The Nation Newspaper

Category: ARINZE IGBOELI

  • The silent erosion of true federalism: A challenge to Nigeria’s census panel composition

    The silent erosion of true federalism: A challenge to Nigeria’s census panel composition

    In the tapestry of Nigeria’s diverse heritage, where the threads of over two hundred million souls interweave to form the vibrant fabric of our nation, a conspicuous void has emerged—a void that speaks volumes about the precarious state of our federal structure. The recent composition of the national census panel stands as a testament to an oversight so glaring, so profound in its implications, that it calls into question our commitment to the principles of true federalism upon which our nation was founded. The mathematics of representation on this critical panel reveals a troubling equation of imbalance. In a country of over 200 million people, where NdiIgbo stand proudly as the single largest ethnic group in our federation’s tapestry, they have apparently been rendered invisible in the composition of the very panel tasked with counting our nation’s souls.

    Equally concerning is the absence of representation from the South-South and Northeast regions—creating a triumvirate of exclusion that cannot be dismissed as mere oversight. This mathematical anomaly transcends mere numbers; it represents the calculus of marginalization, where the value of entire regions and peoples is reduced to nothingness in the algorithm of national reckoning. In the delicate balance of our federal structure, such imbalance threatens not just equity but the structural integrity of our national architecture. The federal character principle was not conceived as mere political poetry but as the foundational pillar upon which the temple of our national unity stands. Enshrined in our constitution, it serves as the guardian of equitable representation, ensuring that no region feels the cold sting of exclusion from the national conversation. The absence of Southeast, South-South, and Northeast voices on the census panel while a particular region received 5 slots represents a departure from this sacred principle—a deviation that strikes at the very heart of the federal covenant and one that binds our diverse peoples into one nation. When critical regions find themselves without representation in a process as fundamental as determining our population, we must ask: Is this the federalism our founding fathers envisioned? A national census transcends the cold calculation of numerical strength; it is the very process by which a nation acknowledges the existence of its people. It determines political representation, resource allocation, and development planning for generations to come. To be excluded from the body that oversees this process is to be told, in essence, that your existence shall be determined and defined by others—a construct reminiscent of our colonial past that we believed was firmly behind us. In this light, the composition of the census panel becomes not merely administrative but existential in its significance. It represents the right of peoples to be counted, to be seen, to be acknowledged in the official narrative of nation-building. The exclusion of the Southeast, South-South, and Northeast from this narrative represents not just a procedural oversight but a fundamental challenge to the principle that all regions matter equally in our national story. Let us place this concern within its proper historical context. The story of our nation is written in chapters of struggle for equitable representation, for the recognition that in unity there must be respect for diversity. From the pre-independence constitutional conferences to the post-civil war reconciliation efforts, the question of how best to accommodate our differences while celebrating our commonalities has remained central to our national discourse. The exclusion of these regions from the census panel represents not an isolated incident but another verse in a concerning pattern that echoes through the chambers of our collective memory. From the distribution of infrastructure to appointments in federal institutions, any pattern of regional marginalization presents itself as a contradiction to the federal spirit—a contradiction that demands address not through divisive rhetoric but through principled realignment with our constitutional values. The concept of true federalism stands as a promise—a promise that every component unit of our nation shall have a voice in matters that affect the collective. When Southeast, South-South, and Northeast regions find themselves without representation on a panel as crucial as that which conducts our national census, this promise rings hollow against the walls of practical experience. This is not merely about political correctness; it is about the practical implications of exclusion. How can regions trust that their populations will be accurately counted when they have no representatives in the room where methodologies are determined and implementation strategies are crafted? How can they be assured that their unique demographic challenges will be understood and addressed in the census process? The dignity of our nation’s diverse peoples requires their inclusion in processes that shape our collective destiny. When the Ndi’Igbo, as the single largest ethnic group in Nigeria, find themselves without representation on the census panel, alongside their brothers and sisters from the South-South and Northeast, we witness not just an administrative oversight but a fundamental challenge to the dignity that inclusion confers. True federalism demands not just the formal recognition of our diversity but the practical expression of that recognition through inclusive practices. The current composition of the census panel falls short of this standard, raising legitimate concerns about our commitment to the federal principle in practice rather than merely in theory. This moment calls not for recrimination but for realignment—a realignment with the constitutional principles that should guide our national journey. The federal character principle exists not as an optional guideline but as a constitutional imperative that safeguards the rights of all regions to meaningful participation in national life. We therefore respectfully call for the reconstitution of the census panel to reflect the true federal character of our nation, including adequate representation for the Southeast, South-South, and Northeast regions. This call emanates not from sectional interests but from a deep commitment to the constitutional values that should bind us together as one nation celebrating its diversity. The composition of the census panel presents not just a challenge but an opportunity—an opportunity to demonstrate our collective commitment to true federalism in action rather than merely in rhetoric. By ensuring that all regions are represented in this crucial process, we affirm that every thread in our national tapestry matters, that every voice deserves to be heard in our national conversation. NdiIgbo, as the single largest ethnic group in a country of over two hundred million souls, alongside their compatriots from the South-South and Northeast, deserve representation in every facet of national life, particularly in processes as fundamental as the census. The current exclusion stands as a deviation from the path of true federalism—a deviation that can and must be corrected if we are to honor the federal covenant that binds us together. As we navigate the complex waters of our national existence, let us be guided by the compass of true federalism—a compass that points always toward inclusion rather than exclusion, toward representation rather than marginalization, toward the recognition that our diversity is not a burden to be managed but a blessing to be celebrated. The current composition of the census panel represents a departure from this path—a departure that calls for correction not through divisive rhetoric but through principled realignment with our constitutional values. By ensuring that the Southeast, South-South, and Northeast regions are represented on this panel, we take a significant step toward the more perfect union that our founding fathers envisioned and that our children deserve to inherit.

    In the grand theater of our national existence, let this moment be remembered not as one of division but of renewal—a renewal of our commitment to the federal principle that each region, each people, each voice matters in the unfolding story of Nigeria. For in that commitment lies the promise of true federalism, and in that promise, the hope of a nation united in its diversity, strengthened by its differences, and committed to the dignity of all its peoples. : A Challenge to Nigeria’s Census Panel Composition

    In the tapestry of Nigeria’s diverse heritage, where the threads of over two hundred million souls interweave to form the vibrant fabric of our nation, a conspicuous void has emerged—a void that speaks volumes about the precarious state of our federal structure. The recent composition of the national census panel stands as a testament to an oversight so glaring, so profound in its implications, that it calls into question our commitment to the principles of true federalism upon which our nation was founded.

    The mathematics of representation on this critical panel reveals a troubling equation of imbalance. In a country of over 200 million people, where NdiIgbo stand proudly as the single largest ethnic group in our federation’s tapestry, they have apparently been rendered invisible in the composition of the very panel tasked with counting our nation’s souls. Equally concerning is the absence of representation from the South-South and Northeast regions—creating a triumvirate of exclusion that cannot be dismissed as mere oversight.

    Read Also: North, coalition formation and presumptions

    This mathematical anomaly transcends mere numbers; it represents the calculus of marginalization, where the value of entire regions and peoples is reduced to nothingness in the algorithm of national reckoning. In the delicate balance of our federal structure, such imbalance threatens not just equity but the structural integrity of our national architecture.

    The federal character principle was not conceived as mere political poetry but as the foundational pillar upon which the temple of our national unity stands. Enshrined in our constitution, it serves as the guardian of equitable representation, ensuring that no region feels the cold sting of exclusion from the national conversation.

    The absence of Southeast, South-South, and Northeast voices on the census panel while a particular region received 5 slots represents a departure from this sacred principle—a deviation that strikes at the very heart of the federal covenant and one that binds our diverse peoples into one nation. When critical regions find themselves without representation in a process as fundamental as determining our population, we must ask: Is this the federalism our founding fathers envisioned?

    A national census transcends the cold calculation of numerical strength; it is the very process by which a nation acknowledges the existence of its people. It determines political representation, resource allocation, and development planning for generations to come. To be excluded from the body that oversees this process is to be told, in essence, that your existence shall be determined and defined by others—a construct reminiscent of our colonial past that we believed was firmly behind us.

    In this light, the composition of the census panel becomes not merely administrative but existential in its significance. It represents the right of peoples to be counted, to be seen, to be acknowledged in the official narrative of nation-building. The exclusion of the Southeast, South-South, and Northeast from this narrative represents not just a procedural oversight but a fundamental challenge to the principle that all regions matter equally in our national story.

