The rate at which flattery is becoming an article of faith in Nigeria’s governance is alarming. At practically every turn, you hear or read about some flattery being showered on President Bola Tinubu, who is yet to spend two years in office as the helmsman of Nigeria.

Some people argue that this “Kabiyesi” syndrome, whereby excessive praise is bestowed on anyone who is in a position to dispense generous indulgencies, to especially undeserving individuals, is a vestige of the pre-colonial African political culture where kings had near-absolute power.

There is a (probably exaggerated) historical claim that Iku Baba Yeye, Alaafin Oyo of old, could emit phlegm into the waiting mouth of a slave who would feel privileged for such an “honour” as he gladly swallowed the unhygienic indignity and indecency.

As the shameless sycophancy accorded to everyone that has ruled Nigeria from the beginning of this troubled Fourth Republic signifies the near-limitless powers of the Nigerian President, no one would be surprised if the sycophants, who are dressing President Tinubu up in many colours of praises, twist the words of the “Hail Mary” to flatter him.

Imagine if they were to proclaim him as “President Tinubu, full of grace”, pray to him to bless them with the fruits of democracy, and may it please him to do unto them, wretched citizens, what he promised in his election manifestos, and that his grace will abide with them, his fawning followers, according to his pleasure.

They may then end everything with his signature anthem, “On your mandate, we shall stand, Bola.” It will be almost impossible for any human being not to fall for these cheap accolades, no matter how firm and disciplined he may consider himself to be.

On June 12, 2023, barely one year into office, some sycophants displayed a large portrait of the President at Eagle Square as Nigeria celebrated Democracy Day to mark the day of the presidential election presumed to have been won by Bashorun MKO Abiola, but which was cruelly annulled by the government of military President Ibrahim Babangida.

When some Nigerians expressed concern about the baby steps of a project to build a personality cult around President Tinubu, the puerile answer they got was that, well, it was just an enterprise to showcase the talent of some young artists.

Somehow, the sycophants did not realise that the image of Abiola, the acknowledged symbol of Nigeria’s democracy, would have been preferable on such an occasion and not that of President Tinubu, who was only one of those who worked for the actualisation of the June 12 presidential mandate.

The matter is getting to a head these days. After using the meagre funds of his state to remodel the Abubakar Imam International Airport, owned by the Federal Government, Niger State Governor Mohammed Umar Bago, unilaterally renamed it Bola Ahmed Tinubu International Airport.

If observers who have been arguing that this gesture may well be an attempt to further the governor’s desire to transform the airport into a transportation hub are correct, those who also argue that it confirms claims that the dividends of democracy will go only to citizens who can genuflect the most to the President are also correct.

Interestingly, the President, who should protect federation assets from being appropriated by anyone, including state governors, did not utter a word against a brazen near appropriation of a federation asset by a sub-national government.

Even Lateef Fagbemi, with the double-barreled title of Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, offered nary a word. Maybe he did not think it was his business to draw the attention of the President, the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria and the Ministry of Finance Incorporated, the custodian of the assets and investments of the Federal Government, to the unconstitutional action of the governor.

So, the sycophants got even bolder. After President Tinubu approved the establishment of a polytechnic in Gwarinpa, in the Federal Capital Territory, it was promptly named Bola Ahmed Tinubu Polytechnic. On the heels of that, the spanking new Bola Ahmed Tinubu Barracks was inaugurated by President Tinubu, also in Abuja.

Maybe the civil servants who initiate these things should not be blamed. They probably took their cues from the norm of bestowing the respective honorific titles of Grand Commander of the Order of the Federal Republic and Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger on Nigerians who won presidential and vice-presidential elections, even before they were sworn into office.

Strangely too, all it takes for a Chief Justice of Nigeria to receive the honour of Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger is to be sworn into office by the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Nothing more.

The initiators of these sycophancies may have also borrowed a leaf from traditional rulers, who bestow chieftaincy titles upon Nigerians whose only credential is the ability to pay the levies for the titles, which sometimes have next to no significance or meaning.

And regrettably, the dearth of funds in recent times has led many universities to “sell” honourary degrees in the manner of Papal Indulgences that Pope Leo X reportedly began to sell in 1517, to raise money for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

Friar Joan Tetzel was said to have been the marketer of those Papal Indulgencies that were introduced to raise the volume of tithes paid to the church by the brethren. It took the principled opposition of German theologian and reformist, Martin Luther, to openly criticise that practice with his famous “95 Theses”.

So that things do not get even worse, and lest flattery become a substitute for the substance of governance in Nigeria, President Tinubu may have to have ask for reversal of these sycophantic assaults against his name and reputation.

Such a symbolic gesture by the President should go a long way to sanitise the polity and encourage other state actors to delay their psychological gratifications until when they get out of public office. Honours should not be bestowed on sitting presidents, only to be reversed by their successors.

Yakubu Gowon Street on Lagos Island reverted to its original name of Broad Street immediately after General Yakubu Gowon was replaced by General Murtala Muhammed after a bloodless coup. And the defiant people of Ibadan ignored the renaming of Ring Road as Ibrahim Babangida Way and continued to use its original name in defiance of the military governor, who allowed himself to be persuaded by civil servants to travel the high road of flattery.

