The Nation Newspaper

Category: Comments

  • Abacha’s loot laughs at Maryam’s lies

    Abacha’s loot laughs at Maryam’s lies

    • By Ray Ekan

    A former First Lady of Nigeria and wife of Nigeria’s most autocratic ruler, Maryam Abacha is trying to generate a controversy about her husband, General Sani Abacha. In a recent interview she said that her husband who ruled Nigeria from November 17, 1993 to June 8, 1998 never stole public funds but rather saved money for the country. She also claimed that this money he allegedly saved for the country mysteriously vanished after his death in 1998. She went further and “berated Nigerians for believing that her husband stole public funds and that it is because Nigerians are fools, that is why they listen to everything.”

    Her feeble effort at the deodorization of her corrupt husband’s reputation has failed woefully because there is a huge incriminating evidence everywhere against him and there is no iota of exculpating evidence for him anywhere. If there is any evidence that exculpates him, she should do him, her family and herself a favour by producing it. It is that evidence that can confirm that Nigerians are fools by believing that her husband stole in a big way, Nigeria’s public funds. If she does not produce that evidence then her speech amounts to a mere vomit.

    Here is the evidence of her husband’s massive thievery of Nigeria’s public funds. On July 23, 1998, General Abdulsalami Abubakar who took over the government after Abacha’s death had taken the decision, based on credible intelligence, to set up a special investigation panel to unravel the looting that took place under Abacha’s regime. The panel was headed by Peter Gana, a Deputy Commissioner of Police who was the head of the Special Fraud Unit of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF). A report was produced in November 1998 by the investigating panel that incriminated Abacha especially with his illegal collection of huge funds in cash from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) on the pretext of tackling insecurity. Assets and cash were seized from the Abacha family by the Abubakar government which had issued the Forfeiture of Assets Etc. (certain persons) Decree No. 53 of May 26, 1999. Where was Maryam Abacha when this happened?

    Secondly, when Olusegun Obasanjo took over as president in 1999, the government hired, based on credible intelligence, a Swiss lawyer Enrico Monfrini, who apparently knew a lot about the Abacha loot. He had published an article in a book titled “Recovering Stolen Assets.” His article was titled “The Abacha Case.” In January 2021, he also told the BBC in detail how the billions were stolen out of the CBN and deposited in various countries. The lawyer worked with the Special Investigation Panel in Nigeria and the Swiss Attorney General who ordered all Swiss banks to provide evidence of the existence of any accounts opened under Abacha’s name and family. The evidence produced by the Swiss banks was overwhelming. This led to the discovery of similar bank accounts in the United Kingdom, United States, France and Liechtenstein etc. So where was Maryam Abacha when all of this was going on?

    Thirdly, Transparency International and other credible organisations have declared for many years now that what Abacha stole is about $5 billion. So far, what has been collected for some years now by the various governments of Nigeria up to year 2022 is $3.65 billion. So where has Maryam Abacha been when these monies were collected?

    Fourthly, in 2008 the amount found in the Abacha family’s Swiss account was reported to be $508 million. Was that an inheritance from Elon Musk, the world’s richest man to the Abacha family? Or did the Abacha family suddenly discover a diamond mine in their backyard that only they knew about?

    Read Also: E-visa system processes over 14,000 applications in six weeks, says minister

    Fifthly, even as recently as November 2023, the Bola Tinubu government received $150 million of the Abacha loot from France. Where was Maryam Abacha when this loot was recovered and returned to Nigeria?

    The search for the recovery of the rest of the loot from various countries has continued. The country needs every dollar that was stolen from its treasury by the dictator with dark glasses. People may ask why it was very easy for such huge sums of money to be taken away without Nigerians generally or those who kept custody of the funds specifically asking questions. The answer is that many Nigerians are cowards and would not dare say No to a dictator who had made several Nigerians, prominent and not so prominent, to disappear without trace. They were afraid for their lives. Also, it is possible that they, the keepers of these funds, may have compromised themselves and did not therefore feel courageous enough to query the request for huge funds, in cash, from the dictator.

    Additionally, the funds were requested generally for the purpose of tackling insecurity in the country. Even though there were demonstrations and riots that followed the annulment of the June 12, 1993 elections, there was no overwhelming security challenge in those days; not anything near to what we have today. But in Nigeria, security has often been used by decision makers at the centre and the states to cart away huge sums of money that are never accounted for. Nigerians have not been able to make their leaders to account for the expenditure of security funds because the impression is given or gained that security is a top secret matter that must not, cannot, ought not to be, revealed to the public. This position is an affront to the idea of accountability and transparency in a democracy.

    Corruption is generally forbidden in all jurisdictions including Nigeria. There is no country in the world that gives a standing ovation to corrupt people. All countries impose various degrees of punishment on people convicted of corruption. In China it is death. In other countries including Nigeria, it is imprisonment.

    But even if Nigerians were aware of Abacha’s loot while he was the Head of State, what could they have done to a dictator who was the personification of ruthlessness? Nothing. But even in other settings, Nigerians have shown less than serious commitment to the eradication of corruption in Nigeria. There was a retired governor of one of the states who was being tried somewhere in Nigeria. At the court premises, a huge crowd of placard-carrying people, obviously hired, surfaced. Their placards urged the court to leave their “patriot” alone. Then the man travelled out of the country. He was arrested in that foreign country and taken to another country. There he was tried, convicted and jailed. What Nigeria failed to do because of the complicity or lack of commitment of its people and institutions, another country did it for us. Even though corruption is strictly forbidden in our laws, it is tempting to be corrupt because forbidden fruits apparently taste sweetest. Ask Adam.

     It is also appropriate to say that Nigerians did not seriously try to challenge the various military governments in Nigeria on corruption. That is why corruption ballooned during the days of military rule in Nigeria. In 2008, General Muhammadu Buhari said at the 10th anniversary of Abacha’s death that Abacha was not a thief. It was obvious that he was not sincere but was simply playing politics because even by that date, Nigeria had already started collecting in bits and pieces part of the Abacha loot. And when he became president, he collected part of it too and said nothing to contradict himself on Abacha’s integrity. That is hypocrisy.

    Mrs Abacha shouldn’t have said anything about her husband’s integrity or lack of it. She should have kept silent. Her silence would have been golden, more golden than her recent vomit.

  • The drive toward a cleaner Lagos

    The drive toward a cleaner Lagos

    By Ajayi Lukman

    A healthy environment, built on sound environmental sanitation practices is the cornerstone of human development, health, and economic prosperity. Proper environmental sanitation is essential for preventing the spread of diseases, promoting public health, and ensuring a high quality of life.

    Effective waste management, clean water supply, and adequate sewage disposal are critical components of environmental sanitation that directly impact human well-being.

    By maintaining a clean and healthy environment, communities can thrive and achieve sustainable development. In this context, environmental sanitation plays a vital role in supporting the overall health and prosperity of communities.

    In line with this principle, the Lagos State government, under the leadership of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, has been implementing the THEMES Plus development agenda, which focuses on promoting economic growth, improving the environment, and enhancing the quality of life for residents.

    A major pillar of this agenda is environmental sustainability. In this area, the state has shown an unwavering commitment by working tirelessly to maintain environmental sanity and promote a cleaner and more habitable state. This proactive stance underscores the government’s vision of transforming Lagos into a healthier and more liveable megacity through bold policy initiatives and sustainable practices.

    The government’s commitment to environmental sustainability and its efforts to promote a cleaner and more habitable environment will undoubtedly contribute to making Lagos a better place for its residents.

     A key agency driving this effort is the Lagos State Environmental Sanitation Corps (LAGESC), popularly known as KAI. Under the leadership of Major Olaniyi Olatunbosun Cole (rtd), the agency has been instrumental in enforcing the state’s environmental laws and promoting environmental awareness.

     According to recent statistics, the agency’s efforts have yielded significant results, with over 3,786 arrests made for street trading and hawking between April 2024 and the date. Furthermore, over 6,789 arrests have been made for other environmental infractions, including open defecation and urination. Environmental abatement notices have also been served to residences and businesses found in contravention of the state’s environmental laws.

    Notably, one of the agency’s outstanding achievements is the removal of hundreds of street traders and shanties along the Cele-Ilasa drainage channel. This operation, which was carried out in conjunction with the Lagos Waste Management Authority (LAWMA), aimed to restore environmental sanity and prevent the spread of diseases.

