The federal government has beamed a searchlight on officers and men stealing arms and selling them to terrorists, bandits and other criminal gangs.

LEADERSHIP gathered that this came up as a result of the declaration of the national security adviser (NSA) Nuhu Ribadu, who disclosed that the most arms being used by terrorists in the country are weapons that were purchased with the taxpayers’ money.

Ribadu had accused security agents of selling their arms and ammunition to the criminals.

The NSA rained curses on the security personnel who facilitate the movement of weapons to terrorists, bandits and other non-state actors.

He gave assurance that the government would do everything possible to ensure the country is safe, secure and protected.

“We have to find a way of putting a stop to this. If we want to recover our country and live in peace and stability, we must,” Ribadu was quoted as saying concerning the sale of arms by security personnel to criminal gangs.

“The worst human being is a policeman or a soldier who will take arms from his formations and sell it or hide it out for the wrong people to come and kill his colleagues.

We must fight these people, but there are merchants of death and evil from the outside world.

“The proliferation of illicit small arms and light weapons remains a major threat to our national security, exacerbating issues such as insurgency, banditry and other violent crimes,” he said.

Ribadu’s revelation has sparked many reactions, questions, and concerns about how non-state actors, most of whom have not crossed the Nigerian border, are getting their weapons.

A source told LEADERSHIP that there is uneasy calm concerning where these terrorists are getting their weapons, adding that even though a process has been put in place to arrest the culprits, with the new agency under the Office of the National Security Adviser, more attention will now be given to security personnel, especially the police.

He noted that the military had been arresting some culprits, even though the number is small compared to the amount of arms in the hands of non-state actors.

He added that little progress had been made, especially in the Nigerian Police Force (NPF), which gave more insight into the new approach.

LEADERSHIP gathered that at least 10 soldiers were arrested between 2020 and 2024 for stealing and selling arms and ammunition. Among them, some have been dismissed from service, while some cases are still pending.

LEADERSHIP had reported that troops of Operation Hadin Kai had on October 11, 2022 arrested a serving soldier for allegedly stealing and supplying ammunition to terrorists.

The soldier, identified as Iorliam Emmanuel, was working under the 156 task force battalion in Mainok, Borno State.

The Zamfara State police had in April 2021 arrested seven serving military officers for allegedly supporting banditry activities in the state.

The military personnel allegedly supplied bandits with logistics and information.

Another soldier was arrested on May 9, 2024 over stolen ammunition and grenades concealed in a bag of rice in Maiduguri, Borno State.

The soldier, identified as L/cpl Mubarak Yakubu, was arrested with 756 rounds of 7.62mm special ammunition and four 36 hand grenades.

In August 2024, another serving soldier, a sergeant, was arrested with 485 rounds of 7.62 mm special ammunition and two magazines in Borno State.

“This exercise should encompass both military and para-military formations. It is worrying that terrorists who have not crossed the border of this country are holding sophisticated weapons,” a source said.

Nigerians have called for the searchlights to include both military and paramilitary.

The director of defence information, Brigadier General Tukur Gusau, declined comment on what the military had done. He said the minister had responded to the allegations and he won’t speak further.

Also, the director of defence media operations, Major General Edward Buba, declined to comment on the issue and referred our reporter to Army spokesman.

[Leadership]

Over two million smallholder Nigerian farmers have accessed about $40.8 million in credit facilities through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)’s ‘Innovative Market-led Extension Delivery’ project in three years.

Mr Jean-Pierre Rousseau, Project Director, Winrock International, USAID, stated this on Monday at a media briefing ahead of the national impact summit on the project scheduled to be held on Wednesday in Abuja.

He said the project has exposed 2.021 million smallholder farmers to new information, technologies and services in Benue, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Kaduna, Kebbi and Niger states, with greater access to improved agricultural technologies and financial access working with micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) on alternative models of extension delivery.

Mr Rousseau said the summit becomes necessary to share the project’s impact with other key stakeholders within and outside Nigeria to catalyse adoption and sustainability across the 36 states and the FCT.

Dr Ben Odoemena, Chief of Party, USAID Feed the Future Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services Activity in Nigeria, said the project has identified 39 most impactful practices (MIPs) as key extension innovation messages or business solutions that MSMEs need to reach smallholder farmers to enhance their capacity.

He said about 70% of the improved agricultural practices are climate smart to help farmers adapt or build resilience to climate change.

“A total of 1,088 gainful jobs were created by the MSMEs, mainly youths, to cope with increasing demand for agricultural inputs and extension by the expanding number of farmers in their business networks,” he added.

[DailyTrust]

The 2023 presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Prince Adewole Adebayo, has accused the President Bola Tinubu-led government of worsening Nigeria’s economic woes.

Adebayo likened the government’s policies, including the removal of petrol subsidies and the floatation of the naira, to squeezing Nigerians “like oranges,” leaving them to bear the brunt of escalating hardship across the nation.