    Let us place this concern within its proper historical context. The story of our nation is written in chapters of struggle for equitable representation, for the recognition that in unity there must be respect for diversity. From the pre-independence constitutional conferences to the post-civil war reconciliation efforts, the question of how best to accommodate our differences while celebrating our commonalities has remained central to our national discourse.

    The exclusion of these regions from the census panel represents not an isolated incident but another verse in a concerning pattern that echoes through the chambers of our collective memory. From the distribution of infrastructure to appointments in federal institutions, any pattern of regional marginalization presents itself as a contradiction to the federal spirit—a contradiction that demands address not through divisive rhetoric but through principled realignment with our constitutional values.

    The concept of true federalism stands as a promise—a promise that every component unit of our nation shall have a voice in matters that affect the collective. When Southeast, South-South, and Northeast regions find themselves without representation on a panel as crucial as that which conducts our national census, this promise rings hollow against the walls of practical experience.

    This is not merely about political correctness; it is about the practical implications of exclusion. How can regions trust that their populations will be accurately counted when they have no representatives in the room where methodologies are determined and implementation strategies are crafted? How can they be assured that their unique demographic challenges will be understood and addressed in the census process?

    The dignity of our nation’s diverse peoples requires their inclusion in processes that shape our collective destiny. When the Ndi’Igbo, as the single largest ethnic group in Nigeria, find themselves without representation on the census panel, alongside their brothers and sisters from the South-South and Northeast, we witness not just an administrative oversight but a fundamental challenge to the dignity that inclusion confers.

    True federalism demands not just the formal recognition of our diversity but the practical expression of that recognition through inclusive practices. The current composition of the census panel falls short of this standard, raising legitimate concerns about our commitment to the federal principle in practice rather than merely in theory.

    This moment calls not for recrimination but for realignment—a realignment with the constitutional principles that should guide our national journey. The federal character principle exists not as an optional guideline but as a constitutional imperative that safeguards the rights of all regions to meaningful participation in national life.

    We therefore respectfully call for the reconstitution of the census panel to reflect the true federal character of our nation, including adequate representation for the Southeast, South-South, and Northeast regions. This call emanates not from sectional interests but from a deep commitment to the constitutional values that should bind us together as one nation celebrating its diversity.

    The composition of the census panel presents not just a challenge but an opportunity—an opportunity to demonstrate our collective commitment to true federalism in action rather than merely in rhetoric. By ensuring that all regions are represented in this crucial process, we affirm that every thread in our national tapestry matters, that every voice deserves to be heard in our national conversation.

    NdiIgbo, as the single largest ethnic group in a country of over two hundred million souls, alongside their compatriots from the South-South and Northeast, deserve representation in every facet of national life, particularly in processes as fundamental as the census. The current exclusion stands as a deviation from the path of true federalism—a deviation that can and must be corrected if we are to honor the federal covenant that binds us together.

    As we navigate the complex waters of our national existence, let us be guided by the compass of true federalism—a compass that points always toward inclusion rather than exclusion, toward representation rather than marginalization, toward the recognition that our diversity is not a burden to be managed but a blessing to be celebrated.

    The current composition of the census panel represents a departure from this path—a departure that calls for correction not through divisive rhetoric but through principled realignment with our constitutional values. By ensuring that the Southeast, South-South, and Northeast regions are represented on this panel, we take a significant step toward the more perfect union that our founding fathers envisioned and that our children deserve to inherit.

    In the grand theater of our national existence, let this moment be remembered not as one of division but of renewal—a renewal of our commitment to the federal principle that each region, each people, each voice matters in the unfolding story of Nigeria. For in that commitment lies the promise of true federalism, and in that promise, the hope of a nation united in its diversity, strengthened by its differences, and committed to the dignity of all its peoples.

  • Angelina Pay My Money: NBA’s N300m ethical dilemma with Rivers State

    Angelina Pay My Money: NBA’s N300m ethical dilemma with Rivers State

    The late Rex Lawson could never have imagined his hit song “Angelina Pay My Money” would perfectly capture the financial standoff between the Nigerian Bar Association and Rivers State government over 300 million Naira in conference funding.

    At the heart of this controversy is a substantial sum of 300 million Naira that was allocated by the suspended Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, to the NBA for hosting their conference in Rivers State. However, following political developments including the declaration of a State of Emergency by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the appointment of a Sole Administrator (Ibok-Ete Ibas), the NBA decided to relocate its conference to Enugu State.

    The NBA justified this relocation citing concerns about the political climate in Rivers State, stating that the current governance structure under the Sole Administrator had created conditions unsuitable for hosting their significant legal gathering. Their position, representing eight branches in Rivers, was that the political environment no longer aligned with the legal community’s values and expectations in a democracy.

    This decision has created a critical ethical question: Should the NBA return the 300 million Naira now that the conference will no longer be held in Rivers State?

    For starters, the sheer size of the allocation raises pertinent questions about the association’s financial requirements for conference hosting. Three hundred million Naira represents a prodigious sum for a professional conference, even one of national significance. This leads to legitimate inquiries about the NBA’s budgetary framework and how such funds are typically deployed across venue procurement, logistics, accommodations, and other operational expenses. Professional associations worldwide typically operate with transparent financial protocols, particularly when receiving public funds. The NBA’s requirement for such a substantial government contribution warrants scrutiny in the context of professional governance standards and fiscal responsibility.

    Read Also: FULL LIST: Trump mulls shut down of US embassies in Africa

    Moreso, when funds are allocated for a specific purpose that subsequently becomes nullified for any reason, basic ethical principles of financial stewardship would suggest that restitution is the appropriate course of action. The moment the NBA determined that Rivers State would no longer serve as the conference venue, the association entered a moral labyrinth from which the clearest exit would be returning the funds to the coffers of the Rivers State Government.

    This position is strengthened by the fact that the money’s distribution was explicitly tied to a specific deliverable – hosting the conference in Rivers State. When that contractual premise dissolved, so too did the justification for retaining the funds. Had the money been provided as a general endowment or unconditional support for the NBA’s activities, then the ethical considerations might differ substantially.

    For an organization that represents the pinnacle of legal ethics and professional conduct, the NBA’s resistance to refunding the 300 million Naira creates a paradoxical situation. The legal profession stands as a bulwark of societal order, with practitioners sworn to uphold principles of justice, fairness, and integrity. The current financial impasse threatens to cast a penumbral shadow over the association’s moral standing.

    Professional honor in this instance would seem to dictate a straightforward approach: acknowledge that the conditions for fund utilization no longer exist and facilitate the return of public resources to their source. This would demonstrate the NBA’s commitment to fiscal rectitude and ethical conduct beyond reproach.

    The political dimension cannot be ignored in this financial dispute. The NBA’s decision to withdraw from Rivers State represents a significant political statement about the current administration, specifically the Sole Administrator’s governance approach. While the association has every right to make such assessments and act accordingly, those decisions carry implications that must be addressed with equivalent deliberation and integrity, if Rivers State is no longer suitable for a conference, it’s funds should also not be suitable in its kitty.

    The refusal to refund could be interpreted as an attempt to financially penalize a political entity with which the NBA has substantive disagreements. Such an approach would introduce a dangerous precedent wherein professional bodies might leverage financial mechanisms to express political disapprobation – a practice that could potentially undermine institutional neutrality.

    As this financial riptide continues to pull both parties into deeper controversy, the NBA finds itself at a critical juncture where its decisions will either reinforce or diminish its standing as an exemplar of professional ethics. This is not the kind of association it’s current President, Afam Osigwe promised Nigerians and the association must consider whether the temporary advantage of retaining these funds outweighs the potential long-term damage to its reputation for integrity and fair dealing.

    The honorable course appears unambiguous: the NBA should acknowledge that the specific purpose for which funds were provided will not be fulfilled and consequently return the 300 million Naira to Rivers State. This action would demonstrate that even in times of political discord, professional organizations can operate with unwavering commitment to ethical principles.

    The current dispute presents an opportunity for the NBA to reaffirm its dedication to probity by demonstrating that its ethical standards remain inviolable regardless of political circumstances. In doing so, it would set a powerful precedent for professional conduct in Nigeria’s sometimes tumultuous public sphere.

