The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has rejected Governor Ademola Adeleke’s nomination of ex-Finance Commissioner, Wale Bolorunduro, as a Director of Osun-owned Living Trust Mortgage Bank.

The Nation reports Adeleke appointed Boluwaduro, who served under the administration of Ex-Governor Rauf Aregbesola as the Director and Chairman of Living Trust Mortgage Bank in 2024.

But the CBN in a letter obtained by The Nation with reference number: OFI/SG2/CON/PLI/018/171 dated March 21st 2025 titled: “Re: Resolutions Reached At The Settlements Helf on August 28, 2024 In Relation to LivingTrust Mortgage Bank PLC” declined the nomination of Boluwaduro.

The letter signed by the Director, Other Financial Institutions Supervision Department, Oluwasola Ajewole of the apex monetary authority approved the nomination of 10 others nominated as Managing, Executive, Non-Executive, Independent Non-Executive Directors.

The letter reads partially; “Dr. Adewale Bolorunduro’s approval is declined due to his involvement in the board crisis as ascertained in the investigation carried out by the CBN Examiners as at May 31, 2024.

“The OSSG will be required to replace him with a neutral person to ensure stability on the board.
“However, you are required to forward the following additional documents in respect of the below appointees within three months from the date of this letter. Failure to do so would nullify the approval of the appointments of Mr. Afolabi Olanrewaju Olatunji and Mr. Ogungbile Adeola Olusola.”

The letter directed that Olatunji should provide letter of undertaking that he would make good the non-performing loan with Prudential Mortgage Bank while Ogungbile should make available a Executed Code of Conduct form for Directors of Other Financial Institutions.

“Also, note that Mrs. Olaitan who had served on the board between 2018 to date, has only four years remaining as an Executive Director, In line with Section 2.5 of the Revised Guidelines for Mortgage Banks.

” Likewise, Mr. Michael Omolaja who had served between 2016 to 2023, has only one year remaining as an Independent Non-Executive Director in line with Section 2.5 of the Revised Guidelines for Primary Mortgage Banks in Nigeria,” the CBN added.

[TheNation]

•IPMAN slams depot owners for stockpiling product, FG, Dangote resume talks today

Following the Dangote Petroleum Refinery’s suspension of the sale of petroleum products in naira, some filling stations have started stockpiling Premium Motor Spirit, otherwise known as petrol, The PUNCH reports.

The retailers are storing the product to ensure they have enough to sell at a higher rate, having projected that the price of petrol would go up soon as a result of the failure of the Federal Government to continue the sale of crude oil to the Dangote refinery in the local currency.

However, the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria warned these retailers to stop panic buying as they may run into heavy losses.

Last week, the Dangote refinery announced that it had temporarily halted the sale of petroleum products in naira as the naira-for-crude talks between it and NNPCL appeared to have failed.

The 650,000 barrels per day capacity refinery lamented that there was a mismatch between its sales proceeds and its crude oil purchase obligations, which it said are currently denominated in US dollars.

“Dear valued customers, we wish to inform you that the Dangote Petroleum Refinery has temporarily halted the sale of petroleum products in naira. This decision is necessary to avoid a mismatch between our sales proceeds and our crude oil purchase obligations, which are currently denominated in US dollars.

“To date, our sales of petroleum products in naira have exceeded the value of naira-denominated crude we have received. As a result, we must temporarily adjust our sales currency to align with our crude procurement currency,” the firm announced.

Immediately after the announcement, the cost of loading petrol at private depots in Lagos jumped to about N900/litre. It was less than N850/litre before the announcement.

In an interview with our correspondent on Sunday, the National Publicity Secretary of IPMAN, Chinedu Ukadike, said depot owners were profiteering even as some owners of filling stations were in a rush to stockpile fuel.

According to him, the demand for PMS has risen since Wednesday, when Dangote made the announcement. As a result, depot owners were said to have raised their prices to make more profit.

It was observed that players in the downstream petroleum sector have been left to continue speculating on the prices of petroleum products as the Federal Government had kept mute since the announcement made by the Dangote refinery.

Five days after the announcement, the refinery has yet to tell marketers how the dealers will buy PMS going forward.

Private depot owners wasted no time in jerking up their prices in anticipation of a possible hike in petrol prices. Although owners of filling stations have yet to increase their prices, they are already buying to sell for more gains when the price goes up later.

But Ukadike condemned depot owners for profiteering from the impasse between the Federal Government and the Dangote refinery, saying that is not good for the economy.

He warned marketers not to panic-buy because the Dangote refinery may crash the price.

“Some depot owners are already increasing the price. But we are also asking our marketers not to panic-buy. Because definitely when the Dangote refinery comes back and reverses the price, it will be a huge loss for these marketers. Depot owners are using this opportunity to profiteer. This is not good for the economy.

“Some marketers are also stockpiling PMS in a bid to increase the price based on the suspension of naira sales by the Dangote refinery. They speculate that the price will go higher and they will make more money from the fuel they are buying now. It may not be so. This issue will be resolved,” Ukadike stated.

He warned all marketers against buying large volumes of petrol to avoid running into debt.

“We, the independent marketers, are asking our members not to buy so much goods because when they buy so much volume of fuel at a higher rate from the depot owners, at the end of the day, it might result in losing a lot of capital.

“Dangote may crash the price and most of them with high volumes of PMS will run into problems. So, all marketers should be careful to avoid losses,” he advised.

The IPMAN spokesman disclosed that the Federal Government and Dangote refinery are resolving their misunderstanding to allow the resumption of the naira crude sales. He stated that stakeholders are waiting to hear the conclusion from either party.

“I have gathered that the Federal Government and Dangote refinery are almost resolving this matter.

“The two of them are reviewing the naira-for-crude deal to continue the sale of crude oil in naira to the refinery again.  But the official statement has not come out. We are waiting for the official statement,” Ukadike revealed.

Sources from the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Federal Ministry of Petroleum Resources had earlier confirmed that the Technical Sub-Committee on the Naira-for-Crude Policy would reconvene today (Monday) to deliberate on the matter.

