The Nation Newspaper

Category: Columnists

Jonathan: Buhari won Boko Haram ‘technically’

Was former president, Goodluck Jonathan wrong to expect his successor, late Muhammadu Buhari to have defeated Boko Haram insurgency soon after assuming office? That is the question brought to the fore by Jonathan’s reservations last week, on Buhari’s inability to expeditiously bring the war to an end, despite being once named by the insurgent group as their negotiator.

This question still needs answers irrespective of the clarification by Jonathan that his statement should not be misconstrued as an indictment on Buhari or suggestive of his complicity in the Boko Haram saga. Perhaps, interrogating the observation, may well get the country closer to comprehending the complexities posed by the festering Boko Haram challenge.

Jonathan had during a book launch in Abuja said, “One of the committees we set up then, the Boko Haram nominated Buhari to lead their team to negotiate with the government.

“So, I was feeling that, oh, if they nominated Buhari to represent them and have a discussion with the government committee, then when Buhari took over, it could have been an easier way to negotiate with them and they would have handed over their guns. But it is still there till today”.

The statement quickly drew the ire of Buhari’s former spokesman, Garba Shehu. He described it as misleading since neither Boko Haram’s founding leader, Muhammed Yusuf, nor his successor, Abubakar Shekau, ever nominated Buhari for mediation. Shehu claimed that Shekau consistently denounced and threatened Buhari while recalling that Buhari escaped a Boko Haram bomb attack in Kaduna in 2014.

Shehu however, claimed confusion over the nomination of Buhari arose after a Boko Haram faction, allegedly sponsored by his (Buhari’s) political opponents staged a press conference in Maiduguri, through one Abu Mohammed Ibn Abdulaziz claiming that the sect preferred Buhari and other northern elders.

Even then, he said Buhari dismissed the report at the time as “just speculation” since nobody had contacted him directly.

All that Shehu strove to prove is that Buhari was not nominated by the known leaders of the Boko Haram insurgency. But he admitted there was a nomination by Ibn Abdulaziz, a factional leader of the insurgency group who he claimed was a political agent. Shehu also sought to establish that Buhari has no known links with Boko Haram as they demonised and even attacked him in Kaduna. All that could as well be.

Does Jonathan’s observation collapse just because Buhari’s nomination was not made by either Mohammed or Shekau presented by Shehu as the known leaders of the insurgent group? Or, how correct is it to presume that the nomination by Ibn Abdulaziz did not exist coming from the quarters it did, especially since the insurgency group demonised and attacked Buhari?

Shehu’s answers to the two questions will likely be in the affirmative. In order words, having seemingly faulted the premise on which Jonathan based his expectation of Buhari to have won the war soon after assuming office, his statement should be seen as lacking in merit. That would however, amount to an oversimplification of the larger issues thrown up by Jonathan.

Read Also: Tinubu to son at 40: ‘You’ve made us proud, I know you’ll continue to make Nigeria proud’

If Jonathan was wrong to expect Buhari to have won Boko Haram based on the factional leader that made the nomination and Buhari’s rejection of the same, what do we make of copious evidence where Buhari made claims of his uncommon capacities to tame the insurgency group? Did Buhari leave anyone in doubt that he had the capacity to handle the raging insurgency in the country better? At any rate, was the fight against insecurity not one of the cardinal campaign programmes with which he sought the votes of the electorate?

Buhari unarguably, was one of the greatest critics of the handling of the Boko Haram insurgency by the Jonathan administration. He not only accused Jonathan of “looking the other way” when the Chibok girls were abducted but was reported to have said in 2013 that the “military offensive against Boko Haram is anti-north”. Many northern leaders had at the budding stages of the insurgency faulted it and read political motives into it. Elite dissonance was one of the key reasons Boko Haram got entrenched.

During his famous speech at Chatham House London, Buhari did not leave his audience in doubt that he had solutions to the Boko Haram insurgency. He did not only fault the prosecution of the war but promised to lead the war from the front.

Hear him, “We will always act on time and not allow problems to irresponsibly fester, and I Muhammadu Buhari, will always lead from the front and return Nigeria to its leadership role in regional and international efforts to combat terrorism”.

He also promised to pay special attention to the welfare of soldiers in and out of service: “we will give them adequate and modern arms and ammunitions to work with… to choke Boko Haram’s financial and equipment channels, we will be tough on terrorism and tough on its root causes”. Buhari received thunderous ovation from his audience for speaking so confidently on his plans to eliminate Boko Haram.

Buhari was also reported to have assigned himself a timeline of six months to win the war against the insurgents after he won the 2015 general election.

It is therefore not in doubt that Buhari’s statements and body language gave the impression that he had all it takes to tame the Boko Haram monster. So, Jonathan’s expectation of him to have won the war against insurgency soon after assuming office is based on solid foundation. In that also, he is with many.

Irrespective of the quarters from which the mediation nomination came, Buhari left nobody in doubt that he had the magic wand to win the war against Boko Haram. Many believed him and he owes his electoral victory largely to that expectation. His profile as an Army General and former military head of state counted as added advantages.

Jonathan may not have gone this length, but the issues were obviously at the back of his mind when he spoke the way he did at the book launch. It serves no useful purpose misconstruing his statement as suggestive of Buhari’s link with Boko Haram. Buhari made such claims and there is nothing wrong holding him accountable to his words.

Buhari was conscious of the promises he made on the matter. It was in apparent bid to fulfil them, that he gleefully declared in December 2015, barely six months after assuming office that “Nigeria has technically won the war” against Islamist Boko Haram insurgents. He had predicated his claims on the grounds that the militant group could no longer mount “conventional attacks” against security forces or population centres.

For him, Boko Haram had been reduced to fighting with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and remained a force only in its heartland of Borno State. His claims were seen as hasty and received with mixed feelings by those versed in asymmetrical warfare.

But all these claims were soon to collapse like a pack of cards. The insurgents quickly to put a lie to them as they resumed onslaughts against military formations and population centres. These took enormous toll on the military both in human and material capital despite efforts to contain the insurgents.

It is an irony of sorts that Buhari failed to win the war against the Boko Haram insurgency until he left office. What has rather been witnessed has been the emergence of more splinter groups with some attacking population centres in parts of the country they were not able to access when Jonathan held sway.

Just a few weeks ago, Borno State governor, Babagana Zulum raised an alarm on the regrouping of the insurgents around the Tumbus areas of Lake Chad and Mandara Hills within the Sambisa Forest in the state. This is in addition to several attacks, killings and abductions by the insurgent group.

But the more troubling arising from the book launch, is the seeming lack of clarity among leaders on what Boko Haram really stands for, its sponsors and the best strategy to eradicate the scourge.

Jonathan believes the issue of Boko Haram is far more complex than it is often presented. He sees their motivation beyond the hunger-narrative even as he fingered external sponsorship given their sophistication in arms and ammunitions.

The Chief of Defence Staff, Christopher Musa wants the underlying factors that incubate insecurity; poverty, lack of education and unemployment to be addressed. For former president, Olusegun Obasanjo, the country must ask itself hard questions about how it has handled the crisis over the past 15 years. If by now there is no consensus on some of these issues, is it surprising Boko Haram appears to be defying solutions?

