The Nation Newspaper

Category: Letters

  • Why Edo State’s forest reserve claim doesn’t add up

    Why Edo State’s forest reserve claim doesn’t add up

    Sir: The recent declaration by the Deputy Governor of Edo State that the territories around Ajakurama and Abére fall within government-owned forest reserves has generated widespread confusion and unease. For many of us who know the history, the geography, and the lived realities of these communities, the claim is not only surprising but deeply troubling. Land disputes anywhere can inflame tensions, but when they involve centuries-old ancestral spaces, the stakes become even higher. It is therefore essential that matters of such gravity be handled with clarity, accuracy, and respect for historical truth.

    The people of Ajakurama and Abére have inhabited their lands for generations. These are not makeshift settlements carved out in recent years; they are communities with cultural identities rooted in these very spaces. Elders pass down stories of their origins, festivals are tied to specific locations within the landscape, and family histories are etched into the soil. Across Edo State, the concept of ancestral land is not a sentimental notion—it is a lived reality that shapes identity, economy, and tradition. That is why the sudden assertion that these same lands are state-owned forest reserve lands with such force and bewilderment.

    Within Ovia South-West LGA, it has always been common knowledge that the officially designated forest reserves lie far from the Ajakurama–Abére corridor. Past administrations have operated with this understanding; community records reflect it, and even routine field knowledge—known to hunters, farmers, surveyors, and local administrators—reinforces this fact. At no point in history were these communities listed, gazetted, or legally designated as part of any forest reserve. No notices were issued, no compensation was paid, and no boundary adjustments were ever announced by the state. To claim otherwise today requires clear, verifiable documentation, not vague assertions.

    The Edo State government has, over the years, made commendable efforts to govern transparently and uphold due process. This makes the current situation all the more puzzling. When government statements contradict historical and geographical facts known to the communities, they create an atmosphere of distrust that benefits no one. The deputy governor’s pronouncement has already triggered anxiety among residents who fear that their ancestral rights are being quietly rewritten without consultation or evidence. Such a sensitive matter cannot be left hanging in ambiguity.

    For the sake of peace, clarity, and justice, it is both reasonable and necessary to request that the state government act with openness. If documents exist showing that Ajakurama and Abére were at any time absorbed into forest reserves, these should be made public. Maps, gazettes, acquisition notices, and boundary delineations must be shared so that the truth can stand on its own.

    Conversely, if such records do not exist—as community knowledge strongly suggests—then the state should openly correct its position to avoid further misunderstanding.

    In resolving this dispute, it is equally important that the government clearly define the current boundaries of all forest reserves within Ovia South-West LGA. Boundary certainty reduces conflict, prevents administrative errors, and protects both government assets and community land rights. Moreover, direct engagement with leaders of Ajakurama and Abére is essential. These are peaceful, law-abiding communities that recognise the authority of the state. They are willing to dialogue, willing to cooperate, and willing to listen. What they cannot do—and should never be expected to do—is surrender their ancestral heritage to a claim they know to be inaccurate.

    Read Also: Akpabio’s visionary leadership resonates across Nigeria, says Reps Deputy Speaker

    It bears repeating that the people’s demand is simple: truth. Their loyalty to Edo State remains intact, but loyalty does not cancel history. It does not erase community memory, nor does it negate legal and customary rights that predate modern governance systems. As the state continues to pursue development, investment, and modernisation, it must ensure that these aspirations do not come at the expense of the very communities whose cooperation is essential to progress.

    This is not the first time that land designation issues have surfaced in Nigeria, and history shows that transparency always produces better outcomes than unilateral declarations. The Ajakurama and Abére situation should be no different. The state government now has an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to fairness by clarifying its position, sharing its evidence, and engaging the affected communities constructively.

    In the end, what is at stake is not just land but trust. And trust, once strained, requires deliberate effort to restore. The government must rise to this responsibility by ensuring that official statements reflect documented facts, not assumptions.

    The people of Ajakurama and Abére seek only justice, clarity, and respect for their heritage. No more, no less.

    •John Amabolou Elekun, Iju-Ajuwon, Lagos.

