The Nation Newspaper

Author: The Nation

  • Where’s the list?

    Where’s the list?

    Five days after the promised publication date, Nigeria finds itself in a familiar yet troubling position. Thousands of candidates who sat for the Computer-Based Test (CBT) for positions within the Civil Defense, Correctional and Immigration Services Board remain in anxious limbo, their futures suspended in haughty bureaucratic silence. The board’s deafening muteness on the matter has sparked legitimate questions about what transpires behind closed doors when employment opportunities meet political influence in Africa’s most populous nation.

    What could possibly justify this delay? Is it mere administrative incompetence, the familiar Nigerian affliction of “go-slow” that has become our unofficial national anthem? Or are we witnessing something more sinister—a carefully orchestrated mop-up exercise where the children of the high and mighty are being slotted into positions supposedly earned through merit by ordinary Nigerians who lack the brass, connections, or godfather necessary to secure their rightful places?

    These questions naturally demand answers and in saner climes, heads would roll as apologies would flow but this is Nigeria! This pattern is distressingly familiar. Nigerian recruitment exercises have historically been fertile grounds for corruption, nepotism, and the subversion of meritocracy. The 2015 Central Bank of Nigeria recruitment stands as a monument to opacity in public service employment. That exercise was shrouded in such impenetrable secrecy that even Lavrenty Beria, Stalin’s ruthless spy chief who perfected the art of clandestine operations, would have nodded in grim appreciation. To this day, Nigerians cannot access comprehensive information about how candidates were selected, what criteria were employed, or whether merit genuinely triumphed over connection.

    Then we have the documented case of a serving minister who brazenly cornered employment slots for members of his community, with his own family members prominently featuring among the beneficiaries. This wasn’t whispered rumor or unfounded allegation—it was a scandal that played out in public view, yet consequences remained conspicuously absent. Such impunity sends a clear message: the rules exist for the powerless, while the powerful operate in a consequence-free zone.

    Even within the current recruitment exercise, troubling inconsistencies have emerged. Candidates who wrote the CBT examination on the first day reported seeing their scores immediately after completing the test—a transparent practice that should be standard procedure. However, by the second day, this feature had mysteriously disappeared. Candidates completing identical tests under identical conditions were suddenly denied immediate access to their results. The reason for this abrupt change? Your guess is as good as mine. But in a country where trust in public institutions hangs by a thread, such unexplained alterations inevitably feed suspicions of manipulation.

    Let us be clear: the elite have every right to see their children and wards employed in the nation’s public service. They are citizens too, and their offspring should not be automatically excluded from opportunities. However, as Napoleon Bonaparte wisely observed, such employment must be done “without the distinction of birth or fortune.” Merit must be the sovereign criterion. Competence, not connection, should determine who serves the public.

    When we consistently second only the candidates of the rich and powerful, we construct a nation where merit becomes a quaint abstraction, sacrificed on the altar of “who knows who.” We entrench a toxic value system where hard work is jettisoned for political alignment, where brilliance loses to belonging, where diligence is defeated by dynasty. This is not merely unfair—it is fundamentally destructive to national development.

    Consider the bitter irony: most of the powerful men now allegedly foisting their wards into these positions were not born with silver spoons. They clawed their way to prominence through determination, intelligence, and yes, often through systems that rewarded merit alongside connection. Had the system been as comprehensively skewed in their youth as it appears today, would these men have reached the zenith of their careers? Would they occupy the positions of influence they now leverage on behalf of their children, wards and even mistresses? The answer is almost certainly no. They are beneficiaries of whatever meritocratic elements existed in their time, yet they now actively undermine those same pathways for others.

    This represents not just hypocrisy but a fundamental betrayal of the social contract. It perpetuates inequality across generations, transforming temporary advantage into permanent privilege. It tells brilliant but connected Nigerian youth that their excellence matters less than their surnames, that their preparation pales beside their parents’ positions.

    The solution requires both immediate action and long-term reform. First, the authorities must release the recruitment list immediately, as originally promised. Transparency cannot be optional in public service employment. Second, the current administration must seriously consider introducing artificial intelligence technologies into the recruitment process for public servants. AI-driven systems, properly designed and monitored, can dramatically reduce human manipulation, eliminate bias, and ensure that merit genuinely determines outcomes.

    Read Also: Wanted: legislative action on state/council joint account provision

    A nation’s public service remains the pride of any nation—or should be. We cannot continue wondering why Nigeria remains mired in underdevelopment despite our abundant human and natural resources when we employ “tiwa tiwa” (my own), “nkeanyi” (our own), and “na we we” (it’s us) as primary criteria for public service employment. These ethnic and familial loyalties, elevated above competence can only guarantee mediocrity in governance and perpetuate the very dysfunctions we claim to deplore.

    The candidates waiting for this list represent Nigeria’s potential. Many have prepared for months, sacrificed limited resources for examination fees, traveled distances for the tests, and placed their hopes in a system that promises fairness. They deserve better than silence. They deserve better than suspicion. They deserve a transparent process where their efforts matter more than their lack of powerful connections.

    The ball sits firmly in the board’s court. Publish the list. Restore faith. Prove that merit can still triumph in Nigeria. The alternative—continued silence and eventual publication of a suspiciously amended list—will only confirm our worst fears about who truly governs this nation: not the elected, but the connected; not the qualified, but the well-placed.

    Nigeria deserves better. Our youth deserve better. Merit deserves its day.

  • Language activism (II)

    Language activism (II)

    Long after Charles Darwin completed his ground breaking work on the theory of the evolution of species, he kept it under wraps and for good reason. He clearly recognised the explosive nature of that theory and being a rather mild mannered and religious man, he was reluctant to cause a cataclysmic detonation and so, he sat on it. Later on however, he got the inspiration to publish his work because Alfred Wallace working on the other side of the world from Darwin had come to the same conclusion as he had and there was no longer any excuse to maintain radio silence on his seminal work. He went ahead and published his work and created a new intellectual world. The reverberations from that publication are still shaking the world of science with some people standing staunchly with Darwin and others no less implacably opposed to him. It is therefore expedient to point out at this stage that this article is really not about the theory of evolution. It is, however, a convenient starting point for this article about the aspect of language activism that I have been writing about.

    Most people have only a vague knowledge about the theory of evolution but virtually everyone with more than a modicum of education will confidently tell you about the law of the  survival of the fittest. This has been used to explain why some people have power, influence and extravagant wealth. They are supposed to hold that position because they have been found out to be the fittest of their kind and deserve to corner all the riches of the world. This thinking has also been used to justify racism and white supremacy. That may indeed be so but nobody has been able to provide any clinching argument to support this. Nobody has been able to do this for the simple reason that Darwin’s work does not lend any support to this contention. Nature in all its vastness does not care about fitness. What it cares about is adaptability. Nature is dynamic and is frequently undergoing fundamental changes and so fitness at any point in time may become a dire liability at the next moment. This is why, it is those that can be adapted to change that will survive and go on to proliferate within any given set of conditions. Mankind in total, has been able to demonstrate great adaptability which is why we have been able to colonise the globe in its entirety. As it is with our species, so it is with the languages we speak. Those languages which can be adapted to changing situations will survive and by the iron laws of nature those that are found wanting in this particular regard, will become extinct in the manner of any plant or animal that is caught in the web of changing environments. No new languages are being formed anywhere in the world at this time and it is clear that the number of languages spoken in the world will be reduced at an increasing rate leading to a corresponding decrease in language diversity thereby going across the grain of evolution. This is because our collective future can only be guaranteed by increasing diversity. To put things in proper perspective, the less diversity we have, the greater the possibility of a massive clear out of a species leading to extinction and that goes against the grain of nature. We encounter this not only in terms of language but also in terms of the foods we eat and the cultures that govern our existence. We must therefore be conservationists in respect of our respective languages. One of the ways that this can be achieved is through multilingualism. The ideal situation is that we should all speak at least three or four different languages, especially since as children, we can effortlessly pick up any number of languages, the only limit being that we would be able to speak only those languages spoken to us in infancy. Whilst it is true that this is desirable from a social point of view, it is also desirable from a purely personal point of view. Ongoing studies suggest that the ability to speak several different languages not only improves individual confidence but also has the capacity to protect the brain from dementia and other such conditions as old age sets in. For the overwhelming majority of educated Nigerians, this is good news as they have at least two languages in their locker. As things stand, they at least speak their local language as well as English.

    Read Also: Wanted: legislative action on state/council joint account provision

    Our ability to speak English is a fall out of our colonial past. In the nineteenth century as Europeans began their incursion into Africa, it was soon clear that the ability to speak the language of those interlopers was the source of a distinct advantage to those who could speak the newly grafted language. It made it possible for such people to be pulled into the orbit of the colonizers and in doing so becoming intermediaries between the colonizers and the indigenous peoples. At that time, the colonies were sorely dependent on commercial activities. They all provided a source of income and those intermediaries were able to create a profitable niche for themselves sometimes to the detriment of those on the other side of the language barrier. The situation has hardly changed since then and there are no signs of any impending change. On the other hand, many of those who have since gone through the educational system are determined to confer some advantage on their children by restricting them to the mastering of the English language in order for them to land elite jobs and propagate the method of recruitment into the upper classes.

