The Nation Newspaper

Author: The Nation

  • Make Armed Forces Remembrance Day public holiday

    Make Armed Forces Remembrance Day public holiday

    • By Fisayo Ajala PhD

    Sir: January 15 is celebrated annually as Nigerian Armed Forces Remembrance and Celebration Day (AFRD). This day honours the supreme price paid by fallen heroes of the Nigerian military. It recognizes the sacrifices of serving soldiers and veterans who have fought under challenging climatic, psychological, social, and physical conditions to protect and defend the territorial integrity of the Nigerian state. The date also marks the end of hostilities between the Nigerian state and the secessionist Republic of Biafra, following the latter’s surrender on January 15, 1970.

    While the AFRD has gained symbolic recognition among members of the Nigerian military community and the public, the activities associated with it remain mostly military in nature: ceremonial parades, official wreath-laying ceremonies, and events held in military barracks. For the average Nigerian citizen, it is just another national day lacking deep reflection, appreciation, or symbolic significance.

    Designating the AFRD as a national public holiday could enhance national unity during this time of growing social mistrust, insecurity, and division. It also has the potential to boost civilian-military relations. This is especially important given the strained relationship between the Nigerian military and its citizens, evidenced by human rights abuses committed by the military, many of which have occurred not only during the current democratic era but also date back to the decades of military rule in the country.

    Although AFRD is often viewed primarily as a military event, the effects of Nigeria’s various low-intensity armed conflicts have also impacted civilian communities, whose safety depends on military efforts. This supports transforming AFRD into a shared national celebration that extends beyond the military and includes civilians, whom the military is meant to protect. Therefore, a public holiday like AFRD, similar to the October 1 Independence Day celebrations, can foster a sense of national ownership, belonging, and unity. It can also encourage private and civil society groups to organize commemorative events through partnerships with established military charities such as the Nigerian Legion, the Retired Army, Navy and Air Force Officers Association (RANAO), the Defence and Police Officers Associations (DEPOWA), various Officers Wives Associations (OWA), the Military Wives Association (MIWA), and other social groups dedicated to protecting their interests.

    Read Also: 5.36m electricity customers remain without meters– NERC

    Declaring the day a national holiday would promote public reflection and support for the sacrifices of Nigerian military families, including wives and children of serving officers and personnel, wives and caregivers of wounded soldiers and disabled veterans, widows of fallen heroes, veterans suffering from combat-related injuries, and other post-combat conditions. It would also inspire calls for greater accountability and transparency regarding the human costs of military operations and their effects on families and communities.

    A public holiday would also create an opportunity to draw more national attention to the needs of active soldiers and veterans, encourage policy discussions on veteran welfare and rehabilitation, and serve as a platform for fundraising and veteran-support initiatives, similar to practices in advanced militaries.

    Like other militaries with remembrance days, such as the United States (Veterans Day on November 11 and Memorial Day on the last Monday in May), the United Kingdom (Remembrance Sunday, observed annually on the second Sunday in November), and Ghana (Veterans Day on November 11), which all establish dedicated national holidays or nationwide observances to honour their fallen soldiers and veterans, Nigeria—with its history of civil war, a notable peacekeeping record, and ongoing internal security challenges—has even greater reason to do likewise.

    A national AFRD holiday would place Nigeria within this global tradition of respect and remembrance for its military.

    The AFRD deserves broader public and national celebration, beyond digital spaces and social media hashtags and posts, to extend further into civilian spaces and life across elementary, secondary, and tertiary institutions, government, religious and financial establishments, recreational and hospitality centres, and ultimately to the hearts of individual citizens instilling a shared sense of responsibility to honour and publicly commemorate the Armed Forces of Nigeria. The government should declare this day a national public holiday. This would serve to publicly celebrate the occasion, promote national appreciation for active soldiers and veterans, and honour the ultimate sacrifices made by fallen heroes defending the nation’s integrity and sovereignty.

    •Fisayo Ajala PhD,

    University of Bath, England.

  • Venezuela: It’s the oil, stupid!

    Venezuela: It’s the oil, stupid!

    United States President Donald Trump has for long fantasised about annexing northern neighbour, Canada, as his country’s 51st state. Now, he’s struck a better deal in the larger hemisphere with Venezuela. The Latino nation with vast oil reserves, estimated to be the world’s largest, is a conquered colony and its natural wealth is pledged to America’s pleasure. It is effectively the rule of might in a world presumed to run on international law espousing respect for mutual sovereignty.

    President Trump tore up the global rulebook with his country’s attack recently on Venezuela and the capture of its strongman, Nicolás Maduro, along with his wife, Cilia Flores, and their extradition to the US for trial. Maduro is accused by Trump of running “state sponsored gangs” and facilitating drug trafficking from his country into the US. The 63-year-old was early last week arraigned before a Manhattan judge on charges including “narco-terrorism” conspiracy, cocaine importation and weapons trafficking – allegations that he has long denied. But neither did Trump disguise his interest in taking control of Venezuela’s oil, and he has since the bombing of Caracas leveraged every occasion to claim that country’s oil resource. And he offers no apology for the brazen appropriation.

    It was not the first time the US was taking out another country’s leader for differences – genuine or orchestrated. But it was a first in flaunting might to take over other people’s natural wealth. Maduro’s capture came nearly four decades after US forces seized another indicted Latin American leader and one-time ally, Manuel Noriega of Panama. Noriega rose to power in 1983 on the heels of a plane crash that killed then junta leader, Omar Torrijos, and he was propped up by Washington with hundreds of thousands of dollars avowedly to fight drug trafficking. He was even said to be on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) payroll as an informant and he promoted US interest in Latin America – at some point acting as Washington’s liaison with Fidel Castro of Cuba.