    The ongoing financial dispute between the NBA and Rivers State exemplifies how professional organizations must navigate the complex intersection of ethics, politics, and fiscal responsibility. While the association’s concerns about Rivers State’s political environment may be legitimate, these considerations cannot abrogate fundamental principles of integrity and financial accountability.

    For an organization entrusted with upholding justice and integrity within Nigeria’s legal framework, the path forward seems clear: honor the original purpose of the funds by returning them to their source. In doing so, the NBA would demonstrate that its commitment to ethical conduct remains steadfast, even amidst the turbulent political waters it now navigates.

  • When will killings in Plateau stop?

    When will killings in Plateau stop?

    For decades, the North Central Nigerian state of Plateau has been a flashpoint of intercommunal violence for decades. Once known as the “Home of Peace and Tourism,” Plateau has become synonymous with recurring cycles of bloodshed that have claimed thousands of lives. This crisis represents one of Nigeria’s most persistent security challenges, with root causes that seem to be complex and multifaceted.

    Looking through the context of history, the  violence in Plateau State stems from a complex interplay of factors. The region sits at the convergence of Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north and predominantly Christian south, creating something of a religious fault line which should naturally not be a challenge if we in these climes adhere to their true teachings. However, reducing the conflict to only religion alone is an attempt to oversimplify a more nuanced reality.

    At its core, the Plateau crisis revolves around competition for scarce resources, particularly land. The indigenous ethnic groups of Plateau—primarily the Berom, Afizere, and Anaguta—are predominantly farmers and Christians. Over generations, Fulani pastoralists, who are mainly Muslims, have migrated to the region in search of grazing land for their cattle. Climate change has exacerbated this migration, as desertification pushes herders further south.

    Political marginalization also plays a significant role. The concept of “indigeneship” in Nigerian governance gives preferential rights to those considered original inhabitants of an area. This system has created tensions between those classified as “indigenes” and “settlers,” despite some families having lived in the region for generations.

    Thus the grim weaponization of ethnic and religious identities by political elites has further inflamed tensions. Politicians often exploit these divisions for electoral gain, deepening societal fractures rather than healing them.

    Since 2001, Plateau State has experienced numerous episodes of mass violence:

    – September 2001: Over 1,000 people were killed in Jos during riots triggered by political appointments and religious tensions. Apparently, what kicked off the riots was the appointment of a Muslim, Alhaji Mukhtar Mohammed as the state coordinator of the NAPEP poverty alleviation programme. By

    May 2004, more than 700 people were massacred in Yelwa-Shendam, with churches and mosques destroyed in retaliatory attacks, the attack was to then spread to Kano before President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a State of Emergency in the state.

    By November 2008, Following disputed local government elections, approximately 700 people were killed in Jos.

    Other timelines of such repeated orgies of blood and carnage include:

    January 2010: Ethnic clashes in Jos claimed over 300 lives within days.

    -March 2010: The Dogo Nahawa massacre saw over 500 people, mostly women and children, slaughtered in a night raid.

    December 2010-January 2011: Bombings and subsequent violence in Jos killed more than 200 people.

    July 2012: A funeral for victims of earlier attacks was ambushed, killing a federal senator, Gyang Dalyop Datong and a state lawmaker, Hon. James Fulani among dozens of others. That same year, the state witnessed  coordinated attacks on rural communities resulting in hundreds of deaths.

    2021-2023: Attacks intensified with dozens of mass casualty incidents in rural communities, including the Christmas Eve massacres of 2023 that claimed over 100 lives.

    2024- Present Date: The violence has continued unabated with several deadly attacks on farming communities, with the recent killing of 52 people by gunmen and the displacement of about 2,000 others.

    The reason for the attacks in six villages in Plateau’s Bokkos district last week was not immediately known but it is the worst outbreak of violence since December 2023, when over 100 people were massacred.

    These statistics represent not just numbers but thousands of individual tragedies—families destroyed, communities uprooted, and a societal fabric torn apart by sustained violence.  Such statistics represent a grim failure of the Nigerian state and it’s security apparatus.

    Read Also: Plateau killings: IG orders deployment of tactical squads, assets

    The blame for Plateau’s persistent violence must be distributed across multiple actors with the  Federal Government bearing significant responsibility for its failure to address the crisis effectively. Two vital takeaways from this bloodletting drama is the fact that successive administrations have reactively deployed security forces rather than doing such proactively, often withdrawing them prematurely, the other is the fact that our insisting on centralizing our security architecture will forever remain inadequate whilst addressing and seeking to end localized conflicts. This majorly points to a failure of intelligence despite the billions sunk into such agencies on an annual basis, it is even worse to note that on a number of occasions, security agents received sizable evidence off such attacks but failed to act on such until after the attacks were carried out.

     The government has failed to prosecute perpetrators, creating a culture of impunity and there are allegations that fifth columnists in the nation’s security apparatus are also aiding and abetting these criminals.

    State and Local Governments have often exacerbated tensions through discriminatory policies that favor certain ethnic or religious groups. Political leaders have exploited identity politics rather than promoting inclusive governance. In addition, community leaders on all sides have sometimes inflamed tensions through inflammatory rhetoric. Religious leaders have not always used their moral authority to promote peace and reconciliation.

    There is also the talk about the involvement of transnational criminal networks as also playing a heavy role in financing and arming the locals, thus exploiting the tensions and fueling such conflicts for economic gain.

    There are fears that should the killings in Plateau not cease, there is a tendency that the nation could be sitting on a keg of gun powder and such a crisis could escalate or help trigger another civil war or major disturbance. It is thus for this reason that the nation must  begin to search for that elusive  path to a just and  sustainable peace.

    This would surely require a hands on approach and a sincerity of purpose. A

    A thorough reform of our security architecture which would include restructuring its security architecture to improve response times and intelligence gathering as well as encourage responsible state and community policing initiatives that involve local stakeholders could enhance security at the grassroots level and help prevent or deter such attacks from occuring again.

    The establishment of  special tribunals to prosecute perpetrators of violence would help break the cycle of impunity. The government must demonstrate that there are dire consequences for the participation in such mass violence, long jail terms or even the death penalty could help reduce or deter such attacks on the innocent people of Jos.

    The setting up of ranches within the state could help the state reduce farmer-herder conflicts. The introduction of  modern ranching techniques should be promoted, encouraged and enforced  as alternatives to traditional pastoralism.

    While the indigene settler mentality may not abate for the next fifty years, successive state governments should run an inclusive government for all and help blur the indigene-settler dichotomy. Governance structures should ensure representation for all ethnic and religious groups irrespective of where they come from or in what deity they believe in. These successive governments must remember that a majority of us neither chose our ethnicity nor form of religion from birth, to now marginalize one because he is a Muslim or a settler is akin to punishing one or more people for choices they did not make themselves.

    Furthermore, the successive administrations including the present one must address the twin evils unemployment and poverty through targeted development initiatives. This way, the recruiting pools for such violent acts would steadily dwindle. Extras could also include the inclusion of peace education into the  curricula in  order  to  promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence. Inter-faith and inter-ethnic dialogue forums too should be encouraged helping build bridges between divided communities.

    The path to peace in Plateau State is challenging but not impossible. It requires political will, community engagement, and a commitment to addressing root causes rather than symptoms. The people of Plateau, regardless of ethnicity or religion, share common aspirations for security, prosperity, and dignity, we therefore should not allow a few brigands rob them of such God given rights.

    The persistent violence has extracted an unbearable human toll and threatens Nigeria’s national cohesion. When will the killings stop? They will stop when all stakeholders recognize that sustainable peace serves their long-term interests better than cycles of vengeance. They will stop when governance prioritizes justice over expediency, inclusion over division, and humanity over narrow identity politics.

    The question is not whether sustainable peace is possible in Plateau, but whether there is sufficient courage and commitment to make the difficult choices necessary to achieve it. The bloodshed can end when Nigerians decide that no political, religious or ethnic difference is worth justifying the senseless slaughter of men, women and children, that time is now.

  • In defence of Humphrey Nwosu: Correcting Oshiomhole’s misconception

    In defence of Humphrey Nwosu: Correcting Oshiomhole’s misconception

    Within the pantheon of Nigeria’s experiment with democracy and it’s ideals, few names stand as tall as Professor Humphrey Nwosu’s. Yet, recent comments by former Edo State Governor Adams Oshiomole now a Senator  diminishing Nwosu’s contributions to Nigeria’s democratic evolution represent not just historical revisionism but a dangerous attempt to rewrite and perhaps reduce the sacrifices made during one of Nigeria’s most turbulent political periods.

