...Says federal government focused on women empowerment policies

Vice President Kashim Shettima has reaffirmed the Federal Government's dedication to advancing gender equity through transformative policies.

The Vice President emphasised the indispensable role of women in building a balanced and equitable society.

VP Shettima stated this on Monday during the H.I.D. Awolowo Foundation Webinar in commemoration of the 109th posthumous birthday of Chief Hannah Idowu Dideolu Awolowo, wife of the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo.

VP Shettima called for renewed national efforts to create an inclusive society where women are empowered to lead and thrive, saying, "Every nation’s treatment of women serves as the ultimate marker of its civilization.

"We cannot claim to have evolved as a nation unless we recommit ourselves to creating a society that offers women unconditional dignity and opportunity," the Vice President added.

VP Shettima paid glowing tribute to the late Chief Hannah Idowu Dideolu Awolowo, describing her as a "matriarch like no other and a jewel of inestimable value."

He lauded her contributions to modern Nigeria, noting her unwavering support for her husband, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, and her advocacy for women’s rights.

"Mrs. Awolowo’s courage and influence were instrumental in shaping policies like free education in the Western Region. This is what an empowered woman can achieve," he said.

On the historical struggles for women’s rights, the VP referenced the activism of global pioneers like Susan B. Anthony and Nigerian icons such as Mrs. Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti and Hajiya Gambo Sawaba.

"These trailblazers compelled us to confront the structural inequalities holding women back. Thanks to their efforts, the conversation has expanded beyond suffrage to include workplace equality, reproductive rights, and the fight against domestic violence," he remarked.

VP Shettima also pointed to the transformative impact of technology, noting how digital platforms have amplified women’s voices and driven legislative victories like the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act of 2015.

"This landmark legislation is a testament to the power of women-led advocacy and their determination to create a safer, fairer society," he said.

Shettima further reiterated the importance of representation and leadership opportunities for women, even as he praised President Tinubu for his inclusive governance, shaped by the legacy of his mother, Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji, a formidable women’s rights advocate.

"Her legal battle for personal liberty set a precedent in our constitutional history, reminding us that women’s rights are human rights and must never be negotiable," he noted.

The Vice President called for urgent action to address societal inequalities, particularly in education and leadership. "The nation we must build is one where no girl is denied the chance to learn, no woman is denied the opportunity to lead, and no mother is denied the dignity of safety and respect," Shettima said.

He urged Nigerians to honour the legacy of women like H.I.D. Awolowo and embrace a collective responsibility to empower women.

"We are working to create an environment where women are not just supported but celebrated; where their aspirations redefine societal expectations and help build a viable, equitable, and thriving nation," the Vice President said.

In her keynote address, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, Amina Mohammed, said November 25th marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the start of 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence.

She explained that HID Awolowo was a fighter for social justice and human rights and took every opportunity to show the power of women in economic development.

"Every chapter of her story tells us that no bird can fly on one wing. We need the leadership and representation of women. We need partnerships for change—everyone must work for systemic change that will be sustainable.

"We need to end the scourge of gender-based violence as an absolute priority, essential for growth. Societies cannot achieve the equal and just society envisioned by HID Awolowo if we leave 50 percent of the world's population behind," she said.

Earlier, the Chairperson of the HID Awolowo Foundation Advisory Council, Senator Daisy Danjuma, noted that in building a more viable Nigeria, the role of women should not be overlooked.

"Together, let us chart a society where the role of women is recognized, celebrated, and utilized," she said.

Welcoming guests to the webinar earlier, the Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Obafemi Awolowo Foundation, Dr. Olatokunbo Awolowo Dosumu, described HID Awolowo and her late husband as giants of intellect, integrity, service, and sacrifice, saying their lives were a testament to the power of purposeful living.

"They left us a blueprint for leadership and a legacy of hope. It is, therefore, with immense pride (and I hasten to add humility) that I speak before you today, reflecting on the legacy of these two extraordinary individuals. To be their offspring is not just a privilege; it is a profound responsibility.

"Their legacy is not meant to be confined to history books or family stories. It is a legacy that demands to be shared, understood, and applied in Nigeria and beyond. Our role, therefore, is to identify actionable plans and strategies and amplify the voices and capacities of women," Dr. Dosumu stated.

Stanley Nkwocha

Senior Special to The President on Media & Communications

(Office of The Vice President)

As Great Britain, once a colonial power ruling over 56 nations now part of the Commonwealth, transitions into a more inclusive society, a symbolic form of “reverse colonization” seems to be unfolding. This phenomenon, exemplified by individuals from formerly colonized nations rising to leadership roles in the UK, highlights the open-mindedness of Britons. Their inclusive approach has afforded immigrants, including those born in the UK, equal opportunities alongside the native population.

The adventurous spirit of the British has also contributed to London’s evolution into a cosmopolitan hub. Home to people from various former colonies, London has become a melting pot of cultures and a global financial center rivaling cities like New York, Shanghai, and Hong Kong.

Historically, Britain’s dominance as a seafaring nation beginning after the founding of the country in 1707 enabled it to build an empire that spanned nearly a quarter of the globe. Through its control of vast territories in Africa, India, Australia, Canada, the United States, and the Caribbean, the British Empire left an indelible mark on the world. While the UK is no longer the imperial force it once was, it remains a vital player on the global stage.

Should Kemi Badenoch—of Nigerian heritage now the leader of the Tory party currently in opposition—one day become the UK’s Prime Minister, it would be a monumental achievement not just for Nigerians but for Africans and the global Black community. Her rise would echo that of Barack Obama, whose election as the first Black President of the United States inspired millions worldwide.

However, it’s unlikely that Nigerians had a direct hand in Badenoch’s political success. Her ascent in the UK’s political sphere did not hinge on support from Nigerian-majority constituencies. Therefore, Nigerians must allow her to continue climbing the political ladder without the negativity that sometimes characterizes reactions to such achievements as evidenced by the vilification from Nigerians she is currently contending with.

In my view, if Badenoch reaches the pinnacle of UK politics, she may remember her Nigerian roots. But even if she doesn’t, her success is still significant. It would serve as an inspiration for Nigerian-born Britons and the broader Black community in the UK and other countries in Europe and North America to pursue political leadership, marking a meaningful step forward for the Black race.

In the United States, Barack Obama deliberately distanced himself from Black identity politics during his presidential campaign, recognizing that such an approach might limit his appeal in a nation where Black Americans constitute just 13% of the population. In contrast, Hispanics account for approximately 14%, while Caucasians make up around 67%. The significant role of rural Caucasian voters in Donald Trump’s 2016 and 2024 victory—and their contribution to Keir Starmer’s Labour Party overtaking the Conservatives earlier this year, which Kemi Badenoch currently represents—underscores the importance of appealing to the broader majority in diverse democracies.

For candidates from minority backgrounds aspiring to lead multi-ethnic nations, emphasizing racial or ethnic identity can create barriers. Hence Badenoch, like others before her, has to navigate this challenge.

Historically, Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson both campaigned for the U.S. presidency by centering on Black identity, but neither achieved electoral success. Barack Obama learned from these missteps, avoiding identity politics and instead galvanizing young voters through social media, ultimately winning the presidency in 2008. Similarly, Kamala Harris, the current U.S. Vice President, distanced herself from minority-focused identity politics. That is why she did not openly emphasize her Black heritage during her campaign, but celebrated her marriage to Doug Emhoff, a Caucasian, to further broaden her appeal.

Kemi Badenoch appears to be following a comparable path in the UK. Her husband, Mr. Hamish Badenoch, is a successful Caucasian banker, a detail that could work in her favor when elections are called. As leader of the Conservative Party, this positioning may enhance her chances of becoming the UK’s next Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, the debate over reparations for the historical atrocities of slavery perpetrated against Africans continues to stir emotions. At the recent Commonwealth meeting in Apia, Samoa, African representatives renewed their call for reparations, but King Charles dismissed the demands, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer brushed them aside. This response frustrated African advocates and reignited debates about the relevance of the Commonwealth, especially if it primarily serves to promote the economic interests of the UK as the former colonial power, particularly the African continent as a market for her goods and services.