It was gathered that the committee had mandated the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission to come up with options that would be reviewed by the panel as it struggles to return the naira-for-crude deal.

The insider familiar with the workings of the naira-for-crude said the transaction would not be halted permanently. The source, who spoke in confidence due to lack of authorisation to speak on the matter, pointed out that NNPCL had issues with crude availability.

Industry experts and oil marketers warned that the halt in naira sales by the Dangote refinery could increase the pressure on the foreign exchange market, as dealers would now have to access the United States dollars in large amounts to buy petroleum products.

This came as multiple industry sources familiar with what prompted the failure in the naira-for-crude talk decried the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited’s humongous forward sale of crude.

They stressed that the national oil company had used large volumes of its yet-to-be-produced crude oil to acquire loans from various international financial institutions, making it tough for the oil firm to have enough crude to supply the domestic market.

Earlier, the NNPC spokesman, Olufemi Soneye, announced that it had initiated fresh negotiations with the Dangote refinery over the renewal of the naira-for-crude agreement, as talks were underway in anticipation of the expiration of the first phase which started in October 2024 and ends this month.

Soneye said 48 million barrels of crude had been supplied to the Dangote refinery since October.

The Dangote refinery’s suspension of the sale of petroleum products in naira means marketers would have to source dollars before buying petrol from the facility.

The National Vice President of the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria, Hammed Fashola, said there could be pressure on the naira, and it would lose the stability it had gained lately.

Experts have said that the naira-for-crude deal emboldened the Dangote refinery to lower the prices of PMS repeatedly, forcing the NNPC to do so even when it was affecting its margins.

The PUNCH reports that fuel importers lost billions of naira with the repeated reduction of fuel prices by the $20bn facility.

At a point, the Petroleum Products Retail Outlet Owners Association of Nigeria, which once commended Dangote for the price slashes, kicked against it, asking the regulator to make it mandatory that prices should only be slashed after six months.

Meanwhile, industry sources said stopping the naira-for-crude deal might be a calculated attempt to reduce the influence of the Dangote refinery, which some players in the downstream accused of planning monopolistic tendencies.

Reacting, domestic crude oil refiners argued that the halt in crude supply in naira was the latest ploy to frustrate the Dangote refinery and bring back the full importation of refined petroleum products.

The National Publicity Secretary of the Crude Oil Refinery-owners Association of Nigeria, Eche Idoko, disclosed that suspending the deal defeats the efforts of all stakeholders in the sector to achieve energy security.

The PUNCH reports that seven vessels carrying imported Premium Motor Spirit, popularly called petrol, were expected to berth at seaports along the nation’s borders between  March 17 and 23.

According to a document obtained from the Nigerian Port Authority on Thursday, these vessels carrying 115,000 metric tonnes representing 154.22 million litres of PMS will bring in products through three seaports to improve fuel supply nationwide.

An analysis of the document from NPA showed that the commodities landed at the Tincan port in Lagos, the Lekki Deep Seaport in Lagos, and the Calabar port in Cross River State.

The document also revealed that the Dangote refinery imported 654,766 metric tonnes of crude oil within the same period.

Fuel crisis

Recall that the Dangote refinery in Lekki, Lagos State, was greeted by crude challenges when it began operations last year.

The President of the Dangote Group, Alhaji Aliko Dangote, had cried out, saying some international oil companies were planning to sabotage the investment by refusing to supply crude.

The Dangote Group had alleged that the IOCs insisted on selling crude oil to its refinery through their foreign agents.

It said the local price of crude would continue to increase because the trading arms offered cargoes at $2 to $4 per barrel, above the official price.

The group also alleged that the foreign oil producers seem to be prioritising Asian countries in selling the crude they produce in Nigeria.

Despite the intervention of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission in July, the group insisted that the IOCs were still frustrating the refinery.

The Vice President, Oil & Gas, Dangote Industries Limited, Mr Devakumar Edwin, said, “If the Domestic Crude Supply Obligation guidelines are diligently implemented, this will ensure that we deal directly with the companies producing the crude oil in Nigeria as stipulated by the Petroleum Industry Act.”

Edwin insisted that IOCs operating in Nigeria had consistently frustrated the company’s requests for locally-produced crude as feedstock for its refining process.

He highlighted that when cargoes were offered to the oil company by the trading arms, it was sometimes at a $2 to $4 (per barrel) premium above the official price set by the NUPRC.

The issue escalated and drew angry reactions from many Nigerians when the Chief Executive of the NMDPRA, Farouq Ahmed said local refineries were producing fuels less in quality than imported ones.

Concerned by the controversies, President Bola Tinubu, during a Federal Executive Council meeting on July 29 proposed the sale of crude to local refineries in naira.

The Federal Executive Council adopted the proposal by Tinubu to sell crude to the Dangote refinery and other upcoming refineries in the local currency.

FEC approved that the 450,000 barrels meant for domestic consumption be offered in naira to Nigerian refineries, using the Dangote refinery as a pilot.

A media aide to the President, Bayo Onanuga, said in July that “the exchange rate will be fixed for the duration of this transaction.”

[Punch]

Nigerian journalists, wearing medals of bravery in fights against colonialists and politicians    and, bearing the scars of battles  against  military dictatorship, are marking the 70th anniversary of their union.

No, journalism in the country did not start seven decades ago. It was the Nigeria Union of Journalists, NUJ, that was established at that time. Proper journalism began in 1859, that is 166 years ago with the publication of the first newspaper ‘Iwe Irohin’.    Since then, the bulk of journalists    have strived to be the voice of the people.  ‘The Lagos Weekly    Record’ published by John Payne Jackson, from 1891-1930, was a torn in the flesh of the colonialists. It combined journalism  with    political    activism, including organising protests against the colonialists.

Five years before the 1914 Amalgamation of Nigeria into a single country, the colonialists had enacted the Seditious Offences Act of 1909 to repress and suppress the press. One of the most outstanding journalists of the anti-colonial    era was Ernest Ikoli.  He was the Editor of the ‘Daily    Express’, Member of the Legislative Council and President of the Nigeria Youth Movement, NYM.  He mentored towering nationalists like Obafemi Awolowo. As the Second World War raged, the colonialists  imposed the  General Defence Regulations of 1941 which curbed workers activities and virtually made strikes in any establishment an illegal act.