    English is the official language of Nigeria as well as more than eighty countries in the world. This is because there was a time when more than a quarter of the world was under British colonial rule. That was a time when it was said that the sun never set on the British empire. Now that the sun has finally set on that empire in every sense of the world, the British have left their language as an unforgettable souvenir in all those countries and more because Rwanda and Burundi which were never colonised by the British have adopted English as their official language. In addition to all those countries which were once British colonies, the United States of America is an English speaking territory but even then it is worth remembering that the original states of the union were English colonies and as they expanded to cover fifty states, the English language also spread to cover all the states and so, of the two billion English speakers all over the world, close to 350 million of them are Americans and it may even be said that the continued influence of the English language is due to the cultural domination of the global space by American institutions. The world is kept entertained and acculturated by films made in Hollywood. The language of American technology which stands increasingly dominant is English and this technology is exploited the world over. We are all in the grip of social media and without a working knowledge of the English language, one is quickly left out of the loop and so, all over the world, people have English as their second language. For a lot of us therefore, having English as a second language as we do expedites the japa syndrome which gives us the valuable option of packing up and going away to another country. One is actually spoilt for choice as to where to relocate to. The one downside is that the situation we are in has become a threat to our local languages and the danger to language diversity all over the world looms increasingly large on the global horizon.

  • Basic right

    Basic right

    • The authorities must heed court ruling that free basic education is non-negotiable

    The Federal High Court, Lagos, ruled that the government, at all levels nationwide, is legally bound to provide free, compulsory and universal basic education to children of primary and junior secondary school age. Justice Daniel Osiagor held that under Section 11(2) of the Universal Basic Education (UBE) Act, all three tiers of government have a binding statutory duty to ensure basic education nationwide.

    According to the judge, the right to basic education conferred by the referenced statute is one that can be pressed for in the courts. He delivered his verdict in a suit filed by eminent human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate on Nigeria (SAN) Femi Falana, and rights activist Hauwa Mustapha, on behalf of a civil society coalition, Alliance on Surviving COVID-19 and Beyond (ASCAB).

    The matter was filed on January 19, 2024, and the judge gave judgment on October 9, this year. A certified true copy of the verdict dated November 14 was, however, not circulated in the media until the closing days of November. Respondents include the Attorney-General of the Federation, Attorneys-General of all the 36 states, the Minister of Education and his FCT counterpart, and the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC).

    Issues raised by the plaintiffs for the court to determine included whether the respondents were not under legal obligation to provide free, compulsory and universal basic education for every Nigerian child of primary and junior secondary school age; whether refusal or failure by the respondents to contribute not less than 50 percent of total cost as commitment to execution of free and compulsory basic education for every Nigerian child was not illegal and a violation of Section 11(2) of the UBE Act 2004; and whether the refusal or failure of the respondents to access the sum of N68bn available for universal basic education isn’t illegal.

    Among reliefs sought was an order directing attorneys-general of the 36 states and the FCT Minister to pay their counterpart funding to access the N68bn matching grant in the account of the Universal Basic Education Fund, and to report compliance within 30 days of the judgment of the court.

    In his verdict, Justice Osiagor held that all levels of government are legally required under Section 2(1) of the UBE Act to provide free, compulsory and universal basic education for every child of primary and junior secondary school age. The referenced provision stipulates: “Every Government in Nigeria shall provide free, compulsory and universal basic education for every child of primary and junior secondary school age.”

    Read Also: Wanted: legislative action on state/council joint account provision

    He, however, said while, by virtue of Section 11(2) of the UBE Act, governments at federal and state levels, including the FCT, are under obligation to provide free and compulsory basic education within their territories, the decision to access the federal matching grant or not remains discretionary. He also excused states from legal liability to provide 50 percent counterpart funding to access federal block grants. Failure to do so, according to him, did not automatically constitute a violation of the law. “I hold that Section 11(2) is directory and conditional, not mandatory, and that failure to access the federal block grant does not per se amount to illegality,” he said.

    The court further clarified that while governments are legally required to provide free basic education, states are not bound to access UBEC matching grants to do so. “The word ‘assistance’ connotes aid that a recipient may lawfully decline. States that choose not to access the federal grant are not in direct violation of Section 11(2), provided they independently fulfil their statutory obligation to provide basic education,” he stated. Still, he frowned on states leaving education funds unclaimed, noting that such practice undermines efforts to reduce Nigeria’s estimated 20 million out-of-school children.

    Addressing arguments by some states that the right to education as prescribed in Chapter II of the 1999 Federal Constitution (as amended) is a non-justiciable directive principle, the judge held that the right to basic education under the UBE Act is enforceable and justiciable. According to him, once parliament enacts a law imposing obligations, those obligations become legally binding regardless of general constitutional directives.

    Justice Osiagor gave his verdict against the backdrop of statistics showing that Nigeria has the highest number of out-of-school children in the world. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) recently reported that the figure for the country now stands at 18.3million children. “This places Nigeria at the top globally for the highest number of out-of-school children,” head of UNICEF’s Bauchi field office, Tushar Rane, was reported saying at a two-day regional stakeholders’ engagement on out-of-school children in Gombe. “Accordingly, while the court strongly deprecates the refusal of states to access available education funds, such refusal does not constitute a breach of law, unless it can be shown that the state has altogether failed to provide basic education, contrary to Section 2(1) of the Act and the Child’s Rights laws enacted in each state,” the judge said.

    The verdict is a welcome clarification of the obligation of the government, at all levels, for basic education of the Nigerian child. For too long, there has been utter neglect of this responsibility, with some government representatives arguing that the constitutional prescription is more of a moral responsibility that isn’t legally enforceable.

    Justice Osiagor’s verdict makes clear that there are grounds for legal enforcement. Relevant authorities should, therefore, know that their responsibility to provide free, compulsory, universal and quality education to the Nigerian child is far more binding than hitherto assumed.

    The pursuit of free and compulsory basic education as state policy in Nigeria dates back to the initiative in the Western Region in 1955 led by the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, that led to massive increase in school enrollment – from 456,600 children in 1954 to 811,432 in 1955. The initiative at the national level includes the Universal Primary Education (UPE) of 1976 and the Universal Basic Education (UBE) of 1999, though both fell far short of the education boom of the Awolowo years. In contemporary times, the policy has been a very lame provision of law and the Osiagor verdict may just help in giving it some teeth.

  • Tribute to General Hassan Usman Katsina

    Tribute to General Hassan Usman Katsina

    • By Alani Akinrinade

    I feel particularly humbled to pay this tribute to my former boss and predecessor as Chief of Army Staff at a very trying period in the post-independence history of this country, Major General Hassan Usman Katsina, OFR. Let us learn once again to pay homage to our departed heroes and accolades to those who gave their best so that this country may survive as one single entity. By the time he was recalled by his maker at the age of sixty two  thirty years ago in 1995, the phrase military patriot had almost become an oxymoron; a self-damning joke which could only be pronounced out of fear or fright, given the prevailing climate of the era.

    Yet in fact, General Katsina was both an illustrious patriot of the highest order and a distinguished military officer, well-liked and respected by both his seniors and subordinates. He was the nearest thing to what one can call a prince among soldiers and a soldier among princes. Born into the royal Katsina family and its famed Sullubawa caste, his father, Sir Usman Nagogo, ruled Katsina Emirate as the 48th emir from 1944 till 1981 while his grandfather, Muhammadu Dikko, reigned from 1906 till 1944.

    MD Yussuf, the former Inspector General of Police, was his uncle and Yesufu Bala Usman, the notable radical historian, was a cousin. Before joining the army, he had attended the prestigious Barewa College in Zaria and his military training culminated in admission to the elite Sandhurst military institution. There, he was preceded by military thoroughbreds such as Brigadier Zak Maimalari, General Yakubu Gowon and General David Akporode Ejoor.

      The qualities of aristocratic forbearance, charity and steely calmness under rapid fire, would stand him in good stead in the events of January 15th 1966 following the mutiny of some mid-ranking officers. Kaduna was the epicentre and engine-room of the insurrection.  As the Commanding Officer of the military formation in Kaduna, General Hassan was to find himself directly drawn into action as the pendulum and momentum swung that perilous morning.

      Following the report of some early morning gunfire around the residence of the premier, Ahmadu Bello, Katsina had sent two sentries, Corporal John Nanzip Shagaya and Sergeant Mohammed Danshoso, to find out what was going on. Their finding was as chilling as it was bloodcurdling. The Sardauna and his wife lay dead while somewhere nearby, Brigadier General Julius Ademulegun and his spouse had also been murdered.

    In what seemed like an eternity later, the man of the moment, Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, stormed the place and confronted his superior officer demanding to know where he stood in the unfolding nightmare. Trained to recognize imminent danger and also to remain calm and unruffled in the face of certain elimination, the then Major Katsina declared his support for the major. Nzeogwu was nervous and edgy and already had some shrapnel lodged in his neck as a result of earlier action at the Sardauna residence.

    Read Also: Wanted: legislative action on state/council joint account provision

    A few days after this encounter, Katsina, now appointed as the military governor of the entire northern region by the new head of state, Major General Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, watched in wary bemusement as Nzeogwu who had pledged his loyalty to the new military administration, was taken to Lagos accompanied by his friend and former instructor, Colonel Conrad Nwawo, who had negotiated the terms of his surrender with Ironsi. In the following months, Katsina used all of his clout and princely prestige to stem the rising tide of pogrom by an indignant and traumatized north as widespread rioting and looting spread through the region. The late general was also instrumental in fishing out officers of Southern origins and ferreting them to safety as the military appeared to have fractured along ethnic, regional and religious fault lines.

    There have been some murmuring allegations that General Katsina played both sides of the field and was far from being a honest broker. Suffice it to say that in the very difficult circumstances that the nation had found itself at that period, the late general did all he had to do to secure and retain the allegiance of his people without which he himself would have been a sitting duck. It was a tragedy without heroes, as a senior military officer of Igbo origins would later title his still unpublished memoir.

