The Nation Newspaper

Category: ARINZE IGBOELI

  • Shettima’s dilemma: Loyalty, performance, and politics of 2027

    Shettima’s dilemma: Loyalty, performance, and politics of 2027

    Rumors in politics are often described as powerful, yet unreliable, tools, however in the Nigerian political landscape, behind every rumour there usually is an iota of truth in them and it is only a matter of time before such speculations begin to unravel.

    For Vice President Kashim Shettima, his future as Veep to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu seems to be hazy as the media has  been awash with the story that should Tinubu seek a second term in office as president, he may do so without Shettima being on the ballot.  This discourse has fueled unnecessary tension within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and raises serious questions about political loyalty, moral responsibility, and strategic thinking in Nigerian politics.

    The speculation storm surrounding Shettima’s alleged replacement have gained significant traction across various political circles. According to some narratives,  some northern stakeholders have pressured President Tinubu to consider dropping the Vice President in favor of another northerner, with various names been bandied as potential replacements, these speculations reached a fever pitch when some northern youths and Islamic groups publicly called for Shettima’s replacement, arguing that the current Muslim-Muslim ticket needs recalibration for broader appeal. The pressure become so intense when at the NorthEast APC rally in Gombe, held sometime in June this year saw the zone endorsing President Tinubu’s second term agenda without mentioning the Vice, this omission of sorts gave fuel to the speculation that certain northern elements were eying Shettimma’s job and supporters of Shettimma like Godsday Orubebe would not take it, immediately reacting to the NorthEast’s Zonal Chairman’s and the recent past National Chairman, Abdulahi Ganduje speeches with reciprocable anger,  hurling insults and threats, whilst exchanging fisticuffs and further reprisals and threatening greater physical harm, prompting security officials to whisk both Salihu and Ganduje  from the venue.

    A dispassionate analysis of Vice President Shettima’s performance since assuming office in May 2023 reveals a man who has been nothing short of exemplary in his role. His track record speaks volumes about his dedication to both his office and his principal. From representing Nigeria at the 2025 World Economic Forum in Davos to delivering speeches at the United Nations General Assembly, Shettima has consistently demonstrated competence and loyalty.

    His background as a former banker, successful businessman, and two-term governor of Borno State provides him and the Tinubu administration with the requisite experience to handle the complexities of the vice presidency. During his tenure as governor from 2011 to 2019, he managed one of Nigeria’s most challenging states during the height of the Boko Haram insurgency, demonstrating remarkable resilience and administrative acumen. His subsequent service as a senator from 2019 to 2023 further solidified his understanding of Nigeria’s legislative processes and national politics.

    Since becoming Vice President, Shettima  has maintained a low profile while efficiently executing his duties, avoiding the controversies that have reportedly plagued one of his predecessors, Atiku Abubakar. He has been a team player, supporting presidential initiatives without creating unnecessary drama or seeking to overshadow his principal. This level of loyalty and competence should be valued, not discarded on the altar of political expediency.

    The suggestion that President Tinubu should drop Shettima represents a fundamental breach of political ethics and moral responsibility. Political partnerships, especially at the highest levels of government, are built on trust, mutual respect, and shared vision. When two individuals campaign together and win an election, they establish a bond that transcends mere political convenience.

    Shettima stood by Tinubu before the 2023 primaries during the primaries and in the course of the 2023 election campaign, when the Muslim-Muslim ticket faced intense criticism and opposition. He weathered the storm of religious and ethnic politics, defending the ticket and contributing to its eventual victory. Having benefited from Shettima’s loyalty and support during the campaign, it would be unconscionable for Tinubu to abandon him now simply because of political calculations for 2027.

    Moreover, the Vice President has not committed any offense that would justify his removal. He has not been involved in any scandal, has not undermined the administration, and has not shown any disloyalty to the President. Dropping him would send a dangerous signal to other political associates that loyalty means nothing in Nigerian politics, further eroding trust in political partnerships.

    The claim that Shettimma’s Borno was the only state nicked by the APC in 2023 and that for the APC to solidify itself for the 2027 polls ahead of whatever coalitions will coalesce at that time to challenge it, then the APC must pick a running mate from the NorthEast is indeed a wrong political arithmetic. First of all the zone prior to that election had four states as opposition states to APC’s two states of Borno and Yobe. Second, the zone had an Atiku Abubakar on the opposition ticket, to have expected Shettimma to carry the zone then is to have expected a miracle which doesn’t occur often in Nigerian politics.

    Today the APC has three states in the NorthEast and with the incumbency factor, the APC stands a chance of doing much better than it did in 2023, even with an Atiku Abubakar on any party’s ticket.

    From a purely strategic standpoint, replacing Shettima could severely damage President Tinubu’s chances of re-election in 2027. The move would likely be perceived as a betrayal by many northerners who supported the ticket in 2023, particularly those from the North-East region that Shettima represents. This could lead to a significant loss of support in a region that was crucial to the APC’s victory in the last election.

    Furthermore, such a decision would likely create internal divisions within the APC, as different factions would emerge to support various potential replacements. The ensuing power struggle could weaken the party’s unity and effectiveness, providing opportunities for opposition parties to exploit. The time and energy that would be spent on managing this internal crisis could be better utilized for governance and addressing the nation’s pressing challenges.

    The replacement move could also backfire in other regions of the country. Many Nigerians, regardless of their religious or ethnic affiliations, value consistency and loyalty in leadership. They might view the dropping of a performing Vice President as evidence of poor judgment and untrustworthiness on the part of the President, potentially affecting his support base beyond the North.

    Even the  argument that Shettima should be replaced with a northern Christian to balance the ticket is a dangerous descent into religious tokenism that reduces complex political decisions to simplistic religious calculations. This approach will only prove counterproductive in Nigerian politics, often creating more problems than it solves.

    One of the strongest arguments for retaining Shettima is the unity he brings to the northern region. As a respected political figure with deep roots in the North-East, his continued presence in the administration helps maintain the delicate balance of regional representation in the current government. His replacement could upset this balance and potentially alienate important stakeholders in the region.

    Additionally, Shettima’s retention would demonstrate that President Tinubu values continuity and stability over political maneuvering. This would be particularly important given the various challenges facing the country, including economic reforms, security issues, and infrastructure development. A stable leadership team is crucial for implementing long-term solutions to these challenges.

    The speculation about dropping Vice President Kashim Shettima represents a dangerous distraction from the serious business of governance. One also thinks that the president’s advisers should put an end to these rumors by getting President Tinubu to reaffirm his confidence in his Vice President making it clear that the 2027 ticket will remain unchanged.

    The focus should be on delivering good governance, addressing the nation’s challenges, and preparing for the 2027 elections as a united team. Political loyalty, when demonstrated as exemplarily as Shettima has done, should be rewarded, not punished. The President’s legacy will be better served by honoring his political partnerships and maintaining the stability that has characterized his administration thus far.

    As Nigeria continues its journey toward democratic maturity, the preservation of political loyalty and the rejection of religious tokenism will be crucial markers of progress. President Tinubu I am sure would always  demonstrate statesmanship by standing by his Vice President and focusing on the issues that truly matter to the Nigerian people.

  • Anambra 2025: Is Willie Obiano still relevant in Anambra politics?

    Anambra 2025: Is Willie Obiano still relevant in Anambra politics?

    The political landscape of Anambra State has witnessed significant turbulence since Charles Soludo assumed the governorship on March 17, 2022 and is presently seeking a  second term.At the center of this storm lies a critical question: Is former Governor Willie Obiano, who served the state from 2014 to 2022, still a relevant force in Anambra politics? The answer to this question requires a deep examination of the complex relationship between Obiano and his chosen successor, a relationship that has evolved from political partnership to what many observers now describe as bitter estrangement from which the opposition now seeks to capitalise on, whilst Soludo’s fixers are running helter skelter seeking to salvage.

