
OTHERS' VIEWS
[OPINION] Reformer at the crossroads: Prof Humphrey Nwosu and Nigeria’s democratic journey (II) - Jideofor Adibe
AdminProfessor Humphrey Nwosu’s legacy: Domesticating the electoral process
As a political scientist, Professor Nwosu understood that the character of electoral competition in Nigeria is such that the outcome of any election will almost always be contested. This is because in societies like ours, political power is the major means of production, distribution and exchange and for that, whoever controls political power, controls everything, including the power to turn a pauper into a billionaire and to turn a billionaire into a pauper.
The struggle for political power therefore is often anarchic, tending towards the Hobbesian state of nature, with a pervasive fear that whichever group captures state power will use it to privilege its in-groups while disadvantaging others. For this, African politicians seemed to take literally the injunction by Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s first President, who famously advised his countrymen during the struggle for independence to: “Seek ye first the political kingdom and all other things will be added unto you”.
As a political scientist who had the opportunity of trying to marry theory and practice during his earlier political appointments, Professor Nwosu realised that while democracy is in fact not alien to Africa, the current institutions of democracy such as institutionalised opposition via political parties and the winner-takes-all mentality, are not. He knew that as a ‘mere’ electoral umpire, he had little or no power to drastically change the nature of electoral competition but believed that he could attenuate its anarchic character by making the process more transparent through domestication. This was his rationale for introducing the Open Ballot system.
An open ballot system is a voting method in which voters vote openly, in contrast to a secret ballot, where voters’ choices are confidential. Professor Nwosu was not the originator of the open ballot system. Some other countries of the world also had traditional open ballot system until modern legislations adopted secret ballot system. In Australia, for example, open ballot system was in use until 1856, when the country adopted the secret ballot system. In Britain, it was the Ballot Act of 1872 that officially introduced secret ballot to the British parliamentary politics. In Nigeria, open balloting was in use until 1923 when the British colonial administrators first introduced secret ballot system.
In a 2008 interview with The News magazine, Professor Nwosu defended the open ballot system against charges that it was a primitive system. “But there is nothing wrong, I must say, with secret ballot system per se, but it has been thoroughly abused in this country, starting from the federal elections in 1964, October 1965 Western House of Assembly elections, 1979 and 1983. Why should we continue to use what didn’t work? It works for Britain. No one would go and stop elections in Britain; no one would go and write results before it is released. Nigerians should begin to ask questions about systems that work, not mentioning theories- transparent this and electronic that.
Nigerians want something that is real; that can restore confidence and that their choice is respected” (The News, 2008). Following criticisms that the Open Ballot system could expose some of the voters to witch-hunt, Professor Nwosu came up with the Modified Open Ballot System. Under this system, people still had to register and still had to be accredited but during the voting proper, they were issued with a ballot paper, where they went into a cubicle and voted secretly for the candidate of their choice. Professor Nwosu’s bold decision to domestic electoral competition came more than 20 years before many prominent Nigerians, including former President Olusegun Obasanjo, began complaining that liberal (Western) democracy has failed in Nigeria and needs to be domesticated.
Professor Nwosu outwitted the military, conducted free-and-fair elections and yes, announced the results. Babangida admitted in his recent book, A Journey in Service: An Autobiography (2025), that there was a faction of the military which opposed a handover of power to civilians. He also admitted in the same book that by the time of the June 12 election his government had massive credibility problem, which was compounded by several events, including the emergence of a shadowy Association of Better Nigerians, ABN, funded by Arthur Nzeribe, who was calling for four more years for the military government. Babangida said he was unaware of the existence of the group and believed that forces linked to the late Abacha were behind the group. On June 10, two days before the presidential election, the ABN approached the Abuja High Court of Justice Bassey Ikpeme for an injunction to stop NEC from conducting the election. The injunction was granted.
Professor Nwosu, aware of the contending forces at that time showed uncommon courage. Babangdia narrated that the NDSC meeting on Friday, June 11, only hours before the scheduled election, was one of the stormiest meetings he ever conducted as President. As he put it: “Strangely, the Attorney General and Justice Minister, Akpamgbo, who was the nation’s chief law officer and who ought to know that the Justice Ikpeme court order violated an extant law (and was tacitly supported, it turned out by some of my topmost military officers), advised that the elections be postponed in compliance with the Abuja court order. Professor Nwosu insisted, to the dismay of my top military colleagues, that he had enough powers under the law to proceed with the elections.” (Babangida, 2025:273), emphasis mine.
It was obvious from Babangida’s narrations in the autobiography that by this time he had completely lost control of his government to that faction of the military that did not want the elections to hold at all (see part 1 of this article). In essence, the locus of power no more resided with Babangida despite being formally the President on whose desk the buck should theoretically stop. Professor Nwosu seemed therefore to be caught in the crossroads between Babangida, the formal authority who appointed him NEC Chairman, and who apparently wanted the process to be concluded (at least for self-preservation, having already lost out in the military power play), the shadowy military faction that did not want the elections to be conducted, (which had become obviously ascendant at this time), the Nigerian electorate (who expected him to do the right thing), and his conscience. At this stage, Professor Nwosu seemed to turn the whole affair into a game of wits between him and that faction of the military elite. He had already outwitted them in round one by insisting that he would go ahead with the election despite the ABN’s court injunction on June 11, 1993.
He also outwitted them in round two by ensuring that the conduct of the election was hitch-free as violence could have provided the forces that did not want the election to go ahead with the ammunition to intervene and cancel the exercise or even topple the Babangida government.
As Babangida noted: “Voting took place in all the 110,000 polling stations in the country, and in keeping with the Modified Open Ballot System (MOBS) as stipulated in Decree 13, counting took place flawlessly in the open, followed almost simultaneously with an open collation that allowed for final results to be attained quickly” (Babangida, 2025:274).
Nwosu also outwitted that faction of the military by announcing the results. Yes, he ‘announced’ the results – contrary to some suggestions that he failed to “announce” the results. To quote Babangida again:
“Using a giant board in front of its Abuja offices, NEC started, as early as June 13, as stipulated by the Electoral law, to display already released results from all 30 State Headquarters of NEC before the Resident Electoral Commissioners brought them to Abuja for final ratification (emphasis, mine). That process of public display of results, which had now covered 14 states, continued until June 14. And then, on June 16, without my knowledge or prior approval, NEC Chairman, Professor Nwosu, announced the suspension of the June 12 election results ‘until further notice’. I knew instantly that certain fifth columnists were at work and that there was a need for extra care! (emphasis, mine) And even after that suspension of the announcements of results, ABN obtained another ‘strange’ court order from Justice Saleh’s court in Abuja, stopping the release of the results of the elections” (Babangida, 2025:274).
The truth is that if Nwosu had not gone ahead to release the results “even before the Resident Electoral Commissioners brought them to Abuja”, we would probably not be talking about Abiola winning that election today. By releasing the results of the elections the way he did despite knowing that the forces that did not want the elections to hold had become ascendant, Professor Nwosu actually informed the world that Abiola had won and by so doing outwitted that faction of the military yet again. While he was not in a position to declare MKO Abiola President elect because not all the results had been released and a court in Abuja, working with those shadowy forces had obtained another court order stopping the release of the results, Professor Nwosu believed he had done his bit by letting the world know who was winning the election and that it was up to Nigerians to help Abiola claim his mandate.
I have heard some Nigerians claim that Nwosu should have gone ahead to “announce the results”. Former Edo State Governor, Adams Oshiomhole, a man who likes to act tough (for obvious reasons, some would say), and to sound authoritative even on issues he knows next to nothing about, descended so low as to call Professor Nwosu a “coward” for not having the “courage” to “announce” the results (I believe he meant declaring him President elect). English people would say that discretion is a better part of valour. Babangida, a military General who was the Head of State, said he suspected fifth columnists in the annulment, and “realised he needed to thread very carefully”. The Igbos say that it is from the compound of an apparent coward that people stay and point at the ruins in the compound of a man of bravado. It takes wisdom to know that there is a difference between bravery and bravado.
Professor Nwosu’s genius in the game of wits between him and the faction of the military that did not want the elections to hold at all was to let Nigerians know who won the election before allowing the military to annul it. In essence, a faction of the military annulled the election but it was like bolting the stable after the horse had already bolted. By outwitting that faction of the military yet again, Professor Nwosu successfully turned it into a confrontation between progressive Nigerians and that wing of the military.
Professor Nwosu called for June 12 to be made Nigeria’s Democracy Day some 10 years before it was actualized
Professor Nwosu saw ‘June 12’ as a movement and called for that Day to be made Democracy Day. In the interview he granted to The News Magazine in June 2008, he declared as follows: “So you’ll find that June 12 as a movement was indeed the day Nigerians opted for a democratic political order. They didn’t care and the parties cut across ethnic, state and regional boundaries. And Nigerians were highly mobilized and they expressed their choices freely without interference…. And so in my own view, June 12 was the day Nigerians decided freely for a democratic political order without any hindrance. That day should be Democracy Day. I don’t see anything that makes 29 May, 1999 superior to June 12, 1993. Without June 12, there wouldn’t have been May 29. In my view, it was an offshoot of June 12.” It was only in June 2018 that Muhammadu Buhari made June 12 Democracy Day in Nigeria. That was clear 10 years after the man the likes of Adams Oshiomhole called a “coward” made that call.
What is the best way to immortalize Professor Nwosu?
I have a lot of respect for Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe. But I disagree with him and his colleagues in the Senate who walked out because the Senate refused to endorse a motion to honour Professor Nwosu posthumously on several grounds: One, I am not sure it was proper to bring that motion in the floor of the Senate as it amounted to “begging” the state to honour him. That apparent act of begging in itself would have cheapened that honour, if it was granted. A simple letter to the President drawing attention to Professor Nwosu’s legacy, would perhaps have been a better approach.
Two, even if Professor Nwosu is honoured posthumously, one could raise the question of the worth of a few letters after one’s name or naming a building after the person (especially now that national honours have become very cheapened). The best place to immortalize any one is in people’s hearts. The two colloquia in his honour – variously at the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus and at Abuja, (in which Senator Abaribe himself and several others like Professor Jega attended), are among the best ways of immortalising anyone. I had the privilege of presenting a version of this paper at a segment of the Abuja colloquium.
Three, there are better ways of immortalizing Professor Nwosu in the hearts of people who appreciated him as a scholar and Chairman of NEC: Prizes could be endowed in his honour at selected Departments of Political Science and Public Administration across the country; the Department of Public Administration at the UNN could be named after him. Some of the papers presented at the colloquia to honour his legacy could be published as a book. If the Nigerian state decides at any point to honour him, it should be at its discretion to do so. After all, June 12 was made Democracy Day 25 years after Professor Nwosu ‘announced’ Abiola the winner of the elections, and 10 years after he made a call for June 12 to be so honoured.
Jideofor Adibe is Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Nasarawa State University He can be reached on: 0705 807 8841 (WhatsApp and Text messages only).
The paper was originally presented at a Colloquium on the Life and Times of Professor Humphrey Nwosu at Abuja on March 25 2025.
Jideofor Adibe is 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).
The first head of government that declared a state of emergency in Nigeria was the then Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa (December 1912 – January 15, 1966) and that was in May 1962. I was a student then at Olofin Anglican Grammar School in Idanre in Ondo State, along with Folu Olamiti, Prince Wale Olateru-Olagbegi, Olu Adegboro, Feyi Famutimi(75) and others.
He declared the state of emergency in the Western Region which now comprises South-West and parts of South-South.
The crisis was an internal affairs in the then region which later consumed the whole country.
The crisis of the Action Group which reared its ugly head at the party’s annual convention held in Jos, Plateau in January 1962 started like a joke. It was at the convention that the General Secretary of the party, Chief Ayotunde Rosiji (1917-2000) resigned and Mr. Samuel Goomsu Ikoku (1912-1997) took over as the Chief Scribe of the party. Chief Anthony Eromosele Enahoro (1923-2010) became the deputy leader of the party. Mr. Sam Ikoku had earlier defeated his father, Dr. Alvan Ikoku by 59 votes in the Eastern Nigeria House of Assembly election.