The fragmented trade unions knew that they were no march for    the formidable British colonial power.  Although he was not a trade unionist, Ikoli used his position as the  President of the  NYM to call a unity meeting  of    the trade unions in the country. That was    in October 1942. All the trade unions turned up, and Ikoli presided at what was to become the first    labour centre in the country. There was Anthony Enahoro who, at 21 in 1944, became the youngest Editor of a mainstream newspaper,  the    ‘Southern Nigeria Defender’. He was jailed three times by the colonialists for offences which included inciting workers to attack  the police and, chairing a national conference in which ‘A Call For Revolution’ was made to overthrow the colonial government.

The NUJ was created on March 15, 1955 to cater for all journalists. It remains a unique  union because  while generally, the three arms in industrial relations: the employee, senior staff and employers, have separate unions, the NUJ accommodates all three under a single umbrella. The only proviso in its constitution is that anyone who sits on the side of management at meetings with the union, cannot hold an elective office in the NUJ. The NUJ has led journalists through bruising periods such as when media houses were shut down by the Shagari administration. The Buhari military regime built on this by issuing    Decree 4 of 1984 under which  the publication of the truth or  falsehood could be criminal offences. Under Decree 4, two journalists, Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor, were sent to prison.

The Babangida regime tried to intimidate  the press mostly  by mindlessly  shutting down media houses and detaining journalists without trial.  In one of the most bizzare instances, that regime, in the wake of the 1990 Orkar  attempted coup, seized 19 journalists and accused some of them of complicity,  a    treasonable crime that carried the death penalty.

Four years before then, a leading Editor, Dele Giwa, was murdered when a letter bomb sent to him exploded. Given the dangers journalists faced, some of them in the late 1980s decided to  reform the NUJ and  prepare it for the battles ahead.  They established a movement, the New Trend,  to practise a journalism of social relevance which placed the people at the centre of professional practice.  The movement won the NUJ presidency in 1990 and uniquely, established a Journalists in Distress Fund. This effort, which raised huge    sums, collapsed    due to mismanagement and transparency challenges.

Eventually, the movement itself collapsed leading to marked degeneracy in the union. This was to the extent that in 2020, the NUJ leadership was linking the COVID-19 outbreak, to the roll out of the G5 network! The NUJ had in a salutary move    far back in September 1989, empowered women journalists by    establishing    the Nigeria Association of Women Journalists, NAWOJ.

The Nigerian newspaper,  like its counterparts across the globe, was faced with the issue of a 24-hour newspaper which would report the news round the clock. The defunct ‘Daily Times’ had begun publishing its ‘Evening Times’.    The    ‘Vanguard Newspapers’ and the ‘Guardian Newspapers’ also introduced evening editions, while veteran Editor, Muyiwa Adetiba, published a wholly evening newspaper ‘Today’s News Today’, TNT. However, all these did not prepare the Nigerian  newspaper for the on-coming revolution of a round-the-clock newspaper publication which the age of the internet imposed.  

The newspapers, in order to survive and remain relevant, had to introduce electronic copies to the hardcopy newspapers they published.  Now, the  major newspapers, apart from their electronic version, also have their News TV.    In fact, some have established full television stations.  Today, the demarcation between the newspaper and electronic media has become blurred. All these have implications for journalists as all media can be accessed online virtually for free. These have had serious implications for advert and income which    have led some media to collapse, while some journalists are unpaid for months.  

These were  not challenges  the NUJ envisaged, but now at 70, has to face. There is also the advent of Citizen Journalism carried out by non- professional  journalists  or, anybody who can buy data.  Also compounding the problem is the advent of  media influencers many of who ride on the back of sensationalism, unverified news, blackmail and, sometimes, outright falsehood    in order to make a living or become rich.  

The NUJ has played significant roles in the life of the country, but has more tasks to carry out such as  the constitutional responsibility of the journalist to hold government accountable to the people. It also needs to ensure that the Freedom of Information, FOI, Act is observed by all.

There are certainly lots of battles ahead as many politicians muddle the Constitution and turn our political landscape into crime scenes.

There is also the danger of weaponising  the Cyber Crime Act to criminalise journalism practice and fundamental human rights. This will be intensified as governments realise that in the age of the internet, it will be far more difficult to control information.

Many elites, including  those in government have risen to congratulate the NUJ at 70. It is truly an age to roll out the drums, but  journalists know that amongst those congratulating them are enemies of  press freedom. All lizards crawl on their stomach, we don’t know which have bellyache.  May the next 70 years be more beautiful for generations of journalists. Ameen.

The volatility in the Nigerian stock market continued last week with market recording a fourth consecutive week downturn following losses recorded by highly capitalised stocks across the sectors.

Analysts have emphasised that the volatility experienced last week were compounded by the    global economic uncertainties, coupled with the political upheaval in Rivers State which had continued to put pressure on the stock market.

Meeanwhile, analysis of trading last week showed that  BUA Cement’s stock price declined by -10.0% followed by Transcorp   -7.8% and GTCO losing -4.6% to drive the Nigerian Exchange Limited , NGX , All-Share Index (ASI) lower by 0.9%   Week on Week, W/W to close on Friday at 104,962.96 points from 105,955.13 points the previous week.  

As a result, the Month-to-Date and Year-to-Date returns moderated to -2.7% and +2.0%, respectively.  

Trading activity mirrored the broader market sentiment, as both volume and value fell by 12.1% W/W and 25.3% W/W respectively.  

Similarly, sectoral performance was predominantly negative, with the Industrial Goods Index declining  by -3.4%, Insurance Index   -2.9% , Banking Index -2.6%, and Oil & Gas -1.1% , while the Consumer Goods Index up by 0.1%

Commenting on market outlook, analysts at Cordros Research stated: “In the coming week, we anticipate continued market volatility as investors analyse a slew of audited earnings reports and associated dividend announcements set to be released during the week”.

