Samsung Electronics co-CEO Han Jong-Hee died from cardiac arrest on Tuesday, according to a spokesperson for the South Korean tech giant. Han was 63.

Born in 1962, Han had overseen Samsung’s consumer electronics and mobile devices businesses since 2022, according to the company. He was named Samsung Electronics vice chairman and co-CEO in 2022. Han’s co-CEO, Jun Young-Hyun, heads its semiconductor business.

In an internal message seen by CNN, Samsung paid tribute to Han, saying he had dedicated more than 37 years of his life to leading Samsung’s TV business to become a global leader. As the head of its electronics and appliances businesses, he also contributed to the company’s growth amid a “challenging business environment.”

“Our deepest condolences are with his family and loved ones during this difficult time,” the message said.

No announcement has been made about Han’s successor, the spokesperson told CNN.

During an annual meeting with investors last week, which he chaired, Han apologized for the performance of Samsung stock and warned of a difficult 2025 because of uncertainties around the economic policies of major economies, according to Reuters. He added that Samsung would seek “meaningful” mergers and acquisitions deals this year to support the company’s growth.

“There are some difficulties in doing semiconductor M&As due to regulatory issues and various national interests, but we’re determined to produce some tangible results this year,” he was quoted as saying.

Han joined the company in 1988 after earning a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Inha University. Prior to running Samsung’s electronics and devices division, he was in charge of the display operation.

CNN

Ibok-Ete Ibas, the administrator of Rivers state, has appointed Ibibia Lucky Worika, a professor, as secretary to the Rivers state government (SSG). 

In a statement, Ibas said Worika’s appointment takes immediate effect.

“His appointment follows careful consideration of his credentials, extensive experience, and performance during a rigorous selection process,” the statement reads.

“He holds a Ph.D. in International Environmental and Comparative Petroleum Law & Policy from the University of Dundee, United Kingdom, and has served in prestigious roles across academia, international organizations, and government advisory capacities.

“Professor Worika’s appointment reflects the Administrator’s commitment to harnessing the great human capital of the Rivers’ people to work with him to achieve the much-needed Peace, Stability and Security.”

In a separate statement, Ibas announced the resignation of George Nwaeke as head of service (HoS).

“His Excellency, The Administrator appreciates the immense contributions he has shown this administration in the short period he served and wishes him well in his future endeavors,” the statement reads.

“In the interim, Dr Mrs Iyingi Brown, Permanent Secretary Welfare, Office of the Head of Service has been appointed in acting capacity until a new Head of Service is appointed.

“While congratulating her on her appointment, the Administrator assures the people of Rivers State of his commitment to Neutrality, Peace and Stability.”

Ibas was sworn in as administrator by President Bola Tinubu on March 19, following the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers.

[TheCable]

•Kukah, Tambuwal differ  

•Anyaoku warns against military coups in sub-Saharan Africa

•Obi’s aspiration, not democracy, is dead, says Omokri 

•Atiku, others shower praises on Ihedioha at 60

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo and erstwhile governor of Anambra State, Mr. Peter Obi, yesterday, had a very concerning take on democracy in Africa and Nigeria, respectively.

While Obasanjo declared that democracy in Africa was not just failing, but actually dying, attributing the decline to a lack of alignment with African values and realities, Obi concluded that democracy was already collapsing in Nigeria, as successive governments knocked down preceding efforts.

But Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Matthew Kukah, and former governor of Sokoto State, Senator Aminu Tambuwal, differed slightly, saying democracy is work-in-progress.

Former Secretary-general of the Commonwealth of Nations, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, warned that democracy would be in danger in Africa in view of military putsch in some sub-Saharan African countries.

They all spoke at the 60th birthday colloquium for former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha, in Abuja.

Obasanjo questioned whether Africa was truly practising democracy or merely adopting a flawed version of Western liberal democracy.

According to the former president, who was the chairman of the occasion, “If you are talking about democracy failing in Africa, democracy in Africa has failed.

“And why has it failed? Because in context and in content, it is not African. It does not have any aspect of our culture, our way of life, what we stand for, what we believe,

“Are we talking of democracy or are we talking of Western liberal democracy? When we talk of democracy, we should remember that in Africa, before the colonial rule and the colonial power, we had a form of government, which attended to the needs of our people.

“And whatever you call it, to me, it is democracy. Because what is democracy about? The American President Abraham Lincoln defined it as government of the people, by the people, for the people.

“Democracy is meant to be a system of government that delivers and delivers to all the people, not just a section of the people, not just a few. But what do we have today?

“I believe since we’ve gone past the Greek democracy, which brought everybody to the square and everybody has a say in the decision making, which affected everybody, democracy has now become representative democracy and representative democracy has not taken care of everybody.”

Obasanjo argued that Africa had its own governance systems before colonial rule, which better served its people.

He criticised the current system, saying it enables leaders to “grab everything illegally and corruptly” while telling the people to “go to court,” even when justice is unattainable.

Obasanjo advocated an “Afro Democracy” for Africans, saying the Western style is not working.

He stated, “Today, we have democracy, which is government of small number of people, by small number of people over large number of people, who are deprived of what they need to have in life. That is not democracy that will endure.

“It is, I am because I can grab. What sort of democracy brings you and you grab everything and then illegally, corruptly and you say, go to court? When you know that even in the court, you cannot get justice.

“It’s not that democracy is failing, democracy is dying and if we are going to make democracy not to die, we have to look at democracy in the context and in the content of Africa. I hope that we will get to that stage so that democracy, which will deliver, will be the democracy that we will have in Africa.”

Advancing a similar position, but tailored to the Nigerian context, Obi concluded that democracy in Nigeria had begun to collapse because successive governments knocked down efforts of the previous administrations.

He stated, “Well, if you look at what Bishop Kukah said, he said it’s work-in-progress. Let me follow what my brother (Tambuwal) said about 1999.

“If you looked at where we are today, it’s like, they (the PDP) started in 1999, laid the foundation. Some people came and took it to decking, and some people were trying to take it to the first floor, when some people came and knocked everything down.

‘’That is the situation we are now. Everything has been knocked down and nothing works. I am somebody who can say this, exemplarily. I became a governor through the courts, when President Obasanjo and Atiku were in government.

“I did not pay the court one naira. I was sitting in my office and the court declared me winner, when a governor was not seeing them. This cannot happen in Nigeria, today.

“When I was being impeached, the president sent people to come and intervene on my behalf. Ken Nnamani came, begging the house people not to impeach me. Today, the president impeaches the person. So, that is the thing. It has collapsed. It has failed.

‘’They were begging my house not to impeach me. And they were in the PDP and I was in AGPA and they were begging. President Obasanjo was calling and said, Peter, are you okay? Are you safe?