The 8th convention of the party was held in African Sports Club in Jos with Chief Ajibola Idowu Ige,SAN(1930-2001) elected Publicity Secretary of the party and with Professor Samuel Adepoju Aluko(1929-2012), Prof. Hezekiah Adedunmola Oluwafemi Oluwasanmi (1919-1983), Prof. Victor Adenuga Oyenuga(1917-2010),Chief Arthur Edward Prest(1906-1976), Prof. H.E. Ajose, Dr. Sanya Dojo Onabamiro (1913-1985) and Prof. Akinlawon Ladipo Mabogunje (October 18, 1931 – August 4, 2022), in attendance.
At the convention, the then leader of the party, Chief Obafemi Awolowo (1909-1987), was on one side, while the Premier of the Western Region at the time, Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola (1912-1966) was on another side. The crisis snowballed into a major national crisis, the consequences of which we still face today.
Before the declaration of the state of emergency, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa had issued a press statement on May 22, 1962. In the statement, he declared: “The two factions in the Action Group have contacted the Prime Minister regarding the holding of another meeting of the Western Nigeria house of assembly today. The Prime Minister cannot stop the meeting from taking place, but because of the fight which has broken out in the house this morning, if the parties decide to hold a meeting of the house of assembly they may do so. It may be on the strict understanding that there will be no police protection within the chamber. If, however, any party insists on being afforded police protection within the chamber the police may be so present, but the Federal Government will not accept any decision reached as a result of such proceedings in the chamber. If in spite of all efforts of the police there should be an outbreak of violence or any disorder, the police have authority to clear the chamber and lock it up”.
Despite this clarification, no solution was found to the Western Region crisis; in fact, the situation became more tensed. However, the logistical problems of the army, which was transferring most of its battalion between the Congo and home depots, a token number of troops and armoured vehicles went to Ibadan to back up the police if necessary. The GOC of the army (General Welby-Everard) caused an administrative sensation by moving his tactical headquarters to Ibadan and setting up a joint ‘pol-mil’ HQ with the Inspector General of Police Sir Kerr Bovell(1913-1973). It was unprecedented. Some AG members asked Chief Anthony Enahoro to go abroad to tell the world of a threat to democracy.
On May 29, 1962, then Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa (1912-1966), summoned an emergency meeting of the Federal House of Representatives which was then the Federal Parliament in Lagos during which he moved a motion on the Action Group crisis.
*Read the full motion as reproduced and the reply of the then opposition leader, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, next week.
To be concluded
•Teniola, a former director at the Presidency, wrote from Lagos.
Periodic harvest of death through mindless killing of innocent men, women and children by bandits which have unfortunately become regular feature of the Middle Belt region especially the Benue/Plateau axis, according to Governor Caleb Mutfwang occurred again last week resulting in the massacre of over 50 people in Bokkos.
But, as common with Middle Belt region leaders who got integrated into the power structure through either marriage, business or politics by the hegemonic power in the north, self-preservation is often the first law. This was why the governor was going to play the ostrich so as not to rock the boat until Channel TV’s Seun Okinbaloye’s probing question left him no room for equivocation. He was forced to declare – “as I speak to you there are not less than 64 communities taken over, renamed and people are living there on land they push people away from”. Writhing his hands in helplessness like his predecessors in office, he attributed the nightmare of his people to “genocide sponsored by terrorist from somewhere” and “proliferation of sophisticated arms”.
Mutfwang cannot out of desire for self-preservation suppress facts about the killings in the Middle Belt and those behind the killings. It is on record that no less than 1,000 persons were killed in Jos and its environs as a result of ethno-religious conflagrations in n 2001, about 700 killed due to communal clashes in Yelwa, southern Plateau, in 2004; Scores in Jos in January 2010 as a result of sectarian clashes including the killing of nearly 150 Muslims in Kan Karama while December 2010’s Christmas eve explosions in two Christian neighbourhoods in Jos, followed by several days of sectarian violence, left at least 107 persons dead.
We have also been told that the number of renamed communities in 2020 was about 102 while as at July 2023, we have an estimated 18,751 internally displaced persons, many of them condemned to IDP camps where they face hunger diseases and uncertain future .( Gideon and Funmi Para-Mallam Peace Foundation).
The governor was hesitant when it came to disclosing the identities of those assailants sacking communities, confiscating land and sending victims to IDP camps. He can keep his peace as credible Fulani voices like Sheik Gumi, Nasir El Rufai, Aminu Masari and Abdullahi Ganduje have already identified them as disgruntled immigrant Fulani herders who want recognition and compensation after their heinous crimes. The tragedy of besieged people of Benue and Plateau is that they have continued to be betrayed by their leaders.
For fear of antagonizing the hegemonic power in the north, the Justice Nikki Tobi Commission report that came out during Obasanjo’s presidency was for instance never implemented; Joshua Dariye’s introduction of vigilante groups- The Rainbow Boys – was not allowed to operate just as Jonah Jang’s anti-land grabbing and anti-kidnapping bills were never passed by the state House of Assembly.
It was for the same reason successive leaders of the Middle Belt region who for a long time opposed state and community policing could not replicate the Southwest Amotekun security architecture model. It was the same reason they would rather listen to Shehu Garba’s criticism of community policing than the timely advice by Theophilus Danjuma, the late crusader for Middle Belt self-actualization to the effect that those facing threat of genocide can defend themselves by procuring guns from where their tormentors got their own if government refused to give them licence to officially buy guns to protect themselves.
The people of the Middle Belt have not changed. They remain the same people whose land was never conquered, the same brave warriors Uthman Dan Fodio hired as mercenaries to prosecute his wars and the same people who staged an insurrection immediately after independence to press their demand for self-actualisation. What changed are leaders driven more by consideration for self-preservation than patriotic zeal to serve their people.
The nightmare of the people of Middle Belt region started with the death of Joseph Tarka, and Chief Obafemi Awolowo the greatest advocate for the creation of the Middle Belt Region. Awolowo remained the last man standing during the 1957 London constitutional debate following betrayal by Ahmadu Bello, the NPC leader and Nnamdi Azikiwe the NCNC leader, both of whom were driven by greed to corner land belonging to various Nigerian ethnic nationalities for the exclusive use of their own people.
A brief journey through history will show how both shared a common philosophy of how to manage Nigerian land spaces.
Ahmadu Bello and the hegemonic power in the north saw Nigeria as a land ordained by God for the stateless Fulani across West Africa with his great grandfathers capturing of Hausa land over which he imposed 13 of his kinsmen and one Hausa as Emirs. On his part, Zik who believed Igbo race had been ordained by God to lead the children of Africa, was also convinced that everywhere in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa should be home to his industrious and entrepreneurial Igbo people.
It is therefore not difficult to see why Zik and his supporters did not see any contradiction in recommending a unitary system for a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural Nigeria or attempting to take over Yoruba nation in 1952 in the name of fake nationalism using his West African Pilot as tool of propaganda.
And if further reasons are needed, Emeka Ojukwu’s strategy for the civil war which started as a war between the north and the east also said it all. For instance, instead of confronting the northern soldiers that attacked the Eastern Region from Makurdi, the Biafra Army overran Midwest, appointed an Igbo administrator and was on the way to Lagos before they were stopped at Ore, in Ondo State. But that was not before his insolent letter to Victor Banjo stating that he Ojukwu would decide who the administrator of Lagos would be after the pacification of Yoruba land.
Not much has changed since the beginning of the Fourth Republic. The new campaign is no more unitarism but citizenship as the answer to the national question. In this regard, there is currently a bill in the National Assembly by Hon Benjamin Okezie Kalu which will legitimise immigrants’ takeover of ancestral home of host communities, a superior alternative to the ongoing bandits’ mindless killings in the Middle Belt region.
The Fulani leaders never pretended about what they wanted out of Nigeria. With Uthman Dan Fodio’s subjugation of Hausa and sharing of their land among his siblings, his grandchildren believe Nigeria is a land ordained for stateless Fulani across West Africa. Ilorin was later to be seized through the help of Afonja, the Oyo Are Ona Kanakafo stationed in Ilorin. Oyo was later sacked by Fulani invaders who were stopped at Osogbo by the Ibadan army.
What the Fulani leader could not get through war, they got through British colonial power. At the 1950 Ibadan constitutional conference, they insisted and secured 50% of membership of the Nigerian legislative house as condition for remaining part of post independent Nigeria.
For the Fulani, like their Igbo rivals, not much have changed. It is still the same sense of entitlement over land that is fuelling the crisis in The Middle Belt and elsewhere in the country. Abubakar Malami, former Attorney General of the Federation once insisted that armed immigrant Fulani herders have right to occupy Ondo forest reserve. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi publicly encouraged Fulani herders to disobey Benue State’s anti-open grazing laws. Bauchi State governor, Bala Mohammed not too long ago passed a ‘fatwa’ through Channels TV, declaring any Fulani from any part of Africa, a Nigerian. Leaders of the herders wrote a 70-page letter to Muhammadu Buhari as president insisting open grazing is part of Fulani culture and threatened to make the country ungovernable if restricted from grazing in any part of the country.
And their strategy for managing power has not changed. Tafawa Balewa, a minority from southern Bauchi was picked as prime minister in the first republic. He did everything Ahmadu Bello wanted including ‘doing nothing’ because of self-preservation even as the West burned.
Gowon was installed Head of State after the 1966 July military vengeance coup over his seniors in breach of military protocol. It was not a surprise that when the rivalry between the Igbo and Fulani ended in a civil war, Gowon and other notable Middle Belt military officers including Danjuma who has today become a leading voice of resistance, fought like slaves because of self-preservation.
Chiefs Solomon Lar, Barnabas Gemade, Audu Ogbe, Ahmadu Ali, Kawu Baraje were for 16 years chairmen of the then ruling PDP. But they all pretended not to see the daily harvest of death from their home. David Mark and Bukola Saraki jointly occupied the senate presidency, the third most powerful office for 12 years. But fear of Fulani hegemonic power blinded them to the daily misery of their people.
For all Middle Belt politicians, it is always the law of self-preservation.
In slamming Mexico with a high reciprocal tariff—which has now been suspended for 90 days—the President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, did not take into consideration the provisions in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which precludes member countries from being levied tariffs on certain products.
Upon discovering the breach, Mexico pointed it out to the US, and promptly, the concern was addressed with the USMCA exemption recognized and the aberration corrected.
Like the USMCA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), introduced in 2000 under President Bill Clinton’s administration, grants African countries exemptions from paying tariffs on some items exported to the US.
With the 10% across-the-board tariff that the US has imposed on all her trading partners worldwide—and the reciprocal tariffs (currently paused for three months) that raised tariffs on Nigerian goods to 14%, and up to 50% for a small African country like Lesotho—the US may have breached the AGOA pact with Africa.
So, the question is: has Africa, like Mexico, approached the US to inform her that the AGOA arrangement has been breached, so that an adjustment can be made accordingly, in the same manner that a similar breach of USMCA was addressed when it was brought to the US’s attention?
That task squarely falls within the purview of the African Union (AU); it is a responsibility that rests directly on its shoulders.
If peradventure, Africa has not yet made that move via the AU, the 90-day pause announced by President Trump is a veritable window for the pan-African organization to engage with the relevant authorities in the US to resolve the matter.
That said, at this juncture, it is appropriate that we take a look at Africa’s uninspiring place in the world order and try to figure out how to reposition the continent to become a more active player in the new global trade framework being reshaped by President Trump through his sweeping tariff changes.
In identifying Africa’s place in the new world trade order being unfurled and wrought by President Trump—through trade tariffs that have disrupted global trade in ways that may become unrecognizable to old-school aficionados—it is imperative to put the unfolding scenario in historical context.
As we all would agree, from the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 where Africa was partitioned among European powers, to today’s Africa where the likes of Tony Elumelu, chairman of UBA/Heirs Holdings is promoting Africapitalism (a vision for African entrepreneurs to develop the continent by intentionally investing in its abundant resources to bring prosperity to communities), European exploration and exploitation of Africa has a long and complex history.
For a deep dive into how entrenched the European and other superpowers’ interests in Africa have become, here is a breakdown of key historical milestones:
Going back to the Ancient Era, the Phoenicians—a civilization from the eastern Mediterranean—are believed to have explored North Africa and possibly even circumnavigated the African continent around 600 BC. It is believed they established colonies, with Carthage being the most notable.
In the Medieval Period, during the Viking expeditions of the 9th century, North African Mediterranean coastal towns were also raided.
