The Nation Newspaper

Category: Columnists

  • Police and credibility problem

    Police and credibility problem

    Interestingly, the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) likes to indulge in fantasies about its performance, particularly concerning the fight against insecurity. While trying to demonstrate their relevance, the police often end up exposing a lack of credibility.

    A recent kidnapping in Edo State further exposed police untruthfulness.   The Deputy Public Relations Officer, Edo State Police Command, ASP Eno Ikoedem, in a statement, said the police had rescued seven kidnappees in the Ewohimi area of Esan South-East Local Government Area of the state. He stated that the command, on November 1, had received a distress report from one Enoch Omozokpia, whose father, William Omozokpia, was abducted on his farm by armed men.

    Ikoedem said: “Acting swiftly on the report, the Divisional Police Officer, Ewohimi, led a team of operatives in a joint rescue mission with the Nigerian Army and local vigilante groups. The team stormed the forest in a well-coordinated operation, engaging in an intense bush-combing effort that forced the abductors to abandon their captives and flee.

    “All seven victims were rescued unhurt and have since been reunited with their families.”

    According to him, the rescued victims are William Akhabue, Innocent Ebarekor, Rachel Ebarekor, Efuah Ebarekor, Winner Ebarekor, William Omozokpia, and Lucky Igiese (popularly known as Bulala).

    He continued: “The Commissioner of Police, Edo State Command, Monday Agbonika, commended the gallantry and professionalism displayed by the police operatives, soldiers, and vigilantes who participated in the rescue operation. He reaffirmed the command’s unwavering commitment to the safety of all residents and assured that efforts are ongoing to track down the fleeing suspects and bring them to justice.”

    However, the police narrative, which was shared on the command’s Facebook page, was punctured by users who reacted in the comment section.

     Ken Mulla, who claimed that one of the victims was his uncle, wrote: “How and when? When did the Edo State Police rescue them? Is this how the Edo State Police want to tackle the insecurity in Esan land? My uncle is Omozokpia William.

    “The family and the entire community paid the sum of N6.5m for their release. The police did not even know when they (the victims) came back from the hands of the kidnappers. Why are the Edo State Police lying to the citizens of Edo State? Who put us in this mess?”

    Akhabue Williams Mathew, who claimed that his father was one of the victims, also wrote: “My father was one of the victims who was kidnapped. We personally paid N6.5m for their release, and you are here taking the credit. Is this how you intend to tackle insecurity in Edo State?”

    Glory William wrote: “My daddy is among those who were kidnapped, and N6.5m was paid before they were released. Police, why all these lies?”

    Cosmos Osunde wrote: “This write-up is completely false, a lie from the pit of hell. The good people of Ewohimi paid a huge ransom to secure the release of these individuals from the hands of the kidnappers. Why all these lies? The Edo State Police should do better.”

    Mc Deputy Yuan wrote: “This is my community precisely. The Edo State Police didn’t rescue anything. The family paid N6.5 million to the kidnappers before they released them. Which one is Edo State Police rescuing seven people? Mr PPRO, this is not what happened, please.”

    It is thought-provoking that the police have not responded to these claims against the official account. Is it true that the victims were freed after payment of N6.5m ransom to the kidnappers? Why did the police claim that the victims were rescued by security agents?

     Rescue or ransom payment? This question comes up regularly regarding the resolution of kidnap cases in the country. Official narratives claiming kidnap victims were “rescued” by security personnel are often not credible.

    Strikingly, another kidnapping in July highlighted the police credibility problem.  Six Nigerian Law School (NLS) students travelling in a public vehicle from Onitsha, Anambra State, to resume studies at NLS Yola campus in Adamawa State, were kidnapped on July 26. Five of them regained freedom on July 31 after paying a ransom of N10 million each, according to one of the victims, David Obiora.

    “We were kidnapped about 9pm on July 26. The incident happened between Zakibiam and Mukari, near a town called Jootar. We were taken 20 kilometres into the bush by about 10 armed men, four wielding AK-47 rifles, the others with machetes and daggers.

    Read Also: Moroccan referee to officiate Nigeria, Congo clash

    “We were held for six days before we were released after each of us paid N10 million in ransom,” he narrated.

    Obiora stated: “Let the record be clear, the Nigeria Police did not rescue us. The Law School did not rescue us. The Council of Legal Education did not rescue us. We were released after our families and friends raised and paid the ransom.”

    It was significant that his account had contradicted the statement issued by Benue Police Command spokesperson Udeme Edet, who said the police had “successfully rescued” six law students and they had been “safely released and united with their families” on the morning of August 1. The statement added: “Police authorities confirmed the rescue, assuring the public of their commitment to ensuring the safety of lives and property.”

    The regular disconnection between police accounts and narratives of kidnap victims and their families is disturbingly obvious. Whenever the police announce the rescue of kidnap victims, giving the impression that no ransom was paid, and such victims contradict the official account, it further dents the image of the police.

     A rescue suggests physical action on the part of the rescuers.  If the abductors released the captives, possibly after the payment of ransom, that can’t be strictly described as a rescue.

     Also, when the announcement of a rescue is accompanied by silence about the kidnappers, it suggests that the kidnappers are free and may well strike again. That’s dangerous.

     It is concerning that kidnappings not only continue in the country but are also on the rise.  More than 3, 600 people were kidnapped in Nigeria last year, according to Armed Conflict Location and Event Data figures; this was described as “the most ever” recorded.  

    The police must raise their game, and stop presenting a false reality about their performance against kidnappers to hoodwink the public.

  • Imo ENTRACO, VIO’s

    Imo ENTRACO, VIO’s

    Suspension of all activities of the Imo State Environmental Transformation Commission (ENTRACO) by the state government must have come to residents as a huge relief. The measure followed an incident in which officials of the agency were implicated in the gruesome deaths of a motorbike rider and his passenger in the Owerri municipality.

    An ENTRACO vehicle rammed into the bike rider and his passenger along the Akachi-Wethedral road axis resulting in their instant deaths. It is not clear whether their action was in furtherance of the resumed enforcement of the ban on commercial motorcycles in Owerri municipality which commenced on November 9. But the incident attracted serious public outrage and evoked sad memories of the reckless and arbitrary conducts of ENTRACO officials. A trending video showed one of the victims with his two legs totally crushed. The other had his head shattered as they lay in a pool of blood.

    The incident must have so embarrassed the state government that it ordered immediate suspension of all activities of the agency with a directive to security agencies to arrest and apprehend anyone parading as its agent.

    In arriving at the decision, the government said it was guided by “recent ugly incidents where the mode of operation of the agency was brought to question by members of the public”. It promised investigations into ENTRACO’s operations and its affiliated entities to demonstrate the regime’s ‘commitment to lawful governance and the safety of Imo citizens’.

    This should be good news for Imo citizens who have been reeling under the pains of the excesses and arbitrariness of ENTRACO operatives and allied task forces.

    Last October, its officials were involved in a two-day fracas with traders, their sympathisers including some security personnel at the Toronto junction market in Owerri. This led to loss of lives, injuries and destruction of properties. Accounts of the immediate cause of the fracas vary. But they hovered around the unbearable excesses of agency officials in carrying out their duties.

    Allegations of ENTRACO officials breaking into shops at night carting away goods, cash and sundry equipment without any record were freely traded. If officials were not found destroying the wares of petty traders obstructing traffic flow, they were seen chasing and beating them with any objects at their disposal. Impunity held sway.

    About two months ago, youths from the Naze community had blocked the office of ENTRACO in protest against the alleged killing of one of their brothers in an accident caused by the agency’s operatives. It is common to see traders running in all directions at the slightest alarm of the approach of ENTRACO officials.