  • Sharia, sovereignty, and Nigeria’s constitution

    Sharia, sovereignty, and Nigeria’s constitution

    Sir: Recent commentary from foreign circles, particularly from the United States, has once again put Nigeria’s implementation of Sharia law under global scrutiny. In the rush to judge, many external observers overlook a crucial fact: Nigeria is a sovereign republic with a constitution that fully protects religious autonomy and diversity. Any criticism that ignores this reality is not only misinformed but also risks intruding into matters that Nigerian people have already resolved through democratic consensus.

    Nigeria is not a religious battlefield; it is a federation of diverse cultures, faiths, and traditions, united by a constitution that guarantees freedom of worship. Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) clearly states that every Nigerian has the right to believe or not believe, to worship, to teach, and to practice their religion without fear. This is not a privilege granted by the state; it is a fundamental right.

    This constitutional protection is precisely why Sharia law exists in Muslim-majority states across the North. Sharia is not a national imposition; it is not forced upon Christians or adherents of other faiths. It applies only to Muslims who voluntarily adhere to its principles. Just as Christians organize their internal doctrines without interference, Muslims also have the constitutional space to govern their personal religious affairs. This is how religious coexistence works in Nigeria, not just in theory, but in daily life.

    Those who accuse northern states of violating Nigeria’s secular nature often fail to look beyond the headlines. Section 10 of the constitution firmly states that no government, federal or state, may adopt a religion as the state religion. This safeguard is what allows Nigeria to remain a secular political entity while permitting cultural and religious expressions at the state level. Therefore, Sharia is not a challenge to national unity; it is a recognized reflection of Nigeria’s federal identity.

    Read Also: TikTok restricts late-live access in Nigeria amid safety probe

    Foreign governments need to appreciate this delicate balance. Nigeria’s constitutional order was not drafted in Washington, London, or Brussels. It was negotiated by Nigerians who lived through military rule, political tension, and religious misunderstanding. The result is a framework that respects differences while insisting on equality before the law. To dismiss that achievement is to assume that Nigerians cannot manage their own affairs.

    Nigeria values its partnerships, including with the United States, but such partnerships must be grounded in respect, not condescending lectures about a system that many critics hardly understand. The United States would never tolerate foreign interference in its internal policies; Nigeria should expect the same courtesy. While dialogue is welcome, it must acknowledge that Nigeria’s sovereignty is not up for debate.

    The implementation of Sharia law does not weaken Nigeria’s democracy; it demonstrates its maturity. It shows that different regions can express their identities without tearing the nation apart. Those who speak of religious conflict should visit the North and see for themselves Christians attending church freely, Muslims observing their faith, and markets bustling with both communities trading side by side. That lived reality is more powerful than any foreign report.

    Nigeria’s Constitution is a shield that protects every believer, every non-believer, and every minority. Any conversation about Sharia must begin there, not in the pages of foreign think tanks or the assumptions of distant commentators.

    A nation that understands its laws should never hesitate to defend them. Likewise, a friend who respects Nigeria must take the time to understand it.

    •Ishaq Adam Magama, Magama, Toro, Bauchi State.

  • Ebonyi Cement plant and industrialization

    Ebonyi Cement plant and industrialization

    Sir: Domestic cement manufacturing has helped turn Nigeria from net importer decades ago to now among Africa’s leading producers, particularly with companies like Dangote, Lafarge Africa and BUA Cement that have invested in large-scale local plants, ensuring a consistent supply of quality cement and driving down import dependency.

    Yet, Nigeria faces a persistent gap between demand and actual supply. While the combined installed production capacity is substantial at around 65.6 million tonnes annually, actual production often falls short due to operational challenges and infrastructure limitation. With Nigeria facing a significant housing deficit, estimated at 17 million units in urban areas, there is an urgent need for new, structured and well governed market entrants. Experts suggest that Nigeria requires as much as $5 billion in further investments to fully meet local demand.

    With vast deposits of limestone, gypsum, and clay, which are key raw materials required for cement production, the proposal by the Ebonyi State for a strategic investment in a cement plant as a successor to the defunct NIGERCEM, creates a market opportunity for bridging existing market gaps. At a time when the national economy is rebalancing away from oil and toward non-oil sectors, such subnational ventures deserve sustained support to start and survive in supplying one of the most essential building blocks – literally – for infrastructure, housing, roads, bridges, industrial facilities, and urban expansion.