Then came the Portuguese explorers in the 13th–14th centuries. Genoese navigators such as Vandino and Ugolino Vivaldi attempted to find a sea route to India around Africa in 1291. Thereafter, Jaume Ferrer sailed down the West African coast in search of the legendary “River of Gold” in 1346.
That expedition was followed by the Age of Discovery explorations in the 15th century when the Portuguese—led by Prince Henry the Navigator—pioneered maritime exploration. That was when explorers like Bartolomeu Dias reached the Cape of Good Hope in 1488, and Vasco da Gama successfully navigated to India via Africa in 1498. All of the above is what many of us learned in European history classes during our formative years in school, right? One is going down memory lane because to truly understand the marginalization of Africa in the scheme of things by the rest of the world, we must recall and place these historical realities in perspective.
It was not until much later that other European powers such as the Dutch, English, French, and others soon followed, establishing trading posts and colonies along the African coast.
In light of the above and based on historical records, European exploration of Africa’s interior did not gain momentum until the 19th century, with explorers like David Livingstone and Henry Morton Stanley mapping the continent’s geography and “discovering” new regions.
For this discourse, we will stay focused on the exploitation of the African continent by foreign invaders since the time of Livingstone et al.
Following the arrival of European explorers in Africa in the 19th century, and especially after World War I, the continent has been actively and continuously pillaged by fortune seekers from other continents—particularly Europe, North and South America, and Asia.
Specifically, Africa’s exclusion from productive trade was entrenched as far back as 1884/85, when then-German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck hosted the Berlin Conference, during which European powers carved up Africa without inviting a single African representative to the table.
After the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade—which occurred between the 16th and 19th centuries, during which roughly 10–12 million Africans were shipped as slaves to the Americas in a trading system where African slaves were exchanged by Europeans for American products such as coffee and sugar, which were then shipped back to Europe—these Western powers transitioned from being slave traders to colonizers.
Unsurprisingly, the European colonizers lingered to further extract solid and rare earth minerals abundant in Africa—an unfair trade practice that remains in play to this day.
Unlike the countries in the Southern Hemisphere, which the Europeans were also scrambling to colonize but which were fortunate enough to benefit from the ‘Big Brother’ protection of the Monroe Doctrine—a U.S. foreign policy enacted in 1823, wherein then-President James Monroe prohibited further European colonization of countries in the Western Hemisphere—Africa was left unprotected. As such, the continent remained exposed to the insatiable greed of European powers.
The original version of the Monroe Doctrine also prohibited the marauding Europeans from further colonization of other countries universally including other hemispheres, particularly Africa.
But it was then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams citing a lack of capacity to enforce the law globally that advised President Monroe to confine the proclamation to the Western hemisphere which was near. Otherwise, perhaps the Europeans would have been discouraged from partitioning and colonizing Africa in 1844/5 in the manner they did, as it occurred over 20 years after the Monroe Doctrine was instituted.
With no ‘big brother’ protecting Africa, the Europeans greedily ravaged Africa and the exploitation has been so overwhelming that countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)—blessed with abundant rare earth resources needed for manufacturing high-tech products—owing to unbridled exploitation have remained ground zero for armed conflicts. Even fellow African countries like Rwanda have joined the scramble for Congo’s resources, which have been exploited continuously for at least a century. The scenario described above is a classical case of unfair trade.
Incidentally, the justification for President Trump’s ongoing tariff war includes not only an effort to stem the illicit drug fentanyl from entering the U.S. but also to correct what he considers unfair trade practices by the rest of the world against the United States. So, with its economic and military clout as the world’s global hegemon, and under the leadership of a bold and unorthodox President Trump—who was voted into power based on his reputation as a change agent, although a political outsider—the U.S. is using tariffs to fight for balanced trade with its partners.
But from the narrative about trade between Africa and other continents, as earlier highlighted, it is disheartening and disappointing that Africa has been a perennial and perpetual victim of unfair trade. Sadly, the continent lacks the clout to fight for itself, as the U.S. is currently doing.
Operating in an unstructured—and some may say ungoverned—environment, where six (6) countries (Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Mali, and Sudan), mostly located in the Sahel region, have reverted from democratic governance to military dictatorships, forging a common front to assert herself as a unified continent has remained a mirage since the time of the founding fathers of the Organization of African Unity (OAU)—Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Nnamdi Azikiwe of Nigeria, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, among others—who convened in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1963.
Although the OAU was later renamed the African Union (AU) in Durban, South Africa in 2002—likely inspired by the somewhat successful European Union (EU)—the change was largely nominal. The continental body has never been able to transform Africa into a powerful trading bloc like the EU.
Instead, the continent has remained a mere source of raw materials and not a producer of value-added products that could have engendered prosperity for its people when it becomes the new manufacturing hub for the US.
Perhaps the recently formed African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) will make a difference by triggering the desired positive change.
In a previous article titled “What If President Trump Wants to Shift From Aid to Trade?”, I explored the possibility that Trump might replace aid to Africa—which he has begun to roll back—with trade. I argued that Africa needs trade, not aid.
That prospect is not far-fetched. The continent is increasingly being seen by forward-thinking investors as the next frontier for development. But with trade between industrialized nations now restricted by Trump’s tariffs, one wonders:
Will Africa become the dumping ground for goods that advanced economies can no longer trade among themselves?
If so, would this not further hinder industrialization on the continent? On the flip side, could this trade standoff prompt the U.S. and others to manufacture in Africa instead of relying on China and Vietnam—countries hit by the heaviest tariffs?
Given Africa’s closer proximity to the U.S. via the Atlantic Ocean (compared to Asia via the Pacific), the continent—especially Nigeria—could become a strategic manufacturing base. This possibility gains weight with the U.S. currently building its largest embassy in the world at Eko Atlantic, located on the shores of Bar Beach–Atlantic Ocean in Victoria Island, Lagos.
Signs of a Strategic Shift
The recent appointment of Mr. Massad Boulos, former Group Managing Director of SCOA Nigeria Plc, as Senior Special Adviser to President Trump on Africa affirms growing optimism that Africa will be a focal point for U.S. economic cooperation.
My self being a board member of SCOA Plc and chairman of its Audit Committee since 2012, I can guarantee that Mr. Boulos is a veritable asset to the U.S. and will make a great and positive impact for the benefit of both the U.S. and Africa. He knows the continent inside out, having worked with the SCOA Group—an organization that has existed for nearly a century with a massive Africa-wide footprint.
Already, Mr. Boulos has initiated meetings with the Presidents of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria to promote peace in conflict zones and foster mutually beneficial economic partnerships.
For too long, as earlier stated, Africa has been sidelined in global trade value chains—operating on the fringes due to unfair trade practices entrenched during the colonial era, which saw the continent become an extension of European empires.
Even after gaining political independence, beginning in the mid-1950s, Africa has remained marginal in global trade—accounting for less than 3% of global trade volume.
Yet Africa is resource-rich:
• 30% of the world’s mineral reserves
• 40% of global gold reserves
• 90% of global platinum and chromium
• Over 10% of global oil reserves
• 65% of the world’s arable land
• 60% of the world’s uncultivated fertile land
• A population of 1.539 billion as of March 2025, representing 18.83% of the global population (estimated at 8.1 billion)
If Africa is to thrive in the emerging world order, it must seize this moment not as a threat, but as a strategic opportunity to renegotiate its place in global trade—by adding value, fostering local production, and becoming an active partner in global manufacturing and economic integration.
Using the recently released Forbes list of billionaires for 2025 as a barometer of Africa’s global standing, there are a record 3,028 billionaires on this year’s list. Their combined wealth totals a record $16.1 trillion. Yet, only twenty-three (23) of them are Black. Alhaji Aliko Dangote remains the richest Black man on earth. Other Nigerians on the list include Chief Mike Adenuga, Alhaji Samad Rabiu, and Mr. Femi Otedola—who all reside in Nigeria—while Mr. Bayo Ogunlesi and Mr. Tope Awotona, also Nigerians, live outside the continent.
The 23 Black billionaires account for just 0.8% of the total wealth of the world’s 3,028 billionaires. Effectively, less than 1% of the world’s billionaire wealth is held by Black individuals—and even less by Africans living on the continent.
Based on Forbes figures, these 23 Black billionaires have a combined wealth of only $96.2 billion—less than $100 billion—a mere drop in the ocean compared to the $16.1 trillion owned by the remaining 3,005 billionaires, mostly in industrialized and advanced societies.
Apart from its vast mineral wealth, Africa holds a global comparative advantage in agriculture. However, subsidies provided by industrialized nations to their farmers significantly neutralize any potential gains for African producers. For instance, eggs that were once produced in excess in the U.S. used to be dumped locally or even thrown into the ocean during gluts, rather than being exported to famine-stricken areas in Africa—especially in the Horn of Africa—where people have died from hunger-related diseases. Ironically, the U.S. is now experiencing an egg shortage. Hopefully, when the egg surplus returns, the U.S. will remember to ship excess produce to Africa, where the need is dire. This is especially critical given that the continent is increasingly unable to feed itself due to unfair global trade practices orchestrated by powerful players in the developed world.
Against the backdrop of Trump’s ongoing reciprocal high-tariff upheavals, one might have thought this would be an opportunity to bring Africa more squarely into the global trade framework—especially now, as a new world order seems to be emerging under Trump.
Take, for example, the case of avocados. High tariffs imposed on Mexico—currently the largest supplier of avocados to the U.S.—have created a supply gap. Africa, also a major grower of avocados, could potentially fill that gap under a tariff-free framework such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), introduced by President Bill Clinton in 2000. AGOA significantly boosted trade between the U.S. and Africa’s 54 nations.
Unfortunately, that might no longer be the case. That is because as earlier noted, AGOA which has been in practice for 25 years seems to have been sidelined under the current administration’s reciprocal tariff regime. Unless the seeming breach is rectified.
What remains Africa’s biggest handicap in becoming a manufacturing hub for U.S.-bound exports is the lack of infrastructure. This, coupled with financing deficits and debt traps, has made the continent less attractive compared to Asian countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand, which are now thriving manufacturing hubs serving the U.S. market. Vietnam, for instance, has been hit with tariffs as high as 46%.
The industrialization of these countries is the result of a ripple effect—an economic radiance originating in Japan and China, spreading outward to nations like Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These countries now orbit as stars around the moons of Japan and China within Asia’s industrial ecosystem.
The U.S. could intentionally choose to industrialize Africa. The continent’s lack of industrial capacity underscored by energy insecurity could be mitigated by fixing its chronic electricity shortages. Africa possesses abundant untapped energy potential—from hydropower and solar to wind and biomass—even without considering nuclear power. Elon Musk has already developed battery pack technology capable of powering entire cities, tested successfully in Australia. Why not introduce it to Africa?
While the world is in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Africa missed out on the first two. However, the continent caught up during the third—the telecoms revolution—by skipping telephone landlines and going straight to mobile technology, thanks to GSM. Similarly, Musk’s super battery packs could revolutionize Africa’s power sector in much the same way.
These are ideas worth considering by President Trump, the leader of the world’s most powerful and wealthiest nation, and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man.
During this tariff war, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, made the following remarks at a Commonwealth event in London on March 31:
“Amidst all this turbulence, what is still good is that there is still $24 trillion of goods trade. The U.S. accounts for 13–16% of world exports, and China 15%. If 75% of trade is still going on outside the U.S. and China, it means there’s a world out there trading within itself, coming together to reaffirm support for the system. So, take a deep breath—let’s preserve what works… But when you throw out retaliation, it just goes back and forth.”
Her non-retaliatory stance appears to be the most pragmatic way forward.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent echoed this sentiment after President Trump announced the new tariffs in the White House Rose Garden, urging affected countries not to engage in tit-for-tat retaliation. The nations that heeded his advice had the tariff paused so it is only China that retaliated with a 125% tariff against the US the 145% has been operationalized.
To lend my voice, I believe EU President Ursula von der Leyen should prioritize dialogue with President Trump and his team—who are intent on remaking the global trade order—instead of adopting a combative stance. The objective should be mutual compromise.
President Trump does have a valid argument when he claims that the U.S. has been exploited through trade imbalances and security expenditures—particularly in its relationships with Europe. The high reciprocal tariffs, according to him, are a correction of those long-standing disparities.
