The Nation Newspaper

Category: Columnists

  • Insecurity: President Tinubu recalibrates

    Insecurity: President Tinubu recalibrates

    The declaration forms part of the Tinubu administration’s broader effort to overhaul Nigeria’s security and criminal justice systems amid persistent challenges posed by banditry, insurgency, kidnapping and organised violent crime across several regions of the country”.

    Since he assumed power over two years ago, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s security strategy has involved a multi-pronged approach, including kinetic pressure through modernised military capability

    and intelligence-driven operations, as well as the much criticised

    non-kinetic measures like restoring governance in underserved communities, counter-radicalization programs, and economic stabilization initiatives.

    The administration has also emphasised inter-agency cooperation, technology-driven intelligence gathering, and community engagement.

    Unfortunately, these have not stemmed insecurity which some lazy Northern governors

    inflicted on Nigeria when, rather than provide education, good health care delivery and proper governance for their people a decade and half ago, hid under the Sharia, flee their state capitals and went to  live, mostly a lecherous life at Abuja, consuming both women and alcohol.

    READ ALSO: No place for terrorists, kidnappers in Kwara, says Abdulrazaq as forest guards end training

    Insecurity was further worsened in the country during President Muhammadu Buhari’s laizerfaire eight years when his seeming love affair with all manner of Islamic terrorist groups was so fervent Boko Haram could proudly nominate him as their representative in an interface with the Goodluck Jonathan government.

    Now Tinubu says no more.

    The President has  vowed to classify violence by armed groups as terrorism, allocating $3.7 billion to defence and security. The 2026 budget prioritizes security, with a N5.41 trillion allocation for defence and security.

    Tinubu’s approach to security is centered around discipline, enforcement, and accountability.

    He has abandoned euphemism, declaring that any armed group operating outside state authority will be regarded as terrorists.

    This doctrinal reset removes political, ethnic, or semantic cover from violent non-state actors, signaling to security agencies that ambiguity will no longer be an operational excuse.

    Details of the new order also include the following.

     Recruitment:

    50,000 new personnel to be recruited by the Police, with a 20,000 additional to the Army;

    Forest Guards Deployment:

    Trained guards to be deployed to flush out terrorists and bandits from all forests;

    State Policing: National Assembly to review laws to enable states to establish their own police force;

    Military Modernization: Procurement of advanced weaponry, surveillance systems, and force multipliers

    Community Engagement: Initiatives  to resolve herder-farmer conflicts and promote social investment.

    Not surprisingly, all manner of Northern characters , probably including terror financiers, have risen in opposition to this brave determination by the President.

    This is why I continue to commend the President for removing fuel subsidy, quite unexpectedly, on day one because had he wasted time, some enemies of state could have made it impossible and thereby turn Nigeria to another Venezuela.

    Further details of the President’s NEW ORDER are as follows:

    According to the President, “the new framework will end the practice of treating banditry, militancy and related crimes as isolated criminal activities.

    Instead, such acts will now fall squarely within the scope of terrorism, with harsher responses from the state”.

    “Under the new security architecture,  bandits, violent cults, militias, armed gangs, forest-based criminal groups and foreign-linked mercenaries would no longer be viewed as standalone criminal elements but as terrorist threats to national stability”.

    “We will usher in a new era of criminal justice. We will show no mercy to those who commit or support acts of terrorism, banditry, kidnapping for ransom and other violent crimes”.

    The President further explained that his administration was restructuring the nation’s security system around a new counterterrorism doctrine designed to improve coordination and effectiveness across security agencies.

    “Our administration, he said, is resetting the national security architecture and establishing a new national counterterrorism doctrine — a holistic redesign anchored on unified command, intelligence gathering, community stability, and counter-insurgency.

    This new doctrine will fundamentally change how we confront terrorism and other violent crimes.”

    He also indicated, very clearly, that the designation would apply broadly to all armed groups operating without state approval.

    “Under this new architecture, any armed group or gun-wielding non-state actors operating outside state authority will be regarded as terrorists”.

    “Bandits, militias, armed gangs, armed robbers, violent cults, forest-based armed groups and foreign-linked mercenaries will all be targeted”.

    “We will go after all those who perpetrate violence for political or sectarian ends, along with those who finance and facilitate their evil schemes.”

    The President also stressed that increased security spending under the 2026 budget would be tied to measurable outcomes, insisting that funding must translate into improved safety for Nigerians”.

    “We will invest in security with clear accountability for outcomes — because security spending must deliver results”.

    Concluding, the President added:

    “To secure our country, our priority will remain on increasing the fighting capability of our armed forces and other security agencies and boosting the effectiveness of our fight”.

    Let me conclude by wishing my loyal and incredible readers happy New Year in a much safer Nigeria.

  • Much ado about a bombing

    Much ado about a bombing

    The recent military strikes carried out by the United States against Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) terrorists in Tangaza, Sokoto State have generated considerable debate, with some quarters viewing the intervention through a distorted lens of suspicion rather than recognizing it for what it truly represents: a significant victory in Nigeria’s ongoing battle against terrorism. The operation, which decimated multiple terrorist camps, should be celebrated as a landmark moment in international cooperation against violent extremism that has plagued Nigeria for far too long.

    For years, ISWAP and its affiliated terrorist groups including bandits have unleashed unprecedented sorrow, tears, and blood upon innocent Nigerians. Communities across the Northeast and Northwest have been terrorized by these merchants of death who have shown no mercy to their victims—whether Christian or Muslim. They have burned villages, kidnapped people , even schoolchildren, displaced millions, and created a humanitarian crisis of staggering proportions.

    The unrestrained and unprovoked violence has disrupted agriculture, education, and commerce, leaving entire regions in perpetual fear. Against this backdrop of sustained brutality, the US airstrikes represent not an infringement on Nigerian sovereignty but rather a much-needed reinforcement in a battle that demands every available resource and capability.

    President Donald Trump and the United States deserve commendation for such decisive action and, perhaps more importantly, for the manner in which this operation was conducted.

    Rather than acting unilaterally—which would have been problematic—the Trump administration demonstrated respect for Nigerian sovereignty by fully coordinating with Nigerian authorities at the highest levels. Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar’s account of the coordination process reveals a textbook example of how such operations should be conducted: Nigerian intelligence formed the foundation of the strike, consultations occurred between the foreign ministers of both nations, and President Bola Tinubu personally authorized Nigerian participation before the operation proceeded.

    READ ALSO; 10 things to know about late actress Allwell Ademola

    This is not colonialism or imperialism, as some critics would have us believe. This is a partnership. This is the international community exercising its responsibility to protect populations from mass atrocities while simultaneously respecting the sovereignty of nations. Nigeria maintained full agency throughout the process—providing intelligence, granting permission, and participating actively in an operation on its own soil. The terrorists were eliminated, no innocent lives were reported lost, and Nigeria’s territorial integrity remained intact. This is precisely what win-win cooperation looks like in the 21st century.

    The United States, in carrying out this operation, fulfilled its obligations under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine—a principle that recognizes that sovereignty is not a license for governments to abandon their populations to mass atrocities, nor is it a barrier to the international community assisting when such threats emerge. Nigeria, for its part, demonstrated the maturity and pragmatism of a nation that recognizes its own limitations and is willing to accept assistance from capable partners. There is no shame in this; there is only wisdom.

    Moving forward, this operation should serve as a template for expanded cooperation between Nigeria and the United States. The fight against ISWAP, Boko Haram, and affiliated terrorist networks is far from over. These groups remain entrenched in multiple states, and their capacity for violence remains substantial. Nigeria needs more than occasional airstrikes—it needs sustained intelligence sharing, advanced surveillance equipment, tactical training, and yes, arms and ammunition that can match the firepower that these terrorists somehow continue to acquire.