    It much surprises me, that a “Stand Well Well” comrade like Senator Oshiomole, one who had a series of standoffs against civilian dictators seems not to understand the magnitude of Professor Nwosu’s actions during the June 12, 1993 elections. To do so,  one must first understand the context. The Ibrahim Babangida military regime was not merely authoritarian; it was sophisticated in its brutality. This was an administration that had perfected the art of silencing opposition through the most extreme measures. Critics were dispatched mysteriously, vocal journalists were imprisoned or worse, and the state security apparatus had been transformed into a terrifying instrument of repression.

    It was in this climate of fear that Professor Nwosu, as Chairman of the National Electoral Commission (NEC), took a stand that could easily have cost him his life. When it became clear that Chief M.K.O. Abiola was winning the presidential election by a landslide, Nwosu attempted to release the results despite immense pressure from the military junta. This was not a small act of defiance; it was an extraordinary display of courage that put him directly in the crosshairs of a regime known for its ruthlessness.

    As Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Nigeria’s first president, once famously remarked, “Only a madman would challenge a man with a gun.” By this measure, Professor Nwosu’s defiance was either an act of madness or exceptional bravery. History has vindicated him, confirming it was the latter.

    The consequences of Nwosu’s stand were swift and severe. He was removed from office and placed under surveillance by that administration and the other two that succeeded it. His family faced harassment, and his safety was constantly under threat. Yet, even under these circumstances, he refused to recant or disown the election results. Decades later, the trauma of those days remains evident in his recounting of events – the fear, the isolation, and the very real understanding that his life hung in the balance.

    The military regime knew that silencing Nwosu was not enough; they needed to erase any evidence of their unfairness. But Nwosu had anticipated this. Prior to his removal, he had ensured that results from polling stations across the country were documented and preserved. This foresight meant that even before the infamous annulment speech by President Ibrahim Badamosi Babaginda, Nigerians already knew that Abiola was the eventual winner.

    Read Also: RCCG Governing Council will hold meetings on the Moon – Adeboye

    Beyond. June 12 as an event, that is if we are forced to accept Senator Oshiomole’s flawed premise which is that Nwosu’s stand during the June 12 crisis was not extraordinary – a premise that is historically inaccurate – there remains the undeniable fact that under Nwosu’s leadership, Nigeria conducted what is widely acknowledged as the freest and fairest election in its entire history as an independent nation.

    The Option A4 voting system introduced by Nwosu revolutionized Nigeria’s electoral process. The system introduced a transparency that significantly reduced the possibility of electoral manipulation. This innovation alone represents a monumental contribution to Nigeria’s democratic development.

    Furthermore, Nwosu’s insistence on announcing results at polling stations before they were collated at higher levels created multiple verification points that made wholesale rigging much more difficult. Many of these reforms continue to influence Nigeria’s electoral system today, a testament to their effectiveness and Nwosu’s foresight.

    Senator Oshiomole again forgets that an event as historic as June 12, may not have occurred had Nwosu not insisted on that faithful day of June 11th before stern looking generals and an Attorney General (Clement Akpambo) who was stoutly against Abiola’s emergence, that the June 12 elections be allowed to go on. Historical records note that it was Nwosu’s strong arguments before the National Defence and Security Council NDSC that forced the hand of the junta to allow for the conduct of the elections.

    Nigerians must recall that at this point in the life of the Babaginda administration, IBB was at his “maradonic” best, having shifted the handover dates and the return to democracy on four occasions 90,91,92 and then 93, now while the nation was already fatigued with his democratic game of chairs, how can we know that a shift in the election date would not have affected an Abiola win, or a constitutional impasse of sorts or even another cancellation, ban and unbanning witnessed in the last exercise before the process that produced Abiola and Tofa, his rival.

    Given these contributions, the Nigerian Senate’s treatment of Professor Nwosu during a recent hearing was not just disrespectful but a disservice to Nigeria’s democratic history. For a man who risked everything to protect the sanctity of the ballot, the dismissive attitude displayed by some senators, including Oshiomole, was unbecoming of the institution.

    The Senate, which owes its very existence to the democratic transition that Nwosu’s actions helped facilitate, should have accorded him the respect befitting a national hero. Instead, he was subjected to questioning that seemed designed to minimize his contributions and cast doubt on his integrity.

    What makes Nwosu’s story particularly remarkable is that he was not a politician seeking popularity or power. He was a civil servant, an academic thrust into a position where his commitment to institutional integrity was tested in the most extreme circumstances. When faced with a choice between personal safety and upholding the democratic will of Nigerians, he chose the latter.

    In a country where institutional weakness remains a significant challenge, Nwosu’s example is particularly relevant. He demonstrated that institutions are ultimately only as strong as the individuals who lead them. His refusal to compromise on electoral integrity, even when faced with threats to his life, serves as a powerful reminder of what true institutional leadership looks like.

    If Oshiomole and others fail to see the extraordinary nature of Nwosu’s actions during the June 12 crisis, they should at least acknowledge his contributions to electoral reform in Nigeria. The improvements he introduced to Nigeria’s electoral system, many of which remain relevant today, deserve recognition and appreciation.

    Moreover, in an era where Nigeria continues to struggle with conducting credible elections, Nwosu’s expertise and experience should be valued rather than dismissed. His insights into electoral management, gained through practical experience in one of Nigeria’s most challenging periods, could prove invaluable to current efforts to strengthen the country’s democratic processes.

    Adams Oshiomole’s attempt to diminish Professor Humphrey Nwosu’s contributions to Nigeria’s democratic journey is not just factually incorrect but morally misguided. Nwosu’s courage in the face of a brutal military regime, his innovations in electoral management, and his unwavering commitment to institutional integrity make him a towering figure in Nigeria’s democratic history.

    The true measure of Nwosu’s contribution is not just in what he did but in what he risked. In standing up for democracy, he put everything on the line – his career, his freedom, and potentially his life. Such sacrifices deserve not just acknowledgment but profound gratitude from all who benefit from Nigeria’s democratic system today.

    As Nigeria continues its democratic journey, it would do well to remember and honor heroes like Professor Humphrey Nwosu – individuals whose courage and integrity helped pave the way for the democracy the country enjoys today. Anything less would be a disservice not just to Nwosu but to Nigeria’s collective memory and democratic aspirations.

  • Anambra South Senatorial rerun: Between Azuka Okwuosa and others

    Anambra South Senatorial rerun: Between Azuka Okwuosa and others

    In our nation’s legislative politics, where representation has more often than not fallen short of expectations, with legislators earning notoriety for collecting unbelievable wages and other shenanigans than for mastery of the legislative rules, oratory and the exhibition of sheer intellect as witnessed within the First, Second and  part of the Fourth Republics, particularly when Dr. Chuba Okadigbo was Senate President.

    My home state of Anambra has had it’s fair share of such representatives and the death of Senator Ifeanyi Ubah did leave a vacuum in the Senate. His larger than life image in the Senate and the politics of Anambra somewhat towers above a number of pretenders who are presently  angling to fill such big shoes Ebubechukwuzo left behind. However,  one name within the litany of aspirants readily stands out, a name that has consistently emerged as a beacon of hope and proven leadership, that name is Azuka Okwuosa, one time Local Government Chairman Nnewi Local Government, ( When it had Nnewi North, South and Ekwusigo in one entity), one time former Commissioner in Anambra and a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress,  who has remained loyal to the party and contributed innumerably to it.

    As the race for Anambra South senatorial district intensifies, a critical examination of the candidates reveals that Okwuosa stands head and shoulders above the competition, offering a unique blend of administrative experience, party loyalty, and genuine grassroots connection that positions him as the ideal representative for the people of Anambra South.

    Azuka Okwuosa’s journey in public service began with his exemplary tenure as a Local Government Chairman. During this period, he demonstrated exceptional administrative acumen, transforming local governance from a mere bureaucratic exercise into a vehicle for community development. His administration was marked by several landmark achievements that continue to resonate with the people even to today.

    Under Okwuosa’s leadership, the local government witnessed unprecedented infrastructure development. Roads that had been neglected for decades were rehabilitated, providing essential connectivity between communities and markets. Water projects that brought clean, potable water to previously underserved areas were implemented. Schools were renovated and equipped with modern learning tools, creating conducive environments for education.