Commenting on market performance, analysts at InvestData Consulting Limited, said: “The global economic uncertainty and other local concerns in the events that are unfolding in Rivers State are affecting investor confidence, which had continued to put pressure on the stock market, even with rates in the fixed income market inched higher. In all this, NGX pullbacks or corrections are creating new entry opportunities for discerning investors and smart traders to position in value stocks ahead of influx of corporate earnings and end of the quarter window dressing by fund managers and other market operators”.

On market outlook, the analysts stated: “We expect mixed sentiment on bargain hunting, even as market players digest Treasury bill, TB, auction rates in the midst of profit taking, portfolio reshuffling and digesting of corporate action/ Q1 earnings forecast, as more earnings are expected to hit the market with dividend announcement”. 

[Vanguard]

Governors under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have instructed lawyers to file a suit against the president to challenge the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers state, TheCable understands.

The suit, to be filed at the supreme court this week, names the national assembly as the second defendant.

On March 18, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in the south-south state, citing the prolonged political crisis and vandalisation of oil installations.

The president suspended Siminalayi Fubara, governor of the state; Ngozi Odu, his deputy; and all house of assembly members for six months.

Tinubu also appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired vice-admiral, as the sole administrator for Rivers.

On Thursday, the senate and the house of representatives controversially approved Tinubu’s request for the emergency rule.

The PDP governors vowed to challenge the emergency rule in court at its virtual meeting on Wednesday.

PDP GOVERNORS GO TO SUPREME COURT 

The suit will be initiated by PDP governors from Bauchi, Adamawa, Bayelsa, Enugu, Osun, Plateau, and Zamfara states, TheCable can report.

As already reported by TheCable, based on a previous ruling of the country’s highest court, Fubara is unable to join the suit because he would need authorisation from the current administration in Rivers — a clear impossibility as the administrator reports directly to the president who is being sued by the PDP governors.

They are praying the court to declare that based on the provisions of sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the constitution “the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has no powers whatsoever or vires to suspend a democratically elected governor and deputy governor of a state in the federation of Nigeria under the guise of or pursuant to the proclamation of a state of emergency in the state of the federation by the president, including the states of the federation represented by the plaintiffs”.

They are also praying the court to declare that the president has no power to suspend a democratically elected house of assembly of a state pursuant to Sections 192 (4) (6) and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

The plaintiffs also want the apex court to declare the suspension of Fubara, his deputy and members of the Rivers state assembly “unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal and utterly in gross violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)…”

The governors are challenging the appointment of a sole administrator for the state, asserting that the president lacks the constitutional power to make such an appointment. Consequently, they seek the court’s ruling to nullify Ibok-Ete Ibas’ appointment as Rivers state’s sole administrator.

The plaintiffs argue that the defendant’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State did not comply with the constitutional requirements set by Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

They assert that the proclamation failed to meet the stipulated conditions and procedures for such a declaration and was made for reasons beyond those specified in the said constitutional provision.

They further argue that the national assembly’s approval of the state of emergency via a voice vote is invalid, insisting that the constitution mandates a two-thirds majority vote from all members of each legislative chamber.

“An order of this honourable court nullifying the proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers state made by the 1st defendant and wrongfully approved by the 2nd defendant,” the plaintiffs are further seeking.

“An order of this honourable court restraining the defendant, by himself, servants, agents and privies from implementing the unlawful suspension of the governor and deputy governor of Rivers state.

“An order of this honourable court restraining the defendant, by himself, servants, agents and privies from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the execution by the governor and deputy governor of Rivers state of their constitutional and statutory duties, as well as their electoral mandate.

“An order of this honourable court restraining the Defendant from attempting the suspension of any other governor of any state in Nigeria, particularly the plaintiffs and any governor not belonging to the ruling political party, or in any manner whatsoever attempting to interfere with or undermine their constitutional and statutory duties.”

It is unclear if the governors have the locus standi to institute the suit as none of them is affected by the state of emergency.

But insiders say they are determined to test the law “for the sake of posterity”.

[TheCable]

While responding to a question during the Press Conference on the Declaration of Emergency Rule in Rivers State on Thursday, March 20, 2025, Alh. Atiku Abubakar confirmed that the formation of a Coalition ahead of 2027 general election is going on. This has generated wide interests and national debates with varied interpretations. In order to set the records straight, it is important to state that negotiations are ongoing and nothing has been finalised. Once concluded formal announcement will be made with all the details regarding composition of membership, programme of action towards 2027, framework for contesting the 2027 elections, etc.

Consultations are in advanced stages, basically reaching out to prospective members of the coalition, mapping out issues for agreements among members of the coalition. At this stage of negotiations, the main focus is around getting leaders to agree to work together and substantially there is strong recognition that prospective members should set aside personal ambitions to contest the 2027 elections. The second issue being negotiated is the political party that will be the platform for the 2027 electoral contest.

These two issues are carefully being negotiated. While acknowledging that with respect to the requirement for members to set aside personal ambitions, there are strong interests being expressed around issues of zoning by individual leaders, these issues are yet to be formally discussed at any consultation meeting. The speculation therefore by some media analysts about disagreements stalemating the coalition negotiation is not true. The concensus among leaders is that the final decision about processes of candidates’ selection can only be handled and determined when there is agreement regarding the political party on whose platform the coalition will field candidates.

The question of negotiating the political party is the most difficult challenge. This is an area that many members of the coalitions have been engaging in different ways for more than a year now. Perhaps, it is important to highlight that there are many groups, including some members of the coalition who have filed applications to register political parties. For reasons best known to INEC, these applications are being frustrated. The only conclusion that can be reached in the circumstance is that INEC has decided that it will not register new parties.

To make matters worse, many of the existing registered parties who did not meet the electoral threshold of winning any seat in the last general elections face the threat of deregistration. Given this unpleasant reality, members of the coalition opened negotiations with some of the existing parties that have met the electoral threshold. Interestingly, somehow, some of the prospective parties being negotiated are being remotely pushed into crises mode in the same way PDP, Labour Party and NNPP have been entangled with existential problems. It is almost a clear case of destroying the legal basis for any party to qualify to field candidates for 2027 other than the ruling APC.