‘’When I got back from the court, and the court eventually declared me, under Andy Ubah. President Yar’Adua called my phone in London and said congrats. I said I can’t come back, because you know if I come back, these people…

“He said, tell me the flight in which you’re coming and I told him. When I came, it was the first time the military people came to receive me at the airport. I couldn’t believe it, and took me straight to him.

‘’Now, the president will ask me not to come back here again! So, it has failed. Let’s talk about how we are going to rebuild it. It is collapsing!”

Meanwhile, the Obi, faulted the release of withheld federation allocations to Ibok-Ete Ibas, the sole administrator of Rivers.

In a post published via X yesterday, Obi said the move raised “serious moral questions”, adding that the decision to release the withheld funds to the sole administrator did not align with the judgment of the supreme court.

The ex-presidential candidate said the supreme court ruled that the withheld funds should be released to the state after a properly constituted house of assembly passed the appropriation bill.

“What we are witnessing in Rivers State is a brazen disobedience and disregard for the rule of law and our democratic principles.

“The decision to release statutory allocations to an appointed Sole Administrator, despite a standing order of the Supreme Court, is not just unlawful — it is a direct challenge to the authority of the highest court of our country.

“The Supreme Court had explicitly barred the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF) from releasing these funds until a properly constituted House of Assembly passes a valid Appropriation Act.

“Yet, we see a situation where this order is being ignored. This raises serious moral intentions, and questions of what is happening in Rivers State. By disregarding the judgment of the Supreme Court, those involved are setting a dangerous precedent.

“The CBN and AGF, institutions meant to uphold the law, should not be complicit in this disregard for our judiciary. We cannot build a nation where those who swore oaths to uphold our constitution and obey the laws are doing the opposite.

“This is about more than just Rivers State; it is about protecting the very fabric of our democracy, and our existence as a nation.”

Taking a different position on the failure of democracy, however, Kukah said, “Democracy is work-in-progress. Democracy gives you the opportunity to try if you failed and gives you greater opportunity to correct the former mistakes.”

He explained that in Africa, the capacities and competencies of Africa leaders differed, but the good thing was that democracy gave one the ability to correct mistakes made.

He said the American constitution had several amendments because there was no perfection in life.

‘’The American constitution was first written in mind to protect the white property,’’ he said.

Kukah said that was why there were several amendments of the American constitution.

He maintained that democracy was quarrelsome in nature, but said how the quarrels were managed mattered, stressing, ‘’Democracy is for the good of the people, as it has helped to destroy feudal system of government all over the world.”

The Catholic Bishop of Sokoto urged people to understand the background of writings of famous Englishman, John Locke, in his various thesis on democracy.

He said, ‘’John Locke wrote his thesis stemming from the background of fear as was in those days.”

Supporting him, Tambuwal stated that democracy was not failing in Africa, as it was an ongoing process

‘’When we play by the rules, democracy works. Democracy is work-in-progress,” he said.

Commenting on the senate resolution on the declaration of state of emergency in Rivers State, he said due process was not followed because the required two-thirds majority of the senate was not achieved.

‘’Under President Olusegun Obasanjo, state of emergency was declared in some states and the National Assembly did the necessary affirmation of the processes with the required two-thirds majority, with members voting to affirm the process,” he said.

In his comments, Chairman of THISDAY Editorial Board, Mr. Segun Adeniyi, said democracy was a process meant to serve the people, but the problem was with the operators.

‘’The challenge is how do we ensure that the operators of democratic processes play by the rule?” he stated.

Warning that the recent military coups in some sub-Saharan Africa countries should be a source of worry to all democracy enthusiasts, Anyaoku said such military coups were bound to take Africa back to the days of the 1960s, where military rule were the other of the day.

He took time to explain how he used his office as Secretary-general of the Commonwealth to ensure the return of multi-party democracy in some African countries, like Kenya and South Africa.

Anyaoku called for the review of the 1999 Constitution to ensure proper management of diversity and true federalism in Nigeria.

‘’There is the need to amend the 1999 Constitution to guarantee the management of diversity in Nigeria,” he said.

But a former presidential spokesperson, Reno Omokri, declined submissions that democracy had collapsed or died in Nigeria. Rather, he said, it was Peter Obi’s presidential ambition that died.

He said, “Peter Obi should be careful making claims that democracy has collapsed in Nigeria. That is a most irresponsible statement. Peter Obi lost the #NigerianElections2023 fairly and squarely.

“He lost at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal and all the way to the Supreme Court. The state of emergency declared on Rivers and Governor Simi Fubara’s suspension is not anti-democratic.”

Reno, a big supporter of the President Bola Tinubu administration, added, “Peter Obi is from Anambra. We remember when the governor of Anambra was undemocratically removed even after swearing an oath to his godfather at the Okija shrine and locked up in a toilet. If democracy did not die then, why should it die now, Peter?

“Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa declared a State of Emergency in the Western Region on May 29, 1962, and suspended the Premier while appointing Dr. Moses Majekodunmi as the Administrator of the region.

“On May 18, 2004, President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a State of Emergency in Plateau State, suspended the Governor, his deputy, and the State House of Assembly, and appointed Major General (rtd) Chris Ali as the Administrator.

“On October 18, 2006, he did the same thing in Ekiti and appointed Brigadier General Tunde Olurin as the Administrator. Incidentally, Peter Obi was Governor of Anambra State at that time and did not raise any concerns or complaints.

“So, why has democracy suddenly died now that a State of Emergency has been declared in Rivers State and Governor Simi Fubara is suspended?

“The only difference is that now Peter Obi wants to be President. Since he can’t be President, seeing as he lost the 2023 elections and their so-called coalition is dead on arrival, that means that to him, democracy in Nigeria is dead.

“Interestingly, Peter Obi did not hold local government elections in Anambra for seven years, which was unconstitutional. He became Governor in 2006 and only held elections in 2014. Whereas LGA elections are to be held every four years.

“Yet, here he is today, saying democracy in Nigeria has died. This is about Peter Obi and his failed presidential ambition, which died the day his Yes Daddy audio threatening ‘Religious War’ on Muslims was leaked, not about Nigeria.”

Meanwhile, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, and several others eulogised Ihedioha as a focused and determined politician.

The occasion was witnessed by former National Chairman of PDP, Chief Uche Secondus; former governors, like Chibuike Amaechi, Aminu Asari, Kayode Fayemi, and former Senate Presidents, like David Mark, Ken Nnamani, and Adolphus Wabara.

Former speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Dimeji Bankole and current Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, among several other well-wishers, were also present.