October 13, 2025
Biafra again?

Biafra took a plum place at a recent literary fest known as the Quramo Book Festival that holds annually in Lagos. I was a member of a panel that also starred writer Professor Dul Johnson, film maker Emeka Ed Keazor, soldier and writer General Akintunde Akinkunmi, host of books on Channels Television Kunle Kasunmu, who also laid the context for the parley.

Novelist Tade Ipadeola held the time, pulse and tempo as moderator.

The title, a mouthful, was “961 Days, Brothers at War. Never again…” I spent quite some time reflecting on the points and narratives of the panelists, and the first is the topic’s relevance today, even as top men in the east are asking for Nnamdi Kanu’s release even though he has not renounced Biafra.

They guarantee his good behaviour when he has not even made any such pledge. They want the president to upend the rule of law by setting him free.

The other side of the story is the subliminal rage on the streets and even among the Igbo intelligentsia, a temperament not yet canalized or defined in public. Sometimes it is a boiling kettle without a whistle.

Two things the other panelists said cut me to the quick.

Filmmaker Keazor recalled an incident with his mother who was seized by a moment of distemper and slapped her son for no reason.

It was an onset of PTSD, a reflex of war trauma. The other was by Professor Johnson, whose life changed when only one of his three brothers returned from the war.

There is no superior tragedy but his case had the dubious mercy of numbers compared to the Second World War yarn of the Ryan family documented in the movie, Saving Private Ryan. Three brothers were already killed. War General Dwight Eisenhower ordered that the lone surviving brother must be saved.

There were two issues for me as I reflected after the fete of ideas. One was ego. I asserted that the war was not necessary, and only ego precipitated it.

I said the actors were about 30 years of age, and their immaturities provoked the slaughter of innocents. Ojukwu and Gowon were about 30 years old, and the nation’s future lay in their callow hands.

Ego set in because Ojukwu said he could not serve under Gowon as his Supreme Commander. General Akintunde, who wrote a book on the Nigerian army titled: Hubris, titillated the audience by tracking the careers of Gowon and Ojukwu, and how in alternating episodes each was the other’s superior until they both were promoted lieutenant colonel the same day.

So, after Ironsi’s death, Gowon was made head of state having served as Ironsi’s chief of staff. Ojukwu would none of it.

Read Also: Tinubu to son at 40: ‘You’ve made us proud, I know you’ll continue to make Nigeria proud’

This happened in two contexts. One, the pogrom in the north that targeted Igbos especially but lapped up other southern groups including Efik, Ibibios, Urhobos, Itsekiris, etc, a point that drove me to work the minority angle in my novel, My Name is Okoro.

Here again, we witnessed the error of age. The countercoup leader, Murtala Muhammed and his colleagues, shunned an important opportunity for peace.

They could have accepted Brigadier Babafemi Ogundipe, the most senior army officer, as the head of state. If they did, they could have avoided the pogrom in the north, the battle between Ojukwu and Gowon and the civil war.

It was Murtala’s erratic folly and his lack of political intelligence, including his advisers, that led to Nigeria’s tragic moment.

Even then, when the pogrom happened, Ojukwu might have averted the war for a number of reasons. One, the prospective economy did not have the resources to win the war.

The most important asset in a war is not a mere will, important as it is. Napoleon said, “Morale is to the physical as three is to one.” But the morale must be fed by a good economy. The same Napoleon asserted that “an army marches on its stomach.”

Ojukwu and his advisers did not reckon on the stomach. Before the war, the eastern region relied on food, including fish and meat from outside.

How do you start a war without a food economy? Hence, the soldiers kept raiding markets in the Midwest for food and sustenance.

The Awolowo currency change and the food blockade worked because Biafra relied on food from outside. If its economy was able to produce its own food, then its currency would have worked for itself in spite of federal devastations.

On the economy, Ojukwu made a gamble. He signed a deal with the Rothschild Bank of France guaranteeing sole exploration of oil wells he had not secured. It brought France into the Biafran side but too late indeed to change its fortunes.

There are so many reasons for victory in war. But hubris, over the centuries, has played a role. Hence Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that, ‘’in analysing history, do not be too profound for often the causes are quite superficial.” Because of its weak economy, it could not equal the federal side in the acquisition of arms. Yet, having declared Biafra, he did not stay home. His soldier marched onto the Midwest and headed towards Lagos.

A dissipation of scarce resources. Reminds one of Hitler’s “Operation Barbarossa.” Why did Ojukwu do so? His heart was still Nigerian, if he didn’t know it.

He wanted to be part of a country he was renouncing. Hence, when he died, I called him Omo Eko. He wanted to teach Gowon, who he called Jack, a lesson.

That was hubris. He was in two binds. One, he could not feed his people without going out. He could not teach Gowon a lesson without conquering Lagos.

He succeeded in neither. Biafra became a lost cause. Ojukwu spoke Yoruba, attended King’s College, lived in Lagos and blended with its metropolitan elan.

So, If Murtala and his advisers did not make Ogundipe the head of state, Gowon did not seem to want a war. So, he declared a police state, and we had for some time what historians called a phony war in the beginnings of the Second World War tensions of soldiers without conflict.

In Soyinka’s memoir, You Must Set Forth At Dawn, he recalls a meeting between Awolowo and Ojukwu to avert the war. But after a long talk ended, Ojukwu took, later that night, one of his associates to Awo’s chalet and told him he and his people had decided on war. He respected Awo too much to waste his time. Awo could not dissuade him.

If Ojukwu walked to his people and said, “no war,” Christopher Okigbo had allegedly said even market women would stone him on the streets. He might have saved millions of lives, including Okigbo and, on the federal side, Adaka Boro. Winston Churchill misquoted: “It is better to jaw jaw than to war war.” The wartime leader actually said, “it is better to meet jaw to jaw than war.”

Maybe Ojukwu relied on his officers. The Igbo had the better officers in the country, pound for pound. But in war, as in sports, one ingredient does not guarantee victory. Alexander Madiebo explained in his war memoirs that they did not have the armory.

The war, in the final analysis, reflected the interdependence of the east with the rest of the country, and that was why Quramo fittingly titled the discussion, Brothers at War

In spite of all these, the bitterness of Biafra creeps into any narrative of our oneness as a people. Is it because we have never had a real jaw-to-jaw confab or the jaw does not touch the mutual hearts? The answer to a slaughter is not another slaughter.

The answer to the pogrom was not another one in the name of a civil war.

In the United States, Donald Trump embodies the rebirth of American civil war malice fought in the 19th century. As novelist Viet Nguyen wrote, “A war is fought twice. One on the battlefields and the second in the mind.”

It is better in the mind than on the battlefield, so long as it does not spill blood. We must learn not to have men not old enough for authority, who cannot distinguish between power and strength. The crisis of the 1960’s prospered on the hubris of politicians, especially in the Western Region. It is remarkable, as former inspector general of police M.D. Yusufu reveals in a biography written by Ayo Opadokun, that the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) had opted out of the deal with Akintola and his NNDP. Northern leaders Kashim Imam and the Sardauna Ahmadu Bello told the colourful premier they did not want to be the source of his fight with his kinsmen anymore.Just a day before the January 15, 1966 coup when he was killed.

