Category: Comments

  • Fuel import tariff: Letter to Mr. President

    Fuel import tariff: Letter to Mr. President

    By Rotimi Matthew

    Mr President, Nigerians have walked with you through a season of fire. They have endured subsidy removal, foreign exchange shocks, inflation that eats wages before payday, and reforms that have stretched household budgets to their breaking point. They did so because you asked for time — time to rebuild, to reform, to restore.

    Now, after this difficult year of sacrifice, the government has confirmed that it will introduce a 15 per cent import duty on petrol and diesel. Mr President, this decision risks turning faith into fatigue. It could undo the fragile trust Nigerians have placed in your leadership.

    According to the leaked memorandum from the State House dated October 10, the new tariff is framed as a “market-responsive import framework” meant to “safeguard local refining capacity and stabilise the downstream market.” But Nigerians are not fooled by the language of protection when its result is punishment.

    This tariff, applied to the Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) value of imported fuel, will raise the landing cost of petrol by roughly N150–N175 per litre. That means the average pump price could surge toward N970 or more per litre, a direct hit to every household, every transport operator, every food vendor, every generator owner.

    This policy claims to “protect local refineries,” but the reality is different: it protects one refinery, the Dangote Refinery, at the expense of an entire nation. The refinery, which currently supplies only about 22 million litres daily, cannot meet Nigeria’s 50 million-litre daily consumption. So the rest will still come from imports — but now, imports that must bear a punitive 15 per cent tax, ensuring Dangote’s petrol looks cheaper, even when it isn’t.

    That is not protectionism; it is manipulation dressed as policy.

    Inside that closed circle lies the new “fuel cabal,” a collection of powerful businessmen who have aligned themselves with the refinery to dictate who lifts petrol, who gets access, and at what price. The market, which deregulation was meant to free, is now being redesigned for control.

    We are told this tariff will “stabilise the market.” But, as history teaches us, monopolies do not stabilise; they suffocate. In cement, sugar, and now fuel, the pattern remains the same: establish dominance, and then block rivals through state-backed regulations. What we are witnessing is not industrial policy — it is industrial capture.

    Every naira added to fuel prices ripples across the economy. Transport fares rise by 20–30%. Food prices follow. Inflation deepens. The middle class shrinks further. The poor lose what little dignity inflation has not already taken. And all this, in the name of protecting an investor who built a “state-of-the-art” refinery but cannot yet supply half the country’s needs.

    Economic policy is not a courtroom for the powerful to plead for privilege. It is a covenant between the government and the people. And that covenant is broken when policy tilts toward a single enterprise.

    Why protection does not build efficiency

    When global oil markets faced deregulation, from the United States to South Korea, competition — not tariffs — built resilience. Local refiners had to innovate, not lobby for protection. In the 1980s, American refiners survived the global glut not because of tariffs, but because the market forced them to be efficient, invest, and adapt. South Korea’s Chaebols, initially sheltered, became efficient only after the state opened competition and removed protectionist crutches.

    If a refinery built with global expertise and billions in investment cannot compete without government shields, then what is it offering Nigerians? The same Nigerians who have already indirectly funded infrastructure through public concessions, waivers, and policy privileges now face a second tax — at the pump.

    The psychological compact between citizens and the state depends on fairness. When people believe that one man or one company is being favoured at their expense, they stop seeing reform as progress. They see it as betrayal.

     Mr President, economic theory often hides its human cost. But behind every fuel price increase lies a family’s rationed meal, a trader’s collapsed margin, a farmer’s unaffordable transport. The sociology of hardship is cumulative — people can absorb one reform, perhaps two, but a third breaks faith.

    Nigerians are patient, but patience is not infinite. Inflation, currency devaluation, and insecurity already weigh heavily. A 15 per cent tariff on fuel is not a correction — it is cruelty wearing the mask of economic reform.

    Those who drafted this proposal insist the tariff is “not revenue-driven” but “corrective.” Yet every indicator shows that the correction benefits one player. The refinery’s own petrol, as of October 20, lands at N929.72 per litre — more expensive than the N802.44 landing cost of imported petrol.

    If local refining is truly efficient, why must it be shielded from competition? Why must the public pay a premium to protect inefficiency? The promise of local refining was cheaper fuel, not controlled pricing.

    Even more troubling, reports confirm that the refinery itself has imported cargoes of gasoline in recent weeks, claiming they were “blending components.” If the nation’s premier refinery must import finished products, how then can it claim protection from import competition? Is it a refinery, a blender, or both?

    Read Also: Nigeria must unite against fabricated divisions — Alawuje

    The contradictions are too loud to ignore.

    Mr President, Nigerians are not asking for perfection. They are asking for fairness. They are asking that your reform legacy not be hijacked by those who trade influence for policy.

    You have often spoken of restoring Nigeria’s credibility in the eyes of investors, citizens, and the global community. That credibility depends not on who we protect, but on what we protect — fairness, transparency, and competition.

    You fought cabals before; Nigerians remember. They trusted that you would never allow another to rise under your watch, this time cloaked in refinery smoke. The test is here again.

    Viable alternatives exist to protect both the refinery and the community: Promote competition instead of protection by permitting multiple refiners, importers, and marketers to operate simultaneously. Increase transparency by making the cost structures and local refiners’ production capacities publicly accessible. Implement a phased approach, applying tariffs only when domestic supply exceeds dependency on imports. Conduct independent assessments, empowering the FCCPC and NMDPRA to verify if the refinery’s pricing aligns with global standards.

    Mr President, every leader is tested by the counsel he keeps. Those urging this tariff are not protecting your legacy; they are protecting their leverage. They are not serving Nigeria; they are serving themselves. If this tariff goes forward, it will not only raise prices but also fuel resentment. It will feed the belief that government exists to protect the powerful, not the people.

    The Nigeria you promised, open, competitive, compassionate, begins not with the policies we announce, but with the ones we refuse to endorse when they betray the people’s trust.

    •Matthew, a policy and governance analyst, Abuja.

  • Trump: Why Nigeria needs understanding, not division

    Trump: Why Nigeria needs understanding, not division

    By Mayowa Alakija

    A few days ago, United States President Donald Trump on his Truth Social account, later shared on the official White House X (formerly Twitter) handle, announced that Nigeria had been designated a “Country of Particular Concern” over what he called the “genocide of Christians” and an “existential threat” to Christianity in Africa’s most populous nation. His words were emotional and intended to draw global attention. But as a concerned Nigerian, I believe such a sensitive issue deserves not only attention — it deserves understanding, context, and truth.

    The statement understandably stirred emotions at home and abroad. Yet beyond the rhetoric and statistics, we must respond with clarity and diplomacy — because what Nigeria faces is not a war of religion, but the scourge of violent extremism that has affected all faiths and ethnic groups across our vast nation.