[ThisDay]

Affirmative Action refers to proactive measures taken by organisations or governments to ensure equal opportunity for historically marginalised groups. It aims to address past and present discrimination by implementing policies that promote diversity and inclusion… - The Oxford Review

The saying: “What a man can do, a woman can do better,” may be considered a cliché. But Namibia is set to prove doubters wrong, at least as far as gender mainstreaming is concerned.

Namibia’s newly elected President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah was sworn in as the country’s first female president on Friday 22nd March 2025, with fellow women Lucia Witbooi as Vice President and Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila as Speaker of the National Assembly - to complete the female triumvirate that will pilot the affairs of state in a largely patriarchal African continent.

Kuugongelwa-Amadhila is the first woman to hold the position of the third most powerful citizen in Namibia, next to President Nandi-Ndaitwah and her deputy, Witbooi, the second woman to serve as the country’s vice President.

As if this were not enough, Nandi-Ndaitwah’s 14-member cabinet has eight women.

The unprecedented gender shift followed the death of President Hage Geingob, whom Nandi-Ndaitwah succeeded on 24th February 2025.

A popular gender activist herself, Nandi-Ndaitwah, 72, however, believes that ability is critical to effective performance in leadership positions.

“As women, we should not ask to be elected to positions of responsibility because we are women, but because we are capable members of our societies to hold those positions,” she affirmed.

Addressing parliament after her inauguration, she reminded the MPs that while they might have been “elected on the tickets of our respective political parties, we have assumed the responsibility to represent all Namibian people without any discrimination.”

“The task facing me as the fifth president of the Republic of Namibia is to preserve the gains of our independence on all fronts and to ensure that the unfinished agenda of economic and social advancement of our people is carried forward with vigour and determination to bring about shared, balanced prosperity for all,” the new president pledged.

President Nandi-Ndaitwah's major decisions since her inauguration include reducing the Cabinet size from 21 to 14 and restructuring government ministries and agencies.

Erica Shafudah is named Minister of Finance, Lucia Iipumbu, Minister of Home Affairs, Immigration, Safety, and Security, and Selma Ashipala-Musavyi, International Relations. The three are women.

Elijah Ngurare is the new Prime Minister, while Natangwe Ithete, also a man, will serve as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Mines and Energy.

Under the new government structure, the oil and gas sectors are now under the Office of the President, and the Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation will handle the trade portfolio, to strengthen economic diplomacy.

Describing poverty eradication as cross-cutting, President Nandi-Ndaitwah, daughter of a clergyman, directed all government ministries to implement programmes to support socio-economic development.

Responsibilities for disabled persons and marginalised groups now fall under the Office of the vice-President and Labour Relations are to be handled by the Justice Ministry and a yet-to-be-named public entity will manage government properties and assets.

Social Grants will move to the Ministry of Finance and Public Enterprises, while the Fisheries and Marine Resources Ministry is to merge with the Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Land Reform.

The Education Ministry will also oversee Arts, Sport, and Culture, and the Ministry of Industrialisation is combined with the Ministry of Mines and Energy to boost industrial growth, especially in mining.

President Nandi-Ndaitwah, nicknamed “NNN,” an MP since Namibia’s independence in 1990, became politically active at age 14. She became the leader of the Youth Wing of the Southwest Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO), which led the struggle for the country's liberation from apartheid South Africa.

Nandi-Ndaitwal was Namibia’s National Women's Organisation (NANAWO) president from 1991 to 1994 and became SWAPO President in 2024.

In 1973, she was forced into political exile in neighbouring Zambia and proceeded to then-Soviet Union and later the United Kingdom, to continue her education in public administration and management.

In 1988, Nandi-Ndaitwah obtained a post-graduate diploma in International Relations from Keele University, UK, and a master's degree in diplomatic studies from the same University.

She became Namibia’s third vice-President under President Nangolo Mbumba from 2024 to 2025 after serving as Deputy Prime Minister from 2015 to 2024 and Minister of Foreign Affairs, later renamed International Relations and Cooperation Ministry from 2012 to 2015, and Minister of Environment and Tourism from 2010 to 2012.

Nandi-Ndaitwah served as Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation from 1990 to 1996, later Director-General of Women's Affairs in the Office of the President, until 2000 when she was promoted to Minister of Women’s Affairs and Child Welfare.

She was SWAPO’s Deputy Representative in Zambia, from 1976 to 1978, Chief Representative in Zambia from 1978 to 1980, and from 1980 to 1986, the SWAPO Chief Representative in East Africa, based in the Zambian capital, Dar es Salaam.

In 2017, Nandi-Ndaitwah was elected SWAPO’s vice-president, the first woman in that capacity.

Under President Geingob, Nandi-Ndaitwah was Deputy Prime Minister from March 2015, and she combined that role with that of the International Relations and Cooperation portfolio and SWAPO’s Secretary for Information and Mobilisation, making her the party’s main spokesperson.

In March 2023, President Geingob named her, SWAPO's presidential candidate in the 2024 Namibian general elections.

On 3 December 2024, Nandi-Ndaitwah was officially declared the President-elect with 58.7% of the vote, defeating two political rivals Panduleni Itula and McHenry Venaani.

She is Africa’s fourth female President following in the footsteps of Liberia’s Nobel Laureate Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Joyce Banda of Malawi and Samia Suluhu Hassan of Tanzania.

Her victory extends SWAPO’s 35-year hold on power in Namibia, whose founding/liberation President Sam Nujoma died earlier this year at age 95.

Nandi-Ndaitwah succeeded Nangolo Mbumba, who stood in as president from February 2024 following the death of President Geingob, which led to her promotion to vice-President.

Married to Namibia’s former Chief of Defence Force, retired Lt.-Gen. Epaphras Denga Ndaitwah, the new president and her women-dominated administration face the challenge of proving that beyond their exemplary roles as home builders and resource managers, women can also out-perform their male counterparts in political governance.

Namibia's 1325 National Action Plans  (NAP), builds on the country’s National Gender Policy, developed as complementary to other mechanisms and frameworks to advance women’s rights. The overarching goal of the NAP is to create “a safe and peaceful Namibia where all women, men, girls and boys have equal rights and live without fear or want and in dignity”

Namibia is expected to address other aspects of inclusiveness in governance to involve Persons with Disability (PWDs) and other marginalised groups.

But from the composition of Nandi-Ndaitwah’s cabinet, the Southern African nation with a relatively small population estimated at three million is making a strong statement to bigger countries in the advanced and developing World about the values and merits of diversity and Affirmative action.

Equal treatment of, and opportunities to persons irrespective of gender, race, religion, tribe/ethnic considerations, appearance or social standing will not only engender peaceful co-existence but also promote human development and progress.