Yusufu said he was a witness to the conversation with Akintola.

What if the decision came two days or three before the coup?

We might muse on what might have been, but we cannot but ponder on why Nigeria keeps going back to its problems as though we have not gone past them.

Philosopher Nietzsche calls it “eternal return.” We keep exhuming our ill-tempered ghosts, just like in the line from the Poet Afred Lord Tennyson: “ O me…why have they not buried me deep enough?”

October 13, 2025
A Rohr deal

It is not that the Benin national team is coming to town tomorrow. But my grouse is with Gernot Rohr, the team’s coach. His team will knock heads with their feet against the Super Eagles. Rohr is coming back here to commit a crime.

He wants to defeat the hand that once fed him. I met him years ago at the Lagos Airport when we were on the verge of the World Cup qualifier. I asked him of our chances.

Read Also: No threats can derail mining sector reforms, Alake declares

He was genial but not confident. He did not speak like an inspirer or a force for his soldiers on the field. I hope the man is too bad to commit a crime in our match tomorrow in Uyo.

Nigerians are juggling the math of possibility, on Nigeria’s chances for the Mundial. I only focus on Rohr. I hope Rohr does not hand us a raw deal.

October 13, 2025
BRIDGE BUILDER

(for Christianne Fioupou)

Bridge builder

Silence lessener

Tamer of the eternal turmoil

Between contending tongues

The horizontal strife in their syntax

The paradigmatic leanings of their words

The seeming idiocy behind their idioms

The loaded profundity of their proverbs

Pause

And so it was

When The Road* led you to your quickening quest

And whispering Embers burst into blaze

Across your Mediterranean bridge

How did King Baabu’s barbarous barking

Sound 0n the lips of a different bully:

Red like the fiery fury of Thunder King

Read Also: Germany, Australia, ASF France kick against death penalty in Nigeria

Or soft like the mellow expressivity of the Gallic tongue

How did you manage the magic rendering

Of Silences’ “painted harmonies”

Or the redolent tonalities

In the anxious patience of Waiting Laughters?

Tell us about the passionate territoriality of tongues

And the semantic serendipity of lucky correspondences

Diligent undoer of Babel’s babble

Patience being your province; wisdom your wand

* References to some of the works translated by Professor Fioupou: The Road and King Baabu (Wole Soyinka); Embers (Soji Cole); Thunder King (Femi Osofisan); Labyrinths (Christopher Okigbo); Waiting Laughters (Niyi Osundare).

October 12, 2025
Conclave of statecraft: Rebuilding security, justice, soul of the nation

The week that just concluded was another testament to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s relentless devotion to duty. From Sunday through Saturday, the President was engaged in matters that touch directly on the heartbeat of the nation — governance, justice, and security. Yet, even within this packed schedule, Thursday stood out in golden relief. It was the day the President convened not one, but two of the country’s most sacred constitutional gatherings — the National Council of State and the Police Council — in a stretch of national decision-making that reaffirmed his government’s seriousness about security, justice reform, and institutional renewal.

For any observer of Nigerian governance, these meetings are not routine. They happen only at critical junctures when the nation must take decisive steps to secure its stability and define its direction. Thursday, therefore, was a moment of convergence — a day when the President summoned the combined wisdom of Nigeria’s elder statesmen, governors, and institutional leaders to deliberate on matters that would shape the country’s future.

Presiding over the Council of State, President Tinubu sought counsel and consensus on issues fundamental to Nigeria’s democratic survival: the appointment of a new Chairman for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the exercise of presidential mercy, and the approval of national honours. Each agenda item reflected a balance between law, justice, and humanity — three cardinal points of the President’s political compass.

After due consideration, the Council unanimously approved the nomination of Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan (SAN), a scholar and legal luminary of unimpeachable integrity, as the next INEC Chairman. The choice of Amupitan, the first nominee for the position from Kogi State, was hailed across the board, including from quarters where the media had expected sharp criticisms, as a symbol of merit over partisanship, a reinforcement of Tinubu’s promise to protect the independence and credibility of Nigeria’s electoral body.

In the President’s own description, Amupitan represents “a bridge between the classroom and the courtroom, a man who understands both the letter and the spirit of the law”. That endorsement captures the essence of Tinubu’s broader reform ethos: to rebuild institutions on the strength of competence and integrity rather than convenience or political loyalty.

The Council’s backing of Amupitan’s nomination, which will now proceed to the Senate for confirmation, was both historic and symbolic. It reaffirmed the Tinubu administration’s deliberate return to meritocratic appointments in sensitive institutions, especially one as pivotal as INEC, where credibility underpins the entire democratic edifice.

If the INEC decision projected a commitment to fairness and institutional strength, the Council’s consideration of presidential pardons highlighted another facet of Tinubu’s leadership; compassion. Acting on the recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy, the President approved 175 pardons, including posthumous clemency for nationalist Herbert Macaulay and the poet-soldier Major-General Mamman Vatsa.

Equally significant was the formal pardon of the Ogoni Nine — Ken Saro-Wiwa and his compatriots — whose 1995 executions remain one of Nigeria’s darkest historical chapters. Tinubu’s decision to close that wound was deeply symbolic; it was not merely an act of forgiveness but of national healing.

The President also extended clemency to 82 inmates, commuted seven death sentences to life imprisonment, and reduced the sentences of 65 others. In all, the exercise served both moral and practical ends; decongesting correctional facilities while advancing the cause of restorative justice.

The same session saw the approval of 959 national honours, including posthumous recognitions for the Ogoni activists, as well as awards to icons of journalism, technology, sports, and global philanthropy. From Bill Gates to Uncle Sam Amuka-Pemu, and from the Super Falcons to D’Tigresses, the honourees reflected the administration’s expansive view of service, one that values humanitarian and intellectual contributions alongside political or economic achievement.

The conferment also carried a subtler message: President Tinubu’s determination to reposition Nigeria’s honours system as a credible national institution, no longer reserved for the well-connected but for the truly deserving. From his first year in office, he had indicated the focus on restoring integrity to every process that carries the seal of the Federal Republic. Thursday’s endorsements showed that promise being fulfilled in earnest.

If the Council of State meeting embodied reflection and restoration, the Police Council meeting that followed represented reform and reinvention. It was here that the President’s longstanding interest in overhauling Nigeria’s internal security system came fully into view.

Read Also: Security operatives intercept $6.1m cash at Lagos airport

The Council approved major proposals to strengthen the Nigeria Police Trust Fund (NPTF) — the institution responsible for funding training, welfare, logistics, and modernization in the police force. Specifically, it endorsed the repeal and re-enactment of the NPTF Act, removing its six-year lifespan clause and transforming it into a permanent statutory agency.

More importantly, the Council approved an increase in the Fund’s revenue allocation from 0.5 percent to 1 percent of the Federation Account, with a provision for future upward review to 2 percent. The goal, according to Minister of Police Affairs, Ibrahim Gaidam, is to guarantee sustainable financing for training, technology, and welfare, the three pillars of modern policing.

President Tinubu’s message was unmistakable: a nation that desires peace must invest in its protectors. The President’s own reform blueprint for policing, from equipment modernisation to digital crime management, has been clear since his days as Lagos State Governor, when he pioneered the Lagos Security Trust Fund. Thursday’s decisions now elevate that vision to the national stage.

