the Franco-African Summit given a new name: not Franco-African Summit but France-Africa Summit? Why was there no African president? Were the youths invited really the leaders of the groups or they were chosen on the basis of whims and caprices? If Achille Mbembe had been unfriendly or he was a critique of French colonialism, would he have qualified to be called upon to organize the African youths? These questions are necessary in light of the fact that Senegalese youth protested against the French and vandalized several French interests (Shops, Petrol stations, super markets, etc.) in Senegal in March 2021. The names of those who were involved in the protest did not figure on the list of people to be invited to have dinner with President Macron at the summit.

Whatever the answers, the undeniable truth is that Emmanuel Macron is using Africans to identify African problems, to make suggestions on how to address the same problems, to go and consult with many youths in more than ten countries in Africa, and then ask for a report to be considered and possibly approved for implementation. The mother of all the questions here is why should anyone seek to blame France for using Africans to perpetuating French hegemony in Africa? An intellectual can be asked to provide intellection assistance, but in which area of assistance? Is there anything wrong seeking to promote cooperation between and among youths of different countries? If there is nothing wrong with it, how do we ensure that the cooperation is not about mental recolonization? Let us now address the 2026 France-Africa Forward Summit. 

 The 2026 summit, co-chaired by President Emmanuel Macron and the President of Kenya, William Ruto, was quite interesting from many perspectives. Participation involved different stakeholders: young people, artists, civil society organisations, etc. Unlike the 2021 summit in which there were no Heads of State, several Heads of State attended the 2026 summit. Secondly, the Summit de-emphasised traditional approach and aid in the new relationship to the advantage of co-investment, industrialization, digital partnerships, and ‘Made in Africa’ products. Seven main priorities were identified in the Nairobi Declaration of priorities: renewable energy/green industrialization, AI/digital infrastructure, agriculture, healthcare manufacturing, critical minerals, maritime trade, and AfCFTA integration. 

Thirdly, the Summit discussed the issue of security and development, as well as economic initiatives in the Sahel. Before France was declared unwanted in the ASS countries, France could not solve the problem of insecurity and particularly the Touareg insurrection. Terrorism was on the increase which was one major reason for the extension of invitation to France to come and help in 2013. What is the magic that France wants to perform within the new framework to positively address the problem of insecurity?

Fourthly, even though the 2026 Africa Forward Summit is a part of a larger and ongoing reconfiguration of new French strategy in Africa, the tactical French strategy is to first foster a better understanding with Anglophone Africa, and possibly strengthen ties with the leading Commonwealth countries. If this strategy were to work, how will the Member States of the Alliance of Sahel States (ASS) react to the development? How should the regional organisations, and particularly the ECOWAS, react to a better France-Africa relationship that is detrimental to the interests of the ASS? Will it not amount to another divide and rule? More disturbingly, the governments of the ASS were not invited to the summit because of the African Union sanctions against the ASS for their engagement in unconstitutional changes of government in their countries. Besides, the ASS countries have strained their relationships with France. The problem here is that the representatives of the civil society organisations were invited and they all attended. Is this not dividing the people? What is the gain for the African Union in creating a wedge between the governments and their people under the pretext of democracy?

President Emmanuel Macron’s 3-point message to all African peoples and their governments at the 2026 France-Africa Forward Summit is very thought-provoking. First, when he was leaving Paris for Nairobi, he reminded that ‘colonialism can no longer be blamed for all Africa’s challenges. We must not exonerate from all responsibility the seven decades that followed independence.’ In other words, if colonialism was responsible for Africa’s setbacks before 1960, should the former colonialists still be held responsible for Africa’s internal wars, political chicanery, poor governance, etc.? This means that Africans should be more responsible in addressing their problems. Macron supports the idea of allowing African problems to be resolved by Africans themselves. A second message is that investments should not be unidirectional, that it should be in both directions: from France to Africa and from Africa to France. Macron has pledged $27 billion worth investments in Africa. This is encouraging. If African leaders can boast of this type of amount, would there have been any need for the summit? Can Kenya have peace in the near future in light of the signing of a new defence agreement granting French soldiers immunity from Kenyan courts and in light of the existence of 800 French troops in Kenya before the Parliament ratified the agreement? What should the African Union expect in light of the position of the Pan-Africanism Summit against Imperialism that they ‘will not host our executioners. We will not become the new barracks of colonial domination’?  Finally, to what extent can Macron’s intellection change Africa’s perception of France as a neo-colonialist? Is his advice to his audience not to make noise and to be respectful a reflection of the hegemony?

Femi AKintunde-Johnson

Four years ago, as Nigeria stumbled uncertainly towards the 2023 elections, I raised a series of questions that now return with even greater urgency and discomfort. Questions about sacrifice, leadership, civic apathy, corruption, insecurity, institutional weakness, and the dangerous normalisation of suffering. 

Looking back today is not an exercise in nostalgia. It is an autopsy. Because, painfully, many of those fears were not exaggerated. If anything, they were conservative.

 Back then, Nigerians were exhausted by the Buhari years – the drift, the excuses, the insecurity, the economic paralysis, the endless waiting for competence to emerge from carefully polished propaganda. Citizens hoped that 2023 would offer a meaningful reset. Some prayed for competence. Others simply begged for relief.

Today, in 2026, the national mood is more complicated. The anger remains. The weariness has deepened. The hunger has become more democratic.

Nobody needs long economic grammar anymore to explain Nigeria’s condition. The market woman understands it. The commercial driver understands it. The fresh graduate understands it. Even the once-comfortable middle class now understands it with frightening intimacy.