    Read Also: Akpabio’s visionary leadership resonates across Nigeria, says Reps Deputy Speaker

    A properly managed cement plant in Ebonyi, within a broader industrial-city vision already being pursued by the state government promises to deliver transformational impacts in job creation and poverty reduction. The cement plant will absorb large numbers of workers – from skilled and semi-skilled labour in construction, operations, logistics, transport, to support services – helping to lift meaningful portions of the population out of poverty, and reducing pressure on men and women forced into precarious informal work. It will have industrial linkages and multiplier effects, as cement production spawns demand for quarrying, logistics, transport, packaging, maintenance services -creating a ripple of economic activity across sectors.

    If executed with political will, technical competence, and social and environmental responsibility, it will be a people’s project and a foundational investment in dignity, growth, and intergenerational progress. The future of Nigeria’s industrialization may well be decided not in Abuja or Lagos alone, but in frontier states like Ebonyi.

    If the plant is completed in record time, managed transparently, and sustained beyond electoral cycles – offering jobs, growth, environmental stewardship, and hope, then Ebonyi’s cement plant will not be just a factory: it will be a symbol that industrialization rooted in subnational vision, executed with integrity and partnership, remains our most transformative path forward.

    •Ekpa Stanley Ekpa Esq; ekpastanleyekpa@gmail.com

  • Our age of jangled nerves breeding complex problems

    Our age of jangled nerves breeding complex problems

    • By Obiotika Wilfred Toochukwu

    Sir: Christmas is a season traditionally associated with love, reflection, and goodwill. Yet each year, as the yuletide approaches, the tension and impatience in our society become more obvious. In Nigeria, December exposes the cracks that have widened from January to November: unmet expectations, financial frustration, dashed dreams, and the widening gulf between the privileged and the ordinary citizen. What should be a time of communal warmth increasingly becomes a mirror reflecting the agitation, exhaustion, and moral strain of our age.

    These stresses become most visible during the Christmas season. In the Southeast, what should be heartfelt charity—sharing rice, tomatoes, palm oil, yams, or wrappers with widows—often becomes riddled with politics, favoritism, and suspicion. Acts of kindness lose their purity. Gifts are shared not out of compassion, but as tools for influence or manipulation. Even benevolence becomes tainted, turning a beautiful tradition into a display of inequality and competition. The implications of this high-tension age on the common man are far-reaching.

    First, the pressure creates complex personal and social problems. When people feel trapped, unheard, or hopeless, they begin to respond in desperate ways. Petty conflicts escalate. Road rage becomes common. Minor misunderstandings turn into violence. The psychological strain of living in an unpredictable country produces a new kind of citizen—one who is perpetually defensive, easily triggered, and distrustful.

    Read Also: Ribadu in talks with U.S. fact-finding Congressional delegation

    Second, morality suffers. When society normalizes shortcuts, dishonesty becomes the currency for survival. Young people observe that those who succeed often do so through dubious means. When ethical behavior is punished while corruption is rewarded, moral clarity disappears. A generation raised in such confusion inevitably struggles to uphold integrity.

    Third, our nerve-racked age contributes to broken homes. Financial strain, emotional fatigue, and social pressure create toxic environments within families. Many homes fracture not because love is absent, but because stress overwhelms patience. Parents work endlessly to make ends meet, leaving little time for bonding. Marriages collapse under the weight of unmet expectations. Children grow up witness to conflict instead of stability, and the dysfunction multiplies into the next generation.

    Fourth, prolonged stress manifests physically—stomach ulcers, migraines, hypertension, and unexplained illness. Doctors increasingly report stress-related conditions among people who are not yet middle-aged. The body, weary of constant alertness, begins to fail.

    Until we restore calm to our hearts and conscience to our institutions, our age will remain neurotic and troubled. But if even a few choose a better path, renewal is still possible—one heart, one home, one community at a time.

    •Obiotika Wilfred Toochukwu

    Nkono-Ekwulobia, Anambra State.

  • Poverty is the root of Nigeria’s violence

    Poverty is the root of Nigeria’s violence

    • By Bashir Bello

    Sir: The late sage Mahatma Gandhi captured a profound truth when he said: “Poverty is the worst form of violence.” Nigeria cannot make meaningful progress in the fight against insecurity without addressing the deeper causes that fuel it. For too long, we have mobilised for defence. What we truly need is to mobilise for development.

    Since the emergence of Boko Haram in 2009, insurgency has steadily expanded. What began as isolated attacks by a handful of poorly equipped fighters in the Northeast, using improvised explosives at the risk of their own lives, has grown into open confrontation with state forces.