    Read Also: 5.36m electricity customers remain without meters– NERC

    Noriega fell out of favor with Washington when he asserted his independence, and following allegations he was accepting bribes to allow drugs into the US in the late 1980s. Former President George H.W. Bush ordered US troops to invade Panama in late 1989, sending 24,000 troops to topple Noriega’s government. That operation resulted in the death of 23 American soldiers and left hundreds more injured. Noriega hid out in the Vatican embassy before surrendering to US authorities on 3rd January, 1990, upon which he was taken to the US to face drug trafficking charges. His fall marked the end of military dictatorship in Panama. He was convicted on drug trafficking charges and spent 20 years in American jail before being extradited to France in 2010 to serve a seven-year sentence for money laundering. Noriega was returned to Panama in 2011 to complete a 60-year sentence for offences imputed to the military’s three-decade rule in that country. He died of complications from a surgery to remove a benign brain tumor in 2017 at 83 years.

    Trump must have a sardonic sense of history, in that he ordered the capture of Maduro on 3rd January, 2026 – exactly 36 years from when Noriega surrendered to US forces. The Venezuela operation was reportedly delayed for many days owing to inclement weather conditions, though. Unlike the casualty-incurring Panama invasion, the Venezuela mission was clinical. In the two-hour-and-twenty-minute mission by air, land and sea that maximised the element of surprise, Maduro was seized from his safehouse and squirrelled off with his wife before Venezuelan authorities could make sense of decoy explosions and multiple US strikes that targeted the country’s air defence systems and other military targets.

    The American leader praised the operation as one of the “most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history.” According to him, only “a couple of guys” got injured on the US side with no service member killed. Meanwhile, Venezuela cited a heavy toll on its part. Venezuelan Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino said many in Maduro’s security team as well as “soldiers and innocent civilians” were killed in the US operation. Washington had previously offered a $50million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest. But by 04:20 local time on 3rd January, helicopters were leaving Venezuelan territory with Maduro and his wife in custody of the US Department of Justice en route to New York to face criminal charges. About an hour later, Trump broke the news to the world: “Maduro and his wife will soon face the full might of American justice,” he said.

    Only it’s not all about Maduro’s misdeeds, but rather about taking control of Venezuela’s oil reserves. And Trump didn’t even mask the intention. At one of his early press parleys following the invasion, he said the US would “run the country” until a leadership transition could take place, and that US oil firms would go into Venezuela. On the same day that Maduro was seized, Venezuelan supreme court ordered Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez to assume office as interim president during Maduro’s “temporary absence.” But Trump insisted the US will decide the country’s fate. He later said Rodríguez had offered her support to Washington, adding cryptically: “She really doesn’t have a choice.”

    In subsequent statements, the American leader said Venezuela would soon be turning over some 50million barrels of oil to the US. In a social media post, he stated that the oil being expected from Venezuela would be sold and the proceeds used for the benefit the people of Venezuela and the US. “I am pleased to announce that the interim authorities in Venezuela will be turning over between 30 and 50million barrels of high quality, sanctioned oil to the United States of America,” he said. “This oil will be sold at its market price and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States,” he added. On the heels of Rodríguez taking the oath as Venezuela’s interim president, he had warned: “If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.”

    Venezuela has millions of barrels of oil loaded on tankers and in storage tanks that it’s been unable to ship owing to a US blockade on exports imposed late last year. Now, Washington and Caracas have reached a deal to export up to $2billion worth of Venezuelan crude to the US – an indication that the Venezuelan government was responding to Trump’s demand that authorities there open up to US oil companies or risk expanded military action. The Trump administration, mid-last week, laid out bare-bones plan to take control of selling Venezuelan oil. “We are in the midst right now and in fact about to execute a deal to take all the oil,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday in Washington. Earlier in the day, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the US intended to maintain significant control over Venezuela’s oil industry, including overseeing the sale of the country’s production “indefinitely.” Venezuela’s state oil firm issued a statement same day confirming that negotiations were underway with the US, but stopped short of saying a deal was in place.

    Maduro wasn’t by any stretch a good leader of his country. But Trump was the quintessential aggressor in a world system handicapped from holding him in check. And so, it sucks to moralise the US military action the way United Kingdom Conservative Party leader with Nigerian roots, Kemi Badenoch, sought to do. Speaking on BBC Radio 4 Today programme last week, Badenoch described the American raid as morally justified and equated Maduro’s misrule to her own experience of military dictatorship while growing up in Nigeria.

    “Morally, yes,” the Tory leader responded when asked whether sending special forces to seize Maduro was right. “While the legal certainty is not yet clear, morally I do think it was the right thing to do,” she said. “Venezuela was a brutal regime. We didn’t even recognise it as a legitimate government. I think that what’s happened is quite extraordinary. But I understand why America has done it,” Badenoch explained. She linked her stance to her background, saying her views were shaped by lived experience. “I grew up under a military dictatorship [in Nigeria], so I know what it’s like to have someone like Maduro in charge. I know what it’s like to have people celebrating in the street. So I’m not condemning the US,” she said.

    Badenoch never tires of belittling the country of her ancestry, but she was wrong as ever. The attack on Venezuela had nothing to do with morality. It’s the oil, stupid!

    •Please join me on kayodeidowu.blogspot.be for conversation. 

  • Impact of the new CBN cash policy

    Impact of the new CBN cash policy

    • By Kelvin Gilberts

    In a major policy shift, the nation’s apex bank, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), introduced a new set of cash management rules. The policy took effect on January 1. 

    By the provisions of the policy, the old deposit limits and the frustrating deposit fees have been abolished in a move that makes it possible for bank customers to now deposit any amount of cash at no charge. This is actually a positive change that makes banking more convenient.

    In the same direction, the new policy sets a new cumulative weekly cash withdrawal limit of N500,000 for individuals and N5 million for businesses. Similarly, it demands that withdrawals above those limits would require the payment of excess withdrawal fees (three per cent for individuals, five per cent for businesses)

    The policy also places automated teller machine (ATM) withdrawals at N100,000 per day and N500,000 per week. In the same vein, third-party cheques above N100,000 can no longer be cashed over the counter though they can still be deposited into accounts. The CBN, in this new policy, requires banks to report all large withdrawals to it monthly

    Other provisions of the policy permit banks to keep 60 per cent of excess withdrawal fees, while CBN takes 40 per cent. The implication is that banks garner profit when customers exceed withdrawal limits.

