THERE have been daggers out for Dr Reuben Abati, co-host of the Arise TV’s ‘Morning Show’, following his recent comments on Senator Godswill Akpabio’s witty remark at the night of tributes for the late Senator Ifeanyi Ubah. Senator Akpabio had declared that the Igbos are “mercantile” people, who build houses and settle wherever they go. He contrasted the Igbos with members of other ethnic groups, who, he said,  can live in his state of Akwa Ibom for 15 years without trying to build their homes there.

The subtext of Senator Akpabio’s remark is that members of   other ethnic groups come for what they can get from the state, while the Igbos who build homes and houses come with the intention to settle and live there. Senator Akpabio’s remark, made at Nnewi, the late Senator Ubah’s hometown,  to fit the mood of the moment, was obviously an exaggeration, but people understood the point he was trying to make. 

Dr Abati, while commenting on Senator Akpabio’s quip, took exception to the use of the word ‘mercantile’ and admitted the said industry of the Igbos. And to a remark that the Igbos took over and “developed” about two local government areas in Lagos State, Dr Abati humorously remarked that the Oba of Lagos, Rilwan Akiolu, who in 2015 threatened to drown the Igbos in the Lagos Lagoon if they failed to vote for his preferred candidate in the state governorship election, Akinwunmi Ambode, candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, would not be happy to hear that. Dr Abati further commented on the said Igbo enterprise, including mentioning that if you go to anywhere and do not see an Igbo, you should pack your things and leave because “there is nothing there”. He then added the story of T.O.S Benson, in his words, “for balance”.  

As Dr Abati put it: “Chief TOS Benson, former minister of information, now late, on one occasion at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs — and I’m not making this up — he said it publicly, if anybody can contradict me let them do so… he said something about Igbo people…. He said he had an Igbo wife, and had an Igbo daughter, that he wanted to buy land in Igbo land for his daughter, for his wife, and he said: ‘I’m getting old, let me build in this place for my wife’. He said that his in-laws told him that they don’t sell land to outsiders.”

Dr Abati then concluded: “The same Igbos who are so industrious that they are all over and do well in other parts of Nigeria, you go as a non-Igbo man to go and buy umunna (kindred) land, you will be told that you don’t belong even as an in-law.”

Dr Abati has been in the eyes of the storm since these statements, drawing condemnations from many Igbos, especially the ‘Internet warriors’, some of who called him an Igbo hater, and not surprisingly, support from mostly his Yoruba kith and kin. I believe Dr Abati has done no wrong, and that the furore, if anything, raises some fundamental issues that need to be addressed:  One, Dr. Abati’s critics have failed to appreciate that academics and public intellectuals employ different methodologies in their research and public commentaries. Public intellectuals – people who try to shape public opinion through commentaries in the mass media–  can be broadly categorized into two, based on their methods of inquiry and intervention:  You have those I can call “polemicists”. 

These are strongly opinionated and passionate commentators, who leave their readers or listeners in no doubt where they stand in the issue they are commenting on. Whatever data they have are usually to buttress their predetermined position.  They speak or write with unmistakable passion and gusto, sometimes using strong language to buttress their points. Public intellectuals in this category include Professor Farooq Kperogi of the Tribune and The News Chronicle, Abimbola Adelakun of The Punch, Rufai Oseni of Arise TV and Professors Chidi Odinkalu and Udenta O. Udenta who are ‘itinerant’ commentators and writers. 

There are also public intellectuals I can call ‘academic analysts’. This category of public intellectuals, unlike the polemicists, try to have a level of detachment from the subject they are writing or commenting about. They often present various perspectives on an issue and allow the readers or their listeners to draw their own conclusion. The examples here include Dr Reuben Abati, and Simon Kolawole of The Cable. I also include myself in this category of writers. In my opinion, Professor Sam Amadi and Segun Adeniyi straddle or vacillate between these two broad methodologies in their commentaries.

A common criticism of the ‘academic analysts’ is that they either lack the courage to take a definite position on contentious issues (as the polemicists do), or that they hide their preferences in obfuscations, semantics and waffling. I can’t count the number of times some people have called me ‘on the other hand’ writer – meaning that I tend to concede so much to all the perspectives in a contentious issue that it becomes difficult to know where I stand on the issue. Remarkably, academics and people with academic inclinations seem very comfortable with the style of the ‘academic analyst’.

Two, following the above categorisation of public intellectuals, it becomes easier to understand why Dr Abati felt he needed to bring the T.O.S Benson story to ‘balance the narrative” in accordance with the methodology of the ‘academic analyst’. In fact, since he studied Law, I have observed that Dr Abati, who was also a university lecturer, seems to have consciously tried to infuse the legal process in his mode of commentary. I believe that is why you would often hear him preface his commentaries with remarks like: “what are the facts in the case?” (to enable him identify the contending perspective in any issue before responding to them in the manner of lawyers). He would also often conclude by saying something like:  to ‘balance it’ or ‘what is the other side of the argument’?  

I believe that another point that has influenced the methodology of the ‘academic analysts’ is the debate in the arts and humanities on whether it is possible for an analyst to be neutral in social science research or commentaries. The argument is that even an academic’s choice of topic of investigation embodies some biases. The consensus in the literature therefore is that while neutrality may be difficult to achieve in social science research or commentary, objectivity is possible even when the analyst is not neutral.

Some of the ways of ensuring objectivity include full disclosure (disclosing upfront any potential biases that may influence your conclusion) and making sure that the various perspectives on contentious issues are x-rayed individually so that the conclusions are either obvious from the analyses or the readers/listeners are allowed to make their own judgements on the issue.

This is what I believe Dr Abati has done by bringing up the T.O.S Benson matter. Could he have done it slightly differently in order not to suggest that T.O.S Benson was right, or even if he was right, that it was applicable to all Igbos? Perhaps. But it is also important to bear in mind that it was a live TV commentary and that there are “rhetorical flourishes” when one speaks live – as opposed to when one writes and has the privilege of editing one’s script before publishing.