    Not unexpectedly, some criminally minded individuals capitalise on the agency’s improper mode of operation to raise false alarms in order to steal from petty traders as they run with their goods.  Ironically, the agency seems to be operating beyond the law that set it up. The 2008 law which established the agency charged it with beautifying and maintaining a healthy, clean and green environment. Its other mandate includes, overseeing sanitation, clearing gutters, planting trees and flowers and other efforts to bring about an environmentally healthy society. Admittedly, the agency is bound to come into conflict with residents who improperly display wares along the roads, throw refuse into gutters or obstruct free movement especially around the markets. The way it goes about this is the issue.

    It appears ENTRACO prioritizes chasing traders and motorists around, confiscating their goods and other wares than the main functions assigned it by law. The reason is not far-fetched. It is for the same reason that they are more engrossed in chasing motorists around wielding dangerous weapons as was on display during the fracas at the Toronto junction market.

    Even then, their spheres of activity seem to blur the line between their authorised functions and that of the Imo State Traffic Management Agency (ISTMA). The latter is empowered by law to handle traffic and parking violations. It strikes as a usurpation of functions and avoidable duplication.

    It is good a thing the state government has seen sufficient reasons to suspend all the activities of the agency and allied task forces that have become a nightmare to citizens of the state. The government should go ahead to empanel a commission of inquiry to investigate their activities and other task forces.

    The public should be given ample opportunity to present their encounters with these task forces to the commission. Such testimonies will aid the government in re-defining the rules of engagement for the various task forces that seem to accord scant regard to the dignity of the human person, due process and the material conditions of the citizens.

    Read Also: Nigeria hands over revamped warship to Benin Navy

    Of note is the type of personnel engaged by these task forces and their requisite training to carry out their duties. Things are hard. A lot of people find it hard to eke a living. Destroying goods and properties indiscriminately in the face of existential challenges will only end up swelling the army of the unemployed with dire consequences for the festering insecurity in the country.

    That was the dialectics at play during the Toronto junction market fracas. The situation calls for a greater measure of discretion and understanding. A law is as good as the people it serves.

    There is also an item in the checklist of Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO’s) that should draw the attention of the state government-mandatory first-aid-kits for private cars. There is no evidence of the specific Imo State law mandating first-aid-kits in private cars. The requirement is traced to a resolution by the Imo State House of Assembly in 2022, directing VIO’s and other agencies to enforce compliance. The justification is predicated on public safety. Right.

    The VIO’s impose a fine of N10,000 on defaulters, many of them unaware of such requirement. This writer was taken aback during a recent visit to the state when he was contravened for not having a first-aid-kit in his car. It was a huge surprise because even the federal highway regulations do not mandate private cars to carry first-aid-kits.

    Imo has a small land mass. You can access any local government area from the state capital within one hour. And in-between, you can rarely travel three kilometres without finding a shop to buy bandages, disinfectants, pain relieving tablets and plasters that make up items in the kit. If federal highways that traverse thousands of kilometres do not punish private cars for not having such kits, its attraction to Imo presents a puzzle.

    Yes, public safety is cited. But the lure of more revenue into government coffers appears the main attraction. Not surprisingly, there is an official at a corner collecting cash, issuing receipts. Whether the cash is remitted into government coffers is another issue altogether. It is a burden the private car owner should be relieved of.

  • TO MY FRIEND DON WHO HOPES TO BEA DACHSUND IN HIS NEXT LIFE

    TO MY FRIEND DON WHO HOPES TO BEA DACHSUND IN HIS NEXT LIFE

    (for Don Burness)

    There’s probably no friend

    more loyal than a dog

    It knows no envy

    harbours no hate

    Rigs no vote

    Robs no bank

    Runs no armoury

    Throws no bomb

    Builds no prison

    Precipitates no pogrom

    Yet

    Robbers use it

    To guard their loot

    Police deploy it

    In race riots

    It is valued meat

    In some places

    In others it is easy prey

    Read Also: Adedeji calls for broad-based tax system to drive Nigeria’s economic renewal

    For hungry gods…

    So

    My good friend

    If you plan to come back

    As a dog

    Make sure first of  all

    It will be in

    A truly kinder and gentler world

    The late poet, teacher, Africanist, and scholar without frontiers

  • Wike, Buratai and FCT land controversy

    Wike, Buratai and FCT land controversy

    Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister and former Rivers State governor, Nyesom Wike, stirred up a hornets’ nest again last Tuesday in Abuja when he exchanged acrimonious words with a naval lieutenant standing sentry at a piece of land reportedly owned by former Naval chief Awwal Zubairu Gambo. Like the first batch of FCT officials sent to inspect the land but was barred, Mr Wike himself was also barred from gaining access to the property. The unseemly exchange between Mr Wike and the lieutenant, AM Yerima, has since become the butt of jokes on the internet and various social media platforms. The legal and ethical issues surrounding the bitter exchange are well known. But the consensus is that while the lieutenant and the presumed landowner might be wrong, and probably abridged due process in acquiring the land and keeping possession against the law, the minister himself had a duty to rein in his temper and speak civilly to the officer, and indeed not just to the military officer but to any landowner in line with the law governing land rights. It is, therefore, no use beating this dead horse.

    The problem, however, are the optics emanating from the Abuja land controversy. Former Chief of Army Staff Tukur Buratai, a retired lieutenant-general never once acclaimed for a cerebral take on civil-military issues, posted a short piece on social media demanding an apology from Mr Wike for insulting a soldier in uniform. To him, nothing else mattered, not even the casual ‘on the other hand’ of asking a question about the sense of deploying a naval lieutenant to guard a landed property belonging to a retired military officer. Believing that Mr Wike’s temperamental approach trumped every other thing and constituted a threat to national security, he wrote: “Mr Wike’s public disparagement of a uniformed officer of the Nigerian Armed Forces transcends mere misconduct; it represents a palpable threat to national security and institutional integrity. A minister’s verbal assault on a military officer in uniform is an act of profound indiscipline that strikes at the core of our nation’s command and control structure. It deliberately undermines the chain of command, disrespects the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, and grievously wounds the morale of every individual who serves under the Nigerian flag. Such actions erode the very foundation of discipline upon which our national security apparatus stands.”

    What bothered the former army chief was, however, not national security, for it is not clear how he managed to conflate the bad-tempered exchange between the minister and a naval officer as a danger to national security. What actually riles him is that he believes a soldier in uniform is superior to every other person, even if that soldier is acting unlawfully. He has conjured a myth in his mind about the superiority of the soldier in uniform and he feels injured by any civilian challenging it. The former army chief, and others like him who have spoken in similar vein, have managed to create a class structure that puts the soldier ahead of every other person. Had Gen. Buratai limited his comment to pointing out the rules and regulations, even laws, he believed Mr Wike violated, his contribution would have been considered informative, seasoned and dispassionate. But he exceeded himself, as he often does.