Paul Ejime is a Media and Communications Specialist and Global Affairs Analyst

Solid core earnings drive growth in profitability and returns.

Africa’s Global Bank, United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc, has released its audited financial results for the full year ended December 31, 2024, with all its major indicators witnessing significant improvement.

The 2024 financials, filed with the Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGx) on Monday, showed an impressive rise in the bank’s profit after tax which went up by 26.14 percent to close the year at N766.6 billion, up from N607.7 billion recorded at the end of the 2023 fiscal year.

The Bank’s gross earnings also grew significantly from N2.08tn recorded at the end of the 2023 financial year to N3.19tn in the period under consideration, representing a 53.6 percent growth.

Like in the previous years, the banks’ total assets also rose remarkably by 46.8 percent, from N20.65 trillion in 2023, to close at N30.4 trillion in December 2024; signifying a milestone leap for the bank with the largest spread across the continent.

Despite the highly challenging global economic and business environment, UBA recorded a profit before tax of N803.72 billion representing a 6.1 percent increase from N757.68 billion recorded at the end of the 2023 financial year.

Consequently, UBA Group Shareholders’ Funds rose from N2.030 trillion as at December 2023 to close the 2024 financial year at N3.419 trillion, achieving an impressive growth of 68.39 percent.

As a result of the impressive performance and in fulfilment of the promise made by the UBA Group Chairman, Tony Elumelu, to shareholders at the last Annual General Meeting, the Bank proposed a final dividend of N3.00 kobo for every ordinary share of 50 kobo, for the financial year ended December 31, 2024. This brings the total dividend in the year to N5.00. The final dividend is subject to the ratification of the shareholders during its upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM).

UBA’s Group Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Oliver Alawuba, who expressed excitement at the results, stated that the 2024 financial performance demonstrates the bank’s continued focus on driving earnings growth, preserving asset quality, expanding business operations and deepening market share.

“Our continued investment in our highly diversified global network allows UBA to deliver high quality, consistent earnings. Our businesses have been able to grow product and service income and expand our deposit base, allowing the Group to increase earnings, while maintaining strong spreads and margins,” Alawuba highlighted.

According to him, “With total deposit increasing by 42.03 percent from N17.4 trillion in 2023 to N24.7 trillion and total assets hitting N30.4 trillion from N20.7 trillion, the just released results reflect broad-based growth across all core businesses and were achieved despite prevailing macroeconomic challenges, geopolitical uncertainties, and exchange rate volatilities.”

The GMD expressed excitement at the marked improvement recorded in the bank’s core earnings profile, as he explained that the profit is derived from high-quality income streams from funding intermediation, fees and commissions, thus reflecting strong long-term, sustainable revenues generation capacity.

“Our ex-Nigeria (Rest of Africa & International) operations have expanded significantly over the past five years, now contributing 51.7% of Group revenue, up from 31% in 2019, delivering diversification benefits and further boosting long-term shareholder value. This will continue to grow, as we further explore strategic markets that align with our overall vision. We are currently upgrading our business scope and authorization in France, and considering other viable markets in the short to medium term,” Alawuba noted.

He pointed out the bank’s resolve to invest continuously in technology, data analytics, product innovation, staff training and development, which, according to him, will collectively enhance our customers’ experience.

On his part, UBA’s Executive Director, Finance & Risk Management, Ugo Nwaghodoh, said the bank recorded triple digit growth in net interest income, resulting in remarkable improvement in net interest margin from 6.83 percent in 2023 to 9.02 percent, while also recording strong double-digit growth in fee and commission income lines of 91.66 percent.

“UBA Group continues to demonstrate strong capital levels, with shareholders' funds growth of 68.4% to N3.42 trillion and a solid capital adequacy ratio of 31.0%., and as we defensibly position the portfolio to navigate prevailing global and regional macroeconomic upheavals, asset quality improved, with NPL ratio moderating to 5.58%, with strong provision coverage at 81%”, Nwaghodoh noted.

He explained that as the bank navigates evolving risks, its management remains focused on responsible growth, delivering customer-focused value propositions, whilst ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements in all jurisdictions.

United Bank for Africa is one of the largest employers in the financial sector on the African continent, with 25,000 employees group wide and serving over 45 million customers globally. Operating in twenty African countries and the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France and the United Arab Emirates, UBA provides retail, commercial and institutional banking services, leading financial inclusion and implementing cutting edge technology.

Imagine a Rivers State where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu hesitated to declare a state of emergency. The political standoff between the State Assembly and Governor Siminalayi Fubara could have continued and degenerated into violence. Impeachment threats might have spurred attacks on lawmakers by the Governor’s supporters, while militants in the creeks—primed to sabotage critical oil infrastructure—could have plunged Nigeria’s oil production back to pre-2023 lows. Sensational reporting of the crisis by journalists and opportunistic litigation would have inflamed tensions further, paralysing governance and risking lives. Schools and hospitals would shutter; investors would flee. We can only imagine the human and economic toll.

Thanks to the President’s intervention, Rivers State can breathe again today. Political tensions have eased, banal headlines have quietened, and stakeholders—encouraged by the newly appointed administrator—are charting a path to lasting peace. Critics who argue the crisis “did not yet warrant” an emergency rule ignore a stark truth: waiting for the breakdown of law and order to escalate into anarchy before acting is like withholding firefighters until a house burns to ashes. 

A responsible leader like President Tinubu, who swore an oath to protect the constitution and corporate existence of the country, can not fail to act when a constituent part of the Federation is careering towards the precipice. The political crisis in Rivers State between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and members of the State House of Assembly who owe allegiance to the Minister of Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, that blew open barely six months into the administration of the Governor has degenerated by 18 March. A chain of events since the war of attrition started 14 months ago among the combatants had indeed paralysed the government of Rivers State to the point where Fubara, copying from the bad book of former Governor Obaseki in Edo, emasculated an arm of government entirely. This reality informed the Supreme Court’s damning verdict about the absence of government in the State as enshrined in the 1999 constitution of Nigeria, as amended. The court also excoriated Fubara for acting like a despot.

Rivers was in a grave situation, as the combatants refused to allow reason to prevail, even after the Supreme Court judgment,  before President Tinubu declared a state of emergency on 18 March. The President took action in the best interest of the people of the State, who had become victims of the warring politicians, the people they elected to serve them. President Tinubu needed to act. He chose prevention over cure.