President Tinubu should advise himself to let the people, through his successors, honour him after he had left office as President. If the honour of naming projects still came to him, his mother and wife after he had left office as Governor of Lagos State, the same might still happen after his tenure as President of Nigeria.

May he have the courage to reverse the premature honours and halt the creeping flattery, which regrettably started and reached a nauseating crescendo under the military that claimed to have come to set the example for good governance in Nigeria.

One just hopes that Aso Rock Presidential Villa will not suddenly have its name changed to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu Villa!

X:@lekansote1, lekansote.com

Since news broke last Thursday from the House of Representatives that Nigerian political elites are requesting for additional 31 states, the media has been buzzing with views of protagonists and antagonists. I was on Radio Now 95.3 FM, Lagos last Friday and Nigerian Television Authority last Monday to discuss the development. Of course, I am one of the antagonists of creation of additional states. I hope to marshal my reasons for taking this position in this commentary.

Premium Times on February 6, 2025, reported, “The House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review has received 31 state creation requests in the ongoing constitution amendment process. Deputy Speaker and Chairperson of the Committee, Ben Kalu, announced this on Thursday during the plenary session. Mr Kalu said the committee, in line with Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution, will proceed with the process for requests that meet the constitutional threshold.”

According to the list, there are seven requests from North-Central. They are Okun, Okura and Confluence States in Kogi State; Benue Ala, Apa-Agba and Apa in Benue State; and Federal Capital Territory State. In the South-East, there are five requests: Etiti, Orashi, Adada, Orlu and Aba States. Furthermore, there are four requests from the South-South region, comprising Ogoja from Cross River, Warri from Delta, and Ori and Obolo from Rivers State. In the South-West, there is Torumbe from Ondo, Ibadan from Oyo, Lagoon from Lagos and Ogun States, Ijebu from Ogun, and Oke Ogun/Ife-Ijesha from Oyo, Ogun, and Osun States. In the North-West, the proposed states are New Kaduna and Gurara from Kaduna State; Tiga and Ari from Kano State and Kainji from Kebbi State. Meanwhile, there are Amana State from present-day Adamawa State; Katagum State from Bauchi State; Savannah State from Borno State and Muri State from Taraba State.

It is quite unfortunate that all the requests were made via memoranda or Private Member Bills, which are not in tandem with laid down constitutional guidelines. Section 8. (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria says, “An Act of the National Assembly for the purpose of creating a new state shall only be passed if – (a) a request supported by at least two-thirds majority of members (representing the area demanding the creation of the new state) in each of the following, namely – (i) the Senate and the House of Representatives, (ii) the House of Assembly in respect of the area, and (iii) the local government councils in respect of the area, is received by the National Assembly.”

Subsection (b) says, “A proposal for the creation of the state is thereafter approved in a referendum by at least two-thirds majority of the people of the area where the demand for creation of the state originated; (c) the result of the referendum is then approved by a simple majority of all the states of the federation supported by a simple majority of members of the Houses of Assembly; and (d) the proposal is approved by a resolution passed by two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly.” Because the requests did not follow due process, Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu said his constitution review committee had given a one-month extension (till March 5, 2025) to those who want to request state creation to perfect their submission. Suffice it to say that no state creation exercise has been successful under a civil rule due to the stringent conditions that have to be met.

Sincerely speaking, these demands are illogical, uneconomical, a mere distraction and not a priority. While the proponents for state creation hinged their requests on marginalisation and discrimination by the dominant ethnic groups and tribes in their present states, there is no guarantee that state creation is the antidote to this. If only there is strict adherence to the provisions of section 14 of the Nigerian Constitution, there would be no more cries of political or economic marginalisation. For instance, subsection one says, “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a state based on the principles of democracy and social justice”. The question is, can we in good conscience say that there is social justice in Nigeria?

Section 14(2)(b) says, “The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” Again, is there security and welfare from the government to the people of Nigeria? This, as we know, is in short supply. Thirdly, Subsections 3 and 4 of Section 14 of the Constitution talks about the need to observe the principles of federal character in the composition of government and its agencies both at the national and subnational level for the purpose of national unity and national loyalty. Unfortunately, we observe this principle in breach as well. That is why every tribe wants a fiefdom carved for it to preside over.

Have we also thought through the ripple effects of state creation at this time of our national life? Every state will produce its senators, House of Representatives and State Houses of Assembly members. Ministries, departments and agencies will also have to be established. Invariably, there will be an astronomic increase in the cost of governance. Furthermore, the cost of elections will increase exponentially as the Independent National Electoral Commission will also have to conduct elections into the new senatorial, House of Representatives and State Houses of Assembly constituencies. I even doubt if the constitutional alteration will be ready in good time for election preparedness of INEC for 2027, as the Electoral Act 2022 has mandated INEC to give notice of elections one year ahead of the polls.

Is it not curious that although research has shown that only about five out of the current 36 states and FCT can survive without federal allocation, we still deemed it fit to request for additional 31 states? Not a few Nigerians currently believe that, given the fact that many of the states are not viable, they should, therefore, be merged. It is, therefore, illogical to demand more states when the existing ones are wobbling and tottering!

Rather than embarking on a wild goose chase of balkanising the existing states, what should be our priority now is good governance. America, from where we copied the presidential system of government, has only 50 states despite having about 350 million population. It also has 100 senators (two per state) and has a total of 15 secretaries (equivalent to our ministers).