In what seemed like perfect coordination, news also broke that President Tinubu had earlier, in the last few days, signed into law the Nigeria Police Training Institutions (Establishment) Bill, 2024, a landmark legislation that legally anchors 48 police academies and training schools across the six geopolitical zones.

The new law is a decisive leap in the professionalisation of Nigeria’s law enforcement architecture. It categorises the institutions into Police Colleges, Police Tactical Schools, Police Technical Training Schools, and other specialised centres, from the Counter-Terrorism Unit in Nonwa-Tai, Rivers, to the K9 and Marine Training Schools in Jos and Bayelsa, respectively.

For a country long plagued by fragmented police training and inconsistent standards, the new Act provides a unified framework for capacity building, ethics, and continuous education. It institutionalises what President Tinubu has often called “the culture of competence”, ensuring that every officer, from constable to commissioner, receives structured and modern training aligned with global best practices.

By signing the Act and strengthening the Trust Fund, the President effectively closed the loop on two of the most critical weaknesses in Nigeria’s security system: poor training and chronic underfunding. These twin interventions, executed within the same week, show a reformist resolve that is both strategic and sustained.

Beyond the specifics of appointments, pardons, and reforms, the symbolism of Thursday’s twin meetings was profound. Bringing together past leaders like Generals Ibrahim Babangida and Abdulsalami Abubakar, alongside the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, four former Chief Justices, and state governors, the Council of State meeting was a rare assembly of Nigeria’s institutional memory.

That President Tinubu chose to convene such an august body at a time of national reflection underscores his instinct for timing and consensus. It was a moment to draw from collective wisdom and project unity of purpose, two resources that Nigeria needs more than ever in this phase of reconstruction.

Similarly, the Police Council’s deliberations, anchored in data, law, and fiscal prudence, revealed a methodical leader, not one given to rhetoric. Tinubu’s governance style was once again on display: combining big-picture vision with administrative precision, ensuring that every decision fits into a coherent national reform mosaic.

The events of Thursday added another chapter to President Tinubu’s ongoing chronicle of statecraft. His administration has often been defined by its balancing act, between reform and relief, compassion and discipline, politics and principle. Yet, if there was ever a day that encapsulated his governing philosophy, it was Thursday, October 9, 2025: a day of leadership that fused law, mercy, and security into one seamless narrative of nation-building.

From the posthumous pardon of heroes to the institutionalisation of police professionalism, the President’s message was clear — that leadership must heal, build, and protect all at once. That is the essence of his Renewed Hope Agenda: a leadership of empathy anchored on results.

If Thursday was the summit of statecraft, the rest of the week supplied the steady cadence that gives governance its heartbeat. On Sunday, President Tinubu opened with gratitude and institutional memory, hailing former Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Lucky Irabor (rtd.), at 60. It was more than a birthday message; it was an affirmation of service and sacrifice to those who held the line when insurgency threatened the Republic. Honouring courage is how a nation teaches the next generation what it values.

By Monday, the President was back in Abuja after a ten-day working visit to Lagos that doubled as an investment roadshow and policy clinic. Meetings with capital allocators like Bayo Ogunlesi and Hakeem Belo-Osagie underscored a simple thesis: private capital follows clarity, and this Presidency intends to provide it. His audience with IMO Secretary-General, Arsenio Dominguez, flanked by the Blue Economy team, carried the same through-line: unlock trade corridors, formalise the maritime economy, and move Nigerian logistics from potential to competitiveness. The day also carried a personal note as the President celebrated Dr. Dele Alake at 69—saluting a long partnership now powering reforms to reposition solid minerals as a sovereign revenue pillar.

On Tuesday, statecraft met sobriety. The President formally acknowledged Professor Mahmood Yakubu’s exit after two full terms at INEC, conferring a national honour to mark a decade of democratic stewardship. In the same spirit of institutional hygiene, he accepted the resignation of Geoffrey Nnaji from cabinet amid certificate controversies—a reminder that public trust is the coin of the realm and that this administration will let due process breathe.

Thursday’s solemnity also embraced the nation’s conscience as the President mourned Dr. Christopher Kolade, calling him an “intellectual treasure”, a phrase equal parts tribute and instruction. He also extended warm felicitations to Hajia Bola Shagaya at 66 and to Governor Inuwa Yahaya of Gombe, recognising impact where it is measurable: classrooms built, schools upgraded, outcomes improved.

Closing the loop, Friday spotlighted youth enterprise without borders: Interface Africa’s £1.5m triumph at the NextGen Innovation Challenge—a win for solar finance, small business resilience, and Nigeria’s innovation brand. And as the curtain fell on Saturday, the President saluted former Vice President Namadi Sambo on his turbaning as Sardaunan Zazzau—a cultural investiture that dignifies service and stitches community to country.

A Nation in Steady Hands

As Nigeria continues its march toward becoming a model modern nation, the decisions of last week will likely be remembered as pivotal. The convening of the Council of State and the Police Council on the same day was no coincidence; it was deliberate choreography, the President’s way of aligning justice, security, and governance under one national purpose.

With the INEC leadership question settled, the Police reforms institutionalised, and historical wrongs corrected through presidential mercy, Nigeria ends this week on a note of stability and moral renewal.

In a world where many nations struggle to balance strength with compassion, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Thursday meetings offered a rare example of both; the firm hand of reform and the soft heart of humanity.

For a nation rebuilding its confidence and institutions, that combination may well be its greatest hope.

October 12, 2025
Tinubu puzzles Amina Mohammed

Speaking at an award dinner at the Nigeria House in New York to celebrate Nigeria’s 65th anniversary, Amina Mohammed, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations (UN), said she was puzzled by President Bola Tinubu’s disciplined reticence on the socio-economic conditions his administration inherited. She knows how fashionable it is for a new president to expiate his difficulties by blaming his predecessor’s abominable policies and track record. She added: “But he (Tinubu) also told us that he wasn’t going to complain about what he (inherited). I have not heard him complain. People around him complain about what he inherited, but he doesn’t.” The global diplomat seemed fascinated. So, too, do many Nigerians, including those who like or hate the president.

Read Also: Our unity, not factionalism, will secure victory for Tinubu in 2027 – APC group

Though he is no religious puritan, President Tinubu, by his attitude, teaches faith leaders the exemplary art of not complaining or murmuring. In 2015, weeks after basking in his contributions to the Muhammadu Buhari electoral success, he was sidelined and treated shabbily by his party and leaders. Shocked, he nevertheless kept silent. Shortly before the 2019 reelection campaign, when the ruling party realised it had been unable to groom former governor Tinubu’s replacement in the Southwest, they went back to him for help. Again he offered that crucial help but studiously refused to mock his traducers or complain. In fact he was even mysteriously silent. And when his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), enacted a welter of policies to ostracise and emasculate him, and even erected huge boulders across his path to derail his 2023 presidential ambition, he refused to abuse the then president or any party leader.

And after he won, he has been nothing but gracious to his undeserving predecessor, a fact now attested to by Mrs Mohammed. Rudyard Kipling put it succinctly: “If you can keep your head when all about you// Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;// If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,// But make allowance for their doubting too;// If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,// Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,// Or, being hated, don’t give way to hating,//…If you can fill the unforgiving minute// With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run—// Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,// And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!//” President Tinubu embodies this timeless lesson.

