Nigeria’s democracy is built on laws, fairness, and respect for institutions. It is not meant to be a game of power, manipulation, or interference. As the Osun State local government election approaches on February 22, 2025, there is one simple truth that cannot be ignored—this election must hold. No hidden agenda, no security excuse, no sudden warnings of violence should be used to stop the people of Osun from exercising their democratic right.

The Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun, and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, you know the truth. You know that democracy cannot be bargained away. You know that Osun State has the constitutional right to conduct this election, just as Rivers State did in October 2024. You know that your responsibility is to protect, not obstruct.

Do not repeat the mistakes of history. Do not allow yourselves to be used. The Nigerian people see everything. They are watching, waiting, hoping that, for once, power will be used to strengthen democracy, not weaken it.

This is not just about an election—it is about the soul of Nigeria. The question that lingers in the minds of Nigerians is whether institutions exist to serve the people or to protect the interests of those in power. The duty of the IGP and AGF is not to serve the ambitions of any political figure or party, but to uphold the law, defend democracy, and preserve national unity.

Adeleke’s Stand for Democracy—This is What Leadership Looks Like

Governor Ademola Adeleke has spoken. He has stood firm, just as Governor Siminalayi Fubara did in Rivers State. He has declared that the election will proceed as planned. But this is not just his decision—it is the law.

The Osun State High Court has ruled that the election must go on. The court has ordered security agencies to provide protection, not excuses. It has given a clear verdict:

The Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSIEC) is the only legal authority to conduct local elections.

The IGP, AGF, and security agencies are obligated to protect voters, not suppress the process.

There is no justification for withdrawal of security personnel or the use of fear to manipulate the situation.

There is no room for delay, no excuse for disruption, no hidden loophole to stop what must happen.

This election is not just about local government officials. It is about trust. It is about whether Nigerians can believe in their institutions. It is about whether the law means something or nothing at all.

The Cry of Democracy—Do Not Silence It Again

Nigeria is crying for democracy. Its people are tired—tired of manipulations, tired of interference, tired of power games that destroy the very foundation of governance.

The world has seen it too many times—elections obstructed, delayed, tampered with in the name of “security concerns.” But the people know the truth. And IGP, AGF—you know the truth too.

If there is a security concern, then deploy security to protect voters. If there is a threat, neutralize it—but do not use it as an excuse to stop democracy. If there is violence, punish the perpetrators, not the voters.

Nigerians are not fooled anymore. They know the difference between genuine security concerns and politically motivated interference. They have watched elections unfold under worse conditions in this country, and yet, those elections were not stopped.

So why Osun? Why now? Why, after the court has spoken?

Learn from Rivers—Democracy Cannot Be Defeated

The Rivers State local government election in October 2024 should be a lesson to all. The police pulled security, shut down the electoral commission, and tried to halt the process. But Governor Fubara stood firm. The people stood firm. And democracy stood firm

Despite every obstacle thrown in its way, the election was held. The people voted. The courts upheld it. And those who tried to interfere were left exposed.

Do not let history repeat itself in Osun. Do not drag the nation through another battle between political influence and the rule of law. Nigeria is better than this. We should be better than this.

IGP, AGF—Your Actions Will Be Remembered

The weight of history is on your shoulders. The people of Nigeria will not forget what you do now.

If you allow this election to proceed peacefully, you will be remembered as leaders who stood for democracy, who upheld the rule of law, who protected the people’s right to vote.

If you interfere, you will be remembered as those who chose power over justice, as those who betrayed democracy at a moment when it needed protection the most

The choice is yours.

This is Not About Politics—This is About Nigeria

This writer, a psychologist, sides with no one but stands for Nigeria, democracy, and the rule of law. The duty of leaders and institutions is not to serve political interests but to protect the sanctity of democracy and obey judicial rulings.

The Osun State local government elections must be handled in accordance with legal precedents, with full respect for the constitutional mandate of the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSIEC). Security agencies and federal authorities must ensure that democracy is practiced, not manipulated, and that the rights of Nigerians to choose their leaders are upheld without interference.

The law must be followed, institutions must function independently, and the democratic process must not be sacrificed for political power. Nigeria belongs to its people, not to those who wish to control it for their own gain.

History is a merciless judge. It remembers those who stood for justice and those who bowed to pressure. It records those who strengthened democracy and those who tried to break it.

If the IGP and AGF allow themselves to be used, if they permit interference where the law has already spoken, their names will be written in the same pages as those who tried to undermine the will of the people. But if they stand firm, if they obey the law and do their duty, they will be remembered as defenders of democracy, not tools of political oppression.

A Final Call—Let Osun’s Election Happen

This is bigger than one state. This is bigger than one election. This is about Nigeria itself—about whether we are truly a democracy or just pretending to be one.

The federal government, security agencies, and all stakeholders must work together to ensure that the election is conducted peacefully, fairly, and without manipulation.

The world is watching. Nigerians are watching. History is recording every move.

Let Osun vote. Let democracy breathe. Let the people decide.

IGP, AGF—you know the truth. You really do.

The Nigerian Senate, an institution expected to epitomize decorum and democratic principles, has once again been thrown into the spotlight for the wrong reasons. At the center of this latest drama are two familiar names: Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. Their repeated clashes raise an important question: what exactly is it between Akpabio and Natasha?