Even Jens Stoltenberg, the immediate past NATO chief, acknowledged that Trump’s tough stance during his first term prompted most NATO members to meet their financial obligations—a clear “Trump effect.”
From a global security perspective, one could argue that the U.S., as the longstanding global hegemon, has carried the burden of maintaining world order—which may have justified its earlier trade concessions. President Trump is now reversing those concessions.
After the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Russia—the main remnant—has struggled to match U.S. dominance in either economic or military terms. The Cold War, which once divided the world between a communist East and a capitalist West, ended with the U.S.-led West as the undisputed superpower.
Now, China—currently the world’s second-largest economy—is consolidating its regional power. It has reclaimed Hong Kong from the UK, and now eyes Taiwan, which claims independence. One would think China would first solidify control over its region before challenging the U.S. on the global stage. While President Xi Jinping has extended olive branches to neighboring nations like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia through a “neighborhood diplomacy” initiative, tensions with Taiwan have escalated lately, as evidenced by a recent military maneuver.
Still, against all odds and perhaps out of national pride, China has stated that while it won’t raise tariffs further, it is not afraid and in my view, it appears it remains open to negotiation.
In the meantime, the U.S.—unopposed in its superpower status—continues to shape the world according to its vision. Nevertheless, President Trump has paused his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days, ostensibly to allow room for negotiations by the over 60 nations hit with the reciprocal tariffs. While some critics argue he panicked due to the negative bond market and ordinary people's reactions, I believe he’s acting strategically—seeking a win, not a war without an end.
All said and done, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, is originally from South Africa. Morally, he should fight for Africa, leveraging his immense wealth and global influence. Given his concern about land disputes in South Africa, it’s clear Musk cares about the continent. All he needs to do is broaden his scope to include the “rainbow coalition” (black and white people) across Africa—widely recognized as the world’s next frontier.
If Tony Elumelu can commit $100 million in ten years through his foundation, TEF to empower African youth across 54 countries with entrepreneurial skills and start-up seed money, there’s no reason why Musk cannot dedicate $1 billion to provide electricity to Africa—powering industrialization and creating new prosperity on the continent of his birth.
After all, Africa—as economists have confirmed—is not an aid case. It is a land of untapped potential.
The bottom line is this: Africa needs industrialization and trade, not aid. And both President Trump, leader of the world’s most powerful country, and Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest man, can make it happen.
Musk has already explored the unknown in space with his SpaceX program. Now it’s time to explore Africa—for real, and for good.
I would like to conclude by restating the fact that, Africa beckons President Trump and Elon Musk.
Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, and author.
Although the rest of Africa seems to have forgotten about the crisis and wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), some scholars, intellectuals and thinkers from the continent are continually engrossed in finding the pathways to resolving the perennial problems in the continent’s largest country. Last weekend, they came together to examine the underlying causes of the conflicts and proffer solutions. It was at a webinar organised by The Pan-African Dialogue Institute (TPADI) on the theme ‘’Invasion of DR Congo: Global interests and implications for pan-Africanism’’ TPADI is an international think tank of African academics, professionals, students, civil society and grassroots leaders in different fields of life within Africa and the Diaspora, coming together for the study, practice, and propagation of Pan-Africanism.
The keynote speaker at the webinar, Prof G. Macharia Munene, is a professor of history and international relations at the United States International University Africa (USIU-A). He has taught in several universities in Europe, America and Africa, and published many articles and books. His academic excellence and advocacy have earned him an award as a UN-recognised expert on decolonisation. Prof. Munene gave a historical account of the Congo crisis, tracing it to the Berlin Conference of 1884, and argued that the country is “the source of both Pan-African agony and Pan-African consciousness”, because of being subjected to military, mercenary, commercial, mineral resource looting, and spiritual invasions.
Congo is geographically a big country and there actually seem to be two countries in one, Eastern and Western Congo. Those in Eastern Congo appear to be closer to East African countries than to Western Congo. To them, the zone around Kinshasa in Western Congo is like a foreign country and Eastern Congo is similarly a foreign country to those in Kinshasa. Congo is rich in strategic minerals and other forms of wealth like rubber and timber. He noted that DRC is similarly a source of African contradictions of extreme wealth in the midst of extreme poverty – a place of attraction for colonisers to extract wealth accompanied by the pain of poverty for African victims of colonialism. It attracts extra-continental adventurers and wealth looters.
Participants at the Berlin Conference, Munene reasoned, achieved two things. First, they partitioned the Congo zone so that the French, the British, the Portuguese, and the Germans each got a piece of the Congo zone. The biggest beneficiary of the partitioning was King Leopold of Belgium who acquired the entire DR Congo as his personal property, to be called ‘Leopold’s Congo’. The second achievement was to agree on how to claim other African territories without fighting. But Congo was set on a path of destruction.
The post-independence killing of Lumumba plunged Congo into Cold War chaos and acted as a warning to other African leaders of what could happen. Leaders of the soon-to-be-independent Kenya took note of those happenings and assured the West that all would be well because thugs would not run the government. Nairobi tried to reconcile the Congolese factions in the 1960s but external forces made sure that the reconciliation would not go far. Mobutu was the main man to be protected by the Western powers in the 1970s even as he looted his country dry. He became so rich and ran his country bankrupt, so much so that he could lend money to his country. He tried derailing the events in Angola, sponsoring Holden Roberto. In his private visits to the US, he still received honoured treatment from US President Jimmy Carter.
Mobutu’s ouster was due to both internal weaknesses as well as external pressure. Internally, he had alienated the Congolese so much that he did not have an army to rely on. He instead relied on mercenaries and mercenaries rarely fight when they should. They simply take the money and move elsewhere. Mobutu’s mercenaries abandoned him to his fate. The external factors involved a coalition of Congolese in exile under Laurent Desire Kabila, a purported follower of Lumumba and who was supported by neighbouring countries such as Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Angola, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Zambia. Paul Kagame, initially operating from Uganda, came from the 1994 genocide in Rwanda as a saviour. About two million genocide suspects, who escaped to Eastern Congo, endorsed Kabila. And so did Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and other countries which joined the Kabila bandwagon which swept Mobutu out of office into exile in 1997.
With Kabila finally in Kinshasa as president, he changed the country’s name from Mobutu’s Zaire to Democratic Republic of Congo, DR Congo. He also chased his Ugandan and Rwandan supporters from Kinshasa. His bodyguards assassinated him in January 2001. He was succeeded by his son, Joseph Kabila. In addition, the anti-Mobutu allies started quarrelling as each country leader looked after his country’s national interests.
Some of those interests turned out to be exporting gold and other minerals from Eastern Congo. Some like Rwanda and Uganda, exchanged fire in Eastern Congo or, like Uganda and Zimbabwe, exchanging insults as to who was a lackey of the United States. Kabila transferred power to Felix Tshesekedi in 2019 after an election. Several countries have different excuses for having troops in Eastern Congo ranging from security to supporting Felix Tshesikedi’s government against such rebels as M23.
Congo also attracts extra-continental players who propel conflicts in return for access to different types of minerals. They supply the guns to keep the violence going and offer ‘humanitarian’ assistance for the victims. Among the extra-continental players in DR Congo are the EU, China, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, France, and Russia. Tshesekedi, probably observing Ukrainian indecision on giving minerals to Trump’s America, offered to give Trump access to Congolese minerals in return for security. The meeting with Masaad Boulos, advisor to Trump on Africa and the Middle East, who is also an in-law to Trump, reportedly yielded positive results. It might imply a return to the Mobutu days.
Prof Munene concluded that the violence in DR Congo is likely to continue partly because it is not in the perceived interests of the forces that control Congo’s resources such as the mining of the minerals. Those forces subject Congo to various types of invasions ranging from military invasion to commercial as well as beliefs that are designed to dehumanise and enslave people into submission. This is not a new challenge but a long-lasting one that has ravaged Congo for more than 140 years.
Another speaker, Prof. Mutombo Nkulu-N’Sengha, a citizen of DRC and a professor of Religion at California State University, Northridge, USA, is the Vice President of TPADI. In his presentation titled, Geopolitical and Pan-African Approach to the DR Congo Tragedy, he noted that foreign powers have vested interests in the Congo due to its vast mineral deposits. Western powers consider Congo, and indeed Africa, as their properties that can be used however they want, and keeping Africa in perpetual conflicts is part of their strategies for continued exploration and exploitation. Prof Mutombo said although many scholars are suggesting that DRC may be divided into two countries – Western Congo and Eastern Congo – just as the North and South Koreas, he is against demarcation of his native country. For him, the division does not necessarily bring a solution and gave the example of Sudan. Eastern Congo has been in the eye of the storm, he argued, because the largest deposits of minerals are found there. He concluded by calling on all Africans, particularly the Congolese, to rise up, and come together to engage the common enemy, the West.
The third speaker, Dr Peter Wafula Wekesa, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of History, Archeology and Political Studies at Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya, is a specialist in border community relations, border resources, identity politics, international relations as his main research focus. He is an accomplished academic with many publications to his credit. On DRC, Dr Wekesa believes that border and ethnicity issues may not be unconnected to the instability witnessed in the Congo region. Western Powers, he argues, capitalise on ethnic divisions amongst the Congolese to perpetrate their evil agenda, which is to keep the people under subjugation while they exploit their minerals. He therefore called on Congolese and indeed Africans to talk less about the things that divide them and dialogue more on those things that unite them.
Dr. Francis Khayundi looked at the DRC problems through a legal framework. An Assistant Professor of International Law at the United States International University, Africa, he is also an advocate of the High Court of Kenya. At USIU-Africa, he teaches and researches International Law, International Organisations, Refugee Protection, Human Rights, Governance, Data Protection, and International Relations. According to him, the Berlin Conference and its outcome were related to international law as the Western Powers needed to legitimise their actions in Africa through that conference.
The director of the TPADI Commission on African Politics, Governance and International Relations, Dr. Kakai considered the leadership question and its roles in the DRC crisis. He is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of History, Archaeology and Political Studies at Kenyatta University, Nairobi. Dr Kakai questions the quality of leadership in DRC and wonders if the invasion was as a result of the abundant mineral resources in the country or a result of the collusion between the government and foreign forces. He however insisted that no matter the level of conflict, the country should not be divided; but remain united and find a lasting solution to their problems.
The International President of The Pan African Dialogue Institute (TPADI), and organisers of the webinar, Dr Effiong Udo, thanked the panellists for giving the best of their scholarship in enlightening participants on the invasion of the Congo. He noted that what happens in the Congo was of paramount interest to the institute and should be of concern to everyone in Africa. ‘’As Pan-Africanists, we believe that an Injustice to one African is a tragedy to all Africans”, he said.
He regretted that the natural resources in Congo have become a curse that has sent millions of Congolese children, women and men to their early graves with no end in sight, stating that every blood spilt in Congo by the M23 militants is either feeding the greed of its leaders or enriching the Western contractors. He encouraged all to embrace dialogue, a peaceful and non-violent approach to this conflict against picking arms. According to him, violence has never solved a conflict. He called on the African Union to assist the leaders and citizens of Congo to resolve this prolonged conflict through dialogue and deep thinking or our people will continue to die like fools.
In the bustling heart of Nollywood, where stories mirror the pulse of the nation, filmmaker Omoni Oboli’s Love in Every Word emerges not merely as a romantic drama but as a profound allegory for Nigeria’s enduring love affair with itself.
The film, which follows Chioma—a Lagos career woman torn between her past and an unexpected romance—unfolds like a parable for the Nigerian condition: a nation grappling with inherited flaws, societal storms, and a love so fierce it borders on obsession. This is not just a tale of two lovers; it is a reflection of Nigeria’s journey to reconcile its contradictions, heal its wounds, and embrace a future where “all will be well,” no matter the tempests.
Chioma’s story begins with resistance. A modern Nigerian woman shaped by ambition and trauma, she cuts ties with a lover who fails her expectations and recoils from a father whose flaws once shattered her family. Her resolve to avoid men who mirror her father’s shortcomings mirrors the disillusionment many Nigerians feel toward their nation. Like Chioma, citizens often wrestle with a love-hate relationship with Nigeria—a country whose potential feels perpetually undermined by systemic failures, corruption, and the ghosts of past betrayals.
