The Nation Newspaper

Category: Sunday

  • Redressing counter insurgency paradigm

    Redressing counter insurgency paradigm

    The word ‘counterinsurgency’ is used broadly in the context of this piece to mean the state’s fight against threats to national security, whether it involves Boko Haram/ISWAP, unknown gunmen, or bandits/herdsmen. All three major threats are sponsored by shadowy financiers and politicians with sinister objectives, and are fairly well organised. Islamic State’s West Africa Province (ISWAP) is a Sunni jihadist group that broke away from Boko Haram sometime after the latter affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). United or divided, the hydra-headed monster has only been degraded, not defeated. Its ultimate goal is a caliphate whose short-run locus is the Northeast. The unknown gunmen group has projected itself as the fighting arm of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), an organisation dedicated to the establishment of independent, not a confederate, Biafra encompassing the Southeast geopolitical zone. Its fairly well-oiled campaign has been vicious and relentless.

    The third group is loosely framed in banditry and herdsmen militias, with a number of emergent spinoffs such as the Lakurawa and Mahmuda militia groups. This agglomerative group does not project jihadism but espouses and unifies in themselves the ruthless despoliation of the Dacoits of India/Myanmar, and the genocidal ethnic cleansing campaigns of the Arab nomadic Janjaweed operating in the Darfur region of Sudan, Chad, and speculatively perhaps in Yemen. While the core North of Nigeria flirts dangerously with the first and third groups, the Southeast romances the second group. What has kept Nigeria from keeling over is the restraining and even countervailing influence of the few oases of peace and stability in some parts of Nigeria. Indeed, it is not even clear that the federal government, starting with the Olusegun Obasanjo presidency and on to the present, has a clear and holistic understanding of the catastrophic threats facing the country. So far, going by the stridency of the warnings they have continued to issue the country from time to time, the Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Christopher Musa, and the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen Olufemi Oluyede, have seemed to have a more solid grasp of how close the country is to apocalypse.

    One of the results of the shallow understanding of the existential threats facing Nigeria is the government’s inability to properly calibrate its fight against the jihadist and separatist groups already fragmenting like a cluster bomb and inching closer to metastasising. Publicly, the government has announced a two-pronged approach to combat the looming disaster. First, it has tried to identify, expose and prosecute the sponsors of the threats, most of whom are Nigerians. The shadowy sponsors deploy economic and Islamic ideological reasons for their sponsorship. Second, the government has also tried to combat the centrifugal forces through textbook counterinsurgency methods, some of it kinetic and non-kinetic. In the end, due to an incomplete understanding of the threats facing the country, the government’s efforts have been largely desultory. As a result, the threats are multiplying, stretching the country’s security agencies thin, endangering democracy, and making the fight costly and increasingly disruptive.

    When Boko Haram began, there was no affiliation with ISIL. But because the fight against the group was incompetent and disorganised, it became protracted, enabling it to seek affiliations and finding one in the Middle East. Then, the group split into two dangerous monsters instead of one. As the Northeast crisis dragged on and on, and seeing how fairly shambolic the counterinsurgency operations had become, informers and collaborators proliferated and began whittling down counterinsurgency operations, and ambitious and militant adventurers in the other regions saw how easily money could be made by organising themselves into non-state actors without fear of consequence. Now, a whole economy estimated to be running into billions of naira has developed around insurgency, banditry and separatist organisations. Even counterinsurgency operations are reportedly not immune to financial shenanigans. The fight against sponsors of militant groups needed to become a crusade, instead it has become farcical. Counterinsurgency operations needed to be intensified and fierce, instead it has largely remained a thrust and defend pirouette lacking in the bite and relentlessness major military campaigns are noted for.

    Read Also: Genuine friendship scarce in Nigeria’s music industry – Ruger

    The paradigm has to change. The back and forth of the government is a reflection of indecision, confusion and poverty of debate. At one moment, they speak of taking the fight to the insurgents; at another moment they publicly announce, to the satisfaction and relief of the insurgents, that kinetic methods alone cannot end the menace, thereby encouraging militias to try and outlast the government. In short, while the diagnosis may sometimes be fairly sensible, the treatment has been largely shambolic. Whether the government likes it or not, given the upheaval in the Sahel, the whole Nigerian edifice is alarmingly close to caving in. It is, therefore, time to take the fight to the insurgents and morphing militias which threaten the peace and stability of the country. It is time to quit pussyfooting around with loose talk of non-kinetic methods of deradicalisation and reintegration of terrorists. These non-kinetic methods reflect a poor understanding of the nature and trajectory of the terrorist organisations threatening the country. It is time to first defeat the insurgents and other non-state actors before thinking of deradicalisation or reintegration.

    Nigeria’s predicted collapse is not inevitable if the government has a deep and convincing understanding of the country’s existential threats. It is assumed they have studied why states collapse, and have benefited from contemporary examples from Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, DRC, Syria, Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia, among others to learn from. Most of the threats to Nigeria are region-specific, implying the recklessness and complicity of traditional, business and political elites of those places. Regardless of the influences of these powerful elites, which can disquiet the ruling party in a democracy anchored on elections, it is time the government showed that the lessons it learnt from other state failures are not superfluous. It is time to pursue insurgents without any let up until they are destroyed. No fits and starts. It is also time to mobilise the country’s security forces through large-scale recruitment of troops in order to fight this battle once and for all. To shirk this responsibility is to predispose the country to eventual and inevitable collapse. Insurgent groups fragmented and metamorphosed, and banditry and separatism have lasted so long because the militants sense national weakness. It is time to change the paradigm if the country is to survive.

  • Bandit Ado Alero pontificates

    Bandit Ado Alero pontificates

    Ado Alero, a bandit kingpin, continues to mock the country and thumb his nose at the authorities. Declared wanted by the police since 2020 and with a N5 million bounty on his head, he has casually entered into and exited peace treaties with the authorities, the latest of which was about two weekends ago, according to a post on social media. It is not even his Houdini act that astounds the public, or his reputation for violence; it is his insouciant disregard for public feelings and anguish. Turbaned as Sarkin Fulani in Tsafe town in 2022 by the Emir of Yandoton Daji Emirate in Zamfara State, Aliyu Marafa,  Adamu Aliero-Yankuzo, aka Ado Alero, has since continued to pontificate in the presence, as always, of security agents during what they describe as peace meetings.

    Read Also: Nigeria, Benin sign landmark integration pact

    In the said social media post, he lashed out at the government, saying: “I’m calling on the Nigerian government, for God’s sake. In light of the current situation, they should stop referring to us as terrorists while claiming that they have built schools for bandits or provided us with education. They should also stop saying that bandits have been rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, which is simply not true.” In the said video said to have been shot at a peace meeting somewhere in Danmusa LGA in Katsina State, the brash and cocky bandit leader also cautioned the government to stop lying that the rehabilitation and reintegration of repentant terrorists were ongoing. No such programmes were ongoing anywhere, he fumed. In other words, the bandit leader wants peace on his own terms. Worse, it is now incontestable that the whereabouts of bandit leaders in the Northwest, just as herdsmen ravaging the Middle Belt, are not secret. So, what kind of game is really going on in those regions? If Katsina State could publicly disavow negotiations with terrorists, could the federal government conceivably be conducting peace talks with the bandits? Indeed, is there any desire to end the wars?

  • Gloom to hope: Tinubu’s unusual road to ending Benue’s bloodbath

    Gloom to hope: Tinubu’s unusual road to ending Benue’s bloodbath

    The week past was arguably one of the most emotionally charged, politically sensitive, and leadership-defining moments of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s two years in the saddle. What usually would have begun as a regular week for the President swiftly morphed into a scene of national mourning and urgent leadership intervention, following the massacre of scores of citizens in the Yelewata community of Guma Local Government Area, Benue State. In a presidency filled with state visits, policy unveilings, and summit diplomacy, this moment stood apart—gripping the nation’s conscience and calling its leader to immediate, decisive action.

    President Tinubu’s decision to suspend his scheduled state visit to Kaduna to personally commiserate with the grieving people of Benue was not just symbolic; it was statesmanlike. It demonstrated a level of empathy and responsibility not often seen. But beyond the symbolism was substance—words not merely of comfort but of course correction, of vision, and of a leader anchoring his presidency on both the emotions and needs of the people.

    When he arrived in Makurdi, it was not with the glee of commissioning development projects or receiving accolades, but with a sober presence that reflected the nation’s collective heartbreak. “We are here not just to show our face,” he told a hushed town hall gathering at Government House, “but to share in your grief and condole you and ourselves for the loss of lives that occurred.”

    His speech, deeply human and politically poignant, acknowledged the sorrow but more importantly offered a path forward—a call to action for the state’s stakeholders, led by Governor Hyacinth Alia, to seize the tragedy as a turning point. Perhaps the most compelling portion of the President’s address came when he shifted the focus from the event itself to the duty of leadership amid chaos. Addressing Governor Alia directly, Tinubu said, “The yoke is on you. That’s part of the problem of leadership. Move round to see those leaders, join them, ask them questions, to join you and find solution.”