October 12, 2025
Peter Obi, Kenneth Okonkwo and verbal jousting

The battle began innocuously days ago, and it provided a window into the mind of former Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate in the 2023 election, Peter Obi. A certain Katch Ononuju, director general of the Abuja-based Heritage Centre, had declared in an interview that Kenneth Okonkwo, lawyer, actor and former LP presidential campaign spokesman, had lobbied to be the publicity secretary of the party. Mr Okonkwo was not just incensed but also shocked. He said that he expected Mr Obi to halt the antics of someone lying in his name. It seemed a simple enough fight; but it soon snowballed into a fiery exchange between the actor and the former candidate, with Mr Ononuju, the agent provocateur, becoming a bystander.

Convinced that he had never lobbied anyone for a position, let alone for a lower position, Mr Okonkwo painted his disappointment colourfully. Said he: “How is it that people are lying with Peter Obi’s name, and Peter Obi would hear such a thing publicly and would not react to it and would not call them to order publicly? You can never use me, Kenneth Okonkwo, to lie against Peter Obi, no matter the situation, because I detest lies. It shows a leader who cannot even defend the truth or defend people who have worked for him. These are the kind of problems Peter Obi has, attracting even street urchins, classless street urchins who are ill-bred. Those are the kind of followers he’s attracting now.”

Here is where the story got incandescent. Instead of simply refuting Mr Okonkwo’s allegations, Mr Obi sidestepped the part that involved Mr Ononuju, and launched into a discourse on egalitarianism. Or, to be more historical, and in perhaps an unconscious imitation of Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Diderot, the French philosophes, Mr Obi wrote a disproportionate thesis on the concepts of egalite, equalite, fraternite – all to answer why he failed to set the records straight in the matter of Okonkwo vs. Ononuju. It may seem sophomoric philosophy, especially seeing that he was a student of philosophy himself, but Mr Obi is capable of throwing red herring and using colourful yet uncharismatic language. For the former governor, the acerbic exchange between Mr Okonkwo and Mr Ononuju was not about truth or falsehood; it was instead about how to view the poor and the dispossessed, his eternal and jejune fancy. To him, it was, indeed, about street urchins.

Read Also: APC group to Peter Obi: tell Otti to account for Abia’s revenue management

Here is how Mr Obi framed the answer to a question not posed by Mr Okonkwo: “Humanity is paramount in my politics, no street urchins. Lately, I have heard a few people say that those who follow Peter Obi are low-class Nigerians, and some have even gone as far as calling them ‘street urchins’ and people of no value. It is deeply unfortunate that in today’s Nigeria, citizens now look down on fellow citizens in such a degrading manner. I have never and will never look down on anyone, except to lift them up…My involvement in politics has never been about associating with the so-called high and mighty, but about standing with the ordinary Nigerians whose voices have been silenced and whose resources have been stolen by the same ‘big names’ who now parade themselves with all sorts of titles and names…No Nigerian is a street urchin. It speaks volumes about the state of our nation that everyday Nigerians are now battered by poverty and hardship, to the point their leaders refer to them as of no value, and urchins.”

Mr Obi said he ‘heard a few people say’. For inexplicable reasons he was unprepared to mention Mr Okonkwo, the secondary object of his thesis, by name. Yet, his explanation about street urchins and how they are treated smacks of excessive condescension. It is clear that Mr Okonkwo made reference to street urchins in the context of a class of people unable to engage in the smallest exercise of logical deductions. Well, one is a lawyer, and the other a third-rate philosopher. Worse, rather than set the records straight, Mr Obi actually preferred to politique. Thereafter, he engaged in extrapolations and then deplored Nigerian leaders’ view of the poor, putting words in their mouths, and all but concluding that Mr Okonkwo belonged to that category of snobbish leadership. Mr Obi obviously and alarmingly views all this as politics. But he was not done, for, as he is wont, he must end every public statement with jaded sermons. Hear him: “Every Nigerian deserves dignity, opportunity, and care. That is why I will continue to do my part to ensure that the ordinary Nigerians enjoy a better life, one built on access to education, quality healthcare, and genuine efforts to lift them out of poverty. True leadership is not about mocking the weak; it is about lifting them up.” Nigerians do not have a global reputation for mediocre reasoning or tolerating mendacity. It is, therefore, mystifying why a loud and impertinent section of the populace finds Mr Obi’s drivelling fascinating.

October 12, 2025
Dangote on my mind (IV)

Long before refined petroleum products began pouring out of the Dangote refinery, I was sure that whenever that happened, the Nigerian economy was going to receive a massive shot in the arm. I was sure that the refinery was going to change Nigeria, permanently and profoundly. After all, the planned scale of the enterprise was so large that it could take care of local demands. Not only that, it was large enough to have a great deal left over for export. If that was not a game changer, nothing else was going to clinch it. The reality of what has happened in the last two years has however clipped the wings of my soaring expectations, bringing me back to reality with a massive bump.

What I failed to add to my calculation of reality was that whilst opening the refinery was a positive, life changing event for the vast majority of Nigerians, it was bound to be seen in a negative and altogether unwelcome light. After all, a small but all powerful minority were profiting from the chaos which had governed our fuel supply mechanisms for half a century and counting. It is now clear that not taking their reaction into consideration was going to fatally screw up the equation of fuel supply in the country, even as high grade fuel was being produced right here on our shores.

The first indication of reality was that long after the refinery was commissioned, its promised products were not available on the fuel thirsty streets of Nigeria. This was not a spontaneous reaction but a contrived response to the potential availability of enough fuel to drive the nation’s economy. The actors in that area of our economy had decided to deprive our nubile waist of decorative beads in favour of total strangers.

The largest single train refinery in the world stood ready for business but crude oil, its basic raw material, was conspicuously missing. And this was, at least on paper, in a country which was still one of the largest producers of crude oil in the world. One would have thought that all that was required was to allot the required amount of fuel to Dangote in a move that was going to replace the subsidy that we had been told was being paid on every litre of petrol that was consumed in the land. It was soon clear that the NNPC had mortgaged our oil reserves and was in no position to sell oil to Dangote. The refinery was open for business but there was no local crude available, tantamount to our farmers sending their yams to Lagos to earn hard cash whilst subsisting on part of their scraggy cocoyam harvest. Dangote had to go halfway round the world to bring in the crude, large quantities of which were available in his backyard. What economic sense did it make to source for crude in turgid dollars but sell the refined products in flaccid Naira? None at all is the right answer. The Dangote refinery got going at last but the cost of buying petrol in Nigeria was hardly dented as it competed with rotten dollar denominated fuel which was still being bought in strange lands and imported into Nigeria. The leeches which had been sucking us dry for several decades, ignoring the evidence of their eyes, were insistent in their desire to ensure that it was to be business as usual. They were able to do this because they had friends in high places. After Dangote was denied the benefit of access to local crude, some standards organisation, without the benefit of any analytical instrumentation declared with faux authority that the fuel produced by Dangote was laden with high concentrations. of sulphur. This was a clear attempt to play on the fears of Nigerians that locally produced materials of any kind were inferior to imported varieties. Dangote, who had the authority of a fully functional laboratory behind him proved them wrong. These difficulties notwithstanding, Dangote began to eat away at the cost of fuel purchased from our forecourts. Availability was also increased to such an extent that fuel queues were consigned to the past. For the first time in fifty years fuel was even available over the Christmas period. To be sure, petrol was still close to five times more expensive in Naira terms than before but the cost was coming down perceptibly in what was turning out to be a win – win situation or, could be if properly managed.