    Also, only government accounts and microfinance institutions are exempt as previous exemptions for embassies, diplomatic missions, and aid donor agencies have been removed

    What this entails is that cash withdrawals are now more restricted, and withdrawing above the limits will cost more. However, deposits are now completely free.

    It must be understood that this is not the CBN’s first attempt to manage cash usage. The process has been on since 2011 as the apex bank continues to push for a cashless economy through various policies. This new circular, however, supersedes other previous policies and represents its most comprehensive effort yet.

    Read Also: Raising financial services standards with consumer awareness, protection

    The intention of the policy according to experts, are to reduce the cost of cash management (printing, transporting, and securing physical currency; address security concerns around large cash movements; reduce opportunities for money laundering and encourage adoption of digital payment systems.

    It is pertinent to stress that the CBN is not trying to eliminate cash, but it is deliberately making large cash transactions more expensive so as to shift behaviour toward digital alternatives.

    For those thinking of playing smart, the limit is cumulative. It doesn’t matter if one withdraws from multiple banks or multiple accounts. The CBN tracks withdrawals per individual across the banking system. The same goes for businesses (corporate accounts).

    By the provisions of the policy, ATM withdrawals have their own daily limit (N100,000 per day), but these withdrawals count toward one’s weekly N500,000 total.

    What this means is that if one withdraws N100,000 from an ATM every day for five days, one may have used one’s entire weekly limit. Any additional cash withdrawal that week, whether from an ATM, POS, or over the counter, will trigger the three per cent excess fee.

    The impact of this policy on bank service consumers is dependent on how much one relies on cash.

    What is obvious, however, going by the provisions of this policy, is that more people will depend on transfers and digital payments; ATM availability may feel tighter; charges can add up quickly if one relied on frequent cash withdrawals; small businesses that operate mostly in cash will need to adjust; planning becomes more important and large one-time expenses require planning.

    So far, the focus has been on restrictions even as a lot remains the same or actually may have improved: Among them include the reality that deposits are now completely free (previously there were deposit limits and fees); bank transfers remain free and unlimited – no restrictions on digital transfers; POS payments remain unaffected – paying merchants via POS doesn’t count toward withdrawal limits; online/mobile banking remains the same – bill payments, subscriptions, and digital transactions are unchanged and cash is still legal tender – you can use it for any transaction; you just face limits on withdrawing large amounts.

    Experts are positive that excess withdrawal fees of 3–5 per cent are avoidable if bank customers reduce reliance on physical cash while using bank transfers, POS, or online payments wherever possible; spread their cash withdrawals across weeks; use digital wallets or bank transfers for recurring expenses such as school fees, rent, subscriptions, utility bills, pay these digitally instead of withdrawing cash to pay them. Most schools, landlords, and service providers now accept transfers and keep emergency fund digital. Emergencies often force large, sudden withdrawals, which now attract fees. If your emergency fund is in a savings account or investment that allows quick transfers, you can move money digitally without hitting withdrawal limits.

    They also advise that suppliers and vendors be paid via transfer; consider splitting payment method. If one needs N1 million for a transaction, you might withdraw N500,000 (avoiding fees) and arrange a bank transfer for the remaining N500,000 just as they must understand that splitting across accounts doesn’t help. The CBN tracks withdrawals per individual across all banks. Withdrawing N300,000 from Bank A and N300,000 from Bank B in the same week still totals N600,000, triggering fees on the N100,000 excess.

    In the prevailing circumstance, it is advisable to deploy digital financial tools. It helps if one organised spending money digitally: Hold daily funds in digital wallets or savings accounts; plan big expenses; automate cash flow: schedule regular savings to avoid last-minute withdrawals; rely less on ATMs: Keep money accessible digitally without hitting withdrawal caps; build better habits: Nigeria is shifting toward digital finance; adapting early helps avoid inconveniencing charges.

    With this new policy, Nigerians have a lot to expect and hope for. For certain, CBN is not trying to ban cash. Cash remains legal tender and will continue to be available. However, the CBN is deliberately making large cash transactions more expensive to encourage digital payments, which are cheaper to manage, more transparent, and harder to use for money laundering. This is part of a global trend toward cashless economies

    Furthermore, cash will continue to be available, but controlled: Digital payments will keep growing: They’re the cheaper, easier alternative for most transactions; businesses and individuals who adjust early will avoid unnecessary fees: Those who resist change will pay thousands or even millions in excess withdrawal fees; financial planning will matter more than ever: Tools that help you manage money digitally will become essential: Whether it’s your bank’s mobile app, a digital wallet, or investment platforms, comfort with digital money management is no longer optional.

    Nigeria isn’t eliminating cash, but the direction is clear: using large amounts of cash will now come with limits and, often, extra costs.

    •Gilberts is a management consultant.

  • Wike/Basiru clash

    Wike/Basiru clash

    “From my records, he isn’t a member of the APC. I don’t see which authority or temerity he has to be dabbling into APC affairs. I am the head of the national secretariat of the APC. So, he has no locus whatsoever to engage me in any official activity that concerns the APC, until he joins the party”.

    These were the exact words with which the national secretary of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Ajibola Basiru reacted to scathing remarks against him by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FTC), Nyesom Wike. He had also asked Wike to resign from his ministerial position and face what he called, his obsession with Rivers politics.

    The altercation arose after Basiru led the National Working Committee (NWC) of the APC to Port Harcourt, Rivers State during which they interfaced with Governor Siminalayi Fubara. In the course of that visit, the NWC members had reportedly endorsed Fubara for a second term.