This is quite unfortunate coming during the tenure of a party that is envisioned to be progressive. It is even more troubling when it is during the tenure of a leader – President Bola Ahmed Tinubu – who has unarguably been in the vanguard of Nigeria’s democratic struggle. The way the Nigerian democratic space is rapidly shrunken can only be imagined under a military government. The determination and resilience of Nigerians is being called to question under the current APC government led by President Tinubu.

The leaders of the coalition are committed to providing the needed leadership to rescue Nigerian democracy. We must appeal to all patriotic Nigerians to recognise the urgency of the situation facing the country. We don’t have the luxury of waiting until we get to 2027 only to discover that Nigerians have been smouldered into a legal knock out. Related to this is also the worrisome reality whereby rule of law is being tested in ways that is threatening to democratic development of the country. All patriotic Nigerians must appeal to members of the judicial arm of government to come to the rescue Nigerian democracy by demonstrating that indeed they are independent and to that extent uphold the sanctity of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution as amended.

We are confident that Nigerian democracy can be rescued. Rescuing Nigerian democracy is fundamentally about producing a political party that can guarantee and facilitate competitive political contests in the country. We recognise and respect all the interests, criticisms and reservations expressed by Nigerians, including those expressed by political leaders who in every respect are potential members of the coalition. Our strong appeal to all political leaders and Nigerians generally is that we must not allow personal interests to undermine our capacity to contribute to Nigeria’s democratic development.

Difficult as the situation would appear, the negotiation about the political party that will be the platform for the 2027 electoral contest is about to be concluded. All the attempt to push Nigeria into a one-party state will be defeated. Once the negotiation about political party is concluded, Nigerians will be formally informed of all the details, and mobilisation towards 2027 will commence. Other secondary negotiations will also commence. Details of procedure and processes of candidates’ selection will be similarly negotiated publicly through activities and meetings of organs of the party. Members of the party will be actively involved. All these critical issues will not be matters left to public speculation or reduced to manipulative antics of political leaders.

Rescuing Nigerian democracy is beyond simplistic debates of fielding candidates and the associated debates of the quality and where they come from. Everything must be done to produce elected leaders at all levels who will be accountable and, in every respect, and democratic in their dealings with Nigerians. Everything must be done to close this chapter of democratic national frustrations, which only produces emperors. This is the goal of the coalition, for which we appeal for the support of all patriotic Nigerians. We don’t envisage it will be an easy task, but we are determine to succeed.

The administration of government business is one of the key fundamental issues in public administration theories and practices. The framework of administration determines the core performance objectives that enable the public service—as the engine room of the state—to coherently and efficiently complement democratic governance anywhere across the world. When the bureaucracy emerged in the nineteenth century, it was founded on a notion of public administration that is coherent only to the extent that it sees the state in action and interaction. In this context, administration becomes synonymous with government, and it essentially concerns the entirety of the state’s activities in terms of the coordination and enforcement of policies, and the people and agencies that are involved in these activities. The concept of government represents the prototypical hierarchical and rule-bound institutions of the state based on formal and fixed laws and norms of operations. Seen in this context, government refers to that very institution that exerts executive authority within a political system and over the society. Government becomes the complex and organizational centre of administrative power separated, by that fact, from the rest of society. 

This is the concept that gave birth to the management-by-directive tradition which undergirds Max Weber’s articulation of the nature of the bureaucracy. This tradition centralizes the decision-making process in a manner that gives the administrator or manager (in Nigeria and in a significant sense, the permanent secretary) a complete discretionary control over the employees and the entire administrative context. This tradition stipulates a set of administrative goals and objectives, rules, procedures, and regulations, as well as well-defined roles and responsibilities which serve as pathways to achieving these objectives. All these are codified as “general orders” that the employees are expected to strictly follow under the omniscient supervision of the manager or administrator. As a leadership paradigm, it follows what Martins G. Evans and Robert J. House call the path-goal trajectory of leadership effectiveness. This theory insists that the effectiveness of a leader is determined by the leader’s capability to assist the followers or employees in achieving organizational goals through motivation, clarifying the paths to the goals, and eliminating impediments.  

This tradition owes its most influential theoretical basis to the groundbreaking work of Max Weber who erected public administration on the command-and-control structure of the Prussian army. The idea of bureaucracy, for him, is based on the notion of legal-rational authority; in other words, it is a structure with an authority that activates basic democratic principles and codes which employees and the society recognize as legitimate and for which career officials are custodians. Each position in the bureaucracy has its clearly defined rules, procedures, duties and rights, which are clearly defined to determine how the given authority is to be exercised. The bureaucracy therefore promises a stable organization that is neutral, hierarchically organized, efficient and inevitable; and is characterized by precision, continuity, discipline, strictness and reliability. However, Douglas McGregor’s analysis of what he calls Theory X and Theory Y in the administration of government business provides the philosophical foundation for management-by-directive. Theory X and Theory Y constitute a theoretical diagnostic of organizations and systems. McGregor’s theory evolved as a human relations theory that outlines certain underlining assumptions that managers have with regards to organizational functioning and performance. 

The Weberian bureaucratic framework is founded on three basic propositions: first, management involves the deployment of people, material and money as means towards the achievement of particular economic objectives; second, that organizational objectives require the control and motivation of people; and, third, that without a strict organizational regimen, humans are usually unproductive and resistant to organizational needs. This theory is backed by a very dim and gloomy perception of human nature which conceives of an average employee as being (a) indolent by nature, (b) lacking in ambition and motivation, (c) naturally egoistic and therefore set to work contrary to organizational requirements, (d) naturally resistant to change, especially those that would contradict his selfish desires, (e) naturally deceivable. Given these assumptions, organizational goals can only be achieved if the discerning manager employs a very strong tactic in getting his indolent employees to achieve the set targets.