In this interview with the DAILY POST, he shared his alternative ideas that would have made life better and easier for Nigerians instead of the petrol subsidy removal and floating of the Naira by the current administration, which have brought untold hardship to Nigerians and brought the economy to its knees with the Naira falling to its lowest ebb in the international money market.

He spoke on a wide range of other issues, including the politics of oil refineries in Nigeria and the issue of tax incentives, among others.

Nigerians are currently going through hard times as a result of the poor economy; are people like you also affected by the harsh economy?

As leaders, whatever our people are going through, we are also going through it. The pain began to affect me even before the election because I already saw what was coming. So, it’s a case of a doctor who can see that the patient has cancer even though the patient is not aware.

Are you saying you saw this coming?

Not only did I see it coming, I also said that it was coming, and I said it everywhere. Nigeria has only one problem. All the problems they are telling you about Nigeria are just symptoms of one problem and that is bad governance. Like Mrs Oluremi Tinubu said, her husband is not the cause of the problem; he is only the symptom of the problem.

Talking about alternatives, the three major candidates of the APC, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and the Labour Party, LP, during the 2023 electioneering campaigns, all promised they would remove subsidy and float the currency. You didn’t go that route in your campaign, instead, you presented other alternatives. How do you think your alternatives would have had positive impacts on the economy if you had won the election?

The first thing to do in an economy is to realise that there is a lot of wealth trapped in the talent and energy of the people such that the first thing you need to do is to target the reduction of unemployment. The reason monetary economics is allowed is because the fundamental objective of monetary economics is to achieve good employment, not only of labour but also on all factors of production, so that you have allocative efficiencies that clearly want to make you want to invest your money in the economy and get people employed.

There are five areas you can look into. Agriculture is number one because it employs the highest number of people. It is also a low hanging fruit because it is easy to start. Anybody with a tractor and bucket can get started. It is scalable, so you cannot go into producing raw materials and other things that are additives. It will also make sure you govern your territory such that you are now in full control of your land, where a large portion of it are being shared with bandits since some of them are not in the control by the government. With agriculture, you will create employment and solve the problems of food as well. If you look at the incidence of food prices in the entire aggregation of inflation, it will come down.

Also, you have to invest in infrastructure. Investing in infrastructure means that you don’t allow people to do for themselves as individuals, things that we can all do collectively. That means you want to make sure that people travelling from one end of the country to the other don’t have to travel in their own vehicles because you have public transport. You need to give people good health. You need to build rural health facilities, as this will employ people and even keep people healthy and more productive. You need to make social investment in education. Many of the cases of unemployment which we are dealing with in our time will be rapidly dealt with, recruiting teachers. But the problems of the governors, even with all the money they are making now is that they don’t want to employ people because when they employ, there is less discretionary spending. This is because if you employ, you must pay as you are bound by contract. Some states, rather than increase compensation for their staff, tell their staff to come to work twice a week.

If you had won, you would not have removed subsidy on petrol and you would also not have floated the currency. What would you have done differently?

Look at the costing. I am taking their numbers so that they won’t say I’m second-guessing. When the noise first came out, it was under former President Goodluck Jonathan. At that time, it was travelling towards N1 trillion. At a time, it was over N1 trillion. When President Muhammadu Buhari came, it travelled all the way to N4 trillion in the budget, but there was some transparency in the lies such that you had to budget it in the books; it was there in the books. When we were campaigning, some were saying that if we were not careful, it would come to about N8 trillion.

For me, if we audit our consumption, definitely we don’t consume up to N2 trillion at the old price. Secondly, if we get our refineries to work, it will be less. And Nigerians need to know the reason our refineries are not working.

Can you explain further?

Let me give you a simple explanation. When you are trying to repair an existing refinery, and you have not finished repairing it and somebody gets an architect to draw a map of a refinery, you went to negotiate lands in many places, got lands, started construction, finished constructing, and now selling; you haven’t finished repairing the one already in existence. What does that tell you? It tells you that the priority is to make sure that those things don’t work.

What do you think is the problem? Is it interest within the government that doesn’t want the refineries to work or interest within the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPCL?

The NNPCL is part of the government, and nobody gets appointed without the government’s approval. The idea is that they don’t want to run the government. They don’t want to run the economy. They are fighting to take control of the petroleum market. They see you as a customer, not as citizens. They don’t want to be responsible for ensuring you have a good life of training your children, you can go to work with seven percent of your salary to pay for transportation.

How did the government refuse to make the refineries work?