    Basiru equally cautioned the national vice chairman of the APC South-south, Victor Giadom for making derogatory remarks against the governor.  Giadom had reportedly said at a political function that “Gokana is a no-go-area for anybody, be it the so-called governor”.

    Basiru contended that it was wrong for anybody to hide under personal loyalty or political allegiance to denigrate a governor elected by the people. Giadom is said to be an ally of Wike.

    Wike in reaction to the NWC visit to Rivers State warned Basiru to steer clear of Rivers politics. He alluded to those who go to Rivers State because they heard the state has N600bn allocation and accused them of going to the state to collect money only to open their mouths to talk anyhow.

    “I say it here; take this message to your national secretary. Leave Rivers State alone. Go and ask those who have done it before. Please, don’t take our support for Mr. President for granted. You have to be careful with the statements you make”, Wike warned.

    In the statement which Basiru personally signed (from which the introductory quote was lifted), the APC national scribe took strong exceptions to Wike’s allusion that he is interested in the N600bn allocation to Rivers State even as he queried his competence to dabble into the affairs of the APC.

    Read Also: 5.36m electricity customers remain without meters– NERC

    The issues raised by the APC national secretary on Wike’s current political leaning, highlights all that is wrong with the brand of politics played in this country.  And in it can be located why it has been pretty difficult for significant progress to be recorded in deepening the democratic culture on these shores.

    Wike has been a key member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) until the last controversial national convention of the party held in Oyo State when he was expelled. Even then, the group he leads has formed a parallel faction. They floated a factional national caretaker committee of the party which went to court to challenge the Oyo State convention. Until the issues in their litigations are resolved, he still remains a member of the PDP.

    Since after his support for President Tinubu in the last presidential election, Wike had been embroiled in a running battle with some key leaders of the party for the soul of the PDP. He owes his current ministerial position to that support.

    But the way he carried on with his group of four other former PDP governors (before Makinde pulled out) has not gone down well with others who feel his agenda is to decapitate the leading opposition party. As things stand, the PDP is a ghost of its former self as most of its governors have defected to the ruling party. The Osun State governor has pitched his tent in another party for fear of disqualification in the face of the series litigations by opposing factions with Wike at the centre of it all.

    So, he remains a PDP member until the issues in court are resolved. As the crisis in the PDP raged on, some of its state assembly members in Rivers State defected to the ruling party. They were followed quickly by Fubara.

    It was sequel to these defections that Basiru led the APC NWC to Rivers State. The altercation between Wike and Basiru is a fallout of events of that visit.

    When Basiru said Wike is not a member of the APC and has no locus to engage him in the running of the party affairs, he was just highlighting the obvious contradictions in the current political posturing of the FCT minister. That role had before now given vent to allegations that the federal government has a hand in the crisis rocking the opposition parties and the slide to one-party system.

    That is not all. By asking Wike to resign from his ministerial position and face his obsession with Rivers politics, the APC appears to be coming to terms with the incongruity in Wike’s current political posturing. Yes, he can hold his ministerial position.

    But he cannot be the face of a troublesome faction in the PDP and at the same time seek to control the affairs of the APC government of Rivers State. Basiru was within his rights when he argued that Wike cannot challenge his job in the APC when he is yet to join the party. It is however curious that the APC is realising the duplicitous role of the FCT minister in the PDP in the last two years.

    Not a few Nigerians had viewed with utter suspicion and dismay the double role he has been playing in both the opposition PDP and the ruling APC government. That suspicion came to a head when a couple of weeks back, Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State and Wike were embroiled in serious altercations.

    The quarrel was sequel to the allegation by Makinde that Wike was attempting to weaken the PDP in support of President Tinubu’s second term ambition. He had alleged that Wike had during a meeting, openly offered to hold the PDP for the president ahead of the 2023 elections.

    But Wike quickly denied Makinde’s allegation describing it as a blatant lie. He said there was no such meeting. We are faced with Makinde’s words against that of Wike with no evidence to determine their veracity or lack of it.

    Even then, the body language and some utterances of the FCT minister have not helped matters. Not with recent unconfirmed reports that Wike is rooting for the former national secretary of the PDP, Samuel Anyanwu to fly the flag of the APC for the 2027 election in Imo State. Not with the impeachment notice to Fubara by the Rivers State House of Assembly last week.

    Wike’s politics in the PDP is responsible for suggestions that the federal government has a hand in the PDP crisis. His politics in Rivers conveys the unmistakable impression that one man determines the electoral swing of a state. That is the impression we get each time people say this or that local government area is no-go-area. It is no credit to our democracy that Wike postures to be of considerable influence in the APC and PDP. His altercation with Basiru exposes all that. It is time for him to take a stand or be compelled to do so.

  • Still on Nigeria’s re-designation as ‘country of particular concern’

    Still on Nigeria’s re-designation as ‘country of particular concern’

    • By Hafiz Bakare

    In October 2025, the re-designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) by the Trump administration sparked significant debate regarding its tone and intent.

    Nigeria and the United States subsequently found common ground to collaborate on the airstrike which took place on Christmas Day 2025. This collaboration was a direct result of diplomatic engagement that followed significant Nigerian and international reservations about President Donald Trump’s initial communication, which many saw as threatening and misinformed.

    The primary reservations regarding President Trump’s communication re-designating Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) on October 31, 2025, focused on its *inappropriate tone, selective framing of the security crisis as purely religious persecution, and a perceived threat to Nigerian sovereignty.

    The Nigerian government, led by President Bola Tinubu, strongly refuted the U.S. characterization that Christianity faced an “existential threat,” stating it did not reflect the country’s reality or values. Officials stressed that violence affected citizens of all faiths, including Muslims, and was tied to broader issues like terrorism, resource conflicts, and governance challenges.

    Read Also: Raising financial services standards with consumer awareness, protection

    Many Nigerians, including ethnic organizations and diplomats, viewed Trump’s subsequent threat of potential U.S. military intervention (“guns-a-blazing”) as an insult to national sovereignty and a dangerous oversimplification that could exacerbate sectarian tensions.