The most recent incident unfolded in the Senate chamber when Senator Natasha refused to move to a newly assigned seat without prior consultation. This seemingly administrative decision quickly escalated into a heated exchange, culminating in Akpabio ordering the sergeant-at-arms to walk her out of the plenary session. This is not the first time that Natasha and Akpabio have locked horns, and given the trajectory of their confrontations, it is unlikely to be the last.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not one to shy away from a fight, especially when she perceives an injustice. As a vocal member of the opposition (PDP), she has been unwavering in her demand for fair treatment and democratic transparency. On the other hand, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, a former governor and a veteran of Nigerian politics, is known for his authoritative leadership style. His tenure in the Senate has not been devoid of controversy, and he has often been accused of high-handedness.

Their first major public clash came months ago when Senator Natasha accused Akpabio of deliberately sidelining her in Senate proceedings, particularly in matters concerning bill presentations. She claimed that despite meeting all requirements, she was continuously denied the opportunity to present bills for a second reading. These allegations, though unproven, add to the growing perception that Akpabio may be deliberately stifling her contributions to national discourse.

It is difficult to ignore the gender dimension in this saga. The Nigerian political space remains overwhelmingly patriarchal, with women often facing undue resistance in leadership positions. Senator Natasha, despite her political experience and advocacy background, has had to fight harder than her male counterparts to gain her footing in the Senate. Is Akpabio’s attitude towards her an extension of this long-standing institutional bias, or is there a deeper personal and political vendetta at play?

Senator Natasha’s resistance to being pushed around is commendable, but it has also put her at the center of controversy. In a country where women who stand their ground are often labeled as “troublesome” or “disruptive,” her defiance is perceived differently by various factions. To some, she is an uncompromising warrior for justice, while to others, she is an agitator disrupting the Senate’s order.

Beyond personality clashes, political interests cannot be ignored. The Nigerian Senate, much like every other political institution in the country, is deeply influenced by party affiliations, regional interests, and personal ambitions. Akpabio, a stalwart of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), has a vested interest in maintaining the dominance of his party’s agenda. Natasha, being an opposition senator from the PDP, naturally finds herself at odds with him.

It is important to note that Senate Presidents, by the virtue of their position, wield enormous influence over legislative proceedings. They decide what bills get priority, who speaks, and, in extreme cases, who stays or leaves the chamber. If Akpabio is indeed using his position to muzzle opposition voices, then this is not just about Natasha; it is about the broader state of Nigeria’s democracy.

The recent decision to move Senator Natasha’s seat may seem trivial at first glance, but in political spaces, symbolic actions often carry significant weight. In many parliaments worldwide, seat arrangements are meticulously planned to reflect power dynamics and alliances. Was Natasha’s seat moved randomly, or was it a subtle power play aimed at diminishing her influence? The lack of prior communication suggests a deliberate attempt to undermine her position.

Her resistance to this move, therefore, is not just about personal comfort but about the principle of consultation and respect. If senators can be randomly displaced without explanation, what stops the leadership from making other arbitrary decisions that stifle dissenting voices?

At a time when Nigerians are grappling with pressing national issues, ranging from economic hardship to insecurity, one would expect the Senate to focus on delivering legislative solutions rather than engaging in internal power struggles. Yet, the chamber appears to be turning into an arena for political gladiators, with the real losers being the Nigerian people.

If the leadership of the Senate is seen as oppressive or biased, it erodes public trust in the institution. Nigerians deserve a Senate that represents all voices, not one that operates as an extension of the ruling party’s interests. Akpabio, as the leader of the chamber, must rise above personal and political differences and ensure fairness in all dealings. On the other hand, Senator Natasha must also find a balance between assertiveness and strategic engagement to avoid being constantly perceived as a disruptor.

The ongoing tension between Akpabio and Natasha must be addressed before it further degenerates. There are a few possible solutions, and this can be attained through clearer communication. In fact, if changes are to be made regarding seating arrangements or legislative procedures, affected senators must be informed beforehand. Transparency can help prevent unnecessary confrontations.

In a similar vein, the Senate should establish stronger mechanisms to address disputes among members. A body that mediates conflicts before they escalate on the floor would be beneficial.

Also, while political affiliations are inevitable, lawmakers must prioritize national interest over party politics. Akpabio must show that he is a leader for all senators, not just APC members.

Again, if Senator Natasha’s claims of being denied the opportunity to present bills are true, then this must be rectified immediately. Every senator deserves a fair chance to contribute to national policymaking.

The repeated clashes between Akpabio and Natasha are a symptom of deeper issues within Nigeria’s legislative system. Whether driven by political rivalry, gender bias, or personal animosity, these tensions must be addressed to ensure the Senate remains a credible institution. If democracy is to thrive, then all voices, especially those in the opposition, must be given a fair platform.

So, again, we ask: what is it between Akpabio and Natasha? Only time will tell. But one thing is clear, Nigerians are watching.

Ether 

 price has slipped by over 5% within the last 24 hours toward $2,700 on Feb. 22.

Key catalysts driving ETH price lower today include:

• A Bybit hack involving over $1 billion in ETH.

• Growing rumors that the Ethereum Foundation may roll back the chain.

• A prevailing bearish continuation setup.

Bybit hack pushes Ether’s price down

A major contributing factor behind Ether’s declines today is the $1.5 billion exploit of cryptocurrency exchange Bybit.

As it happened:

• On Feb. 21, Hackers compromised one of Bybit’s Ethereum cold wallets, which are typically secure due to offline storage.