    Additionally, the agency has been working to prevent the sale of illicit substances, including sachet alcohol and aphrodisiacs, in traffic. In a recent operation, six suspected vendors were apprehended and charged in court.

    The alarming scourge of drunk-driving among Lagos drivers has been researched as a leading and contributory factor to the spate of motor accidents within and outside the state. It is, therefore, cheering that the agency has been working tirelessly to halt the illicit sales of alcohol in traffic as well as in motor parks across the state. To prevent the needless loss of lives due to avoidable road accidents, the trend of hawking alcohol in traffic must be discouraged by all stakeholders. Hence, there is a need to support the agency in the drive to tackle this ugly and dangerous trend.

    Fortunately, some prominent stakeholders in the sector are already appreciating the efforts of LAGSEC in improving the state of the Lagos environment. In a recent statement, the Lagos State Commissioner for Environment and Water Resources, Tokunbo Wahab, praised the efforts of the agency, stating that “the Lagos State government is committed to making Lagos a cleaner and more habitable state, and the efforts of KAI are crucial to achieving this goal.”

    He emphasized that the state’s THEMES Plus agenda, which focuses on promoting economic growth, improving the environment, and enhancing the quality of life for residents, is being implemented through various initiatives, including the agency’s efforts to maintain environmental sanity.

    However, the agency’s work is far from over. As the state continues to grow and develop, efforts to promote a cleaner and more habitable environment will remain critical. The commitment to enforcing the state’s environmental laws and promoting environmental awareness will undoubtedly contribute to making Lagos a better place for its residents.

    The agency’s commitment to making Lagos a cleaner and more habitable state is evident in its various initiatives. For instance, the annual ‘Scale A’ Parade exercise, which aims to document the physical well-being of operatives and determine their eligibility to discharge their duties, is a testament to its dedication to the welfare of its personnel.

    In a statement, the Corps Marshal of KAI commended the efforts of his operatives, stating that their dedication to duty has been instrumental in promoting a cleaner and more habitable environment in Lagos. He emphasized the importance of continuous stakeholder engagement and community outreach programs in promoting environmental awareness and encouraging voluntary compliance with the state’s environmental laws.

    Read Also: Adeboye declares season of divine economic opportunities for Nigeria

    The agency’s stance on the importance of proper waste disposal and environmental consciousness is particularly noteworthy.

    “We urge all Lagosians to take ownership of their environment and work together with us to promote a cleaner and more habitable state,” the Corps Marshal once stated.

    “We will continue to enforce the state’s environmental laws and promote environmental awareness, but we need the cooperation of all residents to achieve our goals”, he added.

    In all, the Kick Against Indiscipline (KAI) has done exceptionally well in the area of enforcement to ensure compliance and curb illegal activities that threaten ecological integrity.

    The efforts of LAGSEC in maintaining environmental sanity and enforcing the state’s environmental laws are commendable. The agency’s commitment to promoting environmental awareness and encouraging voluntary compliance with the state’s environmental laws is evident in various initiatives. It is, however, important that residents and all stakeholders in the sector join hands with the government and the agency in the efforts to achieve a sustainable environment.

    Unfriendly environment practices such as street trading, street hawking, illegal roadside parking, street begging, building along water channels, dumping of refuse on water drains, open defecation,  and driving against traffic (one-way driving), among others, should be discouraged by every well-meaning citizen. 

    Together, we can build a Greater Lagos of our collective aspiration!

     • Lukman is head, Public Affairs and Advocacy Unit, LAGESC, Lagos.

  • Trump versus Musk: Keeping business and politics separate

    Trump versus Musk: Keeping business and politics separate

    By Magnus Onyibe

    Picture a scenario in which Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, invested $250 million in 2023 to support the presidential campaign of APC candidate Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Let’s assume Dangote, being the shrewd businessman he is, found a legal way to avoid violating campaign finance limits that cap how much individuals can contribute to political campaigns.

    Now imagine that this strategic support played a major role in Tinubu’s victory two years ago, helping him secure the presidency and giving the APC a majority in both chambers of the National Assembly. As a token of appreciation, President Tinubu appoints Dangote to lead a newly created government agency focused on cutting waste and improving public sector efficiency.

    In this imagined scenario, Dangote’s new role comes with the tough task of ending long-standing subsidies on petrol and foreign exchange—two policies widely seen as obstacles to Nigeria’s economic growth since independence in 1960. Because these subsidies have become deeply embedded in public expectations over the past four decades, rolling them back sparks outrage and resistance.

    Now take it a step further: suppose Dangote begins behaving inappropriately—perhaps mocking civil servants who lost their jobs or appearing in Aso Rock with his toddler riding on his shoulders in a moment of eccentric public display. President Tinubu, noticing these missteps, decides to relieve him of his duties respectfully and even presents him with a symbolic key to the villa as a gesture of goodwill.

    But soon after the House of Representatives passes four key tax reform bills—awaiting Senate approval—Dangote lashes out, branding the bills a “disgusting abomination.” Concerned that the new laws could undermine the business advantages his firm had been enjoying, he threatens to use his influence to ensure APC lawmakers are voted out in the next elections.

    This outburst provokes President Tinubu, who publicly quips that Dangote might be suffering from a mental health issue. What should have remained a private policy disagreement between allies begins to spill into the public sphere, with the potential to spiral into a full-blown political crisis.

    Dear readers, this imagined scenario is not about Nigeria, President Tinubu, or Aliko Dangote. Rather, this story mirrors the real-life political drama unfolding in the United States between President Donald J. Trump—back in office as the 47th president—and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and owner of Tesla, SpaceX, and other powerful tech ventures.

    Their feud highlights the perils of blurring the lines between business and politics. It serves as a cautionary tale for democracies around the world about why these two powerful domains—each critical in its own right—must remain independent to preserve institutional integrity and public trust.

    Simply put, the situation described above isn’t unfolding in a struggling third-world nation where democratic principles are still being grasped. Rather, it is playing out in the United States—the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world, and widely regarded as the global standard-bearer for democracy.

    There are several critical takeaways from this evolving saga in America.

    First, it reinforces the reality that democracy is still an evolving system of governance, even centuries after its roots in ancient Athens under Cleisthenes in 508 BCE.

    Who would have imagined that campaign finance laws in the U.S.—particularly the caps on individual contributions to political candidates—could be so cleverly circumvented? Yet Elon Musk appears to have done just that, reportedly channelling around $250 million into Trump’s 2024 campaign without violating existing laws.

    Second, the unfolding events affirm the old adage: “What money cannot do, more money can.” Musk himself boasted that without his financial engineering—leveraging “Super PACs” to funnel as much as $1 million per voter in key swing states—Trump and the Republican Party may not have secured victories in the White House and both chambers of Congress. According to Musk, his financial intervention was instrumental in Trump’s success in the November 5, 2024 election. As he warned at the time, “In November, we fire all Republicans who betrayed Americans.”

    This demonstrates that, just like in many fledgling democracies of the developing world, money—not ideology or principles—is often the decisive factor in American elections, with votes going to the highest bidder.

    Third, the very public clash has peeled back the curtain on the inner workings of the U.S. government. It exposes a long-held double standard: while the West criticizes African nations for implementing public subsidies, it often does the same, albeit in more discreet and sophisticated forms. Through institutions like the World Bank and IMF, wealthy nations pressure developing countries to eliminate subsidies, despite quietly propping up their own industries using similar mechanisms.

    Fourth, the idea that oligarchs are a uniquely Russian or African phenomenon has been shown to be misleading. Musk’s companies, Tesla and SpaceX, are now understood to have benefitted significantly from U.S. government support. In Trump’s own words: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget—Billions and Billions of Dollars—is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”

    Trump-Musk dispute is not merely a clash of egos. It is a revealing episode—one that lays bare the contradictions and vulnerabilities within the democratic and capitalist systems of even the world’s most advanced nation.

    In the end, the Trump-Musk clash offers far more than tabloid drama. It serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of blurring the lines between politics and business, and highlights the global double standards that often disadvantage less powerful nations. The same Western systems that lecture developing countries on austerity and public subsidies are themselves deeply intertwined with state-backed corporate interests.

    Following their fallout, Tesla’s stock has taken a significant hit. As of last Thursday, it’s reported that Tesla has lost up to $150 billion in market value over the last six months. Meanwhile, Musk’s businesses have reportedly benefited from up to $34 billion in U.S. government contracts—support that could be jeopardized if the feud with Trump continues.

    This raises an important question now being asked by political observers in the U.S.: Can these two power players—once close allies just six months ago, and now adversaries—repair their relationship?