When people who once debated investment portfolios are now discussing the price of garri with visible anxiety, you know the country has entered dangerous emotional territory.

In 2022, many Nigerians still carried fragments of optimism. The elections ahead looked like an opportunity to interrupt the cycle of recycled incompetence and entrenched entitlement. The youth appeared energised. Political conversations escaped beer parlours and invaded campuses, churches, salons, taxis and market stalls.

Then came the elections, the controversies, the courtroom dramas, the accusations, the explanations – and finally, the weary surrender that usually follows our political contests.

Nigeria moved on because Nigeria always moves on. But moving on is not the same thing as healing.

What has happened since then is the slow deepening of a dangerous national fatigue. Nigerians are no longer merely frustrated; many are emotionally exhausted. The country has stretched the patience of its citizens so aggressively that survival itself has become a profession.

The frightening thing is how quickly abnormality becomes culture here. We now celebrate things that should embarrass us. Citizens applaud uninterrupted electricity as though witnessing a scientific breakthrough. Stable fuel supply becomes breaking news. Bread prices rise so often that consumers no longer react with outrage – only resignation.

Everything has become “management”. People manage transport. Manage feeding. Manage rent. Manage healthcare. Manage hope. And perhaps that is the greatest tragedy of modern Nigeria: a nation blessed outrageously by nature but managed perpetually like an emergency ward.

The old middle class – once the emotional stabiliser of the country – is collapsing quietly. Salaried professionals now live from debit alert to debit alert. Families once planning holidays abroad are now debating whether to reduce the number of eggs in breakfast. Graduates with respectable jobs still depend on relatives to survive month-end pressures.

Yet official language remains curiously detached from lived reality. Citizens are told to be patient. To sacrifice. To endure reforms.

Fair enough. Serious economic restructuring is never painless. But leadership loses moral authority when sacrifice appears one-sided. Nigerians can endure hardship better than most nations; history proves that repeatedly. What citizens resent deeply is visible inequality in suffering.

The ordinary citizen is lectured about discipline while political office holders display extravagant comfort with theatrical confidence. Convoys multiply. Public luxuries expand. Government officials speak casually about figures capable of transforming entire communities.

And somehow, citizens are expected not to notice. But they notice. That is why trust has become Nigeria’s scarcest national resource.

People no longer automatically believe politicians, institutions, parties, agencies or promises. Every announcement is interrogated for hidden meanings. Every policy is analysed for who truly benefits. Every speech competes against years of accumulated disappointment.

This distrust did not emerge overnight. It was cultivated carefully across decades of broken promises, abandoned projects, selective justice, elite impunity and political theatre masquerading as governance. And insecurity continues feeding this national anxiety.

Four years ago, we worried about kidnappings, terrorism, separatist violence, communal clashes, and the frightening erosion of public confidence in state authority. Today, those fears have not disappeared. They have merely evolved and spread.

Entire communities now live under permanent tension. Farmers fear their farmlands. Travellers rehearse emergency phone calls before interstate journeys. Parents investigate school security before educational quality. Rural economies shrink under fear and displacement.

Meanwhile, many official responses still sound suspiciously bureaucratic – as though the country is reading press statements while citizens are reading obituaries.

No nation can achieve meaningful prosperity while insecurity becomes psychologically normalised. But perhaps the most dangerous consequence of prolonged hardship is emotional hardening.

People become numb. Compassion weakens. Outrage fades. Citizens begin adapting to conditions that should provoke collective resistance. That is how societies quietly decay from within.

Once upon a time, Nigerians mobilised passionately around national issues. Students marched. Labour unions paralysed governments. Intellectuals confronted dictatorships. Journalists risked detention. Civil society organisations inspired ideological engagement.

Today, survival has reduced many citizens to exhausted spectators of their own decline. Not because Nigerians are naturally apathetic – far from it. Rather, repeated disappointments have convinced many that outrage changes little. After every scandal comes another scandal. After every promise comes another explanation. After every “new beginning” comes another recycled disappointment.

And politicians understand this fatigue perfectly. That is why emotional manipulation remains one of the most successful strategies in Nigeria. When performance becomes difficult to defend, they deploy identity. Tribe. Religion. Region. Historical grievances.

Suddenly, elections stop being about competence and become spiritual warfare. The poor defend rich politicians simply because they share language or prayer patterns. And the elite smile quietly behind closed doors.

Yet beneath all the noise lies a simple truth many Nigerians now understand instinctively: this country desperately needs leadership with competence, courage, empathy and urgency. Not perfection. Not messiahs. Not miracle workers.

Just leadership genuinely interested in governance beyond election victories and power retention. Most importantly, Nigeria still needs leadership capable of restoring belief. Because nations do not survive merely on budgets and policies. They survive on collective faith – the belief that tomorrow can improve through honest effort and fair opportunity.

That faith is weakening dangerously in Nigeria. Young people increasingly view relocation not as ambition, but as escape. Families encourage children to “find a way out” with the urgency once reserved for emergency evacuations. That should trouble any serious leadership class.

  A country where hope becomes exportable eventually empties itself psychologically before it collapses economically. And still, despite everything, Nigerians continue enduring with astonishing resilience. Markets open every morning. Parents still sacrifice for their children. Small businesses improvise survival. Workers still report for duty.

  Perhaps resilience remains our greatest strength. Or perhaps it has become the excuse leadership relies upon too comfortably. Because the more Nigerians endure silently, the easier it becomes to confuse survival with progress. But survival is not development. Endurance is not governance. And suffering is not patriotism.