    READ ALSO: How we survived herdsmen attack that claimed 200 lives in Benue community – Residents

    This wasn’t mere rhetoric; it was a strategic handoff laced with personal insight. Drawing from his own experience as Lagos governor during a period of ethnic tension, Tinubu reminded the gathering that peace, no matter how elusive, is achievable—but only with political courage, cultural sensitivity, and a readiness to confront difficult truths. His Lagos-era success in converting intergroup tension into an economic opportunity, particularly through the livestock sector, was cited not just as a case study but a blueprint: “When I faced the question of herders and butchers in Lagos, I solved the problem, and I created economy out of it… I’m proud of that.”

    Throughout the address, Tinubu demonstrated a rare fusion of emotional intelligence and executive urgency. He commended the armed forces, acknowledged their sacrifice, but did not spare the security establishment from scrutiny. “Police, I hope your men are on alert to listen to information. How come no arrest has been made?” he queried, demanding immediate and proactive response from the Chief of Defence Staff, Chief of Army Staff, and intelligence chiefs. The message was clear: this government will not tolerate impunity.

    Yet, President Tinubu did not come to Benue with only words of rebuke or solemnity. He came with tangible plans. Central to his proposition was the establishment of a peace and development committee comprising former leaders of the state, traditional rulers, and representatives of non-indigenous communities. He called for the inclusion of eminent figures such as former Governors and acknowledged the presence of the Minister of Livestock, asking Governor Alia pointedly: “Give me land. I need land here to establish a ranch. I will share the profits.”

    This was not a passing political gesture; it was an open invitation for structural reform, a practical step toward solving the root cause of the conflict, which the Tor Tiv had earlier identified as land-related tensions. Tinubu’s response was both economic and visionary: “If we learn how to share and how to accommodate, we have enough land to feed, to raise our children, to cultivate happiness and prosperity.”

    Throughout the town hall, the President emphasized unity, tolerance, and the indivisibility of the Nigerian family. He revisited the national anthem—not for nostalgia, but for guidance. “Though tribes and tongues may differ, in brotherhood we stand,” he reminded the audience. “It must reflect in everything we do—in our character, in the economy, in sharing, in developing our people.”

    The most resonant aspect of his speech was perhaps the moral challenge he issued not only to the governor but to every stakeholder in Benue: that true leadership requires embracing all, friend or foe. “Not everybody will like you in politics,” he said. “They hate me like hell too. Well, I’m here, I am the President, and under democratic regime, I made a promise—I’ve even protected my abusers and accusers with the principle of democracy, freedom and prosperity.”

    With this, Tinubu redefined the tragedy in Yelewata not just as a security or ethnic crisis, but as a leadership test. The underlying message: the ability to transform sorrow into solutions is the true measure of statecraft.

    He did not shy away from pressing traditional rulers either. In fact, he urged them to be part of the proposed peace initiative. “We will meet in Abuja to really fashion out the nucleus of a lasting peace and I’m ready to invest in that peace. I want the traditional rulers—the Tor Tiv, the Och’Idoma, and others—to be included in this peace committee.”

    This was President Tinubu at his most impactful—wearing not just the cap of the Commander-in-Chief, but the robe of a reconciler-in-chief. His empathy was not performative. His detour to Makurdi was more than condolence—it was a strategic redirection of the state’s energies and, by extension, of the nation’s conscience.

    What must not be lost on Nigerians is how quickly and intentionally the President responded. In an era where political optics often take precedence over human impact, Tinubu’s pivot from a planned celebration in Kaduna to a mournful intervention in Benue was a reminder of what responsive governance looks like.

    In closing, his message was a powerful reassurance: “We will convert this tragedy to prosperity again and again.” Those are not just words; they are a promise, a challenge, and a new beginning for Benue.

    For a people long battered by cycles of violence and failed promises, it is perhaps too early to say if this visit will mark a turning point. But one thing is clear: in choosing to be physically present, to mourn with the bereaved, to confront security chiefs, and to propose viable solutions, President Bola Tinubu did not merely lead with authority—he led with the heart. In that moment, for the people of Yelewata, Makurdi, and beyond, that meant everything.

    Steady Hand Amidst Shadows

    While the tragic massacre in Yelewata cast a dark pall over national consciousness, President Tinubu pressed forward with a schedule that reasserted his unwavering commitment to Nigeria’s democratic evolution and developmental agenda.

    Amidst the sorrow, Tuesday brought a symbolic and strategic moment in Abuja as President Tinubu flagged off the construction of a new national headquarters for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The edifice, still on paper and soil, already speaks volumes about his administration’s intent to institutionalize democracy not just through rhetoric, but infrastructure.

    “This democracy is not a destination but a journey,” the President told the dignitaries, technocrats, and political stakeholders in attendance. And in that sentence lies the core of Tinubu’s leadership philosophy—a forward momentum anchored in building, both literally and institutionally. He was clear: the INEC headquarters is not just bricks and mortar, but “about the strength of our democracy, the independence of our institutions, and the future of our electoral integrity.”

    In one of his more resonant remarks at the ceremony, Tinubu charged contractors and engineers to not merely construct a building but “build trust in our nation.” Such is the President’s view of statecraft—every gesture, every policy, and every project must restore confidence and anchor hope.

    Thursday saw the President in Kaduna State, a visit that was previously postponed due to his emergency trip to Benue. His return to Kaduna was not just a political formality—it was a testimony to continuity and commitment. And it turned out to be a showcase of progress.

    He commissioned a slew of projects under Governor Uba Sani’s administration, from a 300-bed specialist hospital to a fleet of 100 CNG buses, new roads, and a vocational institute. Each project symbolized what the President would later articulate as the future of Nigerian governance: youth empowerment, peace, and sub-national development.

    “Skills development… is an example the sub-nationals should follow,” Tinubu said, noting that his administration would soon unveil a national agenda on youth skills and food sovereignty. He did not just laud Kaduna’s achievements—he positioned them as a benchmark, a direction for other states to emulate.

    But perhaps the most poignant moment came when he reflected on Kaduna’s transformation from a hotspot of insecurity to a beacon of peace. Recalling how military-grade protection was required to visit Birnin-Gwari during his campaign days, Tinubu shared with visible relief that “you can now move around without fear.”

    And with that, the week ended where it began—with solemnity, but also with steps taken toward nation-building. From honouring Nigeria’s fathers and elder statesmen like General Abdulsalami Abubakar (rtd), to recognising reformers like Taiwo Oyedele, to correcting historical oversights by awarding national honours to figures like Col. Dangiwa Umar, President Tinubu maintained a deliberate rhythm: affirming Nigeria’s democratic character, strengthening its institutions, and building the peace and prosperity that Nigerians so deeply deserve.

    For President Tinubu, it seems, leadership is not the absence of adversity—it is the courage to build even in its midst.

  • Did the Israeli attack anticipate the Iranian response?

    Did the Israeli attack anticipate the Iranian response?

    George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s famous 1980 book has an interesting title: Metaphors We Live By. The book is of the view that metaphor (the indirect comparison of two or more things which share one or more features) reflects or influences how people think and what they do. In this regard, metaphor is related to stereotypes (uncritical assumptions and positive or negative over-generalisations) and myths (ideas which are based on long-standing or widespread fascination, fear or awe).

    Metaphors, stereotypes and myths have been on ample display since 13 June, 2025 when Israel carried out a surprise attack on Iran. According to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the attack was carried out to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel itself is widely believed to have hundreds of nuclear weapons, and it has refused to admit or deny its possession of these weapons in media interviews. Israel has also refused the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to its nuclear research facilities, and has declined to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Apart from being used to produce offensive weapons, nuclear capabilities can be put to peaceful uses for human well-being, especially to provide access to alternative energy sources for overall development. Such peaceful uses of nuclear resources are approved by the IAEA. For a country to seek to prevent another sovereign one from developing its nuclear capabilities or even possess nuclear weapons, while the aggressor nation possesses those capabilities, is therefore an overreach and amounts to a usurpation of the regulatory duty of the IAEA.

    Some have argued that the best thing for humanity is to create a nuclear-free world, because of the unimaginable devastation that usually attends nuclear accidents or the deliberate use of nuclear weapons. Such people however contend that if the world cannot be made nuclear-free, then all countries which have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons should be free to do so, to facilitate their development and guarantee their security.

    READ ALSO: How we survived herdsmen attack that claimed 200 lives in Benue community – Residents

    In fact, it has been pointed out in this regard that it is countries that do not have nuclear weapons or which agree to abandon their nuclear programmes (e.g., Iraq and Libya) that end up being attacked. Conversely, it is countries that possess nuclear weapons or stockpiles of other forms of weapons of mass destruction (e.g., Pakistan and North Korea) that appear to be safe from aggression however much such nuclear nations or their leaders may be hated or despised by some sections of the international community.