    As fate would have it, General Hassan Usman Katsina was the last governor of Northern Nigeria. As the Nigerian ship of state lurched perilously, it became obvious that something would have to give. Secession and civil war hung heavily in the air. After the Aburi Accord unraveled, it became obvious that nothing could keep the old Eastern Region within the framework of the old nation. In what many believed was a political masterstroke to hobble and hamstring the secessionist agenda of the east, General Yakubu Gowon restructured the nation into a twelve-state format on the eve of the civil war. The falcon could no longer hear the falconer. Following the tragic death of Colonel Joseph Akahan, the then Colonel Katsina was appointed as the new Chief of Army Staff.

    General Hassan Usman Katsina served the wartime army with distinction and calm authority. He was firm, just and unswerving in his commitment to upholding the territorial integrity of the nation. As army boss, General Katsina oversaw an ambitious rapid expansion programme of the armed forces, giving the military the strength and sinews it needed to overwhelm the Biafran enclave. He saw to it that serving officers and their men on the war-fronts were paid their entitlements promptly. After the civil war and in close collaboration with his superiors at the Supreme Headquarters, General Katsina pioneered a massive resettlement and retraining programme for armed forces personnel particularly those of them in need of rehabilitation and reorientation to civil life.

      After that, he left to attend Staff College and upon his return, he was appointed the Deputy Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarters . It was from here that his distinguished career concluded in July, 1975 following the ouster of the Gowon administration. In retirement, General Katsina was a model of rectitude, reticence and exemplary decorum. He refused to become a meddlesome interloper or a cantankerous contrarian, devoting his time and attention to cultural matters and the family sports of polo. His father was the life patron of the association and he himself was a long-serving chairman of the association. He left the army without any blemish on his character and with his sterling reputation for integrity intact. The Nigerian army has produced many illustrious generals but not many with the mettle and personal integrity of the prince from Katsina. May Allah continue to grant him eternal mercy.

    • Remarks made by General Alani Akinrinade as Special Guest at the Second Edition of the late General Hassan Usman Katsina Memorial Conference held in  Kaduna yesterday, 6th December, 2025.
    • Lieutenant General Alani Ipoola Akinrinade was Chief of Army Staff, 1979- 1981 and Chief of Defence Staff, 1981-1982.
  • Femi Fani-Kayode’s ambassadorial nomination

    Femi Fani-Kayode’s ambassadorial nomination

    President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s announcement of ambassadorial nominations on 29 November, 2025 have produced a harvest of words. A calm look at the overabundance of comments and criticisms on the nominations yields a very clear understanding of what is meant by the ‘Dunning-Kruger Effect’.

    According to psychologist Kendra Cherry, “the Dunning-Kruger effect is when people overestimate their skills because they don’t know enough to see their own lack of knowledge or ability.” Cherry illustrates the Dunning-Kruger Effect with the following commonplace dinner table situation at a holiday family gathering: “Throughout the meal, a member of your extended family spouts off on a topic at length, boldly proclaiming that they are correct and that everyone else’s opinion is stupid, uninformed, and just plain wrong. While it may be evident that this person has no idea what they are talking about, they prattle on, blithely oblivious to their ignorance.”

    Just like this prattling family member and seemingly oblivious of the Yoruba proverbial counsel that many words do not fill a basket, all manner of commentators or critics have spoken extensively and passionately about the ambassadorial nominations. One of the non-career names on the list who has received particularly negative attention is Chief Femi Fani-Kayode who is an articulate lawyer, a former spokesperson to former President Olusegun Obasanjo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and is also a former Minister of Aviation in the same administration.

    On 20 August, 2020, he called a Daily Trust journalist, Eyo Charles, “stupid” in Calabar, because the reporter asked him who was bankrolling his unofficial assessment tours of several southern state governments in Nigeria. Specifically, as the 26 August, 2020 issue of Daily Times Nigeria reported, Fani-Kayode responded: “What type of stupid question is that? Bankrolling who? Do you know who you are talking to? … What type of insulting question is that? Which bankroll? … Please don’t insult me here. … I could see from your face before you got here, how stupid you are … You have a small mind, very small mind. Don’t judge me by your own standards.”

    Fani-Kayode was further reported to have said to his audience: “I’m sorry, that was deeply insulting. I don’t often get annoyed in press conferences. I’ve been doing this kind of thing for very many, many years. … Bankroll who? … Don’t ever try that with me again o. Don’t, please. …  I have a very short fuse.” The former presidential spokesperson was widely condemned for this outburst.

    In response, in the same 26 August, 2020 issue of Daily Times Nigeria, Fani-Kayode was reported to have apologised as follows: “I met with my advisors till late last night and I wish to say the following. I hereby withdraw the word ‘stupid’ which I used in my encounter with a journalist in Calabar. I have many friends in the media whom I offended by losing my cool and using such words. I hereby express my regrets for doing so.”

    Considering the tendency by some Nigerians to see anything they believe to be wrong as peculiarly Nigerian and incapable of happening in ‘saner climes’, Fani-Kayode must have been in comfortable company, as shown in a 28 November, 2025 PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) News YouTube video titled “WATCH: ‘Are you stupid?’ Trump rebuffs reporter’s question on Afghan resettlement vetting.”

    In the video of a 27 November, 2025 interview, a CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System) reporter, Nancy Cordes, tried to deflect Trump’s castigation of the Joe Biden administration’s lack of vetting and checking of immigrants for allowing the entry into the United States of the Afghan man suspected of shooting two members of the United States National Guard on 26 November, 2025, in Washington, DC. Nancy Cordes noted: “Your DOJ IG [Department of Justice Inspector General] just reported this year that there was thorough vetting by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and by the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] of these Afghans who were brought into the U.S. So, why do you blame the Biden administration?”

    To this attempt to correct him, Trump interrupted her and said angrily: “Because they let them in. Are you stupid? Are you a stupid person? Because they came in on a plane along with thousands of other people that shouldn’t be here. And you’re just asking questions because you’re a stupid person.” The difference between the Fani-Kayode and Trump outbursts is that while the former Nigerian minister expressed regret and apologised for calling a journalist ‘stupid’, the American president showed no remorse.

    Read Also: Wanted: legislative action on state/council joint account provision

    Opponents of Fani-Kayode’s nomination as ambassador discountenance his apologies and his claim that “I don’t often get annoyed in press conferences. I’ve been doing this kind of thing for very many, many years.” They also disregard his politeness to the other members of his audience when he said, “I’m sorry, that was deeply insulting.” Moreover, they ignore his statement that he was withdrawing the offensive word to assuage the feelings of his media friends. In fact, his detractors argue unforgivingly that his reaction to the Daily Trust reporter was evidence of the fact that he did not possess the temperament suitable for the efficient performance of the duties of an ambassador.

    Those who are against Fani-Kayode’s nomination as an ambassador also refer to previous statements in which he had castigated Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu with respect to the nomination of Professor Yemi Osinbajo as vice-presidential candidate to then-candidate Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC). In one of those statements during the PDP campaigns for the presidential elections, Fani-Kayode was shown on video to have said: “Senator Tinubu … is desperate to be president for his own selfish reasons.”

    However, as the Director, New Media of the Tinubu-Shettima Presidential Council, Femi Fani-Kayode said about candidate Tinubu in a 7 January, 2023 YouTube video of a TVC news interview titled, “Tinubu has distinctive policies for Nigerians”: “He’s the only man that’s truly sincere about moving this country forward. He wants power for the people. He wants electricity to be generated throughout the country. He has distinct policies that he wants to establish.”

    Moreover, Fani-Kayode was accused of inconsistency for refuting the claim of exclusive ‘Christians genocide’ in Nigeria. To this, he said in a 4 October, 2025 article titled, “The fiction of Christian genocide and the conspiracy against Nigeria,” on his website femifanikayode.org: “A number of years ago I was amongst those that erroneously believed that only Christians were being targetted and subjected to genocide by the terrorists in Nigeria. This was the case until 2020 when I went on a tour of the North West and North East and discovered that as many, if not more, Muslims and Muslim communities had been targetted and subjected to mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide as the Christian ones in that area.”

    Fani-Kayode continued: “What I witnessed in Zamfara, Sokoto, Katsina, Kaduna, Yobe, Borno, Bauchi, Adamawa, Gombe and other parts of the majority Muslim core North shocked and shattered me and constrained me to accept the assertion that this was not an onslaught against Christians and Christian communities alone but rather an attack on Nigerians of every faith. … From the day I came to appreciate all this I took an oath before God and man that I would speak out against the atrocities being perpetuated against not just Christians but also Muslims. I also accepted the fact that to do anything other than that would not only be inherently intellectually dishonest but also would add to the problem and make it worse rather than solve it.”

    Incidentally, his new views about the non-existence of exclusive ‘Christian genocide’ in Nigeria align with those of the Benue State Governor Hyacinth Alia who is a Catholic priest, Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese Most Reverend Father Matthew Hassan Kukah, the Chairman of the Borno State Branch of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), and above all, the Federal Government of Nigeria. So, how does this agreement constitute a ground for disqualifying him as an ambassadorial nominee? Indeed, he has also written extensively and powerfully in support of Nigeria’s position on the Israeli carnage in Gaza.

    Regarding what is perceived as the inconsistency of Fani-Kayode, people seem to be judging him by standards harsher than the ones with which they judge themselves. In fact, who has not had cause to change their own position before? One common principle is that the only permanent thing in life is change. A related Yoruba musical proverb says: “T’órin bá ti yí, k’ílù yípadà” (‘Once the song changes, the accompanying drumming changes.’) Moreover, what is called inconsistency in some social contexts is called flexibility in politics. And in politics, flexibility is not a vice.

    In any case, who is to be preferred? One who had been a beneficiary of your generosity and large-heartedness in the past, had praised you to high heavens, and had told the whole world you were uniquely primed to be Nigeria’s president, but, when you strove for the high office, told the world how unsuitable you were for that office? Or one who worked for you to get to office, and then, due to impatience with the pace or nature of your reward system goes all out to bring you down? Or the person who first worked against you when you were striving to get to office, but who, in the midst of the struggle, had cause to change their views about you, and so supported your efforts during the campaigns and has gone the extra length to make you succeed in office?