    Nigeria’s initial, more assertive diplomatic response was soon replaced with a toned-down version to de-escalate tensions, highlighting internal government deliberation on how to manage the diplomatic friction.

    Analysts and some U.S. lawmakers argued that framing Nigeria’s complex security landscape in narrow religious terms was counterproductive and detracted from the wider problem of tackling jihadist violence and widespread insecurity affecting everyone.

    Trump’s rhetoric, including threats to enter the country “guns-a-blazing” and instructions to the “Department of War” to prepare for action, was seen as inflammatory and a violation of diplomatic decorum.

    Some observers viewed the move as an attempt to appeal to Trump’s domestic religious base in the U.S. rather than a nuanced foreign policy effort.

    A visiting bipartisan delegation of U.S. Congress members later clarified that the CPC designation was intended to foster reforms through dialogue and partnership, not military force, dismissing any plans for U.S. troops on the ground.

    Experts urged the U.S. to use its leverage to pursue a broader, more nuanced approach to religious freedom that acknowledged Nigeria’s complex, multi-layered crises rather than a single-issue focus.

    The two countries did find common ground, leading to a collaborative operation. The U.S. airstrikes on December 25, 2025, targeting ISIS in Sokoto State, were conducted in coordination with and with the approval of Nigerian authorities.

    Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar confirmed that President Tinubu gave the “go ahead” for the operation after discussions with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and the Nigerian government officially described it as a “collaborative effort” and “precision strike operation”. Nigeria provided intelligence and strategic coordination, while U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) carried out the kinetic action at the request of the Nigerian government.

    While collaboration was confirmed, a slight divergence remained in the public framing. President Trump’s statements emphasized targeting those “persecuting Christians”, while Nigerian officials stressed the operation was about general counterterrorism and ensuring the safety of all innocent civilians, irrespective of religion.

    Yes, the initial reservations have been addressed to a reasonable extent through ongoing dialogue and practical security cooperation. The shift from Trump’s initial threats of unilateral military action to a coordinated operation with Nigerian consent indicates successful diplomatic de-escalation.

    Following a high-level meeting in Washington, D.C., in November 2025, both nations agreed to a non-binding cooperation framework and the creation of a Joint Working Group to unify their approach to counter-terrorism and civilian protection.

    Since late November 2025, the U.S. has conducted daily intelligence-gathering flights over Nigeria using contractor-operated aircraft to monitor militant movements and support Nigerian tactical operations.

    High-level engagement and bipartisan congressional visits have helped clarify the U.S. intent as partnership and capacity-building rather than “punishment” or “invasion”.

    The incident has spurred more concrete actions from the Nigerian government, including a declaration of a nationwide security emergency and planned recruitment of more police officers, demonstrating a commitment to addressing security concerns internally.

    In November 2025, Nigeria unveiled its National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) Strategic Plan 2025–2030, which prioritizes bilateral cooperation with the U.S. to enhance intelligence analysis and modernize Nigeria’s security architecture.

    However, a few Nigerians still have sovereignty concerns despite the collaboration while the fundamental disagreement over whether the violence constitutes “religious persecution” or “regional insecurity” persists, with the U.S. administration and Nigerian government continuing to use different language to describe the same conflict.

    Overall, both nations ultimately chose pragmatism, leveraging the moment of diplomatic tension to reinforce their shared interest in counterterrorism, ensuring the bilateral relationship remains a strong, albeit complicated, partnership.

    •Bakare is a consultant and a former bank chief executive.

  • BJ at 80

    BJ at 80

    It was a drama of an evening. It was more than a dinner for Professor Biodun Jeyifo. BJ, as he is fondly called, was marking his 80th birthday. He was not going to be generous to the man sitting next to him. Wole Soyinka, that is.

    He launched a barb at the bard. The memory travelled about 60 years ago. He charged that Soyinka only taught class twice in the full year, in the end, BJ was given a miserly B. Kunle Ajibade loomed from the sideline and tried to see the virtue of it all.

    If it was any consolation, Soyinka had invited him to abandon the English department and join him at dramatic arts. After a hesitation, BJ joined him and moved away from what Soyinka described as deadwoods.

    Read Also: 5.36m electricity customers remain without meters– NERC

    Soyinka defended himself as a teacher, going back to his father Essay, and how he has the teacher gene. If he was able to pummel him with a humilating B, Soyinka did two things. First, he made a case for BJ to make a first class.

    WS made a fervent plea for BJ and wondered whether there was any essay that could match the authority of his voice and the rigour of his perspective. Soyinka made the point and won the day for BJ and became third to make first class in the history of the premier university.

    BJ would make the point later that that he was himself not liberal with his marks. At a panel held earlier, I spoke of his generosity. In a last class, I recalled using the word antipodal. The class drowned me in an uproar and they thought I was a showoff.

    ‘I like that word,” said BJ.

    I was vindicated. Ajibade and Ogoga Ifowodo made the point that BJ was stingy with his marks. It was paradox that he would complain of being shortchanged. There was  a case of an essay written by  Femi Macaulay. He scored him A- there was no such category as A-. He called Macaulay to his office and contended that the piece was not an a and not  b+. he just would not let Macaulay be.

    After his querulous issues with Soyinka. BJ confessed that WS gave him a note that opened his career in the United States.

    Dr. Bisi Anyadike, who runs a  school at Ife gushes  about how BJ inspired her.

  • Was Section 233 (3) deleted from the amended 1999 Constitution?

    Was Section 233 (3) deleted from the amended 1999 Constitution?

    • By Sylva Ogwemoh

    It is no longer news, and neither is there any controversy that the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has altered the Constitution of the  Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (the Constitution) at least five times, starting with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (First Alteration) Act 2010 (First Alteration Act 2010).

    What is, however, news or has become controversial in the legal community in Nigeria is the supposed deletion of subsection 3 of section 233 of the Constitution in the first and second alterations of the Constitution.