The UK’s resistance to reparations—unlike Germany, which compensated Israel for the Holocaust—is likely rooted in the immense financial strain such a commitment would impose, particularly given the UK’s current economic difficulties.

Nevertheless, Britons like Americans have demonstrated a commendable level of inclusivity and liberalism by granting citizens of foreign ancestry the same rights and opportunities to rise to the highest echelons of political power. This inclusive approach could, for now, be seen as a symbolic form of reparation for the UK’s inability to meet Africa’s demands for financial reparations.

In this context, Kemi Badenoch’s rise to prominence—an African woman occupying one of the most significant positions in British politics—offers a powerful symbolic acknowledgment of historical injustices and readiness of the former colonizer to atone for past atrocities such as slavery and the pillaging of the economic resources of the continent. Her potential candidacy for Prime Minister would reaffirm this gesture of non-financial reparation, serving as a tribute to the historical exploitation of Africa, particularly the West African region.

That said, I do not support those in Nigeria who have criticized Badenoch for her disparaging remarks about the country during her bid for Conservative Party leadership. As Otto von Bismarck once said: “Politics is the art of the possible.” This pragmatic view mirrors the boldness that led Bismarck to organize the infamous Berlin Conference of 1884/85, where Africa was partitioned among European powers whose vestiges have been sustained and a reason the continent remains underdeveloped.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States, is famously associated with the statement: “In politics, nothing happens by accident.” This highlights that political events and decisions are rarely spontaneous but are typically the result of meticulous planning, strategy, and deliberate manipulation.

Kemi Badenoch’s ambition to become the next Prime Minister of the UK is legitimate, and her approach reflects this aspiration. By aligning herself with the expectations of the British electorate, she has positioned herself as a candidate who embodies British political ideals. However, her portrayal of Nigeria, which has drawn criticism from Nigerians, likely serves to reassure skeptical voters in the UK of her commitment to those ideals, which differ markedly from the political climate in her ancestral home.

Critics who find her comments about Nigeria disparaging may view them as unnecessary, but Napoleon Bonaparte’s assertion that “In politics, absurdity is not a handicap” offers a counterpoint. This underscores the reality that political maneuvering often includes statements or actions perceived as controversial or unconventional.

The ruthless ambition often associated with political pursuits is exemplified by Nicolae Ceaușescu, the former communist leader of Romania, who reportedly declared: “I will sell my mother to buy power. After getting power, I will buy my mother back.” While the literal feasibility of such a claim is questionable, it reflects the unrelenting drive and willingness to sacrifice personal relationships for political gain. Similarly, Ghanaian politician Freddie Blay echoed this sentiment, stating: “I love politics, and I would spend money to win power. If you are not careful, I will even be ready to sell my mother for money to retain my position.”

This stark perspective highlights an inconvenient truth: such a mindset underpins the actions of many politicians globally, particularly in authoritarian systems. Politics, after all, is a game of power and influence, often involving the orchestration of events to achieve specific objectives. While this doesn’t always imply malicious intent, it does illustrate the calculated nature of political strategy. As Groucho Marx wittily observed: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

From a historical standpoint, Badenoch’s current political strategy in the UK parallels that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), whose rise to the U.S. presidency (1933–1945) was shaped by significant challenges, including the Great Depression and World War II. FDR’s leadership was marked by calculated and strategic decisions, much like Badenoch’s tactical rise to the top of the Tory party as she positioned herself for a shot at the premiership.

As the saying goes: “There is no smoke without fire.”

Badenoch’s seemingly critical stance on Nigeria may be driven by the significant obstacles she faces in her political journey. These include her non-Caucasian identity, which may lead some to question whether her African heritage aligns with British identity. This skepticism is compounded by concerns that her Nigerian background might influence her leadership style if she were to become Prime Minister. Overcoming these challenges requires Badenoch to carefully navigate perceptions and prove her commitment to the ideals and values expected by the British electorate.

Given the unconscious bias that her non-Caucasian background might invite, Kemi Badenoch appears to have strategically distanced herself from Nigeria. This move is likely aimed at improving her chances of securing the top political position in the UK—Prime Minister and resident of 10 Downing Street. To achieve this, she has deliberately redefined herself as a quintessential Briton, fully embodying British political ideals and values.

Therefore, Badenoch’s public criticism of Nigeria’s poor political standards plays into this strategy, enhancing her appeal to the UK electorate who need to be assured that her values as a politician are higher than the typical Nigerian standard. These voters, to whom she must demonstrate her allegiance, are the ones whose support she needs to succeed in her political ambitions, not the Nigerians who have no voting rights in the UK that are unbraiding her because she is not pandering to them.

Given the above reality, it is essential to view Badenoch’s actions through the lens of political survival. She faces significant challenges as she navigates her role as the first Black woman to lead a major political party in the UK, and her situation can be compared to popular cultural phenomena. For instance, her political journey resembles contestants on the Big Brother House reality television show, where individuals use charm, wit, and strategy to outlast competitors and win over audiences to clinch the coveted prize. Similarly, it mirrors the power struggles and scheming seen in Game of Thrones another reality television show, where characters fight for survival and dominance in a high-stakes, ruthless environment.

Understanding the immense pressures Badenoch faces should prompt Nigerians to support her rather than criticize her, hence this intervention aimed at sharing another Point of View, PoV on the matter. Unfortunately, many Nigerians, despite sharing a common ancestry with her, have been quick to attack her leadership style and political stance. Hopefully, this article will help to explain the rationale behind her political posture, which has drawn ire from Nigerians who perceive it as disloyal or unflattering. By recognizing the challenges Badenoch confronts, critics may better understand her choices and judge her more fairly.

In stark contrast to the criticism Badenoch has received for not openly embracing her Nigerian heritage, Rishi Sunak, the former UK Prime Minister of Indian descent, enjoyed overwhelming support from both the Indian diaspora in the UK and Indians back home.

Based on my research, the following factors may help explain why Nigerians have reacted more critically to Badenoch’s candidacy compared to the widespread celebration of Sunak’s rise to power:

1. Distinct diaspora dynamics:
The Indian diaspora in the UK is larger, more established, and maintains stronger cultural and economic ties to India. On the other hand, while the Nigerian community in the UK is growing, it lacks the same level of organization and connection to Nigeria.
2. Nigerian political challenges and skepticism:
Nigeria’s history of political instability and corruption has created a sense of skepticism among its citizens. Consequently, many Nigerians may hesitate to celebrate a politician, especially one who has achieved success within a foreign political system.
3. Limited connection or representation:
Unlike Rishi Sunak, who openly embraces and celebrates his Indian heritage, Kemi Badenoch has not prominently highlighted her Nigerian roots but discountenanced them. Her apparent reluctance, possibly influenced by the challenges facing Nigeria, may contribute to the lack of enthusiasm among Nigerians.
4. Divergent expectations from diaspora figures:
Nigerians tend to focus on the tangible contributions their diaspora representatives make toward Nigeria’s development, rather than celebrating individual achievements abroad. This difference in priorities may explain the muted reception to Badenoch’s political ambitions.
5. Media portrayal and controversy:
The role of social and traditional media cannot be ignored. Badenoch’s controversial remarks about Nigeria have sparked significant backlash, with media platforms amplifying these sentiments and shaping public opinion.

In conclusion,
Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch (if she becomes Prime Minister) will not be the first politicians from minority backgrounds to lead the UK. Several British Prime Ministers have had diverse ancestries:
William Pitt the Younger: Born in England, he became Prime Minister at the age of 24 and had Irish ancestry through his father, a British politician.
Benjamin Disraeli: An English-born Prime Minister whose father was an Italian immigrant.
Harold Wilson: Also born in England, Wilson’s father, a chemist, had Scottish roots.

Kemi Badenoch, an African of Nigerian heritage, could similarly rise to lead the UK, following the precedent set by these figures.