    Should President Tinubu have thrown the baby away with the bath water? And should those now charged with screening Chief Femi Fani-Kayode for suitability as Nigeria’s ambassador discountenance his current value? One Rasheed Oniyangi, on Facebook, on 30 November, 2025, recalled this President Tinubu quote: “I plan for betrayal, I plan for backstabbing, I also plan for reunion and forgiveness long before they happen. In life, I expect nothing, I expect anything, I expect everything.” Why then do the critics of Fani-Kayode’s nomination take it upon themselves to cry more than the bereaved?

    In line with the principle that all actions shall be judged by intention, the opposition to Femi Fani-Kayode’s ambassadorial nomination raises a number of questions. Are the opponents of the nomination driven by goodwill to President Tinubu? Are they driven by ill-will and the desire to denude the president of the stout support this nominee has been giving him and the government? Are the opponents driven by the desire to penalise and discomfit the nominee for unabashedly supporting a president the detractors would rather see fail?

    Consider this 1 December, 2025 quote from “Deep Shallow Dive Podcast” on Facebook titled, “Hard Truth Time”: “Maybe it’s time we stop letting the loudest, angriest voices write the script.”

  • Steady hands in a restless season

    Steady hands in a restless season

    In a week when the nation trembled under the weight of coordinated attacks and cynical assaults on its peace, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu once again returned to the core of statecraft: security. The week unfolded not with noise or drama but with quiet, decisive movements, movements that revealed a President tightening the bolts of Nigeria’s security architecture with deliberate speed and unwavering focus.

    For a country still absorbing the shock of recent mass abductions in Kebbi, Kwara, Niger and other vulnerable corridors, last week became the clearest demonstration yet that the Commander-in-Chief is keeping steady hands on the nation’s wheel, restructuring from the top, energising the chain of command, and signalling unmistakably that the season of hesitation is over.

    On Monday evening, at about 7:03 p.m., former Chief of Defense Staff, General Christopher Gwabin Musa (rtd.), arrived at the State House for a closed-door meeting with the President. It was his first appearance at the Villa since his retirement in October. No official disclosed the agenda. No aide gave background hints. But to those who follow the pulse of national security, the timing and the personality involved suggested the beginning of something consequential.

    Tinubu does not summon a recently retired CDS at night unless the security calculus is shifting. And within hours of that quiet meeting, the shift became public: Minister of Defense Mohammed Badaru resigned, citing health reasons. The President accepted the resignation immediately, thanked him for his service, and signalled the imminence of a major reset in the nation’s security leadership.

    By Tuesday morning, the reset was fully in motion. The President forwarded the name of General Musa to the Senate as his choice for the new Minister of Defense. Within hours, on Wednesday, the Senate commenced screening and after about five hours, confirmation was complete. And on Thursday morning, the retired general was sworn in.

    A three-day transition, unprecedented in speed, signalled two things: that the President was moving with intention, and that the task of stabilising the nation’s defense architecture could no longer wait for the luxury of long bureaucratic rhythms. In a period defined by coordinated attacks and the abduction of schoolgirls and worshippers, delay had become a risk no responsible leader would take.

    President Tinubu captured the urgency in a brief message on X, thanking the Senate and emphasising that General Musa’s appointment came “at a critical juncture in our lives as a Nation.” And indeed, critical hardly begins to describe the complexity of the security challenges unfolding across multiple fronts.

    But if the Musa appointment was about leadership renewal, the President’s actions on Tuesday afternoon were about operational direction. In a meeting that lasted more than an hour, Tinubu sat with the nation’s service chiefs and heads of intelligence agencies, issuing fresh directives and demanding new approaches to strategy execution.

    Those in attendance included NSA Nuhu Ribadu; DSS DG Oluwatosin Ajayi; NIA DG Mohammed Mohammed; CDS General Olufemi Oluyede; Defence Intelligence chief Lt.-Gen. Emmanuel Undiadeye; the Army, Navy and Air Force chiefs.

    Read Also: Wanted: legislative action on state/council joint account provision

    The President’s instructions were clear: greater efficiency, stronger coordination, improved execution, and measurable results. With the yuletide fast approaching, a period criminal elements historically exploit, the Commander-in-Chief was insisting on tighter responses and smarter deployments. The meeting was also the latest in a chain of engagements following his earlier declaration of a nationwide security emergency.

    And yet, in the midst of firefighting, the President still found room to speak to the heart of the military institution. At the launch of the 2026 Armed Forces Remembrance Day emblem, he shifted the national conversation from fear to honour, from the anxiety of the moment to the duty owed to those who stand between the nation and chaos.

    The President reminded the nation that as insecurity mounts, the military continues to absorb the heaviest blows on behalf of ordinary citizens. “As a grateful nation, we must honour the fallen, support the wounded, and care for all who answered the call to serve,” he said.

    Even more significant was his admonition against divisive rhetoric. In a season of fear and suspicion, Tinubu insisted that Nigeria’s diversity remained a strength, not a fracture point. Unity, he reminded Nigerians, is not only a moral imperative but a security requirement.

    He highlighted ongoing reforms: enhanced allowances, upgraded barracks, strengthened healthcare systems, expansion of Defense Health Maintenance Services Limited, and the modernisation of pension verification processes. He pointed to operational gains: tens of thousands of insurgents surrendered, key terrorist leaders neutralised, and several captives freed. In the maritime domain, piracy and oil theft have been drastically curtailed, with new naval platforms deployed to secure the waterways.

    These are incremental but decisive steps in the larger project of rebuilding the nation’s internal defense shield, a project the President identifies as the “central pillar of the Renewed Hope Agenda”.

    Indeed, the events of last week revealed a President governing through turbulence with a steady hand. The overnight transition in defense leadership, the direct engagement with the security high command, and the reaffirmation of military morale at the Remembrance Day emblem launch all pointed to a leader refusing to surrender initiative to circumstances.

    A week that began with a silent 7 p.m. visit ended with a restructured Defense Ministry, a rebriefed security command, and a reaffirmed national commitment to unity, sacrifice and shared responsibility. There were no theatrics. No exaggerated promises. Just deliberate movements, step by step, towards restoring peace in a country that has long been buffeted by forces seeking to tear it apart.

    And perhaps that is the quiet lesson: sustainable security is not built on dramatic announcements but on a chain of actions, decisions and recalibrations, each reinforcing the next. Last week, Tinubu took several of those steps, binding them into a broader strategy aimed at securing the land and reassuring its people.

    Nigeria may be going through a restless season, but it is also in a season of reconstruction, one that requires firmness, patience, and clarity of purpose. For now, the President has shown that he is not simply responding to events; he is shaping them, pushing back against the tides, and holding the line for a safer nation. In moments like this, leadership is not measured by applause but by steadiness. And last week, the steadiness was unmistakable.

    If last week was dominated by the rapid recalibration of the nation’s security architecture, President Tinubu did not allow that singular priority to eclipse other pillars essential to keeping the ship of state on course. Even in a week defined by urgency in the defense sector, the President maintained his characteristic breadth of governance, moving decisively across institutions, economic planning, diplomacy, and national cohesion. The most consequential of these non-security actions emerged on Wednesday, when the Federal Executive Council approved the 2026–2028 Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and Fiscal Strategy Paper, a document that will shape Nigeria’s fiscal direction for the next three years.

    The approval, which came during a session presided over by the President, provided both a roadmap and a message. It signalled that while the administration battles insecurity with unrelenting focus, it has not taken its eyes off the structural economic reforms required to stabilise the nation’s finances and restore long-term prosperity. According to Ministers Atiku Bagudu and Wale Edun, who briefed after the meeting, the MTEF projects ₦50.7 trillion in revenue for 2026, anchored on improved non-oil earnings, stronger tax administration, and more disciplined public spending. The Council adopted an oil production benchmark of 2.06 million barrels per day and an oil price benchmark of $64 per barrel, alongside a projected exchange rate of ₦1,512 to the dollar.

    The President, the ministers revealed, welcomed the MTEF’s direction but insisted that the economy must grow at a faster pace to meet his administration’s ambitions. He directed MDAs to channel capital spending strictly into growth-enhancing and job-creating programmes, underlining his determination to extract real results from government investments. The Council also approved two important financing windows, an AfDB-backed $100 million fund for youth entrepreneurs and an Islamic Development Bank financing package for agricultural expansion in Yobe State.

    But governance last week did not begin on Wednesday. On Monday, President Tinubu celebrated Professor Jerry Gana at 80, describing him as one of Nigeria’s most enduring public servants whose contributions marked several eras of national development. The same day, he received Taraba Governor Agbu Kefas, his first visit since defecting to the APC, signalling continuing political realignments across the country.

    On Tuesday, the President hosted Governor Alex Otti, who was believed to have met him as part of ongoing efforts to secure the release of jailed leader of the proscribed IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu. Even as security agencies intensify operations nationwide, Tinubu has kept political dialogue open, reflecting his multi-track approach to national stability.

    Wednesday began with the swearing-in of five new Permanent Secretaries and the Chairman of the National Population Commission, Aminu Yusuf, ahead of the FEC meeting. The ceremony expanded the administrative backbone required to implement national policy efficiently.

    By Thursday, the President had shifted to diplomacy, receiving letters of credence from 21 new envoys and reaffirming Nigeria’s commitment to global peace, cooperation, and shared prosperity. The day also saw him pay tribute to two remarkable Nigerians; industrialist Samuel Adedoyin at 90 and nationalist Tanko Yakasai at 100, both reminders of the country’s deep reservoirs of service, sacrifice, and enterprise.