Currently, most states have a budget of 70 to 80 per cent recurrent and merely 20 to 30 per cent capital; how can such states develop? If we must alter the constitution, I will agree to the devolution of more powers from the exclusive to concurrent legislative lists. I also will support power rotation among the senatorial districts in the states and the six geopolitical zones at the national level. Truth be told, ordinary citizens of Nigeria are unfazed by the creation of political institutions. What is uppermost on their minds is how to fend for themselves and earn a decent living. State creation is a subterfuge for the powerful political elites to feather their own nest. It should be turned down by the people!

On Friday December 19, 2008, Prince Vincent Eze Ogbulafor (May 24, 1949- October 6, 2022) from Olokoro, Umuahia South Local Government Area of Abia State declared that his party, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, would rule Nigeria for the next 60 years. At the time he made the declaration, he was the fifth National Chairman of the party. Before him, the past Chairmen of the party were Chief Solomon Lar (1998-1999), Chief Barnabas Gemade (1999-2001), Chief Audu Ogbeh (2001-2005) and Colonel Ahmadu Ali (2005-2008).

Before his appointment as the Chairman of PDP, Chief Ogbulafor was the Minister of State on Economic Matters in the Presidency. The Niger Delta Development Commission, NDDC, was then under him. His responsibilities as Minister of State were to formulate and issue economic intelligence guidelines for government projects, ensure monitoring of projects and progress relating to plan implementation and supervise the National Economic Intelligence Committee, NEIC.

In 1999, President Olusegun Obasanjo appointed other Ministers of State and placed them under The Presidency. They include Mr. Abayomi Edu (79) and Dr. Abimbola Ogunkelu, a consultant Physician and Cardiologist, from Ibowon, Epe in Lagos State, who is also a member of the Amala Group, a group of eminent journalists which meets monthly at Bunmi Sofola’s place in Surulere, Lagos.  

The schedules of these Ministers of State at that time were prepared by the then Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Ufot Ekaette (1939- September 25, 2019), assisted by the then Director of Special Duties in the office of the Secretary of the Government of the Federation, Dr. Goke Adegoroye (74) and approved by the President Obasanjo. 

There were Minister of State Economic Matters, Minister of State Special Project, Minister of State for Inter-Governmental Affairs, Minister of State, Cooperation and Integration in Africa, Minister of State, Civil Service matters and also Minister of State, Special Duties. Mr. Abayomi Edu was Minister of State, Special Duties. He is the son of the billionaire politician from Epe, Alhaji Shafi Lawal Edu (January 7, 1911 –  January 8, 2002) who was elected into the Western State House of Assembly in 1951. Mr. Abayomi Edu who now lives in America is expected home to celebrate his 80th birthday.

Mr. Abayomi Edu’s schedule and responsibilities at that time were to coordinate for the President: award of titles; National Honours and Decorations, (ii) Liaise, on behalf of the President, with the Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy, (iii) carry out any special duties assigned by the President. 

Alhaji Ibrahim Umar Kida was the Minister of State, Inter-Governmental Affairs in The Presidency. His schedule and responsibilities were to (i) formulate and implement policies and programmes geared towards enhancement of inter-governmental relations; (ii) Liaison between the Federal, State and Local Governments; (iii) Conduct desirable studies and collect intelligence information on Federal/State/Local Government relations and process to the Vice President; (iv) initiate follow-up actions to ensure that State and Local governments fulfil their respective statutory obligations; (v) Advise the Vice President on Boundary Commission Matters. 

Chief Abimbola Ogunkelu was Minister of State in The Presidency for Cooperation and Integration in Africa. His schedule and responsibilities were to (i) formulate policies and programmes on regional cooperation and integration in Africa; (ii) Strengthening of Intra-African economic cooperation; (iii) Foster relations with and coordinate ECOWAS matters; (iv) Coordination of matters relating to the Economic and Social Commission of the OAU; (v) Coordination and strengthening of matters relating to Joint Economic Commissions in Africa e.g. the African Common Market, the Economic Commission for Africa, ECA. 

The emergence of Prince Vincent Ogbulafor as the National Chairman of PDP was dramatic. He was brought to the PDP headquarters in 2001 after serving as a Minister of State.

President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (August 16, 1951-  May 5, 2010) was eventually declared the winner of the 2007 general elections, held on April 21, and was sworn in on May 29, 2007, amid widespread allegations of electoral fraud. In the Nigerian National Assembly election, the party won 260 out of 360 seats in the House of Representatives and 85 out of 109 seats in the Senate.

 At the PDP’s 2008 National Convention, the party chose Prince Vincent Ogbulafor as its National Chairman on March 8, 2008 held in Abuja. Chief Ogbulafor, who was the PDP’s National Secretary from 2001 to 2005, was the party’s consensus choice for the position of National Chairman, selected as an alternative to the rival candidate’s former Governor Sam Egwu and Senator Anyim Pius Anyim. All 26 candidates, including Dr Sam Egwu (70) from Ezzamgbo and Senator Pius Anyim (63) from Ishiagu, both in Ebonyi State, withdrew in favour of Ogbulafor. Meanwhile, Alhaji Abubakar Kawu Baraje was elected as National Secretary. 

When Prince Ogbulafor made that declaration in 2008 people believed that his boast could come true. He was on a solid ground at that time. 