    Willie Obiano’s decision to back Charles Soludo for the governorship was not a casual political calculation. Against considerable pressure from various quarters within the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and beyond, Obiano stood firmly behind Soludo’s candidacy, not once did he flinch in his resolve to make the former CBN governor his successor. Obiano didn’t merely endorse Soludo; he staked his entire political capital on the economics professor’s success, against the odds and veiled threats, Obiano headed Soludo’s campaign council and deployed both financial resources and political machinery to secure victory for his chosen successor.

    This commitment came at considerable personal and political cost. Other aspirants within APGA had their own claims to the ticket, and Obiano’s insistence on Soludo created rifts within the party structure. Yet, the former governor remained resolute, believing that Soludo’s technocratic credentials and international exposure would translate into transformational governance for Anambra State. It was a gamble that appeared to pay off when Soludo emerged victorious in the November 2021 gubernatorial election.

    However, the post-election relationship between the two men has been anything but smooth. What should have been a seamless transition between political allies quickly deteriorated into a relationship characterized by mutual suspicion and public disagreements. The seeds of discord were planted almost immediately after Soludo’s inauguration, when the new governor began a systematic critique of his predecessor’s administration at every given opportunity.

    Perhaps the most damaging blow to the Obiano-Soludo relationship came barely a week after the inauguration. In a television interview with a Nigerian TV station, Soludo painted a grim picture of Anambra’s finances, claiming he inherited a debt burden of approximately N109 billion with only between N300 million and N400 million in cash reserves. This public revelation was seen by Obiano’s supporters as an unnecessary attack on the former governor’s legacy, particularly given that Soludo had previously praised the Obiano administration as one that was “not broken and thus needed no fixing.”

    The irony was not lost on political observers. During his campaign, Soludo had been effusive in his praise for Obiano’s achievements, positioning himself as a continuity candidate who would build upon existing foundations. The sudden shift in narrative after assuming office left many questioning the sincerity of his earlier pronouncements and created the impression that Soludo was attempting to distance himself from his benefactor’s record and denigrate such.

    READ ALSO: My biggest challenges in office, by Dapo Abiodun

    Obiano’s treatment at the hands of his successor stands in stark contrast to established patterns of political relationships in Nigerian politics. When one examines comparable situations across the country, the Anambra case appears particularly harsh. The relationship between former Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike and his successor Siminalayi Fubara, despite its recent tensions, began with mutual respect and acknowledgment. Similarly, even in cases where political relationships soured, such as between Adams Oshiomhole Godwin Obaseki in Edo State, or the complex dynamics between the Uba brothers and Chris Ngige in Anambra’s own history, there was typically an initial period of cooperation and mutual recognition.

    In the American political system, which Nigeria often seeks to emulate, former presidents and governors maintain significant influence and are regularly consulted by their successors. The institutional memory and experience of former executives are considered valuable assets rather than liabilities to be discarded. Former presidents like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama continue to play meaningful roles in American political discourse, regardless of party affiliations.

    Obiano’s supporters argue that as a former governor he deserves similar consideration. Having successfully governed Anambra for eight years and having been instrumental in Soludo’s emergence, it is believed that the former governor had expected to maintain some level of input in the administration’s direction. This expectation seems reasonable when viewed against global best practices and the recognition that governance is often a collaborative effort that benefits from institutional memory and continuity.

    One cannot discuss Obiano’s relevance without acknowledging the complex nature of his own governance style. In time past, I had often criticized him for his style of governance which I termed an “Igbo version of Owambe style of governance” – a reference to the lavish ceremonies and high-profile events that characterized his tenure. However, even his critics acknowledge that beyond the pomp and pageantry, Obiano built and nurtured relationships across the political spectrum. He was widely described as magnanimous in his dealings, a quality that extended to both allies and opponents.

    This magnanimity translated into tangible political capital. During his tenure, Obiano managed to maintain relative stability within APGA despite the party’s inherent contradictions and competing interests. He successfully navigated the complex web of Anambra politics, delivering on key infrastructure projects while maintaining peace with various stakeholders. His signature projects, including major road constructions, the Anambra International Airport, Awka Tounship Stadium and the International Convention Centre as well as various urban renewal initiatives, represented significant investments in the state’s future.

    However, Soludo’s administration has been accused of claiming ownership of projects that were initiated and largely financed during the Obiano era. This practice of rebranding his predecessor’s projects with cosmetic improvements and repainting has become a source of significant irritation for the former governor and his supporters. The failure to acknowledge Obiano’s contributions in a number of these ongoing projects has been interpreted as a deliberate attempt to erase his legacy from the state’s development narrative.

    As Soludo positions himself for a second term, the estrangement with Obiano poses significant political risks. The former governor’s political network, built over decades of relationship-building, remains largely intact. His appointees, many of whom feel abandoned by the current administration, represent a potentially formidable opposition force. The recent plea by Obiano’s former aides for unpaid severance packages highlights the depth of dissatisfaction within this constituency.

    Reports suggest that several of Obiano’s allies are actively working against Soludo’s second-term ambitions. This opposition is not merely driven by personal grievances but reflects a broader sense of betrayal within the political class.

    The recent report of Obiano’s kinsmen accusing Soludo of betrayal and preparing to support the APC candidature of  Prince Nicholas Ukachukwu and Senator Uche Ekwunife as a viable alternative demonstrates the extent to which the political rupture has spread beyond personal disagreements to affect broader ethnic and community loyalties. In Anambra’s complex political matrix, such community-level opposition can significantly impact electoral outcomes and it doesnt reside at such levels alone.

    So, is Willie Obiano still relevant in Anambra politics? The evidence suggests that despite being out of office for over three years, the former governor retains considerable political influence. His relevance derives from several factors that extend beyond his formal position.

    First, Obiano’s extensive network of relationships remains largely intact. During his eight years in office, he cultivated alliances across party lines, built relationships with traditional rulers, and maintained connections with various interest groups.

    Second, his role in Soludo’s emergence creates a moral and political debt that many observers believe remains unpaid. The former governor’s supporters argue that his contributions to the current administration deserve recognition and respect. The failure to acknowledge this debt has created a narrative of ingratitude that resonates with many in the political class who understand the importance of loyalty and reciprocity in Nigerian politics.

    Third, Obiano’s legacy projects continue to define Anambra’s development trajectory. Regardless of current ownership claims, the major infrastructure developments initiated during his tenure remain visible testaments to his administrative capacity. These projects serve as constant reminders of his contributions to the state’s progress and help maintain his relevance in public discourse.

    The Obiano-Soludo rift reflects broader challenges in Nigerian democratic practice. The tendency of successive administrations to completely disavow their predecessors’ contributions undermines continuity in governance and development. It also discourages the kind of elder statesman role that former executives could play in providing guidance and institutional memory.

    The answer may ultimately determine not just Obiano’s political future, but also the trajectory of Anambra politics and the prospects for Soludo’s second-term ambitions. In politics, as in life, how one treats their benefactors often determines how others perceive their character and trustworthiness. For Soludo, either by reconciling, managing or making further attempts to undermine the Obiano relationship may prove as crucial to his political survival as any policy initiative or development project.

  • July 29, 1966 and Gen. Gowon’s convenient amnesia

    July 29, 1966 and Gen. Gowon’s convenient amnesia

    As a student of history, the recent attempts by General Yakubu Gowon to revise history and distance himself from a number of hideous  events including the overthrow and assassination of his boss and the Supreme Commander, General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi in July 1966 much represents a troubling attempt to rewrite one of Nigeria’s most traumatic and tragic historical moments. His new found claims of innocence in the coup that brought him to power are not merely misleading—they are demonstrably false and constitute a profound disservice to historical truth, an attempt to insult the intelligence of the average Nigerian and pour scorn on the memory of the fallen officers.

    If General Gowon truly had no involvement in the July 29, 1966 coup, as he now claims, then the most pressing question remains unanswered: Why did he assume the position of Head of State ahead of a Brigadier Babafemi Ogundipe, who was unquestionably the most senior military officer at the time? This fundamental breach of military hierarchy and protocol cannot be explained away by convenient amnesia or claims of reluctant leadership.