They need to create scarcity of work. These refineries were built years ago. The first one was part of our first development plan, the Port Harcourt Refinery, which was done during the Abubakar Tafawa Balewa era. Then, General Yakubu Gowon came and started building that of Warri. By that time, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo had taken over, and built Kaduna. The idea was that we would be building more because we are an energy-rich country, and we were not supposed to be worried about the small quantity being consumed in Nigeria. If we are productive, we should be consuming one million barrels a day. We were supposed to be exporting so that even the little part we are consuming locally will not be the essence of government. How many refineries are in Singapore? Go to the refinery market, with $2 billion to $3 billion you will build a good refinery. People call bogus figures here because the government is involved and they try to siphon the money. The refinery is an old technology distillation. The refinery in the Gulf of Beirut has been there since 1900. The one in Pennsylvania in was built in 1903, and they are still working. So, what is new about refinery? Talk to chemical engineers and ask them about the largest and most complex catalytic cracking unit. How much would it cost, even if they have to get it designed from the beginning? So, don’t let us pretend that we don’t know that we have been captured and our brothers and sisters in government who captured us want to squeeze us like oranges and squeeze the juice out of us, and probably, discard us when there is nothing more. They want to remove economic participation.

Perhaps you are right; that’s why they said recently that the rich may pay as much 25 percent on personal income tax…

I, Adewole Adebayo, government, come and tax me. I am ready to pay 50 percent of my income in taxes. I don’t mind, after all, in Norway, it is higher than that. I am spending billion, literally, to power my productive enterprises. But, you cannot pauperise us, take all the taxes and still not be responsible for anything.

Anybody who tells you that we should remove subsidy from an underdeveloped economy where productivity is low had F9 in economics. In China, with $10000, you can have a factory. All you need to do is to demonstrate to the city or the government there that you are producing this particular product. If they see the production plan, they will give you a factory on credit, and you start paying back. That is not available here in Nigeria. China is the largest producer of finished goods because of the subsidy. And you don’t have to be in China. If it’s the US, the first thing they welcome you with is a letter to come and borrow money. Sometimes, the Federal Reserve gives money to banks at negative interest to force them to lend money to people. During COVID 19, I was here in Nigeria. When I went to the US, I got stack of letters, awarding me money, wanting to give money to my law firm. They are subsidizing with credit.

If you go to Europe, they are subsidizing with social services. You the employer of labour, when your worker is sick, you are not the one to pay because every worker, every citizen has life insurance and other social services, so it is cheaper to hire labour there.

Come back to my beloved Nigeria. What is the incentive for productivity? Nothing, so you cannot compete. And the little that people are enjoying because we are petroleum rich country, we should now have low energy cost. That is what will drive you to say, let me go to Nigeria to take advantage of the low energy cost for my production.

How about offering a tax holiday?

Tax holiday is one of the ways through which they steal our money. Somebody will do 100 kilometres of poorly done cement road, very narrow and not standardised, and they will give the person billions of Naira for the same road that can be done by local government. Just collect your taxes.

Are you saying that it is the mindset of the people emerging as leaders that determines the level of productivity in government and governance?

These people don’t want to emerge as leaders. They want to take control of the tap of money. They don’t want to lead you because if you are leading, you look back sometimes to see whether your people are following you. This is a case of doing to you what the colonial master was planning to do when Jaja of Opobo, Nana of Itshekiri, Ovonranmwen Nogbaisi of Benin Empire, and everybody was fighting that the colonialists that they cannot come to our place and exploit us. That is why you have the statue of Madam Tinubu in Lagos. Now, you are not being exploited by these people, you are now being exploited by your own people who are exporting your own money overseas because they want their names to appear as one of the richest persons in town. We need to stop that because we are growing a large population that needs to be productive, and that needs to express their talents. We need to form a government that gives support services. The essence of government is to back you up.

I hope there won’t be a tipping point to all these, what do you think?

I don’t want us to reach a tipping point because the tipping point is a mirage. You would think people will never accept N500 per litre of fuel. They accepted over N1,000 and they are going towards N2,000 without anybody stopping them. We need to govern. That is the summary.

Any government that cannot help you to find your missing cat or dog after a while won’t be able to find a missing child. After a while, they won’t be able to find a missing town and after a while, a community will go. Going to the Eagle’s Square to hold the Bible or Quran and say a few words, salute the police and then disappear into the shadows, doesn’t make you a government. The people must feel your presence if truly you are governing.

Renowned economist, Prof Pat Utomi, has claimed that the nation is presently a failure, made worse by the lack of alternative thinking to turn things around.

According to Utomi, the lack of alternative thinking was worsened by a total capture of the legislature and the judiciary, as he described the present National Assembly as the worst thing that happened to the country.

He argued that the National Assembly, which should be the platform for robust debates to turn around the nation’s fortunes, had been captured.

Speaking with The PUNCH, the economist said Nigeria was a tragic failure because the political class and the elites, particularly the legal elite, are self-centred rather than thinking of the common good of the nation.

He stressed that there was a need for the leadership to sincerely lead by example, particularly cutting down on its lavish lifestyle, rather than calling on Nigerians to sacrifice.

“Nigeria is a failure right now; democracy is not working. We all know that; anybody who does not know that is fooling himself. We have total judicial capture; we have legislative capture, so there is no alternative thinking in the country.

“For me, the worst thing that has happened to the country is the National Assembly because that is where you should have the kind of debates that will lead you to options, but you can’t because the whole place is captured.

“These guys are just hustlers trying to get what they can out of the system without asking what will make the country work.