    The United States should be urged to deepen its commitment to Nigeria’s security. Intelligence sharing should become routine rather than episodic. Nigerian security forces need access to advanced technology—drones, night-vision equipment, armored vehicles, and precision weaponry—that can tilt the balance decisively against the terrorists. The Nigerian military has shown courage and dedication, but courage alone cannot compensate for technological and logistical deficits. America has these resources, and providing them to a strategic partner in Africa’s most populous nation serves American interests as much as Nigerian ones.

    Yet, predictably, there are those who have chosen to criticize rather than celebrate this development. Among the most prominent of critics is the voluble purveyor of nonsense, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, whose posturing about American “unclean hands” makes one genuinely wonder whether the Islamic cleric is becoming senile or simply willfully blind to reality. Gumi’s suggestion that only nations with “clean hands” should conduct such operations is not only impractical but reveals a staggering ignorance of history that one would not expect from someone of his supposed learning.

    The sheikh’s implication that certain nations possess moral purity that qualifies them to combat terrorism while others do not is laughable when subjected to even cursory historical scrutiny. He mentions China, Turkey, and other nations as somehow preferable alternatives, apparently oblivious to their own extensive records of violence and oppression. China’s brutal occupation of Tibet, its intervention in Korea, and its ongoing persecution of Uighur Muslims are well-documented. Turkey, as the Ottoman Empire, perpetrated the Armenian genocide—one of the twentieth century’s most horrific mass atrocities—and its military operations in Cyprus resulted in substantial civilian casualties and displacement. Every major power has blood on its hands somewhere in history. Now, this is not to excuse American foreign policy mistakes nor misdeeds, but rather to point out that Gumi’s standard—if applied consistently—would disqualify literally every nation on earth from conducting counterterrorism operations. It is a standard designed not for practical application but for rhetorical grandstanding. One must ask: does Sheikh Gumi prefer that ISWAP terrorists continue their reign of terror unimpeded? Does he believe Nigeria should refuse all international assistance until it finds a nation that has never committed any historical wrong? Such a position is not principled; it is absurd.

    Equally risible is the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and its attempt to politicize this security intervention. The ADC should know that not everything is about partisan advantage. Not every development should be viewed through the narrow lens of domestic political competition. Nigeria and Nigerians—regardless of party affiliation, ethnic identity, or religious background—benefit when terrorists are eliminated. The question should not be whether the ruling party gets credit, but whether Nigerian lives are saved and national security is enhanced. The answer to that question is unambiguously yes.

    The ADC would do well to remember that terrorism recognizes no party lines. ISWAP nor bandits do not request party affiliation or voter registration cards before attacking communities. When terrorists are destroyed, all Nigerians are safer—whether they support APC, PDP, ADC, or Chop and Quench Party. To oppose effective counterterrorism operations because they might reflect well on the current administration is to place political calculation above national interest, and it is a position that deserves nothing but contempt.

    The US airstrikes in Sokoto State represent a significant achievement in Nigeria’s fight against terrorism. They demonstrate that international cooperation, when conducted with mutual respect and proper coordination, can deliver results that serve both partners’ interests. Rather than engaging in misplaced criticism or cynical politicization, Nigerians should recognize this operation for what it is: a down payment on the security and stability that our nation desperately needs. The path forward is clear—deeper cooperation, enhanced intelligence sharing, and sustained commitment to eliminating the terrorist threat. Much has been made of this bombing, but the real story is simple: terrorists were destroyed, Nigerian sovereignty was respected, and both nations are safer for it. That is worth celebrating, not criticizing.

    Happy New Year my dear readers, we go again in 2026, in our prime desire for a better, prosperous and progressive Nigeria.

  • Channels Television and the mosque bombing

    Channels Television and the mosque bombing

    In Southwestern Nigeria, which is the heartland of the Yoruba ethnic group, it was commonplace for families to be religiously heterogeneous and harmonious. In the circumstance, the husband could be a practising Muslim and the wife a practising Christian; a mother could be a practising Muslim and the father a practising Christian; and a father could be the adherent of an indigenous religion while the child could be a Christian or Muslim. This heterogeneity created conditions in which various religious festivities were jointly observed.

    This harmonious living was at its peak before the introduction of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in 1986 by the Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida military administration inspired by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as a means of restructuring the Nigerian economy to create sustainable economic growth and reduce poverty. Features of SAP included the reduction of government spending on social services (including education), trade liberalisation (which meant commodities could be imported into Nigeria without measures to protect the national economy) and the devaluation of the nation’s currency.

    These measures came with a sharp rise in inflation, reduction in purchasing power and a lot of economic hardship. In other words, SAP created the direct opposite of the advertised benefits of its adoption. To cope, some citizens had to embark on different kinds of activities. Some of these activities led to aggravated corruption. Some others saw an economic headway in establishing commercially-oriented religious centres, complete with business models and business ethics. This developing entrepreneurial religious culture came with rabid competition for members and the employment of strategies which were not particularly morally edifying.

    This led to intra-or-inter-religious conflicts in Southwest Nigeria, and remarkably undermined the religious harmony for which the region was reputed. As the saying goes, “If gold rusts, what shall iron do?” So, inter-religious conflicts, especially between adherents of Christianity and Islam, festered in the other less religiously harmonious regions of Nigeria, and it is widely acknowledged that the media played critical roles in such conflict or potential conflict situations.

    READ ALSO: No place for terrorists, kidnappers in Kwara, says Abdulrazaq as forest guards end training

    In the April 2006 pamphlet by Andrew Puddephatt titled Voices of war: Conflict and the role of the media – commissioned, edited and published by International Media Support – the phenomenon is described as follows: “Mass media often play a key role in today’s conflict. Basically, their role can take two different and opposed forms. Either the media take an active part in the conflict and have responsibility for increased violence, or stay independent and out of the conflict, thereby contributing to the resolution of conflict and alleviation of violence. Which role the media take in a given conflict, and in the phases before and after, depends on a complex set of factors, including the relationship the media have to actors in the conflict and the independence the media have to the power holders in society.”

    These views are relevant for Channels Television which is a privately-owned Nigerian media outfit with a Christian proprietor who is not known to be particularly close to the current leadership of the country. The views are also relevant for conflicts in, especially, Northern Nigeria, which some see as primarily motivated by contests for land, pure criminality and herders-farmers issues, but which some others see as primarily motivated by the desire to launch genocidal attacks against Christians in Nigeria. With time, probably aided by some sections of the media, the allegation of ‘Christian genocide’ gained resonance with some Christian politicians in the United States, and President Donald Trump declared Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern”. He also threatened to invade Nigeria in a war that would be “fast, vicious, and sweet”, to protect Nigerian Christians.

    The Nigerian government has countered the ‘Christian genocide’ narrative, and US and Nigerian officials have met with the Nigerian officials assuring their US counterparts that there is no genocide against Christians in the country. The meetings have also discussed strategies for combating the agents of insecurity who have been indiscriminate in their choice of targets and victims.

    In the same vein, in President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Christmas Day broadcast to the nation on 25 December, 2025, he said: “As your President, I remain committed to doing everything within my power to enshrine religious freedom in Nigeria and to protect all people of different faiths from violence. … Throughout the year, I have had the privilege of engaging with prominent leaders from the two major faiths in the country, particularly amid concerns about religious intolerance and insecurity. We will build on these conversations to strengthen collaboration between government and religious institutions, prevent conflict and promote peaceful coexistence.”

    It was in the context of these efforts to promote religious harmony that a mosque in Maiduguri was bombed during Maghrib (early evening) prayers on 24 December, 2025. The BBC’s headline of the report on the attack was “Bomb blast in packed Nigerian mosque kills five”; Al-Jazeerah’s was “Explosion rocks crowded mosque in Nigeria, killing at least five; Deutsche Welle (DW)’s was “Nigeria: Explosion rocks Borno mosque during evening prayers.”; The Cable’s was “Five worshippers killed, 35 injured as suicide bomber attacks mosque in Maiduguri”; The Guardian (Nigeria)’s was “Deadly explosion rips through Maiduguri mosque, at least 7 killed”; and Daily Trust’s was “Many feared killed as suicide bomber attacks Borno mosque.”