Some critics might attempt to frame her success as “reverse colonialism.” However, she will not be the first minority from a former colony to rule the UK because India, like Nigeria, was colonized by Britain, and Rishi Sunak served as UK Prime Minister for two years (2022–2024) without significantly favoring Indians or enriching India as a country. This demonstrates that such fears are baseless.

As Badenoch appears to have a strong chance of becoming the next UK Prime Minister, Nigerians should refrain from actions or criticisms that could undermine her ambitions.

To Kemi Badenoch, my advice is simple: remain composed (translated in Yoruba as -farabale). Although you are British, your umbilical cord is still tied to Nigeria, and you will need the blessings of Nigerians as you ascend to the highest office in your current country of citizenship.
I join others in wishing her as well as other politicians of Nigerian heritage climbing up the ladder of the political ecosystems in their respective countries of citizenship, the best of luck as they chase the dream of becoming prime minister/president.

Magnus Onyibe
Entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

The Attorney General of Ondo State, Dr Kayode Ajulo SAN OON, has urged all illegal and unlicensed lottery and gaming operators and agents in the State to regularise their operations immediately or face legal consequences. He said "This directive is a confirmation of the government’s unwavering commitment to upholding the law and protecting the interests of its citizens"

The Attorney General made this comment on Monday in Akure, while reacting to the Supreme Court ruling that annulled the National Lottery Act. He lauded the Supreme Court for reaffirming the constitutional authority of state governments to regulate lottery and gaming activities within their respective states.

“The landmark judgement, delivered in Suit No. SC/1/2008 between the Attorney General of Lagos State & Ors and the Attorney General of the Federation represents a watershed victory for constitutionalism, federalism and the rule of law." Ajulo stated.

He further said "This Supreme Court decision is a monumental affirmation that the regulation of lotteries and gaming is a residual matter, firmly within the jurisdiction of State governments. It reinforces the principles of true federalism, empowering States to effectively manage their affairs.”

The AG emphasized the significance of this ruling in strengthening Ondo State's regulatory framework for the gaming sector. “This judgement validates our enduring belief in our ability to govern our resources and safeguard our citizens."

He commended the leadership of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa for his dedication to upholding the rule of law and championing the rights of the people of Ondo State, saying "his unwavering support has been instrumental in achieving numerous positive outcomes for the State."

Ajulo further stated that the Ondo State Government remains committed to creating a safe and regulated environment for all gaming activities, ensuring transparency and accountability for the benefit of all citizens. He said the activities of the Ondo State Lotteries Regulatory Commission would be reviewed and geared up in line with the Supreme Court judgment.

Olusegun Obasanjo, described as “a world statesman and a gift to humanity” who has demonstrated his “selflessness toward causes in Africa as well as global issues” is a prophet without honour in his own Yoruba country where he is regarded by his detractors as an Igbo man. Insisting he is not a Yoruba leader but a Nigerian leader only provided additional ammunition for his political enemies. He has no apologies favouring Shehu Shagari and Alex Ekwueme, in the 1979 at the expense of Obafemi Awolowo regarded a sage by the Yoruba but disparaged by Obasanjo as a failed politician.

Not even MKO Abiola, his fellow Egba who won a pan-Nigeria mandate fared better. For him, Abiola was “not the messiah Nigerians were waiting for”. He therefore did not see anything wrong in joining Babangida in trading Abiola’s mandate for an Interim National Government. Finally, when in 1999 Obasanjo was made president by the owners of Nigeria to assuage the raw feeling of Yoruba that had fought and made the country ungovernable for five years, Obasanjo danced on Abiola’s grave for eight years without acknowledging his supreme sacrifice.

The goodwill he did not enjoy among the Yoruba who refused voting for him in 1999 or his candidates since he left office, he savours among the Igbo who massively supported him against Olu Falae, the Yoruba candidate for the 1999 election. In appreciation, Obasanjo went round the world to recruit into his cabinet the best of Igbo including Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Obiageli Ezekwesili and Chukwuma Soludo. Even the worst of Igbo, including those who smuggled dollars to the US in his presidential jet, or kidnapped and locked up an elected governor like common criminal were not left out.

It is therefore easy to understand why Igbo presidency has become an obsession for Obasanjo since leaving office. During the 2023 election, he carried Peter Obi on his back around the country. And since the election was lost and won, Obasanjo has continued to live in denial claiming Obi was rigged out by INEC and the Supreme Court.

Those who know that Obasanjo has no generosity of heart to forgive anyone that crosses his way would understand while his appearance at Yale University to present a paper in honour of Chinua Achebe, the late Nigeria icon was for him  another opportunity to de-market Tinubu’s administration and present Obi as a viable alternative.

His crusade for Igbo presidency also took the centre-stage during last week’s visit by the League of Northern Democrats to his library. He started by trying to mislead Nigerians by drawing a parallel between the collapse of the first republic to regionalism. The problem with Obasanjo however is that when he is not playing the ostrich, he tries to twist historical facts. There is no evidence to support his claim that “people say because the Igbo had carried out secession and so an Igbo man cannot be the President of Nigeria” or link the collapse of the first republic to regionalism.

In fact, Bode Thomas who introduced regionalism as against his party’s preferred federal arrangement, modelled after linguistic groups as done in India said his objective was to prevent one-eyed king from presiding over the affairs of his Yoruba nation. It was therefore ironic that the assault on regionalism by Igbo unitarists became the harbinger of the reign of blind kings over the country beginning with Ironsi, Murtala Mohammed, Obasanjo, Buhari, Babangida, Abacha and Buhari. And precisely because these soldiers were ill-trained in the management of society, they destroyed our political parties, our socialization process, our university and bureaucracy, our budding economy and centralised our institutions, while they unwittingly claimed they were sacrificing their present for our future”.

Obasanjo’s misinterpretation of history during his encounter with League of Northern Democrats has only provided additional incentive to consolidate the position of those who believe Obasanjo is an Igbo man. It is on record that NCNC and Igbo preferred unitary system to regionalism or any other form of federal arrangement. They carried the battle to the London 1957 Independence Constitutional Conference where against Nigerian governors pre-conference agreement on creation of Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers (COR), Midwest, Middle Belt states, “the northern and eastern regions were unyielding and unconditionally opposed to the carving out of new states from their respective jurisdictions”. “The NCNC went a step further to “adopt a more devious approach by demanding that right there in the conference room, the country should be divided into seventeen states” saying the smaller the states, the better for the federal unity of Nigeria”.  This of course was rejected by Awolowo who said it “would make nonsense of federalism and indeed would amount to a backdoor reversion to a unitary system”. (The Autobiography of Obafemi Awolowo. (Pgs. 190-191).

Awolowo who predicted what we today have has been vindicated. The unworkable and unwieldy 36 states structure foisted on the nation by Obasanjo and fellow blind men, never trained in the art managing human society, is not markedly different from the demand by the unitarists who many will agree are the greatest beneficiary of the ongoing anarchy where states have no record of those who live within their states or control over their borders.

Igbo adage says ‘it is only your true friend that tells you your mouth is smelling’, If Obasanjo is sincere, he would have started crusade for Igbo presidency by first asking Igbo political elite to change their  brand of politics that uses Igbo poor and urban dwellers for political leverage.

 Unfortunately, Obasanjo who has never admitted making a mistake, seems to share the same mind-set with Igbo political elite who never take responsibilities for wrong decision but instead feed those that look up to them for direction with falsehood and propaganda. The result is that Igbo youths always end up believing they are victims hated by other tribes especially Hausa Fulani, Yoruba and Edo.

Let us take a journey through memory to see how Igbo elite often blame others instead of taking responsibility for their error of judgment.

The January 1966 coup was masterminded by Igbo NCNC political leaders who lost out following the collapse of NPC/NCNC coalition where Igbo controlled over 70% of political offices. Ironsi was, according to Richard Akinjide who was present at the meeting of surviving ministers, encouraged to take over power by the Igbo acting Senate President who refused to swear in the most senior surviving minister. Nwabueze drafted Decree 34 that turned the country into a unitary state. Unfortunately Ironsi was too handicapped to know the implications of his actions. Students of ABU who knew the implication of centralization of the bureaucracy started the rioting. Sadly, today Igbo youths blame not their leaders but outsiders for that avoidable tragic phase of our history.