“When you have that kind of problem, you come to the point that James Robinson was making when he says a classic example is Nigeria which knows what to do but cannot seem to do it. You need, in a time like this, a certain kind of mindset.

“A local example is Olusegun Obasanjo in 1976/1977 when the oil crisis began to slide. He decided that we would go to low-profile mode. As head of state, his car was a Peugeot 504; he cut his travels.

“Anybody who watches the way people in power spend public resources cannot take seriously any statement that this is a time of sacrifice. So, the problem begins with them. Intense political commitment is not there,” he said.

The economist added, “You cannot save an economy when the political actors are on a binge and you will not have the kind of consequences that you have today for the economy.

“It is an intensely political process to turn around the economy. The Nigerian political class needs to recognise that we are in a moral equivalence of a war. And when a country is at war, it pulls together. Nigerian politicians still think they are on a binge.

“So, they are all running in different directions, and nobody is sitting down to forge a national consensus on how to solve this problem. When you have the moral equivalence of war, what you need is to set up a war room, and war cabinet and bring everybody together to say, how do we fix these problems.”

He stressed the need for intense political will to forge a national consensus to solve the nation’s problems, as against politicians stockpiling money to prosecute their next electioneering quest.

Asked if the adherence of Nigeria to policies of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank was a bane of Nigeria’s economic challenges, Utomi said the world bodies would usually provide templates, but it was up to nations to analyse such templates in line with their local peculiarities.

He said the challenge was whether Nigeria deployed the requisite local, intellectual knowledge to evaluate IMF templates in the interest of the common good.

“IMF can have a template, but what is responsible for the outcome is not their template; it is how local actors politically live their way through doing the right things for growth and development for their country. IMF and World Bank have got it wrong many times; it does not mean that their intention is not right.

“It means that they just have formulas and it is not an exact science. So what is desperately needed is for there to be a local, intellectual capacity to evaluate those templates and act in the interest and good of the local environment.

“This is where Nigeria has been a tragic failure because the political class and its elites, particularly the legal elite, have not acted as patriots either because they are ignorant or because they are too pathologically self-centred to think of the common good.”

[Punch]

The national insult and danger Libya subjected Nigeria and the Super Eagles recently was hard to explain. The account of the Tunisian pilot who flew the Nigerian team to Libya on the circumstances that led to the unexpected diversion of their flight to a remote airport, Al-Abraq, instead of their intended destination, Benghazi, was eye-opening and shocking.

While most Nigerians focused on the insult the Libyan action meant to Nigeria and the footballers, few people focused on the danger and the close shave with death that diversion was. What if that plane had crashed during landing and killed all the Nigerian players?

In a video interview the pilot posted online, he exonerated himself from the decision and said that the decision to divert the plane came from Libyan authorities. He said: “The flight plan was to land at Benghazi, Benina, and we had the approval from the Libyan Civil Aviation Authority to do so. However, when we began our descent, they instructed us to divert to Al-Abraq, almost 150 miles away, around 300 kilometres east. It wasn’t even (listed as) our alternate airport, something which is not good.”

According to the report made by The PUNCH on the video, the pilot described the diversion as potentially risky, citing the fuel calculations made for the initial destination. Imagine if the aviation fuel was not enough to take the plane to an unplanned destination 300 kilometres away. But that was not all.

The pilot said he repeatedly questioned the directive because of the inherent dangers in it. “In aviation, we have our flight plan. We calculate the fuel to our destination; so we have to avoid this kind of thing because it may make a breach to safety,” he said.

“When I asked to land in Benghazi according to my flight plan and according to my authorisation, they said no, it’s from the highest authority, you have to land in Al-Abraq.”

“Everything is registered in aviation, we cannot hide anything, so I asked them several times, at least eight times, and I warned them, probably I will be in trouble for fuel; they said it’s from highest authority, you cannot land in Benghazi, you have to divert immediately to Al-Abraq.”

The pilot described at Al-Abraq airport as a poorly equipped domestic airport.

“There is no ILS (Instrument Landing System), no air navigation approach, no VHR (Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range). We had to make a visual landing, which is particularly difficult by night with marginal weather.”

He explained that the airport’s lack of facilities left them with “no second chances” if something had gone wrong with the landing. Thankfully, the pilot was familiar with the region, having worked there for two years with a Tunisian company, which helped him to land safely.

Just think for a moment what could have happened if that plane had crashed with the full Nigerian team aboard. What would have been the explanation from Libya? That they wanted to frustrate the Nigerian team and make it easier to beat them in their return leg for the 2025 AFCON?

Why go to the extreme of placing lives in danger over a football match? It is even worse that football has never been the forte of Libya as it is rare to hear the name Libya in any football competition in Africa at whatever level or gender.

But Libya was not done. They technically placed the Super Eagles team under house arrest at the airport for over 20 hours. Members of the team were not allowed to step out of the airport. They were provided with no food or water. They slept in the airport lounge. The NFF eventually had to withdraw from the match and return home.