    However, Channels Television’s headline of the same event was “BREAKING: Many feared dead as bomb blast rocks Maiduguri on Christmas eve.” In a swift response to this misleading headline, an impassioned commentator on X, Boss kitty kitty @Aashfinn, on 24 December, 2025 wrote: “How are we supposed to be fighting terrorism when we’re also forced to fight stupid, bigoted Nigerian media that thrive on twisting facts to inflame religious tension? Terror has no religion, but manufacturing a Christian genocide narrative is sickening, irresponsible and dangerous.”

    Moreover, in a 25 December, 2025 release, the Executive Chairman of MPAC, Disu Kamor, said in part: “The Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC), Nigeria, strongly condemns the misleading, insensitive, and deeply troubling editorial decision by Channels Television in its reportage of the bombing of a mosque at a market in Maiduguri, Borno State. … Channels Television, in its caption and framing of the story, deliberately omitted any reference to the mosque and the Muslim identity of the victims, while introducing an entirely unrelated and inflammatory reference to ‘Christmas Eve.’ … Evidence shows that the report was initially published without any reference to Christmas, only for the phrase to be inserted later – clearly to drive engagement, provoke emotion, and potentially inflame religious tensions in an already fragile national context.”

    MPAC further stated: “This action raises serious concerns about intentional manipulation, institutional bias, and the weaponization of language in media reporting. MPAC notes with deep concern that this is not an isolated incident. Channels Television has, on multiple occasions, demonstrated intense hostility against Islam and a tendency to downplay, distort, or obscure stories involving Muslim victims, often erasing their religious identity while amplifying narratives that invite suspicion, fear, or hostility toward Islam and Muslims. When Muslim lives are lost, their identities are muted. When Muslim spaces are attacked, the spaces are unnamed. When Muslim pain is reported, politics is inserted. This is unacceptable in a plural, multi-religious society such as Nigeria.”

    As a Christian-oriented media outfit, Channels Television threw itself into the religious fray through blatant media bias, which according to Mediatheory.net, in a 2024 account, “refers to the systematic favouritism or prejudice present in the dissemination of information by news outlets. It can manifest in various forms, affecting the way news stories are framed, sources are selected, and also how language is employed.” In other words, as Provalisresearch.com rightly noted in 2025, “Media framing often manifests itself by the choice of some key words, key phrases and images that reinforce a particular representation of the reality and a specific emotion toward it, and the omission of other elements that could suggest a different perspective or trigger a different sentiment.”

    In a 23 May, 2025 article in Dextermanley.com, titled Editorial framing choices: How headlines shape public perception and drive engagement, Jessica Hughes noted: “Framing choices often manifest in headlines, where brevity meets persuasion. Compelling headlines utilize keywords to attract clicks, steering readership toward particular narratives.” Hughes also noted: “News outlets often reflect specific ideological perspectives through their editorial choices. Language selection influences audience perception, as certain terms can evoke particular emotional responses aligned with political views.”

    In a 23 March, 2025 article titled, How headlines shape public opinion and hide bias, Media Moogle noted: “[H]eadlines serve as gatekeepers of information, filtering what we consider worthy of our attention. They tend to highlight conflict, controversy, or novelty – elements that attract clicks and shares. This focus can distort the overall context, emphasizing sensational aspects while downplaying nuance or complexity. The result is a simplified version of reality that fits neatly into a headline, but may mislead or misrepresent the full story.”

    In this regard, the Channels Television’s misleading headline aptly exemplifies ‘confirmation bias’ which the platform, Catalogue of bias, defines as follows: “Confirmation bias occurs when an individual looks for and uses the information [gathered] to support their own ideas or beliefs. It also means that information not supporting their ideas or beliefs is disregarded. Confirmation bias often happens when we want certain ideas to be true. This leads individuals to stop gathering information when the retrieved evidence confirms their own viewpoints, which can lead to preconceived opinions (prejudices) that are not based on reason or factual knowledge. Individuals then pick out the bits of information that confirm their prejudices.”

    In a 26 December, 2025 sobering counsel on the Channels Television’s grand error of judgement, a commentator on TikTok, @mrabdulreacts, asked: “How can we heal our fragile unity when our own media fuels division?” He also noted: “Narratives can be more dangerous than bullets … A bomb may destroy a building in seconds, but misleading headlines can destroy trust for generations.” This note is critical when it is considered that a widely held position in media studies is that most people only read headlines, but also go ahead to share, widely, the often misleading and sensational headlines like the Channels Television’s Maiduguri bombing one.

    As Andrew Puddephatt suggested, as quoted earlier in this piece, an independent medium may decide, perversely though, to work at cross-purposes with the leadership of the society with respect to conflict. As President Tinubu was trying to encourage peace through his, usually pre-announced or pre-released, Christmas Day message, Channels Television appeared to be trying to exacerbate mutual religious suspicion and hostility. Did Channels Television decide to be pulling in the opposite direction as a counterforce to the government’s efforts to guarantee social cohesion in the country?

    Meanwhile, is level of religious bigotry a consideration in the awards Channels Television has been obtaining?

  • When the quiet weeks speak loudest

    When the quiet weeks speak loudest

    There are weeks in the life of a presidency when the noise is deafening, rallies, foreign trips, emergency meetings, declarations issued in quick succession. And then there are quieter weeks, when public appearances thin out and the headlines seem dominated by greetings, goodwill messages and courtesy visits. Last week fell firmly into the latter category for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Yet beneath the surface calm, the machinery of government was grinding steadily forward, translating ideas long articulated into systems now taking physical and institutional form.

    For those watching closely, the week offered a revealing snapshot of Tinubu’s administrative philosophy at work: define priorities early, design the architecture patiently, and then allow the state to move, sometimes noiselessly, towards execution. Security and social cohesion framed the President’s few public engagements, but what truly stood out was the acceleration of an automation agenda that has been central to his thinking since he assumed office.

    Tinubu has never hidden his belief that Nigeria’s most stubborn governance problems, leakages, inefficiency, opaque processes, are sustained by manual systems that reward discretion and obscure accountability. Long before his inauguration, he had argued that data, technology and transparent workflows were the surest antidotes to corruption. That conviction, tested during his years in Lagos, is now being scaled nationally.

    Last week, the federal civil service crossed an important threshold. The Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation formally went live on the 1-Government Cloud Enterprise Content Management System, a move that signals more than just another ICT launch. Under the supervision of George Akume, the SGF’s office, Nigeria’s policy coordination nerve centre, has begun transitioning from paper-laden processes to a digital environment where records, approvals and inter-ministerial communications are traceable, time-bound and auditable.

    The symbolism is hard to miss. If the office that manages Federal Executive Council business and harmonises government actions can function digitally, excuses for analogue inertia elsewhere thin out rapidly. Backed by the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Esther Walson-Jack, the move aligns squarely with the Federal Civil Service Strategy and Implementation Plan, which targets a paperless bureaucracy by the end of 2025. This is Tinubu’s doctrine in motion: reform not as rhetoric, but as system design.

    READ ALSO; 10 things to know about late actress Allwell Ademola

    The same logic surfaced in the management of public finance. The circular issued by the Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, warning Ministries, Departments and Agencies that failure to render statements of accounts would result in suspended funding, fits neatly into the automation narrative. Financial discipline, in this context, is no longer a moral appeal but a technical enforcement mechanism. Upload your data, reconcile your numbers, or the system locks you out.