Driven more by passion than reason, Igbo leaders railroaded Ojukwu who later admitted Biafra had 16 riffles to declare independence for Biafra. The response to the wise counsel of Awolowo and Prof Aluko was the battle cry of “no power in Africa can defeat us” or that ‘the grass in Igbo land will rise and fight”. Not even Gowon’s creation of COR state for eastern minorities on the eve of the declaration called for reflection. Awolowo who however said starvation is a weapon of war after three years of war, the failure of leadership, alone carried the blame. This was despite the fact that many Igbo writers including Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie admitted soldiers and members of the elite class were hijacking relief materials meant for starving children.

Between 1999 and 2015, Igbo southeast constituted a solid PDP block. In 2013, Peter Obi moved from APGA to PDP where he rose rapidly to become VP candidate in 2015. In 2023, fearing Atiku Abubakar the recurrent PDP presidential candidate was going to deny him the PDP ticket stabbed PDP in the back by joining Labour with Igbo PDP block. Then, Obasanjo and Igbo leaders who were eating with their 10 fingers while Tinubu remained in opposition for close to 20 years building alliance, wanted him to step down “to allow for an Igbo presidency in the interest of justice and equity”.

Tinubu, for dismissing Obi as “container economist” and his promoters as opportunists who needed some lessons on consensus-building became a target of Obi’s  Obidient mobs while elder statesman and ex-Governor Ezeife  publicly swore that  Tinubu, after winning the election round and square would not be sworn in. Today as his government battle crisis of legitimacy arising from lack of recognition by aggrieved Igbo leaders, there is no evidence any of them have apologized for exhibiting herd mentality in and out of PDP. It was perhaps only Obasanjo and Igbo leaders who believed Obi could win the 2023 election.

And finally, since a part of a whole cannot be holier than the whole, Obasanjo in spite of his theatrics cannot be part of the solution to lack of strategic planning by Igbo political elite that often behave like prostitutes with five husbands (apology to TOS Benson).

“Nigeria should not be a graveyard of businessmen and their businesses. Great businesses make great economies. A Nigeria without four-star businesses cannot have a five-star leadership. The world has no seat for the poor. We have an environment that is toxic enough for entrepreneurs, we should not add for them rumours of ill-timed setting of their radiant sun. We have lately seen, not one, not two, very big entrepreneurs having issues just for giving Nigeria what Nigeria desperately needed. Now, it is Adenuga. How does that encourage economic growth? And a country and its leadership are as great as their frontline businesses. We see this in America’s political and financial systems which empower entrepreneurs to create and invest capital, and compete without the fear of knives of envy being driven into their backs.”

There is the legend of a newspaper journalist who had an issue with his uncle, an oba in present-day Osun State, and threatened the king with death. The man needed a favour; the oba closed his eyes to the man’s demand. “Kabiyesi, you will die,” he reportedly informed the oba. “Iku boo?” Everyone who heard him gasped and upbraided this man for the sacrilege of speaking ill to a king in the palace. They thought his beer and booze had again taken hold of him. In response to demands of apology, the man stormed out of the palace, back to his base in Lagos.

We say a tree does not fall in the forest and kill someone at home. I used to believe that proverb would be true at all times until I heard how this man carried out the regicide he promised. He got to Lagos and submitted a report to his editor that his uncle, the oba, had joined his ancestors. Did the editor pass the story for publication? Well, who else could be the best source and authority on the life and times of a king if not his own kin, the king’s man himself? And so, an abnormal tree that fell in Lagos killed the oba at home. The king read his own obituary, courtesy of his own nephew who worked in faraway Lagos.

The event happened in the 1970s, so we were told in the 1990s. And we were warned as newsmen never to build our truth on a foundation laid by only one source. The man got the fake news of the oba published and stood by it. We couldn’t really get hold of the publication but we were told the man’s name. When the second republic came with its opportunities, the man moved to Ibadan. He had to. His ways had made the waters of Lagos too shallow for his shark to swim.

Our man edited an ephemeral newspaper for some politicians in Ibadan in the early 1980s. Then he spiced it with some other extra journalism stuff. I wished he were alive now for me to ask him why he ‘killed’ the oba with his pen. But if we did not see what his Ajantala did in the bush, we saw the man’s face as he joined in shredding icons on the streets of Ibadan on days when the metropolis lived its reputation. What reputation? I have beside me here a copy of Ruth Watsons’ ‘Civil Disorder is the Disease of Ibadan’. Everyone came to this world with a disease which defines their existence. The end came twenty-something years ago for the man who used his pen to kill his uncle, the king. It was not a nice end.

The world was crazy fifty years ago when a newspaper was deployed to ‘kill’ a monarch. It is crazier now with social media and its unhinged tendencies. I remembered the death story of the undead king when some unknown persons with unknown motives used social media to announce the death of Globacom chairman, Dr. Mike Adenuga, Tuesday last week. I also remembered the Zik-is-dead hoax of 1989. Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe was in his study in November 1989 working on book manuscripts when he read his own obituary complete with a list of a committee to bury him. It was crazy. One thing is clear, the one who wishes one dead is not a friend. A death wish whether oral or written is an enemy action.

The social media can be rumour pro-max. Rumour, most times, come false and in unfriendly costumes. While its currency is virality, it easily spins out of the spinner’s control. Robert H. Knapp in his ‘A Psychology of Rumour’ (1944) avers that “if leaflets, newspapers or radio broadcasts are likened to bullets, then rumour must be likened to a torpedo, for, once launched, it travels of its own power.” Social media scholars have at various times raised the alarm that false information is a threat to modern society. Lt Col. Jarred Prier of the United States Airforce in 2017 published a seminal piece that demonstrated how social media had become a tool for all kinds of ‘war’. In his ‘Commanding the Trends: Social Media as Information Warfare’, he mentioned “malicious users” and “malicious actors” creating malicious trends and manipulating internet platforms to spread negative messages, most times fake news. And, fake news he defined as “propaganda composed of false story disguised as news…”

Death rumours rarely have an identifiable source. The one about the Globacom chairman did not appear to have any. What it had were internet rats in desperate grab of trends. Whoever started the fire disappeared soon after lighting the match. I got calls; the first from a colleague in the United Kingdom; another from Benin, yet another from my office in Ibadan. A friend sent the screenshot of a Facebook version of the vile announcement. Everyone who contacted me sounded alarmed and apprehensive. But, why would they be calling me for a confirmation of bad news? Who do we call – or text? My friends suggested names. First a text to a certain number. “Good evening, sir”. No immediate response. Then I placed a call. A laugh; the line went dead. Then a response came in one minute: “Chairman is fine…” That was a text message from the man I called; we call him Bob Dee (Chief Dele Momodu). Two other messages of reassurance soon followed from that channel. Then, the newsroom went calm, and the same social media that created the topic of death scrambled to quench the fire. “Are rumours just rumours?” Rumour theorists, Heng Chen, Yang K. Lu and Wing Suen, once asked themselves. And they answered, yes. They also noted that rumours (that are not rooted in truth) “often disappear quickly without a trace.” I read all that in their ‘The Power of Whispers: A Theory of Rumour’.

I asked one of my callers why he sounded so troubled by last Tuesday’s death rumour. He told me what I already knew: You remember that old song by Juju music commander, Ebenezer Obey? Anyone who knows the evil ways of darkness will not wish the moon bad (Èdá tó mò’se òkùnkùn, kó má mà d’Ósùpá l’óró) And, I think I heard a new one from Obey on Friday. He weighed in with a new song, using his music to list the benefits of the moon and why its soft, golden glow must continue to drape the night in ethereal light. It fits this hour. There is so much darkness here, in the public space and in the space we call private. That was why as children, we got sad whenever the full moon was seen reducing in size and getting far gone in distance.