    The military chain of command is sacrosanct, and any deviation from it requires extraordinary circumstances or deliberate manipulation. Brigadier Ogundipe’s seniority was well-established, and his assumption of leadership would have been the natural and legitimate course of action following Ironsi’s death. That Gowon leapfrogged over him suggests not passive acceptance of circumstances, but active participation in the conspiracy that brought about the change in leadership.

    READ ALSO: How we contracted infections using school toilets – Pupils

    The ruse that Northern soldiers refused to take orders from a senior officer who was not of Northern origin remains laughable and even if it is true that they did, were Northern officers the only persons in the army, truth remains that Gowon was an active participant in that coup and he got his reward from the bullet ridden bodies of Ironsi, Fajuyi and his comrades in arms.

    While General Ironsi was being brutally tortured and murdered in Ibadan—beaten “like a common criminal” as contemporaneous accounts describe—where was Lieutenant Colonel Gowon? He was in Lagos, ostensibly going about his duties while his Supreme Commander was being subjected to the most degrading treatment imaginable. This geographical separation cannot absolve him of complicity; rather, it suggests a carefully orchestrated plan where different actors played their assigned roles.

    What concrete steps did Gowon take to prevent the coup? He claimed in that interview that he tried to warn Ironsi! Where are his alibis if he did so? How do we correlate this story with Alex Madiebo’s version in which he, Madiebo reported the coup plot, ably led by Gowon to Ironsi, who in turn out of naivety called in Gowon and asked that Madiebo repeat his allegation which Gowon denied. Again, when it became clear that mutinous officers were moving against the government? What efforts did he make to rally loyal troops to defend the constitutional order? In the first coup of January 15, 1966, Gowon rallied troops to rescue the likes of Remi Fani Kayode, but in that of July 29th 1966, the same Gowon sat astride like some lame duck while his supreme commander and brother officers were killed.

    The July 1966 coup was not merely a military putsch—it was part of a broader campaign of ethnic violence that saw the systematic massacre of Igbo and other Eastern Region civilians across Northern Nigeria. Gowon’s claims of non-involvement ring particularly hollow when considered against his inaction during these pogroms. As a senior military officer with significant influence, his failure to use his position to protect innocent civilians represents either gross dereliction of duty or tacit approval of the violence.

    The interconnected nature of the coup and the pogroms cannot be divorced from each other. They were part of a coordinated effort to allegedly take revenge for a coup a majority of Igbo and other Eastern Region officers and civilians knew nothing about following the January 1966 coup. Gowon’s emergence as the beneficiary of this violence cannot be explained as mere coincidence.

    Perhaps most damning is the documented interaction between Gowon and a minister regarding whether the remnants of the Balewa Cabinet had indeed handed over power to Ironsi. In that exchange, Gowon had probed the minister  on whether the rump of parliament had peacefully handed over power to Ironsi, such inquiry reveals a man intimately concerned with the legitimacy and legal foundations of the government he was about to overthrow. By establishing that Ironsi had forced the rump to hand over power to him, not because he Ironsi was amongst the plotters but owing to the fact that he could not guarantee civilian control over the mutinous soldiers, particularly when an Nzeogwu was lurking in the North and thinking of marching down south to finish off what Ifeajuna and co had bungled. Why would someone uninvolved in a coup be making such specific inquiries about constitutional succession? This question exposes the premeditation behind Gowon’s eventual assumption of power.

    The most revealing aspect of this entire episode is the documented plan for Northern secession from Nigeria, which would have preceded Gowon’s assumption of power. His infamous statement that “there was no basis for Nigeria’s unity” was not made in a vacuum—it was part of a calculated strategy to justify the North’s withdrawal from the federation.

    Only when it became clear that secession would not serve Northern interests as effectively as controlling the entire federation did the strategy change. Gowon’s rapid transformation from an advocate of disunity to a champion of “One Nigeria” reveals the opportunistic nature of his political calculations. The correlation between the planned secession and his eventual emergence as Head of State is too strong to be coincidental.

    Gowon’s current denials fit a disturbing pattern of Nigerian political leaders who refuse to take responsibility for their roles in the country’s tragic history. By claiming innocence in events that brought him to power, he insults the intelligence of Nigerians and dishonors the memory of those who died during that dark period.

    The fact that Major Murtala Muhammed was the operational leader of the coup does not absolve Gowon of responsibility. Military coups, particularly successful ones, require coordination at multiple levels and the complicity of key figures who may not be directly involved in the operational aspects but whose support or acquiescence is essential for success.

    What makes Gowon’s denials particularly troubling is their timing and context. Rather than using his advanced age and the passage of time to reflect honestly on past mistakes and seek reconciliation, he has chosen to perpetuate falsehoods that prevent  future Nigerians from achieving the closure necessary for true national healing.

    History will judge whether Gowon was a reluctant leader thrust into circumstances beyond his control or a calculating participant in a conspiracy that fundamentally altered Nigeria’s trajectory. The evidence strongly suggests the latter, and his current attempts to sanitize his role only compound the original offense.

    General Gowon’s recent statements represent more than historical revisionism—they constitute a dance on the graves of Ironsi, Fajuyi, a number of brother officers and the countless civilians who died during the pogroms of 1966. Perhaps he is indeed haunted by the blood that was shed to bring him to power, but rather than confronting these ghosts with honesty and seeking forgiveness, he has chosen the path of denial and deflection.

    The Nigerian people deserve better from their former leaders. They deserve truth, accountability, and the kind of honest reflection that might finally allow the country to heal from the wounds of 1966. Instead, they are presented with convenient amnesia and protestations of innocence that insult both their intelligence and the memory of the dead.

    If General Gowon truly wishes to contribute to Nigeria’s healing, he should abandon these false or convenient amnesia narratives and engage in the difficult but necessary work of honest historical reflection. Only then can Nigeria begin to move beyond the tragic legacy of 1966 and build the united, peaceful nation that Ironsi, Fajuyi, and countless others died believing was possible.

  • National honours, missed opportunities and questionable choices

    National honours, missed opportunities and questionable choices

    President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent national honours list has generated considerable discourse across Nigeria’s political and civil society landscape. While the recognition of distinguished Nigerians through national awards remains a vital tradition for acknowledging exceptional service to the nation, the current list reveals troubling patterns of historical revisionism, political expediency, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the hierarchy of sacrifice that built Nigeria’s democratic foundations.

    Perhaps the most glaring oversight in the current honours list is the relegation of Professor Humphrey Nwosu to the Commander of the Order of the Niger (CON), a decision that fundamentally misrepresents his pivotal role in Nigeria’s democratic evolution. Nwosu, as Chairman of the National Electoral Commission (NEC) during the 1993 general elections, demonstrated unprecedented courage and integrity in conducting what remains Nigeria’s freest and fairest presidential election.

    The June 12, 1993 election, won decisively by Chief Moshood Abiola, stands as a watershed moment in Nigeria’s political history. It was Nwosu’s meticulous planning, innovative electoral mechanisms, and unwavering commitment to transparency that made this achievement possible. His introduction of the Option A4 system, the open ballot method, and the modified open ballot counting system revolutionized Nigerian electoral practice and remains a template for credible elections decades later.

    More crucially, when faced with enormous pressure from the military establishment to manipulate the election results, Nwosu chose institutional integrity over personal safety. His decision to announce results as they came in, despite knowing the political consequences, demonstrated a level of patriotism that deserves the highest national recognition. Without Nwosu’s courage, there would be no June 12 to celebrate, no democratic mandate to defend, and no foundation upon which Nigeria’s current democracy stands.

    While Nigerians are grateful that President Tinubu deemed it fit to confer such honour, many perceive the CON award as  a fundamental misreading of historical significance. Nwosu’s contribution to Nigerian democracy warrants nothing less than the Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON), the highest honour reserved for exceptional service to the nation. His role in preserving the sanctity of the electoral process during one of Nigeria’s most critical moments deserves recognition commensurate with the magnitude of his sacrifice and the enduring impact of his actions.