    By insisting that revenue reports and operating surpluses be captured on the Government Integrated Financial Management Information System, the administration is shrinking the space for creative accounting. Over time, the effect is cumulative: fewer ghost figures, clearer fiscal visibility, and a treasury that knows, in near real time, what it has and what it is owed. Tinubu’s preference is evident: rules embedded in platforms are harder to bend than circulars filed away in drawers.

    Even Nigeria’s most politically sensitive sector is not exempt. The Ministry of Petroleum Resources’ move towards full automation and paperless operations last week marked a significant departure from decades of opaque workflows. For a sector that has long symbolised discretion, delay and rent-seeking, the embrace of enterprise content management is a quiet but consequential shift. With digital approvals and secure electronic correspondence, the petroleum ministry is being nudged, firmly, into the same accountability framework as the rest of government.

    To be sure, automation alone does not solve governance. But Tinubu’s strategy is cumulative: technology to narrow discretion, enforcement to compel compliance, and leadership signalling to sustain momentum. It is telling that these steps are unfolding even as the President spends the season at home in Lagos. The centre, in this design, does not need to shout daily to remain in control.

    Security, however, remains the emotional core of Tinubu’s public messaging, and rightly so. His engagements during the week, though limited, were carefully chosen. At the Eyo Festival, he spoke less as a politician and more as a custodian of social order, linking cultural celebration to peace, discipline and restraint. In his Christmas message, he returned to a theme that has increasingly defined his presidency: religious coexistence as a security imperative.

    Nigeria’s experience has taught painful lessons. Where faith becomes a fault line, violence is never far behind. Tinubu’s insistence on sustained engagement with Christian and Muslim leaders is not cosmetic outreach; it is a preventive security strategy. By reaffirming constitutional protections for religious freedom and condemning intolerance, he is addressing one of terrorism’s silent accelerants, communal mistrust.

    That thread ran clearly through his meeting with the leadership of the Christian Association of Nigeria. Assuring them that community and state policing would materialise once the National Assembly completes legislative inputs, Tinubu framed security reform as both structural and participatory. The state can deploy hardware and doctrine, but vigilance and cooperation at community level remain indispensable.

    Critics may still point to timelines and outcomes, and those questions are legitimate. Yet what last week demonstrated is consistency. From digital governance to fiscal discipline, from interfaith dialogue to sub-national policing, the administration is working off a coherent blueprint. Terrorism, banditry and religious friction are being confronted not only with force, but with systems designed to outlast personalities.

    In politics, noise often masquerades as action. Tinubu’s quieter weeks suggest a different rhythm—one where the absence of spectacle does not mean the absence of progress. Sometimes, the most consequential work of governance happens when the cameras are few, the statements sparse, and the systems, finally, begin to run the way they were designed.

    Meanwhile, across the week, President Tinubu deployed a familiar but effective tool of leadership: recognition. From Ekiti to Kano, from Lagos to Abuja, the President used moments of celebration and condolence to reinforce values his administration consistently projects, service, integrity, professionalism and national cohesion.

    On Sunday, his tribute to Ekiti State Governor, Biodun Oyebanji, on his 58th birthday went beyond pleasantries. By recalling Oyebanji’s long climb through public service; from the struggle for Ekiti State’s creation to senior roles in government, Tinubu underscored continuity in governance and rewarded institutional memory. In the same vein, his commendation of the Director-General of the Department of State Services, Adeola Ajayi, for a press-freedom award subtly reinforced an important balance: that security and civil liberties need not be mutually exclusive.

    Monday’s celebration of retired Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Cecilia Ugowe, at 90 added another layer. In saluting a trailblazer who broke barriers in a male-dominated force, the President aligned himself with a narrative of inclusion and professionalism, an echo of his broader reform agenda within state institutions.

    By Tuesday, the focus shifted to culture, as Tinubu honoured Otunba Biodun Ajiboye of the National Institute for Cultural Orientation. The message was clear: national unity is not built by policy alone, but by a deliberate nurturing of culture, identity and shared values, especially in a diverse federation.

    Midweek carried a more solemn tone. The passing of elder statesman and former UN envoy, Chief Arthur Mbanefo, drew a tribute that celebrated integrity and patriotism, reminding Nigerians of an era where public service was worn as a badge of honour. Yet Wednesday also revealed Tinubu the party leader, inaugurating a high-powered APC committee to resolve internal disputes ahead of 2027. It was a quiet but strategic move, signalling that cohesion within the ruling party remains central to governance stability.

    Thursday’s roll call of birthday felicitations; to Abdullahi Ganduje, Segun Adesegun, Abubakar Bagudu and Bimbo Ashiru, read like a who’s who of Nigeria’s political and economic class. But beneath the surface was a consistent theme: loyalty, experience and service still matter in Tinubu’s political calculus.

    The week closed on a more assertive note. The $1.26 billion financing milestone for the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway provided concrete evidence of the administration’s infrastructure ambition, while his presence at Jumat prayers in Lekki reinforced the President’s engagement with faith leaders and moral voices. Even in mourning, over the deaths of Kano lawmakers and education icon Professor Adamu Baikie, the President stayed anchored to empathy and national solidarity.

    Taken together, the week complemented the earlier narrative of automation, security engagement and religious harmony. It showed that even when the spotlight dims, governance continues, through symbols, structures and steady hands at the helm.

  • Fubara, APC, Wike and 2027

    Fubara, APC, Wike and 2027

    The frenzied jockeying for political supremacy in Rivers State between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and FCT minister Nyesom Wike is bound to constitute one additional piece in the 2027 presidential election jigsaw puzzle for President Tinubu. Rivers has indeed become a simplified complexity. The state legislature is APC majority, but the lawmakers don’t see eye-to-eye with the governor who is now also in APC, having recently defected to the ruling party from the moribund PDP. The supposed political leader of the state remains Mr Wike who is still standing pat in the PDP but who receives the loyalty of the legislature almost in its entirety. Finally, in the puzzle, both the PDP and APC in the legislature are largely and firmly pro-Wike.

    Read Also: Nigeria, AU call for respect of sovereignty, unity of Somalia 

    However, President Tinubu will need both Mr Fubara and Mr Wike joining hands together to ‘deliver’ Rivers to the APC; but these are two men engaged in shadow boxing, with one continuing to posture imperiously, and the other unable to decipher sublime politics, let alone practise it with the suavity and depth expected of a leader with the most basic qualification. What the president must find ways of dealing with is how to manage two Rivers politicians with very large egos. Mr Wike brooks no challenge, and Mr Fubara gives no quarter. One is ruthless and the other naïve; and both will, going forward, demand the president to clarify his allegiances. But it is a clarification the president will be loth to give. He will prefer to walk the tightrope than recklessly do pole vaulting and risk breaking a leg or an arm.

  • Makinde, Turaki on destruction of PDP

    Makinde, Turaki on destruction of PDP

    Oyo State’s governor Seyi Makinde said so many things during his media chat last Tuesday in Ibadan, the state capital. His statements have helped to open a window into the delicate workings of his mind, the quality of his reasoning, and the depth of his political perspectives. He has, unfortunately, not emerged with the lustre he hoped his frank and provocative discussions would acquire. Anyone who seeks a rational explanation for the collapse of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) should look no further than Mr Makinde, an engineer, who now doubles as the leader of the party; Tanimu Turaki, the actual chairman of the party; and before them, their 2023 presidential candidate, the remorseless former vice president Atiku Abubakar.

    Mr Makinde’s expostulations are extraordinary and far-fetched, even bogus. Mr Turaki, a lawyer, is remembered for his mawkish interpretation of politics and his public invitation to the United States president Donald Trump to save Nigerian democracy because two factions of the PDP fought over the party’s headquarters in Abuja. And the flighty Alhaji Atiku encapsulates his politics in adventurism and opportunism, jumping from one party to another seeking relevance and office. Three straight electoral defeats starting from 2015 and ending in 2023 have conspired to strip the party of knowledgeable and experienced politicians and strategists, leaving third-rate party leaders incapable of plotting the most elementary electoral victory. One year of trying to coax the party into a fighting force has also depleted it of vigour.