    The week closed with the President celebrating Senator Wole Fadeyi’s traditional title from the Ooni of Ife, inaugurating governing boards for NADF, BOA and UBEC, and holding a private meeting with Aliko Dangote, further evidence of a Presidency deeply engaged across sectors.

    Though dominated by security reforms, last week ultimately reflected the full breadth of Tinubu’s governance: stabilising the economy, strengthening institutions, deepening diplomacy, and celebrating national icons, all while confronting the country’s most pressing threats, President steering the ship on every front.

  • The twenty-first century public administrator in democratic context

    The twenty-first century public administrator in democratic context

    • By Tunji Olaopa

    The fundamental significance of the public administrator in the overall architecture of government is measured by her capacity to enhance the three functions of government—the policy management, regulatory and service delivery. The policy management function refers to the means by which the government manages the available resources through a process of policy choices that allow the government to achieve its set goals. Once a specific policy choice has been made, the government—in the recognition that the governance space must be expanded to allow for the participation of nonstate actors—needs to regulate the space through regulatory parameters to facilitate effective and efficient intervention by those who will assist in turning the policies into effective outcomes. With the service delivery function, the government concretize the policy management and the regulatory functions by delivering on its promises to the citizens. In other words, it is the service delivery function that culminates the dynamics of delivering public value, and how that leads to the transformation of infrastructural development.

    The public administrator or manager plays a very crucial role in the execution of the three functions of government. Indeed, the civil and public services stand in between the government and the citizens as the facilitator of infrastructural development and the dividends of democracy that is emblematic of the social contract the government has with the governed. And so, the status and the capacities wielded by the public administrator becomes very critical in the determination of the capacity readiness of the civil service as the key arm of government that makes policies work.

    From time immemorial, the public servant has been key in the determination of the qualitative success of the government of the day. And this is what has accounted for the changing roles of the public administrator over time. From ancient Pharaonic Egypt to modern Prussia, the task of the public administrator has become increasingly complicated given the increasing complex nature of the world, the policy environment and the world of work.  By the time Max Weber would be theorizing the nature of public administration, Prussia was already laying the political context for Weber’s theoretical formulation of the grounding of modern public administration and the understanding of the vocation of the public servants. The course of Germany’s political future in the nineteenth century was to be determined by the clash of personalities between Wilhelm II (the young and ambitious German Kaiser) and Otto von Bismarck, his more experienced chancellor. Their personalities intervened in their understanding of social policy and foreign policy, with both favoring incompatible approaches to the objectives of governments. In March 1890, the Kaiser asked for the resignation of Bismarck after series of political clashes.

    This significant confrontation between a king and his seasoned senior public servant was a key ingredient in the foundation of the dichotomies that have functioned in the moderation of the relationship between politicians and public administrators since the dawn of the nineteenth century. From Max Weber to Woodrow Wilson, the politics-administration dichotomy construes politics and administration as two different and separate endeavors that should not be allowed to interfere with each other. Indeed, both are diametrically opposed to each other. For Weber, “In terms of what he is really called upon to do (Beruf), the true official…should not engage in politics but should ‘administer’, and above all he should do so impartially.” On his own, Wilson insists: “The field of administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics… Administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices.”

    However, by the time we arrived France under Napoleon I, the administrative dynamics has become so hierarchical and complex that we inherited the concept of the bureaucracy from the French “bureau.” And the bureaucracy created a very strong and political administrative elite that exerted a significant influence on the political system. Administrative history across the globe therefore provides the trajectory by which we have made the transition from the apolitical, impartial and neutral public administrator to the politically aware, citizens-centered and democratically accountable one. The fundamental question I hope this piece will attend to is simple: what kind of public administrator is needed to man the civil and public service required to make democratic governance functional for the citizens in the twenty-first century? To clarify that question: how is the cherished values of public-spiritedness and professionalism to be guided against political conflicts? 

    There is the tendency to assume that a democratic context requires a more politically visible, active and accountable public administrator who is citizen-centered and dissolves the politics-administration dichotomy. However, the reality of governance and administration, especially in a complex context like postcolonial Nigeria, insists we reject such a quick and superficial answer. This tells us, first, that the politics-administration dichotomy cannot be taken as a universal axiom. This means that we need to give attention to the significance of administrative contexts in the mediation of the understanding of what the dichotomy should mean for the governance of any political regime. Second, the interpretation of the dichotomy also enables us to understand the dynamics of state-ness and its relationship to the civil service. State-ness here is not just a reference to state power, but also a set of institutions, structures, and institutional procedures and norms that represent a specific policy architecture the civil and public service are embedded in.

    Read Also: Ogijo lead poisoning: Senate raises alarm over silent public health crisis

    The key issue I need to engage in this piece is the extent to which public administrators and manager can afford to be politicized. To what extent can public servants sidestep their constitutional role to dabble into politics? As Woodrow Wilson noted emphatically, political questions are not administrative questions. When both are properly articulated and separated, the processes and act of governance is given a boost that leads to good governance. Indeed, Weber’s understanding of the dichotomy is founded not just on the distinction between the politicians and the administrators. The distinction itself is the function of how we understand politics. Weber insists: “Thus, [the public servant] should not do the very thing which politicians, both the leaders and their following, always and necessarily must do, which is to fight. Partisanship, fighting, passion…all this is the very element in which the politician, and above all the political leader, thrives.” The very nature of politics demands that the administrators stay out of the fray that will likely compromise her public-spiritedness and professionalism.

    It is this very attempt at preserving the professional capacity of the public servant that necessitates the need to prevent the politicization of the public servant. The apolitical bureaucrat is expected to be neutral, dutiful, impartial and professional even though the political space is impassioned and contested. And this is what enables an administrative continuity that undergirds political succession. Government come and go, but it is that solid space of administrative diligence, capacities and continuity that sustains the very business of government and governance. Once that space is compromised by the very status of the politicized public administrators and managers, then it is not just the dichotomy that is breached.

     It sends a signal to the politicians to tamper with the sacred vocation of public administration. In a most significant sense, breaching the politics-administration dichotomy activates an identity crisis. It calls to question the identity of a public servant, and her status within the governance space. The real point here is that the status of the politicized public servant is ambiguous, compared to the traditional roles and expertise she has been trained for, and which requires regular reskilling to meet current administrative and governance challenges. Within the political space, the public servant is asked to maneuver and exercise her discretionary acumen blindly.  

    The professional credentials of a public servant are founded on her capacity to maintain a strict neutrality that enhances her capacity to mediate policy formulation and design for any government. However, when politics intervenes, the public servant is confronted by a conflict between ideological and professional interests. And sometimes, the ideological would plausibly override the professional because it is inherently political. Here, professionalism coincides with the essence of being a public servant—the publicness of public service. In other words, publicness demands a level of accountability that derives from engagement with the citizens. And this is enabled by a professional dedication to an impartial deliberation on public values, social equity and policy intelligence. However, all these would be compromised once the public servants have to weigh their loyalty to the government as well as to the citizens. In all likelihood, politics almost always wins!

    Politicians are known for their pursuit of quick wins. This facilitates their constant attempt to store political capital. And this often stand in stark contrast to the policy objectives of the civil servants, among which is the deployment of technical expertise and policy intelligence towards concretizing long term governance and development matters. Political partisanship, without doubt, would involve not only the padding of the bureaucrat’s technical expertise, but also the compulsion to step down the expertise in favor of less informed opinions. And this ultimately compromises the responsibility the public servant owes the state and its citizens. Beyond the compromise of the technical expertise, there is also the deeper issue of the breach of public ethics. To ask a public servant to be brazenly political and partisan is to drag her into the murky realm of political matters that seems to abhor ethical ad moral consideration which underlies administrative dealings.

    And yet, a public servant must not just be traditionally defined by the imperatives of the politics-administration dynamics; she must also be found adequately qualified to handle the demands of democratic governance. In my view, a public servant must be able to balance the significance of her traditional vocational expertise with the necessities of administering and managing institutions in a VUCA—volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous—world. A public servant does not need the disruptive tendencies of politics to operate and deploy her expertise in a twenty-first century world already disrupted by many challenges from pandemics to political conflicts. Thus, a public administrator or manager needs to evolve in line with the demands of the time. Three such evolutionary phases have been identified. The first is the traditional rule-based Weberian bureaucrat. The second phase is that of the performance-oriented civil servant who embodies managerial tools, values and techniques in the pursuit of measurable productivity in business-like fashion. And lastly, there is the public manager as collaborator who manages a network of governance actors working together to facilitate infrastructural development and ultimately good governance. All three are not different and distinct, but usually morph into one another. All three would be undermined if the public servant ever strays into politics.

    All these do not require a civil or public servant to compromise on her professionalism, expertise and sense of neutral and impartial commitment. On the contrary, she is called upon, in the service of the political and policy mandates of the politicians, to keep sharpening her professional competences and credentials in order to be able to better deliver on her own constitutionally approved mandate of instilling the policy formulation and implementation responsibility with technical expertise and ethical soundness. Politics intrudes in this fundamental evolution of the public servant and compromises her capacity to genuinely deploy her evolving competences to serve democratic governance. Nigeria needs more of the impartial than the politicized public servant if her democratic governance project would ever be concretized.

    • Prof. Tunji Olaopa, Chairman, Federal Civil Service Commission & Professor of Public Administration, Abuja
  • Can Aregbesola-backed ADC break Osun’s two-horse race?

    Can Aregbesola-backed ADC break Osun’s two-horse race?