Section 305 of Nigeria’s Constitution empowers the President to act when the nation faces a breakdown of law, order, and economic security —precisely the case in Rivers, a bastion of Nigeria’s oil-dependent economy. Intelligence confirmed militants, told by Fubara to await signals, were already targeting pipelines, risking a collapse in output and a Niger-Delta domino effect. Historical precedents, such as the past emergencies in Plateau and Borno and the doctrine of necessity, support the President’s proactive measures to avert disaster. The President’s oath demands he must not fail in his sacred duty to safeguard national stability, not watch idly as partisan strife strangles our democracy and the material well-being of Nigerians, whose prosperity depends on the social and economic interdependence of every part of the country. Rivers State is a significant hydrocarbon economic artery in Nigeria, and any dislocation and politically motivated disruption of the State’s oil industry have ripple effects on the national economy.

Answering the Critics: 

Critics claim the emergency rule in Rivers undermines democracy. Their position misrepresents reality. The intervention is temporary, surgical, and aimed at restoring—not replacing—democratic institutions. The suspension of political actors for six months is no power grab; it is not a permanent removal but a reset to disarm warring factions. Notably, the same critics who assailed the President’s action for suspending the political actors remain silent on Governor Fubara’s refusal to collaborate with the legislature, exposing their partisan bias. Democracy can not thrive amid lawlessness—anarchy is its antithesis.

The appointed administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok Ibas (Rtd.), has already convened a meeting with traditional leaders,  one of his first steps to forge lasting solutions. This intervention ensures Rivers’ people retain their democratic rights while shielding the Nigerian and Rivers State economies from collapse. It is worth repeating that President Tinubu acted within the law and his executive powers under the constitution until the  Supreme Court says otherwise. 

President Tinubu and the National Assembly remain committed to lifting the emergency once stability returns and ensuring elected officials resume their duties.

The 18th-century English philosopher Edmund Burke once warned, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” President Tinubu chose courage over complacency. His action prioritised Nigeria’s interest over political expediency, averting a more profound crisis. To those who brand him a democrat turned “tyrant,” my response to them is simple:  Which democracy prospers in chaos? Rivers’ newfound calm vindicates President Tinubu’s resolve. He deserves commendation, not condemnation, not calumny for his statesmanship. Rivers and Nigeria are safer for it.

-Onanuga is the Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Information and Strategy

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”

– Gideon J. Tucker

A Governor Bola Tinubu of Lagos would not vacate his seat for anyone appointed illegally from Abuja – or from anywhere. If the heavens wanted to fall, he would ask them to fall. He would not go hide somewhere in his wife’s handbag, and from the safety of his ghetto be issuing gutless press releases. If Abuja insisted on his suspension, he would mobilise the law and lawyers for eruptions of seismic proportions. He would ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the president could sack or suspend elected governors, appoint caretaker governors and take over the role of state Houses of Assembly. He would ask the apex court to reconcile this case with its earlier verdict which outlawed caretaker governments for one of our tiers of government. He would put everything he had into the mix; he would count the teeth of the tiger in Abuja. But Rivers is not Lagos, and Siminalayi Fubara is not Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The difference between both is the difference between courage and cowardice.

Until Saturday when he spoke on the Rivers State problem, ex-President Goodluck Jonathan walked the terrace of power with utmost carefulness. He avoided speaking truth to power the way the barefooted avoids walking a floor of broken glass. But on Saturday, he came out of his zone of reticence, and dared the dark, dangerous sherds of impunity. Jonathan spoke following President Bola Tinubu’s deployment of a Supreme Court judgment to meddle with and seize control of the nuts and bolts of our federation. In a fit of daring, calculative move for political advantage, Tinubu suspended democracy on a floor of the structure. And days after the act, without a whim of resistance, he got legislative approval for the mess. He left no one in doubt that all the powers and principalities of this realm are with him and that they work for him. 

The three arms of government in Nigeria have become a triangular cult of iniquity. If the executive is after you, the other two quickly join in the clobbering. Jonathan identified the spring head of the problem. He saw: “a clear abuse of office, clear abuse of power, clear abuse of privileges, cutting across the three arms of government — from the executive through the parliament and to the judiciary.” Now, when those three institutions of democracy become citadels of abuse, what remains and what is next for us?

Yesterday, 23 March, 2025, was the 92nd anniversary of the enactment of Germany’s Enabling Act which gave Adolf Hitler the power to make laws without parliamentary approval. 

Nazi Germany had a parliament known as the Reichstag. The decay and destruction of that institution started in very innocuous bits, very small. It took off by saying yes to everything the leader did or took before it. The parliament members, incrementally, thought the leader deserved not their check, but their cheeks. Reichstag began its descent and quickened its suicide by enacting laws without any real debate or opposition. Then it took many other self-destruct steps; the climax came on 23 March, 1933, when Reichstag passed the historic Enabling Act transferring its powers and functions to the head of the executive. 

In this Rivers matter, the Supreme Court cast the foundation, the president laid the blocks, the legislature roofed the edifice of an emerging autocracy. Jonathan spoke on the executive dictating judgments to judges. He described Nigeria as a country where “government functionaries can dictate to judges what judgment they will give.” That was a huge one. We expect a reaction or denial from the judiciary now or never. The ex-president also spoke on the operatives of the three branches of government not giving a damn as the country burned. He said they were feigning sleep while a flood of badness swept through the land. What he spoke on was the treachery of the judiciary and the perfidy of the legislature, both of which act as palace courtiers, and as whores of benefit who have surrendered their functions, power and glory to the president. 

Checks and balances. How often do we ask what they are and why they are at the core of this democracy? Destruction of checks and balances creates excesses that take rest of mind away from the society. Absolute power creates all the antonyms of peace and stability. It makes the nation the ultimate sick man on a roller coaster. It was exactly so for Hitler and his Germany. The Nazi leader, on 23 March, 1933, got the powers to make laws. The ease with which he got it made him think it was time for further consolidation. Thus, on 7 April, 1933, the leader put officials of his political party in charge of all local governments. On 14 July, 1933, Reichstag became a one-party parliament. January 1934, the ruling party took over all state governments. On 19 August, 1934, the leader announced himself president, chancellor and head of the army. The Fuhrer was born! 

Our National Assembly would act Reichstag if it had not done so already. It spent the whole of last weekend denying taking bribes to approve the president’s illegal suspension of democracy in Rivers State. Our multi party Senate has 109 members; the House of Representatives has 360, elected from various parties. Yet, on a very critical day last week, members of the parliament collapsed their structures into a single party; they endorsed illegality with a single voice. The president suspended democracy, appointed and swore in a viceroy to serve as governor. He declared a state of emergency without parliament’s prior approval. He usurped the powers of the legislators and the legislators endorsed the usurpation without following the law. They used voice votes to announce that he was right! 