    Read Also: Wike, Yerima face-off: We owe Gambo nothing but gratitude

    Retired and serving military officers who have commented on the matter have tried to make the exchange between the FCT minister and naval officer strictly one of a civilian minister speaking disrespectfully to a serving officer. But it goes far beyond that. Firstly, the exchange was just a symptom of all that has gone wrong with Nigeria, not the disease, nor the main issue. The exchange harks back to the unmanageable and increasingly painful history of civil-military relations in Nigeria, one whose roots are traceable to the colonial period. The colonialists, not to talk of more than 30 years of military rule, enthroned a culture that elevateed the soldier above everyone else, bastardised institutions, weakened laws, and turned the constitution into an ephemeral object. But it is a culture of often unearned privileges that is both difficult to embrace and sustain, not to talk of root out; a culture that explained but could not justify the brutality of military governments and their contemptuous disregard for the rule of law. Unlike Defence minister of state, Bello Matawalle, who came down unthinkingly in favour of the officer, Defence minister Mohammed Badaru caveated his support for the officer by suggesting that “Any officer on lawful duty will be protected highly. He is doing his job, and doing it greatly well.” The Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Olufemi Oluyede, reportedly admonished civil authorities to respect military officers on duty. But what duty, and what lawful order? Guarding a landed property? Was that a security establishment, or was the land a component of national security? The controversy may have in fact inadvertently unearthed decades of privileges enjoyed by retired military officers, which generals like Buratai are anxious to protect. The purported owner of the property, a retired naval chief, was undoubtedly aware of the controversy swirling around the property; that may be the reason he got the armed sentries deployed in that location.

    Secondly, Nigeria’s security agencies have become hopelessly inefficient in the deployment of service personnel. The police deploy thousands of their men in sentry duties and protection of very important persons, but continue to insist they need more men. The system has repeatedly obliged them without auditing the men they already have or asking how they are deployed. Of course, the police personnel will never be enough; it is a bottomless pit. In the same fashion, too many military personnel are either posted to police duties all over the country or deployed in guard duties for the generals, sometimes in shocking numbers. In the midst of war in at least four regions of the country, the military could afford to post a number of its men led by a special forces naval lieutenant to protect a piece of land against the rules and regulations of the FCT land administration, and against the law. How this atrocious anomaly does not unnerve the military, and how officers who have sided with the young and intrepid lieutenant in the controversy do not appear to care what other countries think of how Nigeria deploys its service personnel, is beyond comprehension. It is clear that senior military officers have cheapened their men, cheapened the service, and have little understanding of how a people’s army should be constituted. It is truly disturbing that some senior military officers are unbothered by the humiliation and paradox of a naval officer guarding a plot of land owned by a retired officer.

    In May 2024, soldiers shut down Banex Plaza, a shopping complex located at Wuse 2 in Abuja, over a dispute with traders alleged to have sold a defective phone to a soldier. The soldiers complained that in the process of sorting out the misunderstanding they were manhandled by some traders and hoodlums. The plaza was not opened until the police acting in concert with the Department of State Service (DSS) inspired a peace deal that eventually led to the apprehension of two persons. The apprehended men were not handed over to the police but to the military in violation of the laws of the land. What was remarkable about the Banex Plaza illegality was the justification provided by a former Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Lucky Irabor. Insisting that it was unacceptable to attack a soldier, he said: “This applies to any uniformed person for as long as he is an agent of the state. An attack on him is an attack on the state, so any Nigerian of goodwill must condemn such an act. For me, I join to support the closure of Banex Plaza for as long as it takes to have anyone responsible for that dastardly act brought to justice. This is because if we fail to do so, we will be calling for anarchy. The only men who are sacrificing their lives to ensure our collective good are members of the armed forces, the police, and other security agencies.”

    This is specious reasoning at its worst. It shows how pervasive the appalling idea of subordinating the constitution to the military has become among military men and some civilians. Perhaps they should be made to reflect on the story of countries which have become failed states because the law and constitution were held in contempt by the powerful.

    It did not occur to the former CDS that no one, no matter how highly placed or armed, should ever resort to self-help. Not only was the plaza shut down for a week without a court order or even the involvement of the police legally and constitutionally empowered to handle such matters, the shop at the centre of the fracas was kept shut until two men were apprehended. It is, therefore, not surprising that naval personnel barricaded a landed property in flagrant violation of the law, and all some retired generals could point at was Mr Wike’s incivility. What of the law itself? And what of the propriety of spurning the procurement of the right documentation for the property? And what of the global image of Nigeria? Gen. Irabor has of course weighed in again on the Abuja land controversy dispute by justifying his unhelpful view of the imperious manner the military responds to civil matters. Clearly, Nigeria does not appear to have the ambition of building a world-class military, but a military of privileges, rank and false heroism.

    Mr Wike is not loved by a record number of Nigerians despite his performance and record as a governor and minister. He is sometimes acerbic and unorthodox, his methods often rankling very badly. But he was more right on the land issue than the naval officer. This matter will, from all indications, blow over because it is really just so much silly sound and fury signifying nothing. But Mr Wike must now be aware that even if an official is right, the redress must be carried out in such a way that it does not compromise the integrity of his case. More importantly, the FCT minister must have suspected that he is hated more for his support for President Bola Tinubu than for his short fuse. They see him as the man at the centre of weakening the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the man whose political manoeuvres significantly impacted the 2023 presidential poll. In addition, his efforts to sanitise the Abuja master plan is unlikely to win him friends in a country and capital city where impunity has become second nature, and where military men and security agents all pull rank on anyone not in uniform. He, therefore, has a duty to think twice, in spite of himself, before he talks and acts, knowing full well that whatever he does will be used against him, the president and the All Progressives Congress (APC). This curious animosity will get worse as the APC continues to outmanoeuvre the opposition and try to make the 2027 polls a foregone conclusion.

  • Finding a cure for madness

    Finding a cure for madness

    Perhaps the most important aspect of writing a weekly column is to retain relevance throughout the period of its existence. Your readers deserve to come away with something tangible from reading any of your articles as this is the only way that they would come back week after week to share a few minutes with you. This does not mean that they would always take sides with your argument. Indeed, if this is one of your motives for writing then, you are bound to be disappointed if only because your readers arrive at your column with many different perspectives and there is no way that you can give satisfaction to all your visitors. You can only try but, no matter how hard you try, the thought must always be at the back of your mind that all you write will sooner or later  find its way to a rubbish dump both physically and figuratively, no matter how hard you try. And yet your primary focus must be to give some measure of room to your readers, to complete a circle of trust within which you derive the authority with which you command the attention of those who take the trouble to bring themselves up to date with the current state of your mind.

    When I turned my mind to writing this week’s edition of this column, my first inclination was to continue where I left off last week in my discussion of the current dire situation of academia in Nigeria. After all, whatever relevance I have cannot be separated from my academic career. Whatever the colour of my academic experience however, I cannot expect everyone to share my enthusiasm or interest in that subject, especially in the light of recent developments all around us. Midway through the first paragraph which was to launch my discussion on the travails of contemporary Nigerian lecturers, I found that my mind had strayed into fields of other pressing issues stirring the hearts and minds of the great Nigerian public to the virtual exclusion of everything else, except of course, the issue of the pressing matter of settling the issue of keeping body and soul together. In the interest of satisfying my readers I have therefore chosen to pivot to what I can only describe as a more exciting field of interest this week.

    I remember with startling distinction, the horror I felt that day, it was a Saturday, when I read in a newspaper that the leader of the Boko Haram group (or sect) had, to use contemporary description, been neutralised whilst in what should have been safe custody of the Nigerian Police. There was a time during the civil war when the term wasted was used to describe such an act. However, whichever way we care to say it, the man had been summarily executed and I knew quite instinctively that grave consequences were bound to follow that extrajudicial murder. What I had no way of knowing at the time was the quantum of the mayhem with which we were going to have to cope with, a decade and a half down the line. So many years of our discomfiture have passed and a huge deluge of dirty water has flowed under the bridge since then. And yet, the only thing we are clear about at this time is that our collective suffering over this matter, however painful it has been, is very far from over. The intensity has increased past fever pitch from time to time. It is no wonder that it has flared up recently and begun to raise our temperature in the manner of a herpes attack. The sad thing about herpes is that it is incurable. It comes and goes unpredictably but it is always there waiting to remind the sufferer of its maddening presence. Boko Haram and other related off shoots of this group have inserted themselves

    Read Also: Awakan’s The Madness That Cures Our Land  premieres

    with murderous intent into the very soul of our country. Curing it is presenting the level of difficulty associated with curing cancer. It cannot be done without inflicting a great deal of pain on the patient. Even after going through the terrible pain associated with this attempt at a cure, there is no guarantee that the attempt, any attempt at a cure, is eventually successful.