    It is for these reasons that some have argued that Iran does not actually possess nuclear weapons and is not on the verge of acquiring them. In fact, attention has been drawn to the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu has been alleging, ostensibly as a scaremongering tactic, for the past thirty-three years now, that Iran is only weeks, months or a few years away from possessing nuclear weapons.

    For example, Al Jazeerah, like CBS, noted that in 1992, as a member of parliament, Netanyahu told the Knesset that “within 3 to 5 years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear weapon.” He made related claims three years later and also in 2009 and 2012. As Al Jazeerah notes, “and, 33 years after Netanyahu’s first so-called imminent warning, Israel attacks Iran [and he said], ‘If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. It could be within a few months.’ … That’s despite the US Director of National Intelligence saying Iran isn’t building a nuclear weapon, months earlier. … But for Netanyahu, the slogan has been the same for decades.”

    Whatever the credibility or lack of Netanyahu’s allegations may be, Israel took it upon itself to attack Iran on 13 June, 2025, and the surprise attack has wrought remarkable damage on Iran in human, intellectual and physical terms. Specifically, the attack led to the killing of top Iranian nuclear scientists, some top Iranian military personnel, Iranian civilians, and also resulted in immense physical damage.

    In spite of the devastation, Iran has not appeared to have been dazed for too long, and it didn’t seem to have had the time to mourn its dead, considering the fact that within hours of the Israeli attack, Iran started its retaliation. And it was spectacular. It launched a mass of ballistic missiles against Israel. Some were successfully intercepted by the Israeli defence system respectively metaphorically named ‘Iron Dome’, ‘David Sling’ and so on, but some of the missiles beat the Israeli defence and managed to hit their targets. Considering the ease with which these Iranian missiles seemed to have been penetrating the Israeli anti-missile system, some have claimed that rather than call it “Iron Dome”, it should be called “Paper Dome”.

    There have been speculations that as the attacks and counter-attacks continued, Iran was launching more advanced missiles which were increasingly beating the Israeli defence system. This drew attention to some metaphors of the war. The Israeli attack on Iran was code-named “Operation Rising Lion”. However, given the robust retaliation by Iran, and speculations that at some point Netanyahu had fled from Israel under pressure, and also from the images of Israelis scampering to safety as the sirens were constantly sounding, some suggested that the Israeli attack should actually have been codenamed “Operation Running Rabbit”.

        The Iranian missiles hit various strategic targets in Israel and have caused extensive damage. These include the headquarters of the Israeli military, the offices of Israel’s famed intelligence agency (MOSSAD), Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, and the strategic Haifa Port. The Iranian missile attacks have created an unaccustomed image of devastation in Israel and widespread panic among the citizens, leading to desperate efforts to leave the country to escape the Iranian barrage. One estimate put the number of Israelis who had fled to Cyprus within the first week of the war with Iran at 30,000.

    Following Iran’s confounding response to the Israeli attack, Israel has been inviting America to join it in the war to decapitate any presumed imminent Iranian nuclear endeavours and to topple the current Iranian government. According to CNN in a 20 June, 2025 report, “Under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Kameinei, Iran has emerged as a formidable power in the Middle East and a vital counterweight to US dominance – just as China is working to expand its own diplomatic and economic footprint in the region.”

    There have been ambivalent signals from America’s President Donald Trump regarding Israel’s call, and the American ambivalence has been eliciting threats by different countries, such as Pakistan, to come to Iran’s aid, should the United States accede to Israel’s request.

     In the meantime, Pakistan has made the following demands of the United Nations Security Council as reported on 20 June, 2025: “First, categorical rejection and condemnation of Israel’s attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran since 13th of June … Second, play its role to end the hostilities and promote de-escalation for achieving a comprehensive ceasefire before the situation spirals out of control and threatens the peace and stability of the entire region.”

    Pakistan continued: “Third, clear denunciation of the targeting of IAEA safeguarded nuclear facilities against provisions of international law and the UN Charter as reflected in the UN Security Council resolutions, IAEA resolutions and international humanitarian law including the Geneva Conventions. The Security Council must implement its own resolution 487. Fourth, call for dialogue and diplomacy to promote a peaceful and lasting resolution of the crisis. Diplomacy must be given a chance. … Regrettably, Israeli unlawful strikes against Iran came at a time of intense diplomatic engagement on Iran’s nuclear issue.”

    Meanwhile, Israel has been creating the farfetched scenario that when Iran finishes with Israel, the US will be Iran’s next target of attack. This is a further attempt to try to persuade America to join the war on the side of Israel. Moreover, as the Telegraph of 19 June, 2025 reports, “Israel has warned that missiles launched by Teheran could hit Europe as it intensified efforts to win Western support for its war with Iran in an online advertising campaign.” These propaganda efforts designed to denigrate Iran seem to be ironically lionising the country.

    A war or military attack must have a strategic objective. Was seeing Tel Aviv devasted, Haifa in ruins, and Ben Gurion Airport shattered a strategic objective of Netanyahu’s 13 June, 2025 surprise attack on Iran? Was exploding the myth of the unmatchable Israeli intelligence as symbolised by MOSSAD and the shattering of the stereotype of the invincibility of the Israeli military one of Netanyahu’s strategic objectives? Was shredding the close to a century of cutting-edge research as represented by the destruction of the Weizmann Institute Netanyahu’s strategic goal? Was seeing Israelis die and making Israelis feel unsafe in Israel an anticipated outcome?

    As a Yoruba proverb cautions, war is not like a delicious dish to be relished by either the person serving it or the person to which it is served. Another Yoruba proverb admonishes that it’s the beginning of war that we know; we never know how it will end. It is therefore never out of fashion to preach and maintain peace.

  • Nigeria: Internal sabotage and rise in insecurity

    Nigeria: Internal sabotage and rise in insecurity

    Some military personnel have been betraying the army by leaking vital information to bandits”.

    “This is one killing too many. From here, I am going to see my commanders. We need to change our strategy, look inward, and see how we can address this. We can’t do it alone without the state; we need everybody to be part of it”.

     “If you see the pattern of killings and slaughtering, it means there is an insider. As we were going round, it became obvious that the killing and burnings were targeted. I have discussed with the community and traditional rulers as well as clan heads for us to work in synergy. There have been issues of trust, but we are going to work on it” – Chief of Defence Staff, General Christopher Musa, speaking during a visit to Yelwata to assess the destruction caused by last Saturday’s attack in Benue State during which more than 100 persons were slaughtered.

    “Operation Hadin Kai announces the  arrest of 15 policemen and 18 soldiers under suspicion of selling weapons to terrorists.

    Another 8 civilians were arrested  including a traditional ruler. Among the notable arrests is the armourer for the 7th Division who has been engaging in this act since 2018 and had N45 million in his bank account. Another police inspector has N135 million passing through his bank account while a soldier of the 3 div Ordnance Corps has some whooping N34 million in his.

    This further shows how the strength of terrorist groups like ISWAP lies in how they embed in the local space and infiltrate circles as deep as inside the armory of the 7th Division just as it highlights how this war isn’t against only an armed group but against a whole network” – Joe Igbokwe on Face book.

    From 2018? This puts not only the competence, but the supervisory capabilities of the Nigerian military, into great doubt.

    READ ALSO: How we survived herdsmen attack that claimed 200 lives in Benue community – Residents

    If the above incidents are recent, not so internal sabotage itself within the military and members of the communities where Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen terrorists – both desirous of forcefully turning Nigeria to an Islamic state –  operate.

    That is to say that it is not new and failure to ‘kill’ it must be considered a function of successive Nigerian government’s eternal fear of the powers that be in the North, a fear that stopped even the Buhari government from prosecuting proven sponsors of terrorism; felons who were tried and convicted in the UAE.

    It is doubtful if the present government  would improve on that to stop these untouchable enemies of state once and for all. But Nigeria will only be joking with its security as long as this infernal fear lingers.

    Internal sabotage within the military and those powerful forces who want to see Nigeria forcefully turned to an Islamic country go far back in their audacity.

    As reported by the Vanguard newspaper of as far back as 11 October, 2014 an Army colonel and 10 officers set Nigerian tankers ablaze to pave way for Boko Haram terrorists.

    According to the report, the Army colonel, some junior officers and soldiers who were taking part in the military offensive to reclaim communities taken over by Boko Haram  in Adamawa State, were arrested for sabotage.

    Top military sources said that the colonel (a Muslim) who was commanding a team of three Armoured Personnel Carriers, APC’s, with the capability to fire up to a range of 1.5kilometres or  more had, rather than pursue the terrorists, deliberately set the APC’s on fire before running away with his team.

    Saturday Vanguard gathered that the Army authorities were outraged over the development and ordered their arrest .

    Narrating how the embarrassing incident occurred, a source who was privy to the development noted that until the incident, the Special Forces of the Nigerian Army which commenced the putsch to rout Boko Haram terrorists from Bazza, Michika, Gulak and Madagali and had inflicted heavy casualties on the terrorists up until Gulak.