Three, the furore over the remarks by Dr Abati raises a fundamental question of what should be a drawing line between respect for the spirit of critical inquiry which sometimes requires interrogating issues dominant in an ethnic group other than one’s own, and being an ethnic chauvinist. To love your ethnic or religious in-group, or to make critical commentaries on issues predominant in another ethnic group does not make one an ethnic bigot. The crucial line is whether such a statement deliberately tries to accentuate or weaponise the conflictual elements in inter-ethnic relations.  If I call Dr Abati an ethnic chauvinist on the basis of his T.O.S Benson story, what would I call Bayo Onanuga, Femi Fani Kayode and Reno Omokri? I think it would be wrong of any one to even remotely lump Dr Abati in the same category as these three. 

As a student of identity, I know that an identity that is perceived to be under threat or insulted is the one most vociferously defended. For this, I can understand when some members of an ethnic group take it personal any non-complimentary remark by a non-member of the ethnic group. However, I also know that every individual embodies a mosaic of identities – not just the primordial identities of ethnicity and religion. I also know that identities can be cross-cutting.

For instance, we can be members of different primordial identities but share other identities in common such as belonging to the same profession, political party or sports club. It is possible that my different perspective on the Dr Abati furore is influenced by our shared identity as public intellectuals who use similar methods in our commentaries. Remarkably, I had to quit a particular WhatsApp group not long ago when most of the members felt enraged by some comments by Professor Ahmed Bako’s Inaugural Lecture at Usman Danfodio University entitled the ‘Igbo Factor in the History of Inter-Group Relations and Commerce in Kano’.

While I could understand why some Igbos were offended by sections of the lecture if read in silos, I argued that in the context of the objectives of the research, the justifications for choosing the topic, its methodology, and demands for academic freedom, the Professor did no wrong. Here again it is possible that my shared identity with the Professor as researchers cum lecturers who value academic freedom, informed my different perspective on his lecture. 

*Jideofor Adibe is Professor of Political Science at Nasarawa State University, Keffi.

The Conference of United Political Parties (CUPP) has expressed concerns over the recently announced 3.46% GDP growth rate for Nigeria in the third quarter of 2024, describing it as disconnected from the lived experiences of most Nigerians.

Chief Peter Ameh, National Secretary of the CUPP, made this known in a statement issued yesterday in Abuja.

He noted that while the GDP figures released by the Nigeria Bureau of Statistics (NBS) may seem promising, they fail to reflect the economic hardships marked by rising food inflation, unemployment, and decaying infrastructure.

Ameh stated: “The NBS recently announced that the country’s GDP grew by 3.46% in the third quarter of 2024. At first glance, this may seem like a positive development, but the reality on the ground tells a different story.

“The widespread hunger, starvation, unemployment, inflation, and crumbling infrastructure paint a picture of a nation in distress. It is alarming to see the stark contrast between the reported GDP growth and the harsh economic realities faced by Nigerians.

“The frequency of national grid collapses, worsening road conditions, and the depreciating value of the naira underscore the disconnect between the data and real-life challenges.”

Quoting Benjamin Disraeli, he added: “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. This rings true in Nigeria’s case, as the government relies on statistical manipulation to create a false narrative of economic growth.”

Ameh attributed Nigeria’s economic challenges to a “defective political system” that enables incompetent and dishonest leaders to manipulate electoral systems, fostering corruption and mismanagement.

He stressed the need for urgent reforms, stating: “Nigeria needs comprehensive economic reforms prioritizing transparency, accountability, cost-cutting measures, and good governance. Investments in critical infrastructure, such as roads, electricity, and healthcare, are essential to creating an enabling environment for growth.”

Ameh concluded by urging the government to shift focus from statistical embellishments to actionable policies, emphasizing that only through genuine reform can Nigeria achieve inclusive and sustainable economic progress.

[Vanguard]

When he was asked at dinner with associates and officials last week, how he intended to celebrate his 78th birthday, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, GCON, retorted that he had never decidedly marked the date over time. “For me, it is an occasion for thankfulness to God, for reflection and prayers, and for reaching out to the less privileged,” he explained. “The American University of Nigeria, (AUN), Yola, adopting an American model, hosts me to a “Founder’s Day” event every year, as part of the convocation activities of the institution. If you’ve followed the pattern over time, there is usually a guest speaker who delivers a lecture on issues of local and global relevance. I’m also allocated a slot to address the gathering as the Founder of the institution.” Continuing, Atiku noted: “Participating in the graduation ceremony of youngsters the age of my grandchildren fills me with tremendous joy.”

Further still, Atiku submits: “I’m delighted that the vision of the AUN, that of availing young people from across the globe, world-class, American-style education in an African context, is being achieved. The university is cosmopolitan in every sense of the word with respect to the diversity of the faculty and the students. The last time I checked, we had about a dozen nationalities in the university community. The President is usually an American. Apart from Nigerians, there are students from South Africa, Rwanda, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Niger, Uganda, Cameroun, and so on.
AUN is training world class, future professionals and leaders, who will drive the future of Africa and the world at large. That alone gives me tremendous joy and fulfilment.”

While Atiku is entitled to his idea of commemorating his birthday, his associates and staff had their own plans. The AUN programme is scheduled for Saturday November 30, 2024. This year’s edition of the event has Peter Obi, CON, former Governor of Anambra State and presidential candidate of the Labour Party, (LP), as guest lecturer. Atiku’s birthday is on Monday November 25, 2024. They could at least get him a cake and lay out lunch buffet for him. By the time Atiku descended into the main lounge in his house that day to go observe the midday prayer, the Dhuhr, associates had begun to congregate. Adamu Maina Waziri and Ibrahim Bio, both former Ministers in the administration of former President Umaru Yar’Adua; Kolawole Ogunwale, who formerly represented Osun Central in the Senate, and Sajo Mohammed, former Director of Compliance at the National Lottery Regulatory Commission, (NLRC), were waiting. So was Ekene Onwuka, one of Atiku’s proteges. A spontaneous birthday song rent the air as the “birthday boy” blew the candle of the cake to the applause of his “hosts.”