    If the Constitution has indeed been altered by the deletion of subsection 3 of section 233 of the Constitution, the argument could be made as it is presently the case that the Supreme Court no longer possess the jurisdiction to entertain appeals from the Court of Appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact.

    This article, therefore, seeks to establish by evidence supported by the authentic versions of the Constitution that there was no alteration to section 233 of the Constitution that deleted subsection 3 of the Constitution.

    Introduction

    In the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (First Alteration) Act 2010, Section 233 of the Principal Act (the Constitution) was only altered in paragraph (e) under Section 24 of the First Alteration Act 2010, by – (a) Substituting for the word “or” after the word “President” in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), a comma, and (b) inserting immediately after the word “Vice-President” in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), the words “Governor or Deputy Governor”.

    By the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Second Alteration) Act 2010 (Second Alteration Act 2010), Section 233 of the Constitution was further amended by Section 6 which only altered Section 24 of the First Alteration Act 2010 by amending subsection 2 of Section 233 of the Constitution by the addition to the subsection, subsection 2 (iv), (v) and (vi) which deals with election to the office of the governor of a state or the deputy governor of a state, the term of office of the governor of a state or the deputy governor of a state and whether the office of the governor of a state or the deputy governor of a state has become vacant.

    Read Also: Raising financial services standards with consumer awareness, protection

    From the evidence available to the writer, there was no amendment by the deletion of subsection 3 of Section 233 of the Constitution by the Second Alteration Act 2010.

    Genesis of the controversy

    In Shittu v. P. A. N. Ltd. (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1642) 195 at 209-210, Honourable Justice Rhodes-Vivour J.S.C., in delivering the lead Judgment, struck out the appeal of the appellant upon a determination of the provisions of sections 233(2) and (3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that the appeal lacked merit for failure of the appellant to seek and obtain leave of either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court before commencing the appeal; the grounds of appeal being grounds of mixed law and fact.

    Honourable Justice Rhodes-Vivour J.S.C., who delivered the lead judgment, however, proceeded at pages 209-210, paras. H-B of his judgment to make the following remarks: “I must observe that there is now in existence the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as altered by the First, Second and Third Alterations Acts, 2010. By the alterations, there is no longer section 233(3) of the Constitution.

    That is to say, the Supreme Court can only hear appeals where the ground of appeal involves questions of law. See section 233(1) of the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction to hear appeals where the ground of appeal involves questions of mixed law and facts. Appeals on grounds of mixed law and facts end at the Court of Appeal.”

    In Amadi v. Wopara (2022) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1811) 359 at pages 370-372, the Supreme Court seized the opportunity to clarify the Court’s position in Shittu v. P.A.N. (supra), when the Court held that the observation made by Honourable Justice Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C., in Shittu v. P.A.N. Ltd. (supra) is, no doubt, an obiter dictum as the comment was made in passing, and therefore not binding on the Supreme Court.

    Given the decision of the Supreme Court in Amadi v. Wopara (supra), the controversy generated by the remarks of Honourable Justice Rhodes-Vivour J.S.C., in Shittu v. P.A.N. Ltd (supra) appeared to have been laid to rest until the case of Anyanwu v. Emmanuel (2025) 14 NWLR (Pt. 2006) 531 at 586-587, where my Lord, Honourable Justice Saulawa J.S.C., in his concurring judgment, again stirred up a hornets’ nest of legal controversy on the amendment of section 233 of the Constitution in the following words: “I аm not unmindful of the view point ехрrеssed by Augie J.S.C, in the recent case of Amadi v. Wopara (2021) LPELR-58286(SC); (2022) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1811) 359:… With utmost deference, the fact that by viгtue of the provision of section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Second Alteration) Act, 2010 (supra), the Supreme Court’s power regarding leave to argue ground of mixed law and facts has been removed from the Constitution, is no longer in doubt.

    In mу paramount view, it is tantamount to an impunity, thus, would not auger well for the courts may (sic) counsel to continue to act upon the provisions of subsection of section 233 of the 1999 Constitution that has since 2010, over onе and half decades ago, been deleted by, or substituted with an entirely new section 233 pursuant to section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Second Alteration) Аct, 2010.”

    From the above statement of my Lord, Honourable Justice Saulawa J.S.C., it is apparent that the basis for my Lord’s comment on the powers of the Supreme Court to continue to hear appeals on grounds of mixed law and fact is that section 6 of the Second Alteration Act 2010 substituted a new section 233 of the Constitution. However, it does appear, with the greatest respect, that there is now clear evidence that the Second Alteration Act 2010 did not alter section 233 by deleting subsection 3 from the section.

    Was Section 233(3) deleted?

    The answer to the question whether section 233(3) was deleted from the Constitution by section 6 of the Second Alteration Act 2010, ought to have come from the National Assembly, being the organ of government with the powers to make laws for the Federal Republic of Nigeria, but I am yet to come across an official statement from the National Assembly on the matter.

    Majority of opinions on the subject however seems to suggests that section 233(3) has been deleted from the Constitution while some other legal commentators have argued that the deletion is the result of an erratum (an error in printing or writing) in the course of printing the Constitution, thus suggesting on the other hand that there was no deletion of section 233(3) from the Constitution.

    The question, however, to be answered is whether an erratum can be said to occur in a document that did not emanate from the appropriate authority or which appears to be a product of unintelligent piracy or fakery. In the writer’s respectful view, this lingering controversy is needless, because a diligent search or enquiry from the appropriate authority would have revealed the clear provisions of the authentic version of the Constitution.

    Thus, the Forward by the former Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, CFR, to the authentic version of the Constitution is helpful in the circumstances. The former Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, CFR, who appears to have been aware of this needless controversy and in a bid to lay it to rest, prior to leaving office in 2015, circulated what he called “the authentic version of the 1999 Constitution with its 1st , 2nd and 3rd Alterations as passed by the National Assembly in 2010 and gazetted by the Federal Government Printer in 2011”.