Why were my friends almost hysterical at the virality of Adenuga’s death rumour? I can tell why. You know how many people work in that man’s businesses – telecoms, oil (downstream, upstream, midstream), banking, construction etc etc? Some trees singularly make a forest. This is one of them – one of the reasons Nigeria is not completely an economic arid zone. Read Martin Williams’s ‘When the Sahara Was Green’ (2021). The Sahara desert was once lush with greenery. It became what it is today because of unconscionable humans, agents of eco destruction. Malicious bush burning joined hands with other vices to tip the land’s moisture balance. Collectively, they degraded the green that made that stretch to breathe. The result is what the Arabs saw and gave the label ‘sahra’ – the meaning of that word is ‘wilderness’. Now, apply that to our economic situation and be alarmed. Foliage is the canopy of the forest. When you remove trees that make forest forest, the forest dies. That is why we say this China shop should not be heady goats’ playground. Mortar, we can roll; pot, we mustn’t. If you roll a pot like you do pounded yam’s mortar, the master potter will roar in angers of lightning and thunder.

When someone of value is pronounced dead and they refuse to die, the Yoruba have a name for such a hard-to-crack nut. They are called Kokumo (This-is-no-longer-dead). Such are moulded into Ìkòkò ribiti (well-rounded pot); they are, in carefulness, protected from wanton eyes of malice. Adenuga’s ConOil struck gold in 1991, the first indigenous oil company to achieve that feat. His Globacom is also the first and has remained the only wholly indigenous telecoms company in Nigeria. The fact of these businesses coming first serves not just the owner; it serves more the country. It has served as a bulwark against the exploitation of foreign waves. That is why we say the man behind it must live and why we say “no time to check time” to his death wishers. They are a dead horse. Who are they, anyway? And why are they angry?

The invidious, false news of a top entrepreneur’s death should interest the state and its operatives. Howard Wolk, co-author of ‘Launchpad Republic: America’s Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters’ said in a December 2022 interview with Forbes magazine that America is great because it consciously nurtures its businesses and protects their owners even from the state itself. “We limit the ability of incumbents to stifle entrepreneurs,” he declared with an air of pride. Here, the challenge is not a threat of state stifling, it is the menace of bad belle, threats from fake news and the odious bile of idle envy.

His Wikipedia page speaks to where he is coming from: “Adenuga made his first million in 1979, at age 26, selling lace and distributing soft drinks. In 1990, he received an oil drilling licence, and in 1991, his Consolidated Oil struck oil in the shallow waters of Southwestern Ondo State, making it the first indigenous oil company to do so in commercial quantity.” Then, he branched off into telecommunications. He got a conditional GSM licence in 1999. It was revoked. But where he comes from, a man is not allowed to lie supine because a stupid horse flings them off. He must get up and mount the horse again. Which is what the man did. He joined the fray again. He won and received a licence when the government held another GSM auction in 2003. Then the story of telephony changed in Nigeria – for the better, forever.

Nigeria should not be a graveyard of businessmen and their businesses. Great businesses make great economies. A Nigeria without four-star businesses cannot have a five-star leadership. The world has no seat for the poor. We have an environment that is toxic enough for entrepreneurs, we should not add for them rumours of ill-timed setting of their radiant sun. We have lately seen, not one, not two, very big entrepreneurs having issues just for giving Nigeria what Nigeria desperately needed. Now, it is Adenuga. How does that encourage economic growth? And a country and its leadership are as great as their frontline businesses. We see this in America’s political and financial systems which empower entrepreneurs to create and invest capital, and compete without the fear of knives of envy being driven into their backs.

We enjoy the ‘rebellion’ of Adenuga’s Glo; it serves our individual and national interests. There is something about that model in the Forbes interview I cited earlier: Howard Wolk said “entrepreneurship is a rebellious act” and that the United States is great because its political and judicial systems encourage that rebellion while spurring the rebellious to rise and seize new opportunities. His claim is correct. The more unconventional a business is, the more it fires up a country’s creative energy. Globacom did this when it came in 2003 and ruptured the tendons of predatory competition it met on the turf. Nigerians enjoyed that patriotic recalcitrance from Glo. They still enjoy it. That is why millions of them are wedded to that network as a duty to Nigeria. And they will remain so even if the house is on fire and robbers may be on the prowl (Bí ilé ńjó, b’olè ńjà).

Since his appointment as Special Adviser to the President, Media and Public Communications on November 14, Daniel Bwala has moved from one controversy to the other. After what many consider a betrayal of Atiku Abubakar whom he worked for as presidential campaign spokesman in 2023, the appointment was for him a dream come true. He had spent so much time since Bola Tinubu became president, trying to justify his return to the All Progressives Congress he serially disparaged and a President he so virulently opposed as candidate during the campaign.

With the appointment, there was reason for him to feel some triumph. But rather than celebrate, his first week in office – during which he tasted a bit of the bitter part of his new beddellows – has been a nightmare. He will go on record as the presidential spokesman who started from day one on a faux pas, spent his first week in office retracting his introductory statements and forced a major reshuffle of the President Bola Tinubu’s media and communication team that saw him re-designated and downgraded.

Bwala and President Tinubu

He actually ignited the fire that burnt his fingers. Following his appointment Bwala had, in a tactless display of ignorance of how the Tinubu political machinery works, announced himself gleefully as the official replacement for Ajuri Ngelale, erstwhile Presidential spokesman who was muzzled out of office two months earlier. After the self-glorifying briefing of State House correspondents in the Presidential Villa, he capped the introduction by declaring “I only came to introduce myself to you and the role that was given to me by Mr. President, and I told you that role was once occupied by Ajuri Ngelale.”

He went on to light up the internet with a tweet along that line.

The blunder touched many raw nerves in the nation’s seat of power. Not only did he invoke the better-forgotten spirit of Ajuri Ngelale, he literarily positioned himself to inherit whatever fights he left behind. He also went on to offer an unsolicited explanation on the issue of where Sunday Dare, former Minister of Sport, who had earlier been appointed Special Adviser like him, works from. Dare, he declared – rather recklessly – works from the office of the Minister of Information, which implied he does not belong in the President’s core communication team in the Villa. Such indiscretion!

If others who belong to the inner caucus of the President’s team would stomach such impudence, Bayo Onanuga, who is believed to have supplanted Ngelale was not amused. It did not surprise many, therefore, that he went into overdrive shortly after, to put Bwala in his deserved place. When he issued a statement which not only re-designated Bwala as Special Adviser on Policy Communication but sandwiched him in-between himself and Dare, it was clear he was responding to the former PDP man’s audacity. The statement also explained that “Mr. Sunday Dare – hitherto Special Adviser on Public Communication and National Orientation is now Special Adviser, Media and Public Communications.”
The picture was clear: Daniel Bwala was not the President’s spokesman – because “there is no single individual spokesperson for the Presidency” – but one of the three spokesmen for the President. As the statement said, the changes were to enhance efficiency within the government’s communication machinery but it is obvious that it consolidated Onanuga’s leadership of the President’s media and communications team and positioned Dare, his former staff at TheNEWS where he was editor-in-chief, ahead of Bwala.

Welcome to the house of intrigues, Daniel.

The power play was not lost on Bwala and rumours were rife that he may even exit as quickly as he entered. So, what to do? He did the only thing he has perfected in the past few years after he abandoned active law practice for the murky waters of political brinksmanship: he ran to the news studios for an interview. Listening to him on the Channels TV Politics Today, Bwala looked sober and pitiable as he all but offered Onanuga and the cabal that holds sway in the Villa, a public apology. He praised Onanuga to high heavens, as ‘a statesman and brilliant journalist’ and not one with whom he was out to rub shoulders with. Hear him: “My own is, if he says ‘go and carry that table,’ I will just do so; that’s my job.” The brilliant chap had learnt the first lesson.