The film’s opening scenes—where Chioma demands back the gifts she gave her ex—echo the frustration of a populace weary of investing hope in leaders and systems that yield little return. Her toxic workplace, ruled by a tyrannical boss, mirrors the daily grind of Nigerians navigating a society where merit is stifled, opportunities are hoarded, and survival often depends on gritting one’s teeth through indignities. Yet, like Chioma, Nigerians persist. They show up, they work, they dream—even when the dream feels like a mirage.
Enter Obiora, the Igbo entrepreneur whose confidence and persistence disrupt Chioma’s guarded world. Played with magnetic charm by Uzor Arukwe, Obiora is no flawless knight; he carries the cultural baggage Chioma despises—accent, traditions, and a boldness that unnerves her. Yet, he embodies something greater: an unshakable belief in his worth and his right to love her. Here lies the metaphor for Nigeria’s untapped promise.
Obiora’s grand gesture—buying an entire office building to win Chioma’s attention—is audacious, almost reckless. But isn’t this the essence of Nigeria? A nation that, against all odds, continues to bet on itself? From the bustling markets of Onitsha to the tech hubs of Yaba, Nigerians daily perform miracles of resilience. They build empires from nothing, create art in chaos, and innovate where infrastructure falters. Like Obiora, Nigeria may not fit the mold of what the world—or even its people—expects, but it refuses to shrink. It demands to be seen, not for its scars, but for its spirit.
Chioma’s workplace serves as a microcosm of Nigeria’s systemic struggles. Her boss, a symbol of oppressive authority, hoards power and undermines her efforts—a reality familiar to many in a nation where leaders often prioritize self-interest over service. Yet, Chioma’s journey teaches a vital lesson: storms refine us. Her resignation from the job, prompted by a crisis of conscience, mirrors moments in Nigerian history when citizens rise—#EndSARS, voter mobilization, civic activism—to reclaim agency.
The film’s tension lies in Chioma’s internal battle: Will she let past pain dictate her future, or will she rewrite her story? Similarly, Nigeria stands at a crossroads. Generations inherited the traumas of colonialism, civil war, and military rule, but the choice remains: Do we chain ourselves to history, or do we, like Chioma, step into the unknown for a chance at redemption?
In Chioma’s friends, Ify and Ivie, we find the Achalugo—the voices of reason and community that anchor her. They represent Nigeria’s vibrant civil society, its artists, its grassroots movements, and its diaspora, all urging the nation toward self-love. “You’re pushing away a good man because of an accent?” Ify chides, echoing the irony of Nigerians who shun local solutions while romanticizing foreign saviors.
Obiora, the Odogwu Paranran (great warrior), embodies the fearless love required to transform Nigeria. His persistence is the relentless hope of farmers tilling arid land, teachers in crumbling classrooms, and nurses battling epidemics with scant resources. He does not beg for acceptance; he earns it through action. This is the lesson for Nigeria: To win the world’s respect, we must first believe in our worth.
The film’s crescendo is Chioma’s leap of faith—choosing Obiora despite her fears. It is a quiet revolution, akin to Nigeria’s moments of collective courage: the 2015 peaceful transfer of power, the creativity of Burna Boy and Chimamanda claiming global stages, and the resilience of IDPs rebuilding lives. Chioma’s choice whispers, “Love is not the absence of storms, but the courage to dance in the rain.”
Nigeria, too, must choose. Will we cling to cynicism, or embrace the audacity of hope? The “love” here is not naive—it is revolutionary. It is the love of Fela’s music raging against oppression, the love of Wole Soyinka’s pen defying tyranny, the love of market women pooling resources to send a child to school. It is a love that stares down dysfunction and says, “You cannot have my soul.”
Love in Every Word closes not with a fairy-tale ending, but with the promise of growth. Chioma and Obiora’s journey is just beginning—as is Nigeria’s. Our nation, like the film’s protagonists, is a work in progress. But progress demands faith.
To love Nigeria irrevocably is to be a realist and a dreamer. It is to acknowledge the oil spills in the Niger Delta and the ingenuity of startups turning waste into wealth. It is to decry banditry in the North while celebrating the peacemakers bridging divides. It is to groan under the weight of poor governance yet campaign tirelessly for accountability.
This love is not blind; it is visionary—seeing beyond the present chaos to the potential gleaming beneath.
Achalugo, the voices crying out for justice, and Odogwu Paranran, the warriors building a better Nigeria, are not mythical figures. They are the students coding through power cuts, the mothers rallying communities against insecurity, and the artists redefining our global narrative. They are you and I.
Nigeria, like Chioma, is learning to love itself—flaws, accents, and all. Our storms—insecurity, inflation, corruption—are fierce, but so is our resolve. The world whispers, “Break,” but Nigeria bends and rises, again and again, because our love is not a fleeting infatuation. It is an obsession, a covenant, a prayer etched into the soil of our ancestors.
In the words of Chinua Achebe, “Nigeria is what it is because its leaders are not what they should be.” Yet, the inverse is also true: Nigeria will be what it should be when its people—guided by the spirit of Achalugo and Odogwu Paranran—refuse to let go of love. We are Chioma, wrestling with our past. We are Obiora, daring to demand more. And in our collective story, the final act is not written by the storms we face, but by the love that outlasts them, and for me this is a testament to the unyielding faith in the fatherland.
All will be well. E go better. Because to love Nigeria is to believe in miracles–May Nigeria Win!
Rivers State is currently facing a pressing and time-sensitive threat. The oil-rich state has come under intense political scrutiny following President Bola Tinubu’s state of emergency proclamation on March 18, 2025. Despite official assurances that this step was necessary to tackle a supposed breakdown of law and order, many observers argue that the constitutional criteria for such a declaration were never met. No credible reports indicated imminent danger to lives or property, and even preliminary police statistics showed no unusual surge in violence across the state. Nevertheless, the federal government acted swiftly: in a single directive, it removed the authority of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and dissolved the legislative apparatus, handing over day-to-day governance to Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired military officer appointed as ‘Administrator’. This has sparked concerns about potential ‘long-term democratic erosion.’
This arrangement immediately raised red flags for those who initially opposed the measure. Critics argue that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution—cited by the Presidency as justification—does not grant the power to remove or suspend an elected Governor and legislature. Equally concerning is that instead of simply approving or rejecting the state-of-emergency proclamation, the National Assembly reportedly modified its contents, thereby exceeding the boundaries that the Constitution sets for such an intervention. Opponents hold that neither the President nor federal legislators have the authority to replace elected officials at the state level. The jury is out on the legality or illegality of the state of emergency. Hon. Linus Okorie, a former legislator, described it this way: “The entire emergency process is riddled with constitutional breaches, political motivations, and authoritarian overreach”.
However, since taking office, Admiral Ibas has waded deep into areas typically reserved for elected officials. Among his first actions was to replace civil servants overseeing local government administration and appoint politically aligned persons to key positions across local government areas. As a result, the constitutionally mandated practice of running councils via democratically elected officials has been set aside.
While the original proclamation from President Tinubu allegedly stressed that the Administrator should formulate only “regulations” limited to security concerns, what has taken place on the ground looks far more like lawmaking. Admiral Ibas began preparing the state’s 2025 budget without legislative oversight, triggered the dismissal of Governor Fubara’s political appointees, especially those who were nominated and cleared by the then “United” House of Assembly — and most conspicuously the changing of the leadership of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission and the Local Government Service Commission. According to local reports, many new appointees are known loyalists of Minister Nyesom Wike, fuelling suspicion that the entire emergency rule is a ploy to reshape Rivers politics in Wike’s favour.
There is a trend of alleged unconstitutional acts. Critics list the illegal nature of the emergency declaration itself, the contravention of Supreme Court orders regarding the disbursement of state funds, and the public misrepresentation of reconstruction efforts at the House of Assembly complex—among many others. The removal of statutory political appointees is high on that list, especially since no effort was made to show how such dismissals advance public safety or quell any threat. Community leaders, particularly the Rivers Rescue Organisers, point out that neither the restive areas of the riverine communities nor the capital city, Port Harcourt, have witnessed any large-scale disruptions.
Under these circumstances, questions continue to swirl around President Tinubu’s motives. Why plan to replace municipal civil servants with new politically aligned local government heads if the priority is truly stabilising the state? Why reconstitute the state electoral commission under emergency rule, especially if elections are not immediately at stake? How can an appointed Administrator validly prepare a budget, an act of lawmaking, without any form of legislative debate or approval? And does the National Assembly’s role in modifying the state-of-emergency order amount to an overreach that effectively sanctioned the removal of an elected governor and state assembly? Detractors note that emergency powers are supposed to be short-term, narrowly tailored, and strictly limited to restoring order. However, what they see in Rivers is a sweeping overhaul of political power that extends to every layer of governance. The reality is that Admiral Ibas is acting more like a governor-legislator hybrid than a temporary peacekeeping official. Hon. CID Maduabum, a lawyer and former federal legislator, warns, ” The administrator’s unconstitutional actions could exacerbate tensions in the state and plunge the state into total chaos”.
These moves have led many commentators to label what is happening in Rivers as a ‘coup in civilian clothing,’ an accusation arising from the wholesale transfer of authority from constitutionally elected officials to a single federal government appointee. The shift to Wike-aligned figures in strategic positions has heightened suspicions that the state of emergency is an avenue for orchestrating a prearranged political outcome. Much of the controversy also hinges on allegations of political engineering. Local journalists report that of the 15 newly appointed officials to key institutional boards—such as the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission and the Local Government Service Commission—11 are loyal to Minister Nyesom Wike, a former Governor who is a central figure in the crisis.
Some have dismissed these claims as ‘partisan conspiracy theories,’ insisting that ‘all appointments are based on proven track records, not political patronage.’ Still, the public’s scepticism runs high, with online forums and call-in radio shows flooded by residents who question why the emergency rule appears far more focused on dismantling existing political structures than addressing any tangible threats to public safety. Community organisers note that hardly any newly appointed officials have prior experience in crisis management or security coordination, raising further doubts about the purported rationale behind their placement. Some worry that Rivers is a test case for 2027, with potential ramifications for other states that may not align with presidential or ministerial interests. In Rivers State, some described this situation as a ” democratic time bomb” where political actors hide under emergency rule to subvert democracy and core norms of constitutionalism. This trend could set a dangerous precedent for the 2027 elections, potentially influencing the political landscape of Nigeria.
The broader implications of the Rivers situation are hard to ignore. With state-level institutions effectively suspended, Governor Fubara sidelined, and the plan for local government councils to be replaced by appointed administrators, many believe constitutional order in the state has been covertly, if not overtly, suspended. Civic organisations warn that disenfranchised populations may react with widespread protests, especially if the promised swift return to normal governance does not materialise. The potential for widespread protests is a cause for concern, as should this standoff persist, it could create a dangerous template for federal interference in states nationwide.
For the people of Rivers State, the immediate concern is the return to constitutional order and preserving their franchise in a system that seems precariously close to unravelling. On the streets of Port Harcourt, protestors have been seen carrying placards reading “Democracy, Not Decrees” and “Our Votes Still Matter,” while religious leaders convened a meeting in different parts of the state to pray for what they described as “the restoration of the people’s will.” Some youth groups have launched social media campaigns using hashtags like #RestoreRiversDemocracy and #LetFubaraGovern, urging the international community to pay attention to “an unfolding civilian coup.” With calls for the Supreme Court to reassert its authority and for civil society groups to mobilise nonviolent demonstrations, tension remains high. If the political impasse continues, Rivers could see a spike in civil disobedience or sporadic unrest, especially given that many young adults in the South-South region believe that political justice, or the lack thereof, is a key driver of local violence.
At the heart of this entire debate lies whether Nigeria’s constitutional framework still holds firm under the weight of executive discretion. Emergency powers, after all, are meant to be invoked only when a true crisis emerges—and even then, only in ways that address the immediate security concerns while respecting democratic principles. The repeated references to Sections 305 and 11 have not alleviated suspicions that the fundamental objective is political control. Local watchers note that the last time an emergency was declared in a state—albeit under different circumstances—the Governor remained in office, and the National Assembly did not assume powers to alter the structure of local councils or reconstitute electoral commissions.