Curiously, Libya claimed that what happened to the Nigerian team is not unusual in aviation. It noted that something similar happened to its team a week earlier in Nigeria. The Libyan Football Federation condemned Nigeria’s decision to withdraw from the planned 2025 Africa Cup of Nations qualifier in Libya, threatening to take legal action to protect its national team’s interests.

Ironically, some Nigerians – perhaps because of a desire to be non-parochial online or as a result of lack of information – made posts saying that Nigeria had been paid in its own coin. They shared photos of Libyans at Port Harcourt airport when they visited Nigeria for the first leg of the AFCON match. But that was gross misrepresentation of facts.

The first point was that it was not Nigeria that diverted the aeroplane of the Libyan national team to Port Harcourt, which is about 150 kilometres to Uyo Township Stadium, the venue of the match. The Nigerian Football Federation communicated the venue of the match to its Libyan counterpart. Uyo has an international airport which all foreign teams coming to play use.

Perhaps in its desire not to allow Nigeria to affect its team with juju, the Libyan FA did not disclose to its Nigerian counterpart its itinerary. Libyans made their planned visit to Nigeria without involving Nigeria. They were informed of the venue of the match. But they chose to fly to Port Harcourt instead of Uyo, the venue of the match. According to the NFF, the Libyan Football Federation informed the NFF that their contingent would be landing in Port Harcourt instead of Uyo merely two hours before the team arrived in Nigeria.

In spite of that, the NFF still quickly got the authorities to grant their aircraft movement permit from Port Harcourt to Uyo. However, the LFF rejected the charter flight arrangement from Port Harcourt to Uyo obviously because of the fee and chose to travel by road. The LFF rejected the buses hired by the NFF and chose to hire theirs. Furthermore, the LFF discountenanced the NFF’s advice not to travel by night due to insecurity. Because of their insistence to travel by night, the NFF provided security, knowing that if any harm came upon them, Nigeria would bear the bad name.

It is unfair for some Nigerians to try to rationalise what happened to the Super Eagles in Libya with what happened to Libyans in Nigeria. There are many things wrong with Nigerian leadership or sports management, but one thing nobody can ever accuse Nigerians of is trying to use underhand tactics to frustrate visiting sports teams.

Nigeria is the only country I have seen where the home fans can start booing the home team if it is not playing well while supporting the visiting team. I have never seen it anywhere else. If the Nigerian team does not play well and gets defeated, the fans will take their anger on their team and never on the visiting team. No visiting team has ever been attacked in Nigeria. But that is not the case with some other countries that Nigerian teams have visited.

But what happened to the Super Eagles in Libya was purely orchestrated by the Libyans. It was deliberate. It was shameful, disrespectful and hostile. But most importantly, it was dangerous. It could have ended tragically with the loss of the Nigerian contingent.

What Libya did was an embarrassment to Africa and African football. The Confederation of African Football gave the Libyan and Nigerian federations until October 20 to submit all necessary documentation concerning the incident. All eyes are on CAF to announce its ruling. But whatever CAF does, it should not treat this matter with levity. CAF needs to descend hard on Libya to send a warning to other countries which may be thinking of doing something similar to a visiting team with the hope of wearing them out and beating them easily.

A bill for the establishment of Bola Ahmed Tinubu Federal University of Languages has reportedly passed the first reading at the House of Representatives.  Section 2 part I of the bill,  which is sponsored by the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, and eight others, provides that the university, when established, shall encourage “the advancement of learning and to hold out to all persons without distinction of race, creed, sex or political conviction, the opportunity of acquiring a higher education in Nigerian languages and cultures”. It further claims that the university is aimed at: “Producing socially mature persons with capacity to communicate, understand, and use Nigerian languages for national development.”

There are several questions begging for answers with respect to the proposed university: One, is the question of whether there is really any need for a University of Languages considering that many of the 62 Federal and 63 State Universities in the country have departments of Languages or Institutes of African Studies that are already providing the services that the proposed new university will purportedly offer. What is even more ridiculous is that there is also a federally owned National Institute for Nigerian Languages, NINLAN, which was set up in Aba, Abia State, via Decree 117 of December 30, 1993.

The Institute was aimed at being the “apex institution for research, teaching, documentation, and coordination of studies in Nigerian languages”, according to NINLAN’s website. Following from this, it is obvious that the promoters of the Tinubu University of Languages are either unaware of the existence of NINLAN, or if they did, failed to clearly establish the value addition of the proposed Tinubu University of Languages to both the mandate of NINLAN and the various institutes and departments that offer similar services in the country’s institutions of higher learning.  

Two, in terms of value addition, the promoters of the proposed university  also seem unsure of what they really want to accomplish – besides the obvious facts that they want to set up a Federal University, which will be sited in Abia State, the home state of the Deputy Speaker, and which will be named after the President.  For instance, the promoters claimed that the university, when established, will act “as agents and catalysts, through postgraduate training, research and innovation for the effective and economic utilization, exploitation and conservation of Nigeria’s natural, economic and human resources”.