    Let us state unequivocally: Nigeria does not condone the killing of any citizen, regardless of faith or ethnicity. Every life lost — whether Christian, Muslim, or of any creed — is a national tragedy. Our government, through the military, intelligence agencies, and community-based interventions, continues to confront terrorism in all its forms. What some portray as “genocide against Christians” is, in truth, a broader campaign of terror waged by extremist elements such as Boko Haram, ISWAP, and bandit groups — enemies of humanity who recognise neither church nor mosque.

    To frame Nigeria’s security challenge as a religious crusade is not only inaccurate but dangerous. Extremism — not Islam — drives the violence. In Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa states, hundreds of Muslims, including imams and scholars, have been brutally murdered by these same extremist factions for refusing to accept their distorted ideology.

    In 2014, Boko Haram massacred over 600 Muslims in Baga, accusing them of cooperating with the Nigerian military. A year later, a suicide bombing at the Kano Central Mosque during Friday prayers killed more than 120 worshippers — all Muslims. In 2017, extremists attacked a convoy of Muslim clerics travelling from Maiduguri to Gamboru, leaving dozens dead. These incidents, among countless others, reveal the complex nature of Nigeria’s security struggle — one that transcends religion.

    It is therefore regrettable that a leader of President Trump’s stature would characterise Nigeria’s situation as Christian persecution without acknowledging the shared suffering of all faiths. If America truly seeks to help, it must begin with understanding — not division.

    Indeed, the United States itself remains a work in progress when it comes to protecting lives and promoting equality. The Black Lives Matter movement, born out of repeated instances of police brutality and systemic discrimination against African Americans, reminds us that no nation is immune to internal challenges. Just as we do not judge America solely by its racial conflicts, the world must not judge Nigeria through a narrow religious lens.

    Every nation grapples with its demons. America’s racial tensions, school shootings, and hate crimes mirror Nigeria’s own struggles with ethnic suspicion, poverty, and insurgency. What defines a nation is not its problems, but its commitment to solving them.

    Nigeria’s Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, reaffirmed the government’s commitment to unity and tolerance, stating: “Nigeria remains a secular, multi-religious state. Our constitution guarantees freedom of worship, and the Nigerian people — both Christians and Muslims — have lived together for centuries in peace. The few who choose violence do not represent us, and they will not prevail.”

    This reflects the truth that Nigeria’s challenge is not about religion, but about a shared determination to defeat the forces of extremism.

    Similarly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar, emphasised that the U.S. designation misrepresents the situation on the ground, saying: “We have consistently engaged our international partners to understand that Nigeria’s security challenge is rooted in extremism and underdevelopment, not religion. To tag it as genocide against one faith community distorts reality and undermines the collaborative effort we need to fight global terrorism.”

    President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in his renewed commitment to national stability, has also declared that his administration will “continue to work with international allies to strengthen our internal security and address the root causes of conflict — poverty, illiteracy, and misinformation.”  The Renewed Hope Agenda is not just a slogan — it is a deliberate, people-centred effort to rebuild trust and reinforce the pillars of unity and progress.

    Read Also: Abia, Turkey partner to promote made-in-Nigeria goods

    At this delicate stage of national consolidation, divisive narratives do not serve the cause of peace. The United States, a global partner and friend, should recognise the nuances of Nigeria’s struggle — as a battle against extremism, not between religions. What we need is cooperation in intelligence sharing, humanitarian aid, and capacity building, not designations that stigmatise and polarise.

    Nigeria is not at war with Christianity. We are at war with extremism. Our Christian and Muslim leaders have long worked side by side for peace. Across our nation, churches and mosques continue to preach coexistence and tolerance — values deeply ingrained in the Nigerian spirit.

    As Cardinal John Onaiyekan, former Archbishop of Abuja, once noted: “Those who kill in the name of God do not know God. Nigerian Christians and Muslims have a duty to defend peace and expose those who profit from hatred.”

    The call, therefore, is for partnership, not punishment; for empathy, not exclusion. The United States should stand with Nigeria in solidarity, not stand above her in judgment. Because when we see the humanity in each other — whether Black or White, Christian or Muslim — only then can we build the peaceful world we all desire.

    The best path forward is not in trading accusations, but in building bridges of empathy. Nigeria and the United States have long shared historical, educational, and cultural ties that must be deepened — especially now. It is time for both nations to consider establishing a Nigeria–U.S. Interfaith and Peace Collaboration Forum, where faith leaders, civil society actors, scholars, and youth advocates can come together to counter extremist ideologies and foster community resilience.

    We must shift global conversations from blame to collaboration. A joint initiative on counter-extremism and interfaith education could empower young people with knowledge, tolerance, and opportunity — the true antidotes to radicalisation. America’s experience in civil rights and community dialogue could complement Nigeria’s grassroots peacebuilding to form a model for other nations confronting extremism.

    As a Nigerian who believes deeply in the unity of our diverse people, I see immense value in dialogue built on respect and empathy. Our story is not one of endless conflict, but of resilience, faith, and shared humanity.

    If the world must remember Nigeria, let it remember us not for our challenges — but for how we overcame them, together.

    •Alakija writes from Mafoluku, Oshodi, Lagos

  • Soldier go, soldier come

    Soldier go, soldier come

    By Mike Kebonkwu

    The change of Service Chiefs by Mr President was a masterstroke and could not have come at a better time.  It came at the heels of palpable fear or apprehension of coup plot leading to the low keyed Independence Day celebration without the usual razzmatazz of military parade and display of splendour.  The change of Service Chiefs  was politically strategic, and operationally expedient to give valve and impetus to the fight against  insecurity hopefully, and stabilize the polity.  The appointments may have been viewed rather through political prism, but those appointed are eminently qualified as generals.

    A general ordinarily should be an embodiment of military doctrine and professionalism where the system that produces them is rigorous.  We may not know their antecedents but what we are given is what our system has produced; let them prove their mettles as hard core professionals in the face of the challenging security environment. 

    They have both Constitutional and statutory duties and their loyalty should be to the country.  Mr President is conferred with the power to appoint service chiefs without permission.

    Section 218(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2010 as amended provides thus: “The power conferred on the President by subsection (1) of this section shall include power to appoint the Chief of Defence Staff, the Chief of Army Staff, the Chief of Naval Staff, the Chief of Air Staff and Heads of any other branches of the armed forces of the Federation as may be established by an Act of the National Assembly”. Whatever motive anybody may impute, Mr President does not need any permission; it is within his prerogative. 

    Following the change of Service Chiefs, there have been flurries of activities within the military establishments. There have been postings and appointments to fill opened vacancies, while others have to call it a quit and continue with their lives outside the military; “soldier go, soldier come, barracks remain”. 