    Osun State moves closer to a key off-season election next August, where the African Democratic Congress (ADC) is likely to face its toughest challenge so far. The party, energised by ex-Governor Rauf Aregbesola’s return to local politics, is aiming for a real shot at impact this time around. Internal wranglings ahead of its primary make things tougher. However, Aregbesola’s strong support base, changing political loyalties, and questions about Governor Adeleke’s platform leave room for surprise. Can the ADC alter Osun’s usual two-horse race? By RAYMOND MORDI, Deputy Political Editor

    As Rauf Aregbesola entered the crowded hall in Osogbo for the launch of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) as the new opposition coalition platform, he received a rousing round of applause even before he reached the front. To his supporters, it seemed like a return after years away from Osun politics. His critics equally saw it as proof that his influence has not faded in Osun politics. Meanwhile, the ADC, a fringe party in Nigeria’s political arena until now, faces something new: showing it can compete in a high-stakes election within one of the nation’s toughest regions.

    Osun heads back to a decisive off-cycle governorship election next August, and this is already reshaping political alliances. With Aregbesola’s position as national secretary and his determination to give the ADC a foothold in Osun, the party sees an opportunity to present itself as a viable alternative to both the All Progressives Congress (APC) and whichever platform Governor Ademola Adeleke ultimately chooses. The significance stretches beyond Osun; if ADC performs well, it might alter power dynamics across the Southwest ahead of the 2027 general election. However, a weak performance could push the party back into obscurity.

    Right now, the focus is on the ADC primary scheduled to be held on Wednesday, December 10; a contest increasingly viewed as less about the aspirants and more about the weight of Aregbesola’s political machinery. 

    Aregbe, the centre of attraction:

    Aregbesola’s road back into Osun politics has been long and torturous. After serving two terms as governor and a minister at the federal level, his bitter disagreement with former Governor Gboyega Oyetola, once seen as his political heir, has undermined the APC’s internal cohesion. Plenty of insiders blame Aregbesola’s behind-the-scenes backing of Adeleke for Oyetola’s narrow defeat in the last election.

    “The governor won by a small margin. Without Aregbesola’s silent network, it would have been tighter,” says an APC chieftain in Osun Central. “He knows the grassroots and they know him.”

    Now that his role is official under the ADC, many see the next year’s election as a test of his power and political influence in the state. His influence was strengthened recently when the Ataoja of Osogbo, Oba Jimoh Oyetunji Olanipekun, Laroye II, publicly declared support for him and the ADC during a palace visit following the party’s constituency tour. “Wherever he goes, we shall follow,” the monarch said. “We’re behind him no matter where he moves,” the traditional ruler stated.

    The endorsement reverberated across Osun. Osogbo, with its two metropolitan local government areas, is often pivotal in determining Osun’s governorship outcomes. Several community groups, especially youth and women’s associations, have since quietly echoed the stance, describing the ADC as a rare alternative to what they consider a cycle of exhausted political options.

    Aspirants for the ADC ticket:

    The ADC primary may not have dominated national headlines, but folks in Osun are watching closely, mainly because the aspirants reflect the party’s attempt to balance loyalty to Aregbesola with broader statewide appeal.

    A source inside Osun ADC says there are many aspirants and that it includes a past commissioner from Osun East with deep grassroots ties; a retired technocrat without political baggage; a charismatic, well-funded diaspora aspirant; and a female contender backed by strong networks of women’s cooperatives.

    Nevertheless, only three aspirants are considered as frontline contenders. Dr Najeem Salaam, former Speaker of the Osun State House of Assembly, is widely believed to be the preferred choice. Multiple sources say he emerged “winner” of an informal attempt to pick a consensus candidate during a meeting of the party’s inner circle in Lagos, securing 11 votes to his rivals’ 3 and 1.

    Also in the race are Senator Adelere Adeyemi Oriolowo and Alhaji Moshood Adeoti, former Secretary to the State Government under Aregbesola. Adeoti was once considered the favourite until frustration over the consensus process led him to quit the ADC’s influential Omoluabi Progressives caucus. His resignation letter cited “family pressure” and a desire to step back from politics, but insiders attribute it to dissatisfaction with the internal decision-making.

    A senior party figure, speaking anonymously, offers a blunt explanation: “Salaam was the compromise. He is acceptable to most because he is considered the least disruptive. But nothing is final until the primary.”

    Despite the informal consensus, the party’s public communication remains deliberately vague. An official statement last week insisted that no candidate has been chosen and that Wednesday’s primary will determine the flag bearer. The guarded tone suggests the ADC is carefully navigating internal tensions as it approaches a decisive moment.

    The ADC’s baggage:

    The biggest challenge for the ADC is not the primary; it is persuading Osun voters that the party is prepared to govern.

    Its performance in the recent Anambra governorship election was dismal, though few in Osun view that as a serious liability. “Anambra was too early. They were not prepared,” says a journalist in the Southeast, describing the party’s poor showing as “the price of late entry.”

    Read Also: Wanted: legislative action on state/council joint account provision

    Even so, the ADC faces obstacles that could derail its momentum:

     Fragmented local structures

    Rapid expansion has left several wards with overlapping leadership claims. These disputes could suppress turnout at the primary and weaken mobilisation during the general campaign.

     Internal dissent

    Adeoti’s abrupt departure, despite being a founding pillar of Aregbesola’s Osun caucus, signals deeper frustrations. Losing a high-profile loyalist so close to the primary exposes the party’s fragile cohesion.

     Limited financing

    Compared to the APC and the platform Adeleke eventually chooses, the ADC’s war chest is modest. Leaders hope Aregbesola’s stature will attract new donors, but the funding gap remains significant.

     Inexperience with large-scale campaign operations

    Though the ADC has contested elections before, it has never run a major Southwest governorship effort. “A serious campaign requires discipline, messaging, data, and logistics,” says an independent consultant in Lagos. “They’re learning on the move.”

     Perception issues

    Some voters still see the ADC as a refuge for displaced politicians. A party insider concedes the point: “Yes, people join for different reasons — sometimes because they felt cheated elsewhere. That’s how parties grow. What matters is what we build now.”

    Other big players in the game:

    Over the years, the Osun political scene has been dominated by the APC and the PDP. Breaking that pattern will not be easy.

    The APC remains the most organised machine in the state, though internal wounds from the Oyetola–Aregbesola disagreement have not fully healed. Oyetola’s influence persists, and the party controls crucial local government structures. Yet with Aregbesola stepping back into the spotlight as a challenger, the situation has become more complicated. “The APC cannot ignore him,” says a senior member from Ife. “He knows where all the bones are buried.”

    A strong and widely-accepted APC candidate would make the party competitive. Nevertheless, this race appears more open for the party than the last one in 2022.

    Adeleke’s next political home is the election’s biggest question mark. His resignation from the platform that carried him to power has scrambled the coalition that once unified the anti-APC vote. Advisers say he is weighing his options, but the delay is unsettling supporters.

    “Adeleke’s grassroots energy is intact, but the platform is uncertain,” says a political scientist at Obafemi Awolowo University. “That creates an opening for the ADC.”

    If he joins a smaller party, the anti-APC vote could splinter. If he joins a larger one, he must rebuild alliances from scratch. Either path shapes the ADC’s chances.

    Can an Aregbe-backed ADC win?

    That  remains the big and unanswered question at the heart of the whole election drama. The ADC’s chances hinge on four factors:

    1. Aregbesola’s ground game

    He still commands loyalty across artisans, traders, youth groups, and religious circles. Many communities remember his social intervention programmes and his personal visibility in public spaces.

    “The thing with Aregbesola is people follow him, not the party,” says a former ward chairman in Ijesa North. “If he tells them the future is in the ADC, most will listen.”

    However, opponents are likely to revisit the controversies of his second term. Whether goodwill can transfer cleanly to a new platform is uncertain.

    2. Candidate acceptance

    Osun voters value personality as much as political machinery. A strong candidate could turn the race into a competitive three-way contest. A weak one could relegate the ADC to the margins and leave the field to the APC and Adeleke’s new platform.

    3. Unity of the anti-APC vote

    Adeleke’s win last time depended on a consolidated anti-APC bloc. If that coalition fractures, the ADC could attract frustrated supporters, especially younger voters searching for a fresh alternative.

    If Adeleke lands on a strong platform and reunifies his base, the ADC could be squeezed out.

    4. ADC’s internal discipline

    This remains the party’s Achilles heel. Any post-primary rupture, especially among influential blocs, could erode the momentum Aregbesola has built. Party elders say he recognises the danger.

    “He is hands-on. He is calling meetings. He knows division could kill us,” says an ADC youth leader in Osun West.

    A battle for survival, and relevance:

    A Lagos-based political strategist who has worked on multiple Southwest campaigns describes the ADC as “the disruptive force to watch.” Even if the party doesn’t win, he argues, it could reshape loyalties in ways that reverberate into 2027. “If the ADC performs well, it becomes a real player.”

    A senior journalist with a deep understanding of Osun politics strikes a similar note. “It is not a walkover. The ADC is new but not weak. The energy around Aregbesola is real.”

    But a political historian at the University of Ibadan offers a more restrained view: “Third forces often begin with promise but struggle to sustain momentum. The ADC must break that cycle. Osun voters respond to consistency.”

    Conclusion:

    The ADC enters the Osun race with a mix of hope, ambition, and strategic uncertainty. The party senses an opportunity created by lingering APC fatigue and Adeleke’s unsettled platform. Aregbesola brings visibility, structure, and grassroots reach, but not a guaranteed victory.

    As the primary approaches on Wednesday, one truth stands out: this election is about more than who governs Osun. It is a test of whether a party once dismissed as an afterthought can seize space in a political arena dominated by two giants, and whether a former governor still possesses enough influence to alter the political future of his home state.

    For now, the ADC stands at the edge of possibility, preparing for a contest that may redefine Osun’s political identity in the months ahead.