    Back to the magisterial Mr Makinde. Like everyone else left in the PDP, the Oyo governor blamed outsiders for the party’s woes. The insiders were, in his estimation, loyal and blameless, in fact flawless, having observed all rules and regulations as well as electoral laws and the constitution perfectly. He dismissively characterised any other faction purporting to be a faction as either pretentious or inexistent. Then he sneered at the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for disingenuously seeming to recognise the existence of factions. Hear him: “And by the way, the way the PDP is today, there is no faction. We held a convention here in Ibadan. We gave adequate notice to INEC, which is all that we are required to do under the law. So, it will take INEC some time if they choose to behave like the ostrich, bury their head and all of their bodies outside…Now, to hide all of these things that they are not supposed to hide, they basically called the two factions together, played our people, by saying they wanted to engage with the leadership of PDP…And then, they (Makinde faction) got there and found out that they called Samuel Anyanwu and co (Nyesom Wike faction). I said, that’s even silly to start with…”

    Mr Makinde is in denial over the status of the party. No Nigerian believes the PDP is not factionalised in fact and in law, except of course the governor and his coterie. And talking about the convention, which many party leaders counselled should be postponed until some healing could be attempted in the party, the governor insisted all the convention planners needed to do was invite INEC. He was silent on whether there was no right or wrong way to notify INEC of the meeting, or that INEC reserved the right to assess the legality of the invitation. The governor went on to argue that the Supreme Court had, by two judgements, seemed to virtually cede to parties the power to determine their own affairs one way or the other, irrespective of the provisions of the law. He likened the electoral commission to the ostrich and derided it for ‘tricking’ the Makinde faction into sitting at table with the Wike faction, an accusation echoed by party chairman Mr Turaki who has accused INEC of bias. The fault is always in others, never in the PDP or its shambolic self-appointed leaders.

    Read Also: IK Ogbonna condemns ‘politics’ in Nigerian cinema industry

    But that was not the end of his fiery denunciations of his party’s detractors. Despondent, he accused the electoral body of conspiring with unnamed others to kill the party. Said he: “There’s a danger that if you do that, you may, you know, unknowingly… kill democracy in this country, God forbid.” In other words, on the issue of the PDP, and despite the misgivings of so many PDP leaders, including the Ibadan convention planning committee leaders who took exception to the governor’s style, Mr Makinde was peerless and unassailable. Any other person who refuses to identify with his position was a detractor and an apostate. Indeed, as far as he was concerned, the decisions taken at the convention, including the elections/affirmations and expulsions, were unquestionable. It is not clear what he thinks of his logic or whether he has had time to reflect on how he sounded to himself. But his adamantine resolve to press ahead on his chosen path while lashing out at dissenters unsettled by the intractability of the party’s position and Mr Makinde’s oversimplification gives the impression of somebody unable to wean himself off the predictable and mechanical certainties of engineering in favour of the slow and sometimes painstaking effort needed to forge a consensus.

    Mr Makinde’s destination in the media chat, however, was Mr Wike and President Bola Tinubu. He accused the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister, leader of the other PDP faction, of duplicity in pledging to virtually destroy the party to smooth the way for the APC in 2027. He also described President Tinubu, whom he supported in 2023, as incapable of responding adequately to the country’s challenges because of his refusal to run “a government of national unity, government of national competence.” He said he regretted that support, and would not give it in 2027. Mr Wike will, of course, respond soon, for he is not known to suffer his enemies gladly, especially after being accused of perfidy. As for the president who declined to appoint Mr Makinde’s nominee for ministerial position, it was the end of the 2027 electoral road. Like everything else he said at the media chat, the Oyo governor displayed a penchant to oversimplify complex political matters. The months ahead and the suits filed at various courts by both factions of the party will determine whether the Oyo governor saw the future through his inelegant and imperious dismissals of his opponents and their arguments or he is trapped in the past by his mystifying projections of what he sees as the country’s retrograde electoral future.

  • US airstrike triggers uproar in Nigeria

    US airstrike triggers uproar in Nigeria

    The long-awaited United States-led airstrike on Nigeria finally took place on Thursday night or, as local reports indicate, in the wee hours of Friday. President Donald Trump was characteristically immoderate in his tweet on the strikes which he described as deadly. As he put it, “Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries! I have previously warned these Terrorists that if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay, and tonight, there was…Under my leadership, our Country will not allow Radical Islamic Terrorism to prosper. May God Bless our Military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the dead Terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues.”

    Mr Trump was not only highfalutin, he mischaracterised the orders he gave as designed to salve the wounds of Nigerian Christians. Then he ended his triumphalism with morbid humour of wishing the dead terrorists merry Christmas. Worst of all, he gave no indication of the involvement, cooperation or approval of Nigeria in the airstrike. His Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, was less given to histrionics. His statement on the airstrike which involved the firing of about 16 Tomahawk cruise missiles against the Lakurawa terror group fighting under the aegis of the Islamic State (ISIS) was more accurate, more balanced. He said: “The President was clear last month: the killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria (and elsewhere) must end. The Department of War is always ready, so ISIS found out tonight on Christmas. More to come, Grateful for Nigerian government support & cooperation. Merry Christmas.” The Secretary of course still played to the Christian gallery, perhaps as sop to his boss, but he at least admitted and applauded the cooperation of Nigeria.

    The Nigerian government has reassuringly been very circumspect about the whole affair, probably because it recognises its position as the underdog in the tragedy. Speaking on television, the Foreign Affairs minister, Yusuf Tuggar, said: “It was Nigeria that provided intelligence for the US strike in Nigeria. I spoke with the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, for 19 minutes before the strike, and we agreed to talk to President Tinubu for his go-ahead, and he gave it. After the approval, I spoke again with Marco Rubio five minutes before the strike was launched against the terrorists. Now that the US is cooperating, we would do it jointly, and we would ensure, just as the president emphasised yesterday before he gave the go-ahead, that it must be made clear that it is a joint operation, and it is not targeting any religion nor simply in the name of one religion or the other. We are a multi-religious country, and we are working with partners like the US to fight terrorism and safeguard the lives and properties of Nigerians.” The official statement from the ministry itself was also balanced and cleverly worded.

    Though a post-strike assessment is yet to be finalised, initial indications are that the strike on the Lakurawa terrorist camp in Tangaza local government area of Sokoto State was highly impactful. The US has promised more strikes in the coming days or weeks. The bigger surprise, however, is that the first strike occurred in the Northwest rather than in the Northeast, against bandits instead of against Boko Haram/ISWAP. In time, it may become clear why the first targets were located in the Northwest. Significantly too, Nigeria and the US, minus Mr Trump who has doubled down on his pro-Christian and genocide narratives, have reached an understanding that Nigeria’s security situation is more nuanced than the Americans had at first been fed. The North of Nigeria is predominantly Muslim, and consequently most victims of the terrorist attacks in the region have been Muslims. The objective of the terrorists is the establishment of a caliphate, regardless of whether the goal was the largely Muslim Nigerian North or whether it was Mali, Burkina Faso or Niger Republic. Using the Fulani land grabbing and herdsmen-farmers clashes narratives of the Middle Belt of Nigeria to approximate the insecurity nightmare assailing Nigeria paints only a part of the picture. Mr Trump has, however, chosen a narrative that pleases him, energises his support base, and grabs the attention of a sizable number of Nigerians. He will continue to stick to that narrative, while his aides apprised of the bigger picture will do their best to moderate his overreach and find common ground with Nigerian authorities.