    This political-business breakdown in the U.S. brings to mind a similar episode in Nigeria, which illustrates why mixing business with politics is a risky endeavour. After former Vice President Atiku Abubakar left office (1999–2007), his business interests, particularly in Intels—an oil and gas logistics firm he co-founded—suffered a steep decline. Intels had thrived under favourable government patronage, operating a lucrative private port in Port Harcourt. But after Atiku’s party lost power to the opposition APC in 2015, government contracts dried up.

    Read Also: Education key to unlocking Nigeria’s potential, says Atiku

    While Musk hasn’t directly pursued the presidency, his veiled threat to back the Democrats in the upcoming election as retaliation against Republicans for passing Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” has raised eyebrows. It suggests the possibility that Musk may be positioning himself to influence the outcome of the 2028 elections in favour of the Democrats—just as he was instrumental in helping Trump and the Republicans secure victory in 2024. If so, Musk could be transitioning from a politically interested entrepreneur into an active political player.

    In the present feud between two former allies—President Trump, who may have a fragile ego, and Musk, known for his confrontational approach—the stakes are high. Trump, a seasoned political fighter, is unlikely to back down easily, while Musk’s endurance in the face of sustained political and financial pressure remains to be seen. Whether he can absorb continuous blows to his businesses, including Tesla and SpaceX, could determine if the two men will reconcile or drift permanently apart.

    Drawing from Nigeria’s own political-business landscape, we’ve seen high-profile feuds eventually resolved. A case in point is the past fallout between Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, and Nigeria’s third-richest businessman, Femi Otedola. Though their dispute was acrimonious, the two have since rekindled their friendship and now enjoy a closer relationship than before. That precedent gives reason to believe Trump and Musk—two powerful figures who still need each other—might also find a path to reconciliation.

    Ultimately, the Trump–Musk saga offers a valuable lesson for democracies everywhere. It underscores the dangers of blurring the lines between business and politics and raises critical questions about the future of political financing, influence, and accountability in democratic systems.

    •Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author and democracy advocate sent this piece from Lagos.

  • All-losers’ conflict

    All-losers’ conflict

     A fragile ceasefire is holding between Israel and Iran in the hostility that flared between them following a surprise air strike launched by Israel on 13th June. Interestingly, it is the United States, which inserted itself 21st June as a combatant on the side of Israel, that brokered the ceasefire deal. That the truce got a breathing chance of being enacted is indication of exhaustion of firepower on the part of the core combatants, Iran and Israel; but more likely, on the part of Iran that is the aggressed in this instance and which suffered the greater loss. What the world must wait to see is whether that exhaustion came with conviction to give peace a chance in the volatile region, or it was just a tactical retreat to buy time for rearmament.

    Israel, which has been at war with Palestinian militant group Hamas in Gaza since 2023, turned on Iran penultimate week – attacking its nuclear capabilities and killing top Iranian military commanders in the worst blow to the Islamic republic since its battle with Iraq in the 1980s. Unlike the Iran-Iraqi war that dragged for eight years, the battle with Israel lasted only 12 days. Iran is an avowed sponsor of Hamas and other militias in enmity with Israel, like the Hezbollah, and it has never hidden its intention to facilitate Israel’s extermination. In October 2024, Iran rained missiles on the Jewish state in reprisal for Israel’s hunt for militants that impinged on its territory. That spat did not result in full-blown war because ex-U.S. President Joe Biden leashed Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and arrowheaded an alliance that powered Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system to prevent the Iranian missiles from hitting home on Israeli soil.

    Israel’s current war with Hamas gave occasion for renewed hostility with Iran that was this time not restrained – no thanks to shared disposition between Netanyahu and incumbent U.S. President Donald Trump over suspicions that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons with its uranium enrichment efforts. Iran denies it is trying to build such weapons and says its nuclear research is for civilian energy production, only that few people believe its narrative. Trump tried talking with the Islamic republic like his immediate predecessors, and touted military option if negotiations don’t work. Following Israel’s recent attack, Iran responded with a barrage of missiles on Israeli military sites and cities. But Israel apparently worked to distract Iran and make it more vulnerable than it ordinarily might have been, preparatory to strikes on its nuclear sites by the U.S. In other words, they tag-teamed.

    Israel significantly degraded Iran’s air defenses and offensive missile capabilities and damaged its overground nuclear enrichment facilities. But only the American military has bunker-buster bombs that offered the best chance of destroying sites deep underground. Penultimate Saturday, Trump ordered the strikes by which the U.S. deployed seven stealth B-2 bombers, each carrying two bunker busters weighing an impressive 30,000 pounds apiece to blast Iran’s nuclear laboratories in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan buried in Iranian mountainsides. The unprecedented operation reportedly involved more than 125 aircraft including refueling tankers, reconnaissance planes, fighter jets besides the bombers.

    Read Also: Jimoh Ibrahim faults IMF, World Bank, insists Nigeria is world’s 42nd biggest economy

    On the heels of the attack, Trump announced that the operation “completely and fully obliterated” the Iranian nuclear sites. But the Pentagon, in a subsequent briefing, reported “sustained, extremely severe damage and destruction.” Netanyahu too was restrained in his assessment, saying the U.S. attack left the nuclear facility at Fordow with “very significant damage.” The Israeli leader gave indication of working hand in gloves with the American president by saying Israel did not have to commit to end the war in Gaza in exchange for American bombers targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. “President Trump didn’t put any conditions. This is not the nature of our relationship, I have to say,” he told journalists. “We speak openly. We speak as friends, genuine friends. And he’s a great leader. He makes the decisions for America,” he added. Netanyahu also disclosed that he was notified of the American operation in advance: “That’s natural. Just as he (Trump) knew in advance when we would act, we knew in advance when he would act.”

    Intelligence findings by the Trump administration since the air strikes have indicated that Iran’s enriched uranium stocks were not eliminated and the country’s nuclear programme may have been set back only a month or two. Defence intelligence operatives in Washington were reported saying the strikes sealed off entrances to two of the sites, but did not destroy the buildings underground. Some centrifuges remained intact after the attacks, according to Washington Post citing unnamed sources familiar with the report. Administration officials also openly recalibrated the strikes’ impact assessment, telling the United Nations Security Council mid-last week that they “degraded” Iran’s nuclear program – short of the president’s earlier assertion that the facilities were obliterated.

    Despite Trump’s warning of additional strikes if Iran retaliates against U.S. forces, the Islamic republic launched an attack on America’s military base in Qatar last Monday. Iranian missiles targeted the base, which is U.S.’s largest in the Mideast, in what Tehran said was a response to the bombing of its three nuclear facilities. The Qatar base is reported to be the headquarters for all American air operations in the region. A statement by the Iranian government said it will not leave any attack on its sovereignty unanswered, adding: “U.S. bases in the region are not strengths but vulnerabilities.” There were differing accounts of how many missiles were fired: Iran said six, the U.S. said 14, and Qatar was cited saying 19 – all of which, it added, were intercepted, with no one reported killed or injured.

    Unlike the U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear sites that was by surprise, reports said Tehran notified Doha in advance of its intention to strike the U.S. base, just so to minimise casualties. In his first comments in the aftermath, Trump thanked Iran for “giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost and nobody injured.” He described the attack as “very weak” – no Americans were harmed and very little damage was done, he noted. “They’ve gotten it all out of their system,” he added and said peace in the region could now proceed. On the next day, the American leader brokered a ceasefire that Israel and Iran signed up to.

    Both countries claimed the upper hand in the conflict. Iran’s military command warned Israel and the U.S. to learn from the “crushing blows” it delivered in the hostility, with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian saying his country ended the war in “great victory.” For its part, Israel said the attack on Iran had removed the threat of nuclear annihilation and it was determined to thwart any attempt by Tehran to revive its weapons program. “We have removed two immediate existential threats to us: the threat of nuclear annihilation and the threat of annihilation by 20,000 ballistic missiles,” Netanyahu said. He earlier told journalists that the operation in Iran helped to achieve his country’s goal in Gaza as Iran could no longer support Hamas, which should hasten the militant group’s demise. “Once that reality sinks into the ranks of Hamas, you’re already entering the final phase of decision,” Netanyahu said, adding: “It will take a little more time, but there’s no doubt that our major achievements in Iran are also contributing to achieving our goals in Gaza.”