McGregor’s Theory X therefore demands the path-goal theory of leadership in its four iterations: achievement-oriented leadership, directive leadership, participative leadership and supportive leadership. Leadership is perceived in hierarchical framework. And this hierarchies are the basis for the assertion of administrative authority. The manager, for instance, stands at the zenith of that authority as the one person whose seniority enables her to monitor the administrative rules and procedures which those lower down the hierarchy must follow. This is the tradition that centralizes the significance of the Weberian administrative model for many years. It is the traditional model that constitutes the core of the framework for administering government business until the emergence of the managerial revolution in public administration in the second-half of the twentieth century. Managerialism upends almost all the assumptions that defines the bureaucracy in command-and-control terms. 

The managerial revolution has as its most fundamental premise the argument that market-based business management principles and the entrepreneurial culture possess the most formidable capacity for ensuring public service efficiency in ensuring democratic service delivery to the citizens. The justification for this transition is simply that, for managerialists, the Weberian bureaucratic model is much too rigid, rule-bound, cumbersome, costly, inefficient and unresponsive to the needs of the citizens as the customers of public services. In its place, managerialism expects a government that is FAST—flatter, agile, streamlined and technology-enabled. The traditional structure of the bureaucracy, being rigid, inward-looking and founded on outdated competencies, must therefore be modernized in ways that make it more collaborative, transparent, flexible and participatory. This translates into a public service that is expected to be (a) fast-moving, intelligent, professional, information-rich, flexible, adaptable and entrepreneurial; (b) less employee-focused and rule-driven, deliver quality service; (c) performance-focused and accountable; and (d) operated by multidisciplinary team of new generation public managers and project teams. 

In this managerial context, the real challenge is not what government does, but rather how it is done—the measurable means by which government business is effectively and efficiently administered to produce significant outputs and results. To achieve this performance-based results, therefore, it becomes important to reflect on the public service and the functions of public managers. Contrary to the transactional model of leadership which takes public manager as mere administrators who measure the temperature of the bureaucracy, managerialism insists that public managers must be freed from the bureaucratic operating mechanism and framework that limits their vision, creativity and capacity for managerial innovation. This then implies that administrators and front-line managers will not only be empowered to make critical decisions and achieve discretionary autonomy as a measure of the responsiveness of the system, they will also be held accountable for performance and measurable outcomes which emphasizes customer satisfaction and productivity. 

McGregor conceptualizes managerialism in terms of Theory Y which not only provides a better understanding of human nature that undergird the bureaucracy, but also articulates a transformational understanding of administrative leadership. While Theory X has a gloomy perspective on personnel dynamics, and of employees in an organization being motivated only by the bare need for food, shelter and survival, the Theory Y paradigm insists on the contrary that humans in any system or organization are motivated by the need to satisfy the higher-order needs like social relationship, the search for esteem and dignity as well as the need to exercise their creative genius especially with regards to organizational performance. 

McGregor’s Theory Y does not constitute a wholesale rejection of the Weberian traditional understanding of public administration. And this makes it a perfect theoretical framework for a neo-Weberian reconsideration of the required paradigm for rethinking the administration of government business. Given the failures of both the traditional Weberian tradition and the new public management and its managerial revolution, the neo-Weberian paradigm possesses the capabilities to incorporate useful insights from both frameworks. Its understanding of people, and of human resources management and human relations, constitutes a tremendous plank in building an organizational framework that gives the nod to productivity and performance. 

But more than this, the framework of a shared transformative capacity of a leader, required by the Theory Y, turns public administration itself away from being a mere theory of government to a new understanding of it as a theory of governance. And within this new framework of governance, it provides the basis for a distributed paradigm of leadership that is the centerpiece of what has been called the change space model of leadership, rather than the path-goal theory. The change space model emphasized the idea of a leadership rather than that of a leader anchored on a personality. Thus, even when there is one public manager around which the administrative dynamics are anchored, the leadership trajectory is distributed across many multilayered points, from the permanent secretary to the front-line manager.

How then can we begin to reimagine the transition from Theory X to Theory Y which the neo-Weberian institutional framework permits? I will outline two fundamental variables in terms of which we can assess any bureaucratic system. The first concerns the dynamics of the workforce and the workplace, and the second has to do with the implication of the Theory Y for the structure performance management protocols of the public service. Theory X and Theory Y both have different frameworks that provide different perspectives of the workplace. Within the Theory X, the assumption that employees are lazy and irresponsible leads to a management style that is autocratic and utilizes the carrot and stick method to motivation. And a rigid bureaucratic environment that essentially stifles the employees’ creativity and entrepreneurial innovation. 

But if we shift the assumption and rather see employees as self-motivated and ethical, and management style becomes more participatory and empowering, then we arrive at more employee engagement at the workplace that boost morale and motivation, enhance creativity and innovation, and enhance more efficient performance and productivity outcomes. The idea of decentralization (let managers manage), for example, provides department and individual managers with more autonomy and discretionary capacities in decision-making, while also empowering employees to have more say in procedural and performance matters. This makes for more job satisfaction that enable the workforce to do more. However, this transition must also carry forward the understanding that some responsibilities might need the management-by-directive mechanism that demands direct supervision. 

All this has direct implications for performance management. This is to the extent that the workforce and its responsibilities are crucial to how we shift the focus from processes to results. Performance management is therefore a process of (a) communicating organizational aims and objectives to all stakeholders, (b) setting performance targets to measure the achievement goals and objectives, and (c) ensuring that all these activities provide a basis for continuous learning, improvement and performance accountability. Within a bureaucratic environment that is participatory, the performance management system (PMS) cannot be codified within the general orders. What is to be achieved, and how it is to be achieved will be a function of shared understanding. It will also involve a decentralized organizational process that, first, connects plans, strategies and blueprints to budgeting and funding; and second, cascades all this to the operational timelines of the ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs). 