• Stolen assets included over 401,000 ETH and large amounts of staked ETH tokens (stETH, mETH, cmETH).

• Investigators, including ZachXBT, linked the attack to Lazarus Group through onchain transaction tracing and test transactions conducted before the exploit.

• Analyst “andxt” suggests that the North Korean group will eventually sell the stolen ETH.

• Bybit CEO Ben Zhou assured customers that the exchange remains solvent, with all client assets backed 1:1.

• Bybit secured a bridge loan covering 80% of the stolen funds to ensure withdrawals continue.

Ethereum Foundation in a pickle after Bybit hack

Voices are growing inside the crypto industry discussing Ethereum Foundation’s potential to “roll back” their blockchain to undo the effects of the Bybit hack.

Some of the leading crypto influencers teasing a “hard fork” include:

• Analyst Matthew R. Kratter claims the Ethereum Foundation should be “held responsible for aiding and abetting global terrorism” if they don’t hard fork to defund Lazarus Group.

• Arthur Hayes (BitMEX co-founder) publicly asked Vitalik Buterin if he would roll back the blockchain to help Bybit recover stolen funds.

• Will Reeves (Fold App CEO) argues Ethereum’s ability to reverse transactions is a “critical feature” to maintain faith in the ecosystem.

• This echoes the 2016 DAO hack, where Ethereum split into ETH and ETC after a rollback decision.

The Ethereum Foundation and Vitalik Buterin have not addressed these requests, even though some rumors suggest a potential community vote on a hard fork decision.

Related: Ethereum Foundation wants a social media guru to help it ‘yap better’

• A 2016-like rollback would undermine Ethereum’s credibility and may set a concerning precedent for future hacks.

• Uncertainties like these can cause market panic, leading to price declines such as the one witnessed in the last 24 hours.

Ethereum could drop another 28%

Ether’s price drop today appears after failing to break decisively above what appears to be a bear pennant pattern.

Key points:

• A bear pennant consists of a sharp decline (flagpole) followed by sideways consolidation within converging trendlines.

• If the pattern plays out, the expected target is derived by measuring the height of the flagpole and projecting it downward.

• This calculation places a potential ETH price target near $1,953, suggesting a 28% drop by March if the breakdown is confirmed.

• The price rejection at the upper boundary suggests ETH sellers remain in control, increasing downside risk.

• The Relative Strength Index (RSI) at 48.06 suggests neutral-to-bearish momentum, with room for further downside if it drops below 40.

[cointelegraph]

 The crypto industry started its Friday in a jubilant mood, with Coinbase Global Inc.’s announcement that US securities regulators were poised to dismiss a legal case against the nation’s largest digital-asset exchange.

The happy vibe didn’t last long, however: Less than three hours later and halfway around the world, the exchange Bybit disclosed that it had been hacked in what analysts say was the biggest-ever theft in the industry with almost $1.5 billion worth of tokens looted.

The ensuing whiplash in market prices — not to mention the moods in the crypto trading trenches – served as yet another stark reminder of the unique and ever-present risks lurking in this market. And it also emboldened critics of President Donald Trump’s fervent efforts to reverse his predecessor’s regulatory scrutiny of an industry that’s become more and more entwined with the traditional financial system.

“Deregulated markets sound good until you have this type of attack,” said Hilary Allen, a professor at American University’s Washington College of Law who studies crypto markets. “In the short term, we are seeing a lot of cheering for the peeling away of a lot of regulations. But be careful what you wish for.”

Traders booting up their computers on Friday morning were greeted by news that the Trump-era Securities and Exchange Commission, pending commissioner approval, was poised to permanently dismiss its lawsuit against Coinbase for running an unregistered exchange, brokerage and clearing agency.

Shares of the largest US crypto exchange shot up on the news, surging almost 6% in premarket trading. The crypto market went along for the ride, pushing Bitcoin toward the $100,000 level for the first time in more than two weeks. Ether, the second largest token, jumped more than 4%.

The gains proved to be fleeting.

Vigilant crypto market observers soon began noticing huge, suspicious withdrawals of Ether from another, Dubai-based exchange called Bybit, one of the largest in the world with more than $36 billion in daily average trading volume.

Bybit quickly confirmed that it had been robbed. CEO Ben Zhou explained the caper in crypto jargon undecipherable to most of the world, but all too clear to digital-asset enthusiasts: “Hacker took control of the specific ETH cold wallet we signed and transfered all ETH in the cold wallet to this unidentified address.”

Shark Tank investor Mark Cuban shrugged off concerns over the $1.4 billion Bybit hack, saying it has "no implications" for the broader crypto market.

However, Cuban raised one key question: "Only question is whether they have insurance,” he tells TheStreet Crypto.

Crypto insurance protects exchanges, businesses, and investors from financial losses due to hacks, fraud, or operational failures. Unlike traditional finance, coverage options remain limited, and many exchanges self-insure or rely on emergency funds. Major policies often cover theft, custodial losses, and cyberattacks, but not all platforms are insured.

The massive exploit on Feb. 21, confirmed by Bybit CEO Ben Zhou, marks the largest crypto hack in history, surpassing the $625 million Ronin Network attack in 2022. Researchers suspect North Korean hackers may have been involved.

A hacker gained control of Bybit’s Ethereum cold wallet, manipulating a transaction that led to the loss of nearly $1.4 billion in ETH and stETH.