    One of the phrases trending these days and one from which you cannot get away is that you cure madness with madness. The madness of insurgence, whatever its form, can only be cured with the madness of high intensity military action, a form of insurgence on its own. The people responsible for our current troubles answer to many names; Fulani herdsmen, kidnappers, plain old fashioned terrorists, bandits and the odd armed robbers who operate within urban spaces. Their activities have made nonsense of our security and are now in a position to dictate terms to the government of Nigeria. In other words, they have left our sovereignty in utter ruins. Long gone are the days when our roads, all of them, in different parts of the country could be traversed with confidence at any time of day and night. This brings back to my mind a journey I made from Ife which ended in Kano at 3.30 am in Kano. Even as we made our lonely way through that dark night not once did any fear of danger cross my mind. That was in 1998, a date which has now been completely swallowed up in the murky mist of time.

    Gone also are the days when going to the farm to till the compliant soil was just part of everyday living. Now, farmers carrying on their calling in any part of the country, even those very far from the active theatre of insurrection have become members of a seriously endangered species. They are hunted down like vermin and their farms systematically looted and turned into sterile spaces where only sadness grows. When will the government, responsible for our collective security, dredge up the madness with which to cure the madness of those people who think that their madness is a ticket to some fantastic paradise. A massive time bomb is ticking in this respect.

    The threat of societal collapse in the face of the madness which has been unleashed on the country is a common factor which binds the disparate groups involved in undermining the sovereignty of Nigeria together. Another crucial factor they have in common is their stated allegiance to the Muslim faith and this is a complication which we could deal without. The vast majority of Muslims in this country have not been inflicted with the madness of insurgency but have not been spared the pain of the violence dealt out by some of the adherents of their faith. As a matter of fact, it may even be true to say that because the area of operations for these insurgents are inhabited mainly by Muslims, they are the primary victims of this madness. However, the equation is further complicated in those areas of majority Christian inhabitants. These people stand nakedly vulnerable to this mad situation and the charge of genocide or at least ethnic cleansing has has become increasingly difficult to refute. In some parts of the world this charge has become irrefutable and this has precipitated the furore which has gripped the nation in the last couple of weeks and continues to reverberate through it, picking up an unhealthy head of steam with every passing day. According to Donald Trump, the self proclaimed strong man of the United States and also the self appointed policeman to the world, he has ordered his sidekick in the so called Department of War to develop plans for the invasion of Nigeria. He has made it clear that this decision had been taken in the light of his determination to rescue Nigerian Christians from the hell that Nigeria has become.

    Quite predictably, this announcement has gathered a great deal of interest within the country. It is generating a great deal of heat but very little light and heating up the polity to no discernable purpose. It is however important to point out that it is wishful thinking for us to look up to foreigners, least of all, any American of whatever hue or stripe, to prepare and administer what would be a magic potion with which to cure the madness with which we are now afflicted. This is a home grown affliction which requires a local remedy for any expectations of an eventual cure to be entertained.

  • More on Trump declaring Nigeria ‘Country of Particular Concern’

    More on Trump declaring Nigeria ‘Country of Particular Concern’

    As I ended this column last Sunday, I write again: “the President owes it a duty to peace – loving Nigerians, to first rein in these enemies within, no matter their status or how untouchable they consider themselves”.

    This has become of considerable importance now that he has to dispel the unverified, trending video of a Northern Lady, who claimed she refused an appointment, early in his presidency because he said he cannot fight sponsors of terrorism in the North as doing so would eventuate in his being killed.

    My instant reaction to that balderdash was that this would certainly not be the doughty Ashiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu I have known for well over two decades.

    Today I go further into what I described as the predisposing factors for the mercurial and egocentric U.S President Donald Trump declaring Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern whereas in truth, both Christians and Muslims are being Killed in Nigeria’s orgy of unrelenting bloodletting in the North of the country where, by far, too many Christian communities had been deliberately targeted for annihilation and expulsion from their ancestral lands.

    To do this, as is fast becoming my wont, I re- publish below, an article that was first published here in 2021 titled:

    Insecurity In Nigeria Can Become History If The Buhari Government Is Sincere In Fighting It

    Happy reading.

    The chicken has, indeed, come home to roost. I have always known that the predominantly, mono – thought process underpinning the Buhari administration, majorly a result of his North- centric appointments into critical areas of government, was bound, sooner or later, to impact Nigeria negatively. The evidence is all over the place:  that the monopoly a  particular culture – one that believes that an elder cannot / should not, be controverted on any issue, was going to have its consequences. This is the same culture that made the North an arid zone for newspapering for a very long time in the region. Other than the New Nigerian, Newspapers die off as soon as they were established because there were simply too many cultural taboos.

    This situation worsened by the coming to power, of the awe- inspiring persona of President Muhammadu Buhari. All over Nigeria, at least  until he became president and began to show a seemingly unquenchable love of the North over the others, he was massively loved and respected.

    Indeed, more than being respected, he was lionised as a highly principled military General who, unlike many of his compeers, was not tainted with corruption.

    When the highly respected Tai Solarin came up with the allegation of some  stolen oil money, Nigerians so disbelieved it had anything to do with Buhari until Pa Solarin confessed that it was a mere molue (public transport) gossip.

    Such was General Buhari’s incandescent honesty and widespread respect then. Indeed, both when Boko Haram named him one of its representatives at negotiations with the federal  governmenr and  when he led a Miyetti Allah delegation to the Oyo state governor, Lam Adesina, to protest on behalf of Fulani herdsmen,  most Nigerians believed  that it was  those groups – Boko Haram and Miyetti Allah – which wanted  to profit from his huge profile; a profile that was fast approaching that of a god, nationwide.

    Unfortunately, these past six years have so reduced this halo to only within his government circle where happenings in the country suggest that people closest to him are too respectful of him, if not overwhelmed by his persona, to offer him any good advice.

    Nothing affirms the truism of the diminution of how the president was held, pre office, more than bandits going to    his home state of Katsina to kidnap school children who would not be freed from the kidnappers’ embrace until two weeks later, and after hundreds of millions of naira must have been paid in ransom.

    And to resolve the problem, President Buhari must have assembled an entirely Northern group, probably all Muslims, military and civilian.

    Even if he has been magnanimous enough to involve  his entire security council, the group would have been more than 80 per cent Northern – that same group that not only think alike  but are culturally forbidden to oppose their elders.

    According to the Report of  The Chinua Achebe Foundation Research Project on Fulani Herdsmen, “Most Nigerian Fulanis are no longer migratory herdsmen. They are either Emirs, Sultans, heads of parastatals, oil barons, Imams, Christian Pastors, Governors, Federal Reps and Senators. However, they all maintain their cultural ownership of cattle. These wealthy Nigerians increase their wealth astronomically through cattle rearing by using their not well off brothers, impoorted from outside Nigeria, to rear these cattle. Instead of investing in ranches or buying of grasses from the South, they chose the cheaper alternative of having their kinsmen, imported from outside the country, arm them with AK 47’s, and order them to take these cattles from the north to the south seasonally. For these people, the entire Nigerian space is their “grass kingdom”.These cattle, in turn, destroy farms on their path, rendering farmers economically bankrupt to further enrich the wealthy Fulani “remote herders”.