    Truth is that all actors in the conflict, including America, got their nose bloodied, though at varying degrees. Iran was the biggest loser. Even Tehran plied the narrative that 610 people were killed by Israeli strikes on its soil while 4,746 got injured, compared with Iran’s retaliatory bombardment that killed 28 people in Israel. Oil prices plunged on the global spot market upon indication that Iran couldn’t muster the clout as widely feared to disrupt critical oil supplies from the Gulf by blocking the strategic Strait of Hormuz lying within its reach. Worse, there was no single country or group even within the region that rallied to Iran’s side in the war. Nothing showed the republic’s isolation and limitation more than the latest war with Israel.

    Israel as well suffered some humiliation, in that it was the first time its air defenses were penetrated by large numbers of Iranian missiles. Unlike in 2024 when the missiles were intercepted nearly wholesale, Trump’s America was not there for Israel this time to enable it achieve same defensive feat. Rather, the Jewish state was used as a foil – unprotected – for America’s own agenda.

    But the U.S. itself did not win. It wanted to obliterate Iran’s nuclear capacity and only came off with “severe damage” to the programme. So much for being a superpower! Simply put, this was an all-losers’ war.

    •Please join me on kayodeidowu.blogspot.be for conversation.

  • Why President Tinubu is on a state visit to Saint Lucia

    Why President Tinubu is on a state visit to Saint Lucia

    In the wake of some Nigerians’ misguided, mischievous, and uninformed comments regarding President Bola Tinubu’s historic state visit to Saint Lucia, it is necessary to clarify the purpose of the visit.

    First, from the perspective of the Government of Saint Lucia, the visit by the Nigerian leader paves the way for the rekindling of our ancestral bonds, igniting a new era of diplomatic, cultural, and economic possibilities between our nations.

    Like many Caribbean nations, Saint Lucia has a significant population of African ancestry. In the mid-19th century, a wave of immigrants from present-day Nigeria arrived in Saint Lucia, bringing with them cultural and religious practices that persist to this day.

    Citizens of Saint Lucia are excited that President Tinubu has chosen to visit the island. They long to strengthen their bonds with African nations with which they share ancestral links.

    Saint Lucia is the headquarters of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and the gateway to the 15 CARICOM member states. The CARICOM states have a combined GDP of over $130 billion, a significant figure in South-South trade discourse.

    In an era of global uncertainty, deepening cooperation between the Global South, particularly between continental Africa and the Caribbean, has become imperative.

    Nigeria and the citizens of the Caribbean have strong people-to-people links.

    Sir Darnley Alexander, a Saint Lucian-born jurist who died on February 10, 1989, served as Chief Justice of Nigeria from 1975 to 1979. He first came to Nigeria in 1957, recruited as a legal draftsman by the Western Regional Government of Chief Obafemi Awolowo. He became the acting Director of Public Prosecutions in 1958. In 1960, he was appointed Solicitor General and Permanent Secretary of the Western Regional Ministry of Justice. In 1964, he was appointed a judge in the Lagos High Court. In 1969, the defunct South Eastern State appointed him the chief judge.

    He later became the Chief Justice of Nigeria in 1975, succeeding Sir Teslim Olawale Elias.

    Sir Darnley was born in Castries, the capital of this Island state, in January 1920. He held multiple honours: QC, CBE, GCON, and SAN.

    Another Lucian, Neville Skeete, an architect, contributed to the design of the Central Bank of Nigeria’s corporate headquarters.

    Additionally, Sir Darnley Alexander’s son, Michael, served as a medical doctor on the frontline in the Nigerian Army during the tragic civil war.

    President Tinubu’s visit aligns with Nigeria’s Four D’s foreign policy framework: Democracy, Development, Diaspora, and Demography.

    As the presidency stated, the visit supports the African Union’s Sixth Region agenda, which identifies the African diaspora as a key development partner.

    Nigeria actively fosters cultural exchange through collaboration in education, culture, and heritage preservation. Our cultural exports, including Afrobeats, Nollywood, and literature, are already making a significant impact on Saint Lucia and the wider Caribbean, enriching our shared cultural landscape.

    The Gros Islet Street Party is arguably one of Saint Lucia’s most famous cultural events. It has been held every Friday for over 50 years.

    On the Friday before President Tinubu’s arrival, Afrobeats and Nigerian music dominated the airwaves, a testament to Nigeria’s growing soft power and cultural footprint.

    Democracy as a Shared Value: Saint Lucia is a stable parliamentary democracy, making it a natural ally for Nigeria, which has enjoyed 26 years of uninterrupted democratic governance.

    During the live coverage of President Tinubu’s arrival and welcoming ceremonies at the Hewanorra International Airport on the National Television Network (NTN), a local commentator described President Tinubu as a “fighter for democracy”, citing his well-known pro-democracy record.

    Read Also: Cleric urges Nigerians to shun negative confessions, preaches hope amid hardship

    Demography as a Strategic Asset: Nigeria is projected to become the third most populous country in the world by 2050. President Tinubu has consistently emphasised that Nigeria’s youthful population is a driver of economic transformation via education, industrialisation, and innovation.

    President Tinubu’s scheduled visit to Sir Arthur Lewis Community College underscores our commitment to strengthening educational partnerships. The presence of Nigerian Technical Aid Corps (TAC) officials in the delegation further demonstrates our dedication to fostering knowledge exchange and growth. TAC provides technical assistance to African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries. This assistance is delivered through the deployment of Nigerian professionals to recipient countries to address specific needs.

    Engagement with the Nigerian Community in Saint Lucia: The Prime Minister of Saint Lucia will host a reception at the official residence, where members of the Nigerian community will meet with President Tinubu and his delegation. This event is a unique opportunity for the Nigerian community to interact with their President and discuss matters of mutual interest, further strengthening the ties between the two nations.

    A Rare and Historic State Visit: Since gaining independence in 1979, Saint Lucia has hosted fewer than 10 official state visits. The last visit by an African Head of State was by President Nelson Mandela in July 1998, during the 19th CARICOM Heads of Government Summit. Therefore, President Tinubu’s 2025 visit, 27 years later, is a historic diplomatic milestone.

    President Tinubu’s address at a special joint session of the Parliament: President Tinubu will address a special joint session of Saint Lucia’s bi-cameral Parliament at the Sandals Grande Saint Lucian Conference Hall, named after former U.S. President Bill Clinton. President Clinton visited Saint Lucia in January 2003 and gave a keynote address at this same venue, which was later renamed in his honour.

    •Bayo Onanuga is a Special Adviser to the President (Information and Strategy)

  • Of El-Rufai, revisionism, and delusion of grandeur

    Of El-Rufai, revisionism, and delusion of grandeur

    By Shamshudeen Abdulmumin

    In the grand and often turbulent theatre of Nigerian politics, there strides a figure both familiar and infamous — whose silver tongue weaves intricate tapestries of audacity and artifice, crafting illusions so deftly entwined with half-truths that even the most discerning can be momentarily beguiled. This is the personage of Mallam Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai, erstwhile Governor of Kaduna State, once hailed as a visionary technocrat, now unmasked as a weary architect of revisionism, ensnared in the thickets of his own delusions, desperately clutching at the fraying strands of a relevance long slipping into oblivion.

    El-Rufai’s latest outburst, in which he arrogantly claims authorship of all the projects recently commissioned by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu during his triumphant visit to Kaduna, is not only false — it is a masterclass in self-deception and historical distortion. To suggest that the state-of-the-art Vocational Institutes, the fully equipped Bola Ahmed Tinubu Specialist Hospital, and the innovative Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Buses initiative were either conceived or completed under his administration is a lie so bold, so brazen, and so contemptuous of documented fact, that it demands a rebuttal not just for record’s sake, but as an act of civic duty.

    The truth is immutable: all three Vocational Institutes — the Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa Institute in Rigachikun, Col. Dangiwa Umar Institute in Soba, and Sir Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa Institute in Samaru Kataf — were fully conceived, funded, executed, and completed under the administration of Governor Uba Sani. These institutes are not cosmetic projects for ribbon-cutting ceremonies; they are strategic instruments of human capital development, designed to turn out 36,000 technically skilled youths annually. They stand today not merely as structures, but as functional institutions certified by the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE) as the best-equipped skills centres in Nigeria.

    In fact, the NBTE’s Executive Secretary, Professor Idris Bugaje, publicly declared that no polytechnic or university in Nigeria rivals the equipment and setup of these institutes — a rare and glowing endorsement that El-Rufai never once received during his tenure, despite his penchant for self-applause.