"The hacker took control of the specific ETH cold wallet we signed and transferred all ETH in the cold wallet to this unidentified address," Zhou said in a post on X.

Blockchain analytics firms ZachXBT and Arkham Intelligence confirmed the massive outflows, with Arkham reporting that the stolen funds are now being moved and sold across different addresses.

Bybit’s other wallets remain secure, and the exchange has not halted withdrawals, Zhou reassured users.

Handling the aftermath

Zhou took to a live stream on X to calm customer concerns. He revealed that Bybit had secured a "bridge loan" covering 80% of the stolen funds and insisted that all withdrawals would be honored.

"Your money is safe, and our withdrawals are still open," he said. Bybit has already processed 99% of withdrawal requests following the breach.

Despite the scale of the attack, Bybit executives maintain that the exchange remains solvent. "Even today, if all the Bybit clients withdraw, we can give you withdrawals," Zhou said.

However, the exchange does not have enough Ethereum to cover the stolen funds immediately and will not buy ETH to replenish reserves.

"Even if we want to buy, it is too big of an amount to be moving around," he added.

Crypto industry responds

Bitget CEO Gracy Chen announced that her exchange has blacklisted the hacker’s wallets and is blocking transactions from illicit addresses.

"At Bitget, we strongly believe in supporting the community," Chen said, adding that Bitget transferred 40,000 ETH (worth $105 million) to Bybit to help cover losses. "These are Bitget’s own funds, sent for the goodwill of the crypto space.”

The total value of all cryptocurrencies in circulation hit a new record high of $3.9 trillion in December, led by surging gains in some of the industry's most popular coins and tokens, like XRP (CRYPTO: XRP), Dogecoin (CRYPTO: DOGE), and Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC).

Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Learn More »

XRP Price data by YCharts.

As you can see in the above chart, most of the recent gains were realized following President Trump's U.S. election win on Nov. 5. He promised to make the U.S. the crypto capital of the world on the campaign trail, and his administration is already making moves that could drive value across the industry.

XRP, Dogecoin, and Bitcoin could each benefit from Trump's crypto-friendly policies for different reasons, but which one is the best buy in 2025?

The case for XRP: A new regulatory regime

Ripple is the creator of the Ripple Payments network, which allows banks to settle transactions with each other directly even if they use different infrastructure. It eliminates the need for intermediaries, which means global payments can be processed within seconds instead of days.

Ripple created the XRP token to standardize transactions within Ripple Payments. For example, two banks located in different countries can transact in XRP instead of using fiat money, because it allows them to bypass currency exchange fees and other transaction costs. This sets XRP apart from other cryptocurrencies, because it has a legitimate use case which could drive sustainable long-term value.

However, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Ripple in 2020, alleging it violated the law because of the way it distributes XRP. Since Ripple controls 42.2 billion tokens and releases them gradually each month to meet demand, the SEC argued that XRP should be a registered financial security (like a stock or a bond). If the SEC were to win the case, Ripple (as the issuer) would have to operate under a strict regulatory framework.

A judge partially resolved the matter last year, ruling that XRP is only a financial security in specific circumstances. Ripple was hit with a $125 million fine, and investors mostly viewed the outcome as a win. However, the SEC has appealed the verdict, which could drag the case out for several more years.

That's why Trump's election win sent XRP soaring. The acting SEC chairman he appointed (Mark Uyeda) has already started pausing active lawsuits against crypto companies like Binance, and there is speculation Ripple's case could be next. Resolving these legal proceedings could pave the way for more upside in XRP, because it would give Ripple more freedom to drive adoption.

The case for Dogecoin: Elon Musk -- but there's a catch

Dogecoin is a meme token, so it doesn't really have a use case underpinning its value. Instead, its price moves at the whims of speculative investors. That shouldn't come as a surprise, since its two founders created it in 2013 as a joke (their words, not mine).

Elon Musk has frequently promoted Dogecoin on social media since 2021, sharing memes and engaging in friendly banter with other enthusiasts. He even participated in a Dogecoin-themed skit on Saturday Night Live (SNL) in May of that year. Ironically, the token peaked at a price of $0.73 during his appearance, and it was down by more than 90% less than a year later.

Many investors pinned their hopes on the idea that Musk would create tangible value for Dogecoin. His electric vehicle company, Tesla, did start accepting it as payment for some items of merchandise, but that didn't really move the needle. Ultimately, Musk didn't have a concrete long-term plan to back up his social media banter.

But investors' hopes were reignited last year. Musk was a big financial backer of Trump's campaign, and following the election, the President appointed him to run a group to help the U.S. government reduce costs. It's called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE for short, which is a reference to Dogecoin.

Here's the catch: There is no indication Dogecoin will have any involvement with the DOGE group, so its powerful rally since Nov. 5 is based entirely on speculation. It's possible that some of Trump's crypto-friendly policies could help Dogecoin enthusiasts create new use cases to drive value, but it's unclear how that will shake out.

Bitcoin is the world's largest cryptocurrency, with a market capitalization of $1.9 trillion. While XRP and Dogecoin are still trading below their all-time highs from a few years ago, Bitcoin continues to set new records on the back of growing demand from individuals and institutions.

Bitcoin is a truly decentralized asset, meaning there is no individual or company capable of altering its supply or its mechanics. As a result, it doesn't fit the SEC's definition of a financial security, so it hasn't faced the same regulatory scrutiny as Ripple and XRP. In fact, the SEC approved dozens of Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) last year, which allow financial advisors and institutional investors to buy the cryptocurrency in a regulated manner.