    Beyond Boko Haram whose motivations appear superficially ideological, a wider network of armed groups has spread across the country. Their operations now span regions like a swarm of bees, overwhelming national security from all angles.

    Read Also: Nigeria sends fighter jets, ground forces as troops foil coup in Benin Rep

    At the heart of this violence is poverty. We must not forget that Mohammed Yusuf, the founder of Boko Haram, did not attract followers with superior ideology. He recruited from the poor and unemployed, offering economic incentives, start-up capital, welfare, and even paying marriage expenses for young couples. These gestures drew thousands into his fold, some crossing state and even national borders to pledge allegiance.

    The uncomfortable truth, which government often avoids, is that a purely military solution will only escalate an already fragile situation. Conventional warfare cannot defeat unconventional enemies. Increasing troop numbers will only increase casualties on both sides. If Nigeria truly intends to end banditry, terrorism, armed robbery, arson, extremism, rustling, and the many conflicts tearing the nation apart, then it must wage a war on poverty.

    This requires mass employment opportunities, major investment in public works, a fair wage system and reduced income inequality free and quality education, free and quality healthcare and the economic empowerment of women. Once these pragmatic solutions are pursued with sincerity and consistency, violence will fade as  shadows disappearing at daybreak.

    •Bashir Bello,

    Kaduna.

  • Nigeria’s diplomatic missions as national risk management

    Nigeria’s diplomatic missions as national risk management

    • By Lekan Olayiwola

    Sir: Nigeria’s Foreign Service is often treated as ornamental, a stage for protocol, prestige, and patronage. Yet in a world defined by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, diplomacy is not decorum. It is infrastructure. It is insurance. It is the difference between survival and strategic drift.

    Nigeria’s first vulnerability lies in security. Every time citizens buy groceries, fill their tanks, or pay rent, a hidden “diplomatic tax” is levied against them because the Foreign Service has not shielded the economy from external risks. Global insurers classify Nigerian waters as a high risk zone. Every vessel carrying goods into Lagos, from oil tankers to container ships, is slapped with war risk insurance premiums. These costs are passed on to Nigerian importers, and ultimately, to consumers.

    Countries like Kenya and South Africa worked through their defence attachés — military diplomats embedded in embassies — to negotiate joint patrols and share real time intelligence with NATO and regional partners. They signalled stability, and those premiums dropped. Nigeria, by contrast, operates with a diplomatic security blackout. We have no systematic corps of defence attachés.

    We are blind to the rising tides of transnational threats, relying on costly, last minute military intervention instead of cheap, proactive intelligence. The result is hundreds of millions of dollars siphoned out of the Nigerian economy every year to pay for vulnerabilities our embassies were meant to insure us against.

    The second exposure comes from global finance. When Nigeria borrows money on the international market, our sovereign interest rate (the cost of the loan) is heavily influenced by our credit rating. Rating agencies don’t just look at debt to GDP ratios; they assess institutional credibility and the perceived risk of the nation.

    Read Also: Ribadu in talks with U.S. fact-finding Congressional delegation

    Nigeria’s diplomatic missions, often under resourced and politically appointed, project fragility and miss early chances to shape investor and media narratives. This exposes the country to higher borrowing costs, where even small interest rate increases add billions in debt service — funds that could build schools, bridges, or hospitals.

    Debt service crowds out social investment, and while embassies are not the sole cause, their underutilisation within this chain of vulnerability prevents them from functioning as “sovereign profit centres” that lower risk premiums through investor diplomacy. Rwanda and Vietnam send dedicated commercial diplomats to Wall Street and the City of London, lobbying for lower interest rates. Diplomacy is macroeconomic policy, but Nigeria’s missions remain underutilised in lowering national cost of capital.

    The third untapped frontier is the diaspora. Nigerians abroad send over $22 billion annually in remittances, one of Africa’s largest flows. Yet we treat the diaspora as a cash channel, not a strategic asset. Vietnam mobilised its diaspora not only for remittances but also for lobbying power in host countries and technology transfer. India’s diaspora shaped US policy on visas and tech investment.

    Ireland’s diaspora influenced EU positions on trade and migration. Nigeria’s missions, by contrast, seem to treat the diaspora as an administrative burden, a line of citizens waiting for passport renewals. We fail to capture the brain circulation, the technology transfer, and the political leverage that comes from actively integrating our brightest minds abroad.