Let’s look at the situation now. In the Senate, the All Progressive Congress, APC, has 58 seats, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, has 37 seats; the Labour Party has seven seats; the New Nigeria People’s Party has two seats; the Social Democratic Party, two seats; the All Progressive Grand Alliance, one seat; and the Action Democratic Party, one seat. In the House of Representatives, the All Progressive Congress has 175 seats; PDP has 118 seats; Labour Party has 35 seats; New Nigeria People’s Party, 19 seats; All Progressives Grand Alliance, 5 seats; African Democratic Congress, two seats; Social Democartic Party, two seats and Young Progressives Party, one seat. 

To be concluded 

Former governor of Kaduna State, Nasir el-Rufai, has said he won’t opt for exile despite the many rumours that he might be arrested and tortured by President Bola Tinubu’s administration.

El-Rufai, who had been locked in a battle of words with the Presidency and the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, said he won’t be intimidated by the current administration.

In a response to a post by an X user, Imran Wakili, on the alleged plot to arrest him, the former governor said he would return to Nigeria from Egypt before February 20, 2025.

He said: “I have been hearing these same rumours of arrest, detention and torture in some dungeon in the NSA’s office (where Emefiele was allegedly tortured to resign as CBN governor), since July 2024 when the so-called report of the Kaduna Assembly began circulating.

“They freaked out when we challenged the legality of the premeditated defamation and went to every length to compromise the judicial process, and this is continuing at the Court of Appeal.

“They have sent such similar messages of intimidation and threats through many of my friends, family and political associates because they want me to go on self-imposed exile. I will not.

“I have now put all my previous academic and language-learning plans on hold and will spend more time in Nigeria than ever before. Silence is no longer golden. Inaction has never been an option.

“The arrest, detention and torture of perceived political enemies are nothing new in human affairs. I have been arrested and detained thrice in the past for expressing my views of previous governments.

“There is always a morning after the arrest or detention or torture, and political life continues. As for death, it is when Allah destines it, and it is ultimately the date of every human.

“For the attention of the pathetic characters that don’t sleep well whenever I am in Nigeria, take notice that I intend to return in time for the launch of former President IBB’s memoirs, in sha Allah, scheduled for February 20.

“We depend on no one but Allah. We fear no mortal but Almighty Allah. We always hope for the best but plan for the worst.”

Recall that El-Rufai was one of the northern powerbrokers who insisted that the APC presidential ticket for the 2023 general elections be given to a southern candidate, in line with the unwritten principle of rotation of power between the southern and the northern regions in Nigeria.

This was after the eight-year tenure of President Muhammadu Buhari, from the North-West geopolitical zone.
El-Rufai, who was Kaduna governor between May 2015 and May 2023, was vocal in his choice of ex-Lagos State governor, Bola Tinubu, as the flag bearer of the party in the last general elections.

The then Kaduna governor, alongside his northern colleagues, backed Tinubu against two other northern aspirants who were the then Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, and ex-Jigawa State governor, Mohammed Badaru.
Tinubu later clinched the APC ticket and was elected Nigeria’s president during the February 2023 presidential poll.

However, El-Rufai fell out with the power brokers in the current government and was rejected by the Senate during the ministerial screening process.

The Senate cited security reasons from the Department of State Services, DSS, as one of the reasons for his rejection.

Since the August 2023 incident, El-Rufai has not been seen in a gathering of APC chieftains. The former governor has also not been seen around the Aso Villa, the seat of power, or near the president whom he vigorously campaigned for in the last poll.

[Vanguard]

The other day the government announcement the board appointments of forty-two government agencies and parastatals. Very good news it was for me, hoping that at last, my silent and open prayers must have been answered. I nearly reached for a magnifying glass incase my reading glasses were getting too weak to enable me read the press statement with understanding; alas, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) wasn’t on the list.

“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has appointed board chairpersons for 42 federal organisations and a secretary to the board of the Civil Defence, Immigration, and Prisons Services.

“The President has also appointed a new managing director for the Nigerian Railway Corporation and a director general for the National Board for Technology Incubation (NBTI).

“President Tinubu directs the board chairpersons not to interfere with the management of the organisations, emphasising that their positions are not executive,” the statement signed by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President (Information & Strategy), said in part. This was January 23, 2025.

Ironically, I wasn’t too disappointed. The President of any country is a very busy person. For the Nigerian President, the basket of worries is heavier because there are too many things he has to sort – poverty in the land, the purity of data from the National Bureau of Statistics about the rightness and wrongness of data – whether headline inflation is 34 percent and food inflation is 40 percent; insecurity and daily carnage on our roads, the inability of previous administrations to communicate effectively that Nigeria doesn’t really have enough money to provide all the infrastructure, including roads, and that it must work through Public Private Partnership (PPP) to deliver some services, that the energy sector remains a shame and can really not cater for the development needs of the people, and that life expectations in Nigeria will remain a mirage except all parties are able to come to the reality that the nation must move ahead on a clean slate without bitterness, mistrust and festering acrimonies. There are other sundry issues too numerous and troubling to be listed.

The Nigerian President has too many things to think about and board appointments, though an issue for the loyalists, may not be so compulsive as to serve as distraction or inordinate concern.