    Equally problematic is the inclusion of the late Shehu Yar’Adua in the honours list, a decision that appears to conflate political opportunism with genuine democratic struggle. While Yar’Adua’s eventual opposition to General Sani Abacha’s self-succession agenda is acknowledged, a careful examination of the timeline reveals a more complex and less heroic narrative.

    Yar Adua, readily welcomed the annulment of the June 12 elections, thinking that a reelection as proposed by General Ibrahim Babaginda would favour his long driven ambition to lead Nigeria.

    Yar’Adua’s opposition to Abacha’s perpetuation in power emerged primarily when it became clear that the general’s plans threatened his own political ambitions and those of his northern political allies. This was not principled opposition born of democratic conviction but rather a strategic repositioning driven by personal and regional interests. Unlike genuine pro-democracy activists who opposed military rule from its inception, Yar’Adua’s resistance was conditional and self-serving.

    The decision to honour Yar’Adua while numerous authentic democracy advocates remain unrecognized sends a troubling message about the criteria for national recognition. It suggests that political calculations and post-mortem reputation management can override the need for genuine democratic credentials. This selective amnesia about the true nature of various individuals’ contributions to democratic struggle undermines the integrity of the honours system.

    The current honours list’s most damning indictment lies not in who was included, but in who was conspicuously absent. Nigeria’s democratic journey was forged by countless individuals who chose principle over profit, courage over comfort, and national interest over personal advancement. Their absence from national recognition represents a fundamental failure to understand the true architecture of Nigeria’s democratic evolution.

    Colonel Abubakar Dangiwa Umar stands as a towering figure of military professionalism and democratic advocacy. His consistent opposition to military coups, his principled resignation from military service rather than participate in anti-democratic activities, and his decades-long advocacy for good governance and national unity mark him as a patriot of the highest order. His exclusion from the honours list represents a missed opportunity to recognize genuine military statesmanship.

    Read Also: FULL LIST: Tinubu confers national honours on Kudirat Abiola, Soyinka, Saro-Wiwa, others

    Arthur Nwankwo, the intellectual and publisher, used his platform to challenge authoritarian rule and promote democratic values. His writings and advocacy contributed significantly to the ideological foundation of Nigeria’s pro-democracy movement, yet his contributions remain unacknowledged in the current honours framework.

    Osa Director, another fine journalist and media activist, chose to put his life on the line rather than enter a dalliance of sort with the Abacha regime. His deployment of guerilla media tactics in the struggle to reinstate democracy and the Abiola mandate rattled the Abacha regime.

    Again, the awards list betrayed a narrow focus on June 12 and its immediate aftermath, while important, has led to the neglect of other foundational figures who shaped Nigeria’s intellectual and moral landscape. The honours system should recognize the broader ecosystem of individuals who contributed to national development across various sectors.

    Professor Bala Usman, the revolutionary historian and intellectual, spent his career challenging conventional narratives about Nigerian history and promoting critical thinking about national development. His scholarly work and political activism contributed immensely to Nigerian intellectual discourse and deserves posthumous recognition.

    Dele Giwa, the pioneering journalist whose assassination remains a dark chapter in Nigeria’s press history, represented the courage and integrity that should define Nigerian journalism. His commitment to investigative journalism and his ultimate sacrifice for press freedom make him a natural candidate for national honours.

    Tai Solarin, the educator and social critic, dedicated his life to promoting educational excellence and social justice. His innovative approaches to education and his unwavering commitment to social reform contributed significantly to Nigeria’s human development efforts.

    Professor Pat Utomi stands as one of Nigeria’s most distinguished public intellectuals, deserving of national honours for his multifaceted contributions to the nation’s development. As an economist, political scientist, and management expert, Utomi has consistently advocated for good governance, economic reform, and democratic consolidation across decades of public service.

    His academic excellence spans prestigious institutions globally, while his entrepreneurial initiatives have created jobs and economic opportunities. His consistent opposition to military rule and promotion of transparent governance principles mark him as a patriot whose intellectual contributions deserve formal recognition through Nigeria’s national honours system.

    The current honours list reflects a system that prioritizes political convenience over historical accuracy and genuine contribution. Several reforms are necessary to restore credibility to Nigeria’s national recognition framework.

    First, the establishment of an independent honours committee comprising historians, civil society leaders, and respected public figures could help insulate the process from political manipulation. This body should have the authority to research, verify, and recommend candidates based on objective criteria rather than political expediency.

    Second, the criteria for national honours should be clearly defined and publicly available, with emphasis on measurable contributions to national development, democratic governance, and social progress. The current system’s opacity allows for arbitrary decisions that undermine public confidence.

    Third, there should be provisions for posthumous recognition of individuals whose contributions were not acknowledged during their lifetime. Many of Nigeria’s most significant contributors to national development died without recognition, and the honours system should provide mechanisms for correcting these historical oversights.

    National honours represent more than ceremonial recognition; they embody a nation’s understanding of its own history and values. When these honours are distributed based on political calculation rather than genuine contribution, they become instruments of historical distortion rather than national memory preservation.

    President Tinubu’s honours list, while containing some deserving recipients, fundamentally fails to capture the true heroes of Nigeria’s democratic evolution. The undervaluation of Humphrey Nwosu, the questionable inclusion of Shehu Yar’Adua, and the neglect of authentic democracy advocates like Dangiwa Umar, Lawan Gwadabe, Arthur Nwankwo, and Osa Director represent missed opportunities to accurately document Nigeria’s democratic journey.

    The path forward requires a commitment to historical honesty and a willingness to prioritize genuine contribution over political convenience. Only through such an approach can Nigeria’s honours system serve its intended purpose of inspiring excellence and preserving the memory of those who truly built the nation. The current list, unfortunately, falls short of this standard and requires fundamental reconsideration to restore its credibility and relevance.

  • 58 Years after: Biafra and the challenge to national unity (2)

    58 Years after: Biafra and the challenge to national unity (2)

    The search for peace saw Nigerian leaders journeying to Aburi, Ghana, in such a gathering did lie the nation’s last hopes for a peaceful resolution, while the eastern contingent led by Colonel Ojukwu came to that meeting understanding the import of such a meeting and the grave consequences  of not finding a lasting solution  to ending the bloodshed, the killings and the displacement of over 3 million Eastern Region citizens came to that meeting prepared to the hilt, Gowon on the other hand came to the meeting with the impression that it was an old boys reunion, something of an officer’s mess gathering irrespective of the gloom that pervaded the air then. To Gowon and his ilk it didn’t matter that over 500 000 Eastern region citizens had been killed and another 500,000 or more maimed and displaced, what was more important was that the regions return to the status quo.

    It is alleged that Ojukwu rebuffed such a posturing and demanded that concrete steps be taken one that would provide for a confederation of regions with significant autonomy, particularly in matters of finance and security. For Ojukwu and the Eastern Region, this arrangement offered the region the protection they sought while remaining within Nigeria. For Gowon and the federal government, it provided a framework for keeping Nigeria together despite the centrifugal forces threatening to tear it apart.

    However, upon returning to Nigeria, Gowon facing pressure from minority technocrats who viewed the Aburi Agreement as a betrayal of the minorities who were seeking to establish some form of independence from the supposed Igbo domination and a capitulation to Eastern demands. Legal advisors argued that the confederal arrangement agreed upon at Aburi was tantamount to dismembering Nigeria. Federal civil servants, led by Permanent Secretary Allison Ayida, produced memoranda highlighting the dangers of implementing the Aburi decisions.

    Rather than seek a rapprochement with Ojukwu to at least arrive at  further middle grounds took the  eventual decision to repudiate key aspects of the Aburi Accord, this proved to be a fatal miscalculation and set Ojukwu who had earlier adopted a dovish stance towards the path of secession.  This betrayal of the Aburi spirit convinced Ojukwu and many Easterners that the federal government could not be trusted and that peaceful coexistence within Nigeria was impossible.