Once viewed as a brilliant lawyer and principled man, Bwala who now grovels around the Villa, has indeed gone full circle and many believe he is still unraveling. In his few years in the political space, he has become notorious for betrayal as his actions appear driven by personal gain rather than ideological consistency. Originally a member of the APC before he defected to the PDP in 2022, citing opposition to the APC’s Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket, he has engaged in frequent and high-profile shifts in political allegiances. He was a vocal critic of President Bola Tinubu, but no sooner did Tinubu become Nigeria’s President than he shifted position, departed from Atiku Abubakar’s camp and re-aligned with the APC in a political move that is clearly opportunistic rather than principled.

Indeed, Daniel Bwala has gone full circle. While he has framed his transitions as efforts to support national unity, many have seen through the smokescreens of his rhetorical cover for personal greed and political expediency. While he has succeeded in talking his way right into Tinubu’s office, he still faces what many political turncoats face: his presence is welcome but it would be foolhardy on his part to expect to be trusted.

Sheddy Ozoene, Editor-In-Chief of People&Politics, is the Vice President of the Nigerian Guild of Editors

In the age of globalization and changing social norms, it is disheartening to see age-old traditions like exorbitant bride price lists still being commercialized against love and marriage. A recent story making the rounds on social media highlights a Nigerian man living in the UK who canceled his wedding after receiving a staggering N3.5 million bride price list from his fiancée’s family. The demands, cloaked in the guise of tradition, included livestock, drinks, clothing, and cash gifts. This incident not only underscores the often exploitative nature of such practices but also raises critical questions about the future of cultural customs in a rapidly modernizing world.

Bride price, traditionally, is intended as a token of appreciation from a groom’s family to the bride’s family. It symbolizes respect and acknowledgment of the role the family played in raising the woman. However, in many parts of Africa, including Nigeria, this practice has been commercialized, turning what was once symbolic into a financial transaction.

In the case at hand, the bride price list was not a humble acknowledgment of tradition but an outright demand for wealth. Worse still, the bride reportedly supported her family’s demands, citing Nigeria’s economic challenges. This left the groom, who had planned to invest in her future, questioning whether he was marrying a partner or purchasing an asset.

For the man in question, the emotional toll was immense. Despite navigating the complexities of a long-distance relationship and being genuinely committed to his fiancée, he was forced to reconsider his plans. His frustration was not just about the financial burden but about the implications of such demands.

Marriage is meant to be a partnership built on mutual respect and shared goals. The woman’s support for her family’s exorbitant demands signaled a lack of consideration for their future together.

Not only that, demanding N3.5 million is not about honoring tradition; it is about taking advantage of cultural norms to exploit others financially. Against the foregoing backdrop, it is not out of place to ask, “How can a marriage built on financial strain and one-sided expectations flourish?” The groom rightfully questioned the sustainability of a relationship founded on such terms.

It is undeniable that Nigeria’s economic challenges have placed immense pressure on families. Unemployment, inflation, and a rising cost of living have made survival difficult. For some, bride price lists become an opportunity to offset these struggles. However, this approach is not only short-sighted but also destructive.

While cultural practices are important, they must evolve to reflect current realities. When bride price becomes an avenue for families to demand outrageous sums, it ceases to be a cultural rite and transforms into a form of economic oppression.

Without a doubt, the commercialization of bride price has far-reaching implications.  This is as it discourages genuine suitors.  Many potential suitors walk away due to the financial burden, leaving women to bear the brunt of their family’s greed.

In fact, when a man feels like he “bought” his wife, it can lead to power imbalances, resentment, and even abuse in the marriage, thereby eroding the value of love, even as the focus shifts from love, companionship, and mutual growth to monetary transactions and material expectations.

It is high time families stopped treating their daughters as commodities to be traded for financial gain. Parents and family members must recognize the long-term harm caused by such practices. Instead of burdening potential grooms with unrealistic expectations, families should prioritize their daughters’ happiness and the sustainability of the marriage.

Moreover, women must take a stand. In this story, the bride’s inability to challenge her family’s demands cost her a promising future with a man who was ready to invest in her growth. Women should advocate for their autonomy and push back against practices that reduce them to negotiable assets.

Given the foregoing, it is germane to suggest in this context that there is the need for the reevaluation of cultural practices across communities in Nigeria. In fact, communities must engage in conversations about modernizing traditions like bride price, and cultural practices should not become tools of oppression.

In a similar vein, there is the need to educate families. Ministries of culture across the states can embark on educating and enlightening families on the need to understand that their daughters’ future happiness is more valuable than temporary financial gain.

In a similar vein, women should be empowered to make decisions about their relationships without undue influence from their families.

Without a doubt, the story of the man who canceled his wedding over a N3.5 million bride price list is a cautionary tale. It highlights the urgent need to address exploitative cultural practices that hinder love and partnership. Marriage should be about building a life together, not about financial transactions that leave one party feeling exploited.

As we navigate the complexities of culture and modernization, let us strive to uphold traditions that build, not destroy. It is time to leave behind practices that sell daughters in the name of bride price and embrace a future where love, respect, and equality are the cornerstones of marriage.

Accountability is the cornerstone of good governance. It ensures that public officials remain answerable to the people for their actions while in office, fostering trust and encouraging responsible use of resources. Against this backdrop, Governor Monday Okpebholo’s decision to probe the administration of his predecessor, Godwin Obaseki, should not be hastily labeled as a political vendetta or a distraction. Instead, it should be viewed as a bold step toward institutionalizing accountability and setting a higher standard for governance in Edo State.

However, recent reactions, particularly from Crusoe Osagie, former media aide to Obaseki, paint the probe as a smokescreen for incompetence and a diversion from pressing developmental issues. While skepticism may arise in the political arena, dismissing the probe outright as partisan is counterproductive and denies Edo State the potential benefits of a transparent review of its governance history.

Probes, when conducted transparently and judiciously, are vital tools for promoting accountability. They allow the new administration to uncover systemic weaknesses, identify potential mismanagement, and set the stage for reforms that benefit the public. In a democracy, it is essential to periodically audit past actions to ensure the responsible use of resources and adherence to legal frameworks.

Governor Okpebholo’s probe into Obaseki’s administration is not an indictment of the former governor’s intentions or character but rather a routine governance practice aimed at safeguarding public interest. Such reviews help establish benchmarks, clarify administrative decisions, and provide insights for future leadership. This process should be embraced, not vilified.

One of the significant challenges of governance transitions in Nigeria is the tendency to politicize accountability. Probes are often dismissed as witch-hunts by supporters of the previous administration, while proponents of the new government may use them as tools to settle scores. This politicization undermines the essence of the process, making it difficult to achieve meaningful results.

The current reactions from Obaseki’s camp risk falling into this trap. Crusoe Osagie’s claim that the probe is a diversionary tactic ignores the broader implications of transparency and accountability. By framing the exercise as a spectacle or a political vendetta, such rhetoric risks polarizing public opinion and derailing the genuine purpose of the investigation.

It is important to recognize that Governor Okpebholo has just assumed office. Expecting him to roll out a comprehensive governance blueprint within weeks is unrealistic. Every leader requires time to assess the state of affairs, define priorities, and establish a roadmap for development. Conducting a probe is a logical first step in this process, as it allows the new administration to understand what it has inherited and identify areas requiring urgent attention.

Rather than casting aspersions, critics should give Okpebholo the benefit of the doubt and allow him the latitude to lead. Rushing to label him as incompetent or devoid of ideas not only undermines his administration but also sends a discouraging message to the people of Edo State, who are eager for progress and unity.

The Obaseki administration played a significant role in shaping Edo State’s trajectory during its tenure. If there are questions about decisions made or resources allocated, a probe provides an opportunity to address these issues comprehensively. This is not about diminishing Obaseki’s legacy but about ensuring that governance in Edo State is continuously improved.

Moreover, the probe has the potential to uncover lessons that can guide future administrations. Governance is a continuum, and understanding past successes and failures is crucial for sustainable progress. If the probe reveals instances of mismanagement, rectifying them will benefit the state as a whole. If it finds that the administration acted within the law and in the best interest of the people that too will enhance public trust.