    That version of the Constitution was printed by the Federal Government Printer, Lagos (the appropriate authority), and circulated by the Federal Ministry of Justice.

    In the Forward to the authentic version of the Constitution, the then Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, CFR, stated as follows and I quote: “In keeping with the constitutional responsibility of my Office as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation and mandate of the Federal Ministry of Justice to ensure that legislation in the public domain are comprehensive, certain and predictable, the imperativeness of producing for circulation the authentic version of the 1999 Constitution with its 1st, 2nd and 3rd Alterations as passed by the National Assembly in 2010 and gazetted by the Federal Government Printer in 2011 is of utmost importance and priority.

    “By virtue of section 22(1) of the Interpretation Act, CAP 123, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, where an enactment is amended by the insertion or omission of words or by the substitution of words for other words, then on printing the enactment at any time after the amendment takes effect, the person authorized to print the enactment shall, if so directed by the Attorney General of the Federation, print the enactment as so amended. I have therefore directed the Federal Government Printer to print the Constitution with the First, Second and Third Alterations.

    “In line with the provisions of section 22 (2) of the Interpretation Act (supra), the Federal Government Printer has included special side notes as indicators of the amendment and the enactment of which was made.

    “I therefore recommend this publication of the 1999 Constitution with its Alterations as passed by the National Assembly to date to all institutions, persons seeking to know the current constitutional provisions applicable in Nigeria and to the general public for use and appropriate guidance.”

    In the same vein, Abubakar Malami, SAN, who was the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation from 2015-2023, following the footsteps of his predecessor in office, and in an apparent move to settle the controversy surrounding the amendment of the Constitution, circulated an updated version of the Constitution with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Alterations and in his Forward to the authentic version of the Constitution, stated as follows: “In line with the constitutional responsibility of my Office as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation and the mandate of the Federal Ministry of Justice towards ensuring that legislations in the public domain are complete, certain, genuine and predictable.

    “Equally, the need to circulate to the members of the public the authentic version of the 1999 Constitution with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Alterations as passed by the National Assembly and duly Gazetted by the Federal Government Printing Press in 2011 and 2019 remains pivotal to my responsibility. I therefore consider the production of the 1999 Constitution with its Alterations as my utmost priority and responsibility as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation by making available the officially Gazetted 1999 Constitution with 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Alterations for the members of the public…

    “The rational for the production and circulation of the 1999 Constitution (with its Alterations) is borne out of the unpleasant development of the circulation of different fake versions of the 1999 Constitution (with Alterations) by some vendors without my seal of authority and approval leading to instances, whereby erroneous and misleading provisions are contained in some of the copies of the Constitution in circulation. In view of the above, I hereby recommend the publication of the 1999 Constitution (with its 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Alterations) as passed by the National Assembly by the Federal Ministry of Justice for the benefit of all institutions and persons seeking to know the current constitutional provisions applicable in Nigeria and to the general public for usage and appropriate guidance.”

    A reading of the authentic versions of the Constitution printed by the Federal Government Printer and circulated by the Federal Ministry of Justice under the guidance of both Attorneys-General would show that section 233(3) of the Constitution is intact and has not been deleted. The footnote in the section is with reference to subsection (2) of section 233, which was altered by section 6, Act No. 2, 2010. Section 6, Act No. 2, 2010, only altered section 24 of the First Alteration Act, which had only amended section 233(2) of the Principal Act in paragraph (e).

    In the amendments in the First and Second Alterations, subsection (3) of Section 233 of the Constitution remained untouched and intact because it was never amended or removed from the section, and this is why the subsection is till date part of the authentic versions of the Constitution circulated by the Federal Ministry of Justice on the authority of the Attorneys-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, CFR, and Abubakar Malami, SAN.

    Also, the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria Volume 3 updated to the 31st day of December 2010, and prepared under the authority of The Revised Edition (Laws of the Federation of Nigeria) Act 2004, by the Law Revision Committee under the Chairmanship of Honourable Mr. Justice E.A. Ayoola and published by LexisNexis (Pty) Ltd in 2011, has section 233 of the Constitution intact without any deletions of subsection 3 of section 233 of the Constitution or any subsections thereof.

    Conclusion

    If there is any document being referred to as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which does not carry subsection 3 of section 233, that document is not the authentic version of the Constitution printed by ‘The Federal Government Printer, Lagos’, and or such copy of the Constitution that has been printed on the authority of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation in such a manner as may be specified by his direction pursuant to his powers under section 22(1) of the Interpretation Act, Cap. 123, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

    · Ogwemoh, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is the Founder and Senior Partner of the Law Firm of KMO Legal and can be reached at info@kmo.legal

  • APC seeks more grassroots mobilisation at summit

    APC seeks more grassroots mobilisation at summit

    • Lawmaker gives N2.5m, others for e-registration

    Deputy Majority Leader of Lagos State House of Assembly, Adedamola Kasunmu, has called on leaders of All Progressives Congress in Ikeja Constituency II and Ojodu LCDA to intensify grassroots mobilisation and embrace the party’s electronic registration.

    Kasunmu spoke at the Appraisal and Sensitisation in Ojodu and Ikeja to motivate ward and council executives.

    It aims to strengthen party structure at ward and community levels and sensitise more on APC e-registration process.

    Kasunmu described the meeting as strategic. He noted that the gathering marked the beginning of an engagement process to strengthen APC structures in Ikeja Constituency II and Ojodu LCDA.

    He lauded federal lawmaker, Abiodun Faleke, for his support.

    Present are party leaders in Ojodu and Ikeja constituency II; Chair of APC Ojodu LCDA, Stella Kokumo; councillors; ward executives; Chair of APC Ikeja, Adekunle Dally-Adeokun; and others.

    Kasunmu said the e-registration is open to all, saying it is to digitalise membership, eliminate duplication and strengthen internal democracy.