    When informed that the terrorists were approaching his team in six Toyota Hilux Pick Up vans from the Madagali axis, the colonel,  rather than blast, and take out the terrorists in their pick-up vans, ordered his soldiers to jump out of the APC’s and set the armoured tanks on fire, not  knowing he was being monitored.

    They subsequently ran into the bush, claiming they were overpowered by a better armed group of Boko Haram.

    This led to the disclosure by the top hierarchy of the military that there are so many fifth columnists in the military working against the country’s determination to flush out Boko Haram.

    The truth is that many of them are deliberately sabotaging Nigeria and making the insurgents look formidable for reasons that cannot be explained.

    Some of them appear sympathetic to the insurgents”.

    You hardly hear them being given appropriate punishment for their acts of treason.

    This, of course, can be explained.

    They are, unpatriotically, turning against the country of their birth largely for monetary and consanguinity reasons. That is, for  ethnic and religious reasons.

    For these reasons, some military officers, soldiers and  huge parts of the local populace share the same affinity with the terrorists whose primary intent is to see Sharia being forcefully enforced all over Nigeria.

    As a result of this  together with some other reasons which I shall briefly discuss, the lacerating, economically ruinous war against insecurity, which began in Nigeria over a decade ago, despite the yeoman’s, even gargantuan, effort of our gallant soldiers, many of who have paid the ultimate price, is not, anywhere near where it should be and is likely to have a much longer shelf life in spite of promises to the contrary.

    How are we even sure some powerful forces in the North are not on the payroll of the United States which former Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton recently said started Boko Haram, and probably still funds it – not minding the changes in parties in government in America since then as they always plan longterm.

    Has the Nigerian government examined this possibility even as General Musa said that captured Boko Haram elements are always found with wads of dollars?

    Consequentially, the alarming rise in insecurity in recent times, which accounted for over 300 deaths in both Plateau and Benue states in less than two months, has become a major concern for  government and citizens alike.

    Despite all governmental effort, the country continues to grapple, uneasily, with unspeakable banditry, kidnapping, and needless killings like Nigeria wants to ape Gaza.

    There is no doubt, whatever, that internal sabotage is a major contributory factor to Nigeria’s bleeding and, therefore, equally a factor in the sudden rise in insecurity which has made life in Nigeria effete, brutish and short, especially in Northern Nigeria where people now get killed needlessly because some landless, and homeless, people must now grab ancestral lands, change the names and banish the owners from there, mostly with the Nigerian government and security services looking unconcerned.

    I saw and wrote about all these years ago when total strangers, foreigners indeed, were being trucked and deposited round all over Nigeria even at a time President Buhari forebade interstate travels.

    There are, of course, other contributing factors to the multi – pronged internal dislocation one of which is corruption manifesting as   embezzlement of funds meant for military operations,  sale of arms and ammunition to enemies of state and collection of bribes from civilian agents of terrorists in exchange for intelligence.

    Lack of internal coordination  between the different military  agencies, a problem President Buhari grappled with throughout his tenure is another which

    terrorists can easily exploit to launch attacks on vulnerable targets.

    Also, there have been reports of some military personnel colluding with terrorists and bandits. This can take the form of providing intelligence about operations to terror groups, allowing them to escape or, indeed, participating directly in their operations.

    The negative impact of all these on the Nigerian military’s efforts to address insecurity cannot be overstated.

    When military personnel are compromised, it undermines the effectiveness of security operations and puts the lives of stakeholders at risk. It erodes trust in the military and can lead to a breakdown in the relationship between the security forces and the people they are meant to protect.

    To meaningfully address internal sabotage the  military must take a multi-faceted approach.

    First, there needs to be a quick, thorough, and unbiased investigation of any allegation of corruption. Action must be swift and decisive against the guilty.

    The military must improve its internal mechanisms for transparency  and accountability.

    It must prioritize building trust with the local communities which is usually a trove of much needed intelligence.

    This it can achieve through community engagement initiatives like outreach programmes and civic activities.

    By building trust with local communities, the military can gather intelligence and gain the cooperation of civilians in its efforts to address insecurity.

    Finally, the military needs to improve its operational effectiveness. This can be achieved through training, capacity-building, as well as the acquisition of modern equipment and technology.

    By reining in internal sabotage, ensuring accountability, giving pride of place to community engagement and operational improvement, the military can maximally deal with the hydra- headed insurgency problems currently   tormenting us all.

  • Maryam Abacha’s lie

    Maryam Abacha’s lie

    • A widow’s failed attempt to whitewash her husband’s image and rewrite history

    For a taciturn person like Maryam Abacha, the country should be all ears whenever she opens her mouth. That was why many people did not take it kindly when the widow of Nigeria’s former despot, General Sani Abacha, bared her mind on certain issues on the country’s past, in a rate interview she granted Television Continental (TVC) on June 9. Gen. Abacha died on June 8, 1998.

    Mrs Abacha, rather than seize the golden opportunity of the interview to atone for the sins of her husband, chose, sadly, to rise in stout defence of some of his actions and policies.

    The former first lady spoke on sundry issues, including security, the June 12 election and the money her husband stole when he was head of state, better known as Abacha loot. I deliberately said the money Sani Abacha stole (and not allegedly stole as Maryam would have preferred, to rub it in) because that was (and still is) Sani Abacha in the eyes of millions of Nigerians.

    It is an understatement that Mrs Abacha’s comments in that interview got many Nigerians angry.  They said she had such guts to say what she said because she is in a country where corruption is treated with kid gloves. That she could not have had such privilege in a country where their entire family would have been wiped out for the fraud perpetrated by their patriarch!

    Coming from people who ordinarily would have been touting rule of law and due process in the circumstance had the matter concerned somebody else, shows the level of their anger and frustration with the former first lady’s comments.

    But that is Nigeria for you. We often determine the quality of a message through the messenger. Many of us tune off as soon as we see that the message is coming from a messenger whose face we do not like.

    But, it shouldn’t be so.

    Unfortunately, that was my position too until Wednesday when I decided to make the Abachas my topic for today. “Oro wo lo wa lenu asegita, to ni ki Oyinbo pade oun lagogo mejo owuro kutu hai”? (What would make a wood seller request for an early morning appointment with a White man?) What would the wife of a man who was hated with a passion by Nigerians, and for good reasons, say on the issues under discussion? Who else would she have sided with if not her late husband? Moreso now that the husband is no longer in a position to defend himself.

    I had to drop off the bus of Nigerians who like throwing away the baby with the bath water because it is not usually helpful.

    So, what were Maryam Abacha’s views on each of these issues?

    First security. Or insecurity, on which the former first lady spoke tongue-in-cheek! On the one hand, she commended the armed forces for their efforts and, on the other hand, wondered why we have not been able to bring insurgency down to its knees. But that was after rubbing it in that there was nothing like that in her husband’s time. Hear Maryam: “You are not even talking about the security of the country. I’m (sic) just a wife in the house. Yes, I’m (sic) close to him as his wife. But was there any insurgency during his time? No, there was none. He was able to tackle… Liberia, he went there and corrected things and Nigeria was at peace”.

    She didn’t stop there: “There are other countries, apart from Nigeria, that have insurgents and they have tackled them. And I don’t know what is the matter with Nigeria until now, that we still have insurgents…

    “And we have the government. We have the government from the top to the states, to the local governments and so on. So I don’t know how come these things have stayed so long and they have not been really tackled.”

    Mrs Abacha acknowledged that we have all it takes to deal with insurgency:

    “We have neighbours that have really tackled it. And they are smaller countries. And we are bigger. We are richer. We are more experienced.

    “I believe in our military. I believe in our army. I believe in the armed forces and I think they can do better if they wish to do so. And I pray that they do.”

    On this score, even though the former first lady tried to engage in some delicate balancing by saying “Now look at what we are in. I cannot say governments have failed. They have not really failed. No government can fail,”, the government should not fail to get her message on insecurity.

    As a matter of fact, she merely echoed what many people have said. Insurgency is still with us (apparently) because some influential people are making money from it. This is aside the elites that are also using it for political purposes.

    So, government must do more in this regard.

    Now, to the June 12 election.

    Apparently referring to the claim by former self-styled president, General Ibrahim Babangida, in his book,

    “A Journey in Service”, released in February, that Gen. Abacha was largely responsible for the cancellation of the election, Mrs Abacha rose in stout defence of her husband.

    It was a rare opportunity for the former first lady to give it back to her husband’s boss. The presidential election was won by Bashorun Moshood Kashimawo Abiola.

    We must admit that Maryam was making some sense when she wondered how her husband who was not the head of state at the time could have made such an important decision.

    Hear her: “I’m not here to talk about Babangida or anybody. I don’t want to talk about anything or anybody. All I know is that that annulment was not done by my husband, and then if it was him, then that means he was very powerful.

    “He was even more powerful than the president, and if the president is there and somebody else is calling the shots, then that means Abacha was the greatest.”