    Read Also: Accelerating Nigeria’s growth: NDIS 2025 poised to mobilise diaspora investments

    It was an electrifying atmosphere in the Mogadishu Military Cantonment in Asokoro, formerly Sani Abacha’s Barracks on October 31.  There was a military ceremony and colourful parade, marking the Pulling-Out-Parade of the erstwhile Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) of the Armed Forces of Nigeria (AFN), General Christopher Gwabin Musa.  General CG Musa was a consummate soldier; like a meteoric star, rising from the rank of Second Lieutenant to a 4-Star General.  He belonged to the Infantry Corps of the Nigerian Army that pride themselves as the Queens of Battle.  He does not have the fearsome look of the tempestuous American General, Norman Schwarzkopf of the famed Operation Desert Storm, whose thunderous voice conversation will shake the telephone handset at the receiving end, even while talking to his Commander-in-Chief.  General Musa did not seem to have the swagger and volcanic temper of a General Victor Malu and one of our celebrated military commanders, and a former Chief of Army Staff who was like a charging bull, fearless! 

    General Musa has a gentle mien but a steel heart; he is expressive without bothering to be politically correct and sometimes courting controversy.  He is a militarist to boot that prefers to treat the enemies of state with a good dose of lethal force, as a soldier.  His view on dealing with insecurity and criminal elements did not quite coincide with the political establishment.  He was a little bit hawkish, without being brash! He was the last man standing from the Nigerian Defence Academy Regular Course 38.  General Christopher Musa  bowed out of Service in a grand style, just the same way he came by storm when he was picked by Mr President to be the CDS. 

    About a week ago, the news broke that Mr President had sacked the Chief of Defence Staff with immediate effect.   Mr President did not sack the CDS, he changed the Service Chiefs.  This does not call for linguistic analysis.  It was time for him to go after 35 years of meritorious military service to the fatherland.  Public office is not a permanent abode to deify people to stay glued as if on ancestral stool, like a Paul Biya of Cameroon. Change is the only constant thing in life and we should embrace it to meet the self-regulating order to rejuvenate the public system. 

    In the flux of life, there is a continuous movement from cradle to the grave.  If an establishment cannot function without one person, then there is a system failure because succession plan is supposed to be inbuilt into any bureaucracy.  Tenure elongation kills a bureaucracy! 

    General CG Musa was one of the finest the Armed Forces of Nigeria has produced lately.  He is expressive and does not shy away from controversy, maintaining his view on professional standpoint whether it was popular or not.  He was the closest to what the pristine soldiering and military tradition should be, treating enemies of the state not as victims to be issued olive branches, but to be served and given  spicy sauce of lead, and bloody nose.

    One only hopes that the change would serve to re-calibrate and reinvigorate the war against insurgency and insecurity which we have been fighting half-heartedly due to political considerations.  What is true so far is that our security architecture has fared better in political battles more than fighting insecurity. 

    What is true is that appointment of military commanders should not be lost in politics as we are gradually doing or perceived to be doing.  This is because it is going to rob off on our ability to protect our territorial integrity and security of lives and properties.  We are up against very serious threat of insurgency and  criminality that threaten our corporate existence.  Those saddled with responsibility of running our security architecture favour appeasement and pacification of criminals who are daily building and expanding their armoury, and recruiting from the teaming army of unemployed and unemployable youths across the country into their ranks. 

    Gradually, we are creating private and regional armies which portend very grave danger and security risk.  One can only see the equivalent and comparison of the Boko Haram insurgents, armed herdsmen, bandits, and the Eastern Security Network (ESN) of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)  gravitating towards private regional armies just like  Janjaweed militia in Darfur and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) fighting against the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).  They have destabilized the entire Sudan, turning it one theatre of operation and dislocation of the population.  The states are building armed security outfits like the civilian joint task force (CJTF), Amotekun etc etc, militarizing the entire political space without offering protection and safety to the people. Kidnappers and bandits have taken over the entire road networks across the country and terrorising our local communities and even city centres.

    I am persuaded that any modern global military doctrine that aligns with negotiation and rehabilitation of criminals as the government appears to prefer is an admission of failure of its security forces, and bowing to political pressure.  That is where Christopher Musa appears to differ with some elements in the security architecture who favour rapprochement.  Officers and soldiers know their commanders; not everyone can command men in battle. 

    General CG Musa was one of the finest in the crème la crème of the Nigerian Military lately; so long General! Welcome to the rank of veterans!

    •Kebonkwu Esq, an Abuja-based attorney writes via mikekebonkwu@yahoo.com

  • Before the looming crisis in Jonathan’s home becomes manifest

    Before the looming crisis in Jonathan’s home becomes manifest

    A trouble of national dimension is brewing in the household of former President Goodluck Jonathan. His illustrious union with former First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan is under threat of collapse over their differing stance on the 2027 presidential election. Surprisingly, none of our statesmen, elders, traditional rulers or religious leaders appears to be conscious of this clear and present danger to our national life.

    At the base of the looming crisis is the inability of the former president and his wife to find a common ground with regard to support for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s second term ambition. While Jonathan sees in the 2027 elections an opportunity for another shot at the coveted seat of the President, his wife sees in it an opportunity to reciprocate the support her husband enjoyed from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu while seeking to be elected as President in 2011, and throw her full weight behind the President’s second term ambition in 2027.

    Speaking in Abuja after receiving the Women Icon Leader of the Year award in May this year, Mrs Jonathan did not only dismiss insinuations that her husband might contest the 2027 presidential election, she also vowed to campaign vigorously for the re-election of President Tinubu as a firm believer in the saying that one good turn deserves another. Her stance, she said, was also informed by her long-standing friendship with the First Lady, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, and the mutual respect they have for each other.

    “Even when my husband was the Vice President, Oluremi stood with her husband and supported us during our first election. So, for me, I have a conscience. I cannot abandon my friend, whether you like it or not,” she said.

    With emphasis that she would rather enjoy her rest and peace of mind than return to Aso Rock Presidential Villa, Mrs Jonathan said: “I am not running. I am not going back to the (Presidential) Villa. If you call me, I will not go. Don’t you like how young I look? People say Mama, you are young, Mama, you are young. It is because I have rest of mind.

    Read Also: Peterside  calls for credible administrators in NFF

    “I don’t want to go there; let my friend be there, because, you see, it is turn by turn. Today is my turn, I will go; tomorrow, it will be another person’s turn; they will go. And when we go, we will still meet. Where we will meet, I don’t know.”

    But the former First Lady’s stance on the issue is at variance with her husband’s if the moves he has making towards another shot at the presidency in recent times are anything to go by. The former President, according to media reports, has in recent months engaged in intense consultations towards a return to the Presidential Villa in spite of obvious legal and political encumbrances.

    He had begun his consultations with a visit to the Hilltop home of former military president Ibrahim Babangida in Minna, Niger State, where the latter reportedly told him point blank that he should not risk his reputation by throwing his hat in the ring, because the odds did not favour him. Another visit he paid to the National Chairman of African Democratic Congress (ADC), Senator David Mark, produced a no less disappointing result with the latter’s warning that there would be no automatic ticket for the former president in the party widely believed to owe its soul to perennial presidential aspirant and former Vice President, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

    Added to the foregoing is the fact that the people that once constituted the nucleus of his support base during his active days in politics are either no more or have shifted their loyalty elsewhere. Chief J.P. Clark, the respected Ijaw leader and First Republic politician reputed for his strong support for Jonathan, has passed on. Douye Diri, the governor of Jonathan’s home state of Bayelsa, who ordinarily should constitute the arrow head of the former president’s support base, recently defected from the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) whose platform Jonathan rode to power, with every indication pointing to the ruling APC as his next destination. The Chairman of Tantita Security Services Nigeria Limited, High Chief Government Oweizide Ekpemupolo a.k.a. Tompolo, once a die-in-the-wool supporter of Jonathan, is now an ardent Tinubu supporter in the Niger Delta.