Ultimately, Rivers has become a crucible for Nigeria’s democracy, forcing citizens and the judiciary to consider whether checks and balances can withstand what some describe as an “unconstitutional assault.” Calls for reinstating elected structures have grown louder, particularly as the administrator delves into lawmaking and politics. The Constitution was never meant to be a smokescreen for personal or political ambition. Stripping away entire layers of governance under the pretence of emergency is not what the framers envisioned. Grassroots organisations are gathering signatures, staging peaceful demonstrations, and submitting petitions to the courts to restore what they see as Rivers State’s rightful democratic order. For now, no matter how this chapter ends in the state, constitutional democracy has been fatally damaged, and normalcy and order may be far away.
If there is a silver lining, it is that many Rivers residents—despite feeling sidelined—remain vocal in asserting their rights. Though limited in scope, public opinion polls suggest that a significant percentage of the populace demands a return to constitutional rule. The task of democratic forces in the state now is to use the six-month period to expose the fraud of the emergency administration and undermine its original intentions.
While the political actions of the citizenry and how the courts will ultimately rule remain to be seen, the state of emergency in Rivers has transcended its initial justification and transformed into a high-stakes test of Nigeria’s federal and democratic systems. The outcome may decide whether democratic norms can remain intact when confronted by executive power cloaked under security.
Forty-seven years ago, Nigerian students took a stand against military dictatorship. They insisted that every child should have a right and access to education. They, therefore, rejected increases in school and feeding fees, insisting that education should not be commercialised.
An enraged military regime sent out soldiers against the students. What followed was a massacre.
The Murtala-Obasanjo regime zeroed in on four student leaders: Segun Okeowo, Bukar Mbaya, Offiong Aqua, and Ekpein Appah, leader of the University of Benin, UNIBEN, Students Union. Appah had most infuriated the Head of State, General Olusegun Obasanjo and his Deputy, General Shehu Yar’ Adua.
However, while the first three were generally known, Appah appeared to be a shadowy figure. After their detention for months and expulsion from school, he seemed to have fallen off the earth’s surface.
To mark the 47th Year of the uprising which comes up this Thursday, April 17, 2025, I drew Appah out of his shell in Kiama, Bayelsa State to present the uncommunicative hero to the world.
He had attended primary schools in Kiama, Abeokuta, Lagos, Enugu and Kaduna; secondary school in Yenagoa and higher school in Port Harcourt, before being admitted into UNIBEN in the 1976/77 Session. His active participation in student unionism was fortuitous. He was an off-campus student and the Students Union had decided that those students should be represented in the parliament. So he came to represent the off-campus students.
Appah teamed up with some other students to present a candidate for the union presidency. Their candidate won, but turned out to be a disappointment. So Appah moved a motion for his impeachment. The union then decided to re-write its constitution. He was made the Chair of the Constitution Review Committee. The Committee visited universities like Ibadan and Lagos to apprise itself of their student union constitutions. When he returned, he found that in his absence, the student union had decided to put in place a Caretaker Committee, and he had been presented as the Chairman.
This was when the NUNS was consulting various groups against the military’s decision to commercialise education. UNIBEN students were in full support of the student agitations and Appah immediately joined other national student leaders. They met a delegation of the military regime led by General Yar’Adua. In Ekpein’s analysis, the talks broke down because General Obasanjo believed that Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who was agitating to be elected President on a programme for free education, was the brain behind the students agitation. So, the ruling Supreme Military Council was insistent that it would make no compromise.
Appah insisted there was no such external influence, and that indeed, there was no influence from any quarters as the students were well informed about local and international issues which were often debated across campuses. He said the NUNS position was that if the leakages in public expenditure were blocked, there would be enough money to fund and maintain free education. The NUNS had listed some of those leakages.
He said the students also felt that if Ghana, which did not have the resources of Nigeria, including oil wealth, could provide free education, there was no reason why Nigeria could not do same. The students insisted that there could be no increase in school fees without the military consulting them, their lecturers and parents.
Appah said when ABU students and other citizens were shot in Zaria, the anger of the students and the Nigerian populace could no longer be contained.
Students decided nationwide to carry out symbolic burial of the victims. Appah told me what happened next in UNIBEN: “We had two campuses: Ekenwa and Ugbowo. We carried coffins from Ekenwa to Ugbowo. The police stopped us on the Lagos-Benin highway and ordered us back. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aliyu Attah, who later became IG (Inspector General of Police, 1990-93) told us the police would not allow us to proceed. I told him he should either allow us or shoot us.
He argued that the burial we wanted to carry out was merely symbolic, so there was no issue whether we actually carried out the burial or not. I replied that in Africa, burials can be symbolic. It was a tense situation as some of the students were military personnel on in-service training and had guns. I myself carried a knife for self-defence.
Attah then told us the Commissioner of Police, Etim Inyang, later IG (1983-86) wanted to see us. We told Attah we would see the CP but would not trek to the Police Command. So they provided vehicles. We had started our march at 7am and did not leave the Police Command until 3pm. They carried us back to Ekenwa where we held a strong rally. During the rally, only one car was destroyed. It was an official car with the inscription, ‘Bendel State Hospital Board’, which was burnt.”
The regime which prided itself as being strongly anti-Apartheid, was livid when Appah in a letter to General Obasanjo wrote that while Apartheid South Africa was killing Blacks, he could not use Nigerian guns to kill Nigerians.
Appah was invited to see the Police Commissioner from where he was whisked to the Kingsway Road, Lagos offices of the secret Nigeria Security Organisation, NSO. He was then moved to the NSO Headquarters on Awolowo Road where he met detained lecturers like Ola Oni, Bade Onimode and Laoye Sanda. He was later moved to the Kirikiri Maximum Prison where he spent a total 49 days. He said he had a lot of introspection in prison as he had no access to books.
Appah said of his release: “ One day, the warder said I should come out and I was just left outside the Kirikiri (prison) gates. I walked to the road, and took a taxi to my brother’s residence at Number 230, Ojo Road, Ajegunle.”
After schools were reopened, he was about taking his examinations when an announcement was made expelling him. He was not allowed to return to school until 1982 when he was admitted by the University of Ibadan, to read Classics and Philosophy.
The Ibadan students were unaware of his presence on the campus until the campus press came to interview him. His former co-detainee, Bade Onimode, a Professor, then called him and said: “You can’t hide.”
On the current state of the country, including 18.3 million out-of-school children, Appah told me in our April 12, 2025 interview: “Wherever we are, whether in the village, town or country, we must be able to fight for it. Until you die, there is no rest. Until he died, Fidel Castro did not rest, Mandela did not rest. We must be ready to die for our society; Jesus died for his country.”
2025 has not been easy on Nigerians. The economy has looked far from bright; the weather has been suffocating; and cost of living has been stubbornly oppressive. With rising massacres in the Middle Belt, and Borno State in the north-east apparently losing ground to the nihilism of Boko Haram terror, violence remains unremitting. In the Niger Delta, a judicially manufactured crisis of political godfathering threatens serious repercussions for the national purse and endangers rent and royalties from the wells of oil-rich Rivers State. All this unfolds under the watch of a president who appears to have grown into a habit of sending episodic missives to Nigerians from his preferred base in Paris and occasionally paying a visit to Abuja from there.
Each of these developments is eminently newsworthy. Together, they should grip attentions about the goings-on in the sixth most populous country in the world. Instead, the biggest news out of Nigeria this year is the failure of Nigeria’s men of power to manage libidinal sexploits in the workplace, and the accompanying tendency to default to abuse of power to inter any resulting embarrassments.
Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is the Senator for Kogi Centraland, by herself, 25% of the female contingent in the Nigeria’s Senate. Her detailed allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, would probably have long ago run their course if the chamber and its leadership had approached the matter with due regard to any rule book. Instead, they chose to orchestrate the longest-running political soap opera in Africa’s most populous country.
As with these things, most people no longer remember the complaint because the cover-up procured by abuse of power has been more impressive. It has guaranteed that this story has “dominated conversations and highlighted longstanding women’s rights issues in the socially conservative country, where no woman has ever been elected governor, vice-president or president.”
For many, any suggestion that it is abnormal for a man not to get excited in the presence of a woman in the workplace is perplexing to the point of vexing. In a case in 2016, a lawyer representing a powerful international organisation in a case of sexual harassment before the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), told the judge that “it is expected among adults that a man would naturally chase a woman, make romantic overtures.” Few have paused to ask what exactly “sexual harassment” means, why it matters and why it is such a lingering issue in both work spaces and public institutions.
In 2011, the Lagos State Criminal Law made sexual harassment a felony. The law describes the crime to include“unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favours, and other visual, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature which when submitted to or rejected” could affect or unreasonably interfere with the employment or educational opportunities of a person; become a factor in their academic or employment decision, or create an intimidating, hostile or offensive learning or working environment. Other states like Ekiti and Kaduna States have followed the example of Lagos in making sexual harassment a crime.
Sexual harassment can also create civil liability. Stella Odey was a widow with four children when the development organization, CUSO, hired her for your years in January 2015 as project manager. At work, she found herself under a male boss who repeatedly told her that “her voice arrests him, slapping her buttocks and embracing her against her will and consent.” He was reluctant to hear her protestation that she desired to remarry.
In July 2015, 14 days after Ms. Odey gave her boss a card inviting him to her wedding, he summarily sacked her. In upholding her claim of unlawful termination, the National Industrial Court pointed out that “the main point in allegations of sexual harassment is that unwelcome sexual conduct has invaded the workplace.”
Four years earlier, the same court awarded quite substantial damages against Microsoft in Nigeria in favour of a female staff whose employment the country manager, a man, terminated after she refused his sexual advances.
While parliamentary sexploits in the Senate have broughtmuch-needed attention to the subject generally, it remains the case that Nigeria’s educational and academic institutions are the places most persistently associated with sexual harassment. Nearly 45 years ago, in 1981, a mere two years after Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was born, the report of the Presidential Commission on Salary and Conditions of University Staff chaired by Professor Samuel Cookey acknowledged an incipient problem of sexual harassment in the universities. Since then, the issue has grown in both scope and significance.
In 2024, a pioneering Baseline Survey conducted under the auspices of the Committee of Gender Directors in Nigerian Universities in partnership with the non-governmental organization, Alliances for Africa, found that at least 63% of female students in universities in the country had experiencedsexual harassment. The perpetrators included lecturers, staff, and students. The report acknowledged an absence of progress on this issue, citing “stigmatisation, absence of adequate institutional support, power imbalances between victims and perpetrators, lack of clear policies and procedures for reporting incidents.”
An ongoing scandal at the Federal University, Oye Ekiti (FUOYE), involving allegations of sexual harassment against the Vice-Chancellor, Abayomi Fasina, a professor, illustrates how bad the situation is. At the end of last year, it emerged that a female senior director at the university, Folasade Adebayo, had accused the Vice-Chancellor of work place reprisals after she allegedly rejected his persistent sexual advances.
The Ekiti State Gender-Based Violence (Prohibition) Lawcreates a felony crime of sexual harassment which occurs when there is “unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or other conduct based on sex or gender which is persistent or serious and demeans, humiliates, or creates a hostile or intimidating environment.” To prove her allegations, Mrs. Adebayo produced a sound clip of a telephone conversation with the Vice-Chancellor in 2023 in which he could be heard pleading that he would make her happy as long as she made him happy, and confessing: “Let me tell you, I’m dying inside for you.”
After what was supposed to be an internal investigation, the Governing Council issued a statement this past week claiming that it had cleared the Vice-Chancellor of the allegations. Instead it ordered various disciplinary measures against Mrs. Adebayo and the leadership of the Staff Union of the University (which made her allegations public), “for bringing the name of the university into disrepute.”
Without challenging the provenance of the sound clip or the veracity of its contents, the Governing Council instead “condemned the recording of the Vice-Chancellor without his knowledge and consent.” Yet, it resolved to advise the Vice-Chancellor “in writing to be more careful and circumspect in dealing with subordinates.” Not done with this piece of tortured administrative theatre, the Governing Council then announced that it would constitute a “peace and reconciliation committee to look into all the issues in the university.”
The performance of the Senate in the institutional calisthenics of inspired cover-up easily pales into insignificance beside the mastery displayed by the Governing Council of FUOYE. Under cover of high statutory authority, the Governing Council procured the burial of serious allegations that could be criminal in Ekiti while implicitly validating their veracity. Why would the Vice-Chancellor need gratuitous advice of the kind the Council will be offering if the recording lacked credibility? Unsurprisingly, the university staff union promptly denouncedthe decision.