    Perhaps most significantly, Okwuosa introduced a participatory governance model that involved community members in decision-making processes. This approach ensured that development initiatives were aligned with the actual needs of the people rather than imposed from above. The result was a remarkable improvement in the quality of life for residents and a renewed faith in governance.

    Read Also: First Lady urges empathy, unity at Eid-el-Fitr

    His financial management style was equally impressive. In a system often plagued by misappropriation, Okwuosa instituted transparent financial practices that maximized the impact of available resources. Every naira was accounted for, and the benefits were evident in the quality of projects delivered. This fiscal responsibility earned him widespread respect and established him as a leader who could be trusted with public resources.

    Okwuosa’s appointment as a commissioner further expanded his administrative portfolio and provided him with invaluable experience in state-level governance. In this capacity, he demonstrated exceptional policy formulation and implementation skills that directly impacted the lives of Anambra citizens.

    As commissioner, Okwuosa championed innovative approaches to persistent challenges. As Commissioner for Works and Transport, Azuka attempted to meet the challenges of Anambra’s decrepit infrastructure but the politics then prevailed over common sense and by 2001, he resigned from office rather than remain in power for power sake. Such action was to absolve him in the future as being amongst those who contributed by either acts of commission or omission to the floundering of Anambra then.

    Even with the dismal performance of the Mbadinuju administration, Okwuosa’s performance in that administration was characterized by meticulous attention to detail, strategic thinking, and a results-oriented approach. He consistently exceeded targets and established new standards of excellence in public service. The networks and relationships he built during this period continue to serve as valuable assets in his political journey, providing him with access to key stakeholders across various sectors.

    His tenure as commissioner also gave him a comprehensive understanding of the intricacies of governance, including the legislative processes that are critical for effective senatorial representation. This experience has equipped him with the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate the complexities of national politics and deliver tangible benefits to his constituents.

    In Nigerian politics, where party-hopping has become commonplace, Azuka Okwuosa stands out for his unwavering loyalty to the All Progressives Congress (APC). This steadfastness is not merely a matter of political convenience but a reflection of his alignment with the party’s progressive ideals and vision for national development.

    Okwuosa has been a consistent advocate for the APC’s policies and programs, even during challenging periods when such advocacy was politically costly. His commitment has earned him the respect of party leadership at both state and national levels, positioning him as a trusted representative of the party’s interests and values.

    This loyalty translates to practical advantages for the people of Anambra South. As a senator representing the ruling party, Okwuosa would have direct access to federal resources and influence that could be leveraged for the benefit of his constituents. His established relationships within the party would facilitate smoother collaboration with federal agencies and ministries, ensuring that Anambra South receives its fair share of national development initiatives.

    Furthermore, his consistent party membership reflects a stability of character and conviction that is essential for effective representation. Unlike political opportunists who switch allegiances based on convenience, Okwuosa offers a predictable and principled approach to governance that voters can rely on.

    Perhaps Okwuosa’s most significant advantage in the senatorial race is his authentic connection with the grassroots. Unlike politicians who only appear in communities during election seasons, Okwuosa has maintained a consistent presence among the people, understanding their challenges, celebrating their successes, and advocating for their interests.

    This connection is evident in the extensive network of supporters he has cultivated across Anambra South. From traditional leaders to market women, youth groups to professional associations, Okwuosa enjoys widespread support that cuts across demographic and social lines. This following is not based on monetary inducements or empty promises but on a track record of genuine service and empathy.

    His approach to community engagement has always been inclusive and respectful. He listens to the concerns of constituents, values their input, and incorporates their perspectives into his vision for development. This participatory approach has created a sense of ownership among his supporters, transforming them from passive voters into active stakeholders in his political journey.

    The breadth and depth of his grassroots support give him a significant electoral advantage over potential opponents. While others might rely on financial muscle or external influence, Okwuosa’s campaign is powered by the authentic voices of the people he seeks to represent – a force that has repeatedly proven more powerful than money or connections in Nigerian politics.

    Okwuosa’s aspiration is not merely about securing political office; it represents a comprehensive vision for transforming Anambra South into a model of development and prosperity. His agenda focuses on addressing the core challenges facing the region while leveraging its unique strengths and opportunities.

    His legislative priorities include attracting federal infrastructure projects to improve connectivity and stimulate economic growth, advocating for policies that support small and medium enterprises which form the backbone of the local economy, and securing investments in education and healthcare to enhance human capital development.

    He also plans to champion environmental protection initiatives, particularly addressing erosion which has devastated many communities in Anambra South, and promoting sustainable agricultural practices to ensure food security and create rural employment opportunities.

    As the electorate of Anambra South evaluates their options for senatorial representation, Azuka Okwuosa emerges as the candidate who offers the most comprehensive package of experience, integrity, connection, and vision. His trajectory from Local Government Chairman to commissioner has equipped him with the administrative knowledge essential for effective representation. His loyalty to the APC provides strategic advantages for accessing federal resources and influence. His grassroots connection ensures that he truly understands and represents the interests of his constituents.

    In a political environment often characterized by unfulfilled promises and disappointing representation, Okwuosa offers a refreshing alternative – a candidate with a proven track record of performance, a demonstrated commitment to service, and an authentic connection with the people. For Anambra South, the choice is clear: Azuka Okwuosa represents the best path to effective representation and transformative development.

  • Give the Youth Corps members living allowance!

    Give the Youth Corps members living allowance!

    In the shadow of our nation’s gleaming skyscrapers and political pronouncements of progress, thousands of our brightest young graduates subsist on an allowance that naturally can’t feed some household pets of a number of our politicos. I speak, of course, about the corp members serving under our mandatory National Youth Service Corps scheme – a program designed with noble intentions but now  maintained with shameful neglect.

    Let me be direct: The current allowance structure for NYSC members is not merely inadequate – it is a national embarrassment.

    These young men and women represent the culmination of our educational system, the future professionals and leaders we have invested in for decades. After years of academic struggle, they are dispatched to unfamiliar communities across the nation to contribute their knowledge and energy toward national development. And how do we compensate them for this mandatory year of service? With an allowance that barely covers transportation to their place of primary assignment.

    I recently spoke with Adebayo, a corps member serving at a particular ministry a driving distance  from the nearest city. “I spend nearly half my monthly allowance just getting to work,” he told me. “After rent in the only safe accommodation I could find, I’m left choosing between eating meagerly or saving up.” This is a young man with an engineering degree.

    Is this how we honor commitment to national service?

    The economic realities are stark. While inflation has spiraled and the cost of basic necessities has multiplied, corps members’ allowances at N33,000 have remained stagnant for years. What once might have provided modest but dignified support now relegates these graduates to a year of financial hardship that borders on destitution.

    The mathematics is simple and damning. The current allowance structure fails to cover even the most basic living expenses in most deployment locations. Rent, transportation, food, clothing, communication – the fundamental requirements for service – collectively exceed what we provide. This isn’t opinion; it’s arithmetic.

    Read Also: Why NGF is silent on Rivers crisis, by DG Shittu

    Critics will inevitably argue that national service is about sacrifice, not comfort. I agree. Service should indeed involve sacrifice – of time, of familiar surroundings, of immediate career advancement. But it should never require sacrificing dignity, health, or one’s safety. When corps members skip meals to afford transport to their assignment, when they live in unsafe housing because it’s all they can afford, when they cannot purchase the basic of their needs to perform their duties effectively – this isn’t noble sacrifice. It’s systemic exploitation.

    Others will point to budgetary constraints. “Where will the money come from?” they’ll ask. This argument rings hollow when considered alongside the extravagant allowances allocated to political officeholders or the mysterious disappearance of funds in various government departments. If we can find money for legislative furniture allowances and security votes, surely we can find it for the young people upon whose shoulders our national future rests.

    The consequences of this neglect extend far beyond individual hardship. It breeds that initial cynicism about public service among our youth. It undermines the effectiveness of corps members in their assignments. It creates a perverse incentive structure where seeking exemptions or gaming the system becomes more rational than genuine commitment to service.

    Consider what message we send when we mandate service while refusing to provide the means to serve effectively. We tell our graduates that their contribution is simultaneously compulsory and worthless. We demonstrate that national development is important enough to commandeer a year of their lives but not important enough to fund properly.

    This contradiction has not gone unnoticed by the corps members themselves. Increasingly, they view their service year not as an opportunity for national contribution but as an obstacle to overcome before real life can begin. This represents a tragic squandering of idealism and energy that could be channeled toward genuine national development. Is it for nothing that they have rechristened the meaning of NYSC to Now Your Suffering Continues!