    As things stand, much of the myth, the awe and the respect that once made Jonathan the toast of the political class has vanished, and his wife might have taken cognizance of this in her vow that she would never return to the Presidential Villa. But Jonathan appears hell bent on returning to Aso Rock, exposing the nation to the ugly prospects of a presidential villa without a First Lady.

    God forbid that our former president becomes a divorcee after an illustrious marital life that has become the reference point of marriage counsellors home and abroad. Were Pa Clark alive, he would have convened a meeting of Niger Delta elders to dig into the remote and immediate causes of this veritable threat to the nation’s foremost institution.

    For now, not even a clan meeting is in the offing to nip the imminent crisis in the bud, fueling fears among well-meaning Nigerians that things could get out of hands. In that event, the former president will have no one to blame but himself. His descent into the realm of controversy was a personal decision.

  • The problem with Ogun digital land administration

    The problem with Ogun digital land administration

    By Hassan J. Yakubu

    When the Ogun State government launched the Ogun Land Administration and Revenue Management System (OLARMS), it was rightly hailed as a landmark in governance reform, a digital leap designed to make land registration faster, more transparent, and less vulnerable to human interference. In a state celebrated as Nigeria’s industrial capital and gateway to Western civilization, where land is the lifeblood of industrial and urban expansion, this initiative was both necessary and visionary.

    Yet as digital innovation meets legal tradition, a crucial question emerges: how can Ogun State ensure that its march toward efficiency does not trample upon professional ethics, the rule of law, and the sanctity of property rights?

    No one disputes that OLARMS and the Bureau of Lands’ digitization efforts are progressive.

    Digitization reduces red tape, curtails corruption, improves accessibility, and accelerates service delivery. However, a worrying operational practice has emerged.

    The platform and Stamp Duties Office currently permit the upload and processing of payment receipts, commonly described as family land receipts, as part of the documentary requirements for issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. While convenient, this practice is legally and professionally problematic.

    A receipt is evidence of payment, it is not a land instrument. The statutory and professional framework that governs land transactions, including Section 22(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act and Rule 10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct 2007, reserves the preparation and attestation of instruments affecting land to qualified legal practitioners and requires that documents intended for registration bear the appropriate legal formalities, including franking, proper execution and where applicable, professional stamps and seals. Substituting properly prepared conveyances, assignments, leases or deeds with mere receipts undermines those protections and in practice is chasing legal practitioners out of the vital role of drafting, vetting and preparing land instruments.

    The courts have consistently reminded us that formal requirements are not empty technicalities. In Okafor v. Nweke, the Supreme Court held that processes signed by unqualified persons are fundamentally defective.

    By logical extension, documents that do not meet the formal criteria for registrable instruments cannot safely or legitimately be made the principal evidence of title. Treating receipts as equivalent to instruments increases the risk of fraud, fosters uncertainty of title, and sets the stage for future litigation.

    That said, the reality of general practice must be acknowledged.

    Families will continue to issue receipts. The remedy is not to criminalize private receipts but to ensure they are not elevated into mandatory or determinative documentary requirements for registration.

    At a minimum, receipts should be optional supplementary evidence of payment, admissible to show consideration where relevant, but never a substitute for properly executed legal instruments or for the professional due diligence that lawyers provide, including searches at the Lands Registry, the Surveyor General’s Office, CAC checks, compliance with Governor’s Consent requirements, correct stamping and other statutory compliance. In short, digitization should improve access to services without displacing the legal safeguards that protect property rights and preserve the role of legal practitioners in land conveyancing.

    According to the National Bureau of Statistics, land and property disputes account for nearly 65% of civil litigation in many states’ high courts, while the Bureau of Lands in Ogun has publicly acknowledged significant backlogs in title regularization caused by defective documentation.

    A digital platform that does not integrate professional safeguards risks amplifying these problems rather than solving them.

    For this reason, the Bureau of Lands must adopt a firm policy of rejecting informal instruments such as handwritten receipts, unsealed agreements, or “acknowledgment” notes as evidence of ownership or as the basis for processing a C of O. Such documents, often prepared by non-lawyers, lack legal validity under the LPA and established case law. A receipt merely acknowledges payment; it does not convey legal title.

     A valid conveyance or assignment, properly drafted, stamped, and registered, remains the only legal instrument that can transfer an interest in land. When registries accept informal documents, they inadvertently encourage quackery, enable fraud, and generate a flood of disputes that clog both the courts and administrative systems.

    Speaking of instruments, The Land Instruments Registration Law of Ogun State provides in Section 2 that: “Instrument” means a document affecting land in the State whereby one party confers, transfers, limits, charges or extinguishes in favour of another any right or title to or interest in land in the State and includes (a) an estate contract, (b) a certificate of purchase, (c) a power of attorney under which any instrument may be executed, and (d) a deed of appointment or discharge of trustees containing expressly or impliedly a vesting declaration and affecting any land to which section 27 of the Trustee Law extends, but does not include a will. By this definition, a receipt does not and cannot qualify as a registrable instrument.

     It merely acknowledges payment; it does not confer or transfer an interest in land. The continued collection or upload of land purchase receipts as registrable documents, even during preliminary assessment at the Bureau of Lands or Stamp Duties Office, is inconsistent with the spirit and letter of this law. The practice not only trivializes land documentation but also invites abuse, fraud, and title disputes.

    Global best practices reinforce this approach. In the United Kingdom, the HM Land Registry operates a highly digitized land registration system that enhances public access to property information. However, only solicitors and licensed conveyancers are authorized to prepare and lodge instruments electronically. The reasoning is clear: conveyancing is a legal process, not a clerical one, and professional accountability ensures the integrity of the register.

    Read Also: The Companion condemns alleged Christian genocide in Nigeria

    Similarly, in Ontario, Canada, the Teraview electronic registration system grants the public access to property data but allows only accredited lawyers and licensed conveyancers to submit instruments. In Kenya, the Ardhisasa digital platform, widely regarded as a model for African innovation, lets the public monitor transactions and verify ownership, but restricts the preparation and uploading of instruments to registered advocates, surveyors, and licensed professionals. Across these jurisdictions, a consistent pattern emerges: public transparency and professional control are complementary pillars of trust.

     A system that opens its windows to the public while keeping its doors safeguarded by professionals achieves both accessibility and accountability.