Former Governor Obaseki and his allies, including Crusoe Osagie, have a critical role to play in this process. Rather than framing the probe as a personal attack, they should adopt a statesmanlike approach, cooperating fully and providing any necessary clarifications. Taking the probe in stride demonstrates confidence in their actions while in office and underscores their commitment to transparency.

Unhelpful rhetoric, on the other hand, risks inflaming tensions and distracting from the real issues at hand. Edo State’s progress should be the primary focus, not partisan bickering or political point-scoring. By resisting the temptation to obstruct the probe with negativity, Obaseki’s camp can contribute meaningfully to the state’s development, even from outside government.

The people of Edo State stand to gain significantly from a well-conducted probe. If mismanagement is uncovered, it could lead to the recovery of funds or assets that can be redirected toward critical development projects. If the probe clears Obaseki’s administration of any wrongdoing, it reinforces public trust in the integrity of leadership.

Ultimately, the probe should serve as a mechanism for improvement rather than a weapon of division. It is an opportunity to ensure that governance remains people-focused and that public resources are used effectively. For this to happen, all parties must approach the process with openness and a commitment to the greater good.

Edo State has immense potential, but realizing it requires unity and collaboration. Governor Okpebholo cannot succeed in isolation; he needs the support of all stakeholders, including those who may not share his political ideology. The probe is not an end in itself but a means to an end: building a stronger, more accountable Edo State.

The people of Edo State must rise above partisan loyalties and prioritize progress. This means supporting initiatives that promote accountability and development, regardless of their origin. It also means holding all leaders, past and present, accountable for their actions in a constructive and non-partisan manner.

Governor Okpebholo’s probe into Obaseki’s administration should not be painted with a partisan brush. It is a legitimate governance tool aimed at fostering transparency, accountability, and progress. For the sake of Edo State, it is imperative that all stakeholders approach this process with an open mind and a focus on the greater good.

Governor Okpebholo deserves the opportunity to lead without undue hindrance or premature judgment. Similarly, former Governor Obaseki and his allies should take the probe in stride, resisting the urge to obstruct progress with unhelpful rhetoric.

In the end, a transparent and judicious probe benefits everyone in Edo State. It strengthens governance, enhances public trust, and sets a precedent for accountability that future administrations will be compelled to uphold. Let us prioritize unity and progress, working together to build a better Edo State for generations to come.

President Bola Ahmed Adekunle Tinubu, Rivers State Remains Your Albatross: The Nation and Globe Know Only You Can Remove This Burden—Act Now

President Bola Tinubu: Your Approach to Rivers State Demands a Turn Toward Humanity—Tomorrow Promises No One

President Bola Tinubu’s approach to the Rivers State crisis has exposed a dangerous pattern of political maneuvers, risky alliances, and troubling silence. Rivers State is not just another state—it is Nigeria’s oil-rich economic backbone, the bedrock of national revenue, and the epicenter of Niger Delta politics. Yet your actions, Mr. President, and too often your inaction, have risked destabilizing this critical region, amplifying tensions, and threatening Nigeria’s democratic and economic stability.

Tinubu’s Troubled History of Intervening in Rivers State

When you intervened in Rivers State’s political crisis in 2023, your actions were widely criticized as one-sided and detrimental to Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s administration. The Rivers Elders and Leaders Forum saw your mediation as favoring Nyesom Wike while ridiculing Fubara. This perception deepened when you insisted that Fubara re-present the state budget to a reconstituted Rivers House of Assembly, a move many argued undermined his authority and legitimacy.

The October 2023 rift between Wike and Fubara offered a pivotal moment to demonstrate decisive, fair leadership. Instead, your intervention emboldened Wike, eroding democratic structures and exacerbating political divisions. These actions have not been forgotten, and they serve as a stark warning for your continued engagement, particularly if your decisions remain skewed toward one faction.

Mr. President, Humanity Calls You to Act

Since May 2023, the people of Rivers State have cried out under the weight of political manipulation, judicial overreach, and systemic instability. That is not months of ordinary suffering—it is months of compounded loss, fear, and despair. Their voices have grown hoarse from pleading for relief, and their tears have become the silent witness to a government that seems deaf to their plight.

Mr. President, I plea with you: go deep into your humanity. Feel the pain of the people you swore to serve. Their cries cannot wait for another day of indifference, another month of excuses, or another year of political gamesmanship. Tomorrow is promised to no one.

Rivers State needs leadership that transcends politics, alliances, and debts. It needs a leader who can restore hope, uphold justice, and protect the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic and economic future. Mr. President, that leader must be you. The time to act is now.

Tinubu’s Risky Gamble with Nigeria’s Economic Engine

Rivers State, as the premier oil-producing region in Nigeria, holds immense strategic importance. Its stability directly impacts national revenue, investor confidence, and overall economic unity. Yet, Tinubu’s silence in the face of the current crisis—marked by Wike’s aggressive maneuvers, allegations of judicial interference, and the Federal High Court’s ruling to freeze Rivers’ federal allocations—signals a dangerous gamble.

Critics argue that Tinubu’s reluctance to confront Wike stems from a perceived political debt. Allegedly, Wike played a pivotal role in securing Rivers State for Tinubu during the 2023 presidential election. By prioritizing personal loyalty over national interests, Tinubu risks alienating not only the people of Rivers State but also the broader Nigerian public.

The stakes in Rivers are far too high for political games. Any instability in the state threatens to disrupt oil production, reignite militancy in the Niger Delta, and weaken Nigeria’s already fragile economic recovery.

The Brewing Storm: Oil Wealth vs. Political Power

Rivers State’s role as the economic engine of Nigeria makes its stability non-negotiable. However, the political storm brewing between Governor Fubara and Wike has created a volatile situation. Wike’s alleged efforts to destabilize Fubara’s administration—ranging from influencing court rulings to exacerbating political divisions—have sent shockwaves through the state.

The Federal High Court’s decision to freeze federal allocations to Rivers, ostensibly to address constitutional violations in the 2024 budget, has only deepened the crisis. Elder statesman Chief Edwin Clark has condemned the ruling and urged Tinubu to act swiftly. He criticized the burning of the Rivers State House of Assembly and the violent treatment of Fubara as clear attempts to unseat the governor and install a Wike loyalist.

Chief Clark’s warning that “Rivers people have suffered enough” underscores the high stakes for the Niger Delta region and Nigeria’s economy. Tinubu’s silence is seen as a tacit endorsement of Wike’s destabilizing tactics, raising questions about the President’s commitment to justice and fairness.

A Legacy at Risk: Tinubu’s Dangerous Calculations

By failing to address Wike’s unchecked ambitions, Tinubu is playing a high-stakes game that could define his presidency. Rivers State is not just any state—it is the economic heart of Nigeria. Allowing Wike’s political ambitions to dictate Rivers’ future undermines the rule of law, weakens federal leadership, and risks reigniting instability in the Niger Delta.

Tinubu’s silence sends a dangerous message: that political debts and alliances outweigh the stability of Nigeria’s most critical state. Nigerians are watching, and the cost of inaction will be severe. The destabilization of Rivers threatens not only the state but also the nation’s economic backbone and democratic framework.

The Cost of Tinubu’s Silence

The perception that Tinubu is prioritizing Wike’s agenda over national stability erodes public trust. Chief Eze Chukwuemeka Eze’s warning is clear: the Rivers crisis is not just a local issue but a national emergency with profound implications for Nigeria’s democracy and economy. Elder statesman Edwin Clark has echoed these sentiments, cautioning that allowing Rivers to descend further into chaos will have catastrophic consequences for the Niger Delta and Nigeria’s oil-dependent economy.

Tinubu must abandon his silence and act decisively to stabilize Rivers. Anything less is a betrayal of his duty as President and a dangerous gamble with Nigeria’s future.