However, I want to reiterate my appeal that President Tinubu should appoint a Board for the NCC as a matter of urgency in order to put developmental expectations in the telecommunications sector on a seeming virtual accelerator. As we say in this part of the world, to move the industry forward but moving the industry forward might be too slow to deliver on the promises by this government which has a psychedelic commitment to a digital economy.

The Nigerian Communications Act 2003 does not envisage any day NCC will not have a Board, as it states very clearly that “the President shall ensure at all times there are a minimum of 6 serving Commissioners on the Board at any and all times, made up of – the Chief Executive, 2 Executive Commissioners and three non-executive Commissioners.

A fully composed Board, according to the Act, should consist of 9 Commissioners which include: a chairman, a chief executive who shall also be the Executive Vce Chairman, 2 Executive Commissioners, and 5 non-executive Commissioners, who shall be appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Those who are advocating for the Board to be constituted, including this writer, harbour the opinion that the diversity of background, experience and knowledge of the members may encourage fresh thinking, hopes, aspirations and fresh drive to the activities and programme implementation at the NCC.

Their expectations are anchored on a provision of the Act which states as follows: Commissioners shall be persons of recognised standing, qualification and experience in one or more of the following fields – finance or accounting; law; consumer affairs; telecommunications engineering; information technology; engineering generally; economics; and Public Administration.

The dream of having all these professionals in one board can be too tantalising to be real but it has happened before and can still happen again if the President picks well irrespective of party affiliations. Unfortunately, these professionals can quickly morph into the garb of politicians and begin a ruination of the system. That is what happened under the last administration which inflicted so extensive a damage on the Commission from which it is still struggling to recover.

But the President, in the statement, warned the newly appointed chairpersons and board members not to interfere with the management of the organisations. Same should be said of the NCC when the Board is constituted because of antecedents that are too ugly to always recall.

But some voices at the NCC are not in a hurry to forget yesterday. A particular source told this writer, “We pray not to have a transactional Board. The last Board was horrible. We want a chairman with capacity.”

All the same, a Board is needed to help the policy thrust of the Commission and facilitate good decision making. A Board that can take the Commission to the next level and bring various experiences to bear on its operations, according to another source.

At the moment, there are only three Commissioners, one of which is the Executive Vice Chairman ((EVC), and two Executive Commissioners, all from a part of the country, which strains a provision of the Act that states clearly that they must be drawn from the 6 geo-political zones of Nigeria subject to confirmation by the Senate.

I do not have the boldness to ever insinuate that the NCC is running in breach of the Act. My only appeal is that the President should constitute the Board and remove the Commission from a needless cul-de-sac and avoidable hermetic strictures.

I was a witness to that day. When the sun crimsoned, the wind roared, and the earth bled. It was the Nyanya bomb blast of April 2014. By cheer happenstance, I was within the area, though removed from the immediate theatre of the carnage. TheCable broke the unfortunate story. I was a staff member of the newspaper at the time.

The thundering blast ripped through the evening air. It was deafening and jarring. Fear and anxiety seized the busy Nyanya junction, which became gridlocked in a barbecue of human parts. Confusion simmered. Making sense of the situation instantly was a bit difficult. What had just happened? Could it be it? And yes, the fears were confirmed.

This experience survives in the recesses of my mind. The trauma never really leaves.

At the time and in subsequent years, Nigeria grappled with a number of security challenges – Boko Haram, kidnappers, bandits, terrorists, and the like. Swathes of territories were carved out by terrorists, the roads became gateways to hell, violent agitations tore at the very fabric of the nation, and school children became merchandise for criminals.

But over time, Nigeria’s security forces have been dutiful in pushing back the frontiers of terror. We must always thank and appreciate our security agencies. They are our last line of defence. They are awake while we are asleep – far removed from the warm embraces of their families to keep us safe.

President Bola Tinubu pledged to ensure the security of life and property, especially as security is a fundamental ingredient for attracting investments and fostering the growth and survival of businesses. The President has been absolutely faithful to his solemn pledge.

As Commander-in-Chief, President Tinubu is silencing the guns on the roads, returning confidence in road travels; he is restoring peace to farmlands, boosting agricultural productivity; removing threats even in forgotten places, and building a cohesive society where recourse over dispute among divergent groups is dialogue and not war-war.

It is important to underline the critical role of the Office of the National Security Adviser under Mallam Nuhu Ribadu as regards pre-emptive, kinetic, non-kinetic, and conciliatory approaches to a myriad of security concerns and potential concerns. There has been a clear demonstration of forward-thinking, innovation, adriotness, and professionalism in the coordination of security apparatuses.

It is not all blue skies as security is always in a flux. But we are not where we used to be. We have gone a leap forward. With the President’s bold and transformative leadership, the ambits of peace will continue to expand, and Nigeria shall continue to prosper.

Nwabufo is Senior Special Assistant to the President on Public Engagement

Innocent ‘2Baba‘ Idibia has finally addressed the rumours surrounding his relationship with Natasha Osawaru, the deputy majority leader of Edo state house of assembly.

On Monday, the award-winning singer made a surprise appearance at the state house of assembly during a plenary session, sparking rumours about his relationship with Natasha.

The rumours suggested that Natasha might have contributed to his separation from his wife, Annie Idibia.

However, in a video shared on Instagram, 2Baba clarified his relationship with Natasha, emphasising that she has nothing to do with his current situation with Annie.