    READ ALSO; Ripples over pollution caused by recycling firm in Ogun

    Similarly, the much-acclaimed Bola Ahmed Tinubu Specialist Hospital, which President Tinubu himself described as a “model of modern healthcare infrastructure,” was only 53% completed—and completely unequipped—when Governor Uba Sani assumed office. It had become a metaphor for neglect, waste, and bureaucratic lethargy. Governor Uba Sani did not just complete it; he revitalised and transformed it. He equipped the hospital with cutting-edge medical technology and integrated it into his broader healthcare reform plan that includes the renovation of general hospitals across all senatorial zones.

    As for the fleet of 100 CNG buses, this was a direct response by the Uba Sani administration to the fuel subsidy removal—a policy for which El-Rufai had no blueprint, no foresight, and certainly no provision. These buses now serve the masses with subsidized or free transportation, particularly benefiting students, civil servants, and retirees. Their conception and rollout required not only fiscal innovation but bold political will—both of which El-Rufai conspicuously lacked when he presided over Kaduna.

    To attempt to lay claim to these legacy projects is not only fraudulent—it is grotesque. It is the intellectual equivalent of a man trying to steal the sunrise because he once owned a candle.

    El-Rufai’s lies are not occasional lapses — they are habitual, pathological, and compulsive. As former President Olusegun Obasanjo emphatically noted in his memoir My Watch, El-Rufai is a “malicious liar” with “a penchant for unfair embellishment of stories,” someone who “lied brazenly…against his colleagues and so-called friends.” Obasanjo did not offer this assessment in bitterness or in passing; he detailed his disillusionment with El-Rufai with precision, painting a picture of a man driven not by conviction, but by ego; not by service, but by self-glorification.

    The former president’s description is striking: El-Rufai, he wrote, suffers from “small man syndrome” and lacks the capacity for loyalty or integrity. Even his familial relationships, Obasanjo recounted, were marred by betrayal and character assassination. This is no ordinary indictment; it is a solemn warning from a man who once trusted El-Rufai with power and position.

    And now, in the twilight of his political relevance, El-Rufai is once again deploying his signature weapons: sophistry, subterfuge, and calculated distortion. This time, his target is not merely Governor Uba Sani, but by extension, the Tinubu administration, which he once pretended to support.

    Let us not forget the Kaduna that El-Rufai left behind: a fractured society, riddled with ethno-religious suspicion and soaked in debt. He departed office bequeathing a horrifying $587 million in external debt, ₦85 billion in domestic debt, and ₦115 billion in contractual liabilities—a financial noose around the neck of the very state he now claims to have “developed.” Many of the contracts he awarded were paid for but never executed — ghost projects by ghost contractors, some of whom are now being pursued by anti-graft agencies.

    More damning is the social cost of his tenure. His policies were polarising and vindictive. He pitted ethnic and religious communities against each other, weaponised governance for personal vendettas, and treated dissent like treason. The peace and progress now being enjoyed in Kaduna under Governor Uba Sani were hard-won, not inherited. He united what El-Rufai fragmented, empowered where El-Rufai disenfranchised, and built where El-Rufai only branded.

    El-Rufai’s latest tantrums are born not of principle but of envy — pure and undiluted. He is bitter that his successor, Uba Sani, a man of calm disposition and developmental focus, is receiving national acclaim, including the prestigious Governor of the Year 2024 award, National Honours Award of Commander of the Order of Niger, CON (for his heroic efforts during the quest for democratic rule in the country); on the contrary, El Rufai’s legacy is increasingly regarded with suspicion, regret, and investigation.

    This bitterness has morphed into a personal vendetta. He now appears to believe that bringing down Uba Sani is his only remaining political currency. His recent attempts to foment dissent through a faux “national coalition” of disgruntled power-hunters—many of whom were themselves expelled by the people via the ballot or by their own irrelevance—smacks of desperation.

    El-Rufai was once known as a defender of his party and its leaders. He sang the praises of Obasanjo, then of Buhari. Today, he throws tantrums at Tinubu, calling his government “illiterate,” accusing it of bribing opposition politicians, and declaring the APC a party he “no longer recognises.” That he makes such statements barely two years after leaving office—without irony or introspection—is a sad testament to how quickly ambition can curdle into delusion.

    El Rufa’i is deeply vexed by Governor Uba Sani’s principled support for President Tinubu. He once, very laughably described the very good working relationship Governor Uba Sani has with President Tinubu as transactional – That the President is ‘bribing’ Governor Uba Sani! In the past, the legendarily hypocritical El-Rufai defended then sitting Obasanjo to the hilt, even when it was politically costly. He was one of the loudest voices behind President Buhari, while he held sway at Aso Villa. No one accused El Rufa’i then of being “bribed” to be loyal. So why is Governor Uba Sani’s principled support for President Tinubu now interpreted by El-Rufai as transactional?

    Perhaps because El-Rufai cannot comprehend genuine loyalty. He sees everything —alliances, friendships, even public service — through the prism of utility and self-interest. He has no concept of principled consistency because he has never practiced it. His only enduring loyalty is to himself.

     The truth is this: Governor Uba Sani supports President Tinubu because the President has earned it — through inclusive governance, respect for federalism, and sound economic policy. The synergy between Kaduna and the Federal Government is yielding real dividends: infrastructural development, fiscal reforms, and better revenue allocation. El-Rufai’s bitterness is the shrill cry of a man who expected political patronage and was instead met with polite indifference.

     It is time for Mallam Nasir El-Rufai to take a long, unflinching look into the mirror. He is no longer the political wunderkind of Abuja nor the reformist Governor of lore. He is a man whose legacy is rapidly disintegrating under the weight of lies, debts, and division. His brand of politics — of suspicion, grandstanding, and intellectual bullying — has passed its expiry date.

     If Karl Marx was right that “shame is a revolutionary sentiment,” then El-Rufai may indeed be beyond redemption. For shame requires introspection; it demands humility. These are not traits El-Rufai has ever shown. But perhaps it is not too late. Perhaps he can still salvage dignity by stepping away from the podium of deceit and embracing the quiet redemption of truth.

     Until then, let no one be deceived. The accomplishments of Governor Uba Sani are his and his alone. They are not borrowed. They are not inherited. They are not stolen. And no amount of revisionism or social media cynicism can alter this fundamental reality.

    In the final analysis, history will remember Kaduna’s renaissance as the product of Uba Sani’s vision, integrity, and steadfastness. El-Rufai’s name will linger only as a cautionary tale — a reminder of how ego and falsehoods can erode even the brightest political prospects.

    Mallam Nasir El-Rufai should cease his divisive antics, embrace humility, and allow Kaduna — and indeed Nigeria — to move forward. The people deserve leaders who build, not destroy; who unify, not divide; who tell the truth, not lies. Grow up, Mallam. The era of deception is over.

     *Shamshudeen Abdulmumin resides in Barnawa, Kaduna.

  • U.S.–Iran ceasefire and the myth of peace in the Middle East

    U.S.–Iran ceasefire and the myth of peace in the Middle East

    By Lekan Olayiwola

    United States’ President Donald Trump’s strike on Iran’s nuclear sites and his swift declaration of victory and ceasefire has been hailed by supporters as the ultimate vindication of his “peace through strength” mantra. The narrative is familiar and seductive: the strong act, the enemy backs down, the world breathes easier. For Trump and his allies, the boom of bombs followed by a choreographed silence is proof of control, decisiveness, and deterrence. This isn’t a novel tactic.

    We are witnessing a recurring geopolitical mirage, a pattern where violent domination is rebranded as peace, coerced silence is mistaken for stability, and the absence of conflict is treated as the end of conflict itself. In this worldview, domination is labelled as order, control is described as peace, and justice is glossed over as long as the bombs stop booming.

    This Pax Americana reflex has metastasized for decades in the Middle East. From Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” banner in 2003 to Obama’s drone diplomacy, and now Trump’s surgical strikes rebranded as strength, the U.S. has consistently equated operational success with ethical resolution. In each case, the bombs stop, but the burdens linger. Peace without justice is not peace; it’s postponement. Stability without dignity is not order; it’s amnesia.

    After a 12-day fiasco, the language of deterrence flooded op-eds. “Calm restored,” read one headline. But beneath that calm lies scorched infrastructure, fractured regional trust, and civilians in Baghdad, Amman, and Beirut bracing for the next wave not because they support escalation, but because they know they are collateral to its logic.