At lunch, the influx of dignitaries was such that guests who arrived earlier had to constantly yield their seats to newcomers. Reminds of “shifting cultivation,” one of several templates of crop farming which we learnt in elementary school. Senator Ben Obi, CON, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of AUN and Emeka Ihedioha, CON, former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and Governor of Imo State, kept faith. Dino Melaye, former Senator representing Kogi West District; Jide Adeniji, a former Managing Director of the Federal Emergency Road Maintenance Agency, (FERMA), and Maxwell Gidado, SAN, Professor and former Special Adviser to Atiku, joined the party.

In the event that Atiku thought that was all, more faces showed up when it was time for a photoshoot after lunch, at the entrance of his home. Mohammed Kumalia, two-term Member Representing Maiduguri Metropolitan Constituency and Kola Ologbondiyan, Emeritus spokesperson of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), were in the house. They joined Atiku’s ever loyal principal officers, notably Dr Azu Ndukwe, Chief Physician; Dr Andy Okolie, Head of Special Duties; Ibrahim Zango, Emeritus diplomat and Principal Secretary; Siddiki Buba Jauro and Eta Uso, Special Assistants on Domestic Affairs Information Technology respectively. You run through the list of attendees at the impromptu birthday and the cosmopolitanism of Atiku rings through. Atiku then personally invite his other aides: Security personnel; protocol officers; police escorts; kitchen staff; drivers, to join him for the photoshoot.

The “birthday programme” thereafter shifted to Atiku’s office wing within his princely complex, even as telephone calls kept coming, customised birthday cards popping up and new arrivals, streaming. Abdul Ahmed Ningi, Senator Representing Bauchi Central Zone; Musa Elayo Abdullahi, Minister of State for Justice under the Obasanjo/Atiku administration; Abdullahi Mai Basira, former PDP National Financial Secretary and Michael Ikeagwonu Ugochinyere, Member Representing Ideato federal constituency, Imo State, all stopped by. Atiku didn’t need to crack his head at any point before engaging with his guests. He knew everyone by name and so addressed them as they shook hands with him and exchanged robust pleasantries, a smile ever playing around his lips.

The highpoint of the unscheduled birthday was the presentation to Atiku, a branded t-shirt of the high-flying English Premier League, (EPL) football club, Arsenal, by Eta Uso, one of his aides. I always knew Atiku was a “Gunner,” the moniker with which we Arsenal friends are known. His doctor, Azu Ndukwe, is as passionate. Atiku knows I’m one as well, and this is one of our areas of mutual convergence. Arsenal was playing this tricky game which we watched together in his comfy living room, one of those midweek evenings. Atiku had to go observe the Isha’a prayer so he assigned me the responsibility of monitoring proceedings so I could brief him after the supplication. “Analyst Tunde, what are the scores,” he shot at me immediately he returned. “We are two goals up, Your Excellency.” His face lit up, you would think he had stakes in the club!

So Eta Uso presented this specially branded Arsenal jersey to Atiku, cameras and that flashlights clicking away, that afternoon. That was the prompter to other Gunners in the house who wanted to share the joy of the moment with the celebrant. Emeka Ihedioha, Dino Melaye, Jide Adeniji and I, all rose to join Atiku in celebrating a birthday gift, otherwise simple, but which meant so much to him. Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote is equally a very well known Arsenal aficionado who once contemplated buying over the London-based club. High flyers are human after all, and indeed share some of the fascinations of regular people.

After witnessing just how beautifully an unplanned milestone unfolded, you could not but wonder what the colour of the event would have been if it had been intentionally structured. For a man with such overflowing bank of goodwill, onshore and offshore; for a man who has remained a constant in Nigeria’s political dynamics nearly 20 years after he left office; for a man who stands strong and stolid despite serial betrayals and short circuiting over time even by allies, that will be the ultimate carnival. This is wishing the enigmatic Gooner Atiku Abubakar, Wazirin Adamawa, Prime Minister of Adamawa, a million happy returns of his special day. May pleasant surprises denominate our pathways in life as we rejoice with those who celebrate.

Olusunle, PhD, a Fellow of the Association of Nigerian Authors, (FANA), teaches Creative Writing at the University of Abuja

The federal high court in Abuja has struck out the suit seeking to restrain the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from arresting Babajide Sanwo-Olu, governor of Lagos, at the end of his tenure.

NAN reports that Joyce Abdulmalik, the presiding judge, dismissed the suit after Gbenga Femi Akande, the counsel who appeared for Sanwo-Olu, moved the motion to discontinue the case.

The court struck out the case on October 31.

BACKGROUND

In October, a lawsuit instituted on behalf of Sanwo-Olu against the EFCC over an alleged plan to arrest and prosecute him after his tenure was heard in court.

Darlington Ozurumba, a lawyer, filed the suit on behalf of the Lagos governor, who will complete his eight-year tenure on May 29, 2027.

In the suit, the lawyer argued that the alleged plan to arrest Sanwo-Olu is “unconstitutional and a flagrant violation of his fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom of movement as stipulated under sections 35(1) & (4) and 41(1) of the constitution”.

The suit sought an order to restrain the EFCC from harassing, intimidating, arresting, detaining, interrogating, or prosecuting Sanwo-Olu in connection with his tenure as the governor of Lagos state.