Treachery has no other definition. What does it cost a leader to be told the truth? President Bola Tinubu himself called for truth two weeks ago. He told Catholic Bishops who paid him a visit that they should tell him the truth whenever he was missing the way: “I’m here open to you, ready to listen…I won’t shut my door,” he said. But he made that request to the wrong audience. The right audience for that demand is the National Assembly, a conglomerate of dank agents. They are his enemy. He also acts his own enemy, redacting his own records of resistance and activism. 

Abuse of any power will happen where there are no checks. With the help of the legislature and the judiciary, Prime Minister Balewa abused the emergency law of his time. Olusegun Obasanjo did same. And, despite all the political and legal repercussions of what Balewa and Obasanjo did, Tinubu learnt nothing and has also done it. He now sits back, watches and smiles as we fret. 

The president and all who cheer him would remember that this presidential democracy is not our creation. We copied it from America. And if they agree that we copied this system from the US, have they ever found out why an American president has never tried to suspend or remove a state governor under any pretext, including under emergencies which are provided for under their own laws? It is because US governors are not boys of the president, and both sides know this to be legally and historically correct. 

Where the law is allowed to work, there are always consequences for aberrant behaviour. Whatever is happening in Donald Trump’s America today, the fact is that the US Congress had historically managed to contain the excesses of presidents who thought they were king. I cite an example:

President Andrew Johnson took over as US president following the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln. But Johnson does not enjoy as much favours of history as Lincoln does. Why? 

President Johnson ran into problems because of his Kabiyesi stance on procedural and constitutional issues. On August 5, 1867, Johnson asked Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton to resign because the secretary disagreed with him over Reconstruction plans. The man refused to resign. The president gave him a week of grace, the man remained recalcitrant; then the president suspended him on August 12 without the approval of the Congress. 

Four months after that act (December 12), the president submitted his reasons for suspending Secretary Stanton to the Senate. On January 13, 1868, Senate refused to approve Johnson’s suspension of Stanton. The following day, the man who had been acting as Interim Secretary of War, Ulysses S. Grant, informed President Johnson that in view of Senate’s decision, he was vacating his post for the rightful owner, Stanton. He left.

Stubborn President Johnson, on February 21, 1868 in gross violation of the Tenure of Office Act, formally removed Stanton and gave the control of the War Department to General Lorenzo Thomas. With the law behind him, sacked Stanton glared down President Johnson’s decision. For the next two months, he stayed put, he slept and woke up (holed up) in his cabinet office, barricading himself in there.

The US Congress watched with consternation as the president usurped its powers. It saw what the president did as a blatant violation of the Tenure of Office Act. It proceeded to commence an impeachment process against the Commander-in-Chief. On February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives voted 126-47 to impeach Johnson. 

On March 5, 1868, the Senate began its impeachment trial with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. On May 16, 1868, the Senate voted 35-19 to convict President Johnson. The figure was, however, one vote short of the necessary two-third majority to get the man sacked. On May 26, 1868, the Senate gave the president a reprieve, it voted to acquit the president on two of the charges. It then adjourned and never voted on the remaining eight articles of impeachment. 

Johnson escaped sack but the damage had been done. It was effectively the ‘end’ of Johnson as president. He never recovered. 

On 11 July, 2024, Nigeria’s Supreme Court declared that state governors had no power to sack elected local government chairmen and councilors and constitute caretaker committees to run the local governments. The court further declared that a local government council was only recognisable with a democratically elected government.

“A democratically elected local government is sacrosanct and non-negotiable,’’ the apex court declared. 

The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who was the plaintiff in that case saluted the Supreme Court for delivering justice. He said the judgment had effectively ended the practice of governors replacing democracy with autocracy by wantonly sacking elected council bosses and replacing them with unelected caretaker committees. 

On Wednesday, 19 March, 2025, the same Fagbemi addressed a press conference in Abuja endorsing President Bola Tinubu’s appointment of a caretaker governor for Rivers State and the suspension of democratic structures there. “A lawyer’s truth is not the truth” (David Henry Thoreau). 

Fagbemi is supposed to know (and he knows) that there is nothing like ‘suspension’ of governor or ‘suspension’ of the legislature in our constitution which governs all other laws and everything about our democracy. But he went further to threaten other governors with the fate of Fubara. He hinted them not to dare dare his boss: “It is Rivers State’s turn today, it can be anybody’s turn tomorrow, let the signal be clearly sent to those who want to foment trouble, who want to make the practice of democracy and the enjoyment of dividends of democracy a mirage to think twice.” In other words, when you slaughter a goat in the presence of another goat, the living will be sober; it will behave well. 

But wait. If the emergency rule is declared by the president over the whole country, will he appoint himself sole administrator and suspend the National Assembly? Or who rules? 

To Nigeria’s chief law officer, under an emergency rule, the president can become the electorate deciding who governs and who ceases to govern. He can also be the people of any or all the states; voters in INEC registers would become Shakespeare’s “blocks, stones …worse than senseless things.” 

From the courts to the president’s office to the office of the Attorney-General, to the parliament, we could see the futility in hoping for acting right and talking straight. An incestuous triangle of the three arms or what David Wyatt called a “tyrannizing unity” of the powers, reigns. 

Their ways remind us of a favourite passage in Jonathan Swift’s ‘Gulliver’s Travels’: “You have clearly proved that ignorance, idleness, and vice are the proper ingredients for qualifying a legislator. That laws are best explained, interpreted, and applied by those whose interest and abilities lie in perverting, confounding, and eluding them.”

Emergency rule started in Rome around the 3rd century BC. The Romans used the law to create what they called ‘office of the dictator’ to solve specific public (safety) problems. They had two main categories of such. The first they named the dictatura rei gerundae causa (dictatorship for getting things done). The second was dictatura seditionis sedandae causa (dictatorship for suppressing civil insurrection). The Romans did not, however, create the emergency rules and laws for free roamers to exploit. They limited the dictators’ term to six months. They also struggled to contain abuse of their powers. But, apparently because of abuses such as we saw last week in Nigeria, the Roman senate took direct control of resolving crises. It replaced the office of dictator with what was called ‘Ultimate Decree of the Senate’ (senatus consultum ultimum). The present controversy presents us an opportunity to also rethink our emergency law and everything connected with it.

Strong, uncontrollable leaders always put their nations in trouble. Keeping quiet, excusing their excesses or enabling their illegality put everyone in danger. Where big men reign above the law and below decency, people pay for what they did not buy. Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini was created and nurtured by a culture of acquisence. His appointment as Prime Minister in 1922 was approved despite his party holding only 35 seats out of 535 in the parliament. With intimidation and harassment of voters, his party pushed up its figure to 374 seats in the April 1924 election. In January 1925, Mussolini, right inside the parliament, declared himself dictator. The legislators heard him and applauded him. They proceeded to grant him more powers. They passed laws that dissolved opposition parties and shut down free press. Mussolini dismantled democratic institutions that won’t let him breathe and emit fire. He got the constitutionally recognised Chamber of Deputies, Italy’s equivalent of our House of Representatives, replaced by something called the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations, a body controlled by his Fascist Party. He made the parliament in his image transforming it for his use in outlawing the opposition and the law.