    Dangerous legacy of ‘Peace through Strength’

    Trump’s approach is not new. It belongs to a long lineage of the “victor’s peace”—where the terms of resolution are written by the powerful and the traumas of the marginalized are erased by silence. In this version of history, what matters is not whether justice was done, but whether the victor appears strong and unchallenged. It is a peace of appearances, not of accountability.

    Historically, empires and regimes, from Pax Romana to Pax Britannica to Pax Americana, have declared victory not when justice was delivered, but when dissent was suppressed. In modern times, this manifests in ceasefires that ignore structural violence, displace trauma, and refuse to engage memory or restitution. It creates a performance of peace rather than peace itself. Domination, rebranded as order, has left in its wake a lineage of shattered states and scarred societies.

    Colonial powers claimed to “civilize” while they extracted. In the 20th century, Cold War stalemates were painted as peace while proxy wars tore through Korea, Angola, Afghanistan, and Central America. And today, the post-9/11 War on Terror has left Syria fragmented, Iraq exhausted, Libya gutted, and Yemen starving. And what came next was chaos, sectarianism, and the birth of ISIS. In each case, peace was declared on paper while justice remained unfulfilled on the ground. Peace without justice is a form of sophisticated violence.

    Trump’s declaration can be described as narrative capture, the idea that if you control the story (who is seen as strong, who is blamed, who is silenced), you control the legitimacy of outcomes. The danger of this narrative in geopolitics—past and present—is that it rewards the optics of quiet over the substance of justice. It uplifts the victor’s metrics: number of missiles launched, bases hit, and adversaries neutralized. But it refuses to measure harm in moral terms: schools collapsed, families displaced, trust betrayed.

    Under this logic, control becomes peace as soon as the military objectives are declared complete. But peace is not the mere absence of missiles. It is the presence of civic agency, lived dignity, and memory-centred diplomacy.

    Domination is not peace, silence is not stability

    Empires enforced silence, but beneath that silence, discontent simmered. Rebellions erupted. Memory endured. The so-called peace eventually collapsed under the weight of its own moral emptiness.

    Every time civic pain is suppressed in the name of regional stability, it ferments. Disillusionment metastasizes into protest, extremism, or apathy. Jordanian youths who see their country used as a geopolitical buffer, Syrian families watching their homeland become a perpetual battleground, Iraqi citizens pulled between foreign forces and domestic militias—these are not passive audiences. Their silencing is not peace. It is prelude.

    Read Also: China ready for trade deals with Nigeria, says envoy

    If the international community continues to treat domination as de-escalation and forgets that justice is the only durable architecture for peace, then today’s “stability” will give way to tomorrow’s rupture. The bombs may have stopped. But the reckoning has not

    The foreseeable future: What this narrative risks

    If we continue to define peace as the absence of enemy retaliation, not the presence of repaired relationships, we will keep recycling the same crises in new costumes. Short-term headlines erase long-term wounds. What looks like a diplomatic win today often becomes the root of tomorrow’s rebellion. Narratives of strength rewrite truth. Victors shape the story—but memory is not so easily controlled. The pain that is ignored today returns as resistance tomorrow. Civilians bear the burden again and again. From Gaza to Tehran, from Damascus to Sanaa, people are told that peace has come, even as their water, dignity, and history are bombed out of existence.

    This kind of peace is not peace. It is a managed collapse, a façade of calm over a field of unresolved grief. Peace is not the silence of guns, but the presence of justice. Peace must be felt, not just declared. The moral measure of peace is not the strength of the victor, but the dignity of the most wounded.

    Ceasefires are not peace agreements, and diplomatic photo ops do not substitute for public healing. It calls for a world where we measure national progress not by deterrence, but by dignity restored, memory acknowledged, and power restrained by empathy.

    If Trump’s narrative is allowed to stand unchallenged, if domination continues to pass for diplomacy, then the U.S. and its allies will keep planting seeds of future war under the banner of present calm.

    The danger is not just that this narrative distorts global order; it’s that it erodes the moral architecture of peace itself. And without that foundation, every ceasefire is just a pause in a longer collapse. The world doesn’t need stronger men declaring victory. It needs more courageous nations asking: who was left out of this “peace,” and what will they remember?

    Peace must be built, not imposed. Because justice is not a luxury—it is the structure of reconciliation. And because, in the end, true peace is never about who stopped shooting—it’s about who can start healing.

    •Olayiwola is a peace and conflict researcher and practitioner. He can be reached at lekanolayiwola@gmail.com.

  • Uncle Sam: Silent crusader for press freedom

    Uncle Sam: Silent crusader for press freedom

    By Adebayo Bodunrin

    I am sure there will be no objection that Prince Samson Oruru Amuka Pemu, otherwise cherished as Uncle Sam Amuka or who his numerous admirers lovingly call Uncle Sam, the publisher of Vanguard newspapers and co-founder of Punch, is a respectable father of journalism. He is certainly the oldest Nigerian still plying his trade as a journalist.

    Media entrepreneur, Nduka Obaigbena describes him as an icon and leading light in Nigerian journalism. Ten years ago, ex – President Muhammadu Buhari described him as a “Gentleman of the Press” because of his simplicity, humility, modesty, generosity and friendliness on his 80th birthday.

    But make no mistake about his professional standing. He is a stickler for principles and unbendingly passionate about ethical conduct, discipline, decency and hard work.

    As a journalist, Uncle Sam has bestrode the Nigerian media and emerged admirably as an outstanding reporter, gifted features writer, first rate features editor, consummate title editor and exceptional manager of men, women, materials and resources, media entrepreneur and most importantly as a star columnist.

    There are many engagements in the print media. One of the most tasking and really creative endeavours is column writing. Not all editors or journalists dare to venture into it. Don’t blame them. Column writing is usually missing in the “intellectual menu” lists in journalism schools.

    Uncle Sam courageously dared into column writing. He is comparable to William Connor who wrote a regular column under the pen name, Cassandra, for 32 uninterrupted years between 1935 and 1967 in the London Daily Mirror. Uncle Sam wrote dazzling columns, sometimes twice weekly, under different pen names (pseudo) Sad Sam and Off Beat Sam bursting with satire, wit and humour depicting him as an informed people’s writer who unpretentiously exhibited nationalistic passion during his years at the old Daily Times.

    Read Also: Nigeria opens door to new economy as Tinubu signs landmark tax reform laws

    I do not intend to write on Uncle Sam’s journalistic odyssey. This is purely a piece on what many may not know about this inimitable and versatile journalist as he joins the nonagenarian club. He was born on June 13, 1935.

    The date was Sunday, April 22, 1990. Dawn broke with the bewildering news of a bloody coup attempt in Nigeria. It was led by Gideon Orkar, a Major in the Nigerian Army. It was an abortive coup to overthrow the administration of military president, Ibrahim Babangida who himself took power after a coup d’etat on August 27, 1985.

    The identified 42 coupists who killed Babangida’s aide de- camp, Lt. Colonel U.K. Bello were apprehended. In one fell swoop 13 journalists and media workers were similarly arrested and detained. The detained journalists’ family members, professional colleagues and sympathizers were in the throes of agony, pain, apprehension, anxiety and outright anger. The veiled threat to try them along with the coupists was hair-raising and mind boggling. How can professional journalists who do not usually carry arms be thrown into the gulag, presumably for coup plotting?

    For days there was great apprehension. This was informed by the unpredictability of dictatorship under military juntas. Over 14 years earlier, February 13, 1976, to be precise, a media worker, Abdulkarim Zakari of the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN), Radio Nigeria, was convicted of treason and executed by firing squad along with 36 soldiers and two police men for a similar abortive coup which claimed the lives of the then Head of State, Murtala Ramat Mohammed, his aide de-camp, Lieutenant Akintunde Akinsehinwa and the then Kwara State governor, Ibrahim Taiwo.

    In the instance of the 1990 coup, the great apprehension in the media community was not wearing the alluring garments of guiltlessness. The feeling of uneasiness that they could be put on trial was not taken lightly. The umbrella organisation of all practicing journalists, the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), not only raised an alarm but equally demanded their immediate and unconditional release.

    The effort by the NUJ leaders received a boost when the Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria, NPAN, collaborated with the journalists’ body to demand and succeeded in holding a meeting with top security operatives. It was unpublicised. It was hosted by Uncle Sam. The venue was the great canal canteen at Vanguard headquarters at Kirikiri Canal, Apapa, Lagos.