This enables the MDAs to arrive at their own vision, mission and value statements, as well as the performance strategies that distill, at the individual levels, performance contracts and target outputs between the key policy actors. This is what it means for a performance management system to emphasize a participatory planning of performance goals, service standard setting, and establishment of performance improvement plans and measures between the superiors and subordinates. The system also ensures the setting up of a performance-based reward and sanction linkage that connects performance to individual and departmental accountability in ways that encourage continuous learning and incremental improvement. For example, it is on the basis of performance reviews that supervisors decide as to whether their subordinates can be promoted, whether they need specific training to enhance their performance, or whether they deserve any performance-based rewards for the execution of their duties and responsibilities. 

Nigeria’s democratic experiment since 1999 has been riddled with inconsistencies, manipulations, and outright subversion of the people’s will. One of the constitutional tools that have suffered significant frustration is the recall process of elected legislators. Enshrined in Section 69 of the 1999 Constitution, the recall mechanism was designed to empower constituents to remove non-performing lawmakers. However, history has shown that while this process exists on paper, its practical application has been anything but successful. With the ongoing recall attempt against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, it is crucial to examine the history of failed recall efforts in Nigeria, the systemic bottlenecks, and the potential implications of the latest move against the Kogi Central lawmaker.

Without a doubt, Nigeria’s political paths since 1999 is replete with the footprints of futile recall attempts.  Since 1999, there have been multiple attempts by constituents to recall their representatives, but none has succeeded. Political analysts argue that Nigeria’s political class has deliberately ensured that the recall process is practically impossible to achieve, weaponizing institutions such as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and security agencies to frustrate legitimate recall efforts.

For instance, the most high-profile recall attempt in Nigeria’s democratic history was the move against Senator Dino Melaye in 2017. His constituents, reportedly aggrieved by his controversial conduct and alleged lack of representation, initiated the recall process. The exercise quickly became a battleground for political forces, with the state government playing a visible role in mobilizing against Melaye.

Despite INEC verifying over 188,000 signatures from his constituency, the recall process collapsed under legal gymnastics, delays, and alleged manipulation. The signature verification exercise recorded a woeful turnout of about 5.3% of registered voters, well below the constitutional threshold required for a recall. The process, rather than being a reflection of the people’s will, became an avenue for political grandstanding, rendering the recall mechanism effectively impotent.

In a similar vein, in 2016, some constituents of Borno South attempted to recall Senator Ali Ndume, citing poor representation and insensitivity to their plight. The effort, however, did not even advance beyond the initial petition stage, as it was heavily resisted by political forces loyal to the senator. The recall attempt eventually fizzled out without any substantial traction, once again demonstrating the structural weakness of Nigeria’s recall system.

Also in a similar vein, the recall attempt against Senator Jubril Aminu in 2005 was one of the earliest tests of the recall process in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. Some of his constituents accused him of being disconnected from grassroots issues and initiated the process to remove him. However, it ended in futility, as the petition failed to meet INEC’s requirements due to alleged intimidation and vote suppression.

Beyond these high-profile cases, there have been multiple recall efforts against state and federal lawmakers, including former House of Representatives members like Farouk Lawan and Abdulmumin Jibrin. Each attempt faced insurmountable challenges ranging from the coercion of petitioners, political interference, judicial delays, and voter apathy.

In 2018, constituents in Kaduna attempted to recall Honourable Garba Datti Mohammed, citing neglect and lack of accountability. However, the recall effort never materialized beyond media discussions, as political heavyweights in the state quickly shut it down.

Similarly, in 2012, some constituents in Anambra Central reportedly attempted to recall Senator Chris Ngige, but the effort crumbled as allegations emerged that the petitioners were being intimidated and coerced into withdrawing their support for the recall.

At this juncture, it is expedient to ask, “Why do recalls fail in Nigeria?” The consistent failure of recall processes in Nigeria can be attributed to a combination of legal, institutional, and political factors:

First is unrealistic signature requirement. This is as constitutional provision that mandates a recall petition be signed by at least 50% of registered voters in the affected constituency is an uphill task in a country where voter turnout in elections rarely exceeds 40%.

In a similar vein, is INEC’s role in verification exercise. INEC, the electoral umpire responsible for verifying signatures, has often been accused of playing a biased role. The verification process is cumbersome and susceptible to manipulation, as was evident in Dino Melaye’s case.

Also in a similar vein is political interference. This is as political godfathers and state actors often intervene in recall processes to protect their loyalists. In many cases, state governments deploy resources to frustrate recall attempts, as seen in Kogi State under Governor Yahaya Bello’s tenure.

Still in a similar vein is that of security agencies being used as political tools. In fact, the police and other security agencies have been accused of intimidating petitioners and suppressing protests in favor of recall attempts. This discourages constituents from fully engaging in the process.

Another factor borders on judicial delays. The foregoing factor cannot be farfetched as the Nigerian judicial system is notorious for its slow pace so much that politicians facing recall often rush to the courts, obtaining injunctions that stall the process indefinitely.

Again is that of voter apathy and manipulation. Even when recall attempts gain traction, voter turnout during signature verification and the actual recall referendum remains abysmally low, making it easy for the process to fail.

Against the foregoing backdrop, it is germane to ask, “Is Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s recall another political charade?

The reason for the foregoing question cannot be incredible as the latest recall attempt targeting Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan follows a familiar script. Akpoti-Uduaghan, a vocal and independent-minded senator representing Kogi Central, has been a thorn in the flesh of entrenched political interests in Kogi State. The recall initiative against her, rather than being a spontaneous expression of the people’s will, appears orchestrated by powerful interests seeking to silence her.

The lessons from past recall failures indicate that the process will likely face the same fate as others before it. While her detractors may gather signatures, it remains to be seen if the threshold for recall will be met and if the process will be free from political interference. If history is anything to go by, the recall will likely fizzle out in the face of legal and political obstacles.

At this juncture, it is expedient to opine that the recall process in Nigeria, though a constitutional provision, has been reduced to a mere theoretical concept. Since 1999, every recall attempt has failed, not necessarily due to a lack of public will but because of systemic manipulations and political subterfuge. The ongoing recall attempt against Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan must be viewed with skepticism, as it bears all the hallmarks of politically motivated recalls in the past. If Nigeria’s democracy is to mature, the recall mechanism must be reformed to truly reflect the people’s will rather than serve as a political weapon wielded by the powerful against their adversaries.