    All these, under the Buhari administration, and probably now, under President Tinubu, with no security agent – military or police – bold enough to question them.

    What the above shows is that non – Fulani Nigerians are wrongly accusing poor Fulani herders of all the criminalities they commit whereas the various cattle owners mentioned above are the real troublers of Nigeria, the reason the President simply has no interest in solving  the  massive insecurity problem caused by these people.

    This is why they attack in hundreds on motor cycles, kill in scores but with a single one of these terrorists, never arrested nor tried.

    Read Also: SWDC MD: How Nigeria can transform through business, policy collaboration

    Indeed, in the one case tried, the victim, who barely escaped before he eliminated the Fulani herdsman terrorist, was sentenced to death in a case that went up to the Supreme court.

    I was not surprised when I heard Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), say that security agencies were informed of the killings in Igangan, Ibarapa North Local Government Area of Oyo State, over a week before the attack but that nothing was done by the Nigerian security.

    I was not surprised, thanks to the same research of the Chinua Achebe Foundation which took the team to the

    “Ama Hausa and Garki” camps in both Enugu and Abia States where they  interviewed neighbors from the local communities living within and around the Hausa communities in both states. They affirmed that  both the Northerners and the local community were very open and volunteered valuable information to their team.

    Below is how the report captured a typical Fulani herdsmen attack:

    “Fulani Herdsmen Attack”:.

    We learned from the surrounding communities and from some of the Hausa elders about what constitutes a Fulani herdsmen attack. According to information we received, when there is a disagreement between host communities, or between herdsmen and farmers, the Fulani herdsmen who accompany the cattle will locate the nearest Fulani settlement and if there is none, they will locate the nearest Garki or Ama Hausa. When they arrive, they will narrate their story. The Fulani (Nigerian middlemen) cattle managers will notify their top Fulani Herdsmen which in this case, include governors and other top Fulani top officers who own the cattle. 

    A decision will be made about whether there should be an attack or not on the said village or host community. If an attack is sanctioned, then modalities will be mapped out and a date will be chosen for the attack. Most times, Fulani herdsmen in the military and police are notified and everyone sends a representative. Neighboring settlements sends out representatives and arms cache are opened and arms are distributed to the participants. The major participants are the 20 to 40 Fulani herdsmen who reside in the Garkis and Ama Hausas. These are the Fulani warriors whose job is to kill.

    During an attack, every Fulani person in the area knows there will be an attack and all will contribute to make sure it goes on successfully. Fulanis in the higher levels of the military will ensure all commands under them stand down, and the top Fulani police officers will do the same. The road is then clear for the Fulani herdsmen to carry out their attacks.,

    Based on the findings from which they understood that the attacks are never carried out by the herdsmen we see escorting cattle on the roads and bushes, but are well coordinated and  most times sanctioned by very influential Northerners,  nearly  all of  them, herd owners.

    The Foundation proposed the following solution:

    “Many of those who interacted with us suggested solutions that are very interesting. Most of the northern Hausas and the local communities suggested a ban on grazing in the affected states. A total ban would be the only way to solve this problem. Some argued that with the Fulanis’ nature of encroaching on other people’s land and territories, any attempt to give them land would aggravate the problem and not solve it.

    Most villagers from Abia State suggested that these cattle be penned in the north while government releases money for people in the South to cut grasses, process the grass, and send to the north. This is the practice all over the world. They indicated that any attempt to take their lands and give to the Fulani would definitely result to a civil war.

    We agree, the solution is very simple; ban grazing, establish ranches for the cattle in the north, pay the southerners to harvest grass and send to the north. With this, everyone would be pleased with the outcome. This solution is expected to generate 1 million jobs in the South and about 500,000 jobs in the North. Also Fulani herdsmen terror will be totally eliminated”.

    The correlation between this 2021 article and President Trump’s threat of an attack on Nigerian killers, not Nigerians, is that nothing has changed between then and now, whether they were protecting their herd or killing and running Christians away from their ancestral homes.

    Otherwise the likes of Sheik Gumi, who is in and out of these killers’ lairs would long have been run out of town, and our prisons would, by now, be crawling with concicted terrorists as well as their sponsors, at least those ones criminally  protected from trial by President Buhari and his attorney – General after they had been convicted and sent to Nigeria by the UAE.

    The lesson of all these is that to solve the menace of insecurity and  avoid constant external embarrassment, the Nigeran government must put its house in order.

  • On the Wike-Yerima incident

    On the Wike-Yerima incident

    In a nation still bearing the scars from years of military rule, where our democratic institutions remain frail and the supremacy of civilian authority over the armed forces is a hard-won principle, a section of Nigerians recently found themselves cheering what amounts to an affront on the Nigerian constitution.  The incident involving Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and a naval officer identified as Lieutenant Yerima, who blocked the minister’s access to inspect a contentious piece of land in Abuja, has generated a peculiar kind of national jubilation—one that reveals more about our collective democratic immaturity than it does about accountability.

    The facts are straightforward, even if the public reaction has been anything but. Wike attempted to inspect a parcel of land in the FCT that had allegedly been irregularly allocated. According to available information, the land was originally acquired by the government for the construction of a recreational park—a public amenity meant to serve the residents of the Federal Capital Territory. However, somewhere along the administrative chain, this public land was reportedly subdivided and sold off for residential purposes, transforming what should have been a communal green space into private real estate. When the Minister sought to inspect the property in line with his statutory duties, he was met by naval personnel who refused him entry, with Officer Yerima leading the resistance.

    The confrontation that ensued was captured on video and rapidly circulated across social media platforms, generating what can only be described as a national spectacle. Nigerians, it seemed, had found their hero—not in the minister attempting to investigate alleged land fraud, but in the military officer who stood in his way. The hoopla was immediate and deafening. On Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, Nigerians celebrated Yerima’s defiance with memes, adulatory posts, and commentary that framed the incident as a David-versus-Goliath narrative, with the naval officer cast as the righteous underdog standing up to a bullying minister.

    But this narrative, as emotionally satisfying as it might be for those who harbor personal distaste for Wike, fundamentally misunderstands what transpired and, more dangerously, what it represents.

    Section 11 of the Land Use Act is unambiguous: the Minister of the FCT, or any public officer duly authorized by him, has the statutory right to enter upon and inspect any land held under a statutory right of occupancy at reasonable hours. This is not a courtesy or a privilege—it is a legal mandate designed to enable government to monitor land use, prevent illegal allocations, and ensure compliance with approved purposes. The occupier of such land has a corresponding duty to grant access. There is no exception carved out for military installations, no clause that permits armed personnel to substitute their judgment for that of the law.

    Officer Yerima’s obstruction, therefore, was not an act of courage or principle—it was a violation of the law. More troublingly, it was an assertion of military authority over civilian governance, a regression to a mentality that should have been buried with our last military regime. Section 217(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution explicitly subjects the armed forces to civilian authority. This is not decorative language; it is the bedrock principle that distinguishes democracies from military states. When a uniformed officer prevents a civilian minister from exercising his lawful functions, alleging that he is under orders he is not defending order—he is subverting it.

    Read Also: Wike, Yerima face-off: We owe Gambo nothing but gratitude

    Yet Nigerians, blinded by their antipathy toward Wike, chose to celebrate this subversion. The irony is as bitter as it is dangerous. A population that spent decades chafing under military dictatorship, that watched soldiers truncate elections and suspend constitutions, that mourned journalists and activists who died resisting military impunity—this same population now applauds a military officer for obstructing civilian authority because of the civilian in question.