    Last Thursday’s US airstrike has surprisingly not been opposed or denounced as some people expect. Islamic cleric Ahmad Gumi, popularly regarded as bandit sympathiser, was among the first to open his mouth and put his foot in it. He decried the Sokoto missile strikes and demanded the cessation of the bombings. Then he followed up by imperiously asking Nigerians to live at peace with herdsmen. No one still regards his choices or statements with any respect. They see him as a loose cannon unworthy of his position as a faith leader or a retired military officer. Those who have been victims of the terrorist violence in the Northwest have in fact welcomed the strike and hoped that civilian casualties would be avoided, and the terrorists bombed flat. But consistent with its hasty and sometimes illogical approach to issues and the practice of opposition politics, a faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) criticised the government for not alerting Nigerians to the strike. They did not say how that could be achieved without tipping off the terrorists.

    Read Also: Nigeria beat Tunisia 3-2 to qualify for AFCON Round of 16

    The Nigerian government had initially worried about being denounced for enabling the US airstrike, and for compromising and denuding the country’s sovereignty, especially in light of Mr Trump’s inconsiderate tweet about saving persecuted Nigerian Christians. Some Nigerians had also worried that US involvement, especially if mistakes occurred, might inflame passion, accentuate religious and possible ethnic divisions, and lead to dangerous escalations. This fear was not unrealistic on account of America’s poor record at foreign military interventions. But so far, the airstrike has achieved some measure of success, has given hope of significant degradation of terrorist forces, and may encourage Nigeria to put boots on the ground in those far-flung and ungovernable places to carry out mop-up operations and reassert state authority.

    While it is not out of place to seek foreign help to help reassert control against rampaging insurgents and caliphate dreamers, there are also arguments as to whether Nigeria, over the past decades, did not by its actions and inactions, some of them leading to the erosion of their own secular constitution by bigoted state laws, attract and encourage terrorism. If the US assistance is sustained and leads to significant degradation of terrorism and insecurity, Nigeria must thereafter do a lot of soul-searching to see whether the right lessons have been learnt. The US is intervening today because (1) Nigerians are not of one mind in opposing and fighting foreign terrorists and insurgents, sometimes because of ethnic or religious affinity with the attackers; (2) poor, incompetent and undisciplined governance and widespread corruption; (3) the country had been rendered vulnerable for far too long as a result of poor investment in security and law enforcement apparatuses; (4) the country is militarily weak to take on the insurgents, let alone stand up to the great powers; and (5) Nigerians have failed to make up their minds whether they want to stay together under a new and restructured mandate or retain the current untenable structure.

    Hopefully, the tempo of the current US intervention, as humiliating as it might seem to the image and sovereignty of Nigeria, will be sustained. It should give Nigeria breathing space and perhaps some elbow room to reexamine its approach to governance and security. Firm lessons must be learnt from an anomalous security situation in which two past administrations allowed a small ulcer to become gangrenous. Nigeria is of course not out of the woods yet, while the situation still calls for deft handling. But overall, the country must rebuild its national esteem, be proactive in handling security and systemic threats, and find ways of averting any future possibility of being picked on by great powers which ram strange elixirs down their reluctant throats.

  • Fubara of APC

    Fubara of APC

    In politics, there is a thin line between affection and aversion. Anything can happen within minutes. Politicians are adept players in the game of possibilities, optimism, and hope on their slippery field. They are unpredictable.

    There is no permanent friend or foe; the motivation is the interest – personal or collective – which can change suddenly or with time.

    Nothing is strange since the end justifies the means. Ideology is a fading factor, a relic, and a compass long discarded. It is within the libertarian bounds of human rights that politicians in this clime do change political parties as they change their dresses.

    Survival is key, even at the expense of morality, which fundamentally exists in a clear-cut antithetical relationship with politics.

    Defection could be based on persuasion, conviction, compulsion and even pretence, whereby the move is not backed by visceral commitment but by hypocritical compliance.

    Analysts are still dissecting the confusion that the political Babel in Rivers State has thrust on the polity to determine where Governor Siminalayi Fubara stands in the unfolding shift in political calculus.

    Until last month, the governor was a card-carrying chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). But barely two weeks as a chieftain of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), he is becoming a vociferous Tinubu-for-second-term campaigner, a disposition that aptly aligns with the wish of his predecessor and former benefactor, Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    It was not a solo defection. Key PDP chieftains who belong to his camp and serving federal legislators also defected with him.

    Since his return to office after the emergency rule imposed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the governor, it appears, did a thorough soul-searching and critical self-assessment. He saw lightning, which generated panic. The governor drew an instant lesson, which made him dodge a likely thunder, which would have been more terrifying and devastating. Now, he says he has come in peace.

    The end of the emergency rule has not put an end to his elongated nightmare. His defection trailed the movement of 17 House of Assembly members, led by Speaker Martins Amaewhule, to the APC. It is noteworthy that 10 lawmakers chose to stay back in the PDP for reasons that are not yet clear to bystanders.

    To observers, the souls of the lawmakers had left the PDP a long time ago. They had attempted to defect during their mock exercise on the floor of the House of Assembly, which, nevertheless, paled into illegality. They only hid under the larger crisis in the PDP as an excuse to justify their latest action.

    Defending the defection, Amaewhule said: “The reason for leaving the PDP is because of the clear division in the party today. The whole world is aware that, as of today, even the national headquarters of the PDP is not functioning as a result of this division.

    “There are two factions in the PDP and the constitution is clear that when there is division in any political party, when the party is divided, members, including Assembly members who no longer have hope, can leave the party without dire consequences.

    “The foundation of this defection lies in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that allows members to leave the party that elected them. It becomes clear that there is a division in the PDP, and that is the reason for our joining the APC.”

    Fubara has regained his seat, but there he is still battling with the crisis of influence. Up to now, there is no certainty of amity between him and ‘Wicked Wike,’ who commands the loyalty of the legislature.

    It does not appear that the governor has also developed the confidence to forward the names of his commissioner-nominees to the aggrieved lawmakers, who may still be angling for a pound of flesh. So far, he presides over a state executive council that is “at half”.

    The dramatic and strategic defection, notwithstanding, the gulf between the Executive and the Legislature is still deep. Amaewhule has alleged that Fubara has consistently refused to cooperate with the House of Assembly and that the governor filed court cases aimed at preventing the lawmakers from defecting to the APC.

    What is indisputable is that the governor has transitioned from the previous precarious situation to a cozy relief as the state’s party leader, member of the Progressives Governors’ Forum, APC National Caucus, and ally of the President, kept under watch in the Southsouth.

    Apart from his craving for survival, Fubara has a justification for bidding the PDP farewell. The governor said he left as a mark of appreciation to the President, who saved his career by declaring an emergency rule that averted an impending impeachment move.

    The lesson of the six-month suspension is not lost on him. Fubara knew that repeating the error of the past could be costly.

    “I don’t want to make any mistakes this time around. I also wish not to step on any landmine that anyone is laying for us. So, I was with Mr. President to brief him on the situation of things in our state, which I believe he has taken note of and is going to act swiftly on it,” he said.

    The governor explained that he also considered the interest of Rivers State, which lost its peace during the Fubara/Wike rift, before taking the action.

    Also, in rationalising his decision, which irked the fast depleting PDP Governors’ Club, chaired by Bauchi State Governor Bala Mohammed, he explained that he jumped ship to avert future uncertainties and likely doom. He alleged that his former party failed him, despite the move by its governors to challenge his suspension from office.

    It was easy for observers to point out that, so far, in his public speeches during and after the defection and the collection of APC membership card, Fubara never mentioned the name of Wike, who still has direct influence on the lawmakers, the local government chairmen and key stalwarts of the PDP and APC in Rivers.