    Closer to home, Nigeria’s Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) provides a useful domestic analogy. While the CAC portal allows anyone to search the company register, only accredited professionals, lawyers, accountants, and chartered secretaries, are permitted to make filings or effect company registrations. This dual structure protects the integrity of the corporate register. It is therefore both logical and necessary that land documentation, an area even more prone to fraud and disputes, should maintain similar professional safeguards within OLARMS. By ensuring that only duly verified, lawyer-prepared instruments enter the system, Ogun State can prevent the digitization process from becoming a breeding ground for future litigation.

    Ultimately, the reform of OLARMS is not a struggle for dominance among professions but a defence of institutional integrity. Land documentation and registration lie at the intersection of law, governance, and economic development. When handled by unqualified persons, they breed fraud, litigation, and public distrust. But when managed by trained professionals under a transparent, digital framework, they foster investor confidence, protect state revenue, and promote justice.

    Ogun State stands at a defining moment. Its digital transformation efforts can set a national benchmark for transparent and efficient governance if implemented with precision and respect for professional boundaries. A system that accepts only lawyer-prepared and duly verified instruments, rejects informal documents, operates under professional oversight, and provides predictable, transparent processing timelines will not only streamline registration but will secure the very foundation of property rights in the state. That is what true transparency means, not a portal open to all hands, but a process anchored on legality, professionalism, accountability, and trust.

    •.Yakubu writes from Abeokuta, Ogun State.

  • Leadership and identity politics

    Leadership and identity politics

    By Frank Anyasi

    The trouble with Africa is simply and squarely a challenge of leadership. Africa has fantastic climate and abundant natural resources. The problem is the inability of her leaders to harness these resources for speedy development. Leadership is indispensable to any association of human beings desirous of achieving whatever goals it sets for itself. When such an association is engaged in a difficult undertaking or is in pursuit of a risky objective such as nation-building, the need for competent leadership becomes particularly urgent. It is like having the captain who takes control over those “who go down to the sea in ships” or up into the clouds in aircraft.

    Leadership is a sacred trust. No one gets into it lightly or unadvisedly, because it demands qualities of mind and discipline of the body. Anybody who offers himself or herself or is offered to the society for leadership should be aware of the unusually high demand of the role and should, if in any doubt whatsoever, firmly refuse the prompting.

    I know someone who refuses every offer of leadership. His argument is simply that he does not have what it takes to be a leader.

    It is difficult to adequately address the qualities of a leader. But there are certain concrete skills that set real leaders apart: The ability to influence others and guide a team to success; the ability to see the  bigger picture of the  future and  device a  winning  strategy, to understand the strengths and  weaknesses and use  the  knowledge to negotiate and navigate  challenges.

     The problem posed by leadership is that of selection. Political philosophers from Socrates to the present time have wrestled with it. Every human society including our contemporary ones has battled with it.

    In traditional monarchical systems such as we would have  today  dismissed  as anachronistic, there were  elite  groups  called the  kingmakers  whose  business was to keep  an  eye  on all the eligible  princes. They were to choose the best when the time came. These kingmakers were specially qualified  by tradition and their  knowledge of the  history of the kingdom. Those of us who often  doubt that  we could learn anything  from traditional  system and usage could  compare the  scrupulousness of the  kingmakers with the  lack of it  in our  elections.

    Nigeria is a child, gifted, enormously talented, prodigiously endowed and developing. Nigerians have their work cut out for them to help the child navigate the path of careful creative development.  Since the colonial time, Nigeria has had the challenge of leadership. There is a proverb “If you cannot tell where the rain began to beat you, you will not know where the sun dried your body.” The basic element of this challenge is the absence of intellectual rigour in the political thought of our founding fathers – a tendency towards materialistic woolliness. According to Chinua Achebe in his book the Trouble with Nigeria, “The poverty of the political thought was exhibited in the biographies of Dr Nnamdi Azikwe and Chief Obafemi Awolowo. In contrast to the expressions of ideology found in more informal works of Kwame Nkrumah and Ju;ius Nyerere.”

    For instance, in the solemn vow made  by Azikwe in 1937, he  pledged  that  henceforth I shall utilise  my  earned income to  secure my enjoyment of high standard of living and  give a helping hand to the needy. Awolowo was even more forthright about his ambition: “I am going to make myself formidable intellectually and morally invulnerable, and make all the money that is possible for a man of my brains and brawn to make in Nigeria”.

    Thoughts as these are likely to produce aggressive billionaires than selfless leaders. An absence of objectivity and intellectual rigour at the crucial moment of a nation’s formation is more than academic matter. It inclines the young state to disorderly growth. Take  note those were  not  the  musing in the  evening  of their  lives but  the youthful  credo  launched in  their  political  career. If Nigerians were a more discerning people, they should never have trusted them with their lives.

    But  a worse tragedy is that  a crop of  new generation  in  Nigerian politics whose mission should have been to inaugurate  a new philosophy and  practice of politics  devoid of narrowness and opportunism, capable  of preparing the country for the challenges of development chose to become revivalists of a bankrupt  political  manoeuvring, tribal expediency and consummate selfishness. And they are still fostering this diseased tradition among their followers.

    In a democracy, persuasion is the central mechanism for gaining and maintaining political power. However, in Nigerian context, while persuasion is officially part of the process, it is frequently undermined by various anti-democratic practices such as exploitation of ethnic and religious divisions.  Instead of focusing on issues, politicians frequently rely on manipulative and sometimes vile rhetoric to shape public opinion and mobilise support. This is often tied to identity politics where appeals to ethnicity, religion and regionalism can sway voters more than policy proposals.

    Read Also: Nigeria, other countries to tackle education crisis at World Schools Summit

    The current gale of defection has shown that politicians do not bother about the consent of the people who voted for them before taking certain decisions. According to some governors, they defected  to partner with the  central government and  to attract benefits  to the states. Modern federalism has moved from dual to corporative federalism where national and state governments share power and work together to address common problems. Some critics have described the defections as driven entirely by survival strategies, opportunism and selfishness. The action has damaging consequences on our political culture.   It is up to the succeeding generation to change the trajectory and develop a new political culture based on civilised political values.

    According to Karl Marx, “The problem of the world is not to explain it but to solve it “.

    Nigerians are not more gullible than other people. But in the specific matter of elections they have performed below their potentials. The electorate has deprived themselves of their powers over the politicians by falling prey to instigated divisions of ethnicity, religion, poverty complex et cetera. In effect, the Nigerian voter is effectively disenfranchised by these manipulative divisions.

    But the successful politicians will link up with their tribal and religious enemies once they get into the legislature, to promote measures that are of common interest to their new elite class, such as increase in emolument, purchase of luxury cars and other benefits.

    The cliché  that the people  get the  leaders they deserve is a  useful exaggeration- useful  because  it reminds  the  general populace  of the  need  for  vigilance in selecting  their  leaders and  for  keeping them under constant  surveillance. The voter must ask the politicians important question such as why do you want my vote and must treat the easy answer of the politicians with appropriate scepticism.