    This is not a question of budget but of mandate. Nigeria’s missions should be tasked with turning remittances into investment and diaspora influence into policy leverage. Without that clear directive, their potential remains untapped.

    Global shocks are no longer abstract. Nigeria, one of the most climate vulnerable states, has no comparable diplomatic infrastructure to negotiate adaptation finance or migration protections for its citizens abroad. This is an existential gap. Without diplomatic presence, Nigeria absorbs the shocks alone. Migration crises are equally pressing.

    Nigerian citizens abroad often face precarious conditions, yet missions lack the staffing and mandate to negotiate bilateral protections. In a world of tightening borders, diplomacy is the frontline tool for safeguarding citizens. Treating missions as ceremonial undermines Nigeria’s ability to respond to climate and migration shocks that will define the next decades.

    For Nigeria, with its large population, youth bulge, strategic location, and regional influence, diplomatic presence abroad is a necessity, not a luxury.  Every year of drift costs billions in lost investment, weakens security leverage, and leaves diaspora capital untapped. Every delay shrinks our relevance in global governance. Diplomacy, properly framed and funded, is survival work; the shield against risk, the lever for growth, and the bridge to opportunity.

    •Lekan Olayiwola,

    lekanolayiwola@gmail.com

  • Musa’s appointment as defence minister

    Musa’s appointment as defence minister

    • By Dr Baba Ransome Adamu

    Sir: The Institute of Leadership Assessment and Development (ILAD) congratulates General Christopher Gwabin Musa (retd.) on his well-deserved appointment as the Minister of Defence of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. We sincerely appreciate and thank President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for this timely and strategic appointment. At a time when Nigeria needs to put the right person in the right position, Mr President has once again shown wisdom and commitment to strengthening our national security by choosing a competent, patriotic, and experienced leader.

    Read Also: Nigeria sends fighter jets, ground forces as troops foil coup in Benin Rep

    Gen. Musa is a proven professional with a distinguished record of service. As a former Chief of Defence Staff, he demonstrated courage, discipline, and a deep passion for the unity and safety of our nation. His leadership qualities, calm strength, and operational experience give Nigerians renewed confidence that our defence sector is in capable hands.

    ILAD believes that his appointment will bring improved coordination, stronger military readiness, and renewed hope for lasting peace across the country.

    We pray that God grants him wisdom, strength, and protection as he carries out this important national duty.

    •Dr Baba Ransome Adamu

    ILAD, Abuja.

  • Managing internal migration for national security and stability

    Managing internal migration for national security and stability

    Sir: Nigeria cannot achieve lasting security without confronting one of the least discussed but most consequential issues affecting the country today: the unregulated movement of people across internal and external borders. While insecurity is often attributed to terrorism, banditry, economic hardship, or political tension, the silent contributor underlying many of these problems is the absence of an effective system for monitoring internal migration.

    Our constitution guarantees every citizen the right to reside and work in any part of the country. This right is foundational to national unity. However, the way movement currently occurs—frequently undocumented, unregulated, and poorly supervised—poses serious challenges for both the migrants and the communities receiving them. Over the past several years, Nigerians have grown accustomed to seeing large groups of young people transported across state lines in open trucks or trailers, often without any clear explanation of their destination, purpose, or support structure. This practice raises reasonable questions that demand policy attention.

    Who organises these mass movements? Are there legitimate jobs awaiting these individuals? Do they possess the necessary skills, training, or information to sustain themselves in their new locations? Why are they transported in conditions that compromise their dignity and safety? And most importantly, who is responsible for them when they arrive?

    In many cases, these questions go unanswered. Migrants are simply dropped in towns or cities and left to fend for themselves, often without accommodation, identification, or any verified means of livelihood. This situation is not only unfair to the migrants—many of whom are simply seeking survival in difficult economic times—it also creates security vulnerabilities.

    Unidentified individuals, regardless of their region or background, can be exploited by criminal networks, political actors, or opportunistic groups. In a nation already battling multiple security threats, the absence of a system to track or verify large-scale internal movement is a gap we can no longer afford to overlook.

    To address this, Nigeria urgently needs a well-designed internal migration management framework. Such a system should operate at multiple levels—ward, local government, state, and federal—and should prioritize documentation, transparency, and responsibility.