Read Also: Army, DSS arrest suspected kidnap kingpin Emmanuel Akpan

But, the situation could not be properly managed. When it became apparent that Dangote was getting on top of the situation, news began to filter out that the government owned refineries which had been silently rotting away for a couple of decades, had in the miraculous manner of the deceased Lazarus been brought back to life after the injection of massive amounts of dollars. We were informed that the refineries had undergone various tests which confirmed that they were so close to resuming their functions as to make no difference. It was to be only a matter of a few months or even weeks before Dangote was presented with a worthy competitor thereby preempting the creation of an unwanted Dangote monopoly in the oil sector. A year after these cheering news were received, the refineries are as silent as the sepulchres from which they were said to have been delivered and Dangote is still the only refinery left standing.

I was sure that a decisive corner had been turned when a year ago, it was announced that Dangote could pay for his crude supplies in Naira. True, the volume of crude supplied under this arrangement was substantially short of capacity, it was however a giant step in the right direction but the mode of this transaction was not transparent as as some dollars were smuggled into the prevailing equation but still it was better than nothing and in any case, the cost of fuel at the pump continued to inch downwards. Hope in the bright future of fuel availability broke out like a rash, to the evident satisfaction of a lot of us. That outbreak has however been shown to be premature as other challenges were raised against Mr. Dangote and his massive and ambitious project.

In the dark winter of our fuel discontent, a group of people had risen to insert themselves into the fuel supply chain. They had built massive storage facilities which received imported fuel for subsequent distribution throughout the country. They did not add a jot of value to the supply chain but were nevertheless indispensable. They were like the slave traders of old who took advantage of being situated on the coast to buy slaves from the interior to sell them on to the Europeans at great profit to themselves. Their descendants still exist among us for all they are now worth. The direction of trade has now been reversed with fuel being moved from the ports to the hinterland. Unfortunately, the reasoning remains the same, the only difference is the nature of the merchandise. Then, it was live human beings. Now, it is refined petroleum.

To pursue the slave trade analogy to its logical conclusion. Slaves were assembled at depots all along the coasts from where the slaves were loaded into ships reeking of human misery and taken across the Atlantic Ocean, to slavery in the Americas and the Caribbean region. Now, old and old ricketty petrol tankers drive up to be loaded with fuel for transport to all parts of the country. These rent seeking middlemen, llike their forefathers who resisted the abolition of the slave trade with all their might are also determined to protect their privileges to the detriment of the rest of us.

October 12, 2025
A gratuitous insult from an ill – mannered Ife Arowosoge

At first, I was going to pay no attention, whatever, to his scurrilous write-up, seeing how uncannily his hectoring resembled that of his late stable-mate, the equally rude, Ilawe – born, one time minister of the Federal Republic, Dr Bode Olowoporoku.

I and Bode, who thought nothing of politically up – ending his Uncle, the Honourable Pa Akomolafe, who gave him ‘life’ when as a child, his mother allegedly became incapacitated to be a commissioner in the Pa Adekunle Ajasin government from which he was later sacked, were friends at the Great Ife (University of Ife, Ile – Ife) but I just couldn’t stand his ways, and whiles, as a chapter in my new book clearly shows.

He was simply too rough and he knew I detested his ways.

I am, therefore, not writing like this because he is not around to defend himself.

No human being will escape death. Mbanu, as Igbos would say.

I had read, and mentally threw into the dustbin, Dr Arowosege’s absolutely unmerited put down of Chief Oladeji Fasuan who, without a scintilla of doubt, is one of the few remaining titans of our Land of honour – Ekiti.

That though, was until I kept running into the Arowosoge verbiage severally, and then, my U- S based friend, Jide Oguntuase forwarded the same trash to me asking, since he knows my intimate closeness to Papa, whether I would let the idiotic diatribe go unreplied.

Each of Arowosoge’s line crawled with insult, his thoroughly abrasive language failing to show he went to school at all or have any respect for elders.

This last bit was, however, the part that did not surprise me at all because, if one is not careful, he could summarily conclude that such behaviour is Ilawe-sque. Fortunately not me, as I have terrific Ilawe sons and daughters who I have related with for ages and who are paragons of what Yorubas call Omoluabi.

Among these, please permit me to mention His Lordship, Bishop Femi Ajakaiye, the Catholic Bishop of Ekiti, who called, all the way from the UK, to greet and pray for me on my 80th birthday, the eminent duo, my ever worthy Aburos, and

Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), Elder Dele Adesina and Femi Falana, each of who already, deservedly, have a signed hard copy of my forthcoming book well ahead of its official presentation. Also count among these worthy Ilawe’s,

eminence greese, my long- time friends, Professors Idowu Odeyemi and Bode Asubiojo, the respected Prince Adefolalu, the no less regarded Sina Awelewa, as well as my younger friends – Senator Yemi Adaramodu, Gbenga Araoye, Tokunbo Omolase, the gifted commentator on national affairs,

and my incredible Great Ife mates and friends, Kayode & Funke(Mr & Mrs) . The list is simply inexhaustive.

But juxtapose these decent human beings with the inflammable minority of Ilawe political rabble rousers, among them the late Olowoporoku and the instant irritant, Arowosoge.

I will be loathe to count Idowu Odeyemi(Senior) among them despite what you will soon be reading below). If one is not careful, you could quite easily, but wrongly, conclude that Ilawe – an otherwise large, and respectable town – breeds many of these moral outcasts – the types who would look a whole Chief Fasuan in the face and vomit the kind of inanities the ill- educated Arowosoge hauled on him.

As I used to say: ki la gbe, ki le ju? What are these Ilawe outcasts fighting over, that they won’t accord Papa Fasuan the slightest regard?

Before I welcome the reader to a precursor of the instant case, that is,. when Idowu Odeyemi(Senior) also of Ilawe, flaggelated, and poured no less venom on Chief Fasuan, I urge every true born citizen of Ilawe – Ekiti to please find, retrieve and read Arowosoge’s idiotic nonsense on Pa Fasuan. If the reader has more time at his disposal, he could go back 17 years to also read the Senior Odeyemi on the same subject as contained in my article of 23 September , 2007 in reply to him. You will not but wonder what these Ilawe self appointed emissaries are fighting over, noting in particular, that both are an absolute political minority in Ilawe.

Read Also: Army, DSS arrest suspected kidnap kingpin Emmanuel Akpan

Or could it be the rumoured neglect of Ilawe by consecutive Ekiti governments? If so, Ilawe should simply wake up, buckle up and emulate Ikere-Ekiti which, by dint of hard work, and the citizens’ untramelled love for their town, have turned Ikere- Ekiti to the fastest developing town in the whole of Ekiti state. Arowosoge and his ilk certainly do not represent the redoubtable Ilawe we know and respect. Welcome then to my article:’Standing History on The Head’, of 23 September, 2007, now captured on pages 59 – 61 of my 619 – page book:’SIMPLY A CITIZEN JOURNALIST (Amazon Link-https://a.co/d/dXnfY77).