Wike’s Overreach and the Erosion of Governance

Wike’s unchecked actions—allegedly orchestrating judicial rulings, gifting houses to judges, and influencing federal decisions—have further destabilized Rivers. Human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has criticized these actions as compromising judicial independence and eroding public trust in governance. Combined with Wike’s controversial demolition policies in Abuja, which disproportionately target the poor, these actions paint a picture of leadership driven by ambition rather than accountability.

The escalating tensions in Rivers State demand urgent, transparent, and decisive leadership from President Bola Tinubu. Silence is no longer a viable strategy, and indifference to the turmoil gripping Nigeria’s most critical oil-producing state is a disservice to the nation. The world watches as Rivers State teeters on the brink of chaos, and history will judge whether Tinubu rises to the challenge or allows political gamesmanship to jeopardize Nigeria’s democracy and economic stability.

Tinubu’s Silence Is Not an Option

President Tinubu’s last indirect engagement with the Rivers crisis came through Ajuri Ngelale, his former spokesperson, who in May 2024 declared that the President would remain neutral. However, Ngelale’s resignation in September 2024 has left an ominous communication void, fueling perceptions of Tinubu’s complicity in Nyesom Wike’s increasingly destabilizing actions. This silence, deliberate or not, speaks volumes and is eroding public trust in Tinubu’s leadership.

The warnings from Chief Edwin Clark, Chief Eze Chukwuemeka Eze, and Asari-Dokubo are unambiguous. Rivers State is burning under Wike’s ambitions, and Tinubu’s refusal to act decisively risks plunging the state into deeper turmoil. If Rivers collapses into chaos, the blame will rest squarely on Tinubu’s shoulders. His leadership—or the lack thereof—will determine whether Rivers State emerges from this crisis intact or becomes a cautionary tale of failed governance.

The Fragility of Nigeria’s Democracy

The Rivers State crisis is a defining moment for Tinubu’s presidency and Nigeria’s democratic institutions. It is a litmus test of Tinubu’s commitment to justice, fairness, and the principles of governance. Yet, his silence raises troubling questions about whether political debts and alliances are being prioritized over the nation’s stability and democratic integrity.

Rivers State’s significance extends far beyond its borders. As the economic engine of Nigeria, its stability underpins national unity and prosperity. The ongoing crisis threatens not just the state but the entire Niger Delta region and Nigeria’s oil-dependent economy. Tinubu’s failure to address this crisis decisively could result in a domino effect of instability, weakening investor confidence, fueling militancy, and eroding trust in federal leadership.

The Time for Action Is Now

President Tinubu, Rivers State is your albatross—a burden that only you can remove. The nation and the world understand the weight of your responsibility, and the choice before you is stark. Will you act with the decisiveness and moral clarity expected of a leader, or will you allow political expediency to dictate your actions?

The time for neutrality and silence is over. The stakes are too high for further delay. Rivers State’s stability is non-negotiable, and the human cost of inaction is incalculable. Families, communities, and livelihoods are at risk, and every moment of inaction fuels the perception of federal complicity in Wike’s destructive agenda.

A Brutal Truth About Leadership and Legacy

Leadership is not about convenience but conviction. History is ruthless to leaders who fail to act in moments of crisis. If Rivers State descends further into chaos, Tinubu’s legacy will be forever tarnished as the President who allowed Nigeria’s most critical state to burn under his watch. Nigerians will not forgive a leader who prioritized political debts over national interests.

Chief Edwin Clark’s warning resonates deeply: “A word is enough for the wise.” Tinubu must heed this wisdom and act decisively to restore trust, fairness, and the rule of law. The time for political calculations is over. What is at stake is not just Rivers State but the future of Nigeria’s democracy, economy, and global standing.

An Appeal to Tinubu’s Humanity

President Tinubu, the crisis in Rivers is not just about power; it is about people. It is about the market women who struggle to feed their families, the children who dream of a stable future, and the communities that depend on your leadership to shield them from despair. This is a moment to transcend political rivalries and personal debts and to embrace the humanity that defines true leadership.

Your silence has consequences, and your actions—or lack thereof—will echo through generations. The world knows that only you can remove this burden. Act now, not just as a President but as a protector of Nigeria’s soul. Rivers State, the nation, and the globe are watching. It is time to lead.

President Bola Tinubu, your leadership shone when you ordered the release of 29 minors unlawfully detained and facing the death penalty. That action was a reminder of your ability to rise above political maneuvering to address grave injustices. Now, the Rivers State crisis demands the same decisive intervention.

Rivers State is not just entangled in a political battle—it is a state under siege by collusion between political actors like your FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, and a judiciary increasingly seen as compromised. The courts have been weaponized, and Rivers is being destabilized to serve egos and ambitions, eroding trust in Nigeria’s institutions

As the nation’s leader, you cannot remain silent while Rivers, Nigeria’s oil-rich lifeline, teeters on chaos. The same decisive action you took for the detained minors must now be applied to rein in those undermining the Rivers government and the judiciary itself

This is not about dictating to the judiciary but ensuring it operates free from manipulation. Attorney General Lateef Fagbemi and Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun must restore judicial independence and stop political actors from hijacking the courts.

President Tinubu, Rivers is your albatross. Your legacy depends on whether you act to stabilize Nigeria’s most critical state or let it collapse under political debts and unchecked ambition. Rivers, the nation, and the world are watching. Act now, for justice and for Nigeria’s future.

In the present era, international relations are often framed as if there were only two possible outcomes for States: to dominate, or to be dominated; to vassalize, or to be vassalized.

Nations are supposed to make a choice in favour of this or that hegemon, this or that bloc. The lesson we are learning from our experience as Heads of State of two countries whose bilateral relationship has been deepening over the last twenty-five years is quite different.

From our shared perspectives, we can very confidently say that we see our relationship as a partnership between equals. Indeed, there are moments in history when countries find themselves driven by shared interests that are well understood and recognized by all. France and Nigeria find themselves at such a pivotal moment.

When we have mutual interests, we work together. It is in our mutual interest to encourage private sector investment between our two countries.

It is in our mutual interest to develop thriving creative and cultural industries that will generate jobs for Nigerian and French young people.

It is in our mutual interest to make sure that the Gulf of Guinea is safe for all economic activities.

It is in our mutual interest to strengthen our food systems so that they are stable, secure and not over-reliant on imports.

We are glad that Nigeria and France are trusted partners, to each other and to many countries all over the world. This trust is invaluable. This trust rules out constraint or pressure.

It rules out systematic alignment.

 It rules out over-reliance. It leads us to respect the vision that our two countries have of their respective strategic autonomy.

We define strategic autonomy as the ability for States to pursue their own interests without over-reliance on another State, particularly with regard to their national security and foreign policy; to choose a future for itself without foreign interference.

Although the term is fairly recent, the principle of strategic autonomy is deeply rooted in the history of France and Nigeria.

It is also a principle that is widely supported by the citizens of both our countries.

Today, we want to reiterate our firm commitment to promoting this principle of strategic autonomy, not only for our two countries, but also within the framework of the strategic vision that we are putting forward, as Nigeria, for Africa, and as France, for Europe.

We will not meet the challenges of today’s world by building blocs.

We will meet these challenges by reforming and renewing global governance, by adapting existing frameworks so that they enable us to work together more effectively, to reach consensus and to focus resources on solving the crucial challenges that we face.

To achieve this, we need global governance to be more inclusive and participatory. Even though progress has been made, more needs to be done to ensure that the entire world population, and particularly the African continent, feels truly represented in all fora.

We need this renewed and reformed global governance to protect the achievements of previous generations such as the body of international humanitarian law that exists today and should be implemented in the same way, whether in Gaza, in Sudan or in Ukraine.

We need it to step up our efforts to establish stronger health systems, education for all, sustainable and legal migration pathways.

We need it to strengthen our resilience to climate change and to better protect biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions.

Nigeria and France are proud to reaffirm today their commitment to work together in order to achieve these objectives, and to help bring together all stakeholders, fully aware of our shared interests and horizons.

-Tinubu and Macron are both Presidents of Nigeria and France