    Read Also: After daughter’s wedding, Maryam Abacha celebrates again

    I stand with Maryam on this, too. Babangida, from many accounts of him in the public domain is not the kind of general that would take bullet with his buttocks. True generals face, not back, bullets. How could such a man say someone else was calling the shots on a matter as crucial as annulling the freest and fairest election in the annals of the country? Something does not add up here.

    Definitely, if Abacha was the one calling the shots on Babangida’s transition programme, and was in fact responsible for the annulment of the election, then Abacha must have succeeded because his wish aligned with that of Babangida whose body language on the entire transition programme indicated he was himself not ready to go as agreed and announced by his government.

    Now to the main menu: the Abacha loot, stupid!

    It was on this aspect that I find Maryam’s comment most ridiculous and distasteful. Even then, as in the other issues, she is entitled to her opinion. This is much more so when her late husband was the ‘thief-in-chief’.

    She said, “Who is the witness of the monies that were being stashed? Did you see the signature or the evidence of any monies stashed abroad? And the monies that my husband kept for Nigeria, in a few months the monies vanished. People are not talking about that. Why are you blaming somebody? Is that tribalism or a religious problem, or what is the problem with Nigerians?

    “So where would he have stolen the money from? Where would he have stolen the money from?  Because Nigerians are fools, they listen to everything”, she added. Let Maryam listen to herself. Where do even lesser  people stealing public funds stealing it from?

    It was at the juncture where Maryam said her late husband kept some money for Nigeria but which disappeared in a few months that rekindled my interest on this aspect. Much of what we were told and which, in our “foolishness” we believed, was stashed abroad by Gen. Abacha.

    Barkin Zuwo who governed Kano State for only three months, from October 1, 1979 to December 31, 1979, kept N3.4m  (that is about N5.4 billion at today’s exchange rate and N952m at about N128 to a dollar then). We are talking of the equivalent of about 225 BRAND NEW (emphasis mine) Peugeot 505 GL at 15,000 apiece!. That was what a governor kept in the state government house and when the soldiers who sacked their government on New Year’s Eve in 1983 asked him why he kept such a huge amount out of the bank, he merely told them that he did nothing wrong. “Government money in government house, what’s wrong with that?”, he rhetorically asked.

    The point I am trying to make is that whatever Barkin Zuwo’s intention, what was found on him was found here at home.

    All the foolish questions about where Gen. Abacha could have got the money that he stole from were misdirected. Maryam should have asked her husband where they got all the private luxury they enjoyed and are probably still enjoying. Or, better still, ask today’s public officials who also have itchy palms to bail her out.

    Where has Maryam Abacha been all this while that Nigeria has been collecting money stashed abroad by her husband and his cronies? At least over $5bn of such monies had been recovered as at 2023. That is for the known.

    True, a wife properly so-called should try as much as possible to defend her husband, and vice versa. But even then, there should be limits. Maryam Abacha should indeed apologise to us (Nigerians) that she has called fools for believing that her husband was a ‘Grade A’ thief.

    It was not because he was smart that we didn’t focus on his thieving when he was around; it was because some other issues eclipsed that aspect of his life, especially after he overthrew Chief Ernest Shonekan’s interim national government (ING) and made himself head of state. The way he ruled repressively, especially in the aftermath of the annulment of the June 12 election engaged our attention more than anything else.

    Gen. Abacha had his stars to thank that somebody like Fela Anikulapo-Kuti was no longer around in his time. Fela would have put it to him that ‘e be thief’; ‘he be rogue’; ‘he be robber’ and in fact, that ‘he be ‘armu robber’ (armed robber’). And there was nothing he could have done. The General Obasanjo’s of this world know that for sure.

    If Mrs Abacha had said her husband was not the only thief, I am sure many Nigerians can live with that. If she had said some other people had re-looted some of the money recovered from her husband, many of us can still stomach that.

    But to say her husband was not a thief; I believe General Abacha himself must be struggling wherever he is to correct his darling wife that that  impression is not only far from the truth; it is blatant falsehood; and go ahead to apologise to Nigerians for the misinformation.

  • The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (XXIII)

    The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (XXIII)

    For the first time in the history of capitalism, in the wake of the Great Depression, government became involved in capitalism, not just to regulate it but to steer it into a new path and to change the character of the beast, profoundly and forever. At least that would have been the hope of the American government led by President Roosevelt. The mechanism for doing this was the New Deal which as it went along was given a theoretical foundation by John Maynard Keynes who has turned out to be the most influential economist of the twentieth century. And that has turned out to be for good as far as his admirers are concerned and as an anathema from the point of view of those who are opposed to his economic theory. Either way he cannot be ignored. Some eighty years after his death, he is still the elephant in every economics chatroom. Not bad for a mathematician/philosopher who took formal lessons in economics for all of eight weeks.

    One of the immediate effects of the Great Depression was a massive increase in unemployment. Without a salary, the unemployed can no longer make a contribution to the amount of money in circulation. This almost inevitably leads to the fall in the amount of money in the economy. It allows it to fall to catastrophic levels as indeed it did in the period following the Great Depression. Keynes argued that the only way to reverse this undesirable situation was to use government funds to create jobs and in doing so, regulate the economy and restore it to good health. This was so important that in his opinion, the government could resort to deficit spending, at least until the situation improved to such an extent that government spending could be brought back to a balanced budget. Without the exegesis created by the Great Depression, Keynesian economics as it came to be known could not have stood any chance of implementation. This is because for the first time, Keynes brought workers into the economics equation in a positive way. After that, they were then recognised  as having a  voice and a role to play in bringing a modicum of order to the market place. Up till then, the bosses, the owners of capital had shown a stern determination to keep wages low because in their warped imagination, they were sure that the lower the wages they paid to their workers, the greater the profits that accrued to them. Not for one moment did they think that better paid workers could become genuine and reliable consumers of the products of capitalist exploitation. True, Henry Ford had seen the light in this direction long before, but even he was vehemently opposed to trade unions and did all he could to keep them out of his factories. Without unions however, there was no way for the workers to even breathe, talk less of being part of any economic decision making process.

    Read Also:The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (XX)

    Keynes may have been the brains behind the New Deal but without the muscle provided by Roosevelt, it would have been dead on arrival. Desperate as the situation was, the forces of conservatism were still quite active and without Democratic party control of Congress and Senate, Roosevelt would have found it impossible to make the New Deal workable. And in the wake of the reduction in   the control of both houses in the 1938 midterm elections to the Republicans he found the going very difficult, verging dangerously on the impossible.  However, he was saved by the bell, to use a boxing term, when the USA was dragged into the maelstrom created by WWII in December 1941.

    The entry of the United States into the war was heaven sent for the New Deal as the ensuing war economy led to full employment and factories began to function at optimal capacity. The farmers were not left out of the effect of this wave of prosperity. Armies had to be fed and so the farmers were kept hard at work to keep the fighting men adequately provided with food. No army in the history of warfare had been better fed than members of the US armed forces through their engagement in WWII. This boosted the economy to such an extent that the economy of the USA was ticking along merrily until the end of the war. The capitalists rubbed their hands in glee as their profits mounted. At the same time the Democrats built up such a healthy head of political steam that the Republicans were locked out of the White House for twenty straight years. During this period, Roosevelt won four presidential elections on the trot and in 1948 his less flamboyant but phlegmatic, successor, Harry Truman won the presidential elections against all odds. It is interesting to note also that General Eisenhower who won the White House for the Republicans in the 1952 election and kept it in 1956 continued on the same economic trajectory as the Democrats. There was no need to change course  because the American economy was booming as never before. It has to be said that the economic dominance of the USA was predicated on her unique position as the only major power standing at the end of WWII.

    In the period immediately after WWI, the USA went back into isolationism in a bid to protect herself from the economic vagaries that afflicted the leading economies of the world. In spite of this precaution however, she was still dragged into the pits of the Great Depression. This more than ever encouraged the US to develop strict isolationism from the rest of the world. The USA, separated from the conflict in Europe by the width of the Atlantic ocean which raised a bulwark behind which it could shelter whilst maintaining her neutrality. To make her stand unmistakably clear, Congress passed Neutrality Acts through to 1938. But by 1939, it had become obvious that a war in Europe was inevitable. And reading the situation on ground, Roosevelt assured Americans that their sons were not going to participate in any European adventures.  But, it was also clear after a little while that American sentiments were on the side of the Allied Powers and her continued neutrality favoured the Axis. Besides, the Americans saw a way to make some money. They came up with what they called the Lend Lease Act which allowed them to sell any material to any country which could pay cash for their orders which were evacuated in their own ships. As far as any transaction did not put the USA at any risk. The major beneficiaries at the start were Britain and France. Both countries had been bruised and battered by their encounter with German forces and desperately needed ammunition for the fight and food for their armies and civilian populations. The Lend Lease Act served to preserve American neutrality even as they prepare to enter the fray and to make some money on the side. Eventually, the veil of neutrality was broken in December 1941 when Japan attacked US naval installations on Pearl Harbour in Hawaii in her desperate attempt to break the stranglehold to which her economy was subjected to through the imposition of American sanctions. In the wake of Japanese bombing of Pearl harbour, Germany her ally declared war on the USA and WWII became a global conflagration.