    Read Also: 5.36m electricity customers remain without meters– NERC

    He provided four tablets and two printers to ensure seamless registration and N2.5 million for a smooth process.

    Kasunmu urged executives to mobilise members, sensitise residents and encourage youth participation.

    Kokumo hailed Kasunmu’s leadership and generosity.

    She appreciated the donations and appealed for further support to address challenges encountered in the process.

    Mrs Mabel Soremekun of Ojodu LCDA stressed the need for stable Internet connectivity, welfare for volunteers and improved logistics.

    Chair of Ikeja council, Akeem Dauda, said the gathering is to galvanise more members, urging executives to go to homes, markets and parks.

    He said market women, youths and unions must be engaged for wider participation.

    “Part of our stakeholders are women and youths, so it’s opportunity to go back to them now our party is doing e-registration, so more members can benefit from Renewed Hope”

    He donated N250,000 to each ward to encourage more mobilisation in Ikeja

    Dally-Adeokun said the meeting is on how to meet the target of more members on e-membership registration.

    “We all agree at the end of the meeting that we need to work harder and there is no problem. we are going to include weekends saturday and sunday inclusive to make sure we achieve this target,”he said.

    The session attracted top government and party functionaries, including the Executive Chairman of Ikeja Local Government, Hon. Akeem Dauda; the APC Chairman in Ikeja LGA, Alhaji Adekunle Dally-Adeokun; the party’s Vice Chairman, Prince Ranti Olufon; and other LGA executives.

    Councillors representing Ikeja Wards A, B, D and E, including the Leader of the House, Hon. Rasheed Ogunseye; his Deputy, Hon. Shakira Jinadu; Hon. Idris Salami; and Hon. Tunde Folami, were also present. Proceedings were anchored by the Ward A Chairman, Alhaji Saheed Ekundayo.

  • Vulnerable families in community get a lifeline

    Vulnerable families in community get a lifeline

    Everlasting Fountain Welfare Initiative has given relief to vulnerable households in Magboro community in Ogun State, reaching 120 elderly and low-income families with food support.

    Beneficiaries received food packs containing 3kg of garri, 2.5kg of rice, Mamador vegetable oil, Indomie instant noodles and seasoning

    The distribution was orderly and community-focused, with volunteers attending to beneficiaries, especially the elderly with care and dignity.

    Founder, Abiola Adeniyi, described the outreach as a response to the realities many Nigerians continue to face.

    “The transition to a new year has not reduced food insecurity. This is to ensure the elderly and vulnerable are not left behind,” she said.

    Adeniyi added that the programme also marked activities marking their second anniversary, noting that they have impacted 3,000 since inception.

    Read Also: Raising financial services standards with consumer awareness, protection

    “Our vision goes beyond emergency relief. We’ll provide a 500-capacity homeless support programme to give shelter and skills training to help beneficiaries be financially independent,” she said.

    She noted while Magboro covered 120 homes, the body plans to scale up. “Our work extends to Ogun and Lagos, and we’ll reach more communities with more money.”

    Woman Representative of Magboro Area Community Development Committee, Mrs Abdul Folashade, praised the organisation for its consistency and community impact.

    “This has become a source of support for us. The body has returned again this year, and that is laudable. We appreciate their concern for the elderly and vulnerable,” she said.

    One of the beneficiaries, Mrs Taiye Sekinat, expressed gratitude for the assistance, noting that the food items would provide immediate relief for her household.

    “This support will help my family for the next few days. We are very thankful and pray that God continues to bless everyone involved,” she said.

  • Firm boosts start ups ecosystems, supports emerging founders      

    Firm boosts start ups ecosystems, supports emerging founders      

    Interswitch, integrated payments and digital commerce firm, has sponsored the first Kano Startup Weekend: “Igniting Innovation & Empowering Entrepreneurs”, in Kano.

    Through mentorship sessions, networking forums, and active engagement during the startup pitch competition, the company provided practical insight, exposure to developer-friendly platforms, and guidance on building scalable digital businesses.

    Kano Startup Weekend 2025 is the flagship entrepreneurship and innovation event hosted by Kano State Information Technology Development Agency. Aligned with Kano State Digital Transformation Agenda (2025–2030), the event was to ignite Kano’s startup ecosystem, foster collaboration, and position the state as a leading hub for technology and innovation.

    It featured pitch presentations from startups in technology, education, agriculture, mobility, and digital services, complemented by expert-led sessions on product development, funding readiness, customer acquisition, and scaling strategies. These equipped founders with tools to refine their ideas while connecting with others capable of supporting their growth.

    Chief Information Officer of Interswitch, Patrick Okebu, stressed the strategic importance of supporting regional innovation ecosystems.

    Read Also: 5.36m electricity customers remain without meters– NERC

    “Kano Startup Weekend reflects the depth of entrepreneurial potential emerging from the North. At Interswitch, we recognise that innovation thrives when founders access right platforms, mentorship, and infrastructure’’, he said.

    Our support for this event aligns with our commitment to empowering startups with payment and digital commerce solutions that help them build confidently, scale sustainably, and compete effectively in today’s economy.”

    Beyond individual mentorship and the pitch sessions, KSW 2025 created opportunities for meaningful collaboration between the public sector, private organisations, investors, and the startup community, demonstrating how strong partnerships can accelerate innovation and drive inclusive economic growth.

    The success of the inaugural Kano Startup Weekend highlighted the growing momentum within Kano State’s technology ecosystem and the increasing role of strategic partnerships in driving inclusive innovation. Interswitch noted that initiatives such as KSW are critical to expanding economic opportunity, nurturing local talent, and strengthening Nigeria’s broader digital economy.

    Through its sponsorship and active participation, Interswitch contributed meaningfully to the success of the Kano Startup Weekend. The engagement reinforced the company’s position as a trusted partner to founders, developers, and innovation enablers across Nigeria and beyond while highlighting its commitment to supporting platforms that foster entrepreneurship, skills development, and regional collaboration.