THE CONTROVERSY

Reacting to the suit, the Lagos government had said Sanwo-Olu did not instruct anyone to file a case against the EFCC.

Lawal Pedro, the Lagos attorney-general, said the state will investigate “how the case came to be without the knowledge” of the governor.

Pedro said neither the governor nor his aides are under investigation by the EFCC, adding that there is no threat of arrest by the anti-graft agency.

In a counter affidavit, Ufuoma Ezire, a superintendent and litigation secretary in the legal and prosecution department of the antigraft agency, said the EFCC is not investigating the governor and has never threatened to arrest him or his staff.

The anti-graft agency described the legal action as speculative and a “mere conjecture”.

MILD DRAMA IN COURT

On Tuesday, Hadiza Afegbua, counsel of the EFCC, appeared in court for the case.

However, NAN reports that the lawyer was disappointed that the case was not among the 10 listed for hearing at the court.

The counsel was reported to have expressed surprise when she learnt that the suit had been struck out on October 31.

However, the enrolled order dated October 31 shows that only Akande, the counsel who represented Sanwo-Olu, attended the proceedings leading to the dismissal of the suit.

[TheCable]

Since the inauguration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on May 29, 2023, Nigerians have endured an unprecedented level of economic hardship. The steep rise in fuel prices, skyrocketing cost of living, devaluation of the naira, and the attendant ripple effects on businesses and households have created an environment of despair. Amid this growing frustration, a curious pattern has emerged among Tinubu’s supporters: a tendency to explain away the situation with defensive rhetoric, arguing that the hardship could have been worse if not for Tinubu’s emergence as president.

Doyin Okupe

Such claims are becoming increasingly frequent. At first, the narrative was that the president inherited a battered economy from his predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari, and thus should not be held accountable for the suffering of Nigerians. More recently, a new spin has emerged, with supporters claiming that the exchange rate of the naira to the dollar, despite its rapid depreciation, would have been much worse had Tinubu not been in power. This refrain has been echoed by notable figures, including Pastor Enoch Adeboye and Dr. Doyin Okupe, but it is evident that these narratives are failing to resonate with the masses.

The realities on the ground tell a different story from the defensive rhetoric. Since Tinubu took office, the naira has weakened significantly against the dollar. At the time of his inauguration, the naira was trading at around ₦461 to the dollar in the official market, with black market rates slightly higher. Today, the currency is significantly weaker, trading far beyond ₦1000 to the dollar in parallel markets at certain points in recent months.

The removal of the fuel subsidy, a controversial move Tinubu announced in his inaugural speech, has had catastrophic effects. While proponents of subsidy removal argued that it was necessary for fiscal stability, the government has failed to cushion the impact on ordinary Nigerians. Transportation costs have soared, food prices have spiraled out of control, and businesses reliant on fuel for operations are struggling to survive.

These dire economic conditions have left many Nigerians questioning the credibility of the administration’s promises. Tinubu’s team has touted its plans to stimulate economic growth and attract foreign investment, but these promises have yet to yield tangible results for the average citizen.

One of the most glaring issues with the defensive rhetoric from Tinubu’s camp is its lack of accountability. Claims that the economy was already in shambles when Tinubu assumed office do not absolve the current administration of responsibility. While it is true that Buhari’s tenure left the country in a precarious state, Nigerians expected Tinubu to bring solutions, not excuses. After all, he campaigned on a platform of competence, touting his economic expertise and track record as governor of Lagos State.

The argument that the naira’s exchange rate could have been worse also rings hollow. For most Nigerians, the exchange rate is not just a number; it determines the cost of essential goods, many of which are imported. A weaker naira translates to higher prices for food, medicine, and other necessities. Telling people that it “could have been worse” offers no comfort when they can barely afford a meal.

Pastor Adeboye’s recent comment that the naira’s devaluation could have been more severe if Tinubu were not in power reflects this flawed rhetoric. Similarly, Okupe’s assertion that Tinubu’s policies have averted economic catastrophe fails to address the palpable suffering in the country. These narratives, rather than reassuring the populace, only deepen their frustration by appearing dismissive of their struggles.

The disconnect between the government’s rhetoric and the lived experiences of Nigerians is glaring. For the millions of citizens who cannot afford to pay school fees, cover medical expenses, or put food on the table, debates over what might have been are irrelevant. What matters is the here and now: a Nigeria where life has become unbearably difficult.

Small and medium-sized enterprises, which form the backbone of the Nigerian economy, are collapsing under the weight of inflation and unstable exchange rates. Families are making impossible choices, between paying rent and buying food, between educating their children and covering healthcare costs. These are the realities that no amount of spin can obscure.

The government’s supporters may find solace in rhetorical gymnastics, but ordinary Nigerians are demanding action. They need policies that deliver measurable results, not platitudes.

Rather than focusing on hypothetical scenarios and defending the indefensible, the Tinubu administration must acknowledge the severity of the crisis and take bold, decisive steps to address it. While it is true that reforms often come with short-term pain, there are ways to mitigate their impact. For instance, palliatives must be meaningful and targeted, reaching those who need them most. Half-hearted measures or token gestures, like the widely criticized cash transfer scheme, only serve to deepen mistrust.

The administration must also prioritize policies that stabilize the exchange rate. Encouraging transparency in the forex market, combating corruption, and fostering an environment conducive to investment will help restore confidence in the naira. Additionally, efforts to boost local production and reduce reliance on imports can help shield the economy from external shocks.

Finally, the government must communicate honestly with the people. Nigerians are resilient and willing to endure hardship if they believe it will lead to a better future. However, this resilience should not be taken for granted. The administration must provide a clear roadmap for economic recovery, complete with timelines and measurable milestones. Empty assurances and defensive rhetoric will only breed further disillusionment.