    Like WWI, this rematch was caused by a clash of imperialist ambitions. The British and French were in it to defend their respective empires. Germany attacked Poland and the Soviet Union in an attempt to create what Hitler described as space for German expansion. Japan was determined to create her own empire in the far East; in China, Korea and parts of the British empire including India. Given the scenario, the USA, the leading global capitalist nation had to be in it to protect the overall interest of capitalism. Early in 1942, the USA was engaged in war across the Atlantic in Europe and in the Pacific coast to the east.

    Combatants were bogged down in trenches for most of WWI, fighting what they came to describe as a war of attrition in which virtually defenceless men were exposed to pitiless war machines dispensing death and serious injury with awesome efficiency. This time around, the fronts were broad with tanks and all sorts of warplanes being involved in the fighting. This brought virtually the whole of Europe within harm’s way so that cities, manufacturing plants, communications installations and just about any built up areas were targets for destruction from land, sea and air. In an attempt at imperial domination, mankind had reached a state of total war. This was to have a critical effect on the rise and rise of capitalism.

    The Americans had entered the war on the side of the Allied forces made up principally of the British empire, the French Empire and the Soviet Union following the collapse of the non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviets. Ranged against them were the Axis powers; Germany, Japan and Italy under Benito Mussolini who was hell bent on expanding the Italian empire in Africa. The immediate impact of this war was the total destruction of industrial infrastructure in all major industrial countries with the exception of the USA which came out of the war with her industrial infrastructure not only intact but enhanced. There was no stopping her from that point on especially after her paralysing display of the power of her atomic bombs unleashed on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the closing stages of the war.

    All in all, the USA had a very good war not just because she drove the Allies to victory but because she was given the authority to bring forth a new world economic and diplomatic order. At the end of the First World War, the Americans, bent on isolationism as a form of defence refused to enforce the formation of the League of Nations. This time around they were the proponents of the United Nations Organisations, the successor to the League of Nations. In addition, they were able to foist on a bemused world, the twin financial institutions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The age of American global economic domination had arrived.

  • The Igbo lie is blown: Ministry of Education denies responsibility for distorted instructional materials

    The Igbo lie is blown: Ministry of Education denies responsibility for distorted instructional materials

    In ‘The Igbo: People, History and Worldview’ by Dons Eze & Chinedu Ochinanwata, they go even further, claiming that the Yoruba monarchy is built on Igbo spiritual systems, that Oduduwa overthrew a peaceful Igbo order, and that modern Ife is a hybrid of stolen identity”.

    Published on this column on Sunday, 8 June, 2025 was my article titled:’Hagiography: Igbos Deliberately Distorting Yoruba History’.

    Partly in reaction to it and also because some concerned Yoruba individuals and groups were already pondering  the next line of action regarding this falsification of their history by persons whose ‘god’ is money, and would, therefore, do anything – legal and illegal – to look for it – petitions had gone to, not only the Federal Ministry of Education but as far as to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu because, as one of the groups put it, to allow these scammers continue unchecked is to “allow false ethnic narratives in our education system, endanger national unity, undermine cultural integrity, and misinform future generations.

    Also, they wrote: “if this distortion is not corrected, millions of Nigerian students, especially Yoruba children, will grow up believing a lie about their ancestral identity”.

    Kudos to the Honourable  Minister who, I am aware, proactively went to work, tasking ministry officials to quickly unravel the circumstances surrounding the alleged NERDC approval being claimed by the authors.

    In particular he  wanted them to confirm whether the two books  were truly presented to the NERDC for review and  recommendation, which year they were presented and who the reviewers of the books are. He also wanted

    confirmation as to whether NERDC actually recommended the books for publication.

    If truly, and genuinely it did, he recommended  that an appropriate machinery be set up to thoroughly investigate all the circumstances surrounding the publication of the books.

    These done, a report was made to the minister presumably on whose authority the ministry, this past week, made the following public announcement:

    “The attention of the Federal Ministry of Education has been drawn to a petition titled: “Petition to Defend Yoruba History from Ethnic Distortion in Nigerian Textbooks” submitted by the Concerned Citizens of Yoruba Origin and Supporters of Truth, through its National Chairman, Otunba Abayomi Odunowo.

    The petition raises concerns over alleged historical inaccuracies in a history textbook authored by Tony and Ijeoma Duru, and published by Tones Publishers. The publication is said to contain claims regarding the founding of Ile-Ife that have been described as misleading and potentially harmful to national unity.

    Read Also: Lagos education district III hosts sports festival

    The Ministry wishes to clarify that the said textbook was not authored, commissioned, or approved by the Federal Ministry of Education. It is not among the instructional materials approved for use in public basic education institutions across the country, and the Ministry is not in any way affiliated with the publication.

    The Ministry appreciates the vigilance and concern of stakeholders regarding the potential of such content to misinform learners and provoke ethnic tension.

    While these concerns are valid, it is important to note that the Ministry is not responsible for materials that fall outside its regulatory framework.

    Instructional materials officially endorsed by the Ministry are carefully curated to meet national education standards. They are developed to support effective learning in public schools, promote literacy, and ensure inclusive, equitable access to quality education throughout Nigeria.

    The ministry will work with the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) and other agencies to investigate, ensure fair and timely resolution of the issue.

    Nevertheless, given the sensitivity of the matter and its implications for education, cultural identity, and national cohesion, the Ministry will work closely with the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) and other relevant agencies to thoroughly investigate the issue.

    All necessary steps will be taken to address the anomalies identified and to ensure a fair and timely resolution that respects historical truth and promotes unity.

    The Federal Ministry of Education remains fully committed to providing quality, inclusive, and culturally respectful education that fosters peace, understanding, and national development”.

    Some questions then arise following that clear and authoritative statement from the Ministry of Education, the only authority that could have given approval for the books’ publication and without which approval, the books can be described only as a hatched job which should be completely incinerated to obliterate its memory.

    But then why are a particular group of Nigerians so infernally given to perpetuating fraud? What exactly drives their inordinate quest after money for which they would do anything, killing inclusive?

    Must they continue to shame Nigeria all over the world? And what exactly would they not do to make money if they could  turn hagiography into a source of money making, seeing it requires intellectual imput far beyond the mundane requirements of making a 4- 1 – 9 hit?

    But the million dollar question is: must these people, forever, have an eye for anything, and everything, Yoruba?

    Igbos are a uniquely talented, brilliant and industrious people.

    This they have demonstrated here in Nigeria and internationally where they rank amongst the most prodigiously brilliant scholars holding down professorships in many prestigious Universities worldwide but, especially in the U.S.

    Back home they own the most industrialised part of Nigeria.

    But for God’s sake, why would a people so gifted, so talented be equally damn fiendishly avaricious they are never content with all they have?

    Why is there no single effort by any group of Igbos themselves, however miniscule, criticising these their negative proclivities? Why do we never see any concerted effort by Igbos themselves against the bad among them?

    Not even against the Unknown Gun Men tormenting them, paralysing not only their economy but the social life of the entire Southeast region?

    Instead, behaving like a horde, you would find even the most educated Igbo defend his kinsman, no matter the gravity of the offence committed.

    More than the generality of Nigerians, Igbos need a Regional Orientation Agency(ROA).

    They believe they are not much loved by other Nigerians.

    If this categorical assertion is true, Igbos would have only themselves to blame.

    Scattered thin, everywhere all over the country, Igbos must have a rethink over many of the things they do, or casually take for granted, among them: the erroneous belief that because they have the financial resources, from sources known and unknown to buy physical properties, they can purchase  the possibility of ruling over places where they are only, at best,  aliens.

    Without a doubt this write up will be met with some acerbic diatribes by those who hate to hear the truth.

    But then I say: they are welcome 

  • Wike’s OAU lecture

    Wike’s OAU lecture

    Barrister Ezenwo Nyesom Wike, former Local Government Chairman, former Chief of Staff to the Governor of Rivers State, former Minister of State for Education, former Governor of Rivers State and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, was at Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU)’s iconic Oduduwa Hall, Ile-Ife, where he delivered the well-attended and well-received 5 June, 2025 Distinguished Personality Lecture of the university titled “Nigeria of our dreams.”

    In the 24-page lecture, Barrister Nyesom Wike remarked: “In an era when leadership is often misunderstood or misjudged through partisan prisms, I consider your invitation a balm and your recognition, a vindication and a challenge.” He then declared: “I thank the Governing Council and the University Management for this remarkable gesture, which I do not take for granted.”

    The Minister noted: “Nigeria, as we know it today, was conceived in the crucible of a paradox: consummated by the colonial imperative of amalgamation, yet nurtured by the enduring hope of unity in diversity. From the very beginning, there has always existed a powerful dream that this vast land of many tongues and traditions would someday become a beacon of harmony, justice, and prosperity.”