    The educated Nigerians have not fared better.  They have for too long stood on the side-lines and many of them have adopted the attitude of if you cannot beat them you join them. Their actions and cynical  actions are serious betrayal  of their education,  historic  mission and  succeeding generation, who  will have  no future unless they  save it  for  them. To be educated is after all, to develop the questioning habit and to be sceptical to easy promises and use past experience creatively. The ordinary man needs to be guided by the intellectual class to vote wisely. They must go back to work to produce that salt of commitment and excellence which the people rely on them to drop into the boiling soup pot of leadership.

  • Mobilising Africa’s private sector for AfCFTA amid global uncertainty

    Mobilising Africa’s private sector for AfCFTA amid global uncertainty

    By J. K. Randle

    The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) represents one of the most ambitious and promising undertakings in Africa’s integration agenda as critically espoused in the African Union’s Agenda 2063. With its potential to unite 55 countries into a single market of over 1.4 billion people and a combined GDP exceeding $3.4 trillion, it is a bold step towards achieving the long-held dream of Pan-African economic self-determination. It promises to dismantle artificial barriers, facilitate the return of intra-African trade, promote industrialization, and generate millions of jobs, especially for our vibrant youth that accounts for 70% of our population.

    This forum is our modest contribution to ongoing efforts at ensuring that intra-African trade grows at an annual average rate of 6.6% between 2025 and 2027 and that Nigeria and other African countries achieve the revised annual GDP growth rate of 8% and that expedient steps are taken to ensure that the realisation of our collective optimism is not dampened by pervading global uncertainties.

    The very great economic heights that the 55 member nation AfCFTA might attain if Africa’s economy could be fully integrated were highlighted recently by the globally renowned development economist, Professor Jeffery Sachs at the Unstoppable Africa Forum which was one of the side events of the United Nations General Assembly last month in New York. According to Sachs, AfCFTA nations with a combined population of 1.4 billion could have their integrated GDP of $3.4 trillion grown considerably like those of China and India with $18 trillion GDP and $13 trillion GDP respectively and with comparable population of 1.4 billion like that of Africa, if Africa’s economy could be fully integrated rapidly. He explained that the resultant connectivity and other benefits would enable African entrepreneurs produce more competitively at scale, boost intra African trade and increase Africa’s contribution to global trade beyond the paltry 3%.

    As promising as the prospects of AfCFTA are and its catalytic impact on the realization of AU’s Agenda 2063, Nigeria has been vested with responsibility of leading Africa’s renaissance by leading development experts and even great African leaders. Nelson Mandela, the president of South Africa, 1994-1999 said “The world will not respect Africa until Nigeria earns that respect. The black people of the world need Nigeria to be great as a source of pride and confidence”. In the same vein, Patrice Lumumba, first Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960-1961 also said “The day Nigeria wakes up, Africa will never be the same again”

    These are some of the important considerations that underscore the significance of this High Level Forum as well as its theme and why it was convened by NEPAD Business Group Nigeria with the full support of national and subnational governments and the Chief Executive Officer/National Coordinator AUDA/NEPAD Nigeria Honourable Jabiru Salisu Abdulahi as well as private leaders and Nigeria’s development partners.   

    NEPAD Business Group Nigeria is of the strong conviction that the private sector remains the engine of Africa’s transformation. Through this Forum, we aim to build actionable strategies that will strengthen Africa’s economic resilience, promote cross-border trade, and ensure inclusive prosperity for all.

    We are also of the view that the true dividends of AfCFTA will only be realized if all African countries build internal capacities that would enable them engage competitively and sustainably within the African market and beyond. This is why this forum has been designed to place emphasis on Mobilising and Strengthening Africa’s Private Sector to Become Globally Competitive, which is a call to boost our productivity and competitiveness towards enhancing intra-African trade and Africa’s participation in global trade beyond the depressingly low average figure of 3%.

    Prerequisites for accomplishing these laudable aspirations include the prevision of enabling business environments and the required infrastructure, human capital development to equip our youths with requisite skillset that would also enhance their capacity to innovate as well as substantial financial resources 70% of which should be mobilised domestically as enunciated under the African Union’s Agenda 2063.

    While taking bold steps that are designed to accelerate the realisation of the bright prospects of AfCFTA, we must not be oblivious to external threats that could undermine its implementation. From global economic volatilities characterised by tariff wars, dwindling external financial support, to geopolitical tensions, Africa must fortify itself against disruptions that can reverse our gains and prevent us from accomplishing the targets set in AU’s Agenda 2063, Nigeria’s Agenda 2050 as well as our respective developmental and entrepreneurial aspirations. These threats require strategic foresight, policy coherence, and above all, continental solidarity amongst other considerations.

    Read Also: Nigerians revive ‘Justice For Ochanya’ seven years after teen’s death

    To quote a professional colleague, friend and brother Adedotun Suleiman who at his presentation at the Annual Directors Conference of the Chartered Institute of Directors Nigeria wisely counselled that:

    “As we look ahead, we must also prepare for future disruptors, artificial intelligence, cyber risks, global trade fragmentation, protectionism, and climate transitions. Each will test the governance systems we build today.

    So, let us lead with foresight.

    Let us invest in resilience as deliberately as we invest in growth.

    Let us make adaptability our competitive edge.

    Because in a world where disruption is inevitable, resilience is the ultimate advantage.

    The task of leadership is to build organizations resilient enough to absorb shocks and still function, adaptive enough to learn and transform, and strong enough to own their future. And as Nigerian directors, we are the architects of that resilience.”

    This also explains why we have today brought together policy makers, private sector leaders, financial institutions, development agencies, and academicians from within and outside Africa to chart practical pathways for maximizing the immense opportunities presented by the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) – the largest trade bloc in the world- and articulating strategies for mitigating the external threats to its implementation. Our discussions should please be frank, pragmatic, and solutions-driven. This gathering is an opportunity to forge stronger partnerships, generate actionable recommendations, and align our strategies for collective progress.

    Let us seize this moment to reaffirm our faith in Nigeria’s ability to shape its own destiny towards achieving the $1 trillion GDP within the context of an integrated African Market whose current GDP of $3.4 trillion is projected to reach $8.87 trillion by 2043 and possibly exceed  $10 trillion by 2063 which is the terminal date of the African Union’s master plan, Agenda 2063. Let us be bold, visionary and collaborative. The road ahead may be challenging, our collective goal, a prosperous, self-reliant, and globally competitive Nigeria and African continent, is well within our reach.

    •Bashorun Randle, FCA, OFR, chairman, NEPAD Business Group Nigeria delivered this paper at the High-Level Business Forum on Harnessing the Private Sector for Africa’s Economic Renaissance, at Eko Hotels and Suites, Lagos.

  • 2027 Presidential election and the constitutional provision

    2027 Presidential election and the constitutional provision

    By Isa Ayo Salami

    Mr. Lawal Ogienagbon in his column in The Nation of Thursday, September 4, 2025 ably dealt with the issue appertaining to eligibility of Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to seek second term in the office of the president in the 2027 general election being a person who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as president having been elected for another term. The persons goading him on seem to be contending that the subsequent amendments to the Constitution cannot take a retrospective effect.