    This is the peril of allowing personal sentiment to override legal principle. Wike is undoubtedly a polarizing figure. His tenure as Rivers State governor was marked by controversies, his political maneuvering has earned him enemies across party lines, and his confrontational style alarms  many. These are legitimate grounds for criticism. But they are not grounds for suspending the rule of law or celebrating its violation. The law does not discriminate based on likability. It applies to the charming and the abrasive alike, to the beloved and the reviled.

    When we cheer its breach because we dislike the intended beneficiary, we are not striking a blow for justice—we are undermining the very framework that protects all of us.

    Consider the implications. If a military officer can lawfully prevent a minister from inspecting land today because some Nigerians find that minister distasteful, what prevents another officer from preventing an election official from accessing a polling station tomorrow? What stops a colonel from obstructing a governor he dislikes, or a brigadier from overruling a judge whose decisions he finds inconvenient?

     The principle of civilian supremacy is indivisible. Once breached, it invites a cascade of violations, each justified by the subjective grievances of those wielding arms.

    To be sure, Wike himself is not blameless in how the situation unfolded. Many watched the minister resort to hurling insults at Officer Yerima—language that was unnecessary and unbecoming of his office. As a senior government official, Wike could have simply documented the obstruction, presented the evidence to military authorities and, if necessary, escalated the matter to the President. A measured, procedural response would have demonstrated the dignity of civilian authority without descending into a shouting match. His decision to exchange barbs with the officer muddied what should have been a clear-cut case of lawful authority being unlawfully obstructed.

    But even acknowledging Wike’s missteps, the central issue remains: what the officer did was illegal, and what Nigerians celebrated was the erosion of a constitutional principle. We cannot afford to be so consumed by our dislike of individuals that we lose sight of the institutions and norms that sustain our democracy.

    The land at the center of this controversy reportedly represents yet another instance of the endemic corruption that has turned Abuja’s public spaces into private commodities. Land meant for a recreational park—a space where families could gather, children could play, and communities could find respite—was allegedly carved up and sold to the privileged few who could afford it. This is the real scandal, the genuine outrage. Yet instead of demanding accountability for this theft of public patrimony, Nigerians directed their attention to the personality clash, choosing sides based not on law or principle but on which party they found more objectionable.

    This is how we lose our democracy—not to a sudden coup, but to a gradual acceptance of illegality whenever it serves our immediate emotional needs. We must do better. We must learn to separate our assessment of individuals from our defense of institutions. We must recognize that celebrating a military officer’s defiance of civilian authority, regardless of the civilian involved, is a betrayal of every Nigerian who fought, bled, and died to end military rule.

    Nigeria’s democracy is young and fragile. It requires constant vigilance, not just against obvious threats like electoral fraud or executive overreach, but against the subtler danger of our own inconsistency—our willingness to abandon principle when personality intervenes. The Wike-Yerima incident should serve as a wake-up call: our hatred for individuals must never eclipse our commitment to the rule of law. The alternative is a return to the chaos we claim to have left behind.

  • The opposition’s ‘Nigerians’

    The opposition’s ‘Nigerians’

    Vagueness, the insufficient specification of the meaning of an utterance, is one of the characteristics of political language. This characteristic makes political utterances potentially ambiguous. Ambiguous utterances possess more than one clear meaning; and vagueness and ambiguity often create conflict between what speakers intend by their utterances and what hearers perceive the utterances to mean. This conflict is one of the reasons why politicians are said to lie and create confusion.

    In Nigerian politics today, one interestingly vague and increasingly popular opposition utterance which concerns the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is: “The 2027 election is going to be between APC and Nigerians.” It’s not clear who first uttered this statement. It’s however certain that it has become an opposition catchphrase. According to Merriam Webster dictionary, a catchphrase is “a word or expression that is used repeatedly and conveniently to represent or characterize a person, group, idea, or point of view.”

    On 3 November, 2024, Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State, who belongs to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), addressed party members as follows: “If you’re accusing the ruling party that they are the ones putting their hands into all other parties to ensure that they don’t get their acts together so that there will be no opposition in 2027, … please let us all work together, unite our base. That is all we need to do. The next elections will be APC versus Nigerians. It is not even APC versus PDP.”

    Moreover, on 15 April, 2025, in a Channels Television interview, Governor Makinde said: “Most people in this country, what they’re saying to us is that, look you guys, go and get yourselves together and then leave the rest to us. And I kept saying it, 2027 election … won’t even be PDP versus APC. It will be Nigerians versus APC.”  Furthermore, on 14 October, 2025, Governor Makinde said in a media chat in response to the spate of defections of legislators and governors from PDP to APC: “[A]bout governors defecting, senators defecting, … we’re not concerned and we’re not bothered, because the ultimate decider here will be the Nigerian people.” Then in a rhetorical flourish, he said: “[T]he only time I’ll be concerned or … that we will be concerned as a party is when we see hunger defect from the ordinary people on the street and join APC.”

    A stalwart of the PDP, Mazi Dickson Iroegbu, also reacted to the possible effects of the defections as follows in a 28 October, 2025 News Central TV interview: “[Our party] is the Peoples Democratic Party, not ‘Governors Democratic Party’, ‘Senators Democratic Party’, not ‘House of Representatives Democratic Party’. … Like the Governor of Oyo State rightly stated, until hunger defects, until poverty that is ravaging the nation defects, until insecurity defects to the ruling party, … we will [not] worry. … Let me put it on record … that 2027 is going to be Nigerian people against the APC, because we are the ones directly affected [by APC’s governance].”

    The catchphrase has been used by other opposition politicians. For example, in a 16 October, 2025 Premium Times piece titled “Defections: ADC says 2027 elections will be between APC and Nigerians,” the National Publicity Secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Bolaji Abdullahi, was reported to have said: “2027 would be between Nigerians and the governors ‘who deserted them politically.’” Two readers of the Premium Times report demonstrated their sharp perception of the acute vagueness of the opposition catchphrase through their comments. One of them, Eugene Igiewe, said sarcastically: “Those who will vote for APC are from the moon.” The other one, Adeyinka Peter Kolawole, asked rhetorically: “Are the governors from Ghana? Are they not Nigerians?”

    Even as late as 10 November, 2025, the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, former member of APC and current ADC chieftain, Mr. Babachir Lawal, while reacting to the remarkably poor performance of his party relative to that of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) in the 8 November, 2025 Anambra State governorship election said: “[O]ur battle is in the coming election in Nigeria versus APC, not APGA.” This is another example of the appropriation of the label ‘Nigerians’ by the opposition and the exclusion of members of the ruling APC from the term’s coverage.

    The opposition catchphrase seems to be a mark of despondency and the abandonment of any hope of offering any meaningful challenge to APC in 2027. In a research article titled “What kind of opposition do citizens want?” and published online on 9 June, 2025 in the journal West European Politics, Tom Louwerse and Elina Zorina note that one of the functions of opposition parties is “providing voters with alternative, both in form of policies different from the ones proposed by the incumbent government, but also in form of an alternative cabinet [or government] at the next elections.” This is the democratic duty of legally recognised Nigerian political parties like PDP and ADC, and not that of the nebulous ‘Nigerians’ to whom the opposition seem to have voluntarily ceded electoral responsibility.