The ongoing political turmoil in Rivers State has once again brought to the fore the unchecked influence of former Governor and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike. Amid the crisis, Elder Anabs Sara-Igbe, a respected voice in Rivers politics, has rightly called for Wike’s suspension, arguing that he is the mastermind behind the chaos engulfing the state. Given Wike’s track record of political maneuvering, his open defiance of democratic norms, and his role in undermining Governor Siminalayi Fubara, President Bola Tinubu must heed Sara-Igbe’s call and suspend Wike from office.

It is no secret that Nyesom Wike wields an almost dictatorial grip on Rivers politics. Even after leaving office as governor, he has refused to relinquish control, treating the state as his personal fiefdom. His political antics, characterized by high-handedness, intimidation, and absolute disregard for democratic processes, have created a toxic atmosphere that has stifled governance in the state.

The recent political upheaval in Rivers State, which led to President Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency, is a direct consequence of Wike’s desperate attempt to retain influence. Despite installing Siminalayi Fubara as his successor, Wike has consistently sought to undermine him, ensuring that the new governor remains a puppet rather than an independent leader. This approach is not only undemocratic but also a dangerous precedent for governance in Nigeria.

Without any scintilla of hyperbole, there is no denying the fact that Tinubu’s one-sided sanctions is a blatant injustice. Against the backdrop of the foregoing observation, it is not illogical to be in support of Elder Sara-Igbe’s argument that Wike should be sanctioned alongside Fubara as such decision would be seen to be rooted in fairness and justice. This is as the decision by President Tinubu to suspend Fubara and his deputy while allowing Wike to remain in office reeks of bias, and condemnable enough. If political instability is the basis for intervention, then it is only logical that the chief instigator of the crisis should also face consequences.

In fact, suspending an elected governor, who, by all indications, has been the victim of political bullying, while allowing the primary aggressor to remain in power sends a dangerous message. It suggests that those who wield influence at the center can manipulate the system to their advantage, regardless of the harm done to democracy and governance. If Tinubu truly believes in justice and stability, Wike must be held accountable.

Beyond the current crisis, Wike’s political career has been marked by arrogance, divisiveness, and a disregard for due process. He has insulted political elders, disparaged ethnic groups, and fostered an environment of fear and sycophancy in Rivers State. His open defiance of political allies and enemies alike has made him a divisive figure whose continued presence in government is a liability rather than an asset.

Under his leadership, Rivers State became a theater of political warfare, where opposition voices were stifled, and dissent was met with brute force. His controversial tenure as governor saw a weaponization of state institutions against perceived enemies, and his transition to the federal level has done little to change his approach. Wike’s recent actions in Rivers only reinforce the notion that he thrives in an atmosphere of chaos and conflict.

If Wike is allowed to continue operating unchecked, the consequences for Rivers State and Nigerian democracy could be dire. Political instability will only worsen, and governance in Rivers will remain stalled as a result of Wike’s overbearing influence. Already, the state has been thrown into turmoil, with disruptions in governance, civil unrest, and an erosion of public trust in the democratic process.

Moreover, Wike’s continuous meddling will embolden other power-hungry politicians to subvert the democratic process for personal gain. If one individual can manipulate the political system without consequence, others will undoubtedly follow suit. This will set a dangerous precedent and undermine efforts to strengthen democracy in Nigeria.

If President Tinubu wants to restore peace to Rivers State and maintain his credibility as a leader committed to justice, then he must act swiftly by suspending Nyesom Wike. The call by Elder Sara-Igbe is not only valid but necessary to prevent further deterioration of governance in Rivers State.

By taking decisive action against Wike, Tinubu will send a clear message that no individual, regardless of their political influence, is above accountability. It will also signal to other power-hungry politicians that Nigeria’s democracy is not a playground for personal ambitions at the expense of the people’s welfare.

Additionally, Tinubu must go beyond just suspending Wike. He should institute a thorough investigation into the ongoing crisis in Rivers State to determine the root causes and hold all guilty parties accountable. A neutral committee should be set up to assess the political situation, listen to key stakeholders, and recommend long-term solutions that will ensure Rivers State is free from undue political interference.

While the president has significant executive powers, the judiciary and law enforcement agencies also have a role to play in ensuring justice prevails. Investigative bodies should be empowered to scrutinize Wike’s actions in Rivers State, particularly his political dealings and any infractions committed while in office. If evidence suggests he has engaged in activities that threaten democracy or contravene the law, he should be prosecuted accordingly.

Furthermore, law enforcement agencies should remain neutral and resist being used as political tools. The Nigerian Police Force, the Department of State Services (DSS), and other security agencies must protect democratic institutions rather than side with political actors seeking to subvert them. A politically motivated approach to security matters in Rivers State will only deepen the crisis and lead to further instability.

Beyond the government’s intervention, civil society organizations, the media, and the Nigerian people must also play a role in demanding accountability from political leaders. The press must continue to shine a light on the situation in Rivers State and expose any attempts to manipulate the system for personal gain. Civic engagement is also crucial, Nigerians must demand better governance and hold their leaders to higher standards of accountability.

Public opinion should not be ignored in this matter. The people of Rivers State, in particular, must raise their voices against political oppression and interference. Their state should not be used as a battleground for the egos of politicians seeking to remain relevant. Instead, Rivers should be allowed to thrive, with governance centered on the needs of its people rather than the ambitions of one man.

The political crisis in Rivers State is a direct consequence of Wike’s desperate hold on power. Elder Sara-Igbe’s call for his suspension is a reasonable demand that should not be ignored. If President Tinubu genuinely values justice, fairness, and stability, he must take the bold step of suspending Wike. Anything short of that will further erode public trust in the administration and embolden politicians who believe they can act with impunity. The time for decisive action is now.

If the federal government fails to take action, the political landscape in Rivers State will continue to deteriorate, with dire consequences for democracy and governance in Nigeria. Suspending Wike is not just about politics, it is about restoring justice, upholding democratic principles, and ensuring that power is used for the people, not against them.