Many investors consider Bitcoin to be a legitimate store of value, kind of like a digital version of gold. That's one of eight reasons that Cathie Wood's Ark Investment Management says the cryptocurrency could soar to $1.48 million per coin by 2030, representing a potential upside of 1,438%. The company also believes many businesses and governments will eventually hold Bitcoin on their balance sheets to hedge against economic headwinds like inflation, but also because, like gold, it consistently appreciates in value.

President Trump has already thrown his support behind creating a strategic Bitcoin reserve within the U.S. government, so it's possible many other governments will follow.

Michael Saylor, the co-founder of MicroStrategy, is even more bullish. He thinks over $500 trillion worth of physical assets will be "tokenized" on the blockchain by the year 2045, and Bitcoin will be the official reserve currency. If that scenario plays out, he believes Bitcoin could trade at a whopping $13 million per coin, implying an upside of 13,413% from its current price as of this writing.

Image source: Getty Images.

The verdict

Which of these three cryptocurrencies is the best buy in 2025? I'm going to rule out Dogecoin immediately because there are no fundamentals supporting its value, so further upside is unlikely without another speculative frenzy.

This might come as a surprise, but I think XRP will also struggle to deliver further gains, even if Ripple's regulatory woes are resolved. Simply put, banks don't necessarily have to use XRP in order to use Ripple Payments. They can transact using fiat currencies instead, while still benefiting from rapid transfers. As a result, further upside in XRP might depend more on speculation than organic demand.

That leaves Bitcoin. With ETFs consistently attracting inflows, and the possibility of a U.S. government reserve on the horizon, I think it will comfortably outperform XRP and Dogecoin this year (and beyond).

[aol]

Former military president, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB), has addressed the long-standing controversy surrounding the assassination of a journalist, Dele Giwa, describing it as part of “booby traps and acts of destabilisation” targeted at his administration.

Dele Giwa, the Editor-in-Chief and co-founder of Newswatch magazine, was killed by a parcel bomb delivered to his Ikeja residence by still-unidentified couriers on October 19, 1986, during Babangida’s military regime.

The murder remains unsolved to this day and is considered one of the darkest moments in Nigeria’s media history. Many pointed accusing fingers at Babangida and his government.

However, in his newly launched autobiography, A Journey in Service, Babangida denied any involvement in the assassination. He questioned the logic behind claims that the parcel bomb bore the presidency’s logo, arguing that a supposed killer would not identify themselves so blatantly.

In Chapter 10 of the 420-page book, Babangida recounted the challenges of his administration, listing Giwa’s assassination alongside other major crises, including the Vatsa coup, the Gideon Orkar coup, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) controversy, the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) riots, and the C-140 air crash.

‘I felt a personal loss’

Babangida said Giwa’s death left him with a deep sense of personal loss and shock.

“Mr Giwa was a good friend, like a few other senior journalists in the country. We spoke often on the phone and met a few times. I valued his deep insight on national issues and respected his views and reach as a media leader,” he wrote.

However, he said his grief was overshadowed by the public outcry and the introduction of a new and gruesome method of assassination in Nigeria.

Recounting the incident, Babangida noted that Giwa was at his breakfast table with Newswatch’s London Bureau Chief, Kayode Soyinka, when the parcel bomb exploded, fatally wounding him.

He observed that the killing came less than a year after he overthrew General Muhammadu Buhari and just weeks after the OIC controversy, which led to the retirement of his deputy, Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe.

“I saw Giwa’s wicked and cruel murder as part of a series of booby traps and acts of destabilisation being hatched against the administration. Undoubtedly, our choice of the path of rigorous reform had earned us unintended adversaries,” he wrote.

Babangida argued that whoever masterminded the attack knew of his relationship with Giwa and targeted the journalist to hurt him emotionally.

“Secondly, Giwa was a very popular and colourful journalist, a person of great public interest for anyone wanting to inflict a mischievous political blow on the young military administration.

“Giwa was loved by his audience and the rest of the public. Targeting him would shock the public and paint the administration in a feeble light,” he added.

Denial of involvement

Babangida dismissed allegations that his government was behind the murder, calling such claims “cheap and foolish.”

“The insinuation that the parcel may have come from the headquarters of the administration was cheap and foolish. Why would an officially planned high-level assassination carry an apparent forwarding address of the killer? Why would a government-planned and executed crime point directly at the suspect?

“All this did not make sense to me,” he wrote, adding that he viewed the accusations as part of the challenges of leading a military regime.

He said he relied on the police and intelligence services to investigate the murder, directing the Inspector-General of Police to assign a top investigative team to the case with daily reports.

Why the murder was never solved

Reflecting on why the case remained unsolved nearly four decades later, Babangida blamed the media and certain political figures for distorting the investigation.

He argued that the Newswatch management’s legal approach, led by their lawyer, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, turned the case into a media spectacle rather than a thorough criminal investigation.

“The involvement of high-profile lawyer Gani Fawehinmi and the populist slant given to the case by the media poisoned the investigation with political overtones,” he wrote.

Babangida suggested that by focusing solely on his administration as the prime suspect, the investigation failed to explore other possible leads.

“The legal drama and political grandstanding combined to muddle the work of the police and intelligence investigators towards getting a factual report on this cruel and criminal act. 