    The meeting yielded fruits immediately. The initial figure of 19 detainees was reduced to four. They were the Deputy General Manager of News Agency of Nigeria, NAN, Willie Bozimo, who was accused of having a close link with the financier of the failed coup, Great Ogboru, the late Deputy President of NUJ, Bassey Ekpo Bassey alleged to be sympathetic to the coup plotters, the former Deputy Editor of The PUNCH, Chris Mammah who was accused of writing the coup speech and a reporter with the defunct National Concord, Onoise Osunbor accused of attending meetings with the coup plotters.

    Negotiations with the top security operatives drawn from State Security Service, SSS, Directorate of Military Intelligence, DMI and allied agencies led by the Chief Intelligence Officer of the Babangida regime, General Haliru Akilu did not end with the first meeting. The heart-warming outcome of the negotiations by the NUJ team was that all the allegations have no basis. In fact, all the allegations turned out to be falsehood dressed in inelegant robes as truth. The detained journalists emerged from the shadows of incarceration, or was it death, into the warm embrace of freedom. If they had not regained freedom, perhaps, they would have been tried along with the leader of the coup, Gideon Orkar and 41 others who were executed on July 27 1990, in what has been described as the bloodiest coup d’état in Nigeria’s history.

    Perhaps, the role played by Uncle Sam in securing peaceful resolution of the issue and eventual freedom of the four journalists is one of the several things yet unsaid about him. The NUJ President Mohammed Sani Zorro, during the coup crisis said in an interview that unknown to many, Uncle Sam is a strong voice and one of the distinguished figures in the profession of journalism in Nigeria.

    It is incontestable that on several occasions, Uncle Sam waded into feuds between media houses and government. For instance, in June 2019, when it mattered most, Uncle Sam with support from two other publishers, the late Isa Funtua and Nduka Obaigbena resolved the “face-off” between the National Broadcasting Commission, NBC and Daar Communications Plc when the regulator withdrew the operating license of the latter.

    Every passing year, since 1994, May 3, is celebrated globally to appreciate the important work of journalists and to highlight the basic principles of press freedom. It is World Press Freedom Day.

    There are chances that many people haven’t got the faintest idea about the role of Uncle Sam in the proclamation of the day for this yearly global event. He had chosen the ennobling path of quietude.

    The World Press Freedom Day is traceable to inclement environment under which journalists plied their trade in Africa in the 1980s and 1990s, even though it was a season that the wave of democracy was sweeping across the continent but journalists were gagged. The media was muzzled. The journalists’ right to know was abhorred. The watchdog of the society was chained.

    It was an agonizing era in Nigeria. The democratic transitions had become lengthy and uncertain. Journalists witnessed repression, persecution, oppression, unjust imprisonment, abduction, detention, physical elimination, and arrests in gestapo style. There were forced closure of media houses, seizure of market ready publications, disruption of printing and distribution of tabloids etc.  In some extreme cases, journalists paid supreme price and suffered deprivations including means of livelihood.

    This deluge of despicable acts prompted a conference of African journalists under the aegis of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, UNESCO, in Windhoek, Namibia between April 29 and May 3, 1991. A remarkable outcome of the conference was a Windhoek Declaration for the development of a free, independent and pluralistic media.

    The Windhoek Declaration was a profound statement by African journalists that Press Freedom is the rotor that drives all fundamental human rights, good governance, justice, fairness and equity.

    By a programme drawn up for the conference, the UNESCO secretariat insisted that two top media executives should be in the delegation of the Union of Journalists from Nigeria. The NUJ settled for the publisher of Vanguard, Sam Amuka Pemu aka Uncle Sam and the managing director of defunct African Concord, Lewis Obi. In fact, Uncle Sam was nominated by UNESCO on the recommendation of one of its officials, late Akintola Fatoyinbo in recognition of his professional career as a notable reporter, editor and publisher.

    A year after the conference in Windhoek, there was a follow up review in the capital of Benin Republic, Cotonou. Uncle Sam and my humble self, represented Nigeria.

    A cheerful news was broken in Cotonou that the General Assembly of the United Nations will hold a special session to proclaim a day for a global event to mark Press Freedom.

    Two years after the Windhoek Declaration, the United Nations General Assembly held a special session and proclaimed the date of its adoption, May 3, as World Pres Freedom Day. That was in 1993. The first World Press Freedom Day was celebrated on May 3, 1994.

    •Bodunrin is journalist with Africa Independent Television and RayPower FM.

  • Nigerian illusion of outrage and criticism

    Nigerian illusion of outrage and criticism

    By Oladoja M.O

    In an age where access to information is boundless and opinions flood our timelines like seasonal rains, one would expect public discourse, especially around issues of governance to be rich with nuance, clarity, and purpose. Instead, what we are confronted with in Nigeria is a noisy theatre of misdirected outrage and watery criticism, lacking both depth and direction.

    One recent trigger came from the viral criticisms surrounding the national budget, particularly the eyebrow-raising figures allegedly earmarked for streetlight poles and similar line items. As is typical in the social media age, the noise began to swell. Twitter went into a frenzy. Threads upon threads emerged, each outdoing the other in outrage. The focus wasn’t just on the figures; it quickly spiraled into yet another populist takedown of the presidency, calling into question the entire moral fabric of governance. But just when the public’s fury had reached a crescendo, a jarring but necessary intervention came from an unlikely source: a senator who, contrary to the collective narrative, took time to explain that the criticism was misdirected. What was being paraded as evidence of executive recklessness was, in fact, the product of legislative insertions. Even the revered watchdog body, BudgIt, which had positioned itself as the conscience of fiscal scrutiny had peddled the wrong story, and done so confidently.

    At that point, a deeper question emerged, one which goes beyond this specific incident: What exactly is the quality of criticism in Nigeria?

    What we see across our social and political landscapes is not a culture of informed criticism but a culture of reactive condemnation. The ability to shout the loudest, to gather the most retweets or likes, has replaced the discipline of patient inquiry, structural understanding, and fact-based argument. We have mistaken noise for scrutiny, and in doing so, we have created an illusion: an illusion of outrage and criticism.

    Here’s the tragic irony: many of these criticisms begin from a good place, the desire for accountability, for a better Nigeria. But because the foundation is faulty, the outcomes are futile. One cannot build a temple of truth on a foundation of ignorance. The budget saga is just one of many examples.

    BudgIt, a civil society organization that has in the past done commendable work in simplifying the budget for the public, got it wrong this time, badly. Yet, even in the face of clarification, corrections, and new evidence, there was no public recant, no humility to say, “We were mistaken.” That act of refusal: the inability to admit error and recalibrate, is itself a glaring indicator of the intellectual poverty that plagues Nigerian criticism. In a land where saving face is prioritized over seeking truth, errors are not corrected; they are doubled down upon. And the implications are devastating. Public trust becomes confused and misdirected. The presidency gets blamed for what is in fact a legislative maneuver. Activists spend more time dragging the wrong institutions while the real culprits laugh quietly in shadows. The people remain stirred but unenlightened, angry, yes, but none the wiser.

    This shallow approach to criticism bleeds into other national conversations. Take the fixation on the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Road. A project that, whether justifiable or not, deserves technical, economic, and legal analysis is instead reduced to a carnival of trendy hashtags. Populists slam it without understanding its scope, funding model, or long-term impact. No consideration is given to feasibility studies, displacement issues, or cost-benefit analyses. No proper questions asked about procurement processes or federal-state cooperation. Instead, the discourse becomes a jamboree, a performance of rage designed to court virality, not accountability.

    This is not criticism. It is a parody of it.

    And just when you think the poverty of insight couldn’t dig deeper, reality offers more proof. Consider Peter Obi’s recent Democracy Day speech. In his attempt to talk about democracy, he instead ended up distorting history misrepresenting the very fabric of the democratic struggle in Nigeria. A man who, during the dark days of military rule, was cozy with the system’s power brokers, now stands on podiums speaking as though he bore scars from that era. When real patriots were sacrificing their lives, fleeing their homes, and watching their properties burned for daring to speak truth to power, Obi stood closer to the oppressor than the oppressed. Yet today, he speaks with the authority of the afflicted. That, too, is born of ignorance not just his, but the ignorance of the audience clapping in affirmation, unaware of the truth.

    Even more revealing was the reaction to President Tinubu’s Democracy Day awards. Nigerians, young and old, in all corners of the internet, questioned why certain figures were honoured some even asking, “Who are the Ogoni 9?” Others criticized the president for not awarding campaign allies, as though national honours were a reward system for electoral foot soldiers. It was laughable, yet tragic. Because how can you even begin to criticise a government when you don’t understand the very history of the democracy you claim to defend? How do you talk about national direction when your knowledge of national evolution is trapped in recent memory, as if Nigeria started in 2023?