    Read Also: No fight between Ooni and I, says Alaafin

    Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu stands at the center of the Biafran controversy, and his motivations remain a subject of intense debate. Critics argue that his declaration of Biafra was motivated by personal ambition and a desire to create his own kingdom where he could rule as a strongman. However, these critics forget that the repudiation of the  Aburi Accords placed Ojukwu in a quagmire, how could he look his people in the face, a people rife with anger and repeatedly clamouring that ojukwu nye anyi egbe( Ojukwu give us guns) and do otherwise? How could he ask his kinsmen and women to go on with one Nigeria when on two occasions he had done so only for another set of pogroms to be unleashed on them?

    However, a more nuanced examination of the circumstances suggests that Ojukwu was responding to genuine threats to the survival of his people. The systematic killings of Easterners, the massive refugee crisis, and the federal government’s apparent inability or unwillingness to protect Eastern lives created an existential situation that demanded decisive action. The Eastern Region Consultative Assembly, comprising traditional rulers, intellectuals, and community leaders, had unanimously mandated Ojukwu to take any action necessary to protect Eastern lives, including secession if required.

    Ojukwu’s own statements and actions suggest that he viewed secession as a last resort rather than a preferred option. His consistent advocacy for the implementation of the Aburi Accord, even after declaring independence, indicates that he would have preferred a confederal arrangement within Nigeria. The timing of the Biafran declaration, coming only after Gowon’s repudiation of Aburi, the imposition of an economic blockade on the East and the provocative creation of states supports the argument that Ojukwu was pushed into secession rather than actively seeking it.

    The die was cast and on May 30, 1967, Ojukwu declared the independence of the Republic of Biafra, named after the Bight of Biafra. Gowon responded by declaring a state of emergency and mobilizing federal forces to preserve Nigerian unity.

    The war that followed was characterized by immense suffering on all sides. What began as a conflict over political arrangements evolved into a humanitarian catastrophe that claimed over one million lives, mostly civilians who died from starvation and disease. The international community became involved, with various countries supporting different sides for their own strategic reasons, further complicating efforts at resolution.

    The Nigerian Civil War offers profound lessons about the fragility of national unity and the catastrophic consequences of political failure. The crisis demonstrated how quickly ethnic suspicions readily escalate into violence particularly when political institutions fail to manage diversity effectively. It highlights the dangers of winner-take-all politics in multi-ethnic societies and showed how military intervention, far from solving political problems, can exacerbate existing tensions.

    However, more than five decades after the war’s end, Nigeria and its key actors appears to have learned little from this traumatic experience. Contemporary political discourse still revolves around ethnic and religious identities rather than issues of governance and development. The rise of various separatist movements, including the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), suggests that the underlying issues that led to the original crisis remain unresolved. Political leaders continue to manipulate ethnic and religious differences for short-term gains, while the federal system remains skewed in ways that perpetuate feelings of marginalization among various groups.

  • 63 Years after: Biafra and the challenge to national unity (1)

    63 Years after: Biafra and the challenge to national unity (1)

    The Nigerian Civil War of 1967-1970, commonly known as the Biafran War, remains one of the most traumatic chapters in Nigeria’s post-independence history. This conflict, which erupted barely seven years after independence, challenged the very foundations of our unity and exposed deep-seated ethnic, religious, and political tensions that had been simmering beneath the surface of the fragile federation. The war’s origins, progression, and aftermath continue to reverberate through Nigerian society today, serving as a stark reminder of how quickly national cohesion can unravel when political leadership fails and ethnic suspicions override national interests.

    The seeds of this crisis were sown in the turbulent political landscape of the First Republic. Nigeria’s independence in 1960 had created a federal structure that reflected the country’s ethnic and regional diversity, but this arrangement soon became a source of intense competition and mutual suspicion. The Northern People’s Congress (NPC), the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC), and the Action Group (AG) represented different regional and ethnic interests, creating a political system where national unity was subordinated to regional loyalties.

    The disputed federal elections of 1964 and the controversial Western Region elections of 1965 exposed the fragility of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. Violence erupted across the Western Region, and the federal government’s partisan response further undermined confidence in the political system. Against this backdrop of political crisis, a group of young military officers majorly from the Eastern region, staged a coup on January 15, 1966.

    READ ALSO: Eight ways to easily spot a fake phone in Nigeria

    Led by Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu and other idealistic officers, the coup aimed to cleanse Nigerian politics of corruption and tribalism. However, the selective nature of the assassinations during the coup created an entirely different narrative. Key Northern and Western political leaders, including Prime Minister Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Northern Premier Sir Ahmadu Bello, and Western Premier Chief Samuel Akintola, were killed, while Eastern leaders largely escaped harm, whilst this wasnt primarily an Igbo agenda as skeptics have since tagged it, the  pattern in which the coup was interpreted by many Northerners as an Igbo conspiracy to dominate Nigeria.

    The tensions that had been building since January erupted violently on July 29, 1966, when Northern officers staged a counter-coup. This second military intervention was characterized by unprecedented ethnic targeting and systematic violence. Unlike the January coup, which had targeted specific political leaders, the July counter-coup specifically hunted down Eastern officers and civilians, particularly those of Igbo extraction.

    The senseless killings during and after the July 29 counter-coup marked a dark turning point in Nigerian history. Hundreds of Eastern officers were murdered in their barracks, many in the most brutal circumstances. Lieutenant Colonel Hilary Njoku barely escaped with his life. The violence was not limited to military personnel; civilians of Eastern origin were systematically targeted across Northern Nigeria.

    General Aguiyi-Ironsi himself fell victim to this ethnic cleansing. He was abducted and murdered along with his host, Lieutenant Colonel Adekunle Fajuyi, in Ibadan. The manner of their deaths sent shockwaves throughout the country and demonstrated that no one, regardless of rank or position, was safe from the ethnic hatred that had been unleashed.

    The aftermath of the counter-coup witnessed even more horrific scenes. In cities across the North, Eastern civilians, particularly Igbos, were hunted down and killed in markets, mosques, schools, and even hospitals where they had sought refuge. Conservative estimates put the death toll in the thousands, though the exact number may never be known. Women and children were not spared in this orgy of violence, and property worth millions was destroyed. The scale and systematic nature of these killings convinced many Easterners that their safety could no longer be guaranteed anywhere in Nigeria outside their region.

    From this chaos emerged Lieutenant Colonel Yakubu Gowon, a Middle Belt Christian,  who was seen as a shoe in for the powers who had always seen Nigeria as their project  . Gowon’s rise to power was rather the institutionalization of indiscipline in the army as he wasnt the most senior officer.His initial actions also betrayed his posture as a belligerent Commander in Chief.

    However, Gowon faced enormous challenges. The Eastern Region, led by Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, refused to recognize his authority, arguing that Gowon was junior to both himself and Brigadier Ogundipe in the military hierarchy and that his assumption of that position violated established military protocols. More fundamentally, the massive exodus of Easterners from other parts of Nigeria had created a humanitarian crisis that demanded immediate attention.

    The search for a peaceful resolution led to several initiatives, the most significant being the Aburi Conference held in Ghana in January 1967. Under the auspices of Ghanaian leader General Joseph Ankrah, Nigerian military leaders met to find a solution to the escalating crisis. The conference initially seemed successful, with all parties agreeing to a loose confederal arrangement that would give regions greater autonomy while maintaining Nigerian unity.

  • This coalition is dead on arrival

    This coalition is dead on arrival

    In the Byzantine labyrinth of Nigerian politics, where ambition repeatedly masquerades as patriotism and personal vendetta parades as principled opposition, a new specter haunts the landscape—a coalition of the disenchanted, the dispossessed, and the desperately ambitious. Like moths drawn to the flickering flame of power, these political wanderers have begun their familiar ‘agabagebe’ (Yoruba for hypocrisy) dance of realignment, thundering about forming a new party or breathing life into shells of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) or the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in their quest to unseat the incumbent by 2027.  Yet, for all their grandiloquent proclamations and theatrical posturing, this coalition arrives at the Nigerian political scene already bearing the unmistakable stench of decay— for it is dead on arrival.