How studying indigenous languages will lead to the “effective and economic utilization, exploitation and conservation of Nigeria’s natural, economic and human resources”, remains unclear. It is equally unclear how training in Nigerian languages will lead to “producing socially mature persons”.  There are several other bogus claims about what the proposed university could achieve that one gets the impression that whoever wrote the concept paper merely worked from answers to questions, and had very little knowledge of what a university education, or research in indigenous languages, is all about.

Three, a related question is whether establishing a University of Languages is really the best way to promote interest in local languages. If the aim of the proposed university is to encourage people to learn how to speak local languages, then a university education is not required for this. If this was really the aim, the sponsors could achieve the aim better by setting up, or encouraging the setting up of centres in local communities where local languages of interest could be learnt. The sponsors could also invest in the development of apps for teaching local languages or promote a number of existing apps that provide such services.  If, on the other hand, research in indigenous Nigerian languages is their main objective, then endowing chairs in various Departments of Languages or Institutes of African Studies in our existing institutions of higher learning could do the job better and cheaper. 

Four, how many Nigerian languages could realistically be taught in the proposed university?  Or will it be just the usual case of the dominant languages in the country (WAZOBIA)getting disproportionate attention? If that becomes the case,  as it is likely to be,  given that it will not be feasible to offer courses in the country’s over 500 indigenous languages and dialects, then the proposed university, rather than facilitating cultural awareness and unity – as claimed by the sponsors of the bill – will unwittingly become a tool of disunity because speakers of the languages left out are not likely to have any emotional buy-in to the university. 

Five, is the moral issue of naming institutions or monuments after a sitting President or Governor. In most climes, monuments are named after leaders have left office – not when they are in office. Even worse is to name an institution after a President who is still less than two years in office, and who is yet to find his bearing in the office, and who is generally  mocked as “T-Pain” for the unprecedented hardship his government has brought to Nigerians. If I were President Tinubu, I would distance myself from any effort to name institutions or monuments after me or even give me awards, including by the Bretton Woods institutions. Such honours are best savoured if done when the person is not in a position to extend favours.

Generally, monuments should be built to immortalise an idea not to humour those in power. In this connection, one may want to know what Tinubu has done in the area of promoting local languages that should warrant a University of Languages being named after him. The whole bill therefore oozes of sycophancy taken to a ridiculous level. I know that some Nigerian Governors have named institutions and monuments after themselves. But that is pure narcissism, and if people do not resist such, it is because they have either been cowed or simply do not care. 

Six, it may also not be out of place to interrogate the possible motives of the sponsors of the bill. Since the said university is to be sited in Abia State where the Deputy Speaker comes from, it may be safe to assume that he is the arrowhead of the bill, and consequently speculate on his possible motives: Is the Deputy Speaker following the path of some Governors who wrongly believe  that their legacies will be measured only by building enduring physical structures that will outlive them, often  white elephant projects such  as airports  that are hardly viable  and universities that are not properly funded?

Does the Deputy Speaker hope that by naming the proposed university after President Tinubu, he would tickle his ego, and buy the President’s support for the project? Is the Deputy Speaker hoping that by ingratiating himself to the president he would secure his position in the event of the president being re-elected in 2027? Is the Deputy Speaker eyeing a governorship seat in Abia State, and believes that the Ahmed Bola Tinubu University of Languages would be his evidence of ‘concrete achievement’ while in office?  And what, if one may ask, has become of the Deputy Speaker’s Peace in the South East Project, PISE-P, which he launched with fanfare in the ancient town of Bende, Abia State on December 29, 2023?

Seven, Shakespeare was right that there is no art to find the mind’s construction on the face, so I admit that all the above possible motives are mere speculations. But whatever the Deputy Speaker hopes to achieve by the Ahmed Bola Tinubu Federal University of Languages, he should take lessons from other Nigerian politicians whose sycophancy cut short their own career. A typical example is Ibrahim Mantu, the former Deputy President of the Senate (2001-2007). During Obasanjo’s alleged third term plot, Mantu was thought to be the arrowhead, and he boldly claimed that he would give his life for Obasanjo.

However, no sooner did Obasanjo leave office than Mantu, eager to rehabilitate himself politically from the damage his championing the hugely unpopular tenure elongation plot had done to his image and career, turned against Obasanjo. Nigeria’s political ecosystem is unfortunately littered with several Mantus. And this should forewarn both the sycophant and the leader being humoured. Given the transient nature of power, sycophancy, beyond a certain octave, is a sure career killer. 

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

…Asks court order to void import licenses
…Demands N100bn damages for alleged sabotage

Dangote Refinery and Petrochemicals said yesterday it was settling out of court with the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPCL, and six others over import licences granted them by the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, NMDPRA, to import petrol into the country.

Recall that the company had approached a Federal High Court in Abuja, praying it to nullify the licenses and also award it N100billion damages against the 1st defendant which is the NNPCL
However, in a statement last night, Dangote said it was ready to settle the case amicably with NNPCL and other defendants in what it described as an old case filed in June.