He also expressed his affection for the lawmaker, stating, “Yes, I love her. I want to marry her”.

The ‘African Queen’ hitmaker also defended Natasha, calling her a “young, brilliant, and amazing woman” who has been unfairly labeled as a “home breaker”.

“I said what I said. All of us will be alright… Honourable Natasha, I see she has been dragged, she has been called all sorts of names. She has been labelled as a home breaker. She is a young, brilliant and amazing woman,” he said.

“She has nothing to do with what’s happening between me and Annie. But I see everybody trying to allegedly want to rope her into everything.  Yes, I love her. She is amazing, she is cool, I want to marry her.”

Annie, an actress and model, has been married to 2Baba since 2012, and they have two daughters together. However, their relationship has been plagued by rumours of infidelity and instability.

Last month, the singer announced that he and Annie had not been together for a while and were filing for divorce.

The news of their separation has continued to spark reactions from fans and celebrities alike.

WHO IS NATASHA?

Natasha Osawaru is a 31-year-old politician and lawyer from Edo state. She is the daughter of Desmond Osawaru and Philomina Osawaru and the granddaughter of billionaire Gabriel Igbinedion.

Osawaru, who represents the Egor constituency in the house, is a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

The headlines last week gave a kaleidoscopic picture of the Nigerian tragedy: Lagos State allocates N3.5 billion to improve power supply; Kano votes N2.5 billion for mass wedding. It captures the inherent absurdities in our nation and the different the mindsets of its leaders. While a section of the federation is investing in key infrastructure and human capital development, the other half is wasting away resources on things that induce poverty and hasten underdevelopment. In its 2025 budget, Kano State government is allocating N2.5 billion for sponsorship of mass weddings in the 44 LGAs. Total fiscal proposal is N719. 7 billion. Commissioner for Planning and Budget, Musa Shanono says the government is sponsoring mass wedding in order ‘’to promote social responsibility, human rights and transparency, in addition to fostering sustainable society’’.

 Kebbi, another state in the same North West, would splash N54 million to sponsor mass wedding for 300 couples on February 27. Chairman of the organizing committee, Alhaji Suleiman Argungu, said the event is a fulfillment of the pledge made by Gov. Nasir Idris at a similar ceremony last year. The governor had promised that mass wedding would be a regular program of his administration. In addition to the payment of bride prices on behalf of the groom, the couples will receive household items such as furniture and food items ‘’to help them establish a stable marital life’’, according to Alhaji Argungu.

Many states and well-to-do persons in the North routinely sponsor mass weddings to goad poor individuals into marriage. In October 2020, then Senate President Ahmed Lawan sponsored the wedding of 100 couples whom he identified as orphans and the less privileged in his constituency. Over 5,000 persons are wedded every year in such ceremonies. But why are mass weddings so important in Northern Nigeria? There’s a political dimension to it. Although they are presented as welfare or philanthropic gestures, mass weddings are in reality meant to encourage rapid population growth, which the elites believe, ultimately confers electoral advantage to the region. This is why Northern politicians are always quick to boast that the region will always determine who wins Nigeria’s presidential elections.

But they have failed to realize the problems associated with unbridled population growth such as overcrowded cities; resource depletion; unemployment; strain on infrastructure and social services; increased crime; decreased quality of life; increased disease transmission; increased poverty; inadequate housing and overwhelmed healthcare and educational systems. According to UNICEF, there are 18.3 million out-of-school children in Nigeria, of which 10. 2 million are of primary school age and 8.1 million are of junior secondary school level. Most of them are in the North where terrorism has been a big problem.

Instead of tackling this globally embarrassing problem, Northern political leaders are more interested in boosting population growth by offering the poor all-expense paid weddings. The urge to control power and be in public office is stronger than the need to enhance the welfare of their people. But a poverty-stricken and poorly educated population is less likely to take care of its offspring; thus perpetuating a vicious circle of poverty and dragging the rest of the society back. Without skills, education and future prospects, they are easily recruited into terrorist groups; kidnap and robbery gangs. They do not work; don’t pay taxes, but rely solely on alms and government handouts. Some drift southwards where they take to menial jobs in big cities; constituting themselves into social menace and security risks. This is the problem of Northern Nigeria, which has become the Nigerian crisis. Mass weddings are a clear example of how a government’s welfare programme could be counterproductive.

Nigeria has one of the highest fertility rates (number of births per woman) in the world. As at 2022, it was 5.14 per woman. It is far higher in the North, with some states like Katsina hitting 7.4; and lower in the South, as low as 3.2 in some Southern States, according to the economist. The import of this disparity between the two regions is obvious. While one region is far more economically progressive, the other seems to be travelling back in time. A 7.4 fertility rate is higher than what the global rate was in the 1800! Nigeria’s population is growing quite rapidly, faster than GDP’s three per cent growth rate. Income levels are also very low in the country. A recent report by McKinsey & Company, an international consulting firm, stated that less than one million Nigerians in both government and private sector earn up to one million naira per month. Our huge population therefore does not necessarily translate into a big consumer market with more than 70 per cent of the population living in multidimensional poverty. Northern Nigeria underperforms the South in almost all indices: per capita income; employment; school enrolment; WAEC performance; poverty rates and many others. The convention wisdom in many parts of the world is that no young man seeks to marry and start a family until he has a means of livelihood.