    The optimism that courses through the veins of the average politician in this motley assemblage is both touching and tragically misplaced. Like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, they see in their fractured unity the seeds of a political revolution that will sweep away the current order. They speak in hushed, reverent tones about 2027, as if the mere mention of that electoral year carries within it the mystical power to transform their collection of bruised egos and thwarted ambitions into a formidable political machine. Their confidence is reminiscent of what ii call  the confidence of the defeated soldier who still believes victory is just one more charge away.

    But what exactly binds this curious congregation of political pilgrims? Strip away the flowery rhetoric about “rescuing Nigeria” and “restoring democratic values,” and what emerges is a coalition united by a single, burning grievance: Bola Ahmed Tinubu occupies the seat they believe rightfully belongs to one of them. Like the biblical Joseph’s brothers, consumed by jealousy over their sibling’s coat of many colors, these political actors are driven not by any profound ideological differences with the current administration, but by the simple, raw emotion of exclusion from the feast of power.

    This bed of disgruntled politicos—for that is what they truly are—reminds one of what the sage Obafemi Awolowo once observed about Nigerian politics: that it is often driven more by the desire for office than by the desire to serve. Their coalition is built not on the solid foundation of shared principles or complementary strengths, but on the shifting sands of mutual resentment. They are united in their opposition to Tinubu not because of his policies, but because of his position.

    In their more euphoric moments, these coalition architects dare to dream that they can replicate the magic of 2015, when the All Progressives Congress (APC) achieved what many thought impossible—the defeat of an incumbent president. They whisper among themselves about how a divided PDP fell before the united front of opposition forces, conveniently forgetting the unique circumstances that made that victory possible. But if they truly believe they can pull an “APC”—that lightning can strike twice in the same spot—then they must be residing on a different planet altogether, perhaps in a galaxy where political gravity operates by different laws.

    The APC of 2015 was forged in the crucible of genuine discontent with the Goodluck Jonathan administration, bound together by years of careful planning, strategic alliances, and most importantly, a clear hierarchy that left no doubt about who would lead the charge. It was a coalition blessed with the towering figure of Muhammadu Buhari, whose personal integrity and widespread appeal provided the unifying force that held together diverse and often competing interests, it also had the sagacity of a Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the rugged activism of an Adams Oshiomole, the zeal of a Rochas Okorocha and the steely resolve of a Rabiu Kwankwaso. Yes the political values of an  Amaechi, Atiku and El Rufai then cannot be  easily discountenanced, but politics is the field of the fluid and what obtained in 2015 cannot be replicated with the dimming values of the aforementioned troika.  What we see today is a pale imitation—a coalition that mistakes noise for voice, activity for action, and hope for strategy.

    The fundamental weakness of this emerging alliance lies not merely in its origins but in its inherent contradictions. Like the ill-fated builders of the Tower of Babel, who sought to reach heaven through their own devices only to have their project collapse under the weight of their inability to communicate, this coalition will inevitably crumble when faced with the ultimate question: who among them deserves to fly the presidential flag?

    Read Also: Coalition: Atiku draws battle line with PDP govs, others

    Consider the dramatis personae of this political theater. Will the serial candidature of Atiku Abubakar, that political Energizer Bunny who keeps running and running, finally yield to a Peter Obi who may find it difficult to replicate his 2023 flash in the pan performance?  Or perhaps the former Rivers State governor and Transportation Minister, Rotimi Amaechi, believes his time has finally come to claim the prize that has eluded him? Each of these figures arrives at the coalition table carrying not just their political baggage, but their own presidential ambitions—ambitions that cannot be easily subordinated to a collective good.

    The challenge facing this coalition goes beyond the question of leadership. They must convince the average Nigerian—the trader in Alaba Market, the farmer in Kebbi State, the civil servant in Abuja—that they possess the secret sauce for governance that has somehow eluded the current administration. They must articulate a vision so compelling, a program so transformative, that millions of Nigerians will be willing to take another leap of faith with political figures who, in many cases, were part of previous administrations that failed to deliver on their promises.

    This is no small task in a country where political promises have been devalued by decades of non-performance, where the electorate has grown increasingly cynical about the motivations of their leaders. The coalition must overcome what scholars call  “the sincerity deficit”—the gap between what politicians promise and what they deliver.

    Furthermore, the coalition faces the formidable challenge of unseating an incumbent president, a feat that requires not just unity of purpose but also organizational prowess, financial resources, and most critically, a narrative that resonates with the deepest aspirations of the Nigerian people. The APC succeeded in 2015 partly because it could point to specific failures of the Jonathan administration—security challenges, corruption scandals, economic mismanagement—and offer credible alternatives.

    But what compelling narrative can this emerging coalition offer? That Tinubu should be removed simply because he is not one of them? That their collective wisdom, somehow suppressed during their previous tenures in office, will suddenly flourish if given another chance? The Nigerian electorate, for all its perceived simplicity, possesses an intuitive understanding of political motivation that cuts through rhetorical flourishes to the heart of the matter.

    As this coalition attempts to transform itself from a gathering of the aggrieved into a credible alternative government, it must grapple with questions that go to the core of its existence. Can a political movement born of exclusion and resentment evolve into something greater than the sum of its grievances? Can leaders who could not collaborate effectively when they had power suddenly discover the secret of unity in opposition?

    The answer, if history is any guide, is written in the political graveyard of failed coalitions, aborted third forces, and stillborn political movements that have littered the Nigerian landscape since independence. This coalition, like so many before it, appears destined to discover that it is easier to unite against something than to unite for something—and that the bridge from opposition to governance requires more than shared dissatisfaction with the status quo.

    In the end, this coalition may find that it has arrived at the Nigerian political scene not as the vanguard of a new dawn, but as yet another reminder that in politics, timing, unity of purpose, and authentic leadership cannot be manufactured through press conferences and strategic meetings. They have arrived, but they are already dead on arrival.

  • DSS, Pat Utomi and misplaced priorities

    DSS, Pat Utomi and misplaced priorities

    In a nation facing serious existential threats one is forced to wonder or throw my arms into the air in exhilaration over the intention by the Department of State Security Services, DSS to sue Professor Pat Utomi following the latter’s announcement of the formation of a shadow government. This disproportionate focus on Utomi’s political activities reveals a concerning misallocation of security resources when far more serious threats to national security demand urgent attention.

    This is not the first time Professor Utomi has formed such an alternative political structure. Shortly after President Umaru Yar’Adua took office in 2007, Utomi established a similar shadow cabinet. That effort, despite initial media attention, gradually faded away without posing any threat to Nigeria’s democratic institutions or national security. It served primarily as an intellectual exercise and a platform for policy critique—exactly what shadow governments are meant to do in functional democracies.

    Shadow governments, or shadow cabinets as they are sometimes called, represent a legitimate democratic tradition in many mature democracies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the opposition party forms an official shadow cabinet that scrutinizes government policies and presents alternatives. These structures strengthen, rather than undermine, democratic governance by ensuring robust policy debates and accountability.

    Professor Utomi’s initiative should be viewed through this lens—as an attempt to deepen Nigeria’s democratic culture rather than subvert it. His shadow government aims to offer alternative policy perspectives and hold the current administration accountable, functions that are essential to democratic health.

    READ ALSO: FULL LIST: World’s 11 most powerful passports in 2025

    I know the man in question, as a student of the Great University of Benin, he encouraged my activities in student unionism, not once did he ever tinker or talk about violence as a means for rescuing our nation, Professor Utomi has long established himself as Nigeria’s political iconoclast—a man willing to challenge orthodoxy and propose alternative visions for national development. His decades-long career as an economist, political scientist, entrepreneur, and public intellectual demonstrates a consistent commitment to Nigeria’s progress.

    Like America’s Patrick Moynihan, who served as both scholar and statesman, Utomi combines academic rigor with political engagement. Moynihan was known for his willingness to speak uncomfortable truths about social problems while offering thoughtful policy solutions. Similarly, Utomi has never shied away from diagnosing Nigeria’s ailments, even when his prescriptions challenge powerful interests.