  • My take on Nnamdi Kanu – Ondo A-G, Ajulo

    My take on Nnamdi Kanu – Ondo A-G, Ajulo

    The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Ondo State, Dr Olukayode Ajulo (SAN), in this interview with Gbenga Aderanti, speaks on different issues, including the gale of defections into the All Progressives Congress (APC), the jailed leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, among others. Excerpts:

    How would you describe the recent appointments made by the President?

    I appreciate the complexity of the political dimensions surrounding this question, but I would like to focus on the legal aspects of it. We must adhere to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended. The President operates under the authority granted to him by the Nigerian electorate, which we call a mandate here, and his power to make appointments is outlined in Section 171 of the Constitution.

    Furthermore, the federal character principle in Section 14(3) mandates that appointments reflect the diversity of our nation. The list presented shows the states of origin of the nominees, and it’s evenly distributed among the states which indicates compliance with this constitutional requirement.

    The President’s constitutional duty is simply to nominate; the Senate, representing the Nigerian people in their various senatorial districts, retains the power of confirmation under Section 147(2). If the Senate finds a nominee unsuitable, they decline confirmation and the President may present another name. Legally speaking, therefore, the process followed is impeccable. One must commend the Attorney-General of the Federation and all those who assisted the President, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for the diligence applied.

    Some believe that some names should not have appeared on the list…

     This touches on political matters, which I prefer to steer clear of. However, if we must engage the logic of such concerns, we must also admit that virtually every Nigerian would wish to see his or her name on an ambassadorial list. Even you, in this interview, might find such an opportunity appealing. What truly matters is that those included are genuine citizens of Nigeria, many of whom have demonstrated a strong commitment and dedication to the nation’s progress.

    Take, for instance, Senator Jimoh Ibrahim, former aviation minister Femi Fani-Kayode, Aminu Dalhatu, Senator Folashade Bent, Ita Enang, Reno Omokri, Chukwu Okocha and others on the list. You may disagree with their politics, but you cannot deny their visible engagement with national issues and their passion for Nigeria’s development. From that standpoint, I believe they will serve the country well.

    Would it be true to say that the appointment is a preparation for the 2027 elections?

    Let’s approach this matter with the seriousness it deserves. For nearly two years, the country has been without a complete set of ambassadors, which is unusual for a nation that needs to actively engage in foreign relations and diplomacy. To receive the long-awaited list and quickly shift the focus to the 2027 elections feels, to me, like an unfortunate diminishment of an important constitutional process.

     It has become a daily thing for the opposition to cross into the APC. Would it be correct to say that Nigeria is moving towards a one-party state?

    Again, I will prefer to look at it strictly through a legal lens. The Nigerian Constitution does not permit a one-party state. Section 40 guarantees freedom of association, including the right to form or join political parties. Furthermore, the Electoral Act reinforces a multiparty system. So, structurally, legally, and constitutionally, Nigeria cannot become a one-party state.

    What you see is political realignment. PDP once had five governors defect during the former President Goodluck Jonathan era, as the incumbent President. It happens everywhere. People naturally gravitate toward where their political interests, ideals, or comfort lie. Even you would prefer to be where you feel secure and less stressed. That is politics. But it does not translate to Nigeria becoming a one-party state.

     What would you describe as the main attraction to the APC, most especially, when some are complaining about “hunger in the land”?

     The attraction is partly what I earlier described, political alignment and comfort. But let me address this talk about “hunger in the land.” Hunger is as old as humanity. From the beginning of human history, poverty and deprivation have existed. No government, no matter how powerful, can eliminate them completely. The role of a responsible government is to reduce poverty and mitigate hunger to the barest minimum.

    Section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution places the welfare of the people at the core of governance. That is the real measurement: not whether hunger exists, but to what extent the government is reducing it and whether the numbers are improving. It is about data, percentages, and measurable progress, not emotions.

     Would you say the government has done enough to cushion the effects of change in his policies, especially the removal of subsidy?

    Firstly, by removing the fuel subsidy, the government has freed up substantial fiscal space. The government has indeed taken broad and deliberate steps to cushion the impact of its major policy shifts, especially the removal of fuel subsidy. Beyond the immediate decision, the administration has tried to redirect the fiscal space created by the reform into programmes that directly touch citizens. Official disclosures indicate that over a trillion naira has been saved since the subsidy was removed, and these funds have been channelled into areas considered more productive for national growth. A significant portion of these resources has gone into palliative measures, with the federal government setting aside trillions for targeted interventions aimed at households, students, businesses and critical sectors of the economy.

    Read Also: Wanted: legislative action on state/council joint account provision

    One of the standout decisions is the introduction of the Student Loan Scheme under NELFUND, which is intended to ensure that economic pressure does not force young people out of school. At the same time, small businesses, artisans and informal sector operators have been given access to grants and single-digit interest credit facilities designed to help them stay afloat during the transition period. In the transport sector, the Presidential Compressed Natural Gas Initiative is being pushed to reduce dependence on petrol and diesel, lower transport costs and indirectly ease inflationary pressure on citizens.

    In agriculture, the federal government has made fresh investments to boost the production of staple crops and stabilise food supply. To support direct household relief, each state, including the FCT, received a palliative package to procure essential items for vulnerable families. Alongside these cushioning measures, the administration is undertaking broad fiscal and structural reforms that it says are necessary to stabilise the economy, curb waste, block leakages and redirect public resources to more impactful areas such as infrastructure, social welfare and education.

    These combined actions reflect the government’s intention to reduce the short-term hardship caused by subsidy removal, while also positioning the economy for long-term stability and growth.

    What are those positive things the removal of subsidy have done to an average Nigerian?

     Subsidy removal, though painful initially, has long-term national benefits. It has curbed massive leakages that enriched a few at the expense of the many. Funds previously squandered on opaque subsidy regimes are now being redirected into infrastructure, social investment programmes, education funding through the student loan scheme, and other tangible areas.

    It has also encouraged more realistic pricing, fostering competition and attracting investment into the energy sector. Over time, these reforms will lead to improved services, better energy availability, and a healthier economy—benefits that ultimately trickle down to the ordinary Nigerian.

    If you were to be the Attorney-General of the Federation, what would you be telling the federal government about Nnamdi Kanu’s case?

    First, I must commend the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, who incidentally is one of my mentors. I have learnt tremendously from him, and I continue to learn. He has provided sound legal guidance to the government.

    Regarding Nnamdi Kanu, the legal process has been followed meticulously. He was given every opportunity to defend himself. The court accorded him all his rights, adjourned when necessary, and ensured fairness. Even in convicting him, the court showed measured leniency. As a believer in the rule of law, I maintain that the law must take its course, even if heaven seems poised to fall. And as I often say, heaven will not fall, because we have the institutions, constitutional frameworks, and citizens—lawyers, press, and others, to hold it up from falling on us.

    Many have argued that we have agitations because federalism has taken power from the regions. What is your take on this?

    I have said this many times: I am yet to see any President who has silently but strategically restructured Nigeria as much as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is currently doing. His reforms represent a quiet, peaceful, and pragmatic restructuring.

    People will always agitate. Years ago, some demanded federalism; today others demand regionalism. This shows that human expectations are dynamic. What matters is that the current restructuring is systematic, balanced, and devoid of chaos. As a public official myself, I receive countless complaints, many real, some imagined, but governance requires wisdom, patience, and the ability to manage diverse expectations.

     What are those things that have changed since Governor Aiyedatiwa assumed office?

     Over a thousand things. If I begin with just the Ministry of Justice alone, one out of over a hundred MDAs in Ondo State, we would not be here today. However, let me say a few things.

    Across Ondo State, Governor Aiyedatiwa’s tenure has indeed witnessed significant, visible progress,  and nowhere is this more striking than in the transformation of the justice system under my leadership at the Ministry of Justice and the Judiciary.

    Early in the administration of Governor Aiyedatiwa, he flagged off the construction of a new, state-of-the-art High Court Complex (often referred to as the “Judiciary Village”) in Akure. That project, known as the Oluwarotimi Odunayo Akeredolu Judiciary Complex, is designed to include a ceremonial court, modular courtrooms, a registry, a modern library, exhibition buildings, a utility building, and ample parking facilities,  all intended to provide a befitting, modern working environment for judges, lawyers, court staff and litigants alike. This is the first time in the history of the state, since 1976, that such an ambitious infrastructure effort has been launched for the judiciary.

    Complementing that infrastructural investment, Aiyedatiwa signed into law a bill that expanded the number of judges in the state judiciary from 24 to 35, thereby boosting judicial manpower for the first time since the state’s creation. As a follow-up, six new High Court judges were sworn in under this administration, a rare large-scale induction meant to ease the burden on existing benches, accelerate case adjudication, and reduce delays in justice delivery.

    Beyond courts and judges, this administration has revived and invigorated community-level justice mechanisms: after more than 17 years of inactivity, the office of Justices of the Peace (JPs) was reactivated last week Friday with 130 individuals appointed from various walks of life and communities across the state. This move is aimed at strengthening grassroots justice delivery and enhancing access to justice at the local level.

    These reforms reflect more than cosmetic change; they show a commitment to decongesting the courts, reducing delays, and making justice more accessible. The combination of expanded manpower, modern facilities, and grassroots justice agents demonstrates a holistic approach to legal reform and social justice.

    Moreover, Governor Aiyedatiwa has taken bold steps in protecting property rights and tackling systemic injustices such as land grabbing. Under his watch, the state government inaugurated a robust Task Force on Property Protection and Anti-Land-Grabbing, of which I am the Chairman . Complementing that, the state legislature passed a comprehensive anti-land-grabbing law that imposes stiff penalties, including up to 21 years imprisonment for illegal resale of property without proper revocation, and 10 years for forceful entry or occupation. These legal reforms mark a serious commitment to protecting legitimate landowners and investors, restoring confidence in property rights in Ondo State.