The statement, signed by the Group Chief Branding and Communications Officer, Anthony Chiejine, read: ‘’This is an old issue that started in June and culminated in a matter filed on Sept 6, 2024.

‘’Currently, the parties are in discussion since President Bola Tinubu’s directive on crude oil and refined product sales in naira initiative, which the Federal Executive Council, FEC, approved.
‘’We have made tremendous progress in that regard and events have overtaken this development. No party has been served with court processes and there is no intention of doing so. We have agreed to put a halt to the proceedings.

‘’It is important to stress that no orders have been made and there are no adverse effects on any party. We understand that once the matter comes up in January 2025, we will be in a position to formally withdraw the matter in court.’’

Dangote had in the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, queried the propriety of the licence issued to the defendants to bring refined petroleum products into the country when there is no shortfall in its production.

Other defendants in the suit are the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, NMDPRA, AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited as well as Matrix Petroleum Services Limited.

The plaintiff is equally praying the court to award N100 billion in damages against the NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to issue import licenses to NNPCL and the other defendants for the import of petroleum products such as Automotive Gas Oil (AGO) and Jet Fuel (aviation turbine fuel) into Nigeria.

It told the court that the licences were issued to the defendants, “despite the production of AGO and Jet-A1 that exceeds the current daily consumption of petroleum products in Nigeria by the Dangote Refinery.”

Specifically, Dangote Refinery, among other things, applied for an order of injunction, restraining the 1st defendant (NMDPRA) from further issuing and/or renewing import licenses to the 2nd to 7th defendants or other companies to import petroleum products.

It further sought general damages in the sum of N100 billion against the 1st defendant, as well as an order of the court directing the 1st defendant to seal off all tank farms, storage facilities, warehouses, and stations used by the defendants for the storage of all refined petroleum products imported into Nigeria.

Other reliefs the plaintiff prayed for, included, “a declaration that by the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Nigerian Export Processing Zone Act (NEPZA), Sections 23(h) and 55(1) of the Companies Income Tax Act (CIT Act), Paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to the CIT Act, Regulation 54(2)(a)(i) of the Dangote Industries Free Zone Regulation 2020, and the Finance Act, the plaintiff, being an entity duly registered as a Free-Zone Enterprise, is exempted from all federal, state, and local government taxes, levies, and other rates.

“A declaration that it is against the NEPZA Act, CIT Act, Finance Act, and Dangote Industries Free Zone Regulation 2020, as well as legislative intent, for the 1st Defendant to impose or threaten to impose on the plaintiff an additional financial obligation of a 0.5% levy meant for off-takers of petroleum products directly and an additional 0.5% wholesale levy in favour of the Midstream Downstream Gas Infrastructure Fund, MDGIF.

“An order of mandatory injunction directing the 1st Defendant to withdraw immediately all import licenses issued to the 2nd-7th defendants and other companies other than the plaintiff and other local refineries for the purpose of importing refined petroleum products into Nigeria.”

“An order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from imposing and demanding a 0.5% levy meant for off-takers of petroleum products directly and an additional 0.5% wholesale levy in favour of MDGIF or any other levy or sum against the plaintiff.”

According to the plaintiff, NMDPRA acted in breach of Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act by issuing licenses for the importation of petroleum products to the defendants.

In the processes filed through a team of lawyers led by Mr Ogwu Onoja, SAN, the plaintiff, such licenses ought to be issued only when there is a shortfall of petroleum products in the country.

It urged the court to declare that NMDPRA violates its statutory responsibilities under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) for not encouraging local refineries such as the one owned by the plaintiff.

In an affidavit deposed to by the Group General Manager of Government and Strategic Relations at Dangote Refinery, Ahmed Hashem, he told the court that import licenses granted to other companies by NMDPRA for the importation of AGO and Jet-A1 are crippling the plaintiff’s business which it committed substantial financial resources in billions of US dollars.

He averred that the plaintiff’s products are largely left unpatronized due to the actions of NMDPRA.
More so, the deponent told the court that NMDPRA has threatened to impose and demand a 0.5% levy on the plaintiff on wholesales and off-takers, as well as another 0.5% levy on wholesales to the Midstream and Downstream Gas Infrastructure Fund (MDGIF) via a letter dated June 10, 2024, contrary to statutory provisions that limit the implementation of levies on transactions within Free Zones.

He alleged a grand conspiracy and concerted effort by International Oil Companies and interests, in conjunction with the defendants, who are unhappy that Nigeria has an indigenous refinery ready to solve the lingering energy crisis and save the economy.

“The intervention of the honourable court has become necessary to stem the incessant violation of statutory provisions by the 1st Defendant in favour of other entities such as the 2nd to 7th defendants,” the plaintiff added.

Meanwhile, there were indications that the matter may not be heard by the court as a member of the plaintiff’s legal team, Mr George Ibrahim, SAN, notified the court yesterday that efforts to amicably resolve the issue were afoot.