    The NYSC scheme, when properly supported, has tremendous potential. It creates a unique opportunity for cross-cultural understanding in our diverse nation. It provides essential services to underserved communities. It exposes young graduates to the realities of different parts of the country and builds networks that transcend regional and ethnic boundaries.

    But this potential can only be realized when corps members are given the resources to thrive, not merely survive.

    What would adequate support look like? At minimum, it would include:

    An allowance of N70,000 that reflects economic realities and provides for decent accommodation, nutrition, transportation, and basic professional needs. This isn’t luxury – it’s the foundation for effective service.

    Functional accommodation in NYSC camps and subsidized housing options in deployment locations, particularly in high-cost urban areas or extremely remote communities, matter of fact can the NYSC authorities enforce a no accommodation- no deployment policy to any area of primary assignment that cannot provide decent accomodation or at least subsidise it by 50 percent.

    Let me tell you a story, as Regional Commander of the Oba Akoko axis, Ondo State, I got a fellow Corp member redeployed to another community because his area of primary assignment was stalling in providing the young man accommodation. I felt that it was unfair to ask a Corp member to take from his then N9,500 pay to cater for his own accomodation and got him redeployed, so how then can those in authority feel comfortable with corpers paying from their noses or squatting like refugees for such a time period.

    Healthcare coverage that addresses the realities of serving in diverse environments with varying health challenges as well as professional development resources that make the service year an opportunity for growth rather than a period of stagnation should also be provided

    These aren’t extravagant demands. They represent the bare minimum required for corps members to fulfill their obligations without compromising their wellbeing.

    The irony is that increasing corps members’ allowances would likely pay dividends far exceeding the investment. Adequately supported corps members would be more effective in their primary assignments. They would be more likely to engage meaningfully with their host communities. They would emerge from their service year with greater appreciation for national unity and more positive attitudes toward public service.

    Instead, our current approach teaches them that government commitments are hollow and that public service is a path to hardship rather than fulfillment. These are dangerous lessons for the future leaders of any nation.

    As we approach another budget cycle, I challenge our lawmakers and executive officials to look beyond the numbers and consider the human cost of their decisions. Each figure in the NYSC budget represents a young person who has committed a year of their life to national service. Each naira allocated or withheld has real consequences for their experience and effectiveness.

    The question is not whether we can afford to increase corps members’ allowances. The question is whether we can afford not to. The current situation isn’t merely unsustainable – it actively undermines the goals the NYSC was established to achieve.

    Our corps members deserve better. Our nation deserves better. It’s time to align our financial commitments with our rhetorical ones and give the NYSC the support it needs to fulfill its vital mission.

    The future of our national youth  service program – and perhaps of public service ethos in our nation – depends on it.

    I so submit!

  • Ukraine: As Starmer and Macron Rekindle Hope

    Ukraine: As Starmer and Macron Rekindle Hope

    In the complex theater of international relations, where the interplay of power many a times often overshadows principles, recent diplomatic engagements about  Ukraine by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have again rekindled the hopes  of many liberals that their coordinated efforts represent a significant recommitment to the foundational values of the post-war international order at a time when such values face unprecedented challenges owing to President Trump’s  ambivalence on the subject.

    The diplomatic initiatives undertaken by Starmer and Macron in Ukraine reflect more than mere political maneuvering; they embody a conscious reaffirmation of democratic principles in the face of authoritarian aggression. Through their diplomatic channels, both leaders have articulated a vision that places human dignity, justice, freedom and the territorial integrity of the people of Ukraine at the forefront of international discourse.

    Similarly, Macron’s persistent engagement with the Ukrainian situation reflects France’s historical commitment to democratic values. His diplomatic overtures have consistently emphasized the protection of civic freedoms and self-determination as non-negotiable principles rather than bargaining chips in geopolitical negotiations.

    Starmer’s approach, which has sought to give Ukraine some room to negotiate with Russia is highly commendable. His “Coalition of the Willing” which will see 18 countries commit themselves to ending Russia’s aggression via a continuos commitment to maintaining the flow of military aid to Ukraine while increasing economic pressure on Russia through sanctions and other measures; ensuring that any lasting peace agreement must ensure the sovereignty and security of Ukraine, with Ukraine being present at all peace negotiations; pledged assistance  to enhance Ukraine’s defensive military capabilities following any peace deal which may deter potential future invasions, and the establishment of the “Coalition of the Willing” consisting of multiple nations prepared to defend the terms of any peace agreement and guarantee Ukraine’s security afterward.

    At a point  where the US under President Trump is appearing to revise all known facts about the war in Ukraine and allow Putin a free hand while hundreds of thousands die,  while many have fled their homes, what Starmer and Macron have done is similar to what Churchill and his French counterpart in Albert Lebraun and later Charles De Gaulle took to stop Hitler  from extending his idea of Lebensraum (Expansionism) by altering the borders of Europe.

    Read Also: Tinubu and Macron: Leveraging friendship for development

    To kickstart such commitment  Starmer has committed £1.6 billion ($2 billion) in UK export finances to acquire  over 5,000 air defense missiles for Ukraine.it had initially  announced a £2.2 billion loan for military aid to Ukraine backed by frozen Russian assets.

    Asides these, Starmer would okay a

     “boots on the ground, and planes in the air,” a key feature in Zelensky’s demand for “gurantees” concerning a peace deal with Russia.

    Starmer’s and Macron’s efforts have also revived the willingness for Europe to rearm and increase defence spending.  In the face of abdication of the United States to the its commitment to the Free World and its traditional allies. The likes of Starmer and Macron will not only ensure the means of Ukraine to stay and fight but will also prepare Europe for any future suprises from Russia. 

    Starmer and Macron’s  efforts have laid the ground  for Europe’s must “heavy lifting,”  which will see the continent take more charge of its affairs, this however does not mean that the continent would be estranged from the US, it would however also stop Putin from the vantage point of dictating the terms of a peace deal.

    A close look at the situation would also tell that Europe’s  show of unity and stance on Ukraine has somewhat forced Trump’s  hand and saved Ukraine from being isolated and coming to the peace talks with a weak hand.

    As i write this, there is some palpable feeling that the US will attempt to descalate tensions with Zelensky, while certain elements want Zelensky out as a precondition  to the peace talks, Starmer and Macron msy not be having this as keeping Zelensky is key to a strong presence in the forthcoming nego

    tiations.

    The diplomatic efforts of Prime Minister Starmer and President Macron in Ukraine demonstrate that democratic resilience remains possible even in challenging circumstances. Their coordinated approach offers a template for values-based engagement that acknowledges geopolitical realities without surrendering fundamental principles.

    As the West continues to navigate over Ukraine and the consequences for the free world, the willingness of leaders like Starmer and Macron to defend normative frameworks despite America’s attempt at bullying Zelensky to a hurried peace deal, one that will only humiliate Ukraine and encourage aggressor nations. Their example suggests that while the path forward contains significant obstacles, the commitment to democratic values continues to animate important strands of international engagement.

    In a world where force and coercion remain potent instruments, the diplomatic initiatives of these leaders remind us that legitimate authority ultimately derives from adherence to principles rather than raw power. This distinction remains central to preserving an international order that can accommodate diversity while maintaining fundamental protections for human dignity and freedom.

  • The Area Boys’ Club: A satirical look at Tinubu’s administration

    The Area Boys’ Club: A satirical look at Tinubu’s administration

    In a stunning revelation that shocked all, a former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, “scattered the table” off President Bola Tinubu’s revolutionary approach to governance: the “Area Boy Administration” model. For El Rufai, meritocracy had lost it—there’s a new system in town, and it runs on street credibility, alaiye , agbero tendencies and Lagos postcodes!

    The way El Rufai spoke one wont be shocked when FEC meetings will

    with roll call by neighborhood. “Lagos Island?” “Present, sir!” “Ikoyi?” “Present, sir!” “Kaduna North?” “Awkward silence”. It seems the geographical requirement for government service has shrunk considerably, now measuring approximately the distance between Bourdillon Road and Banana Island.

    Perhaps Tinubu reduced the criteria for his appointments to those who have shared a bowl of Amala with lafun, gbegiri and ewedu or Ewa Agonyin and buredi ( Bread). Asides this, the list of appointments includes those who have ‘Fajied’ with President Tinubu in the past, i mean those Owambes that have rocked Lagos soceity in the past. Scholars on efficiency and inclusivity experts  are studying this groundbreaking approach to human resource management in governance.