    First, a biometric and bio-data registration system should be introduced for individuals moving from one community to another. This is not to restrict lawful movement but to ensure that authorities and host communities know who is settling within their environment. This is standard practice in many stable countries and is not incompatible with freedom of movement.

    Second, there should be a clear system of guarantor-ship for migrants who plan to relocate permanently or semi-permanently. A guarantor—whether a family member, employer, community leader, or sponsor—should be responsible for confirming the individual’s identity and purpose. This discourages exploitation and prevents people from being moved anonymously in ways that could compromise their safety.

    Read Also: Akobo calls for redefinition of universities’ role in Nigeria’s emerging economy

    Third, governments should monitor mass transportation of people in trailers, trucks, or lorries, especially when young people are transported under conditions that suggest coercion, misinformation, or lack of planning. Enforcement agencies should have the authority to stop such vehicles, verify identities, confirm destinations, and ensure that the migrants understand why they are being transported.

    Fourth, local and state governments must become active participants in identifying and documenting new arrivals. Community policing efforts cannot be effective if residents, security personnel, and local authorities have no means of identifying unfamiliar individuals living within their jurisdiction. Proper documentation not only improves security; it also allows governments to plan for social services, workforce needs, and community development.

    If we continue to ignore the gaps created by uncontrolled internal migration, we risk deepening insecurity and undermining social cohesion. Conversely, if we implement responsible and humane migration management, we will not only enhance safety but also support economic growth. Migrants, when properly integrated, contribute significantly to labour markets, entrepreneurship, and cultural diversity. The goal is not to criminalize movement but to ensure it is structured, transparent, and beneficial to all parties.

    Nigeria is a vast country with diverse peoples, rich cultures, and boundless opportunities. But our progress will remain fragile if we fail to address the factors that weaken internal stability. What we need now is a collective commitment—from policymakers, security agencies, community leaders, and citizens—to look inward and build systems that protect our communities while respecting human dignity.

    Effective migration management is not merely a security strategy; it is a pathway to lasting peace, justice, and national prosperity.

    •Ted Isaiah Omobude,Jos, Plateau State.

  • There’s more to America’s sudden interest Nigeria

    There’s more to America’s sudden interest Nigeria

    Sir: The U.S. President, Donald Trump, recently released a statement alleging that Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. He not only labelled the country as one of particular concern but also vowed to invade in order to stop the killings of Christians. He also threatened to cut off aid support to Nigeria.

    As expected, Trump’s statement has generated controversies. Some welcomed the idea of a U.S. invasion, if only to put paid to the decades of insecurity in the country; others against the idea, citing countries that America has invaded where nothing good came out of it in the end. There are also those who remain neutral and would rather make fun of it.

    There is more to America’s sudden interest in Nigeria than meets the naked eye. Every right-thinking person knows that the Christian population in Nigeria is not the only casualty in the more than one decade of insecurity in the country. We are all casualties, to borrow from the lines of John Pepper Clark’s poem The Casualties. Christians have been killed as much as Muslims and even traditional worshippers. So, when someone sits in the Oval Office in America and talks about Christian genocide, does it mean that the Muslims and adherents of other religions who have been killed are nameless and faceless?

    It would shock some of those hailing Donald Trump if, after applying for asylum in America on claims of persecution in Nigeria, they are denied. The truth is that no Nigerian Christian should be happy with the Christian genocide narrative in a country where they are not minorities.

    Perhaps comprehension has become a casualty in this debate, but I find it difficult to understand how anyone can claim that President Trump’s recent statement on faith-based violence in Nigeria aligns with the sectarian agenda advanced by certain groups. Two points stand out clearly in his comments. First, he deliberately avoided describing the situation in Nigeria as “genocide,” instead using the phrase “existential threat to Christians.” Secondly, and crucially, he identified radical Islamists, not the Nigerian state, and certainly not Nigerian Muslims—as the perpetrators of violence. These distinctions matter greatly, as they contradict the divisive rhetoric being promoted by those seeking to pit one faith community against another.

    This is not the first time President Trump has raised concerns about alleged one-sided violence against Christians. During former President Muhammadu Buhari’s visit to the White House on April 30, 2018, Trump remarked: “We’re deeply concerned by religious violence in Nigeria, including the burning of churches and the killing of Christians.” In response, President Buhari, while framing the violence as indiscriminate, acknowledged the challenge of violent herdsmen and cross-border recruits from Libya and the Sahel, stressing that his government was doing its best to stabilise the situation.