    He observed that contrariwise, “The Nigeria we see today is not the Nigeria we dreamt of. … We stumbled on the jagged rocks of corruption, danced too long with the ghosts of mediocrity, and surrendered too frequently to the paralyzing cynicism of despair. Our institutions, once envisioned as pillars of progress, have buckled under the weight of impunity and ethnicity. The rule of law is often treated as an inconvenience.”

    He continued: “Insecurity festers across the land. Infrastructure lies in ruins. Our public school system is gasping for breath, and our economy is reeling under the weight of bad policies, runaway inflation, and a currency in free fall from a time when one dollar exchanged for one naira, to today, when over 1,500 naira chases a single dollar. The Nigerian passport has become a red flag at foreign airports. It is a symbol of suspicion rather than pride, our global image tarnished by decades of corruption, fraud, and state failure.”

    He also noted: “Religious institutions, which ought to be moral beacons, have joined the parade. … The litany of woes is long, and for many Nigerians, the dream has faded into a nightmare. … And yet, in the face of this bleak landscape, we must ask: Is all hope lost? Is this the end of the Nigerian story? Can we no longer dream of a nation that works, that cares, that inspires?”

    Wike opined that reclaiming Nigeria’s dreams required a framework with pillars, including leadership, infrastructural development, democracy and good governance, the rule of law and justice, quality education, health and human development, economic prosperity and inclusive growth, security and national cohesion, unity in diversity, cultural renaissance and moral rebirth, and strengthening local government and community resilience.

    On leadership, Wike said: “Many scholars agree that the greatest challenge confronting Nigeria and chronically militating against her development is the plague of bad and mediocre leadership.” He thus declared: “A leader of our dreams must be one who is prepared to lead. … This leader must have the courage and audacity to act, build, innovate and generally expand the frontiers of development with a hands-on approach that would emphasize excellence over mediocrity.”

    The FCT Minister then declared: “Our current president [Bola Ahmed Tinubu] embodies a lot of the qualities that I have stated above. … Leaders before him all spoke about the evil of fuel subsidy, but none had the courage to dare the blackmail of removing it. Tinubu did and is fittingly grappling with the inevitable, unintended and sometimes orchestrated consequences of this removal.”

    Wike continued: “The security situation is being addressed through proper funding and the training and retraining of our army and other security forces. There is no doubt that with the recent Presidential approval for the recruitment of forest guards across the country to take charge of our forests, bandits and terrorists would no longer find incubation points and free territories to operate.”

    Read Also: Bayelsa PDP commends Tinubu, Supreme Court, Wike, others for sustenance of democracy

    On infrastructural development, the Minister noted: “In this journey towards realizing the Nigeria of our dreams, it is both necessary and noble to acknowledge the efforts of President Tinubu. … Through massive investment in infrastructure, President Tinubu has demonstrated a commitment to tackling the inherited complexities of our federation with candour and courage.”

    The FCT Minister also observed: “The rapid transformation of Abuja is a clear testimony to the President’s dedication to infrastructural revolution in Nigeria. It goes without saying that, although I drive the process in Abuja, it would not have been possible without the overwhelming and ceaseless support of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR.”

    On democracy and good governance, the guest lecturer opined: “At the heart of the Nigerian dream lies the vision of a thriving democratic culture. … In this vision, public office is not a privilege to be exploited, but a sacred trust to be honoured, a platform for transformation, not self-enrichment. Good governance is the engine that drives this dream, ensuring that institutions function efficiently and equitably, and that the government remains responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people.”

    On the rule of law and justice, Wike declared: “The Nigeria we dream of is one where the rule of law is not merely enshrined in the constitution but enforced with courage and impartiality, without fear or favour. … Central to this vision is an independent and courageous judiciary, immune from manipulation, and committed to safeguarding human rights and upholding justice for all.”

    On quality education, the Minister remarked: “At the core of the Nigerian dream lies the unwavering belief that qualitative and functional education is the bedrock of national development. … From nursery school to the university level, education in the Nigeria of our dreams must be accessible, inclusive, and relevant, reaching every child regardless of geography, gender, financial status, or ability.” He noted further: “In this regard, for instance, the establishment of the Nigeria Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) is … a monumental step towards realizing the Nigeria of our dreams, a nation built on knowledge, equity, and opportunity.”

    On health and human development, the lecturer said: “At the heart of the Nigerian dream is the unfailing commitment to the health and well-being of every citizen … We envision a Nigeria where health is not a privilege but a right … This vision moves beyond hospital walls to encompass access to clean water, proper sanitation, and a resilient public health system capable of responding decisively to crises.”

    On economic prosperity and inclusive growth, Wike said: “We dream of a Nigeria where prosperity is not the preserve of a privileged few but a shared reality that cuts across regions, social classes, and sectors. … Critical to this vision is the creation of a citizenry empowered with self-reliance and control over critical aspects of their lives, food, shelter, education, and health, with the ultimate goal of eradicating poverty and underdevelopment.”

    On security and national cohesion, Wike observed: “Security is the bedrock upon which every meaningful national aspiration must rest, for no dream can flourish in an atmosphere of fear or instability. At the heart of the Nigeria we envision is a society where every citizen feels safe in their homes, in their communities, and across the federation. … Ultimately, security is not just about protecting borders, it is about protecting hope. It is about building a society where every Nigerian can aspire, strive, and succeed without fear, a nation where peace is the norm, not the exception.”

    On unity in diversity, Wike said: “Fundamental to the Nigerian dream lies a profound recognition: our diversity is not a burden, but a blessing, a source of strength rather than division. … The Nigeria we dream of does not erase differences but celebrates them; it does not impose uniformity but inspires unity.”

    Furthermore, he noted: “At the heart of many of Nigeria’s challenges is a deficit of trust between leaders and followers, ethnic groups, religious communities, and even neighbours. Rebuilding this trust requires more than lofty rhetoric; it demands honesty, transparency, fairness, and justice. Our national policies must be inclusive, participatory, and responsive to both current needs and historical grievances.”

    On cultural renaissance and moral rebirth, the lecturer said: “The dream of Nigeria demands not just institutional reform, but a profound moral and cultural renaissance. … We must return to the timeless values that once defined us: honesty, hard work, mutual respect, and community spirit. Nigeria of our dreams is one where our cultural heritage is preserved, our stories are told with pride, and our values form the moral compass that guides both leadership and followership.”

    On strengthening local government and community resilience, Wike observed: “Without functional, transparent, and empowered local governments, the dream of national transformation will remain a distant illusion. The Nigeria of our dreams is one where development does not hover above in abstraction, but reaches the very doorsteps of the people, through decentralized governance, fiscal responsibility, and vibrant, community-led initiatives. The status, structure, staffing, operations, and funding of the local government system are not mere administrative concerns – they are central to the survival and consolidation of democracy itself.”

    Wike averred that Nigeria is “bruised, perhaps battered, but never broken,” and that “her voice is rising above the din of disillusionment, summoning her sons and daughters, at home and abroad, not to mourn her fate, but to mold her future.” He also counselled: “And above all, we must act not because it is convenient, but because it is essential. … Let us write a new story, not of how Nigeria collapsed under the weight of its contradictions, but of how it rose on the strength of its convictions.”

    In concluding, Wike admonished: “Nigeria of our dreams will not fall into our laps by wishing; it will be won by working. It will demand of us not only passion, but patience. Not only inspiration, but perspiration. Not only courage in moments of glory, but character in seasons of testing. … Let us rise above cynicism and mediocrity, and embrace vision, sacrifice, and purpose. Let us dare to believe that greatness is not beyond us, but within us, waiting to be awakened. Let history record that we gathered here not to mourn what Nigeria has become, but to proclaim what Nigeria must be.”

    The content of Minister Nyesom Wike’s cerebral and illuminating lecture was remarkably broad in its coverage and on point. The style was dignified and engaging, with an effective dose of soundbites and claptraps. The lecture impressively exemplified the positive value of inviting such distinguished, sometimes controversial, personalities to share their thoughts and experiences on an elevated academic platform. For this, the authorities of OAU truly deserve commendation.  

  • Inclusive democracy and the metaphor in pardon for Ogoni Nine

    Inclusive democracy and the metaphor in pardon for Ogoni Nine

    In a week shaped by reflection, celebration, and landmark decisions, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s maiden State of the Nation address on Democracy Day 2025 will be remembered not just for its innovation in form, but more so for its courage in substance. In one sweeping moment of presidential clarity and moral restitution, Tinubu granted a long-awaited presidential pardon to the Ogoni Nine — a group of environmental justice activists executed in 1995 — and conferred national honours on them, effectively rewriting a painful chapter of Nigeria’s history with compassion and bold leadership.

    Delivered before a joint session of the National Assembly, the address — a first of its kind — marked a significant departure from the customary early morning broadcast Nigerians have grown used to on June 12. Drawing on the traditions of American democracy, Tinubu instead chose to face lawmakers directly, with a live broadcast that conveyed not just the President’s agenda, but his tone, his emotion, and his message of unity in clear and undiluted terms.