In recent times, a few Northern leaders like Gov. Sule of Nassarawa State have admitted publicly that the region has failed in its basic responsibilities to the citizens. Speaking in Lafia at a conference on population dynamics, security, climate change, out-of-school and vulnerable children last November, Sule said it was time for the North to address the challenges of the almajiri system. ’’The almajiri problem is indeed a huge issue for us. It’s time we stopped complaining and took the bull by the horns to solve it. He attributed the persistence of the almajiri problem to systemic failures and the neglect of parental responsibilities.

Mass weddings have not helped the North. Rather, it has perpetuated poverty and it’s time to modify it. One way of doing this is to train the would-be couples in any trade of their choice; give them grants for take-off and offer to sponsor the weddings of only those who can fend for themselves. In that case, mass weddings would become incentives for economic empowerment rather than a tool for subjugation.

The house of representatives has asked the ministry of communications, innovation and digital economy to suspend the approval granted to telecommunications companies (telcos) to increase tariff by 50 percent.

The lower legislative chamber passed the resolution during plenary on Tuesday following the approval of a motion of urgent public importance.

The motion was sponsored by Oboku Oforji, a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lawmaker representing Yenagoa/Opokuma federal constituency of Bayelsa state.

In January, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) approved telcos’ request to increase tariff since the last review in 2013.

Bosun Tijani, minister of communications, innovation and digital economy, had said “the new tariff would allow telecommunication companies to be able to invest in new infrastructure and improve connectivity”.

Moving the motion, Oforji said tariff approval is not justifiable as consumers are grappling with economic hardship and poor network service delivery.

The legislator said telcos must improve their service delivery, and address the “poor network” before increasing their tariff.

“The far-reaching effects of these price hikes will deepen financial struggles for the average Nigerian, threaten the country’s vision of leveraging technology to drive economic revival, exacerbate poverty and widen existing inequalities, hitting lower-income families the hardest,” he said.

“Affordable connectivity is a must for progress in critical sectors like digital banking, education, healthcare, agriculture and e-governance. Informal sector workers who depend on affordable mobile data to access gig work opportunities may find it harder to stay connected.

“Those small businesses, which rely heavily on affordable telecommunication for operations, marketing, and customer engagement, will face additional financial burden. Imagine a scenario where a 10 percent increase is approved.

“It is estimated that a 10 percent increase in telecommunications costs would reduce small business profitability up to 7 percent, potentially leading to the closure of businesses.”

Opposing the motion, Dominic Okafor from Anambra state, said a tariff hike is necessary for improved service delivery.

He said telecom companies should be allowed to raise tariffs, though not by as much as 50 percent.

The motion was adopted when it was put to a voice vote by Tajudeen Abbas, speaker of the house.

Subsequently, the house asked the ministry of digital economy and the Nigerian Communications Commissions (NCC) to “suspend the impending hike in telecommunications tariffs until their service improved”.

[TheCable]

Less than a month after he was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America, there have been renewed concerns about whether Donald Trump’s presidency would signal the end of what is often called ‘the American Century.’ The phrase was coined by Time founder and publisher, Henry Luce, the son of a missionary, in a February 17, 1941, editorial in Life Magazine, a sister publication he also founded. Captioned “The American Century,” Luce made a strong plea for America to forsake isolationism and enter World War II to defend democratic values. He argued that under American hegemony, democracy and other American ideals would “do their mysterious work of lifting the life of mankind from the level of the beasts to what the psalmist called a little lower than the angels.” Essentially, Luce urged the USA to assume the role of the world’s Good Samaritan by championing the spread of democratic values across the world.

Luce talked about the ‘American Century’ rather than ‘American Empire’ (as we had with the British empire from 1815-1914) because he felt the missionary power conferred on the country by history was global rather than territorially defined. America seemingly heeded his advice and its involvement proved decisive in ending the Second World War. America also played a crucial role in the reconstruction of Europe after the war through the Marshall Plan. The country’s influence further grew during the Cold War (1947-1991) when it led the Western alliance against the Soviet-led Eastern bloc. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States remained the world’s only superpower, and became the hegemon, or what some termed a hyper-power.

Given the global pattern of the rise and decline of great empires and societies, predictions of an imminent decline or collapse of the American Century have a long history. In fact, the twentieth century has witnessed the decline or collapse of at least seven great empires – Mandarin China, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Turkey, Japan, the British empire, and twice over in the case of Tsarist and Soviet Russia. After the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001 that led to the death of almost 3000 people, mostly Americans, people thought the event was going to accelerate the decline of the only remaining military superpower. America recovered well from it. But talks about its decline, especially with the rise of other poles of economic power – China, the European Union (which was not really seen as a threat until Trump) and recently, the BRICS countries, the old concerns about the possible decline or even a dramatic collapse of the American Century, became revived.

Even before he was sworn in as America’s 45th President on January 20 2025, Trump’s rhetoric had been a source of global concern. The grandiloquence and flurry of Executive Orders, including the use  (or threat of the use) of tariffs even against countries regarded as America’s closest allies such as Canada and the European Union, have raised concerns of how reciprocal response by the affected countries what would affect the world order and America’s global influence.