There is no denying the fact that the Tinubu administration is at a crossroads. It can continue to rely on narratives that absolve it of responsibility, or it can rise to the occasion and deliver the transformative leadership Nigerians were promised. The defensive rhetoric about the naira and the economy is not only unconvincing but also a disservice to a populace desperate for real solutions.

Excuses won’t fix the economy. Nigerians deserve better. The question now is whether President Tinubu and his team will rise to the challenge or whether history will remember this administration as one that talked the talk but failed to walk the walk. The clock is ticking.

Reno Omokri, a social commentator known for his incisive takes on politics and society, recently found himself at odds with Afrobeat superstar David Adeleke, popularly known as Davido, over comments the latter made about Nigeria’s economy. In an explosive post on LinkedIn, Reno took a firm stance against Davido’s assertion that “Nigeria’s economy is in shambles,” made during a podcast appearance. While Davido’s statement resonated with many Nigerians facing daily economic challenges, Reno’s counterargument sheds light on a broader discussion about patriotism, celebrity responsibility, and the true state of Nigeria’s economy.

During his appearance on “The Big Homies House” podcast, Davido lamented Nigeria’s leadership and economic state, labeling the economy as being in “shambles” and criticizing the country’s governance. He also openly acknowledged Nigeria’s lack of strong leadership. This candid criticism did not sit well with Reno, who, in his response, accused Davido of ignorance, unpatriotism, and poor judgment, especially when speaking to a global audience.

Reno Omokri took issue with Davido’s grim characterization of Nigeria’s economy, presenting data to argue otherwise. He pointed to Wizkid’s recent record-breaking album launch, where the album “Morayo” amassed an unprecedented 12.12 million streams on Spotify Nigeria within 24 hours. For Reno, this accomplishment underscores a critical economic principle: people can only spend on entertainment if they have disposable income.

“Streaming music is purchased with disposable income,” Reno argued. “People do not have disposable income in an economy in shambles, not to mention breaking streaming records, especially on Spotify, where the average streaming cost is $10.99 monthly.”

Reno contrasted this with countries like Venezuela and Argentina, where economic collapse has eroded citizens’ spending power, resulting in diminished cultural exports. In his view, the ability of Nigerians to contribute to a vibrant entertainment economy undermines the claim that the country is in economic disarray.

Reno went further to present hard data to bolster his stance. He highlighted that Nigeria had achieved a ₦14.07 trillion trade surplus in the first half of 2024, a historic high, and noted the Nigerian Stock Exchange’s remarkable performance, with a 39.84% year-to-date increase. According to Reno, these milestones are proof that recent economic reforms, while painful, are bearing fruit.

These reforms, he argued, were essential to halt wastage, including the $1.5 billion spent monthly defending the naira and $15 billion annually on fuel subsidies. He acknowledged the short-term challenges brought about by these reforms but maintained that measures such as the increase in the minimum wage from ₦30,000 to ₦70,000 were designed to cushion the impact and enhance purchasing power.

A major thrust of Reno’s critique was aimed at Davido’s perceived lack of patriotism. Drawing a parallel with Barbadian pop icon Rihanna, who has consistently used her celebrity status to elevate her home country’s image, Reno chastised Davido for “talking down” Nigeria on a global platform.

“Rihanna never talks down on her country and instead uses her celebrity to promote Barbados,” Reno noted. “Which is why Rihanna was named a national hero and cultural ambassador for Barbados in 2018.”

Reno implied that Davido, with his dual citizenship and familial ties to Nigerian politics, ought to emulate Rihanna by speaking positively about Nigeria and contributing to its global image.

While Reno’s arguments may resonate with those who see potential in Nigeria’s economic reforms, many Nigerians might relate more to Davido’s bleak assessment. Rising inflation, unemployment, and the high cost of living paint a stark picture for the average citizen. The recent removal of fuel subsidies, though economically justified, has resulted in skyrocketing transportation and energy costs, pushing many Nigerians further into poverty.

Davido’s comments, therefore, can be seen as a reflection of this lived reality, a reality where millions struggle to afford basic necessities, let alone Spotify subscriptions.

Reno’s post raises an important question: what role should celebrities play in shaping the narrative about their countries? Should they, as Reno suggests, prioritize patriotism and highlight progress, or should they, like Davido, amplify the challenges to demand accountability?

In the age of social media, celebrities wield significant influence. For many, Davido’s criticisms may serve as a wake-up call for leaders to address the plight of ordinary Nigerians. However, Reno’s counterpoint is also valid: public figures have a responsibility to project their country in a positive light, particularly on international platforms.

The debate between Reno Omokri and Davido underscores the tension between expressing genuine concern for a nation’s challenges and maintaining a sense of national pride. While Reno’s data-driven optimism provides a counter-narrative to the prevailing pessimism, it’s crucial to acknowledge that statistics alone cannot capture the full scope of an economy’s impact on its citizens.

For Nigeria to truly move forward, both perspectives must coexist. Leaders and policymakers must take constructive criticism, like Davido’s, seriously, while influencers like Reno encourage citizens to appreciate progress and remain hopeful.

Nigeria stands at a critical juncture, where economic reforms and challenges coexist. While Reno Omokri’s optimism highlights the strides being made, Davido’s critique serves as a reminder of the work still to be done. Both voices, in their unique ways, contribute to a larger conversation about Nigeria’s future, one that requires collaboration, resilience, and a shared commitment to progress.

In the end, whether through data or song, it is clear that the dialogue about Nigeria’s economy is far from over. As citizens, we must engage with both the triumphs and the trials, finding ways to build a nation that works for everyone.

The possibility of Seyi Tinubu, the son of the President of Nigeria, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu contesting for the Lagos State governorship in 2027 has become a significant topic of public discourse, raising important questions about the dynamics of political dynasties and democratic values in Nigeria. While his constitutional eligibility to vie for the position under Section 177 of the Nigerian Constitution is undisputed, the discussion brings to light broader issues of political inclusivity, leadership by merit, and the role of family legacy in modern democracy.