    In the mold of Bernie Sanders, Utomi represents a persistent voice for systemic change and greater equity. Just as Sanders has spent decades advocating for economic justice in America’s political wilderness before his ideas gained mainstream traction, Utomi has consistently championed institutional reforms and social justice in Nigeria, often ahead of popular opinion.

    While security agencies focus on Utomi’s utopian like political activities, Nigeria faces genuine existential threats that demand urgent attention. Widespread insecurity manifests in multiple forms with Boko Haram and banditry doing a tag team in the NorthEast and NorthWest, in the SouthEast and South South kidnapping for ransom and militancy are ravaging these regions while killer gangs are leaving hundreds dead in their homelands in Benue and Plateau, areas which had in the not too far past had been abodes of peace.

    These threats represent clear and present dangers to Nigeria’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and citizens’ welfare. Rather than square off with these challenges and for once deal with the perpetrators behind these monsters, the DSS feels it would better serve the nation by redirecting resources toward addressing these genuine security challenges and  monitor or rather attempt to bully the activities of intellectuals engaged in a form of political discourse.

    Far from silencing voices like Utomi’s, the Tinubu administration would benefit from engaging substantively with the ideas and critiques offered by his shadow government. The current economic challenges facing Nigeria—including inflation, unemployment, and currency instability—require diverse perspectives and innovative solutions.

    Professor Utomi brings decades of experience in economic management, entrepreneurship, and public policy to the table. His expertise could complement government efforts to address these challenges if the administration were to adopt a more inclusive approach to governance.

    Democracies mature when they embrace, rather than suppress, the opposition. The United States, United Kingdom, and other established democracies have institutionalized mechanisms for opposition voices to contribute to governance through shadow cabinets, congressional oversight, and robust public debate.

    Nigeria’s democratic journey remains incomplete without similar institutional frameworks for constructive opposition. The DSS’s reaction to Utomi’s shadow government suggests a concerning intolerance for political dissent that undermines democratic consolidation.

    I would rather urge the Tinubu administration to engage substantively with policy proposals from Utomi’s group, even if it chooses for constitutional reasons not to recognise it, this  way, this administration can show Nigerians that it is also not docile and desires to move the nation forward. By doing such we would have strengthened our

    democratic norms by showing that it is an administration that can tolerate and even encourage constructive criticism

    Pat Utomi’s shadow government represents an opportunity,not a threat, for Nigeria’s democracy. His track record demonstrates a genuine commitment to national development rather than personal aggrandizement or destabilization. The DSS’s focus on his activities reflects a misunderstanding of his intentions and a misallocation of security resources.

    In mature democracies, figures like Utomi are valued for their contribution to public discourse and policy development. Nigeria would be well-served by embracing such voices rather than treating them with suspicion. The Tinubu administration has an opportunity to demonstrate democratic confidence by engaging with, rather than marginalizing, Utomi’s shadow government.

    Nigeria’s security challenges are real and pressing. Let the DSS focus our national security apparatus on addressing genuine threats while creating space for the intellectual and political opposition that strengthens rather than weakens our democracy. Pat Utomi deserves to be heard, not hounded.

  • Nigeria’s foreign policy, from Afrocentrism to ambiguity?

    Nigeria’s foreign policy, from Afrocentrism to ambiguity?

    Nigeria as the most populous black nation in the world has for some time now been punching under its weight for some time now. In the complex theater of international relations, Nigeria’s foreign policy evolution tells a story of adaptation, ambition, and at times, ambiguity. As President Bola Ahmed Tinubu completes his second year in office, a critical examination of his administration’s foreign policy thrust reveals a landscape where historical foundations meet contemporary challenges, raising important questions about Nigeria’s place on the global stage in 2025.

    Nigeria’s foreign policy has undergone significant transformations since independence. Under Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa and subsequent military administrations, Nigeria adopted a non-aligned stance during the Cold War, refusing to be drawn into either the Western or Eastern bloc. This position allowed a young nation to assert its sovereignty while navigating the bipolar international system. In addition to this, the Balewa government navigated its foreign policy in favour of Africa as a continent and to this end it faulted the French Nuclear test in the Sahara desert leading to the nation’s protest and the expulsion of the French Ambassador.

    By the 1970s, under General Murtala Mohammed, Nigeria’s policy evolved into what scholars term “Africa-centrism” – declaring Africa as the “centerpiece” of Nigerian foreign policy. This principle manifested in Nigeria’s leadership role in the formation of ECOWAS, its anti-apartheid stance, its recognition of the Augostinho Neto’s MPLA government as the authentic government of the people of Angola and significant contributions to peacekeeping operations across the continent. The oil boom provided economic leverage that amplified Nigeria’s voice in international affairs during this period.

    The administration of Ibrahim Babaginda to his credit did attempt to raise the tempo, his regional interventions in Liberia was revolutionary whilst his attempt to create a concert of medium powers was largely a scheme to give Nigeria alongside other developed nations which were not amongst the big five a place under the sun.

    The democratic transitions of the late 1990s and early 2000s saw Nigeria attempting to repair its international image after years of military rule. President Olusegun Obasanjo leveraged his international connections to reintegrate Nigeria into the global community, focusing on debt relief and foreign investment.

    President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua introduced a more deliberate economic emphasis to Nigeria’s foreign policy through his “citizen diplomacy” approach. This framework positioned the welfare of Nigerians both at home and abroad as the central consideration in foreign relations decisions. His administration sought to use foreign policy as a tool for domestic economic development, aligning diplomatic initiatives with poverty reduction goals.

    Despite Yar’Adua’s brief tenure, his economic diplomacy orientation laid groundwork that influenced subsequent administrations. President Goodluck Jonathan continued elements of this approach, particularly in seeking foreign investments and regional economic integration.

    Read Also: Nigerian techpreneurs headline Dubai AI week show

    When Muhammadu Buhari assumed office in 2015, he inherited a foreign policy apparatus weakened by numerous domestic challenges. As correctly noted, terrorism, kidnapping, banditry, and endemic corruption had severely damaged Nigeria’s international reputation. The refusal of several Western nations to sell military equipment to Nigeria for counterterrorism operations highlighted the country’s diminished standing on the global stage.

    Buhari’s foreign policy adopted a pragmatic stance focused on three priorities: combating corruption, addressing security challenges, and diversifying the economy. His administration sought to rebuild international confidence through anti-corruption campaigns while pursuing regional security cooperation to address the Boko Haram insurgency. The appointment of Geoffrey Onyeama as Foreign Minister brought stability to diplomatic engagements, though critics argue the administration never fully articulated a coherent foreign policy doctrine.

    Since taking office in May 2023, President Tinubu’s approach to foreign policy has displayed both continuity and change. Working alongside Foreign Affairs Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, the administration has shown signs of prioritizing economic diplomacy while attempting to restore Nigeria’s regional leadership position.

    However, nearly a year into governance, observers continue to question the coherence and direction of Tinubu’s foreign policy. Several patterns have emerged, such as an  economic focus with limited strategic

    framework.

    Tinubu’s foreign engagements have heavily emphasized investment attraction and trade expansion. His administration has launched diplomatic initiatives aimed at positioning Nigeria as an investment destination, particularly following domestic economic reforms including the removal of fuel subsidies and exchange rate adjustments.

    Minister Tuggar has frequently articulated the “Renewed Hope Agenda” as driving foreign policy, focusing on Nigeria’s economic interests. Yet, these economic engagements often appear reactive rather than flowing from a comprehensive strategic framework. The administration has yet to publish a formal foreign policy white paper outlining its long-term international relations vision.

    The Tinubu administration like past administrations initially signaled a return to robust regional leadership, particularly in responding to democratic backsliding in Niger and other West African states. Nigeria’s stance on ECOWAS sanctions against coup leaders demonstrated willingness to assert regional influence.

    However, this assertiveness has been inconsistent. The administration’s response to similar situations across the continent has lacked uniformity, raising questions about whether a coherent Africa policy exists. Furthermore, Nigeria’s economic challenges have limited its capacity to back diplomatic positions with substantial resources, undermining its traditional leadership role.