It reads as follows while, in the meantime, awaiting Arowosoge’s promised hagiography: Chief Idowu Odeyemi is my friend of over two decades though details of that friendship

need not delay us here. He knows that I hold him in high regards. I was, therefore, completely taken aback by the amount of vitriol, if not banality, displayed in his riposte

to Chief Deji Fasuan’s piece on the creation of Ekiti which appeared in your flagship, The Nation on Sunday, September 2, 2007.

I am not unaware that given the melodramatic, even rancorous Ekiti politics, the paths of these two gentlemen may have crossed variously. Unfortunately, in Ekiti today, it is politics or nothing, which explains our condition. But even when that is conceded, I still could not find, in Chief

Fasuan’s article, the pillars on which Idowu sought to erect that level of venom, most of it personal insults unbecoming of a journalist of many years. To make his point, which he subsequently did not, Chief Odeyemi need not have resorted to such scurrility. It was tantamount, in my view, to the occasion when the Yoruba would say, Ki la gbe, ki loju? It is analogous too, to hauling a bag of cement at a petty thief who stole a biro pen. It will be intolerable if he were fighting his own case but totally reprehensible when it turns out he was no more than a surrogate fighter; crying more than the bereaved.

I personally believe that with his contributions to the success of the PDP in the April elections, he no longer needs to be anybody’s good boy to land a juicy federal appointment.

And by the way, what is the casus belli? Fasuan had written that Chief Afe Babalola was not allowed to speak for more than six and a half minutes before he was (rather rudely, in his words) stopped from further presentation at the Mbanefo Panel on States and Local Government Creation. From my reading of that portion of the offending article, which I have since read all over again, I could not see any denigration of Chief Babalola by the writer who had, rather than wear any air of indispensability in the struggle, as is being conjured by Odeyemi, went to great lengths in naming names, even of Obas, and all those who contributed in one way or the other to the eventual success of the project. It was, therefore, in very bad taste, when Odeyemi sought to flagellate, or indeed, ridicule the elders who had to sleep on the road on their way back from Abuja when their vehicle ran out of fuel. He should be humble enough to apologise. In all, his diatribe was unnecessary; the language needlessly acerbic just as the personal insults, which decency forbids me to repeat on this page, were totally undeserving of a man who gave his all to a peoples’ collective struggle.

It becomes more irritating when you discover that Chief Odeyemi had, in fact, stood history on the head in his reading the events leading to the creation of Ekiti State as his views are at variance with the overall impression of the generality of Ekiti people, many of who wrote to thank Chief Fasuan.

Here was a man whose perspicacity and total devotion to a cause provided the sterling leadership to crown the long-standing struggle of Ekiti people to a glorious end at a time when the much more politically (and economically) connected Ijebus, whose son was in fact number two in government at the material time, could not realize their equally well- deserved state. I will like to crave Chief Fasuan’s permission to quote, at some length, from his well-written book, ‘Creation of Ekiti – The Epic Struggle of a People’, especially some of the about thirty letters addressed to him by appreciative Ekitis, either individually or as groups.

Given the current level of revisionism, I thank God who laid it on Chief Fasuan’s heart to commit his experiences during that era into a book.

Writing on the 1st of October, 1996, the Ajero of Ijero-Ekiti and paramount ruler of Ijero kingdom wrote as follows: “Myself, all Obas and chiefs in Ijero kingdom and our entire sons and daughters, home and abroad, join all Ekiti in thanking Almighty God for the creation of our dream state. We are also pleased to congratulate you as the chairman and all members of the committee for the creation of Ekiti-State. We commend you for your hard work, resourcefulness and perseverance. It is our hope that all Ekitis will maintain and even strengthen the age-long unique homogeneity and peaceful co-existence. To God be the glory for this great thing He has done for us all. Once again, please accept our congratulations.” Their Royal Highnesses, Oba J.O.

Awolola and Oba J.K Akinola representing the Ilejemeje Community wrote as follows on 9 October, 1996: “The entire Royal Highnesses and their people in the Ilejemeje community have considered it a deserved courtesy to send you this special congratulatory message on the occasion of the newly created Ekiti state. It needs be stressed that your un-weary efforts and enlivened spirit from the beginning of the agelong struggle up to the last moment of official declaration of Ekiti Ethnic groups as a state shall remain indelible in the ‘Blue Print’ books of Ekitiland, and not the least in the history of Nigeria. Your seriousness and great concern over divesting conditions

and total abandonment of any meaningful social, economic and cultural developments of our land were glaringly manifested in your total commitment to the issues in a most unlikely fashion which was a further proof of article of faith in the ability of Ekiti to metamorphose their own state into an egalitarian society. We pray God to further fortify you against future greater challenges of harnessing and developing Ekiti state’s natural endowments.

Finally, we join hundreds of thousands of Nigerians to rejoice with you on this epoch-making occasion of the birth of Ekiti state. Once again, please accept our joint congratulations.”

The Ekiti Parapo, Port Harcourt, on the 12th of October sent the following letter to Chief Fasuan: “The president and members of Ekiti Parapo, Port Harcourt, has directed me to send a congratulatory letter to you for the gallant fight you put up on the fight for the creation of Ekiti state. The Club is proud of your brilliant and effective efforts and pray that the Almighty God should compensate you…’ Chief Bade Gboyega wrote as follows: ‘Please kindly permit me to share my heartfelt joy and deep satisfaction with ‘your good self’, on the occasion of the creation of Ekiti state by 7.20 this morning. I also wish to sincerely congratulate you personally because God has thus crowned your great, tireless, commendable and historic efforts with huge success’.

Former Deputy Governor of Ondo state, Chief Akin Omoboriowo wrote: ‘I wish to congratulate you and your committee for working most selflessly, consistently and sincerely for the creation of Ekiti state in our life time…’

This writer did not allow the occasion pass without his miniscule appreciation for a job well done. On the 15th October, 1996, I wrote to Chief Fasuan as follows: I wish to put on record my sincere appreciation for your worthy contribution, in brains and sheer physical exertion, to seeing to a successful end, the long, arduous and sustained struggle for the creation of Ekiti state.

You have brought to bear on your Chairmanship of the steering committee, your now historical loyalty and devotion to cause, and your exemplary leadership qualities. While you cannot go to sleep yet, I feel positive that you can indeed, legitimately, count your blessings and thank God. Sir, now more than ever before, you will need to devote your time to nurturing, to a meaningful end i.e. the even-handed and overall development of the new state given the fact that successive governments made us a developmental backwater. I sincerely hope you will join hands with political likeminds to emerge in that pioneering team that will translate our yearnings and aspirations to fruition. In this you can count on my support and co-operation. Thank you and God bless.

Finally, I shall quote from the very long letter, call it an Epistle from my Lord Bishop, The Rt. Revd. Peter Awelewa Adebiyi, the Lord Bishop of the Diocese of Lagos West who was then of Owo Diocese, as he sought to get Ekiti leaders to seek the face of God in matters appertaining to the state.