The Nigerian Constitution outlines clear qualifications for anyone aspiring to the office of governor. A candidate must be a citizen of Nigeria by birth, at least 35 years old, a member of a political party, and educated to at least the secondary school level or its equivalent. Based on these criteria, Seyi Tinubu, as a citizen by birth and meeting the age and educational requirements, is constitutionally qualified to run for the office, provided he secures the sponsorship of a political party.

Political dynasties are not exclusive to Nigeria; they are a global phenomenon that has influenced governance in many parts of the world. In the United States, for example, the Bush family has held significant political positions, including George H.W. Bush as the 41st President, George W. Bush as the 43rd President and former Governor of Texas, and Jeb Bush as the Governor of Florida. Similarly, the Kennedy family produced John F. Kennedy, the 35th President, and prominent figures like Robert Kennedy, a U.S. Senator and Attorney General, and Ted Kennedy, a long-serving U.S. Senator. The Clinton family also left its mark, with Bill Clinton serving as the 42nd President and Hillary Clinton as a Secretary of State and presidential candidate. These families earned their positions through electoral victories, reinforcing the importance of public trust and the democratic process.

If Seyi Tinubu decides to run, his candidacy will face considerable  scrutiny. Questions about whether his aspirations are rooted in personal merit or familial advantage will dominate public discourse. In Nigeria, where perceptions of nepotism and concerns about equitable access to leadership persist, the candidacy of a high-profile figure like Seyi Tinubu will polarize opinions. To succeed in such an environment, he would need to present a compelling policy agenda and demonstrate his capability to govern effectively. His father’s legacy as a former Lagos governor and current president could either bolster his credibility or attract criticism, depending on public sentiment.

Ultimately, the decision rests with the electorate. Lagosians possess the constitutional authority to evaluate candidates based on their merits and to choose leaders who align with their aspirations for the state. Democracy thrives on the principle that leadership is determined by the people, not inherited by default. Seyi Tinubu’s constitutional right to contest for the governorship reflects the democratic ideals enshrined in Nigeria’s laws. However, his candidacy, like that of any other aspirant, must be judged on its merit, the policies he proposes, and the competence he demonstrates. In the end, the will of the people should guide leadership selection, ensuring that governance remains a reflection of collective choice rather than familial legacy.

Kenechukwu Aguolu

The announcement of a N20 reduction in the ex-depot price of petrol by Dangote Refinery, from N990 to N970 per litre, has sparked widespread reactions across Nigeria. While some applaud the gesture as a step towards addressing the nation’s high fuel costs, others see it as negligible, given the current economic realities. This divide was evident in a conversation overheard between two drivers washing their company vehicles in Ogba, Ikeja. One driver dismissed the price cut with disdain, remarking, “Wetin be N20 wey nor fit buy chewing gum?” This sentiment encapsulates the skepticism many Nigerians feel about the purported relief.

The Dangote Refinery’s statement, signed by its Group Chief Branding and Communication Officer, Anthony Chiejina, framed the price reduction as an end-of-year gesture of appreciation to Nigerians and a nod to the government’s support. The company emphasized its commitment to ensuring the availability of quality, environmentally friendly fuel while ramping up production to meet domestic demand.

Despite the goodwill attached to this reduction, the economic landscape makes it difficult for the average Nigerian to celebrate. Current pump prices range between N1,025 and N1,090 per litre across different marketers. For a country grappling with economic hardship, inflation, and a rising cost of living, the N20 reduction appears more symbolic than substantial.

To understand the frustration of Nigerians, one must delve into the economic context of inflation and diminished purchasing Power. This is as Nigeria’s inflation rate has skyrocketed, eroding the purchasing power of its citizens. Items that were affordable a year ago now cost multiples of their previous prices. Chewing gum, used metaphorically by the driver, indeed costs more than N20 in most urban areas today.

In a similar vein, looking at the issue from the perspective of high cost of transportation, there is no denying the fact that the fuel prices directly impact transportation costs, which in turn affect the prices of goods and services. With fuel already selling at over N1, 000 per litre, a N20 reduction is unlikely to significantly lower transport fares or bring relief to consumers.

Again, from the prism of household budget constraints, it is pragmatic that for an average household that consumes 50 litres of petrol per month, the N20 reduction translates to a savings of just N1,000 monthly. This amount barely covers the cost of basic groceries or utilities in today’s Nigeria.

Against the foregoing backdrop, it is expedient to opine that Dangote Refinery, though, operates as a private enterprise, must strike a balance between profitability and public goodwill. Critics argue that the refinery’s prices remain uncompetitive compared to other suppliers, as evidenced by previous complaints from the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN). Dangote’s reported stockpile of 500 million litres of petrol suggests capacity, but pricing remains a contentious issue.

The refinery’s effort to work directly with stakeholders like PETROAN and IPMAN signals a willingness to address these concerns. However, the logistics of fuel distribution and the associated costs could continue to hinder a significant reduction in pump prices.

In fact, the public’s lukewarm reception to the price cut underscores a broader disillusionment with Nigeria’s economic management. Citizens feel that the government and major players in the oil sector, like Dangote Refinery, must do more to alleviate their plight.

While symbolic gestures like price reductions may garner media attention, they fail to address the structural issues plaguing Nigeria’s energy sector. Nigerians need substantial reforms that translate to real savings and improved living standards.

In a similar vein, the public remains skeptical of promises to lower pump prices. Past assurances by government officials and private entities have often fallen short, leaving Nigerians to bear the brunt of rising costs.

At this juncture, it is expedient to ask, “Which way forward?” To answer the foregoing salient question, it is germane to opine that the skepticism surrounding the N20 reduction calls for a more robust approach to tackling fuel affordability in Nigeria. Some key recommendations cut across comprehensive subsidy reform, enhancing refining capacity, strengthening competition, and addressing distribution inefficiencies.