    Read Also: Shettima urges Nigerians abroad to invest at home

    Another tired opposition catchphrase or even buck-passing cliché which has resonated with some Nigerians is that APC is working towards creating a one-party state. The charge had been so strident that Iniobong Ibok and Taofeek Oyedokun published a 4 May, 2025 report in BusinessDay titled, “Is Tinubu plotting a one-party state in Nigeria?” The report stated: “Notably, 17 prominent Nigerians, among them human rights advocate Chidi Odinkalu, legal activist Richard Akinnola, and former presidential adviser Babafemi Ojudu, issued a joint statement on April 25, 2025, titled ‘Defending democracy: A call to resist the march toward a one-party state in Nigeria.’”

    Furthermore, with respect to allegations that the incumbent government had been unduly pressurising or bribing opposition members to defect to APC, the report noted: “Although the fears are not unfounded given Nigeria’s political history, the current wave of defections lacks hard evidence of coercion or systemic abuse. The claimants have not presented documents, recordings, or testimonies that substantiate allegations of bribery or blackmail originating directly from the presidency or federal authorities.”

    Ironically, the main opposition party PDP, which has been stridently promoting the one-party state narrative, has been dragged to court by a founding member of the party, Alhaji Sule Lamido, for depriving him the right to purchase an application form to enable him to vie for the position of National Chairman in the anticipated elective national convention of the party. He prayed the court to order the convention to be stopped until a level playing field has been guaranteed. In reaction to the 11 November, 2025 Federal High Court, Abuja, restraining order issued in favour of Alhaji Lamido and against the holding of the convention, a former PDP Deputy National Chairman, Southwest, Eddy Olafeso, in an interview with Channels Television’s Seun Okinbaloye, said that the agenda of those who did not want the national convention of the party to hold “is to entrench a one-party state.”

    Related to the defeatist opposition catchphrase is also the claim that the opposition is not bothered by the recent defection of governors, especially from the PDP, into the ruling APC. The opposition’s argument, in this respect, is that a governor has only one vote, and that in 2023, for example, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu lost elections in some states with APC governors. The fallacy in this argument is that the new defections of governors into the party give no cause to cheer. Well, an English proverb, associated with the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, says, “You can’t step in the same river twice.” The political circumstances in 2023 were radically different from those of today, and would most certainly be different from those of 2027.

    Having created the impression, through the opposition catchphrase, that they have washed their hands off any responsibility to give the electorate a credible alternative come 2027, the opposition seem to have a lot of idle time on their hands to engage in all sorts of political shenanigans. For example, on 31 October, 2025, shortly after a Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that the National Convention of the PDP scheduled for 15 to 16 November, 2025 did not follow due process and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to observe the convention and not to recognise the resolutions from it, a chieftain of the PDP, Umar Sani, condemned the judgement in his interview with Trust TV’s Hamza Idris.

    He also said that the fear that the National Legal Adviser of the party, Kamaldeen Ajibade, SAN, was working against the party in cahoots with the incumbent PDP-member Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nyesom Wike, was the reason the National Chairman, Ambassador Umar Iliya Damagum, appointed a legal team led by another lawyer, Chris Uche, to represent the party rather than allow the National Legal Adviser to coordinate the party’s legal defence in court, as specified by the party’s constitution.

    The National Secretary, National Legal Adviser, Deputy National Legal Adviser, and National Organising Secretary of PDP, who presumably belonged to Wike’s group, were subsequently suspended from the party by the National Chairman and his group. Counteracting the suspension, the Wike group led by the National Secretary announced their own suspension of the National Chairman and some officers of the party for incompetence, financial misconduct and disregard for court judgement. Abdulrahman Muhammed was thereafter declared the new Acting National Chairman of PDP. Shortly after, his faction declared their disbandment of the Board of Trustees of the party and the appointment of a new one. The other opposition parties, probably with the exception of APGA, are bedevilled by their own debilitating crises.

    The results of the 2025 Anambra State governorship election seem to show what the consequences of such crises could be. INEC announced that out of 584,054 accredited voters, the ruling party in the state, APGA, scored 422,664 votes; the ruling party at the federal level, APC, scored 99,445 votes; the less well-known Young Progressives Party (YPP) scored 37,753 votes; Labour Party (LP), the party of the former governor of the state and 2023 presidential candidate of the party, Mr. Peter Obi, scored 10,576 votes; ADC scored 8,202 votes; and the main opposition party in the country, PDP, scored 1,401 votes. 

    It is hoped that, moving forward, the opposition would recalibrate and strive to hold themselves up as a credible alternative to APC, rather than throwing up their hands and defeatistly saying that the 2027 election is going to be between APC and ‘Nigerians’. As things stand now, that vague and uninspiring expression seems to be a euphemistic repudiation of democratic or electoral responsibility. It is like the proverbial one finger pointing at APC, while the remaining four are pointing at the opposition parties themselves in a most unflattering manner. 

  • Tinubu’s clarion call for nationalist reawakening

    Tinubu’s clarion call for nationalist reawakening

    Last week may well go down as one of those defining junctures in President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s leadership—one in which he deliberately set aside the noise of politics, the distractions of the moment, and the burdens of statecraft to deliver a clarion call rooted in the soul of the Nigerian project. It was a week of patriotic reawakening, of reminders, of responsibilities, and of the subtle but unmistakable tone of urgency: Nigeria must be built, protected, and dignified, by all of us.

    That call began on Thursday afternoon in Abuja, when the President received senior military officers enrolled in the National Defense College (NDC) Course 33. It was, a sober reaffirmation of what Nigeria must urgently become: a nation sufficiently productive, sufficiently unified, sufficiently advanced, and sufficiently equipped to defend its sovereignty without fear or apology.

    Standing before the participants, the President delivered what may be his strongest statement yet on the patriotic obligation shared by every citizen, civilian and soldier alike.

    “It is our joint responsibility to ensure that this nation, Nigeria, is productive, governed inclusively, and takes care of the future of our generation yet unborn,” he declared, his voice firm, measured, and prophetic. “It is our patriotic duty to look further into the horizon, to be determined and resilient… to train our people, develop our economy, promote industrial development, and ensure that sovereignty is assured, protected, and remains resilient.”

    This was more than a charge to a roomful of uniformed officers. It was, in essence, a call to Nigeria’s last line of defense, those entrusted with the integrity of the borders, the protection of the people, the deterrence of foreign aggression, and the preservation of the authority of the Nigerian state. Coming on the heels of recent provocations and mischaracterisations by certain foreign interests, the President’s tone was unmistakable: Nigeria must rise above internal divisions and external distortions. Nigeria must be strong, strong in economy, strong in industry, strong in knowledge, and strong in the spirit of nationhood.

    Yet the President did not stop there. With the precision of a statesman linking national security to national productivity, he challenged the NDC participants to deepen their analytical capacity and interrogate Nigeria’s vulnerabilities without sentimentality. “We challenge our intellectual curiosity by being highly inquisitive,” he said, urging them to study what other nations have done, understand where Nigeria currently stands, and examine the forward path.

    The research theme submitted to him: Harnessing Indigenous Manufacturing for Enhanced National Security by 2040, fit neatly into his wider national vision: Nigeria must not depend forever on imported solutions; sovereignty in defense requires sovereignty in production.

    But the President’s nationalist message did not begin with the military, nor did it end there. Just a day earlier, he had delivered another stirring address, this time to an audience that, in his words, “shapes how the world perceives Nigeria”: the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE).

    At the opening of the 21st Annual Conference of the Guild (ANEC 2025), the President stepped into uncharted territory as the first Nigerian leader to formally declare a Guild conference open. But beyond symbolism, his message carried a tone of expectation. If the NDC represents the defense of Nigeria’s territorial integrity, then the Nigerian media, particularly the editorial gatekeepers, represent the defense of its image, its narrative, and its psychological fortitude.