    This turns on the interpretation of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act, No 16 of 2018).

    Succinctly the facts relevant to a dispassionate resolution of the controversy are as follows. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan contested and won the presidential election in 2007 as running mate of Umoru Musa Yar’Adua as president and he as vice president.

    Sadly president Umoru Musa Yar’Adua succumbed to illness and died and Jonathan almost automatically ascended to the office of the president, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution in 2010 to complete the term for which Yar’Adua was elected as president.

    He sought and was elected in 2011 for first term in his own right. He, however, unsuccessfully bid for a second term in 2015 when he was resoundingly trashed at the polls, by Muhammadu Buhari also of blessed memory.

    He was, undoubtedly eligible to seek the office of the president for second term in 2015 when he did but suffered electoral reverse. In 2017, the National Assembly, however, amended the Constitution which amendment was not

    assented to until 2018. The amendment introduced a new sub-section (3) to section 137 which provides as follows –

    S.137-(3) A person who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as president shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.

    Section 182(3) which is inpari matariam with section 137(3) deals with the eligibility or otherwise of State governors to seek second term.

    The United States of America where, we seem to have adopted presidential system of governance incorporated similar provision into her Constitution by Amendment XXII of 1951 which reads as follows –

    No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of the president, or acted as president for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of president when the Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of president, or acting as president, during the terms within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of the president or acting as president during the remainder of such term.

    The intendment of the Fourth Alteration Act, No 16 of 2018 is to align our Constitution with that of the United States of America Amendment XXII of 1951 which in effect provides for a maximum tenure of a president of two terms of four years each, totaling eight years. In United States of America, the duration of the period spent out of the term for which another person was elected as president must be more than two years unlike the amendment effected in the Fourth

    Alteration Act, No 16 of 2018 which is silent on the duration of period spent from the term of his predecessor.

    It is also worthy of note that the Fourth Alteration Act, No 16 of 2018 does not take cognisance of the proviso in the United States of America XXII Amendment which provides for certain exemptions. If the makers of the Nigerian Amendment had intended to so provide for such exemption it would have followed the American precedent.

    The general principles in construing the provision of a statute are that where the words are clear and unambiguous, it is the word used that prevails and not what a judge says the provision means. See Goodrich v Paisher 1957 AC 65, 68 per Lord Reid who said “No court is entitled to substitute its words for the words of the statute”. If a gap is disclosed in the legislation the remedy lies in an amending Act.

    Also an enactment may not be abrogated under the guise of interpretation. Lord Viscount Simonds in this connection said in the case of Mayor & St Mellons vs Newport Corp (1951) 2 All E R 839 at 841 –

    “The duty of the court is to interpret the words that the legislature as used.

    Those words may be ambiguous, but, even if they are, the power and duty of the court to travel outside them on a voyage of discovery are strictly limited.”

    For the court to interpret or write what the legislature has not written would amount to the court enacting laws and Lord Viscount Simonds described such an act as “a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation, and it is the less justifiable when it is guess-work with what material the legislature would, if it has discovered the gap, have filled it. “ See case of Assam Railway and Trading Co Ltd vs Internal Revenue Commission 1935 AC 445.

    It seems to me, however, that the interpretation of the amendment is not strictly in contention. What is in issue, to my mind, is the eligibility of Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to seek the office of the president in the 2027 general election, being a person who exhausted the remainder of the term for which Umoru Musa Yar’Adua was elected president. It is his case that the amendment to the Constitution cannot take a retroactive effect.

    This argument has probably lost sight of two points of view. Firstly, that it is a Constitutional and not a statutory provision that is in contention. Secondly, the purported right he seeks to protect is civil and not criminal.

    It is convenient to quickly dispose of the second point of view which I consider to be a civil right. The Constitution protects criminal right against retroactive legislation. Sub-section 8 of section 36 of the Constitution provides thus – 36-(8) No person shall be held to be guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute such an offence and no penalty shall be imposed for any criminal offence heavier than the penalty in force at the time the offence was committed.

    The Constitution frowns at or forbids retroactive enactment with regards to criminal act, omission and penalties and not civil or constitutional infractions.

    Moreover, it is trite that an amendment to an enactment relates back to the date the principal enactment (legislation it is seeking to amend) came into force. In other words, the date for the commencement of Fourth Alteration Act, No 16 of 2018 is the date the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria itself, came into force. See sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Interpretation Act which states thus – 4 (1) A reference in an enactment to another enactment shall, if the other enactment has been amended, be construed as a reference to the other enactment as amended.

    Consequently, the hue and cry that there has been a retroactive legislation is most unjustifiable.

    Read Also: Nigeria’s new global gas roles to spur investment, jobs — Minister

    The principles governing interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions are not usually on all fours. The reason being that statutes are acts of the legislature while a Constitution; the ground norms are made by a higher body. In other words statutes in Nigeria are promulgated by the National Assembly for the Federation and State Houses of Assembly for the respective States. The Constitution is usually made by a supreme body such as the National Assembly in conjunction with sub national assemblies. Plebiscites are, at times, required. It is inconceivable, therefore, to abrogate constitutional provision on account of unconstitutionality or as retroactively made or otherwise.

    For the proposition that a constitutional provision cannot be abrogated on any account support is sought on the Supreme Court decision in Nkwocha vs Governor of Anambra State and others (1984) 6 SC 362, 403 in which the issue as to whether Land Use Act was an integral part of the Constitution or an ordinary statute was resolved whereof Idigbe, JSC said –

    “Now, the position is, in view of all these provisions, of section 274 of the Constitution, that the Land Use Act is not an integral part of the Constitution. It is an ordinary statute which became extraordinary by virtue of its entrenchment in section 274(1) of the Constitution, for if the Act has been made a part of the Constitution, it would not have been necessary to insert in sub-section (5) of section 274 the words – “nothing in this Constitution shall invalidate” as the draftsman of the Constitution cannot make the Constitution to invalidate itself, nor would it be necessary to have in sub-section (6) of section 274 that the act shall continue to have effect as a Federal enactment, that is a law made by National Assembly the Constitution itself not being a Federal enactment, that is a law made by the National Assembly. In other words, the Act which is a Federal enactment shall continue to have effect as what it already is – a Federal enactment”.

    Thus – it is painstakingly and dispassionately demonstrated abundantly to all and sundry that ambition of Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to contest for the office of the president for the second term in the 2027 general election is effectively and undoubtedly shot down by sub-section (3) of section 137 of the 1999 Constitution as altered by the Fourth Alteration Act, No 16 of 2018 which, to my mind is unassailable.

    My advice to the political class angling up in his support to heed the warning, caveat emptor usually directed to land speculators to be aware. In an event of his winning the election he will be conveniently removed by the Court of Appeal in an election petition to that court which removal will be undoubtedly affirmed by the Supreme Court on the ground that his total tenure would have exceeded the eight years maximum tenure.