In fact, the removal of subsidies earlier this year has left Nigerians struggling with higher fuel costs. While subsidy removal is a necessary reform, its implementation should be accompanied by targeted palliatives to cushion the impact on vulnerable populations.

Given the foregoing, there is an urgent need to enhance refining capacity in Nigeria. In fact, beyond Dangote Refinery, Nigeria must invest in reviving its moribund refineries to reduce reliance on imports and bring down production costs.

Again, there is also the expediency and exigency of strengthening competition. This is as encouraging more players in the oil refining sector could lead to competitive pricing and better deals for consumers.

Not only that, there is equally an urgent need to address distribution inefficiencies. The reason for the foregoing cannot be farfetched as streamlining the logistics of fuel distribution can lower costs and ensure that price reductions at the ex-depot level reflect at the pumps.

In fact, the N20 reduction in petrol prices by Dangote Refinery, while commendable in principle, has been met with skepticism due to its minimal impact on the daily lives of Nigerians. As aptly captured by the disillusioned driver in Ikeja, “Wetin be N20 wey nor fit buy chewing gum?”,  the statement highlights the growing frustration of a populace yearning for meaningful economic relief.

For the reduction to resonate positively with Nigerians, it must be part of a larger, sustained effort to address the root causes of high fuel prices and their ripple effects on the economy. Only then can gestures like these move from symbolic to impactful, bringing genuine relief to millions of Nigerians struggling to make ends meet.

In a pivotal moment for Rivers State’s political landscape, Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s defiance against the Nigerian Police and their alleged interference in the state’s local government elections shines a spotlight on the deepening conflict between state sovereignty and judicial overreach. Fubara’s refusal to abide by the Federal High Court’s “fraudulent “judgment from justice peter Lifu, coupled with his dramatic confrontation with Inspector General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun, exposes the growing divide between state leadership and federal judicial decisions that seem to overstep constitutional boundaries. At the core of this battle stands the Otisi panel’s recent ruling, which nullified the Federal High Court’s decision, which sought to bar the Rivers State Electoral Commission (RSIEC) from holding elections. This ruling holds significant weight, not just for Rivers State but for Nigeria’s broader democratic processes.

Governor Fubara’s Critique of the IGP: “Fraudulent” and “Wicked”

Governor Fubara did not hold back in his critique of IGP Egbetokun, accusing him of fraudulent and wicked actions in relation to the October 5, 2024 local government elections. Fubara’s strong condemnation of the IGP underscores the frustration and betrayal felt by local leaders when judicial rulings appear to undermine their constitutional rights and democratic processes. “We don’t need your security,” Fubara boldly declared, refusing to accept police intervention in what he viewed as the state’s rightful election process. This was not just about election security—it was about asserting Rivers State’s autonomy.

The standoff between Fubara and police officers on October 4, 2024 in Port Harcourt was a turning point. Fubara’s personal intervention, when police attempted to disrupt the operations of the RSIEC, was an act of defiance that sent a strong message about Rivers State’s commitment to self-governance, especially in the face of judicial decisions that seemed more concerned with obstructing elections than protecting the right to vote.

The Otisi Panel’s Ruling: A Victory for State Sovereignty

At the heart of this judicial struggle is the Court of Appeal’s ruling, which nullified the decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja. Justice Onyekachi Otisi’s panel found that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction over Rivers State’s local elections, especially in light of Section 28 of the Electoral Act, which only governs federal elections, governorship elections, and area council elections in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). This ruling is a monumental affirmation of state sovereignty and the separation of powers.

The panel’s decision is a landmark victory for Rivers State, confirming that the state has the right to manage its electoral process without interference from federal courts or law enforcement. By overturning Lifu’s “fraudulent judgement”, the Otisi-led panel reaffirmed that the RSIEC could proceed with the October 5 elections despite the federal court’s attempt to block them. This ruling marks a critical step in asserting the autonomy of state governments and local electoral commissions across Nigeria.

The Complex Web of Political Manipulation and Judicial Overreach

The dispute over Rivers State elections underscores a dangerous pattern of political manipulation and judicial overreach. Governor Fubara’s accusations against IGP Egbetokun reveal a growing concern about the compromise of federal institutions, particularly in Rivers State. The governor suggested that the IGP’s actions were part of a coordinated effort with former Governor Nyesom Wike to obstruct the October 5 elections.

This suspicion of political collusion between law enforcement and political figures has raised serious questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s judicial and law enforcement systems. Fubara’s allegations suggest that the Nigerian Police, under the leadership of IGP Egbetokun, may be playing a dangerous role in political interference, rather than fulfilling their constitutional duty to ensure the safety of the electoral process.

In light of this, the Otisi panel’s ruling serves as a refreshing reminder of the integrity of state authority. It emphasizes that state governments must not be held hostage by federal judicial overreach or political manipulation, particularly when such actions are designed to derail the democratic process.

Fubara’s Defiance: The Fight for Judicial Independence

Governor Fubara’s defiance of federal court rulings represents more than a political act; it is a stand for judicial independence. By insisting that the elections proceed, even in the face of legal opposition and police intervention, Fubara has placed himself at the forefront of the battle for Rivers State’s democracy. His declaration that “we don’t need your security” reveals the deep mistrust he has for federal institutions that he believes have been compromised by political interests.

Fubara’s actions—and the Otisi panel’s subsequent ruling—reflect a broader movement in Nigeria where states are challenging the growing overreach of federal judicial power. The question remains: will the Nigerian judiciary continue to be manipulated by political forces, or will it rise above these pressures and uphold the principles of fairness, independence, and autonomy?