The National Assembly that sat last week in Abuja may go that way unless Kabiyesi, our president, does not want it to.

•NNPP yet to decide on alliance —National publicity secretary

THE Patriots, a body of elder statesmen and leaders of thought in the country, at the weekend, explained why it could not be part of the ongoing efforts by some opposition politicians that unveiled a coalition to challenge President Bola Tinubu in the All progressives Congress (APC) in the 2027 presidency.

The organisation spoke against the backdrop of the unveiling of the coalition in Abuja last week by former vice president and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the 2023 election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. 

Other prominent politicians who attended the conference included the immediate past governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachair Lawal.

In an interaction with the Nigerian Tribune at the weekend, the Secretary General of The Patriots, Comrade Olawale Okunniyi said there was no relationship between The Patriots Organisation on formed by the opposition politicians.

He said the leaders of The Patriots were preoccupied with “bringing about a new Nigeria that works for all as a pan-Nigerian organisation.

According to Olawale, The Patriots, under the leadership of a former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, had succeeded in getting the buy-in of other stakeholders on the advocacy for a constitution that would reflect the wishes and aspirations of the diverse people of Nigeria.

In October last year, The Patriots inaugurated Zonal Advocacy Committees across the six geo-political zones to collect the inputs of stakeholders towards the actualisation of what the group called a People’s Constitution for the country.

The national chairman of Patriots’ Strategy and Advocacy Committee on constitutional reform of Nigeria, Professor Anthony Kila and the national secretary of the committee, Dr Bilikisu Magoro, had explained that the political reform advocacy was devolved to the zones, with members from each state and diverse groups in Nigeria.

Comrade Okunniyi referenced the setting up of the zonal committee while speaking to the Nigerian Tribune on the formation of the coalition by the opposition politicians ahead 2027, stressing that The Patriots remained focus on its strategic aim of bringing about a new Nigeria.

 “The Advocacy and Mobilisation Committee of The Patriots have already enlisted the commitment of formidable voices in the six geo political zones of Nigeria to mobilise critical stakeholders and the general public to buy into the longstanding advocacy in Nigeria for a new democratic people’s Constitution for Nigeria towards resolving Nigeria’s national democratic and constitutional challenges

“To this end, Zonal Advocacy Committees have been constituted and inaugurated in the six geo-political zones since November last year and these have been holding strategy and consultative meetings and now rearing to launch nationwide outreaches in April this year

“However, the new coalition of opposition forces has no relationship with the Patriots as the Patriots as a body of eminent Nigerians, is a non-partisan, pan-Nigerian intervention group of eminent leaders of thought, statesmen and women, who are only committed to bringing about a new Nigeria that works for all via a popularly agreed Constitution by the diverse stakeholders and citizens of Nigeria. So the Patriots as a group will never entertain or embrace partisan politics.”

While inaugurating the People’s Constitution Strategy and Advocacy Committee of The Patriots in August, the Chairman of The Patriots, Chief Emeka Anyaoku (former secretary general of the Commonwealth of Nations) stated that the Advocacy Team Co-Chaired by Senator Shehu Sanni would be reaching out to various sectors of the peoples and citizens of Nigeria for buy-in and support towards actualising a new democratic people’s Constitution for Nigeria as

It would be recalled that The Patriots had earlier visited President Bola Tinubu to make a firm case for a legitimate federal constitution that can make Nigeria work for all.

In the meantime, there are indications that the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) is yet to make a firm commitment to the coalition announced last week in Abuja by Atiku.

This indication emerged at the weekend following inquiries made by the Nigerian Tribune from the national publicity secretary of the party, Mr Ladipo Johnson, on whether NNPP was a part of the coalition since the party was not represented at the unveiling of the coalition.

He said the party leaders were still holding consultations with other groups for the purpose of broadening the base of a platform capable of challenging the ruling APC in 2027, adding the question of being part of a coalition would come at a most auspicious time.

“The opposition platform is a very wide spectrum in this country. What I can assure you is that the NNPP members are also in talks with various groups and we choose to keep our interactions at this stage under wraps until positive decisions and timely decisions have been taken,” the NNPP spokesman said.

“Furthermore, looking at the opposition coalition announced by Atiku Abubakar, you would agree with me that people, groups or parties can join a coalition almost at any time.

“Some people or parties might decide that they are still in talks with some others. When the others come on board, you might decide that you want to join even a broader coalition or otherwise.

“So, I assure Nigerians that the NNPP is in consultations far and wide to ensure we contribute our bit to bringing about good governance in this country that will improve security; that we are working towards ensuring that the value of the Naira gets stronger, inflation is reduced and we give our youths and women the hope that the economy will improve and they will be able to make positive impacts on their entrepreneurship.

“This is what we believe and this is what we are working towards.”

Democracy is often cast as the antithesis of authoritarian rule — a beacon of liberty standing firm against the shadows of oppression. Yet, history tells a more intricate tale. Authoritarian regimes rarely storm the gates; instead, they slip quietly through the corridors of power, emerging not as abrupt usurpers but as offspring of the very systems meant to guard against them. In our modern age, the fall of democracy is seldom marked by a single, violent coup. It is a slow, insidious unravelling — the steady decay of institutions, the quiet bending of norms. It is the gradual surrender of freedom, handed over piece by piece, often in the name of rule of law or security. Thus, the path to autocracy is not carved by force alone but paved with the very stones once laid to uphold democracy.

Authoritarianism, unlike ancient times, does not emerge like a light switch. So, we can rightly say that the intersection of democracy and authoritarianism is gradual. This gradual shift from democracy to authoritarianism is often enabled. In Nigeria, there is growing concern among political analysts that the country is witnessing the rise of authoritarian tendencies within its democratic institutions. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has been accused of manipulating democratic processes to consolidate power. Therefore, the question is not whether authoritarianism is looming but how it is being enabled and perpetuated. Urgent action is needed to prevent further erosion of democratic norms. 

Political analysts have argued that a significant tool to rein in most political actors is economic instability and impoverishment, which causes them to switch to survival mode. Nigeria’s social and economic conditions have created an ecosystem that makes manipulating democratic institutions easier than before. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has been particularly instrumental in this erosion, using its enormous financial power to control the political class and, which is mainly in a survival mode and has no option but to become pliant to partake of the largesse of executive economic power.