    But the speech’s highlight, the “icing on the cake,” as many have since called it, was the full pardon granted posthumously to Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight colleagues — Saturday Dobee, Nordu Eawo, Daniel Gbooko, Paul Levera, Felix Nuate, Baribor Bera, Barinem Kiobel, and John Kpuine. For the Ogoni people, the Niger Delta and indeed for Nigeria, it was more than a symbolic gesture; it was the long-delayed recognition of an injustice endured, a legacy restored, and an unmistakable step towards national reconciliation.

    The Ogoni Nine were executed on November 10, 1995, by the military junta of General Sani Abacha, following a controversial tribunal that convicted them of involvement in the murder of four Ogoni chiefs. That trial and its outcome were universally condemned — from global statesmen like Nelson Mandela and Bill Clinton to institutions such as the United Nations — all of whom called for clemency and due process.

    Ken Saro-Wiwa, the most prominent of the nine, had become the face of Nigeria’s grassroots environmental struggle. His leadership of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) brought global attention to the devastation wrought on Ogoniland by oil exploration and corporate neglect. Their execution was not merely a miscarriage of justice, but a scar on Nigeria’s conscience — a chilling reminder of the price of activism under tyranny.

    President Tinubu’s pardon does not erase the past. But it does bring overdue moral clarity. In conferring national honours — a Commander of the Order of the Niger (CON) for Saro-Wiwa and Officers of the Order of the Niger (OON) for the others — Tinubu elevated them from condemned men to national heroes. It was, in his own words, “an exercise of the prerogative of mercy,” but even more than that, it was a statement of the values his administration seeks to uphold: inclusivity, justice, and historical redress.

    In granting this pardon on Democracy Day — the very day set aside to honour the pro-democracy martyrs of the 1990s, symbols of which late Chief M.K.O. Abiola and his assassinated wife, Kudirat Abiola, were — Tinubu was deliberate. He was connecting the Ogoni cause to the broader Nigerian struggle for justice, equity, and democratic accountability.

    It was not lost on many that Ogoni leaders have, for decades, approached successive administrations with appeals for this very moment. But Tinubu, who himself bears scars from that era of dictatorship and led from the frontlines in the 1990s resistance, chose not just to listen but to act. His pardon and honours conferment were more than executive acts — they were reconciliatory moves signalling that no part of the country, no matter how geographically small or politically marginalised, is forgotten in his vision of a united Nigeria.

    That vision was further reinforced when the President made it clear during the same address that there is no intention under his leadership to transform Nigeria into a one-party state. In recent weeks, the ruling APC has welcomed a wave of defections from other parties, prompting unease from opposition quarters. But Tinubu’s words were unequivocal: “At no time in the past, nor any instance in the present, and at no future juncture shall I view the notion of a one-party state as good for Nigeria.”

    It was a sharp but necessary rebuke, one drawn from personal experience. Tinubu reminded the nation that in 2003, he was the lone progressive governor standing in the South-West, refusing to be swallowed by the then-dominant PDP machine. That commitment to political plurality, he assured Nigerians, remains unchanged.

    Read Also: Tinubu affirms commitment to multi-party democracy

    President Tinubu’s speech was not only backward-looking. It was also rich in policy direction and national optimism. He announced the expansion of consumer credit to 400,000 youths and NYSC members through CREDICORP, aiming to empower young Nigerians economically. He celebrated record GDP growth — 4.6% in the last quarter of 2024 — and a gradually stabilising macroeconomic environment. He spoke of food sovereignty, industrial transformation, and the digital revolution powered by fibre optic infrastructure now rolling out across the country.

    But these gains, he noted, mean little without justice, without healing, and without embracing the pain points of the past — such as the one carried by the Ogoni people for 29 years.

    That is why the Ogoni Nine pardon and honouring was so powerful. It captured the spirit of June 12 — the spirit of democracy that fights to be inclusive, that acknowledges mistakes, and that dares to do right even when it takes decades.

    Of course, some critics may say the gesture was political — timed for maximal impact, or designed to court sympathy from the South-South. But that argument ignores both context and intent. For years, the Ogoni cause has been a thorn in the side of every administration. Symbolic promises were made, but no president — not Obasanjo, not Yar’Adua, not Jonathan, not Buhari — had taken the decisive step of issuing a full pardon and backing it with national honours.

    Although in 2001 the then President Obasanjo, during a speech in Ogoniland, announced an intention to grant a presidential pardon. It never materialised. Also in 2021, former President Buhari suggested a possible posthumous state pardon during a meeting with Ogoni leaders at the State House and described the executions as unfortunate. The administration failed to issue the pardon. 

    Tinubu did. And he did so in a forum where all political persuasions were present, under the klieg lights of national television, not in a closed-door ceremony. That matters. That transparency is part of the message.

    By tying this unprecedented gesture to June 12, President Tinubu reaffirmed the essence of the date. Democracy is not just a milestone to be celebrated annually. It is a responsibility to be shouldered daily. It means recognising that justice delayed is not justice denied — but justice must come eventually. It means redressing wrongs, not to open old wounds, but to heal them.

    And for the Ogoni people — for whom November 10 has always been a day of mourning — this year’s June 12 became a day of recognition. A day when their sons were no longer remembered as criminals, but as citizens whose love for their land and rights led them to martyrdom.

    From Forgiveness in Lagos to Infrastructural Revival in Abuja

    Although the President’s riveting Democracy Day address inevitably dominated national discourse in the past week, the build-up to June 12 itself was packed with telling moments of leadership, reconciliation, and renewed infrastructural ambition. From emotional reconciliations in Lagos to headline-worthy project commissioning in the nation’s capital, President Tinubu’s activities this week once again reinforced his capacity to blend political symbolism with tangible governance.

    It began on a poignant note in Lagos on Sunday, where the President, still observing his Eid-el-Kabir retreat, welcomed key political stakeholders, including members of the Lagos State Governor’s Advisory Council (GAC). At the heart of their mission was a plea for reconciliation—particularly on behalf of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu. According to reports, the GAC Chairman, Alhaji Tajudeen Olusi, acknowledged the President’s perceived displeasure and openly begged for forgiveness.

    In a gesture underscoring Tinubu’s often understated political magnanimity, the President replied: “It’s all over now. All is forgiven.” The moment prompted visible relief, with Sanwo-Olu and others prostrating in gratitude—an emblematic conclusion to weeks of speculation about a rift. It was a symbolic closure in Lagos, where Tinubu’s political journey began and where his political family remains strongest.

    By Tuesday afternoon, the President was back in Abuja, swiftly transitioning from statesman to reformer-in-chief. Stepping off the Presidential jet, he made a direct stop at the refurbished International Conference Centre (ICC)—now renamed the Bola Ahmed Tinubu International Conference Centre—for its formal reopening.

    Speaking at the event, Tinubu reiterated his commitment to infrastructure as a bedrock of national renewal. “Modern infrastructure is the backbone of a thriving economy,” he stated, affirming his administration’s readiness to transform sectors including transportation, health, education, and urban development.

    Commending the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, for his transformational leadership, Tinubu added a political undertone to his commendation: “Don’t pay attention to the busybodies… continue with your good work.” The endorsement, as it turned out, would not end there.

    The following day, at the commissioning of the Arterial Road N16 in Abuja’s Katampe District, Tinubu once again lavished praise on Wike. In a politically charged moment, the President teased: “He’s not a member of my party—not yet. But the day he changes his mind… we will enjoy him in singing, ‘as e dey pain them, e dey sweet us.’”

    While clearly tongue-in-cheek, the comment reflects a strategic openness to Wike—a PDP strongman—joining the APC formally, a prospect that could further reshape political alignments ahead of 2027.

    Away from politics, Tinubu also found time to mourn and honour national figures. He expressed deep sorrow over the passing of former federal permanent secretary, Fidelis Kaigama, lauding him as “a distinguished public servant.”

    On Friday, he saluted media icon Prince Sam Amuka-Pemu, the 90-year-old founder of Vanguard Newspapers. Calling him “a doyen of journalism” and “an elder statesman,” Tinubu’s tribute reflected his enduring regard for those who shaped Nigeria’s media and democratic history.

    In the whirlwind of the week’s activities — from the Democracy Day lecture, to the extensive list of honourees that included Kudirat Abiola, Wole Soyinka, and Uncle Sam Amuka-Pemu — what stood out most was the President’s ability to transcend the ceremonial. With the Ogoni Nine pardon, Tinubu did not just make a speech. He made a statement. He did not just celebrate democracy. He deepened it.

    It was a reminder that leadership is not only about pushing policies or managing the economy. It is also about leading the national soul — helping a country remember, reconcile, and rise above its wounds.

    President Tinubu’s first State of the Nation address has set a new bar — not only in how leaders speak to the nation, but in how they act in moments of historic gravity. It was a week not just of activities, but of purpose. And in the words he chose and the gestures he made, Tinubu reaffirmed that democracy — our democracy — is still alive, still evolving, and still capable of doing the right thing.