    El-Rufai’s complaint has revealed a revolutionary new qualification system for high office in Nigeria. Traditional requirements like education, experience, and expertise have been replaced by a single question: “Were you ever within shouting distance of me in Lagos?”

    Presidential advisors have been quick to defend this system. “It’s actually quite sophisticated,” explained one unnamed source while adjusting his agbada. “We call it the ‘I Know This Guy’ meritocracy. It’s been field-tested in Lagos politics for decades, with results that speak for themselves!”

    The president’s commitment to geographic inclusivity has been particularly noteworthy. His appointments represent an impressive diversity of backgrounds, ranging all the way from Victoria Island to Lekki, with bold expansions into experimental territories like Ikeja, Agege, Tagbon Tagbon, Surulere, Egbeda etc.

    This is actually a masterclass in Nigerian unity. The president is showing that regardless of whether you’re from the mainland or the island parts of Lagos, there’s a place for you in this administration. That’s Nigeria for you—boundless opportunities within bounds!

    Critics have noted that Nigeria’s 36 states seem underrepresented in this new model. The administration has responded by pointing out that many appointees have, at some point in their lives, driven through or flown over various states, thereby qualifying as experts on these regions.

    Poor El-Rufai seems to have missed the obvious solution to his predicament: simply relocate to Lagos and hang around the president’s favorite haunts for a few decades. Perhaps then he too could enjoy the fruits of the “Area Boy to Federal Appointment” pipeline.

    Some political observers have suggested that El-Rufai’s criticism stems from his application of outdated concepts like “federal character” and “national unity.” These quaint notions have apparently been replaced with the more streamlined “I’ve known you since when?” principle of public appointment.

    The administration has defended this approach as fiscally responsible. It will ask whether one has an inkling of how expensive it is to interview candidates from all 36 states. Imagine the wrangling and energy such an approach will save Nigerians from.

    Political analysts predict that ambitious young Nigerians will now abandon traditional career paths like law, medicine, and engineering in favor of the more direct route to success: loitering strategically near the homes of potential future presidents, some have started loitering around Shettima, Ribadu’s ,El Eufai’s and even my house!

    Read Also: Tinubu eulogizes Nujoma as warrior, nation-builder at state burial

    University admission officers are  reporting  a sharp decline in applications for public administration courses and a suspicious increase in requests for information about properties near politicians’ residences. “Location, location, location” has taken on a whole new meaning in Nigerian political career planning.

    The National Integration Masterplan

    I am sure when pressed about the apparent regionalism in his appointments, the president via his handlers like Onanuga and co who drank Emu and Awonpa with Asiwaju would reportedly respond with characteristic wisdom: National integration doesn’t mean President Tinubu will need to integrate people he doesnt know from Lagos into his cabinet.

    Such a profound statement has led to a complete reimagining of Nigeria’s national motto. “Unity in Diversity” may soon be updated to the more accurate “Unity Among Those I have had Asaro With.”

    As Nigeria continues on this bold new path, citizens are encouraged to update their understanding of merit and qualification. Your degrees from Harvard? Irrelevant. Your decades of public service? Inconsequential. That time you helped the president find parking in Lagos traffic twenty years ago? Now we’re talking premium CV material!

    El-Rufai may continue to cling to outdated notions of regional balance and representative government, but Nigeria has clearly moved on to a more intimate model of governance. After all, why entrust the nation’s future to the most qualified when you can entrust it to the most familiar?

    My worry however is this,  when did the likes of Badaru, Ribadu, Umahi, Akume, Bianca, Bagudu, Musawa, Diginyadi, Matawalle, Wike and the rest find time to fill such Area Boy criterias for appointment? I can imagine with a mischievious grin how a Ribadu and Badaru will dance to Apala or Fuji music? For Wike,  he has some maverick dance steps but juju dance steps wouldnt be his thing.

    In a cabinet of 47, that a whooping number of 37 are non Yorubas or Lagosians! How El Rufai arrives at such a notion leaves one worried.

    Even a cursory look at other appointments will definitely not give  any credence to such an accusation.

    However,  lets hold  the phone, should the president appoint his enemies, possible saboteurs and non loyalists into his government? Is Nigeria in a civil war situation that requires perhaps a government of national unity, one that will see President Tinubu appoint the likes of Atiku and Peter Obi into his cabinet? This is the same El Rufai who while questioned on the people he gave land to while he served as FCT minister was asked why he allocated lands to his friends and he replied by saying to the panel ” When you get there allocate to your enemies”. This is the same El Rufai who served as Governor of Kaduna State, pray can he tell us how many of his enemies he appointed  into his cabinet?

    As for those 35 other  states feeling left out of the new arrangement, there’s always the next administration. According to El Rufai,  perhaps start by opening a good buka near your governor’s house—you never know where they might end up, and when they do, they will bring their appetites and address books with them.

    In the meantime, ambitious young Nigerians are advised to focus less on their CVs and more on their GPS coordinates. In the new Nigeria, it’s not what you know, it’s not even who you know—it’s where you’ve known them!

  • Senator Tambuwal, when the kettle calls the pot black

    Senator Tambuwal, when the kettle calls the pot black

    In the absurd theatre of Nigerian politics, where ideological fluidity has long become the norm rather than the exception, certain political actors have distinguished themselves as veterans of political tumbling and somersaulting. Among this elite cadre of political gymnasts, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, former Governor of Sokoto State and now a sitting senator, Senator Aminu Waziri Tambuwal stands in a class of his own – a grandmaster of defection politics who has now, paradoxically, appointed himself the moral custodian of political loyalty.

    The recent broadside launched by the former Sokoto State governor against  recent defectors to the All Progressives Congress (APC) represents the height of political irony in our nation’s contemporary history. It is akin to the proverbial pot embarking on a verbose dissertation about the blackness of kettles.

    Tambuwal had while speaking to journalists after the Northwest PDP National Executive Council meeting in Kaduna, had in a straight face and apparently without a trace of self-awareness, declared that “politicians who have conscience cannot defect to the ruling party.” One is compelled to wonder whether the distinguished Senator was engaging in self-deprecating humor or if this was simply a case of selective political amnesia, one warranting that we rush Tambuwal to the nearest hospital for immediate check up.

    This is the same Senator Tambuwal who owing to his legacy of political nomadism did earn the sobriquet “Minister of Transport” for his unmatched expertise in transporting his political loyalty from one partisan vehicle to another with remarkable dexterity. His political trajectory looks like a roadmap of opportunistic realignments, each calibrated to advance personal ambitions rather than ideological convictions.

    Read Also: Ubandoma congratulates Tambuwal, other PDP senatorial candidates

    Tambuwal’s political parambulating  have been so numerous and equally strategically timed that they constitute a classical in the art of political hedge-betting. For a man whose political biography could be titled “The Biography of A Serial Defectee,” to now castigate others for following his well-trodden path represents the apotheosis of political hypocrisy.

    In his critique, Senator Tambuwal posited an interesting economic theory of political defection, suggesting that the current economic situation under the Tinubu administration should make membership of the APC unattractive. According to this curious postulation, and motivated by the ‘Irunmole to nje jollof rice’ coinage, Tambuwal asserts that these defectors are primarily motivated by “stomach infrastructure” rather than genuine concern for the citizenry.

    Tambuwal accepts that there are a number of reasons for defecting, how he sadly pontificates that these defections are not based on the interest of the people but based on stomach infrastructure is reflective on the character of the former governor, could he be speaking out of his rich experience as a serial defectee?

    This theory of economic determinism of political allegiance  from Tambuwal raises profound questions. If indeed it is only economic performance that should dictate party loyalty, one wonders whether it was this same set of  economic indicators that informed his own multiple defections. Were his numerous party hop, step and jump theatrics guided by some sophisticated macroeconomic analyses, or were they perhaps influenced by these same stomach infrastructure attributes he now seeks to unfairly confer on others?

    As one who has studied Aminu Tambuwal’s kind of politics, I am certainly not amused nor taken in by his dissimulation. For all i know, Tambuwal remains the poster boy for political haggling in Nigeria.

    Perhaps the most egregious demonstration of Senator Tambuwal’s political opportunism was his notorious betrayal of Governor Nyesom Wike, a political episode that still reverberates through the corridors of power. In 2019, Wike had magnanimously placed his robust political machinery and substantial financial resources at Tambuwal’s disposal during the latter’s ill-fated presidential bid at the PDP primaries.