He said the defendants had indicated their intention to explore an out-of-court settlement.
Consequently, Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the matter till January 20, 2025, for a report of settlement.

[Vanguard]

Nyesom Wike, the minister of the federal capital territory (FCT), says he revoked the title of an abandoned land allocated to Julius Berger Nigeria Plc to construct quarters for judges in Abuja.

Wike spoke in Abuja on Monday at the official flag-off ceremony of the design and construction of judges’ quarters.

In September, the federal executive council (FEC) approved the construction of 40 houses in Abuja for judges in the country.

Wike had told journalists that the judges’ quarters would be sited in the Kantampe district of Abuja, noting that 20 units would be allocated to judges of the FCT high court, 10 to those of the federal high court, and 10 to the judges of court of appeal.

The FCT minister said the project is expected to be completed in 15 months.

Wike said he was driving around the FCT to find suitable land space for the judges’ housing project and sighted the plot allocated to the construction company about 20 years ago, which was yet to be developed.

“When we were looking for land to build, I was driving around looking for empty land. And I got here; I saw this big land, and I saw the big post, ‘Julius Berger’,” he said.

“I didn’t talk. I called the director of lands and asked, ‘who owns that land?’ he said, Julius Berger. When was it allocated? He said about 15 to 20 years ago. 15, 20 years ago? Nothing has been done? I didn’t bother.

“So, I invited the MD Julius Berger to come. He came, and we had dinner. I didn’t talk about the land. The next day, he was in the office, and he saw the revocation letter as a matter of public interest.

“He called me and said, ‘but I had dinner with you.’ I said, ‘Yes; we had dinner, but we didn’t discuss the land’.

“The point is that—how will the government allocate land for more than 20 years for organisations to develop and they did not develop it? Thank God, they did not develop it, and now we can have it.”

[TheCable]

The Institute for Governance and Economic Transformation (IGET) is pleased to announce that its Founder, Professor Kingsley Moghalu, has been appointed as the inaugural President of the newly established African School of Governance (ASG). The ASG, launched today in Kigali, Rwanda, is a pan-African graduate institution designed to deliver world-class public policy education, research, and engagement programs aimed at transforming governance and leadership across the continent.

The initiative brings together visionaries committed to creating a sustainable governance model rooted in African realities. The ASG initiative was founded by H.E. Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, H.E. Hailemariam Desalegn, former Prime Minister of Ethiopia (both co-founders of the ASG Foundation) in consultation with other African leaders, academicians and philanthropists.

ASG is supported by the Mastercard Foundation as part of its Young Africa Works strategy, which aims to enable 30 million young Africans, 70 percent of whom are women, to access dignified and fulfilling work opportunities by 2030.

Professor Moghalu’s appointment as President of the African School of Governance represents a significant milestone, not only for ASG but also for IGET. As the Founder of IGET, Professor Moghalu has long been at the forefront of promoting good governance, sustainable development, and economic transformation in Africa. His new role at ASG underscores his continued commitment to advancing these ideals on a larger scale, with a particular focus on equipping the next generation of African leaders with the knowledge, skills, and mindsets needed to address the continent's most pressing governance challenges.

Speaking on his appointment, Professor Moghalu said: “The establishment of ASG is a powerful expression of a clear vision on the part of the founding  leaders. I share this vision of a transformed Africa driven by competent leadership and  governance, and I am honored to have been tasked with leading ASG’s critical contribution to  making that vision a reality.”

A New Chapter for IGET

Professor Moghalu’s leadership at ASG marks an exciting new chapter for IGET, which will continue to focus on its core mission of driving policy innovation and economic transformation across Africa. With Professor Moghalu at the helm of affairs at ASG, IGET under a new management will yield to the powerful synergy of combining IGET’s deep expertise in governance and development research with ASG’s academic excellence and leadership training.

IGET will remain a key player in promoting governance reforms, policy research, and capacity building across the continent. The envisioned partnership between IGET and ASG opens up new opportunities for collaboration on research initiatives, policy engagement, and leadership programs aimed at tackling Africa’s governance challenges. This will enhance IGET’s impact and further its mission to transform governance and foster economic development across the continent.

About IGET

The Institute for Governance and Economic Transformation (IGET) is a leading think tank dedicated to promoting governance reforms, sustainable economic development, and policy innovation in Africa. Through its research, policy advocacy, and capacity-building programs, IGET aims to contribute to the transformation of African societies and economies.

About the African School of Governance (ASG)

ASG offers academic programs, including a Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Executive Master of Public Administration (EMPA), designed to equip emerging leaders with the skills and knowledge needed for effective leadership across Africa. In addition to its educational programs, ASG is committed to advancing governance through its research centers and policy engagement initiatives.

For more information, please contact:

Evelyn Dan Epelle, FMNES

MD/CEO

Institute for Governance and Economic Transformation (IGET)

Email: edepelle@igetafrica.org

Chiemerie Ken-Ahukannah

Executive Officer (Administration)

Institute for Governance and Economic Transformation (IGET)

Email: emeriekenah@igetafrica.org