    Read Also: Naira rebounds, gains N1.65 against dollar at official market 

    The question is: what next after Fubara’s defection? The defection, it would appear, is an element of the peace process, but total reconciliation is an unfinished business in the Southsouth state.

    The horror of the past haunts the major players. The split in the Wike camp was least expected. Gladiators from the divided house started beating the drum of war after Fubara and Wike parted ways. The governor complained about highhandedness, warning his predecessor to stop unnecessary meddlesomeness. A very combative Wike fired back, saying that Fubara had neglected the agreed path and started leaning on foes who worked against him during the governorship poll.

    The state became divided as Rivers’ elders took sides in the divisive issue. As the governor and lawmakers flexed muscles, the House of Assembly was in flames; 27 members became persona non grata and only an illegal and illegitimate three-member Assembly was recognised by the governor.

    President Tinubu saw danger looming and moved decisively to avert chaos by proposing a peace pact. The Rivers warriors returned home to dump the terms.

    Tension engulfed the state as Fubara and Wike exchanged tantrums in the media. The governor warned that the jungle was about to mature. From his base in Abuja, Wike dared his camp to foment trouble. Rallies and counter-rallies by fanatical supporters on both sides generated more anxiety. Then, there were fears that oil installations might be attacked. The President moved swiftly to restore order and avoid statewide pandemonium. The casualties of the emergency order were the Executive and the Legislature. But the people heave a sigh of relief.

    It does not speak well of Rivers State that produced Melford Okilo, Ada George, Peter Odili, Rotimi Amaechi, Wike and Fubara that 26 years after the restoration of civil rule in Nigeria, its politicians could not resolve sundry differences and a minor crisis that escalated and warranted the suspension of democratic institutions for half a year.

    The lot to fill the void and clear the mess fell on Administrator Ibot-Ekwe Ibas, who was only answerable to the federal authorities. Like the speed of lightning, the six months were over.

    Then, Rivers resumed its unfinished conflict, which underscores the inability or refusal of leaders of the rival camps to forgive and forget.

    The Rivers crisis is now the headache of the APC, whose leaders are expected to broker a truce between the governor and the minister, who is a PDP chieftain, a minister and loyalist of the President. On Asiwaju’s mandate do both of them now stand. Instructively, Wike still controls the PDP and APC structures in Rivers.

    The onus is also on the ruling party to reconcile Fubara and the lawmakers, led by Speaker Amaewhule, so that he can peacefully forward his list of commissioner-nominees for screening without hindrance. After the necessary amity, the governor is entitled to earn their loyalty and support as the titular, imagined or real state party leader.

    The third layer of peace building is the settlement of the rift or friction between the three members of the Assembly loyal to Fubara and their 27 colleagues to prevent the resumption of hostilities.

    Then, the elders of Rivers, traditional rulers and leaders of thought who took sides and inadvertently fuelled the hullabaloo, should sheathe their swords and embrace peace as partners in progress.

     Fubara has an ambition for a second term. He has come under the presidential shadow, as it were. Will he get the party’s ticket to run in 2027?

    The answer lies in the womb of time. But it depends largely on the path the gladiators tread in the months ahead. Embracing peace will light up the state for accelerated development. But renewing the rancour will attract a cloud on the state and start a deluge of uncertainties.

  • Zacch, no more climbing sycamore trees!

    Zacch, no more climbing sycamore trees!

    It is unfortunate – though pleasant surprises can occasionally ‘crop up’ – that Zacch Adelabu Adedeji is unlikely to be among the recipients of the ubiquitous ‘Man of the Year’ awards. These accolades, jocularly referred to by the mischievous as being showered like confetti at a wedding, are often a poor reflection of true impact. That Adedeji – a modern reincarnation of the Biblical Zacchaeus – might be overlooked speaks volumes about the judgment and hidden motives propelling many of these awards.

    A vantage strategist and fiscal architect, the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) should be a leading contender for any seriously considered award. The way things are shaping up, he is carving his way into the history books in a manner that, in our view, will be overwhelmingly positive. His work has decisively altered the territory of public discourse – and the very way we define society.

    As his Biblical forerunner illustrated, taxation has always been at the heart of human evolution – from hunter-gatherer roots to the urbanization that birthed structured governance and state authority. Indeed, it confirms that old adage often met with applause from American audiences: the only certainties in life are death and taxes.

    Taxation is, or certainly should be, a fundamental part of the social contract. It should be predicated on the understanding that contributions will be recognized and, in turn, rewarded with tangible benefits. This is the only sustainable way to develop a modern democracy. The alternative is the crude enforcement of the state through brutality. By shifting the territory of this debate, Adedeji has secured a legacy that will be viewed favourably by economic historians in the decades ahead.

    In this age, when our politics is intense and good governance is a major factor, the Iwo-Ate, Oyo State-born technocrat remains a vital bridge between ancient wisdom and modern global discourse. He is essentially reinventing a more edifying past. As a matter of fact, President Bola Tinubu should be commended for placing tax reform on the front burner and demonstrating a positive alternative to the disappointments of past decades.

    History, after all, should be both our guide and our guard. I have argued elsewhere that, in the 1950s, the Action Group (AG) government in Western Nigeria continuously suffered electoral losses because of what the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) opposition tagged its ‘high taxation’ regime. This is, of course, what any opposition is expected to do! Nevertheless, the government stayed the course, albeit at a negative electoral cost. Vindication arrived in 1961 when a succeeding government attempted to cut taxes to improve its electoral prospects. To the government’s surprise, the response to these tax cuts was widespread civil disobedience, particularly in the Ijebu and Ekiti provinces.

    Read Also: Naira rebounds, gains N1.65 against dollar at official market 

    According to reports in the Daily Times at the time, dozens of people were arrested and arraigned before magistrates. What the incidents of that year proved was that, contrary to the alternative reality often painted, Nigerians are not averse to the payment of taxes. Common sense dictates that the judicious and transparent use of collected revenue benefits the overwhelming majority and their families. The crux of the matter is transparency and judicious application.

    The military, in an attempt to gain cheap popularity and acceptance, simply relegated taxation to the back-burner. This is hardly surprising, since authoritarian rule is at total variance with any genuine conception of a social contract. The new tax reforms spearheaded by the progressives are an attempt to build an enduring democracy based on the acceptance of the social contract as well as the concept of shared prosperity.

    Of course, there will be opposition to reforms and change from the beneficiaries of the old order. Indeed, it would be astonishing if it were not so! It is to be expected that virulent personal attacks will be mounted against anyone associated with the effort to dismantle a way of life that has benefitted only a few at the expense of the majority. This has always been the case in Nigeria’s long march of history.

    Imagine Zacchaeus in the Bible, squeezing through a crowd to see Jesus – just like how we struggle every day, jumping through studs just to get things done in Nigeria. For years, the ‘sycamore tree’ has represented the exhausting and often desperate effort Nigerians put in to traverse the difficult terrain of systemic bottlenecks. When messy bureaucracy blocks the way, people are compelled to ‘climb’- resorting to complex workarounds and middlemen just to fulfill basic duties. This struggle was once a necessary survival tactic in an environment where government services felt completely out of reach.

    But here’s the twist: our own Zacch is tearing down those hurdles. Thanks to the 2025 Tax Reform Acts, the FIRS becomes the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) in January 2026. This transition brings one tidy rulebook instead of a jungle of papers, alongside a Tax Ombudsman to fight for us if things go sideways. It’s like saying: “We tax growth, not struggle.”

    The Act is a total game-changer. It offers immediate relief for individuals: those earning N800,000 or less are now exempt from income tax, while essentials like food, school fees, and hospital bills can breathe easy – no VAT on them. The poorest among us won’t pay a kobo. To lower housing and transition costs, it introduces a 20% rent deduction (capped at N500,000) and makes job-loss compensation tax-free up to N50 million.