    “It is our country,” the President reminded the more than 400 editors and senior journalists present. “What should be worrisome to you is the image of the country we project to the outside world. Your institutions must help build a nation of credibility and integrity.”

    Read Also: Tinubu celebrates Fayose at 65, hails his courage, political resilience

    It was not a plea. It was a patriotic nudge. For in the era of globalisation, perception is power; misinformation is weaponry; journalism is diplomacy; and national cohesion depends as much on facts as on framing. A nation that speaks poorly of itself cannot attract investment, cannot rally confidence, and cannot evoke the esprit de corps required to surmount internal challenges.

    President Tinubu’s call to the editors echoed the same theme he delivered to the NDC officers: nation-building requires shared responsibility. It requires truth, not weaponised partial truths. It requires perspective, not cynicism. And most importantly, it requires a recognition that the Nigerian story is not the enemy; the enemy is the impulse to diminish the country in the eyes of its own people.

    Even as he acknowledged the severe pressures facing the media industry; declining revenues, rising operational costs, and the struggle to adapt to digital disruption, the President assured editors that their requests for tax reliefs, VAT extensions, and economic incentives would be considered within the framework of broader fiscal reforms. It was an affirmation of partnership, not patronage; of accountability, not appeasement.

    But perhaps the most symbolic moment in the week-long narrative came on Thursday evening, after the stadium lights in Gabon had dimmed and the Super Eagles had secured a resounding 4–1 victory. For a nation often united mostly by football, the President seized the moment to amplify his theme of patriotic resilience.

    In his message celebrating the victory, he described the performance as “a powerful display of Nigeria’s resilience and winning spirit”, a metaphor that extended far beyond the confines of sport. “Every match,” he said, “is an opportunity to show discipline and character. This is the true Nigerian spirit of resilience against all odds.”

    It was as if the victory had become a living illustration of the very nationalism he had been preaching all week: courage under pressure, unity in purpose, and an unwavering determination to rise.

    And so, as the week closed, a pattern emerged, clear and coherent. The President had addressed three constituencies; soldiers, journalists, and footballers, but his message was intended for more than 200 million Nigerians.

    To the military: Defend the nation, by strength, by strategy, by intellect, by readiness. To the media: Protect the narrative, through truth, responsibility, and patriotic balance. To the footballers: Inspire the nation, with discipline, resilience, and the spirit of victory. And to the citizens: Believe in Nigeria, build Nigeria, and defend Nigeria.

    In a period when global pressures weigh heavily on the country and domestic cynicism threatens national cohesion, Tinubu’s call for nationalist reawakening could not be more apt. For nations are not simply built by policy, they are built by spirit. They are sustained by shared purpose. They endure through collective effort.

    Last week, President Tinubu reminded Nigerians of that simple but profound truth: Nigeria will become what Nigerians choose to make of it.

    Beyond the weighty calls to patriotic duty that defined his engagements, the President’s week was textured with moments that reflected the breadth of leadership; moments of statesmanship, compassion, national acknowledgement, and deliberate continuity in governance. On Sunday, he opened the week by congratulating Anambra State Governor, Professor Chukwuma Charles Soludo, on securing a second term in office—a victory he described as an “affirmation of visionary leadership.” It was a presidential nod to democratic continuity, a recognition of performance, and an encouragement to a people who conducted themselves peacefully at the polls.

    By Monday, the President’s attention turned to more solemn duties. He mourned the passing of retired Justice Mukhtar Muhammad Dodo, a former Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, paying tribute to a jurist whose integrity and fearlessness left deep imprints on the nation’s judiciary. He also extended warm felicitations to former Kano State Governor Ibrahim Shekarau on his 70 th birthday, celebrating a career defined by discipline, scholarship, and humanity. And in the same breath, he reached out empathetically to two political contemporaries; former Bauchi State Governor, Ahmed Muazu, and Environment Minister, Balarabe Abbas Lawal, commiserating with them over the loss of their mothers, both women remembered for moral strength and lifelong service to family and community.

    The President’s Monday also carried the imprint of policy seriousness, as he hosted a delegation from Siemens Energy and reaffirmed that the administration is taking power supply “very seriously.” His message was blunt: Nigeria’s industrial, educational, healthcare and transportation ambitions rest squarely on a stable electricity backbone. It was another reminder that the nationalist call he sounded throughout the week is not rhetoric—it is anchored in reforms that determine the country’s future competitiveness.

    On Tuesday, the President honoured the Emir of Ilorin, Dr. Ibrahim Sulu-Gambari, on the 30th anniversary of his ascension to the throne, calling him a custodian of dignity, justice and peace. He also celebrated Senator Ibrahim Oloriegbe at 65, praising hisexceptional service to the health sector.

    By Thursday, tributes flowed again, this time to the Asagba of Asaba, Professor Epiphany Azinge, on his 70 th birthday, and to veteran journalist Tajudeen Ayodeji Kareem, whose four decades in media have shaped national discourse.

    The week closed on Friday with continuity in public service as the President reappointed Brigadier-General Mohammed Buba Marwa (rtd) as Chairman of the NDLEA, extending a tenure that has brought renewed vigour to the nation’s anti-narcotics fight.

    So, whether in celebrating excellence, consoling the bereaved, strengthening institutions or pushing reforms, President Tinubu’s week ultimately threaded into one narrative: a leadership calling a nation to believe again, to build again, and to rise together.

  • Soludo’s triumph, Obi’s humiliation

    Soludo’s triumph, Obi’s humiliation

    As this column predicted before the November 8, 2025 governorship election, Chukwuma Soludo, an economics professor, won with a healthy margin. He did better than that; he won with a landslide – all the local governments and nearly all the wards. The performance was so commanding and clearly so one-sided that it left no one in doubt who was the winner and who were the losers. The media looked out for how both the Labour Party (LP), often associated with former Anambra governor Peter Obi, and the African Democratic Congress (ADC), now inextricably linked with former vice president Atiku Abubakar, would perform. Both did very poorly, the LP more shockingly so. The ADC, which took only 8,208 votes out of 595,298 votes cast, was a non-starter, and is likely to remain a non-starter in every election nationally henceforth. But Mr Obi, down to his polling unit which his candidate lost to the All Progressives Congress (APC), proved surrealistically inexistent. The LP candidate, George Moghalu, secured a meager 10,576 votes.

    Read Also: Blood for a High:The Hidden HIV Threat Behind Nigeria’s “Bluetoothing” Craze

    Overall, Prof. Soludo took 422,664 or 71 percent of the votes, a ringing endorsement of his style, capacity, and campaign. He and many of his supporters interpret the unalloyed endorsement as also a total repudiation of Mr Obi, the Teflon politician and former LP presidential candidate. With coruscating wit, the victorious governor dismissed Mr Obi’s politics, adding that even though LP leader was not on the ballot, he lost his polling unit in Agulu Ward 11. Hundreds of kilometers away in Lagos, some busybody APC politicians sarcastically counselled Mr Obi to abjure his presidential ambition and go home and rest because his time was over and had lost his so-called Midas touch. Mr Obi may have become irrelevant in Anambra for obvious reasons, but nationally, especially as he embarks on cobbling together a sizable political platform on which to run for president, his dismissal may be premature. Those who support him are not discerning or discriminating. They love him, down to his flaws which they find masochistically endearing. Should he eventually get a platform on which to run for office, no matter how flimsy or tenuous it is, they will flock to his side and give his campaign fresh oomph. He will of course not win, and indeed cannot conceivably win, but his obsession has never been about winning. To him, politics is an inscrutable game, and only he can disentangle it.