“What the campaigners failed to realise was that even under a military regime, crimes will be committed by persons and agencies that may not be directly related to either the military establishment or the government. The best way to cover up for heinous crimes would be to craft them in a manner that includes the government among the suspects so that what should ordinarily be a criminal investigation is drowned by political actions and populist sentiments,” he added.

He criticised the adversarial stance of the Nigerian media, claiming it had a history of positioning itself against the government, making unbiased investigations difficult.

“It was an attitude of ‘we versus the government’ that has remained today. It is a situation in which the government is adjudged guilty even before the evidence in a case is adduced,” he wrote.

Babangida noted that even when President Olusegun Obasanjo reopened the case through the Oputa Panel on Human Rights, no new evidence emerged.

“The Giwa, like all mysterious murders, has remained unsolved after so many years. I keep hoping the truth will be uncovered in our lifetime or after us,” he wrote.

‘Vatsa was always envious of me’

Babangida also revisited the 1985 coup attempt led by his childhood friend and colleague, General Mamman Jiya Vatsa, describing it as one of the most destabilising events of his administration.

He said he initially dismissed reports of a plot against him as rumours. However, when concerns grew, he confronted Vatsa, then Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, who denied the allegations.

“Once substantial incontrovertible evidence was established, the arrests began,” he wrote, revealing that Vatsa had paid several officers, including Lt-Col. Musa Bitiyong, ₦50,000 for their roles in the planned coup.

Babangida said he found it difficult to believe the extent of Vatsa’s involvement until intelligence reports detailed plans to bomb Eko Bridge and hijack the presidential jet.

He recounted a briefing session where he expressed disbelief, only for investigators to reveal that Vatsa had even attempted to escape through an air conditioner vent in his detention cell.

“As the details kept coming in, it became harder not to believe the integrity of the disclosures. I felt a deep personal sense of betrayal. There were details of conversations, funding, travel itinerary and recruitment of troops to support the operation. 

“Each time I had to be briefed on aspects of the coup plot, I insisted on having a senior officer with integrity present as a witness. I invited Garba Duba to listen in on one occasion as the investigating team briefed me. When I shrugged in disbelief, the briefing officer then revealed that Vatsa had even tried to escape through the wall air conditioner hole in his detention room but was stopped by vigilant guards,” he wrote.

Despite their close friendship from childhood, Babangida said Vatsa had always been envious of him.

“With the benefit of hindsight now, I recall that a constant part of our relationship as teenagers and young men was a continuous and recurrent peer jealousy on his part towards me. He was always envious of my achievements, especially when he thought I was progressing better than him, either in school or our military career path. 

“For instance, when I became Head Boy at Bida Secondary School, Vatsa often made it a duty to put obstacles in my way as a leader. He frequently disregarded my instructions, insisting that there was nothing so special about being the Head Boy. 

“That trend continued through our military career but tended to diminish as we both progressed in our respective military careers. Still, he was envious of my career path and postings up to when I was chosen as a member of the Supreme Military Council under General Murtala Muhammed,” he wrote.

‘C-130 air crash conspiracy a wicked rumour’

Babangida also addressed the 1992 C-130 military plane crash, which killed 159 officers, including nine foreigners.

The aircraft crashed into a swamp near Lagos, just three minutes after takeoff.

Given the number of military officers on board, rumours spread that the government had orchestrated the crash to eliminate potential coup plotters.

“Mischief makers and rumour mongers were colouring the public perception of this accident. Some speculated that regime opponents in the armed forces had sabotaged the aircraft to vent their anger at the direction of the administration.

“A more wicked version of the rumour was that the administration had somehow plotted to assemble these officers in one consignment for elimination for fear that they might be planning a coup against the military administration’s leadership based on the failed Gideon Orkar coup that had taken place earlier,” Babangida wrote.

He dismissed such theories, insisting that an independent investigation found the crash was caused by technical faults and lapses in aircraft maintenance.

“It was, however, an indication of the level of decay to which our public perception and discourse had descended,” he added, lamenting how political opponents weaponised tragedies against his administration.

Babangida said his government focused on ensuring the welfare and entitlements of the deceased officers’ families while taking measures to prevent a similar tragedy.

 [DailyTrust]

The founder of the Light Nation Global church, Pastor Femi Lazarus, has revealed where he met his wife.

The pastor made the revelation while addressing his congregation about the different settings and scenarios one can meet their God-given partners.

Speaking in a viral video on social media, Lazarus disclosed that they met during a prayer session on Telegram.

Recalling her first visit to his church, the cleric said she was the first woman that would confidently look straight to his eyes.

Admiring her confidence and boldness, he said, “I met my wife on Telegram, I’m telling you. We will be praying and she would just comment ‘Amen’.

“When you are patient about the subject of love and marriage you will see things for what they are. She was the first lady to ever sit down in my front and look into my eyes.”

He further advised the singles that one can find their ideal partner in unexpected places, including online platforms.

[DailyPost]

Surely, the parties in the ongoing impeachment crisis rocking the Lagos State House of Assembly (LSHA) ought to have known that such an utterly avoidable internal implosion would make them vulnerable to vicious attacks by those who envy and deplore the fact that their party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), in its various mutations at different times since 1999 as AD, AC, ACD, ACN and now APC, had maintained near one-party electoral dominance of the country’s economic nerve centre over the last two and a half decades. In a widely circulated piece on online platforms, for instance, one Dr Afolabi Gbajumo, after a lengthy dissection of the crisis from his own perspective accused both factions in the current LSHA imbroglio and even the executive of unbridled corruption, illicit accumulation of wealth and venality without the slightest scintilla of evidence.