    Small businesses also see the “heavy hand of the state” lifted. Companies with turnovers under N100 million and assets below N250 million are now exempt from Company Income Tax (CIT) and Capital Gains Tax (CGT). By eliminating multiple taxation and simplifying compliance, the reform allows entrepreneurs to focus on growth over paperwork.

    Ultimately, the impact is twofold. According to fiscal analysts, the Act will bolster government revenue through a broader tax base while simultaneously incentivizing investment and job creation. It is a strategic move to foster a more inclusive and expansive economy.

    By focusing on “taxing the fruit rather than the seed”, Adedeji is clearing away the bureaucratic ‘crowd’ that encouraged the climb in the first place. Through simple digital tools and new protections, the government is finally coming down from its ivory tower to meet people where they are. This changes the entire relationship between the state and the people. It signals that in a modern Nigeria, progress should be visible from the ground, without anyone needing to be a ‘hero’ just to be seen.

    Tax reforms are the most realistic way in a democracy to dismantle Nigeria’s debilitating rentier state. For this country to make progress, we must move away from parasitic relationships towards a system based on production – one that leads to higher revenue which can be equitably shared. Unfortunately for reformers like Adedeji, the rentier state has created a host of parasites; and as every student knows at JAMB-level Biology, the parasite, as it feeds on the host, often begins to assume its very features.

    The parasites in Nigeria have long been feeding fat on the host of a rentier state, and both must be dismantled. Those attacking Adedeji’s valiant efforts are the primary beneficiaries of this old order. They must be stopped in their tracks through vigorous and sustained public enlightenment. Such enlightenment can never be a one-off effort in the face of a determined, self-preserving opposition. It must be continuous – a marathon, not a sprint.

    To that end, Happy New Year in advance to Dr. Zacch Adelabu Adedeji and all those of a progressive bent, both at home and abroad!

    May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!

  • Professor Bolaji Akinyemi and Trump’s wake-up call

    Professor Bolaji Akinyemi and Trump’s wake-up call

    His ideological orientation, philosophical disposition, temperamental short fuse, intrinsic racial arrogance, and instinctual transactional style of political engagement may prove disruptive and destabilising to America’s internal class and power relations, as well as the international political, military, and economic order.

    However, it is not unlikely that by the time he is done with his country and the world, the contemporary international political order will be bifurcated into the “before” and “after” Donald Trump eras. The 45th and 47th President of the world’s sole, if steadily but imperceptibly declining global superpower, Donald J. Trump, is unabashedly refashioning American politics and global international relations in his own image. Unfortunately, it is not a particularly predictable, rational, coherent or readily explicable image.

    But at least the Islamic terrorists and bandits, allegedly dispatched to hell’s gate after America’s Christmas day’s drone strikes in the Northwest of Nigeria, specifically Sokoto, know that Trump wants them nowhere near this terrestrial sphere of existence. The drone strikes were undertaken in pursuit of Trump’s purported agenda of saving Nigeria’s Christians from the genocidal attacks of ‘Islamic terrorists’. Ironically, though, American expertise, technology and intelligence enthusiastically aided Netanyahu’s Israel in the genocidal extirpation of Palestinians, including thousands of Christians, in Gaza.

    Neither does it seem to matter that the admittedly inexcusable terroristic killings in the North of Nigeria, particularly,  hardly discriminated between Christian or Muslim, woman or man, child or adult. Long before sending an investigative team of US legislators to Nigeria to ascertain the truth or otherwise of allegations of Christian genocide in the country, President Trump had declared Nigeria guilty and pronounced her, with solemn finality, ‘a now disgraced country’ to the eternal delight of the Peter Obis of this world.

    Of course, America, in Trump-speak, has regained respect and reverence across the world. Ignore the daily killings of scores of innocent citizens, including school children, in insane gun killings across America’s urban and rural communities. Discount the ceaseless assaults on America’s most cherished institutions and traditions of respect for human rights and liberties ever since the ‘Make America Great Again (MAGA)’ mantra has gained ascendancy.

    Close your eyes to the daily intimidation of judicial officers and consequent ever- increasing expansion of executive powers to the detriment of democracy and the rule of law in ‘America, their America’. Erase from memory the disgracefully (?) unforgettable spectacle of a murderous, instigated mob invading and desecrating The Capitol, inner sanctum of American democracy, in a bid to pull down the levers of civil governance in protest against patently false claims of rigged elections in 2020. But Nigeria is now a disgraced country. But St America’s vestments of innocence and chastity remain unstained.

    Read Also: Trump threatens further strikes if ISIS attack persists

    But then, does the Nigerian State have any excuse for the persistence and ever-steadily worsening of an Islamic insurgency whose seeds were sown in the extra-judicial murder of the founder of Boko Haram, Mohammed Yusuf, in police custody in 2009? Why the tardiness of the Nigerian governance elite across successive administrations in surgically addressing the structural impediments to the effective protection of lives and property in a sprawling, ethnic-regional, cultural and religious social mosaic like ours?

    Now, Trump has spoken ‘guns a-blazing’. You may question his motives. You may interrogate his sincerity. You may mock the affected ‘Christianity’ of perhaps the most irreligious occupant of the White House in recent times. But Trump is not to blame. Neither are the gods. The fault lies fairly and squarely with our ruling class. And here lies the grave danger. Trump does not hide his racism. In his first term, he described African countries as ‘shithole’. He dismisses Nigeria as ‘now disgraced’ based on allegations of baseless Christian genocide that he accepts before ordering an investigation!!

    Trump contemptuously accuses South Africa of genocide against whites without a shred of credible evidence, refused to attend the last G20 meeting in that country and has barred her from attending the next meeting of the group in the US!!! In Venezuela, he is conducting air strikes against vessels allegedly conveying drugs without providing any evidence or adherence to due process, leading to the extra-judicial murder of nearly 100 persons.

    One thing is clear. In the emergent post-Trump world order, weakness is a crime. Might is right. Ukraine’s Zelenskyy is learning the hard way. There is a new spring in Vladimir Putin’s step. Continued weakness is not an option for Nigeria. But the eminent political scientist, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, former Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) and active member of the pro-democracy group, NADECO, Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, foresaw this long ago. His 2016 Convocation Lecture delivered at the University of Ibadan was titled ‘Nigerian Exceptionalism: Nigerian Quest for World Leadership’ – an admirable venture in intellectual audacity if you ask me.

    In concluding the first part of this piece, I will quote Professor Akinyemi at some length. In his words, “In 1987, as the Minister of External Affairs, I called for Nigeria to develop a nuclear weapon, infelicitously called the Black Bomb. I believe I was right then, and I believe I am still right. In 1987, when I made the call, the only high-ranking public official who called to say he agreed with me was General Abacha, not known for making calls. The media, the intellectuals and practically everyone thought I was mad…When General Abacha became Head of State in 1993, he raised the issue of the feasibility of such a programme with me, but I said the United States would not permit it. I remember his reply: “I don’t intend to get along with the United States. Maybe I should have taken him for his word.”

    Professor Akinyemi continued, “…as of 2015, the GDP per capita of Nigeria was $6,100.00, India was $6,200.00, and Pakistan was $5,000.00. The three countries were within the same range. Yet, Pakistan and India are nuclear powers with an incredible underbelly of poverty. Of course, Pakistan and India did not spend N7.2 billion importing toothpicks or N62.8 billion importing French fries.

    “Let me be as categorical as I can be. Even if all roads in Nigeria were to be paved with gold, and every Nigerian were to own a Rolls-Royce in his or her garage, Nigeria would not secure respect from the world, the kind of respect extended to Pakistan or India or even North Korea, which has a per capita income of only $1,800.00 but has a nuclear programme. At the moment, no country will speak to India or Pakistan or even North Korea the way Nigeria is spoken to or spoken about.”

    • To be concluded