The bigger problem is that the Council by this decision destroys any hope of remedies for students, staff or anyone with credible claims of sexual harassment in the university. Instead, they guarantee exactly the opposite of what the university seeks to avoid: resort to public advocacy by victims. Anticipating that, the Governing Council of FUOYE says it will expedite the production of policies on cyber-bullying and use of social media. The intention is not to help victims or to bring perpetrators to account. Rather, it seeks to perpetuate a culture of cover-up. Anyone looking for where the men in Senate learnt their art when they were boys should look no further than a Nigerian University.
A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu
More...
Courtesy of an artist operating in a different genre – the cartoon – who sent me his recent graphic comment on the event, I learnt recently of a return to the culture of censorship with the banning of the product of a music artist, Eedris Abdulkareem.
My position is that such a progressive move by the government and its agencies does not go far enough. It is not only the allegedly offensive record that should be banned - the musician himself should be proscribed. Next, PMAN, or whatever musical association of which Abdulkareem is member, should also go under the hammer. Nor should we ignore the cartoonist, Ebun Aleshinloye, who not only etched out his trenchant response to the ban but disseminated it all the way to Abu Dhabi. Let’s simply go the whole hog!
I have yet to listen to the record but the principle is inflexibly etched on any democratic template. It cannot be flouted. That, surely is basic. This is why I feel that we should look on the bright side of any picture and thus recommend the Aleshinloye’ cartoon – and others in allied vein - as an easy to apprehend, easy to digest summation of the wisdom of attempting to stifle unpalatable works of art or socio-political commentary, The ban is a boost to the artist’s nest egg, thanks to free governmental promotion. Mr. Abdulkareem must be currently warbling his merry way all the way to the bank. I envy him.
We have been through this before, over and over again, ad nauseum. We know where it all ends. It is boring, time-wasting, diversionary but most essential of all, subversive of all seizure of the fundamental right of free expression. It also creates a permissive atmosphere of trickle-down power where governors have been known to pursue social critics across state borders, kidnap and imprison them for long spells, using the judicial machinery of never-ending trials. Oh, bear in mind also theocratic “authorities” that continue to arrogate to themselves the right to arrest and imprison artists and thinkers for their expression of opinion and vision of human existence. The fundamental right of free expression, as already touched upon, is not a closet affair, it is never hidden but echoes as loudly on international fora as in the most obscure hamlet.
Any government that is tolerant only of yes-men and women, which accommodate only praise-singers and dancers to the official beat, has already commenced a downhill slide into the abyss. Whatever regulating body is responsible for this petulant irrationality should be compelled to reverse its misstep.
Wole SOYINKA
NYUAD, Abu Dhabi
Ps. It is a sadly opportune moment, but also an enraged one, to join in conveying my commiseration to the families of the latest victims of the lynch mob mentality that is fast overtaking the nation. Edo today, which state next? Nineteen youths in one fell swoop?
Let this latest dent in the national armour not pass as the yet soul searing orgy that ended the life of the young student, Deborah Samuel. Recall that identified killers were set free to gloat, and paste their photos on the Social Media as having lit the consuming pyre - this in full daylight glare, in the presence of both citizen voyeurs and security forces. The horror is not in numbers but in the act itself. As long as the culture of impunity is given the sheerest strain of legitimacy in any given cause, such gruesome assaults on our common humanity will continue to prevail, and a reversion to brutish existence become a nation’s stamp of identity.
The culprits are in plain sight and so are witnesses. There can be no excuses. My heart goes out to friends, colleagues and families of victims and traumatized survivors of this senseless slaughter. Our thirst for justice must remain unslaked.
“If you shut up truth and bury it underground; it will but grow and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it burst through, it will blow up everything in its way” – Emile Zola, 1840-1902.
I never thought President Tinubu would ever sack Mele Kyari. A few days before the announcement, a friend of mine and regular reader called me and during our discussion asked: “Dele, are you sure those in power read what you write and take them seriously?” He was referring specifically to the articles I have written about the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited, NNPCL, and its Group Managing Director, Mele Kyari – who, in my opinion, was the worst officer ever to hold that position. Virtually every statement made by Kyari on important matters turned out to be wrong. Some, like 2 million barrels per day crude oil production, were deliberately misleading. The consequences of serial deception of Presidents Buhari and Tinubu are incalculable and destructive; because most of the failures of the annual budget have their origins in the illusions Kyari had foisted on our leaders since 2019. Perhaps it was a mere coincidence that my article titled, FG, PRIVATE REFINERIES IN MUTUAL SELF-DECEPTION, appeared two days before he was sacked. The following assertions were made then: “The most obstinate illusions are ultimately broken by facts – Trevor-Roper, 1914-2003.
When Dangote Refinery, two weeks ago, announced that it would no longer sell fuel to marketers in naira; and, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited, NNPCL, simultaneously pronounced the end of naira-for-crude arrangement, it was clear to some of us that the illusions with which Nigerians have been living since 2023 had been broken by the facts which had always been at our disposal; but which we chose to ignore. Alhaji Dangote, before establishing his gigantic refinery, must have consulted with the topmost leaders of the Buhari administration and the NNPCL; who promised him that he would have all the crude oil to run his refinery – whose capacity is 650,000 barrels per day. President Buhari, who doubled as the Minister of Petroleum Resources, must have been one of them. Indeed, when in May 2023 Buhari commissioned the Dangote Refinery, which was far from being ready to produce fuel, Nigeria’s Head of State re-affirmed the readiness of the Federal Government to supply all the crude the refinery would need. It was a colossal executive lie.”
The article ended as follows:
“Four, disbelieving Kyari, Mr Heineken Lokpobiri and the FG, when they issue assurances is the beginning of wisdom.
Five, Nigerians should accept that the promise of domestic sustainable fuel sufficiency will continue to elude us as long as we have serial dissemblers in charge of our petroleum sector. Mr Heineken was still telling participants at an event in January this year that Nigeria would soon be pumping out 2mbpd of crude – even when daily production figures in January gave the lie to the announcement. Primary school arithmetic could have proved to all of them that 650,000 to Dangote and 445,000 barrels to NNPCL’s refineries are incompatible with Nigeria’s current fiscal and monetary programmes.”
MELE KYARI WILL NOW KNOW HIS TRUE FRIENDS
“The yes-man is the enemy. Your true friend will argue with you; fight with you” – Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, 1918-2003.
Mele Kyari, like most Nigerian top office holders, was not immune to the flattery which some of media men heap on such fortunate men. Almost everyone wants to be on their good books – for obvious reasons. Unless they are naturally abrasive, the parade of praise singers is endless. Giant strides are always being made by those known to be generous. You must be self-assured to criticise them; and even your criticism might not be published. For every critic, there are ten ready to swear on their mother’s grave that the officer is a top performer – until the man leaves office for any reason. Then, he will discover how few friends he had. One example will help illustrate the loneliness of the ex-top official. When was the last time you read anyone in the media or heard on television or radio commending Godwin Emefiele, former Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN? In the first quarter of 2022, a group of people took out a series of advertisements in all the newspapers and some television stations urging the man to run for President. The Rice Farmers Association of Nigeria, RIFAN, paid N100 million for his nomination form. Some members of his ethnic group joined the call for Emefiele to run. Each and everyone of the associations or individuals based their position on the wonderful work he had done as CBN Governor; how he single-handedly saved the economy from Buhari’s incompetence; made Nigeria almost self-sufficient in rice production etc, etc. Critics, like me, were regarded as nuisance; and Emefiele himself might have regarded us as enemies. Today, as he is dragged from one court to another; faces several cases and more might be on the way, he must be wondering: Where are my friends? Where were the Youths asking Emefiele to run? Has RIFAN been disbanded? Why are they not ready to testify in court to his greatness in order to balance out all the negative stuff prosecutors are setting out – rightly or wrongly – to bring a disastrous end to what should otherwise have been a glorious career? I pity Mele Kyari. If he is indicted by a deep probe into NNPCL accounts, he will discover how few friends he really had. Some have stopped calling already. The first to vanish will be his media “admirers”. The “pot of gold” has dropped from his hands into Ojulari’s lap. It is not in the interest of bounty hunters to defend an ex-officer and antagonise the fellow now able to pay. The decent beneficiaries of his generosities will not attack him directly. But, not all. He should be prepared to, henceforth, read and hear things about himself which he never thought will see the light of day. Falling off mount Everest is not easy.
PA IRO OMORODION, 1939-2025, HONOURABLE JOURNALIST
“Everyone calls himself a friend, but, only a fool relies on it. Nothing is commoner than the name; nothing is rarer than the thing” – Jean De La Fontaine, 1621-1695.
Have you ever had a friend, who you never met, talked to almost every week on the phone for over 12 years? Pa Iro Omorodion, who passed on recently and would be buried on Friday, April 11, 2025, was the second of such associations that I have been privileged to have. The first was Cecil Jones, a Jamaican artist; who was my pen friend from 1965 to 1997; before he too left me feeling empty. Pa Omorodion, incidentally, was a well-established Nigerian journalist; who, by any measure known to man, was very good and successful. Unfortunately, about the only person alive who would remember him is Chief Segun Osoba, former Governor of Ogun State. But, before Osoba became Governor, he was Editor of the HERALD Newspapers; owned by the Kwara State Government. State newspapers, in those halcyon days, were professionally managed. That was why it was possible for Osoba, an Abeokuta man, and Iro, from Bendel State, to work for a Northern paper. Omorodion, however, stayed longer than Osoba. Before Herald, he had worked for defunct Morning Post for six years; New Nigerian Newspapers for a year; before putting 17 years into the service of the HERALD. Altogether, he had been in media for 26 years; rising from Reporter to Line Editor; before spending sixteen years as a Special Assistant to Dr S. O. Ogbemudia, the Governor who made Bendel great – during the Gowon administration.
Our friendship started from him; when one Sunday he called to discuss my column that day. He partly agreed; partly disagreed but in each case he outlined his reasons in a professional manner. He was back the next Sunday and the next and the next…At one point, I decided not to pick his calls; but he persisted. Then, it dawned on me that I was listening reluctantly to someone who was an encyclopaedia on Nigeria’s political history – especially the years 1964 to 1974 – when I was away in America. He became my teacher and my Librarian; who was giving me free tutorials which enriched my articles immensely. Conscious of my ignorance of what happened during the Civil War, 1967-70, I called and relied more on his knowledge and experience as a Reporter and State Editor. Few people realised it, but, the people of the Midwest, later called Bendel, and much later, divided into Delta and Edo, suffered more than anybody else. They were brutalised by Biafran soldiers on their way to Ore; and ravaged again when Igbo soldiers were in retreat. Federal troops in pursuit of the fleeing Biafrans added heaps of salt upon Mid-Western injuries. Bendelites were the real victims of a war started by others without their consent. Pa Omorodion taught me that heart-rending lesson; and, it should not die with him.
Finally, the friendship blossomed to the point where not receiving his call or calling him meant my Sunday was not complete. I never felt closer to a person who I never met. Now, I can understand why Ogbemudia, a hard task master, who did not suffer fools gladly, kept him for sixteen years. He is such a rare gem, a beautiful soul that I wish he lived for ever – for my sake, if not for anyone else. May his gentle soul rest in perpetual peace.
The name ‘Labour Party’ is usually adopted by political parties across the globe, that are linked more to democratic socialism. Such parties are traditionally allied with trade unions, labour movements or progressive alliances. Labour Parties are quite popular in strong democracies such as the UK where it has produced outstanding government leaders like Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and now Keir Starmer. But in a few developing societies, where democracy is yet to be institutionalized, some politicians are now known to seethe Labour Party as a platform for gaining power only to acquire personal gains. Nigeria’s Labour Party has displayed this tendency since 2023 when many candidates who had no progressive background surprisingly won elections through the party’s platform.
Last week, a large crowd of the most credible faction of the party approached the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC to declare their authentic leadership in line with the decision of the Supreme Court that only a political party can determine such internal political matter. The group which showed up at INEC included the party’s presidential candidate in the 2023 general election, Peter Obi and his running mate, Datti Ahmed. Governor Alex Oti of Abia state the party’s only current state governor as well as many other strong members of the party were also part of the team that visited the electoral body for the same purpose. One would have thought that the show of strength by the group would have persuaded other members to fall in line but that hardly happens in Nigeria where politicians cherish the act of disputing issues for life.