True, Lagos is not yet anywhere near where it should be in developmental terms as it is still a work in progress as all human communities always are. But it would take the height of intellectual dishonesty not to admit the glaring fact that compared to where she was pre-1999, the megacity state has made remarkable progress on all fronts leaving virtually every other state in the country far behind. Today, she is not only the sixth largest economy in Africa, Lagos is gradually emerging in the ranks of leading megacities of But this is the kind of unfair onslaught that disputants in the LSHA open their party to and it is unfortunate that they are digging in deeper in their trenches in what can only be an ultimately self-destructive internecine warfare. However, what are the issues?

With no less than two-thirds of the members of the LSHA controlled by the APC undertaking his impeachment on January 13, 2025, when he was away on vacation to the US, it is logical to argue that the erstwhile Speaker of the House, Hon. Mudashiru Obasa, had lost not only legal but also moral legitimacy. And there is no doubt that the members of the LSHA are constitutionally empowered to elect and remove their principal officers through stipulated rules and procedures. And the vote of confidence passed on the newly elected Speaker, Mrs Mojisola Meranda, by a majority of members before the House adjourned sine die suggests that the legislators are indeed fed up with Obasa whom they have accused of arrogant, insensitive and corrupt leadership.

The problem is that in politics, things are often not as they seem to be. For example, on 11th November, 2024, members of the LSHA passed a vote of confidence on the allegedly corrupt, insensitive and arrogant Mudashiru Obasa as Speaker of the House. As the This Day Newspaper reported the story, “The vote of confidence on the Speaker coincided with his 52nd birthday as the lawmakers eulogized him for uplifting the country’s democracy through laws that impact positively on the people. Majority Leader, Noheem Adams said during plenary presided over by Deputy Speaker, Mojisola Lasbat Meranda, that his motion, seconded by Hon. Sa’ad Olumoh (Ajeromi Ifelodun. 1), followed a wide consultation”. What then had changed between this time and the ‘impeachment’ of Obasa on January 13 this year?

Again, since Obasa had lost the confidence of the vast majority of his colleagues and it is even claimed that civil servants in the LSHA bureaucracy boisterously celebrated his removal, why was he impeached when he was out of the country on vacation? Since he was so reportedly overwhelmingly unpopular, could he have done anything to stop his removal if he was present? Wouldn’t that have denuded the process of his impeachment of its seeming surreptitious and conspiratorial secretiveness and accorded it more legitimacy? After all, this is not the first time that a Speaker of the LSHA would be removed in this dispensation. Hon Waheed Jokotola Pelumi was the Speaker of the LSHA between June 2, 2003 and December 29, 2005. Pelumi was removed from office by his colleagues and replaced by Hon. Adeyemi Ikuforiji who remained in office from December 29, 2005, till the end of the life of the 7th Assembly in 2015. Pelumi was not removed from office in his absence and the governor at the time, now President Bola Tinubu did not oppose the change of leadership which reinforced his democratic credentials.

It is ironic that those who mobilized a massive security presence in the Assembly premises to facilitate the removal of Obasa cried foul that officials of the DSS had invaded the Assembly premises to prevent the Speaker, Hon. (Mrs Miranda) from accessing her office and allegedly to facilitate the resumption of Obasa who had dismissed his impeachment as defective and not following due process. The DSS has since made public a letter signed by the Deputy Clerk of the House, Mr A.T.B. Ottun, to prevent alleged plans by Obasa to forcefully resume in his office on February 18, 2025. Reports widely disseminated on social media that a cache of sophisticated arms were suddenly discovered in Obasa ‘s office weeks after Mrs Meranda had supposedly been making use of the same office does little to help the credibility of the anti-Obasa elements. It gives the impression of a desperation to de-market and instigate public opinion against the embattled Agege legislator.

During Adeyemi Ikuforiji’s tenure as Speaker, he led the House in offering robust checks and balances to the executive during the tenure of the highly cerebral Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN). But this the easy going but inwardly steely lawmaker from Epe did without ever insulting the governor or demeaning his office. Thus, that Obasa kept Governor Sanwo-Olu and his entourage waiting for nearly four hours before the commencement of the presentation of the state’s 2025 budget estimates and without any apologies for this slight is inexplicable.

Rather, his needlessly combative speech on that occasion was the height of arrogance which has been widely condemned by the public. Had members of the Assembly limited themselves to Obasa ‘s arrogance and insensitivity which was publicly on display in his treatment of Sanwo-Olu, in the allegations that led to his impeachment, it would be hardly possible to fault their action. But they also leveled grave allegations of financial misdemeanor and recklessness against him which in my view necessitates that he be given the opportunity to defend himself before being sanctioned in accordance with the principle of fair hearing. Since he was not given the chance to defend himself before his impeachment, could this be likened to shaving his head in his absence (apologies to MKO Abiola)?

True to his calm and difficult to ruffle demeanor and simple, unassuming carriage, Sanwo-Olu responded with philosophical serenity and enigmatic taciturnity, to what was perceived as an unwarranted slight on his person and office by Obasa. But then, we must look beyond Obasa ‘s annoying abrasiveness and a disposition to easy combustibility, which makes the prospect of his ever occupying the position of governor as he is rumored to desire, frightening.