    To the consternation of all, the nation watched, stunned, as Tambuwal later repaid this extraordinary generosity with a public betrayal on national television, executed without the slightest pretense of moral justification. This act of political perfidy, performed with clinical coldness, represented not merely a betrayal of political alliance but a fundamental breach of the unwritten code of honor that should govern even the most pragmatic of political relationships.

    That the same Senator Tambuwal to now position himself as an arbiter of political morality after such a display of ingratitude demonstrates either remarkable audacity or a troubling disconnect from political reality.

    Now to Tambuwal’s insistence that defectors are streaming into the ruling APC for their stomachs, this may not be the case as pointed out by Senator Ajibola Basiru who in his riposte noted that Tambuwal’s party, the PDP (For Now) suffers astutely from a fundamental trust deficit, a trend started by the likes of Tambuwal at the 2022 Convention.

    Tambuwal’s apparent metasis misses the point as the PDP’s dwindling fortunes cannot be attributed to any magnetic pull of the APC but rather to the lack of internal cohesion – a process to which Tambuwal’s own political vacillations have significantly contributed.

    While i have as a person frowned at the concept of defecting, especially those borne out of crass opportunism rather than on just causes, one wonders why Tambuwal would frown at the  APC opening its doors to accommodate defectors from opposition parties, a process  that Tambuwal himself has exploited to maximum advantage throughout his career and may still do so in future.

    One can thus deduce that  Tambuwal’s critique is a curious form of political relativism, whereby defection becomes morally reprehensible only when it benefits parties other than his current affiliation. This kind of malleable  ethical framework conveniently contracts or expands based on Tambuwal’s pandering only, anything else cannot stand.

    If we were to accept Tambuwal’s premise that defection indicates a lack of conscience, we would be forced to apply this standard retroactively to his own political journey. By his own metric, what are we to make of his conscience? If defection to the APC amid economic challenges reflects moral compromise, what moral calculus informed his own numerous partisan migrations?

    While the phenomenon of incessant political defections in Nigeria’s democratic landscape remains problematic, the solution cannot emerge from hypocritical posturing by those who have perfected the very practice they now condemn. Political nomadism undermines ideological coherence and erodes public trust in our democratic institutions, but addressing this challenge requires moral authority from those leading the conversation.

    Senator Tambuwal, by virtue of his storied history as arguably the country’s most prominent defectee, has forfeited any moral standing to criticize others who merely follow the blueprint he helped design. As the saying goes, those who have made a career of residing in glass houses would be well-advised to reconsider the wisdom of stone-throwing expeditions.

    In the final analysis, Senator Tambuwal’s criticism of political defectors represents an extraordinary exercise in ironic self-reinvention. Having established himself as the lodestar of political realignment, he now affects outrage at those navigating by his example.

    Senator Tambuwal’s remarkable attempt to rebrand himself as the champion of political constancy would be amusing were it not so transparently disingenuous. In the pantheon of political reinvention, this performance deserves special recognition – not for its persuasiveness, but for its sheer audacity.

    To Senator Tambuwal, one can only say: Haba! Even in Nigeria’s theater of political absurdities, this performance stretches credulity beyond its breaking point.

  • Obiora Okonkwo: The man Anambra needs for its renaissance

    Obiora Okonkwo: The man Anambra needs for its renaissance

    In a vibrant political landscape such as what is obtained in Anambra State, where tradition meets  progress, one name has consistently featured within the state’s political firmament standing  as a beacon of transformative leadership and that is Professor Obiora Francis Okonkwo. As the All Progressives Congress (APC) positions itself yet again to upstage the All Progressives Grand Alliance, APGA  from what many may perceive to be its strangulating hold on Anambra State for the past 16 years,  Okonkwo stands out as a candidate who uniquely combines a high level of business knowhow, grassroots acceptance, and an intellectual depth – a rare trifecta the state of Anambra is desperately in need of in these critical moments.

    Now, in an era where states must think and act like businesses not only to survive but also to thrive, Okonkwo’s stellar track record in the private sector naturally thumps the chest pounding of the average aspirant and trust me such a record speaks volumes. As the founder of United Nigeria Airlines, he  has largely demonstrated that with vision and strategic thinking, enterprises within Nigeria can adequately compete in our local markets and even international markets if given the opportunity. His business empire, spanning aviation, hospitality, and real estate, showcases not just entrepreneurial prowess but a keen understanding of value creation and sustainable growth – precisely what Anambra State needs to unlock its vast economic potential and challenge the Lagos, the Lanos and Rivers for national economic dominance.

    What sets Dikeora apart is his proven ability to translate business principles into governance frameworks. His companies by the long run have created thousands of jobs, suggesting he understands what it takes to combat unemployment – a pressing issue in Anambra State. However Okonkwo has always argued that it is not just about creating jobs; it’s about building credible, people oriented and  sustainable economic ecosystems that can withstand global economic headwinds and harness the potentials of that entity for massive growth and development.

    Beyond he’s just being a business mogul, through the years, Okonkwo’s style of politics has been grassroots oriented, his political philosophy harps repeatedly on genuine community engagement and thus whether it was in his time as a member of the Advanced Congress of Democrats,  ACD or the Action Congress where he played huge roles in getting the party then its first and only seat in the Senate and the House of Representatives as well as in the Anambra State House of Assembly where the party nicked 6 seats, a feat the successor party  has failed to replicate in past elections. As we speak, his aspiration is catalyzing coalition talks across political parties, blocs and structures, the only aspirant presently exciting such; a testament to his understanding that development must touch lives at the most fundamental level. Through various community development initiatives, he has demonstrated that prosperity must be inclusive to be meaningful.

    His political movement isn’t built on the usual cursory like transactional politics but on a deep understanding of the people’s needs. Okonkwo has again and again demonstrated  that leadership isn’t about imposing views from above but about listening and responding to the people’s aspirations. His people centric  approach to politics is refreshingly different – it’s about building consensus, understanding the sum of the local dynamics, and creating solutions that resonate with real needs of the masses.

    Another distinguishing factor about Professor Okonkwo is his intellectual depth. With a doctorate in Political Science from the Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, he will be deploying an analytical approach to the business of governance that Anambra desperately needs. His regular contributions to national discourse through articles, speeches, and policy papers demonstrate a mind that doesn’t just understand problems but can articulate practical solutions.

    Read Also: First Lady calls for sustainable health financing in Africa

    Now, In an age where governance challenges are increasingly complex, Anambra will definitely be needing a leader whose agenda will be paradigmatic of the experiences that a new generation of Ndi Anambra and Nigerians seek. Okonkwo’s intellectual thrust transcends just possessing a plethora of certificates and well coloured academic robes; it is largely possessing the ability to blend theoretical knowledge with practical experience and it is this trait that makes him uniquely qualified to lead Anambra into the future.

    What makes Okonkwo’s candidacy particularly compelling for the APC is his embodiment of progressive ideals with pragmatic execution. His vision for Anambra aligns perfectly with the party’s focus on development and innovation. While others might speak of change, Okonkwo has demonstrated it through his various enterprises and initiatives.

    His approach to governance is built on four key pillars: economic development, social inclusion, technological innovation, and cultural preservation. This comprehensive framework shows an understanding that progress doesn’t mean abandoning our cultural heritage but building upon it to create a better future.

    His candidacy represents more than just any kind of political aspiration; it embodies the hopes of a new Anambra – one that can compete effectively in the global economy while preserving its rich cultural heritage. His understanding of both traditional values and modern governance principles positions him uniquely to bridge the gap between Anambra’s proud past and its promising future.

    As the political season heats up, the choice before Anambra State becomes clearer. In Obiora Okonkwo, the APC has a candidate who brings to the table a rare combination of qualities: proven business success, genuine grassroots connection, and intellectual depth. This combination isn’t just attractive; it’s essential for the challenges that lie ahead.

    The question isn’t just whether Okonkwo can win an election; it’s about whether Anambra is ready to embrace a leadership style that combines vision with execution, intellect with action, and progress with preservation. As the evidence suggests, he isn’t just the candidate to beat; he’s the leader Anambra needs for its next phase of development.

    In Okonkwo, Anambra has the opportunity to elect not just a governor, but a leader who can beckon upon the state a renaissance understanding that true development must be holistic, inclusive, and sustainable. As the state looks to the future, his aspiration offers not just hope but a concrete path to progress.