Julius Abure, the former National Chairman of the LP has a group of rather inconsequential supporters who are yet to appreciate the futility of refusing to know when an era ends. They have continued to issue press statements rejecting the popular position so as to hold-on to power. In other climes, Abure who is himself a lawyer would not encourage the unending damage to the party’s image. More than a year ago, Oluchi Opara, the party’s National Treasurer, accused Abure, of squandering N3billion out of the N3.5billion raised for the 2023 election campaigns. Rather than step aside for an independent audit team to clear him of the allegation, he got the party to set up a disciplinary committee which suspended Opara for six months, for making allegations against the national chairman of the party.
To establish clearly that Nigeria does not have a real Labour Party, let’s compare what happened last week with the UK’s Labour Party. The story that way was that the UK British Police in Avon and Somerset arrested a Labour Parliamentarian, Dan Norris, on suspicion of sexual offences and misconduct in a public office. As a result, MP Norris was immediately placed on suspension by the party to reflect its zero tolerance for corruption. Aptly put, Norris was still under investigation when a suspension notice was entered against him just as he also lost his position as party whip in the House of Commons. Whereas the punishment would appear hasty, the Labour Party which claims to belong to the masses and the working class cannot afford to have a legislator that can be accused of such criminal offences. In other words, any politician wanting to stand for election under LP’s platform must be conscious of the party’s high moral standards.
In Nigeria on the other hand, the holder of the top most office of the LP was over a year ago reported to have mismanaged over N3.5 billion raised from the party’s sale of nomination forms for the 2023 general elections. According to the National Treasurer of the party who is best positioned to know the facts, “apart from the proceeds of the sale of forms from his home state of Edo – which was diverted to Mr Abure’s private accounts, he only declared N55 million to me as Treasurer, of the over N3.5 billion raised, pocketing the rest for himself.” Till today, the public has not been told what was done to the suspect and no effort was made by the executive committee of the party to publish the party’s expenditures that could dispel wrong allegations. Being a criminal matter, no one has heard of any progress report by the law enforcement agencies on the subject. Yet, the case concerns a Labour Party that ought to be more transparent than capitalist inclined parties.
Another reason why Nigerians cannot hold the LP in high esteem is the unexpected cross-carpeting perpetuated by its elected office holders more than any other opposition party. About five months ago when no less than 6 members of the National Assembly elected under the platform of the LP defected, the party cried out in vain for the seats of the legislators to be declared vacant. Frustrated, the LP opened a ‘Hall of Shame’ register for the particular lawmakers or any lawmaker or elected officer of the party who engages in fraudulent act of defection without first dropping the mandate gotten under the ticket of the party.
But why are LP legislators engaging in what the party calls ‘Jumpology’ – an ideology of the jumping of political merchants and opportunists from one party to the other, in disregard to the enabling laws and without any ideological leaning.
The claim that several crises in the LP can justify the carpet crossing hobby by many of its members is not a strong point. To start with, even the ruling party has its own challenges – one of its founding fathers recently moved to another party. Indeed, all Nigerian political parties are the same because the movements by politicians which are happening across board are uniform and are informed by the strong desire to join which ever platform appears more stable and supported in a given location. Political crises are thus not the most persuasive reasons for defection; if they were, everyone would have since moved. The fact that the LP which has lost many members to other parties, has itself received defectors to its own fold in Abia, its area of strength is instructive. The truth therefore is that Nigeria’s political system operates in a mercantilist industry.
Many Nigerians believe that the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC and its predecessor, the Peoples Democratic, PDP are two sides of the same coin. Consequently, many looked forward with excitement to the Labour Party winning the 2023 election. That however did not happen making us all to imagine that the LP will be the authentic opposition party that would put the government on its toes to ensure good governance. Painfully, the elected LP members did not only fail to live up to expectation, they also generally colluded with the capitalists by being active participants in the negatives of the Assembly. They pocketed their share of luxury official vehicles at a time of the nation’s economic vulnerability and left no one in doubt that they were an integral part of the opulence of the ruling class and were thus uninterested in helping to salvage the nation from political extortion.
While it is true that many of the ills of the LP are also perpetuated by other parties, no one expected that the party would not be different from other politicians. On the issue of court judgments for example, it is a matter for regret that labour politicians are leading others in refusing to understand court judgments and indeed actively misinforming the public on the exact pronouncements by the judiciary. This was probably why the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) had to openly condemn the Abure-led LP for rejecting the apex court’s ruling which ‘explicitly dismissed Abure’s cross-appeal seeking judicial endorsement of his leadership claim.’ The writers are disappointed that rather than stepping down, Abure has continued to operate as chairman, deepening divisions and confusion within the party.
It is time for Nigerians to recognize the unfortunate collusion of the political class and aggressively stand up against antidemocratic practices by any of them. First, our judiciary needs to cut off the undue room previously given to politicians to judicialize our politics. We all know that no Nigerian political party has been so overwhelmed to warrant defections from any of them. Therefore, political office holders especially legislators who defect should be compelled to step down from office without delay as the constitution directs. In the case of leadership tussles, INEC which is empowered to regulate political parties should promptly reject impostors, sit-tight leaders and all those prompted by outside forces to take-over their parties so as to destabilize such parties.
[OPINION] Ambassadorial Appointments Should Be Based on Competence, Not Political Loyalty - Isaac Asabor
AdminIn the ever-evolving landscape of global diplomacy, the role of ambassadors is both critical and multifaceted. They represent their countries, foster alliances, and serve as intermediaries in negotiations that could shape the course of history. Ambassadors are more than emissaries; they are strategists, negotiators, and cultural envoys. For a nation like Nigeria, with its immense potential and complex challenges, the selection of ambassadors carries significant implications for its global standing. Yet, the practice of appointing ambassadors based on partisan politics rather than competence and experience poses a significant risk to the nation’s interests.
The appointment of ambassadors as a function of political patronage is not unique to Nigeria, but its consequences are particularly pronounced in countries where the stakes are high. Nigeria’s vibrant economy, cultural richness, and regional influence in Africa demand a diplomatic corps that is not only knowledgeable but also deeply invested in advancing the nation’s strategic goals. However, the trend of prioritizing political loyalty over expertise has often resulted in the appointment of individuals who may lack the requisite skills for effective diplomacy.
Ambassadors are the face and voice of a nation on the international stage. They are tasked with representing their country’s interests in foreign nations and multilateral organisations. Their responsibilities range from negotiating trade agreements to advocating for their country’s positions on global issues. This pivotal role requires a unique blend of skills, including cultural intelligence, negotiation prowess, and a deep understanding of international relations.
In Nigeria’s case, the importance of ambassadors cannot be overstated. As Africa’s most populous country and largest economy, Nigeria wields considerable influence. Its ambassadors must be equipped to leverage this influence to secure favorable trade deals, attract foreign investment, and build strategic partnerships. They must also work to enhance Nigeria’s image, counter negative stereotypes, and address misconceptions about the country.
Ambassadors also play a key role in regional stability. Nigeria is often referred to as the “giant of Africa,” a status that comes with responsibilities. Nigerian ambassadors must be proactive in promoting peace and security across the continent, particularly in regions plagued by conflict. They must engage in diplomatic efforts to resolve disputes, support democratic governance, and advocate for regional integration.
When ambassadorial appointments are dictated by partisan politics, the focus shifts from merit to loyalty. This practice undermines the effectiveness of the nation’s diplomatic efforts. Individuals appointed based on political affiliations may lack the necessary experience or qualifications to navigate the complexities of international relations. Their inability to effectively represent Nigeria’s interests can result in missed opportunities and, in some cases, diplomatic blunders.
For instance, an inexperienced ambassador may struggle to engage with key stakeholders or fail to grasp the nuances of their host country’s political and cultural landscape. This can hinder their ability to build meaningful relationships, negotiate effectively, or advocate for Nigeria’s interests. In the long run, such shortcomings can erode Nigeria’s standing in the international community.
Moreover, partisan appointments often create an atmosphere of inconsistency in Nigeria’s foreign policy. When ambassadors are replaced with each change in administration, the nation’s diplomatic agenda risks becoming fragmented. Continuity is essential in diplomacy, and frequent changes in personnel can disrupt ongoing initiatives and weaken Nigeria’s credibility.
Experience in diplomacy is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Seasoned diplomats bring a wealth of knowledge, established networks, and a proven track record of success. They are better equipped to anticipate challenges, seize opportunities, and navigate the intricacies of international relations.
An experienced ambassador understands the importance of building trust and credibility with host nations. They are skilled in the art of negotiation, capable of securing favorable outcomes for their country while maintaining positive relationships. Their expertise allows them to handle sensitive issues with finesse, avoiding potential conflicts and fostering mutual understanding.
In addition to their professional skills, experienced ambassadors possess a deep cultural sensitivity that enables them to connect with people from diverse backgrounds. This quality is particularly important for Nigeria, a country with a rich and diverse cultural heritage. An ambassador who appreciates and promotes Nigeria’s cultural wealth can enhance the nation’s image and strengthen its soft power.
Ambassadors are not just political and economic emissaries; they are also cultural ambassadors. They play a crucial role in promoting their country’s culture, values, and traditions. Cultural diplomacy is a powerful tool for building bridges between nations and fostering mutual respect and understanding.
For Nigeria, cultural diplomacy holds immense potential. The nation’s vibrant music, literature, fashion, and cuisine have captured the world’s attention. Ambassadors who can effectively showcase Nigeria’s cultural richness can help attract tourism, foster cultural exchange, and enhance the nation’s global reputation. This requires individuals who are not only passionate about their country’s culture but also skilled in presenting it in a way that resonates with diverse audiences.
To safeguard Nigeria’s interests and maximize the potential of its diplomatic efforts, it is essential to prioritize merit and experience in ambassadorial appointments. A merit-based system would ensure that ambassadors are selected based on their qualifications, expertise, and track record, rather than their political affiliations.
This system could involve a rigorous vetting process, including evaluations of candidates’ knowledge of international relations, negotiation skills, and cultural intelligence. It could also include training programs to equip ambassadors with the tools they need to succeed in their roles. By investing in the development of its diplomatic corps, Nigeria can build a team of ambassadors who are not only capable but also committed to advancing the nation’s strategic goals.
Furthermore, Nigeria should strive for consistency in its foreign policy. This requires a long-term vision that transcends political cycles. Ambassadors should be given the time and support they need to implement their initiatives and achieve meaningful results. By reducing the frequency of changes in personnel, Nigeria can enhance continuity and credibility in its diplomatic efforts.
The appointment of ambassadors is a critical decision that has far-reaching implications for a nation’s diplomatic success. For Nigeria, a country with immense potential and significant challenges, it is imperative to prioritize experience and expertise in ambassadorial appointments. By doing so, Nigeria can ensure that its ambassadors are equipped to represent the nation effectively, build meaningful relationships, and advance its strategic interests.
Partisan politics has no place in diplomacy. The stakes are too high, and the consequences of incompetence are too great. By embracing a merit-based approach to ambassadorial appointments, Nigeria can strengthen its diplomatic corps, enhance its global standing, and unlock the full potential of its international engagements. Diplomacy is an art and a science, and it demands the best minds and the most capable hands. For Nigeria, the path to a brighter future begins with putting diplomacy above politics.
At this juncture, it is expedient to clarify that inspiration to express this view was prompted by a recent news which has it that the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has urged the public to ignore a rumored list of ambassadorial nominees circulating on social media, labeling it as untrue and deceptive.
In a recent statement, the Ministry’s Acting Spokesperson, Kimiebi Imomotimi Ebienfa, emphasized that the authority to appoint ambassadors lies solely with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The statement further clarified that no formal nominations have been made so far.
“Please disregard the commotion about the ambassadorial list,” the statement read. “Rest assured, once finalized, the President will forward the list of nominees to the National Assembly for screening and confirmation.”
The ministry reassured citizens that once an official list is ready, the public would be informed through proper channels.
This clarification comes amidst growing interest in Nigeria’s diplomatic representation, particularly following the recall of all ambassadors in September 2023.