    Isa Ayo SalamiFormer President,Court of Appeal

  • Cybercrime digital security and economic stability

    Cybercrime digital security and economic stability

    SIR: Cybercrime has emerged as one of the most pressing challenges facing Nigeria. With rapid technological advancement and widespread internet penetration, the country has witnessed a surge in online criminal activities that threaten individuals, businesses, and government institutions. The increasing dependency on digital platforms for financial transactions, communication, and data storage has provided cybercriminals with fertile ground to exploit vulnerabilities in Nigeria’s digital ecosystem.

    The economic impact of cybercrime on Nigeria is severe. Currently, the country loses hundreds of millions of dollars annually due to online fraud and digital theft. Businesses face financial losses, reputational damage, and reduced customer trust, while the government loses revenue that could have been used for development. Furthermore, cyberattacks on banks and financial institutions disrupt the stability of the financial sector, making investors wary of Nigeria’s digital economy.

    Another area heavily affected by cybercrime is national security. Hackers have targeted government websites, critical infrastructure, and databases containing sensitive information. These breaches compromise the integrity of government systems and could be exploited by foreign entities or terrorist organizations. The inability to safeguard national data poses a threat not only to Nigeria’s internal stability but also to its international reputation as a secure place for digital investment.

    The evolution of cybercrime techniques in Nigeria is alarming. Beyond traditional email scams, criminals now employ phishing attacks, identity theft, ransomware, and online impersonation. Social media platforms are increasingly used to deceive victims, while cryptocurrency has made it easier for criminals to conceal and transfer stolen funds anonymously.

    Read Also: Nnamdi Kanu: Tompolo distances self from 21-day ultimatum to FG

    Nigeria’s limited cybersecurity infrastructure and lack of specialized personnel obviously hinder effective investigations and prosecutions. There is a pressing need for the government to invest in digital forensic tools and international collaborations to enhance its capacity to combat cybercrime.

    Many Nigerians fall victim to online scams due to ignorance about cybersecurity practices. Schools, universities, and organizations should incorporate digital literacy and cybersecurity education into their curricula and training programs. This will not only protect potential victims but also steer young minds away from viewing cybercrime as an attractive career path.

    The private sector also has a role to play in combating cybercrime. Financial institutions, telecommunication companies, and technology firms must strengthen their security systems to prevent breaches. Collaboration between public and private sectors is essential in developing effective cybersecurity strategies, sharing intelligence, and responding to cyber incidents promptly. Such partnerships can create a more resilient digital environment capable of deterring criminal activities.

    Cybercriminal networks often operate across borders, making it necessary for Nigeria to work closely with international law enforcement agencies. Sharing data, expertise, and technological resources can help trace and dismantle transnational cybercrime syndicates. Additionally, adopting international best practices in cybersecurity can enhance Nigeria’s capacity to prevent and respond to threats effectively.

    • Usman Ali Yarima, Kashim Ibrahim University, Maiduguri.
  • Preventing a Dangote Refinery monopoly

    Preventing a Dangote Refinery monopoly

    SIR: It is crucial to start this by acknowledging the importance of Dangote Refinery as a turning point in Nigeria’s oil and gas downstream sector. For nearly 40 years, the country has relied on imports to meet its energy needs, even though Nigeria is a major crude oil producer and the government has built three refineries. This situation has caused a lot of contention for the country, including the introduction of fuel subsidies to provide a cushion for impoverished citizens in the country at the mercy of international markets.

    The completion of the $20 billion Dangote Refinery is a monumental achievement. It is the largest single-train refinery in the world and a symbol of industrial ambition with the potential to change the lives of Nigerians for the better or worse. It can become a catalyst for healthy competition, accelerating the development of the downstream sector, or a monopolistic force that stifles competition, dictates prices, and undermines the broader goals of economic inclusion. The direction the refinery takes will be decided by the actions of Nigeria’s regulatory agencies.

    The Dangote Refinery promises to transform Nigeria’s energy landscape. We can already see the added benefits of local production in the stabilisation of the naira against the dollar as the country saves billions in foreign exchange and reduces its reliance on imported refined petroleum products. But, there have also been concerns about how the Dangote Refinery, which, despite its scale, intends to achieve vertical integration, will stay profitable without artificial market dominance.

    Moves made in the company’s first year of operations suggest the Dangote Refinery is looking to replicate its attempts at a forced monopoly in other sectors in the downstream oil and gas sector. The refinery has already sought to disrupt the complex logistical network that ensures petroleum reaches final consumers by introducing a ‘free’ delivery service targeting major retailers, in a bid to incentivise them to ditch their long-term relationships with importers and depots and to buy products exclusively from the refinery. Industry stakeholders have condemned this move as predatory.

    Read Also: Nnamdi Kanu: Tompolo distances self from 21-day ultimatum to FG

    The refinery has also been accused of abruptly lowering ex-depot petroleum prices and bearing the cost differential to undercut importers who cannot bear the losses incurred by this tactic. Already, many major importers and depots have been forced to shutter their businesses or risk bankruptcy. When challenged on the integrity of its tactics, the Dangote Refinery has defended its actions as healthy market competition.

    A monopoly, even one born from private investment and innovation, can distort markets. It can lead to price manipulation, limit consumer choice, and create barriers for new entrants. In the absence of robust regulatory oversight, the very infrastructure meant to empower the economy could end up concentrating power in the hands of a few.

    Nigeria’s regulatory bodies, particularly the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA), the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), have a constitutional and moral obligation to safeguard the principles of fair competition.

    It is their responsibility to ensure transparency in all business practices, monitor market behaviour and intervene when predatory actions are taken against competitors or consumers, even when they are ‘legal’. They must also enforce anti-trust laws and deter larger corporations from engaging in anti-competitive practices that marginalise smaller marketers. But most importantly, it is their responsibility to provide a favourable environment for new entrants into the downstream sector, and by doing so, ensure the energy sector remains resilient and dynamic.

    The Dangote Group is only as big and successful as it is today because regulatory agencies ensured indigenous entrepreneurs were protected from monopolistic manoeuvres from international competitors. The same consideration must now be extended to other players in the energy sector to balance industrial ambition and market fairness. The Dangote Refinery represents a significant advancement towards self-sufficiency, but that doesn’t exempt it from the same standards of accountability that any other market participant must adhere to.

    Nigeria stands at a crossroads. The emergence of the Dangote Refinery offers a rare opportunity to redefine the country’s energy future. The refinery may be privately owned, but the market it operates in belongs to the people.

    The future of the energy sector is the responsibility of the agencies tasked with ensuring that Nigerians reap the benefits of deregulation and that companies maximise the opportunities a free market offers Nigerian entrepreneurs. If local regulators rise to the occasion, they can ensure that this refinery becomes a cornerstone of shared prosperity, not a symbol of concentrated power.

    • Olatunde Adebanjo Esq, Lagos.