It will be recalled that in August, 2023, the LSHA under Obasa ‘s leadership, had rejected 17 of the 39 names Sanwo-Olu had forwarded to the legislature for clearance to be appointed as commissioners in his cabinet. In an unnecessarily bad-tempered speech on the floor of the House during that episode, Obasa had decried the fact that the nominees were grossly unrepresentative of the diverse local government constituencies in the state while also not reflecting the requisite Christian-Muslim balance that had always been taken into account in constituting the State Executive Council.

As the late Oba Olatunji Hazmat, a Frontline Lagos and national progressive political leader of uncommon perspicacity stated in his gripping book, ‘Reflections of A Public Man’, “Lagos may be the greatest cosmopolitan city in Nigeria, but just like the nation itself, it can not march forward even in the matters of the least consideration of governance without accommodating the diverse interests, biases and native proclivities that shape and girdle her formative character…For fairness and wide judgement, the governor, the mayor or any other official of the state must consult others, must bring diverse interests into focus and attention in the choice of cabinet members, in the composition of parastatals and other allied governmental bodies”.

But beyond this, Obasa raised the pertinent point of the undue dichotomy between so called technocrats and politicians in governance in Lagos State and what he perceived as the unfair favouritism given to the former in filling cabinet and non-cabinet positions particularly under the Sanwo-Olu administration. In its report on the face- off between the House and the governor on the matter, the Premium Times of August 29, 2023, wrote that “But some party loyalists said the main reason some nominees who are technocrats were rejected was because they were not known in their constituencies and had no electoral value. Michael Uju, a public affairs analyst, said the disqualification was political. “Unfortunately, there is the sense that most of those rejected by the House are the technocrats among them who are not so much into party politics,” he said.

Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s administration as Premier of the Western Region in the First Republic is still the reference point in qualitative developmental governance in Nigeria. Its achievements were gargantuan and path-breaking. In his autobiography, the great Awo commented on his Cabinet thus, “Second, my team of Ministers was unexcelled. It was a team of which any head of government anywhere in the world would be proud. It was a well-knit, highly disciplined and fanatically loyal team. Each of them knew his subject well”. None of these men would be regarded as technocrats or even intellectuals in today’s lingo. They were educated men and professionals in diverse fields but to be appointed into public office in the Action Group (AG) at the time, you had to have a very strong linkage with your grassroots communities. This was made more imperative by the parliamentary system of the First Republic which required that those to be appointed as Cabinet members first had to win elections into the legislature as elected representatives of their constituencies. Even though he could have couched his argument in less inelegant and confrontational language, Obasa had made the point that he was concerned about the grassroots vibrancy of the APC in the state. This is certainly a pertinent concern even if it is true that his real motive was his assumed governorship ambition in 2027.

The truth of the matter is that although successive APC administrations in Lagos State have performed relatively remarkably well in infrastructure development, social services delivery and security among others – the primary purpose of government – the electoral performance of the party has declined with each election since 2011 and one reason for this is the ever growing alienation and distance between the government and the grassroots. In the 2007 governorship election, Fashola of the AC scored 593,300 votes to 394,956 for Senator Muslim Obanikoro of the PDP. In 2011, BRF scored a record 1,509, 113 votes to win reelection while Shamsideen Adegboye of the PDP recorded 300,450 votes. In 2015, Mr Akinwumi Ambode of the APC had 811,994 votes while Mr Jimi Agbaje of the PDP had 659,788 votes. As for 2019, Mr Babajide Sanwo-Olu of the APC won 739,445  votes to 206, 141 votes scored by Jimi Agbaje of the PDP.

In the 2023 governorship election, Sanwo-Olu won reelection with 762,134 votes to 312,329 votes scored by Gbadebo (Chinedu) Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party (LP). To secure his victory after the APC had unprecedentedly lost the earlier presidential election in Lagos to Peter Obi’s LP by nearly 10,000 votes, the party had to scramble frantically to mobilize primordial sentiments to ensure Sanwo-Olu’s reelection.

 Had the governorship election come first, would Sanwo-Olu have become history in Lagos State? The answer is anyone’s guess. A school of thought believes that the electorally dysfunctional overly elitist outlook and disposition of governance in Lagos State has heightened under Sanwo-Olu and this is dangerous as the crucial 2027 elections approach, an election in which the triumph of the APC will depend on the degree to which it has regained its organic linkage with the grassroots. This is probably the point Obasa was making but his petulant mode of delivery distorted and undermined his message.

What then is to be done about the seeming impasse as regards the position of Speaker of the LSHA? The right of the members to elect their principal officers cannot be contested but this must be in line with their extant rules, due process and the guidelines of the party. The enthusiastic support given to Hon. Mrs Meranda so far indicates that she enjoys considerable goodwill with her colleagues as well as the bureaucracy in the LSHA. But some voices in the party contend that the next Speaker should come from either Lagos West where Obasa comes from or Lagos East if legislators from Lagos West are not interested in the Speakership position as it is claimed.

Both Mrs Meranda and the governor are from Lagos Central and this contradicts the party’s zoning formula. The aggrieved members no longer want Obasa as Speaker and they have successfully removed him at least until the courts adjudicate in the matter. But they cannot at the same time unilaterally jettison the party’s power sharing formula. Honourable Mrs Meranda has demonstrated her value and the high esteem in which her colleagues hold her which must be a function of her personal attributes despite her having been Obasa’s deputy. But she may have to stoop to party supremacy today to conquer a future that is politically exceedingly bright for her.