A Call for Judicial Accountability and Apology

The ongoing saga between Governor Fubara, IGP Egbetokun, and the Federal High Court in Abuja under Justice Lifu is a glaring example of judicial abuse and political manipulation at its worst. The Otisi panel’s ruling cuts through the political smoke and mirrors, exposing the blatant flaws and overreach in Justice Lifu’s decision. This ruling wasn’t just legally flawed; it was a deliberate abuse of jurisdiction, one that undermined the constitutional rights of Rivers State and disrupted the democratic process with reckless disregard. The manipulation at play here has not only caused unnecessary turmoil in the state but has shown the depths to which some are willing to go to subvert justice for political gain. This is a scathing indictment of a judiciary that must be held accountable for its failures.

In light of this ruling, it is time for the Nigerian Police and Judiciary to own up to their errors and offer a public apology to Rivers State. Their actions in undermining the state’s electoral rights and interfering with the democratic process must be acknowledged, and the damage caused must be rectified.

As Governor Fubara asked, “What kind of a country is this?”—a country where state rights are trampled upon by a compromised judiciary and political manipulation. The Otisi panel’s ruling is a victory for justice, but it is also a call for greater accountability within Nigeria’s judicial system. It is time for the police and federal courts to acknowledge their role in undermining Rivers State’s sovereignty and to offer an open apology for their interference in the state’s electoral process.

A Path Forward: Restoring Integrity and Upholding Justice

The future of Rivers State’s democracy depends on the ability of the judiciary to rise above political pressures and act impartially. The Otisi panel’s ruling is just one step in the ongoing fight for state sovereignty and judicial independence. The people of Rivers State have shown their resolve in the face of injustice, and now the judiciary and law enforcement must step up to restore integrity to the system and apologize for the damage caused by their misguided actions.

The battle for justice in Rivers State is far from over, but it represents a critical moment in the fight for fairness, transparency, and democratic integrity across Nigeria. This recent ruling serves as a reminder that justice must be blind to political influence and that state governments have the right to govern their own elections without external interference. The people of Rivers State have spoken—now, it’s time for the judiciary and law enforcement to take responsibility and make things right.

As Nigeria awaits the outcome of Hamma Barka’s panel on the remaining Rivers State cases, the significance of Rivers State in the nation’s political and economic landscape cannot be overstated. Rivers, as a major oil-producing state, plays a central role in Nigeria’s economic stability, being one of the key contributors to the nation’s oil revenue. The stakes are extremely high, not just for Rivers State, but for the entire country. Any further interference with its governance, especially through fraudulent judicial rulings and political manipulation, risks destabilizing a critical pillar of Nigeria’s economy. Rivers State cannot be treated as a political battleground for power-hungry elites without facing dire consequences.

For this reason, those in positions of power must be extremely careful. No more fraudulent judgments must be allowed to take root, especially when they threaten the very foundations of democratic governance in Rivers State. President Tinubu, who is deeply involved in the political currents surrounding these events, must take heed and avoid being complicit in these dark and dangerous maneuvers. Aligning with figures like Nyesom Wike and engaging in schemes that undermine the state’s autonomy could lead to irreversible consequences. The people of Rivers are resilient, and if the forces of political manipulation continue to push them to the brink, there will be a reckoning—a fire that will be impossible to contain once ignited.

Rivers State’s fight for sovereignty is not just a local issue; it has national implications. The nation’s future depends on whether the rule of law and democracy can be preserved in Rivers, or if political figures, judicial overreach, and law enforcement corruption will continue to dictate its fate. Those in power must choose carefully—any attempt to undermine Rivers State and its people will not be without consequence. The fire will burn, and history will remember those who tried to extinguish it.

Furthermore, the leadership of the Nigerian Police, particularly IGP Egbetokun, must take a hard look at the nonsensical and counterproductive nature of their involvement in this situation. The actions of IGP Egbetokun have shown a disregard for professionalism and the law in the service of political expediency. The police leadership must learn from this stupidity and reassess their role in ensuring the security of the electoral process, rather than being pawns in the political games of the powerful. This is a moment for self-reflection and a clear recognition of the importance of acting in the best interests of the law and democracy, not serving political agendas. The consequences of failing to act with integrity will echo far beyond this moment—into the very future of Nigeria’s democracy.

President Bola Tinubu extends his heartfelt congratulations to the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) on the successful revitalization of the Port Harcourt refinery, marked by the official commencement of petroleum product loading on November 26, 2024.

The President acknowledges the pivotal role of former President Muhammadu Buhari in initiating the comprehensive rehabilitation of all our refineries and expresses gratitude to the African Export-Import Bank for its confidence in financing this critical project.

Furthermore, President Tinubu commends the leadership of NNPC Limited's Group Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Mele Kyari, whose unwavering dedication and commitment were instrumental in overcoming challenges to achieve this milestone. 

With the successful revival of the Port Harcourt refinery, President Tinubu urges NNPC Limited to expedite the scheduled reactivation of both the second Port Harcourt refinery and the Warri and Kaduna refineries. 

These efforts will significantly enhance domestic production capacity alongside the contributions of privately-owned refineries and make our country a major energy hub, with the gas sector also enjoying unprecedented attention by the administration. 

The President underscores his administration's determination to repair the nation’s refineries, aiming to eradicate the disheartening perception of Nigeria as a major crude oil producer that lacks the ability to refine its own resources for domestic consumption.

Highlighting the values of patience, integrity, and accountability in the rebuilding of the nation’s infrastructure, President Tinubu calls upon individuals, institutions, and citizens entrusted with responsibilities to maintain focus and uphold trust in their service to the nation.

In alignment with the Renewed Hope Agenda focused on shared economic prosperity for all, the President reaffirms his administration's commitment to achieving energy sufficiency, enhancing energy security, and boosting export capacity for Nigeria.

Bayo Onanuga  

Special Adviser to the President  

(Information & Strategy)  

November 26, 2024