    Read Also: Hijrah: MUSWEN, ADSN, MCLS urge unity among Nigerians

    It’s not just young people, either. Some of the loudest voices in the room middle-aged, supposedly experienced display a kind of ignorance so raw, you’d think the only political event they’ve lived through was a Twitter space. This is why we are where we are: a nation speaking loud but saying little, reacting fast but knowing nothing.

    True criticism demands hard work. It requires research, attention to context, historical awareness, and, above all, intellectual honesty. You cannot meaningfully critique governance structures when you don’t understand the separation of powers. You cannot hold public office holders accountable when you confuse federal responsibilities with local ones. You cannot demand transparency when your tools of inquiry are faulty. And in this desert of rigorous public engagement, one cannot help but mourn the absence of voices like that of Gani Fawehinmi: voices forged in the fire of truth, unseduced by populism, unshaken by power. Gani didn’t criticize for clout; he criticized with clarity. He did not shout merely to be heard; he roared because he understood. He was, above all, consistent, a virtue alien to many of today’s keyboard crusaders.

    What Nigeria faces is not a lack of criticism; it’s an excess of uninformed, performative, and ultimately useless criticism. And therein lies the danger. Because when the noise becomes the norm, it drowns out the voices that actually matter. When every outrage is manufactured, real outrage loses its power. When critique becomes theatre, accountability becomes a joke.

    To move forward as a nation, we must re-engineer our culture of criticism. We must build a new generation of thinkers, activists, and ordinary citizens who understand that to question power effectively, one must first understand it deeply. That it is not enough to be angry; one must be accurately angry. That social media fame is not the same as civic literacy. Until then, we will continue to shout: loudly, passionately, endlessly, but in circles.

    Like a dog chasing its own tail, we will perform outrage while the real issues remain untouched, and the real culprits continue to operate in silence.

    The illusion will continue. The theatre will go on. And the nation, tragically, will remain where it is starved, not of voices, but of thought.

    •Oladoja writes from Abuja via mayokunmark@gmail.com

  • Benue: The cost of leadership indolence

    Benue: The cost of leadership indolence

    • By Kalu Okoronkwo

    Benue State was once known for its fertile valleys, and vibrant agricultural life. Today, that landscape is stained with blood, villages razed, families torn apart, and countless lives reduced to mere statistics. And while the air is filled with the wails of the bereaved, an uneasy silence echoes from the seat of power, a silence made all the more deafening because it comes from a “man of God”.

    The governor of Benue, Rev. Fr. Dr. Hyacinth Iormem Alia is not just a politician; he is a clergy, one who once stood before congregations preaching peace, mercy, and the sanctity of life. His sermons stirred hearts and his prayers lifted souls. His ascent to power brought hope that perhaps, for the first time, moral clarity would guide political will.

    But in the face of relentless bloodshed, his pulpit has grown cold, and his voice, once thunderous with scripture, has become a whisper drowned by gunfire. For years, Benue has found itself at the mercy of violent clashes, often framed as farmer-herder conflicts, yet increasingly taking the form of organized massacres.

    Entire communities vanish overnight, crops burned and children are orphaned. Mass graves are dug hurriedly as survivors flee with haunted eyes and broken spirits. The cries of the land grow louder, begging for justice, for intervention, for leadership.

    Benue has become a byword for unending violence. According to data from SBM Intelligence and Nigeria Security Tracker (NST), over 2,100 people were killed in violent attacks in Benue between 2020 and 2024, with more than 350 killed in the first quarter of 2025 alone.

    By contrast, neighbouring Nasarawa and Kogi states recorded less than 150 fatalities each in the same quarter despite facing similar security threats. What distinguishes Benue is not just the violence, but the chronic absence of decisive leadership to stop it. IDP camps across the state, such as the one in Daudu and those scattered around Makurdi, are overflowing.

    Over 1.8 million Benue citizens are internally displaced, living without access to clean water, healthcare, or meaningful education for their children. Further statistical record of unwarranted killings under Governor Alia include Good Friday attacks (April 18–19), as suspected herdsmen attacked communities in Ukum and Logo LGAs, resulting in 56 bodies recovered (27 in Logo, 28 in Ukum), coordinated attacks in Ukum (April 22). A follow-up operation recovered a total death toll of at least 72, prompting the governor to declare a state of emergency. Also Aondona / Gwer West Assault (May 27), attack on Aondona village left at least 20 people dead, though police confirmed four, while local leaders claimed higher figures.  A single assault in Yelewata (June14-15) claimed over 200 lives, displacing hundreds.

    Read Also: Senate okays Rivers electoral commission chair-nominee amid protest

    Each new attack is met with a ritual of condemnation and condolence, but never the shield of governance nor the sword of justice. At the heart of this tragedy is a glaring leadership void. The present administration in Benue led by a man once seen as a beacon of moral authority—has consistently failed to provide security, robust intelligence response, or the political will to confront the killers.

    While security agencies are often stretched thin, there has been no comprehensive state-wide security initiative, no community peacebuilding program, and no visible effort at fostering federal collaboration. Instead, each attack is met with the same tired response: condemnation, a visit to the bereaved, and a return to comfortable indifference.

    Leadership, by its very essence, must be proactive. But in Benue, it has become ceremonial. The government reacts only after the ground has been soaked in blood and headlines cry out in alarm.

    Take Plateau State for instance, where in response to recurring attacks, the state established a community peace and reconciliation council, bolstered vigilante training, and launched early warning alert systems in vulnerable areas.

    Though not perfect, these interventions have seen a 20% reduction in rural attacks between 2023 and 2024. Meanwhile, Benue’s approach has remained one of prayer, platitude, and paralysis.

    Even Zamfara State, long troubled by banditry has deployed localized intelligence networks, partnered with traditional rulers, and intensified security coordination. The result, a notable drop in attacks on rural markets and commuter roads, Benue, however, drifts rudderless.

    Many in Benue feel betrayed. The pews that once brimmed with believers are now filled with doubt. “How can a man of God allow such suffering without righteous anger?” a displaced mother from Guma asks, clutching her only surviving child. “Is his silence holiness or helplessness?” It is a dangerous thing when faith begins to falter not just in God, but in those who claim to walk with Him. The clergy-governor’s inaction has become a spiritual crisis as much as a political one.

    For some, it feels like sacrilege, for others, it is simply politics in priestly robes. Leadership, especially one cloaked in divinity, demands more than prayers. It demands courage, empathy, and justice.

    Every day the clergy governor delays action, the death toll rises. His silence gives impunity a sanctuary. His restraint becomes complicity. The moral authority he once carried is being eroded, not by critics, but by corpses.

    The toll isn’t just in numbers, it’s in lives and livelihoods. Children no longer attend school. Farmers can no longer till their land. Women live in fear of night raids, and young people grow up in camps, robbed of hope.

    Leadership indolence is not just a political failure it is a moral one. It sends a clear message: that lives lost in Guma, Logo, or Agatu are not valuable enough to warrant urgency. Worse still, the inaction emboldens the killers. Each time the government looks away, impunity gains strength. What message does it send when communities write desperate letters pleading for protection and those letters go unanswered?

    Benue needs more than prayers, it needs protection. It needs more than sermons, it needs strategy. The altar cannot stand if it is soaked in innocent blood.

    With strong local coordination, investments in rural surveillance, early-response systems, and genuine political accountability, Benue could have stood as a model for how leadership defeats terror. Instead, it stands as a warning of what happens when leadership hides behind excuses.

    A crisis of this magnitude requires more than sympathy it requires strategy. It demands more than press statements, it needs policy and performance. The people of Benue deserve a government that doesn’t just mourn with them but protects them.

    History will not remember the eloquence of Governor Alia’s prayers or the softness of his speech. It will remember what he did or failed to do when his people cried out for help. And if he continues to look away, then he must accept the cruel irony: that while he preached salvation, his silence became their damnation.

    As the blood of innocents continues to soak the soil of Benue, history will ask: Where was leadership? Why was nothing done? The answers will not come from the silence of empty offices or the soundbites of indifferent officials. They must come from a collective awakening both by the leaders entrusted with power and the people who must hold them accountable.

    Until then, Benue bleeds—not just from bullets, but from betrayal.

    •Okoronkwo, a leadership and good governance advocate writes from Lagos.