    Minister Tuggar has pursued engagement with various global powers, including traditional Western allies, China, Russia, and emerging economies. This approach reflects a multipolar worldview appropriate for the current international system. Yet, the administration appears reluctant to articulate clear priorities among these relationships.

    The result is a foreign policy that sometimes appears to chase multiple opportunities without that strategic selectivity. This is particularly evident in Nigeria’s positioning regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict and US-China competition, where the administration has avoided firm alignment while attempting to extract benefits from all sides.

    Of a truth, the  Tinubu administration inherited a Foreign Affairs Ministry suffering from years of underfunding and declining professional capacity. Despite Minister Tuggar’s diplomatic experience, the ministry’s effectiveness remains constrained by structural limitations.

    Diplomatic missions abroad continue to face operational challenges, limiting Nigeria’s ability to project influence and protect citizens’ interests overseas. The promised “diplomatic architecture review” announced early in the administration has yet to produce visible reforms in foreign service operations.

    What ultimately remains unclear is whether the Tinubu administration possesses a distinctive foreign policy doctrine that defines its approach to international engagement. Previous administrations, despite their flaws, established recognizable principles: Africa-centrism under the military regimes, shuttle diplomacy under Obasanjo, citizen diplomacy under Yar’Adua, and Buhari’s security-focused pragmatism.

    Tinubu’s foreign policy, by contrast, appears predominantly transactional – seeking economic benefits and diplomatic capital without articulating a coherent worldview or grand strategy. This approach offers flexibility but sacrifices the consistency and predictability that international partners value.

    Minister Tuggar’s emphasis on “Nigeria first” rhetoric suggests potential parallels with economically nationalist foreign policies seen elsewhere globally. Yet, the administration has not translated this concept into a systematic framework guiding Nigeria’s international engagements.

    For the remainder of his term, President Tinubu faces the task of transforming tactical diplomatic engagements into a coherent foreign policy architecture. This requires addressing several fundamental questions:

    1. How can  Nigeria balance regional leadership aspirations with domestic economic imperatives?

    2. What principles will guide choices between competing international partnerships?

    3. How can our diplomatic capabilities be rebuilt to effectively project Nigerian influence?

    4. Where does Nigeria position itself in evolving global governance structures?

    The opportunity exists to develop a foreign policy that genuinely serves national development while restoring Nigeria’s international standing. This demands not only diplomatic skill but strategic vision – the vision we saw with the Garba’s and the Akinyemi’s something critics suggest has been notably absent in Nigerian foreign policy formulation for decades.

    As Nigeria navigates increasingly turbulent global waters in 2025, the Tinubu administration stands at a foreign policy crossroads. While economic diplomacy provides a practical focus, a comprehensive foreign policy requires more than commercial opportunism. It demands clarity of vision, consistency of principles, and capacity for implementation.

    The historical journey of Nigerian foreign policy offers valuable lessons for crafting a more effective approach – drawing from the principled non-alignment of the early years, the continental leadership of the Africa-centric era, and the citizen-focused pragmatism of more recent times. Whether President Tinubu and Minister Tuggar can synthesize these traditions into a coherent doctrine that addresses contemporary challenges remains one of the defining questions of their administration’s legacy.

    Nigeria’s international partners and citizens alike await clearer signals about where Africa’s most populous nation is steering its ship of state in global affairs. Until then, Nigerian foreign policy under Tinubu appears to be a work in progress – with the blueprint still very much under construction.

  • On NELFUND’s alleged missing billions

    On NELFUND’s alleged missing billions

    In a nation such as ours, where accusations of corruption often precede evidence, where sometimes media trials are staged and the war against corruption seems to be sensationally fought on the pages of the Nigerian dailies, tabloids and online media as well as TV screens, an agency like NELFUND finds itself fighting a familiar battle on the same turf owing to the recent allegations of fund mismanagement, a whooping N71.2 bn was alleged to be missing  before the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission ICPC clarified its statement and claimed it was a misinterpretation due to an omitted word. Such a scenarios highlights Nigeria’s deep-seated skepticism toward government initiatives, here everyone in government is a rogue, just as every male lecturer in the Nigerian university  is a lecherous sex monger who would willingly dole out marks for that rite of passage! While I am glad that such isnt the case, one however beleives that for NELFUND, such an agonizing event provides the agency  a valuable opportunity to examine both our collective tendency to assume corruption and take  steps to build lasting trust.

    Nigeria’s history with public fund management has naturally conditioned many citizens to expect the abject worst from government agencies, now dont blame them when we are witnesses to billionaire generals and civilians who cannot really account for the cost lives they lived are still leaving even after leaving office. So when news broke suggesting N71.2 billion was unaccounted for, it fit neatly into the established narrative of public funds disappearing into private pockets. This immediate leap to skepticism, while understandable, can undermine promising initiatives before they have a chance to prove themselves.

    NELFUND’s zero-human-interface digital system represents a genuine attempt to break this cycle. By removing opportunities for interference, the fund has created a system designed specifically to prevent the corruption Nigerians have grown to expect. This progressive approach deserves recognition and cautious optimism.

    Read Also: Eight degrees that can land you a high-paying UK job

    I have listened to  Akintunde Sawyer speak on issues bothering NELFUND and I must say that I find him or can describe him as a passionate chap jeen on easing the burdens of indigent Nigerian students who prior to the introduction of the student loans scheme had to carry out their academic work without any assurance of completing it owing to their lack of funds, many delved into a number of survival methods just to pay their fees and trust me some of these methods were unsavoury, thankfully the Tinubu administration is working miracles through such a policy and this is one policy we must all guard with our hearts and minds

    While NELFUND’s digital implementation is commendable, several international best practices could further strengthen the agency’s operations and public trust:

    The first will be the implementation of Real-Time Transparency Dashboards, just as countries

    like Estonia and South Korea have revolutionized public trust through digital transparency. NELFUND should consider developing a public dashboard showing real-time fund allocations, disbursements, and beneficiary statistics (while protecting personal data). This would allow stakeholders to monitor operations without waiting for formal reports. I think they have this already but there is need to make its function quite seamless.

    Further  more, looking at successful student loan programs in Australia and the UK, one would find that they incorporate independent oversight bodies including academic experts, student representatives, and civil society members. NELFUND could create a similar multi-stakeholder committee with regular rotation of members to prevent capture by any group or cabal such a committee would report regularly to the MD and the Minister for Education, or probably still be empowered to publish their reports for the public.

    Regular independent evaluations measuring both quantitative outcomes (number of beneficiaries, graduation rates) and qualitative impacts (career advancement, socioeconomic mobility) would demonstrate NELFUND’s commitment to its mission beyond mere disbursement. Even before this NELFUND can conduct yearly evaluations to see how student beneficiaries are performing academically, this way too could also help the agency fine tune its interventions to ensuring that these funds are most likely to achieve what they were originally intended for.

    In countries like Canada and Germany have established structured channels for beneficiaries to report experiences and challenges. NELFUND should develop similar mechanisms to continuously improve based on student feedback, thus could help the agency disburse such funds in a quicker manner or arrest bottlenecks as presently witnessed within some tertiary institutions, at best NELFUND can establish NELFUND units within these institutions  to help coordinate its activities within each institution,  other channels too could be employed.

    The premature accusations against NELFUND demonstrate the difficulty of building public trust in Nigeria’s current climate. However, the agency’s digital-first approach represents a promising departure from past practices.

    NELFUND leadership should view the recent controversy not as a setback but as an opportunity to demonstrate unprecedented commitment to transparency. By adopting international best practices while addressing Nigeria’s unique educational challenges, NELFUND can become more than just another government agency—it can become a transformational force in Nigerian education and make the positives of Nigeria also happening to us in a very long time.

    The students who depend on these loans deserve both effective management and our collective patience as this young institution establishes itself. In a nation where educational access remains deeply unequal, NELFUND’s success is not just about efficient fund management—it’s about creating pathways to opportunity for millions of young Nigerians, who though are indigent deserve an education.