    In addition, the administration has signified respect for the independence of the judiciary by working toward financial autonomy for the courts. Early in 2025, the governor established a committee to design modalities for granting the judiciary financial independence, a necessary step to ensure the courts operate without undue interference and with proper funding, enabling timely payment of judges and court staff, and reducing reliance on the executive for operational expenses.

    Taken together, these developments reveal that Governor Aiyedatiwa did not just resume office, he “hit the ground running,” translating lofty promises into actionable policies, legislation, and physical infrastructure. Through careful collaboration between the executive, the Ministry of Justice, the Judiciary and the Legislature, the foundations have been laid for a more efficient, fair, accessible, and trustworthy justice system in Ondo State.

     What would you say is the grouse of the wife of the ex-Governor Akeredolu against Governor Aiyedatiwa?

    With utmost respect, I decline to engage in that. The late Governor Oluwarotimi Odunayo Akeredolu (SAN), was a towering figure, a fearless leader, an exemplary lawyer, a former NBA President, a man of immense courage and principle. Governor Aiyedatiwa cherishes his memories deeply and has made it clear to all of us that we should never discuss matters concerning him, his era, or his family in a casual manner.

    As a well-trained Omoluabi, I believe it’s essential to approach discussions about the elderly with respect. Arabirin Akeredolu, being over 70, certainly deserves our regard. Additionally, some of her children are in the same age brackets as me. Let’s focus on fostering unity rather than engaging in imagined conflicts.

    As a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, how do you see how election cases are determined? Many have argued that the present system is faulty.

     Those who make such arguments do so in ignorance. Election petitions are sui generis, they are governed by strict statutes, not equitable doctrines. Election law is technical by design. Failure to fulfil Step A automatically disqualifies one from Step B. Even our political process itself is technical: you cannot contest an election unless you belong to a political party. Is that not a technicality?

    So when people say “discard technicality,” they misunderstand the foundation of election jurisprudence. The system is not faulty; it is what we collectively adopted to regulate elections. And since that has been what we all agreed upon, no one should complain about it.

    What do you think can be done for people to believe in the outcome of elections?

    Civic enlightenment is fundamental. Many Nigerians,  including some lawyers, do not fully understand the nature of election petitions or even basic civil procedure. This knowledge gap makes people vulnerable to sentiments, propaganda and deliberate misinformation. You often find individuals who sit through tribunal or appellate proceedings from start to finish, yet later go to the media to push narratives that contradict the very process they witnessed. When citizens do not understand what the law requires, how evidence is evaluated, or why certain decisions are made, they easily assume injustice where none exists.

    For people to trust election outcomes, there must be sustained public education on how elections are conducted, how results are collated, and how disputes are resolved. INEC, civil society, the media, and professional bodies must all play a role. Transparency in the process, timely communication, and correcting misinformation before it festers will also help rebuild public confidence. Ultimately, when people understand the process, they are more likely to accept the outcome, even when it does not favour their preferred candidate.

    Education is key.

    How would you describe the ongoing process in the PDP? Would the party be able to bounce back?

     I am not a member of the PDP and have never been. I do not know who their chairman or secretary is today. I have no interest in knowing. Let the PDP fix itself, or allow the dead to bury their dead.

     ADC is probably the main opposition party now. Do you see it making any impact in 2027?

    Ha! What is my concern with the ADC? If we were in court, and you asked me the above question. I would file a preliminary objection. It is not my business.

    Many believe that the judiciary is the problem in this country. When you hear things like this, how does it make you feel?

     I question the basis of that “many.” What is their number? Who conducted the survey? Assertions like this often rely on emotional exaggeration rather than facts. The truth is that the judiciary quietly transforms lives every single day in ways that never make headlines. For instance, when a poor farmer in Ondo State has his land restored after years of intimidation by land grabbers, he does not call the judiciary corrupt, he calls it his rescue. Our anti-land-grabbing reforms, which have enabled countless families to reclaim their ancestral property, rely entirely on the courts. These victories are real, measurable, and life-changing.

    It is just that the very poor people whom the judiciary has often defended do not have the financial strength or media access to tell their stories. On the other hand, the wealthy individuals who have also benefitted from judicial fairness usually prefer to remain silent and avoid public commentary. So the public rarely hears about these successes. As a result, only the loud voices of those who lost their cases dominate the narrative, creating a false impression about the judiciary’s work and integrity.

    Even a respected politician recently ccriticisedthe judiciary, and I reminded him, respectfully, that he is one of its greatest beneficiaries. His most significant political triumph was delivered not by party machinery or street mobilisation, but by the same judiciary he now disparages. It was the courts that affirmed his mandate, step by step, from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court. That is not the hallmark of a broken system; it is evidence of an institution that, despite its imperfections, still protects the rights of citizens.

    Public doubt often comes from isolated negative encounters, amplified by influential voices who speak from personal experience rather than holistic truth. But a single unpleasant story cannot define an entire arm of government. Just as we do not condemn all journalists because a few accept brown envelopes, we must not condemn the judiciary because a few judges stray from the path of honour. Having practised law for twenty-five years, through cases ranging from electoral disputes to high-profile constitutional matters, I have never paid a judge, and no judge has ever solicited such from me. I have encountered brilliant jurists who delivered courageous judgments even under intense political pressure.

    This is why blanket statements about a “corrupt judiciary” are not only inaccurate but dangerous. They erode public confidence, demoralise hardworking judges, and weaken the last hope of the common man. If we are truly committed to strengthening democracy, we must evaluate institutions with balance, nuance, and responsibility. Criticism is necessary, but it must be grounded in evidence, fairness, and a recognition of the many judges and judicial officers whose integrity has preserved the rule of law in moments when the nation stood on the brink.

    The judiciary in Nigeria is not perfect, but it is far from the caricature some paint. It remains the stabilising force that safeguards rights, resolves conflicts, and holds the powerful accountable. Our duty as citizens, leaders, journalists, and public commentators is to strengthen that institution, not weaken it with sweeping generalisations that ignore its many silent triumphs.

    What do you think usually informs controversial orders being issued by the courts?

    Each case has its peculiarities. Courts act based on the facts and law before them, not public opinion. However, I have no interest in discussing any matter related to the PDP. My position on that remains unchanged.

    Many people have faulted the selection of the INEC chair by Mr President… What are your thoughts?

    Let us be sincere. Who else should appoint the INEC Chairman? The President’s nomination is not unilateral. Names are suggested through various channels, the Council of State weighs in, the President makes the nomination, and the Senate, representing all Nigerians, confirms or rejects.

    Therefore, it is not a presidential appointment alone; it is a constitutional, multiparty, multi-institutional process. It is ultimately an appointment by the Nigerian people acting through their constitutional organs.

    Moreover, no democracy in the world leaves the appointment of an electoral umpire to chance or public voting. From the United States to India to South Africa, the executive and legislative arms play primary roles in selecting electoral commissioners. What matters most is the integrity of the individual appointed and the strength of the institutions that hold them accountable.

    If we strengthen transparency, ensure rigorous Senate scrutiny, and insist on individuals with clear professional pedigree and moral courage, the process will continue to serve the country well. The legitimacy of the INEC Chairman comes not from who nominates him, but from how faithfully he performs his duties once in office.

    How would you describe the decision of Mr. President to withdraw police officers from VIPs?

    It is an excellent decision. Security personnel should not be converted into private status symbols. However, certain persons, by virtue of the sensitivity of their office, you can’t remove police from our judges, the Attorneys General, DPP and all those prosecutors prosecuting those that have fall out of lines. The era of people with no official responsibilities converting police officers into personal ornaments should end.

    Beyond the waste of manpower, such misuse distorts the core mandate of the security agencies, which is to protect the state and its citizens, not to escort individuals who simply want to project influence. Reforms like this help redeploy officers to areas where they are genuinely needed, strengthen public safety, and restore professionalism to the security services.

    If we are serious about national security, then we must stop treating security operatives as accessories. They should be available for real policing, community protection, and critical national assignments. Decisions like this promote discipline, fairness, and a more efficient use of limited security resources.

    Do you plan to contest for elective office in the near future?

     Since I voluntarily resigned in 2015 as National Secretary of the Labour Party, I have never contemplated contesting any election. My resignation letter is there for anyone to read. My convictions have not changed.

    Considering the load of work on your desk, do you have any time for relaxation?

    My only indulgence is travel. I intentionally create at least three days each month to rest. I listen to music and play golf. I even keep a mobile golf set in my office. Wherever I work, there must be a piano and a mini golf kit. That is my relaxation.

  • Imisi returns to Ebute Metta in style after BBNaija win

    Imisi returns to Ebute Metta in style after BBNaija win

    Winner of Big Brother Naija Season 10, Imisi Ayanwale, will return to her hometown of Ebute Metta today, December 5, 2025, to a hero’s welcome.

    Ayanwale, who clinched the N150 million grand prize on October 5, 2025, has continued to dominate public attention since her victory.

    The 23-year-old actress is putting together a grand homecoming celebration and has invited several notable entertainment figures, including Bolaji Ogunmola, Wanni and Handi, Peller, Kolawole Ajeyemi, Spyro, Samuel Banks, DJ YK Mule, Cute Abiola, Kemity, as well as fellow housemates.

    She wrote on Instagram, “From the screens to the streets, I’m bringing the love right back where my journey began.

    “Ebute Metta, this homecoming is for every single person who believed in me. This is for all the dreamers”.

    Ayanwale’s win was marked by her authenticity, resilience, and strong connection with fans, securing 42.8% of the total votes.