    There is a reason that moment remains instructive. Rather than amplifying a narrative of state-sponsored sectarian extermination, the U.S. side identified religious violence as one of several security concerns. The Nigerian side responded by framing the violence as part of complex socio-security dynamics, not as a conspiracy of Muslims against their Christian compatriots.

    Read Also: Akobo calls for redefinition of universities’ role in Nigeria’s emerging economy

    President Trump’s statement, while emotively focused on Christian victims, does not mirror the propaganda promoted by some far-right commentators who claim that the Nigerian government turns a blind eye to attacks on Christians or that Nigerian Muslims are complicit. On the contrary, he singled out radical extremists. This distinction aligns with the Nigerian government’s own position and reflects the sacrifices of its multi-faith armed forces in confronting terrorism across the Sahel and West Africa.

    The line between NGO activism and diplomatic engagement is clear. Activism draws its energy from outrage, while diplomacy thrives on dialogue. In this regard, the response of Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs exemplifies the restraint and statesmanship required in such a situation. It acknowledges the concerns raised, reaffirms Nigeria’s commitment to religious freedom, and emphasises partnership with the United States in tackling violent extremism, the central theme of President Trump’s statement.

    Nigeria, as Africa’s largest democracy, operates in a sub-region where democratic governance has faced severe strain in recent years. It cannot afford the luxury of an antagonistic posture toward a strategic partner like the United States, and it is reasonable to believe that the U.S. authorities are equally aware of this. There are no winners in a diplomatic standoff between Abuja and Washington, only losses for both nations. What must prevail now is reason.

    •Zayd Ibn Isah,lawcadet1@gmail.com

  • Death of local government as Nigeria’s unspoken crisis

    Death of local government as Nigeria’s unspoken crisis

     Sir: Long before insecurity tightened its grip on our highways, long before poverty colonised the villages, and long before our cities became swollen refugee camps of the economically displaced, a quiet tragedy had already eaten deep into the nation’s foundation. It is the tragedy Nigeria does not talk about enough, the crisis that rarely makes headlines yet determines whether development succeeds or dies: the silent collapse of the local government system.

    Across the world, nations that work do so because governance begins from the bottom. In Nigeria, governance begins from the top — and too often dies there. The original intention behind creating 774 local government areas was noble: to take government to the people, to deliver water, roads, healthcare, schools, markets, records, and security at the grassroots. Today, that vision has become a shadow, wandering through empty secretariats and overgrown council premises.

    But a surprising twist has recently emerged in this long-standing decay — a twist that should have marked a rebirth, yet has instead exposed an even deeper problem.

    For decades, local government suffocation was blamed on the iron grip of governors who held their finances through the State Joint Allocation Account (JAAC). Then came what many hailed as liberation: President Bola Ahmed Tinubu supported, and the Supreme Court granted, full financial autonomy to the 774 local government councils.

    Read Also: Shettima, governors, commissioners, others meet in Abuja to tackle Nigeria’s education crisis

    It should have been the dawn of a new era. It should have breathed life into Nigeria’s most abandoned tier of government. It should have restored accountability, development, and people-focused governance.

    But autonomy has not resurrected the system — because the collapse is not only financial. It is structural. It is administrative. It is moral. It is political. And it is deeply entrenched.

    The autonomy ruling has exposed a painful truth: A system can be rescued on paper yet remain dead in practice.

    It is fashionable to blame Abuja. It is politically convenient to blame the states. But the true foundation of governance lies in the 774 local governments.

    Autonomy has now revealed the national contradiction: We fixed the pipe supplying water, but the tank and taps are corroded.

    If local governments were functional, Nigerians would feel governance every day — not as distant speeches in Abuja, but as clean boreholes, working markets, safe communities, and responsive ward-level administration.

    The truth is now clearer than ever: Autonomy alone cannot save Nigeria’s local governments. Implementation, accountability, capacity, and genuine democracy must follow.

    To fix Nigeria, autonomy must be matched with action. To fix Nigeria, we must revive the government closest to the people. To fix Nigeria, we must resurrect the 774 hearts that pump development into the nation.

    •Aliyu Abubakar Bello Dorayi, Kano.