There are four possible responses against Trumpism that we should watch out for:

One, in international relations, there is what is called the ‘Balance of power theory’. This basically argues that states threatened by a hegemonic power could secure their survival by bandying together to prevent that hegemon from dis-equilibrating the system or to restore equilibrium if the hegemon temporarily succeeds in upsetting the system’s balance.  This presupposes that states threatened by Trump, (and this is virtually all states of the world – old foes and traditional allies alike), may gang up to prevent him from having his way. For instance, Donald Trump has expressed interest in acquiring Greenland – an Island owned by Denmark, a member of the European Union. In response, the EU leaders said they would defend Greenland. In such a scenario one can surmise that if push comes to shove, they will not reject help from America’s traditional enemies, including those President George W Bush referred to as “axis of evil” in 2002. President Bush at that time was referring to Iran, Ba’athist Iraq, and North Korea.

Regarding Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on both its traditional allies and traditional foes, not only is there the possibility of retaliatory response, that threat alone, even if not implemented, could lead to many countries,  taking measures to ensure they forever drastically reduce their reliance on the US – militarily, economically and even culturally. This scenario could paradoxically present opportunities for Africa as countries loosening their ties with the US will look to new frontiers and new markets.

Two, the response of America’s institutions to some of the actions of Trump would also be of interest. America’s institutions have over the years proven themselves to be resilient but some have argued that the country has not had any President in the mould of Donald Trump who seems determined to have his ways in a monarchical fashion. For instance, one of the first actions of President Trump after his second coming was to fire more than a dozen justice department lawyers who worked on two criminal cases against him. The lawyers were fired after Acting Attorney General James McHenry concluded they could not “be trusted to faithfully implement the president’s agenda because of their significant role in prosecuting the president”. Some have sneered that this sort of vindictiveness is usually associated with the so-called Third World countries. Similarly, the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration — both legal and illegal — has resulted in at least 10 lawsuits, seven of which challenged his Executive Order revoking universal birthright citizenship. There are also litigations on Trump’s Budget Freezes and Firings. The crucial question here is whether American institutions will triumph or whether Trump’s willpower will weaken those institutions to the extent that democracy and the principle of freedom on which America fought and won the Cold War would lose their attractions as organizing elements of American power. If American institutions prevail, it will diminish President Trump’s presidency and his global respectability; if Trump triumphs, it will diminish America’s institutions.

Three, there have been suggestions that many of Trump’s harsh rhetoric, including on the use of tariffs, could be mere brinkmanship. Brinksmanship as a bargaining strategy is usually associated with John Foster Dulles, the US Secretary of State from 1953 to 1956 during the Eisenhower administration. Dulles defined this policy thus:  “The ability to get to the verge without getting into the war is the necessary art.” During the Cold War, it was used as a policy by the United States to coerce the Soviet Union into backing down militarily. Trump has used the threat of tariffs against Canada and Mexico as bargaining chips to get what he probably considers as better deals when these countries countered with their own tariff threats. There are however two main dangers with using brinksmanship as a bargaining strategy – the target state may call the bluff, and if the threatening state is unable to implement its threat, future threats will fail to serve as deterrence to unwanted behaviour. The second danger is that if threats become merely seen as brinksmanship, states will develop counter-strategies that will mute the potency of future threats as bargaining chips. For brinksmanship to work, the threat must be credible. If Trumpism leads to the forging of a new global coalition to stop him from disequilibrating the system, then brinksmanship will lose its shine as a bargaining strategy.

Four, Trumpism could lead to an acceleration in the prestige of institutions such as BRICS whose avowed objectives include the creation of a multipolar world that will either drastically reduce or overthrow the current American-led Western system of global governance and security.  BRIC, as an acronym, was coined in 2001 by then Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O’Neill to underline the growth potentials of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. It became BRICS when South Africa joined the group in 2010. In 2023, six countries – Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia  – were invited to join the group transforming it into  BRICS+. Together, the BRICS countries account for more than 40% of the world’s population and a quarter of the global economy. The 16th Summit of the group held in the Tatarstan city of Kazan, Russia, from  22–24 October, 2024, and themed “Strengthening Multilateralism for Fair Global Development and Security,”  endorsed the reform of the United Nations Security Council. It also agreed to explore the feasibility of creating an autonomous cross-border settlement and depository system (away from the current Western-driven SWIFT system) and the possible utilisation of national currencies, payment tools, and platforms. There were equally proposals for the invigoration of the group’s New Development Bank (NDB), which was established in 2014, with the aim of providing member countries with greater financial autonomy and resilience against external shocks. At the Kazan Summit, the group announced that Nigeria, along with twelve others, had become partner countries to the BRICS+.  The other twelve are: Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

In addition to BRICS, any attempt to acquire or seize Greenland or embark on trade wars with the European Union could potentially turn it into an adversary with shared interest in whittling down America’s power and global influence.  If this happens, the US would be up against a very formidable group of 27 member states with an estimated population of 449 million, an estimated nominal GDP of $19.40 trillion in 2024 or $28.04 trillion (PPP) representing about one-sixth of the global economy.

The EU is often described as a sui generis political entity because it combines the characteristics of both a federation and a confederation. A possible collaboration between BRICS and the European Union would be a frightening scenario for America’s global leadership and influence and could mark the beginning of the end of the American Century.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jideofor Adibe is a Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Nasarawa State University and founder of Adonis & Abbey Publishers (www.adonis-abbey.com). He can be reached at: 0705 807 8841 (WhatsApp and Text messages only).