In short, he admonished them to hand over the state to God Almighty. Amongst other things, the Bishop wrote:

“I am sure the Lord is happy about what you have done. I personally congratulate you for your good leadership and tenacity when many people were thinking that the creation would not be possible. I am sure that the creation is a credit to you in particular and the committee in general but it is a blessing. …finally, I hope you will organise an interdenominational thanksgiving service to place the new state in the hands of God, the builder of nations. If I know the time before hand, it may be possible for me and a host of us in the sacred ministry to be there.’

I doubt they ever did, given the rolling crisis that has engulfed the state, a state that should ordinarily be a beacon to others but for which total strangers continue to enthrone their cronies as rulers. I rest my casel

Where, I ask finally, is this outright interloper coming from?

October 12, 2025
Remembering the Asaba Massacre

On October 7, 1967, the streets of Asaba ran red with innocent blood. What began as a peaceful demonstration of loyalty to a unified Nigeria ended in one of the most brutal civilian massacres in the nation’s history. Over one thousand men and boys were systematically executed by advancing Nigerian federal troops in an atrocity that has remained largely unacknowledged for decades. This dark chapter in Nigeria’s civil war history demands not only remembrance but also official recognition and apology from the government.

The descent into such madness occurred when Federal troops entered Asaba around October 5, 1967, during the Nigerian Civil War. The town, located on the western bank of the Niger River, found itself in the path of advancing forces seeking to push troops of the secessionist Republic of Biafra back into Biafran territory. What was to follow was three days of terror that would forever scar the community and leave an indelible stain on Nigeria’s national conscience.

From the moment of their arrival, federal soldiers began ransacking houses and killing civilians indiscriminately, justifying their actions by claiming the victims were Biafran sympathizers. Reports indicate that several hundred innocent males were killed individually and in small groups at various locations throughout the town during these initial days of occupation. The violence was arbitrary, merciless, and seemingly without military purpose beyond instilling terror.

Desperate to end the bloodshed, Asaba’s traditional leaders made a fateful decision. They summoned the townspeople to assemble on the morning of October 7, hoping that a mass demonstration of loyalty to “One Nigeria” would satisfy the federal troops and halt the killings. It was a gamble born of desperation, a plea for mercy robed in patriotic fervor.

Hundreds of men, women, and children responded to the call. They dressed in Asaba’s ceremonial akwa ocha— the pristine white attire symbolizing peace and purity—and paraded along the main street. They sang, they danced, they chanted “One Nigeria” with voices raised in hope and supplication. It was a powerful display of unity, a community literally clothing itself in symbols of peace while proclaiming allegiance to the very nation whose soldiers were terrorizing them.

Read Also: Olubadan: CCII, Mogajis, others honour Oba Ladoja at Jumat Thanksgiving

Hope was however to transform into horror at a junction along the parade route. Federal troops ordered the separation of men and teenage boys from women and young children. The males were gathered in an open square at Ogbe-Osowa village, confusion and fear mounting as machine guns were revealed and trained upon the assembled crowd. Then came the order—allegedly from a Second-in-Command Major Ibrahim Taiwo—that would echo through generations; there is also mention of Murtala Mohammed, then a Colonel, as the man who gave the order.

The machine guns delivered death with devastating finality to hundreds of unarmed men and boys, still dressed in their white ceremonial attire now stained crimson. Fathers and sons, brothers and uncles, neighbors and friends—all cut down in a hail of bullets. The air filled with screams, gunfire, and the acrid smell of cordite. By the time the shooting stopped, the square had become an abattoir, and the white garments of peace had become funeral shrouds.

Most of the killing ended by October 7,although another round of killings would occur again in 1968. The trauma was only beginning. Some families managed to retrieve the bodies of their loved ones, carrying them home for private burial. Most victims, however, were unceremoniously dumped into mass graves, denied even the dignity of proper funeral rites. Many extended families lost dozens of men and boys in a single day, leaving behind widows, orphans, and a community hollowed out by grief.

Federal troops occupied Asaba for many months following the massacre. During this period, much of the town was systematically destroyed. As was the practice by Federal troops during the war, women and girls were subjected to rape and sexual violence; some were forcibly “married” to soldiers in arrangements that were little more than legalized captivity. Large numbers of citizens fled Asaba, many not returning until after the war ended in 1970. Those who remained lived under occupation, surrounded by the ghosts of the murdered and the ruins of their former lives.

The Asaba Massacre isn’t an isolated incident in Nigeria’s troubled history. The pogroms of July and September 1966, which targeted Igbo populations in northern Nigeria, preceded the massacre and helped precipitate the civil war itself. In more recent times, the killings in Odi in 1999 and Zaki Biam in 2001 demonstrated that the pattern of excessive military force against civilian populations continued long after the civil war ended. Each of these atrocities shares common features: disproportionate use of force, targeting of innocent civilians, and a disturbing lack of accountability for perpetrators.

This pattern reveals a systemic problem in Nigeria’s approach to internal conflict and military conduct. Without acknowledgment and accountability, these atrocities become normalized, establishing dangerous precedents that enable future violations. The silence surrounding events like the Asaba Massacre sends a chilling message: that civilian lives can be extinguished with impunity when the state deems it expedient.

It is long past time for the Nigerian government to formally apologize to the victims of the Asaba Massacre and their descendants. Such an apology would not erase the pain or resurrect the dead—nothing can accomplish that impossible feat. The women who were widowed that day will never again embrace their husbands. The children who watched their fathers fall will carry that trauma to their graves. The mass graves of Asaba bear witness to a wound that can never fully heal.

Yet a formal apology matters profoundly. It represents official acknowledgment of wrong, a rejection of the narratives that sought to justify the unjustifiable. It validates the suffering of survivors who have lived for decades with their pain dismissed or ignored. It places the massacre in the national historical record not as a footnote or military necessity, but as the atrocity it was.

Moreover, an apology could serve as a foundation for institutional reform. It should be accompanied by the establishment of robust legal frameworks and institutions designed to prevent such atrocities in the future. Any person—regardless of rank or position—who perpetrates similar actions against civilians must face severe legal consequences. The principle of “never again” requires not just words but structural safeguards, clear rules of engagement that protect civilian populations, and enforcement mechanisms with teeth.

As the sun sets on the Niger River, casting long shadows across the town of Asaba, those shadows seem to whisper the names of the murdered—a litany of loss that echoes through the generations. The blood that soaked into the soil of Ogbe-Osowa square on that terrible October morning has long since dried, but the stain on Nigeria’s national conscience remains, indelible and accusing.

To move forward as a nation, Nigeria must first look back with unflinching honesty. It must speak the names of the dead, acknowledge the magnitude of the wrong, and pledge with absolute conviction that such horrors will never again be visited upon its citizens. In that acknowledgment lies not weakness but strength—the strength to confront uncomfortable truths, the courage to make amends, and the wisdom to learn from history’s darkest chapters.

Let their memory be a beacon calling Nigeria toward a future where lives are sacred, where accountability is assured, and where the machinery of state serves to protect rather than destroy. Only then can the souls of Asaba rest, and only then can Nigeria truly claim to have learned from the past and build a foundation worthy of the future its citizens deserve.

October 12, 2025