Besides, poverty has been weaponised, and many people are either busy fighting to earn a living or just nonchalant about confronting a democratic government that is gradually sliding into authoritarianism. This ecosystem is on full display today in Nigeria. It only takes a political leadership interested in the benefits of authoritarianism to activate these enablers. The ruling APC has so much power to manipulate the democratic systems unchecked and with impunity.  

Common enablers of authoritarianism are a rubber-stamp legislature, a compromised judiciary, and an impotent civil society, particularly a labour movement that has lost its virility. Other enablers include a media that prioritises propaganda and economic gains over national interest and, elite greed. A critical examination of how these enablers play out in our country today will help us appreciate the democratic backslide we are experiencing.

A functional legislature serves as a critical check on executive power. However, Nigeria’s National Assembly has increasingly become subservient to the executive. A legislature can enable autocracy either by deliberate design or by default. By default, rampant corruption among lawmakers has compromised the integrity of legislative oversight. Legislators fail to challenge executive overreach due to personal financial interests. Deliberately, if a dominant political party has an authoritarian agenda, it can use the legislature to rubber-stamp executive decisions. A subservient legislature is a National Assembly that goes against the constitutional procedure in every respect to please the Sovereign.

With its control of both legislative houses, the APC has weakened parliamentary independence. One of the most blatant examples of legislative subservience is the unconstitutional use of a voice vote in determining a two-thirds majority, as seen in critical decisions, such as approving President Tinubu’s emergency proclamations. The reasons are clear. Section 305(2) & (6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) states that at least two-thirds must approve an emergency proclamation of all members of each House (Senate and House of Representatives). A voice vote (where members say “Aye” or “Nay”) cannot accurately count the required two-thirds majority. Democracy in its pure form is about counting numbers. 

When a supermajority (such as two-thirds) is required, a recorded vote is necessary to ensure compliance with the constitutional requirement. The Senate and House Standing Orders typically require a roll call or electronic voting system to determine numerical compliance for such critical decisions. A voice vote is insufficient for determining a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly for an emergency proclamation. A formal recorded vote must be conducted to confirm the exact number of lawmakers in support. 

So, the procedure adopted by the House of Representatives and Senate in approving President Tinubu’s Proclamation is wrong. You cannot determine 2/3rds in a voice vote. It is both illegal and undemocratic. Hussaini Abdu aptly captures the state of the legislature: “The National Assembly has long abandoned its role as a representative body meant to hold the executive accountable. Instead, it has devolved into a transactional arena where self-enrichment and power negotiations take precedence over democratic responsibility.”

The judiciary, as the last line of defence for democracy, is expected to uphold the rule of law. However, judicial decisions in Nigeria have increasingly been seen as influenced by personal and external interests rather than strict legal principles. Corrupt judges deliver judgments that favour those in power. Political infiltration of judicial institutions has eroded public trust in the judiciary. Judicial interpretations are frequently skewed to justify undemocratic actions. A notable case was the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Rivers State crisis that dumbfounded many legal experts and the public and exacerbated the political embroglio in the state that led to the president’s declaration of a state of emergency. When the judiciary ceases to be independent, democratic governance crumbles, leaving citizens with no recourse for justice. In Nigeria, there is a widespread belief that judicial rulings—especially in election disputes—are determined by political and financial considerations rather than legal merit.

A robust civil society is essential for holding government accountable. However, Nigeria’s civil society has suffered from a severe decline in effectiveness due to various factors. There is a total breakdown of the structures that enable citizens to organise, advocate, and hold power accountable. The absence of nationalistic political consciousness has fragmented advocacy efforts. Many civil society groups have been co-opted by political elites, diluting their activism. The legacy of prominent activists like Gani Fawehinmi, Hajia Gambo Sawaba, Chima Ubani, and Pa E.K. Clark is fading, with few emerging leaders willing to take up the mantle of resistance. Prof Wole Soyinka has gone past his prime. Olisa Agbakoba  

and Femi- Falana have done their bit. Where is the successor generation of activists? Without an organised and vibrant civil society, authoritarian tendencies can flourish unchecked, as there is little resistance from the populace. The need for a strong civil society is more pressing than ever.

Labour unions have historically played a crucial role in resisting authoritarian regimes. However, Nigeria’s Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) have become increasingly toothless. The government has effectively neutralised the power of labour unions through economic pressures and divide-and-rule tactics. The NLC’s repeated failure to execute nationwide strikes has eroded its credibility. In 2023, despite multiple announcements of planned nationwide strikes to protest fuel subsidy removal and inflation, the strikes were either suspended or ineffective due to government interference. Abiodun Oluwadare captures it this way: “The NLC’s inability to deliver on its threats and repeated backing down from strikes have led to a loss of public trust. This makes mass mobilisation difficult, allowing governments and businesses to ignore its demands.” Labour has not since 2023 successfully influenced the government to change its position on any matter of public interest.

A free press is a fundamental pillar of democracy. However, Nigerian media has increasingly prioritised propaganda and financial interests over journalistic integrity. Many media houses align with political or ethnic factions, reducing objectivity. Journalists are often financially compromised into silence. Government-friendly narratives dominate mainstream media, limiting access to dissenting views. This erosion of media independence has led to a public that is either misinformed or deliberately kept in the dark about crucial national issues.

Aso Rock is interested in controlling all “levers of power” often overshadowing other arms of government. This concentration of power has led to reduced institutional checks and balances, presidential interest overriding legislative decisions. Nigeria is seeing a resurgence of authoritarian tendencies in silencing dissenting voices. A full-fledged authoritarian regime is only a matter of time. Nigeria has become less liberal over the last two years, thanks to the manipulation of critical institutions of democracy. The judiciary frequently validates undemocratic actions under legal pretexts, and lawmakers serve executive interests rather than the electorate.

The enablers of authoritarianism are well-entrenched in Nigeria’s political landscape. A weak legislature, a compromised judiciary, a fragmented civil society, an ineffective labour movement, and a politicised media have all contributed to the country’s democratic decline. The unchecked concentration of power in the presidency has further exacerbated this trend. Urgent action is needed to safeguard Nigeria’s democracy. Strengthening institutional independence to prevent executive overreach, reviving civil society, re-establishing activist movements to demand accountability, ensuring media objectivity and independence, and encouraging active citizen participation in governance. 

Democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires constant vigilance and commitment from both the leadership and the citizenry. Nigerians must recognise the warning signs of authoritarianism and take proactive steps to resist its encroachment before it becomes thoroughly entrenched. A Nigeria where democratic institutions are genuinely independent, and governance is driven by transparency and accountability is still possible. However, it requires a collective effort to push back against authoritarian enablers and restore the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded.