All sides have mismanaged the discussion around the proposed change to the formula for sharing value added tax (VAT) among states. We are now smack in the middle of an ego-driven, political and polarising battle that could have been avoided or moderated if those involved had exercised good faith and put greater store in negotiation and consensus-building. It is not too late to step back, bring down the heat, and find common ground.   

To be sure, the Federal Government (FG), represented by the presidency, has the right to take the lead in developing fiscal policy for the country. But it also has the responsibility to pro-actively seek inputs from and actively facilitate discussion among and with the states especially on matters that will, for ill or good, directly impact states’ finances. However, the FG (perhaps fancying that the centre and the states exist in a master-subordinate relationship) chose to dictate how states’ portion of VAT should be shared. This is a haughty, paternalistic approach that is at odds with the principles and practice of the federal system that we operate. The president was once a governor, and it is unlikely he would have put up with such a treatment as a governor.

The Northern Governors’ Forum was wrong in outrightly framing the tax bills as being anti-north and urging legislators from the north to reject all the bills. This introduced a sectional dimension, fuelled conspiracy theories and awakened a toxic north-south divide. There is enough tension in the country. We don’t need to crank things up.

Then, the National Economic Council (NEC) was equally impolitic for openly asking the president to withdraw the bills from the National Assembly to allow for more consultations. NEC could have raised a team of six governors (representing the six geo-political zones and led by its chairman, the vice president) to share its concerns with the president and leave it to him to decide the next steps. But by going public first, the governors under the auspices of NEC threw down the gauntlet, and it is easy to see how the president and his handlers would have perceived that as an affront to the person and office of the president.

A major chunk of reform is political. Any reform that touches on revenue allocation among and within tiers of government in a federation will always be contentious and will be doubly political. The political actors have a plethora of official and unofficial channels for resolving such frictions or at least for moderating them. The politicians failed to play the good politics. In this instance, good politics will mean not trying to win every argument and at all costs.

It is not too late for those for and against the proposed VAT formula to put the obvious missteps behind them and to, with respect and open mind, listen to and hear each other, and to work out a compromise that may not be perfect but will not leave either party with a sense of losing out or losing face. Even when such one-sided victory is possible by fair or foul means (and there are aides and followers that will be pushing for such), it is not politically and strategically sustainable. Neither is it worth the current and future costs.

For a start, both sides will need to take it easy on the hyperboles and the misrepresentations. It is neither true that only northern states will be negatively affected by the proposed change in the formula for sharing VAT among states nor is it accurate that only Lagos and three other states will be worse off under the proposed order. Available data and simulations indicate that there will be winners and losers across the country, to different degrees. It is also not useful to offhandedly dismiss the concerns of the other party as motivated by hidden agenda, malice, politics or ignorance.

Agora Policy undertook a review of FAAC documents for all the months for which revenues have been shared this year to tease out the details of what the 36 states contributed to and received from the VAT pool. The think tank put the outcome in tables, charts and maps, which were shared in a series of threaded posts on social media. The data and analysis put a lot of things in perspective for me, including showing the strength and the flaws of the current formula.

So much has been made of the undue advantage that accrues to Lagos State based on how VAT is currently attributed. According to computations made by Agora Policy from the FAAC documents, the total non-import VAT in 10 months was N4.15 trillion, out of which N2.21 trillion or 53% was attributed to Lagos. It stands to reason that Lagos alone could not have been responsible for the consumption of more than half of the goods and services that attracted local VAT in the country within 10 months. Clearly, this is ‘Headquarters Effect,’ which arose simply because most of the big companies operating in the country have their head offices in Lagos and paid their  VAT from there.

This surely needs to be corrected because it unduly advantages Lagos, Rivers, Oyo, Delta, and Bayelsa at the expense of the other states. But this attribution advantage can be corrected without the current upheaval. We will return to this shortly. However, the special advantage that Lagos and the four other states enjoy in attribution is not proportionately reflected in what they received from the VAT pool. Lagos for instance did not receive 53% of what was available to the states. It received N371.09 billion in the period, clearly the highest, but that translates to only 16.76% of its contributions of N2.21 trillion, 14.6% of the N2.53 trillion shared by the states, and only 6.82% of the total of N5.07 trillion shared by the three tiers of government.

It is the same pattern for the four other states with possible headquarters effect. Interestingly, only four of the 36 states received less than what they contributed to the VAT pool. You guessed right. These are the states advantaged by the current way of attributing contribution to VAT: as stated earlier, Lagos received only 16.76% of what was attributed to it, while Rivers got 22.45%, Oyo received 42.7% and Bayelsa got 94.69% of their contributions.

However, 32 other states got much more than they put in the pot. Of these, 17 states received 101-300% of their contributions;11 states got 301-500% of what they put in; and four states received over 500% of their contributions—Kebbi, 723.77%; Cross River, 725.27%; Abia, 793.13%; and Imo, a whopping 1,715.98%. While data on contributions by states shows wide disparity (from N3.33b by Imo to N2.21 trillion by Lagos), the distribution is more evenly spread with 34 states receiving between N47.07 billion and N94.37 billion, while only two states received above N100 billion (Lagos, N371.09 billion and Rivers, N150.76 billion).

Distribution is more evenly spread between states and across zones and regions not only because almost all the states collected more than they put in, but also because the gap in what states received is very narrow. Also, the myth of one region benefiting more or less is not supported by the data for 10 months in 2024. Whatever most states lost in wrong attribution is compensated for by the current sharing formula, which allocated 50% to equality, 30% to population and 20% to derivation. This means that for equality alone each of the 36 states (irrespective of their contributions or attributions) received N35.19 billion from 50% of the N2.53 trillion available for states to share from the VAT pool. This evens things out to a large extent. The subsisting formula is thus not as thoughtless or as unfair as it is projected.

But the analysis by Agora Policy also reveals that current formula is not without challenges. An obvious one is that a high percentage assigned to equality of states creates a form of perverse incentive: irrespective of contributions, all states will always get a steady and hefty inflow from the VAT pool. There is no consequence for states not charging and remitting VAT on contracts they give out. This allows for freeloading and unfairly raises the cost of procurement for compliant states. Also, states with high populations have inbuilt advantage because of the 30% of the VAT pool assigned to population. So, a populous state is guaranteed a tidy sum from 80% of the VAT pool for states even if it contributes very little. Apart from providing incentives for some states to cheat others, this will also reduce the amount of revenues that can be generated from VAT and negatively impacts Nigeria’s total tax revenues and tax-to-GDP ratio.

A few examples will suffice, and by the way this is across the country. Imo State contributed N3.33 billion in 10 months to the VAT pool but received N57.22 billion within the same period, the clear outlier in terms of contribution against receipt. But within the same period, Ebonyi State contributed N21.98 billion which was 96% of the total of the N22.83 billion that Abia, Enugu and Imo states combined pitched in for the same period.

Meanwhile, each of these states received higher than the N49.97 billion that Ebonyi got during the same period. In the North West, the contribution by Zamfara (N14.30 billion) was almost double the N7.46 billion by Kebbi but the two states received about the same amount from the pool. In the North East, Bauchi’s contribution (N16.31 billion) was the lowest in the zone, yet what the state received (N62.80 billion) was the highest in its geo-political zone.

In the South South, Cross River contributed just N7.17 billion, which is a mere 13% of what Bayelsa put in but what Cross River received (N51.97 billion) was slightly higher than what Bayelsa got (N51.69 billion). In the South West, it is interesting that the contribution by Ekiti State (N25.40 billion) was higher than the total of what was put in by both Ondo (N11.92 billion) and Osun (N13.09 billion). Yet what the states received was as follows: Osun, N55.72 billion; Ondo, N55.62 billion; Ekiti, N51.59 billion. This means that despite that Ekiti contributed more than both Ondo and Osun combined, Ekiti received less than each of these two states. Clearly, there are issues with the formula, which need to be addressed.

But taking the derivation from 20% to 60% in one fell swoop (while allocating 20% apiece to equality and population) is not going to be as painless for most states as the proponents have made it to look. Saying that only Lagos and a few states will lose out is not exactly accurate. Re-allocating revenues is a zero-sum game: there will be losers and winners. VAT constitutes the bulk of the revenues that states get from FAAC, and not giving states that will be dislocated enough time to plan, not discussing how potential and sudden losses will be compensated in a federation, asking those who will lose a major source of revenues for the budgets that they have already proposed to just get on with it or be more creative is not only insensitive but a bit provocative.

So, how do we balance the necessity to stop some states (across the zones) from gaming the formula and the imperative of ramping up revenues with the need to address the potential losses to some states without unnecessarily heating up the system or laying the foundation for a future crisis? This is where technical sagacity should have a handshake with deft political management. The two sides in this dispute need to make their case to each other, devoid of emotion or threats. They will need to understand where each side is coming from and be ready to make concessions.

Without a doubt, certain things have to change but maybe not in the way or in the order they are proposed. For instance, the current VAT law did not specify how derivation should be attributed. It is most likely that, for administrative convenience, FIRS and the major companies decided that VAT should be paid from their headquarters and attributed to where the tax is paid. This can be corrected administratively by FIRS, without immediately changing the formula for sharing VAT due to states. This will also be easier to sell as a majority of the states will benefit from the change in attribution. For sure, there will be losses, but these will mainly be to states like Lagos and Rivers, states that depend the least on FAAC allocations. This change in attribution can commence soon without much hoopla.

The second option will be to change the percentage allocated to derivation, but not immediately, and not from 20% to 60% at once, and not without showing compelling evidence of how states will be impacted and how those that will incur major losses will be assisted to cope. Devoting 60% to derivation will definitely advantage not just states with high population and high disposable incomes but also states that have high economic activities that attract VAT. Food is excluded from VAT. So, agrarian states will lose out. Same with smaller states and even big states with mass of poor people. The states likely to be disadvantaged by shrinking equality and stretching derivation are likely to spread across all the zones.

In Section 40, the current VAT law says that “provided that the principle of derivation of not less than 20% shall be reflected in the distribution of the allocation amongst States and Local Governments as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.” The current law mentioned only derivation and does not say that derivation should be only 20%. There is plenty room for manoeuvre here. Derivation can be more than 20% within the existing law, say 30% or 35% to start with. Other parameters not specified in the law can also be adjusted. But there will be a need for a proper discussion between the FG and the governors on one hand, and among the governors on the other, including how to ensure that all states pay VAT on the contracts they give.

Credible and compelling data will be necessary to drive this discussion. It will help if FIRS has actual data on consumption of VAT-able goods and services by location for all the states. If it does not have the actual data, FIRS can explore two options: request for change in attribution for some months and make the case or use proxy data to build a case. A good proxy will be the consumption expenditure pattern report by the NBS. According to the 2019 report, Lagos had the highest total consumption expenditure of 12.60% in the country while Taraba had the lowest with 0.74%.

This presents a fairer picture than the current VAT attribution pattern but it needs to be disaggregated along food and non-food expenditure (as food doesn’t attract VAT, and food constituted 56% of consumption expenditure). NBS recently released the Living Standard Survey for 2023/2024 where most recent consumption expenditure can be extrapolated. The proxy data can be used to model different scenarios and arrive at an agreeable adjustment of the derivation component of the formula.

There will be need for a phased transition and agreed transfers to those that will lose out. The changes to VAT and CIT rates are phased, all the way 2030. So, why is FG in a hurry to change how VAT is shared among states and especially to change derivation for the states from 20% to 60% by 2025? And why is FG carrying on as if this is the only thing in the tax bills or an area it is not ready to yield an inch of ground on? What is really at stake here beyond ego and powerplay? Finally, it will be unreasonable to expect states to easily plug sudden gaps of N10-30 billion in annual VAT revenues without some hand-holding. We need reasonableness and cool heads on all sides. The needless muscle-flexing and sabre-rattling should stop.

How do you dance to the admiration of all Nigerians? Chief Commander Ebenezer Obey said it all in his song/story on “Ketekete” (horse) and its owner: There is nothing you can do to please the entire universe. No matter your efforts and regardless of the success achieved, some will still deride you and pull you down. They will find fault.

A man’s horse, the elders say, is never tall enough in the jaundiced eyes of his detractors. Even when it is all obvious for everyone to see, they will still say, “Ki ni?”. What is it? A saying of our people summarises the “Pull Him Down” syndrome by inveterate foes thus: “Winni-winni l’oju orogun; eji-woro l’oju iya e” While every good-natured person rejoices with the mother who just gave birth to twins, describing the new-born babies as “two-at-a-time” achievement; the detractor sees and describes them derisively and derogatively as “two tiny-tiny creatures”!

Let us start by talking about the Port-Harcourt refinery that reportedly came on stream after decades in the land of the dead. Last week, we were told that the refinery roared back to life and started trucking out products. But the detractors said “Ki ni? It is not producing but is only blending what-have-you!” Whether petrol, diesel, kerosene, aviation fuel or whatever - was it producing or blending anything before now?

This is the same refinery we have all given up as dead - dead as in dead; dead as dodo, as they say! This is the same refinery that we all said had gone the way of the Ajaokuta steel rolling mill - a multi-billion dollar investment that had become a bottomless pit and a source of national embarrassment. If only Ajaokuta can in the same manner roar back to life, even if minimally! And they began to say it is the old and not the new refinery! Whichever! And that it is operating at only xyz and not 100 percent capacity! Again, whichever!

To think that these were the same people who had pilloried the government for keeping workers of the refinery and spending billions on them for the lengthy period the refineries were comatose! Shouldn’t they now at least heave a sigh of relief, if not rejoice, that, at last, something is coming out of nothing?

Think of it: These are the same refineries that former President Olusegun Obasanjo told us Shell refused to take and manage. They are the same refineries that the same Obasanjo had sold at give-away price - as scraps. It took the wisdom and patriotism of his successor, the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, to reverse Obasanjo’s decision and take back the national asset. Unfortunately, death cheated Yar’Adua to his vision for Nigeria.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not saying all is well right now at the Port Harcourt (old and new) and the other refineries; no! A lot of hard and serious work still needs to be done! I am also not by this eulogising the management of the place; no! I am one of those who canvassed a regime change there but it would appear President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has a different idea. He must have his reasons. I concede that those of them in government have access to information that is not readily available to those of us outside.

But, for now, kudos to the President and NNPC for this minimum achievement. Placed side-by-side with the monumental failure of the past decades spanning successive military and civilian leadership, it looks like cherry news but we must not rest on our oars. All the refineries must be made to work at full capacity. Importantly, Nigeria needs more refineries - be it government, private or a combination of both. The downstream oil sector is damn too critical to national survival and the well-being of Nigerians to be left in the vice-like grip of a monopolist.

If we say we operate a free market economy, we should know that monopoly distorts the market. That is why there are laws in free market economies frowning at unfair competition. Monopoly breeds and entrenches unfair competition. In fact, it eliminates competition altogether and imposes the economic equivalent of a political reign of terror. Let’s build more refineries!

But should the NNPC turnaround story turn out to be a hoax and another Nigeria Air swindle of monumental proportions - like some are alleging - then, not only must heads roll, some folks should cool their heels in jail. We must begin to ensure that there are consequences for bad behaviour!

CBN: The ‘Orisa’ that cannot help Nigerians

What do you think of the new interest rate imposed by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)? The apex bank raised the rate from 27.25 percent to 27.50 percent. According to them, this is to fight inflation - but inflation keeps surging and raging. They may not know it because they are cut off from reality; fixated, as it were, on the textbooks and lecture notes their Harvard-trained “Oyinbo” lecturers poured into them in college.

Despite the CBN’s monthly MPR, inflationary surge has not abated; maybe it does in their books but the pockets of Nigerians and the market place say otherwise! We need a refreshingly different alternative to the Western-trained economists forcing IMF and World Bank bitter pills down our throat! There used to be one self-styled “motor park” economist on the Editorial Board, I think, of The Guardian newspapers. Where are you? What we need are economists like the late Professor Sam Aluko who have their legs firmly on the Nigerian ground, not floaters regurgitating economic models that deepen the country’s underdevelopment as well as exacerbate our people’s penury.

And do you blame the CBN fat cats? They are immune from the adverse effects of the policies they propound as they are ensconced in their air-conditioned offices feeding fat on our common patrimony. The scriptures describe some people as hypocrites and a brood of vipers who “bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers”(Matthew 23: 4). Did we not hear, the other time, how the fat cats were still loading themselves with additional largesse at our collective expense?

Now, if the CBN’s Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) is as high as 27.50 percent, by the time the banks add their own administrative costs or charges and you factor in corruption, we may have to borrow from the banks at over 30 percent, if not up to 40 percent. What kind of business will still break even - especially small-scale enterprises, which are the bedrock of many thriving economies elsewhere? Is that not why businesses are folding up here and/or relocating elsewhere? By the time you add to the mix the cost of power supply and corruption at both ends of the regulatory authorities and ordinary Nigerian workers themselves, are we at all surprised that factories here are quitting their space for worship and events centres?

As at last week (November 24, 2024), the interest rate in China was 3.1%. And we want Nigerian products to compete favorably with Chinese products? Any surprise, then, that we have become a dumping ground for all manner of Chinese products? It is safer - in fact, the only profitable option available is to go to China and ask them to lower the quality of their products for the Nigerian market (because our people cannot pay for quality products due to the massive devaluation of the Naira). Unfortunately, medicines are not spared. Vehicle tyres are also not spared!

The other time we were warned by the regulatory authorities that over 50% of imported pharmaceutical certificates in Nigeria are fake. If the certificates are fake, it stands to reason that the products themselves are fake! Or can fake certificates be used to back up standard and quality products? And according to NAFDAC (National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control), substandard and falsified products threaten access to safe, efficacious and affordable medicines. Don’t mind their long-winding grammar; it is mere euphemism for just one word: Death! Slow, painfull, agonising death, after fortunes must have been spent procuring fake, adulterated and substandard drugs. May that not be our portion! I know you will shout “Amen”!

Only those engaged in illicit businesses such as drug peddling, yahoo-yahoo and money laundering can raise the funds needed to start or re-inflate businesses here. Any surprise, then, that crime is on the rise all over the place? Why are more and more of our people getting themselves into money rituals and cult-related activities? It is largely because legitimate channels to access funds for productive ventures are shut against them. Jobs are not available. Factor into that the quantum of disguised unemployment. Crime and desperation are on the rise. The legitimacy of the Government and of the political system itself is stridently being called into question, leading us to the real reason for this piece!

Tinubu: Delay is dangerous!

Despite the fact that there are many bus stops and traffic gridlocks in Lagos where I live and work, we still manage to get to our destination! Even though I made a brief stop-over at some bus stops, my actual destination here today is this: Tell President Tinubu that no matter how well he revamps the economy that was destroyed beyond imagination by his predecessor, if he fails to address the foundational problem of Nigeria, he would have achieved nothing in the real sense of the word.

It took Buhari just eight years to destroy all that three previous administrations achieved in 16 years. It will take a similar or lesser length of time to destroy Tinubu’s own achievements if the present Nigerian system remains the same. Under Obasanjo, Nigeria exited the debt trap; today, we are back in it real time. Obasanjo also once bemoaned that all the thriving national assets he left behind as military Head of State, he found none when he returned as a civilian President.

Tell Tinubu to quickly restructure the country! That is the greatest legacy he can bequathe to Nigerians. Time and tide waits for no man. Obasanjo learnt that too late and desperately sought for a third term in office, even though he bold-facedly denies today what was clear to even the blind.

Ask former President Goodluck Jonathan the cost of procrastination. When he could have implemented the resolutions of his Political Confab 2014, he waited to first win the 2015 presidential election.

Tinubu, you were one of those who did not let him! Learn from history! Others are waiting to give you a taste of your own bitter pill! What goes around comes around! Don’t wait to win a second term of office before you do the needful. They will distract you with challenges as well as with praises! They will obstruct you! They will ring you round with enemies pretending to be loyalists.

Be wise! Who knows, maybe you became the president of Nigeria at a time like this for an assignment such as this (Esther 4: 13 & 14)!

The detention of investigative journalist Fisayo Soyombo by the Nigerian Army underscores a glaring disregard for constitutional governance and the roles of civilian law enforcement. It reflects a dangerous pattern of military overreach, and it is now incumbent on the leadership of the Nigerian armed forces, including Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Christopher Musa and newly appointed Chief of Army Staff Major General Olufemi Oluyede, to act decisively. Their leadership is critical to restoring the rule of law, protecting press freedom, and ensuring the military operates within its constitutional boundaries.

Lieutenant Colonel Danjuma John Danjuma, Acting Deputy Director of 6 Division Army Public Relations, claimed that Soyombo was “arrested at the scene” of an illegal oil bunkering site. Even if this is true, the Army’s actions following the arrest were not only unconstitutional but also deeply troubling. Soyombo is a civilian journalist, and Nigeria’s Constitution clearly mandates that the investigation and prosecution of civilians are the exclusive responsibility of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF). By detaining Soyombo for three days, seizing his gadgets, and keeping him incommunicado, the Army has grossly exceeded its authority, undermining both civilian institutions and democratic principles.

A Leadership Test for General Musa and Major General Oluyede

This case presents a critical leadership test for General Christopher Musa, the CDS, and Major General Olufemi Oluyede, the new Chief of Army Staff. The military under their watch has demonstrated an alarming disregard for the principles of democracy, and the world is watching how they respond. General Musa, as the highest-ranking military officer, must ensure that the armed forces respect the separation of powers and adhere strictly to their constitutional roles. Similarly, Major General Oluyede, who recently assumed office following the untimely death of Lt. General Taoreed Lagbaja, must demonstrate a clear commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting civilian authority.

The continued detention of Soyombo is a stark violation of his rights and a direct affront to the Nigeria Police Force, which has been sidelined in this matter. The NPF, established under Section 214 of the Constitution, is the only body legally empowered to handle criminal investigations involving civilians. The Army’s actions not only undermine the police but also suggest a dangerous power struggle between the military and civilian institutions. This is a slippery slope that could lead to further erosion of democratic norms.

The Role of the Police and the Army’s Misstep

The Nigeria Police Force plays a central role in maintaining law and order, investigating crimes, and ensuring justice through due process. Its officers are trained to handle evidence, interrogate suspects, and follow legal protocols designed to protect human rights. By detaining Soyombo and confiscating his gadgets, the Army has not only overstepped its mandate but has also risked jeopardizing critical evidence. Any materials taken from Soyombo must be immediately preserved and transferred to the NPF to ensure transparency and accountability.

This blatant disregard for the NPF’s authority raises serious questions about the military’s intentions. Is this an isolated incident, or does it reflect a broader attempt by the military to assert dominance over civilian institutions? General Musa and Major General Oluyede must address these concerns head-on by ensuring that the Army’s actions align with its constitutional responsibilities and do not encroach on civilian governance.

Implications for Press Freedom and Democracy

The detention of Soyombo is more than an isolated case; it is a direct attack on press freedom and a warning to journalists across Nigeria. The military’s actions suggest that exposing corruption or systemic failures could lead to intimidation, detention, or worse. This is a dangerous precedent that undermines the principles of accountability and transparency essential to any democracy.

The Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ) has made it clear: “Journalism is not a crime! #FreeFisayoNow.” The organization has also called for the immediate preservation of all evidence confiscated from Soyombo and its transfer to the police. The military’s continued custody of this evidence only deepens suspicions of tampering or suppression, further eroding public trust.

Calls for Immediate Action

If Soyombo remains in military custody at the time of this publication, it is imperative for the presidency, civil society organizations, and international human rights bodies to intervene. President Bola Tinubu must demand his immediate release, the transfer of all evidence to the police, and a full investigation into the military’s overreach. General Musa and Major General Oluyede must also take responsibility and ensure that such incidents do not recur under their leadership.

The Nigerian military must be reminded that its role is to support, not supplant, civilian authority. Detaining civilians, seizing evidence, and bypassing the police are actions that belong to authoritarian regimes, not democracies. General Musa, as CDS, must set a clear tone that the armed forces will respect constitutional boundaries and operate transparently.

A Defining Moment for Nigeria

This case is a critical test of Nigeria’s democracy and the leadership of its military. General Christopher Musa, the Chief of Defence Staff, and Major General Olufemi Oluyede, the Chief of Army Staff, have an opportunity to demonstrate that the Nigerian military can be a force for good—one that upholds the law and respects civilian institutions. Failing to act decisively will not only damage their reputations but also weaken Nigeria’s already fragile democratic foundations.

Nigerians must demand accountability—not just for Fisayo Soyombo but for the preservation of the principles that underpin a functioning democracy. This is a defining moment for the country, and the actions of its leaders will determine whether Nigeria continues to progress as a constitutional democracy or slides further into authoritarianism. Journalism is not a crime, and no institution, no matter how powerful, is above the law. It is imperative for the Nigerian military to act within its constitutional mandate and restore public confidence in its commitment to justice and democracy.

If, at the time of this publication, Soyombo remains in military custody, the world must take notice. The global press, international human rights organizations, national civil societies, and even the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) itself must collectively raise their voices and call for action. President Bola Tinubu must be confronted with the urgency of this matter, as must General Musa and Major General Oluyede. The continued silence of journalists, civil institutions, or the police in the face of such undemocratic practices would embolden further violations and undermine the freedoms of every Nigerian citizen.

The press, as the fourth estate of democracy, cannot afford to be silent. Civil society groups, both national and international, must demand the immediate release of Soyombo and the transfer of any evidence or confiscated materials to the NPF for proper handling. This is not just about one journalist; it is about safeguarding the core tenets of democracy. The Nigerian military must be reminded of its duty to protect the nation, not to suppress its voices. Failing to do so would represent a betrayal of the democratic values Nigerians have fought to uphold.

The Nigerian military urgently needs to establish and implement comprehensive training programs focused on civilian-military relations, emphasizing the distinct constitutional roles of the military and the police in a democracy. These programs should provide clear guidance on the military’s mandate to protect national security and address external threats, while highlighting the Nigeria Police Force’s exclusive jurisdiction over internal security, crime investigations, and civilian law enforcement. It must be stressed that the military’s involvement in civilian matters should only occur under strict constitutional guidelines and with full deference to civilian authority.

To ensure these training programs are effective, they must be led by a qualified constitutional law expert with a deep understanding of democratic governance and the separation of powers. This expert would provide critical insights into the legal boundaries of military operations and the importance of respecting human rights, transparency, and accountability. Such training should also underscore the need for cooperation between the military and civilian institutions to foster mutual respect and adherence to the rule of law.

This initiative offers a critical opportunity for military leaders, including General Christopher Musa and Lieutenant General Olufemi Oluyede, to reinforce the military’s role as a protector of democracy rather than an institution that oversteps its bounds. Implementing this training is essential not only to prevent incidents like the unlawful detention of journalist Fisayo Soyombo but also to rebuild public trust in the military as a vital and accountable part of Nigeria’s democratic framework. Without such proactive measures, the military risks perpetuating constitutional violations that could erode Nigeria’s democratic progress and damage its national and international credibility.

In the world of music, certain acts become more than just performers; they evolve into cultural icons. P-Square, the Nigerian twin brothers Peter and Paul Okoye, is one such act. For over a decade, they dominated the African music scene with electrifying performances, chart-topping hits, and a chemistry that seemed unbreakable.

Recently, a French band’s soulful performance of a P-Square classic has reignited nostalgia and stirred a poignant question: How far could P-Square have gone if they had stayed united? Their story, marked by monumental success and a heartbreaking split, remains a bittersweet chapter in the history of Afrobeat.

Before delving into what could have been, it is essential to acknowledge what P-Square achieved. Emerging in the early 2000s, the duo quickly rose to prominence, blending Afrobeat, pop, and R&B with seamless choreography that became their signature. They gave us hits like “Do Me,” “No One Like You,” “Chop My Money,” and “Personally.”

Their music transcended borders, resonating across Africa and the diaspora. P-Square was not just a duo; they were ambassadors of African music, paving the way for today’s global Afrobeat stars. Their sold-out concerts, numerous awards, and timeless tracks cemented their place in the hearts of millions.

The recent performance by a French band of one of P-Square’s iconic songs is a testament to the enduring appeal of their music.  In fact, the French band surprised guests at a state dinner in Paris by performing P-Square’s hit song “Testimony (Taste the Money)” in honor of President Bola Tinubu. This visit aims to strengthen bilateral ties and foster closer diplomatic and economic relations between Nigeria and France.

Despite their split in 2017, their artistry continues to inspire and connect people worldwide. The band’s rendition not only showcases the global influence of Afrobeat but also highlights the timelessness of P-Square’s craft.

This global recognition raises a compelling question: If P-Square had remained united, how much further could they have gone? With Afrobeat now a dominant force on the global stage, led by the likes of Burna Boy, Wizkid, and Davido, it is easy to imagine P-Square sharing in this global spotlight.

The question still remains, “What could have been had P-Square stayed together?  The possibilities were endless. They could have headlined global festivals: Events like Coachella, Glastonbury, and Afro Nation would have been natural stages for the duo to showcase their electrifying performances.

In terms of collaboration with International stars, imagine P-Square alongside Beyoncé, Drake, or Justin Bieber, blending their Afrobeat sound with global pop and R&B.

There is no denying the fact that if they had been together that they could have now expanded Afrobeat’s reach. As pioneers, they were uniquely positioned to lead the Afrobeat movement into uncharted territories, further amplifying its global impact.

In fact, they could have by now gone far in creating more iconic hits. It will be recalled in this imaginary context that when they were together that their synergy was unmatched.  Therefore, the world could have witnessed a continued evolution of their sound, pushing creative boundaries.

Without a doubt, P-Square’s split was a significant loss, not just for the brothers but for the music industry and their fans. As individuals, Mr. P and Rudeboy have released commendable solo projects, but the magic of P-Square lies in their unity. The breakup robbed fans of the duo’s unique chemistry and limited the full realization of their global potential.

Their story also serves as a reminder of the fragility of success when personal differences overshadow shared goals. The music industry is replete with tales of groups that faltered due to internal conflicts. P-Square’s split is a cautionary tale about the cost of disunity.

A P-Square reunion would not just be a moment of nostalgia; it would be a powerful statement about the strength of reconciliation. It would:

However, it is germane to opine that reigniting their legacy is non-negotiable.  This is as it would allow them to pick up where they left off, creating new music and moments that resonate across generations.

Without a doubt, their story could serve as a lesson in forgiveness and collaboration, inspiring others to mend broken relationships.

In a similar vein, with Afrobeat’s global dominance, a P-Square reunion would add another layer of richness to the genre’s ongoing narrative.

In fact, looking at the role of fans and the Industry, it is germane to opine that fans remain central to P-Square’s story. Their unwavering loyalty has kept the duo’s music alive, even in their absence. The viral French band performance is a reflection of this enduring love. Fans around the world continue to hope for a reunion, cherishing the possibility of seeing the brothers share a stage once again.

The music industry, too, stands to gain from a P-Square reunion. With Afrobeat’s rise, the return of one of its greatest acts would further solidify the genre’s influence on the global stage.

At this juncture, it is not a misnomer to ask “What is it that the future holds for them?” The answer to the foregoing question cannot be farfetched, as evidences abound to show that while they have built successful solo careers, the reality is that P-Square’s magic lies in their partnership. Their reunion would not just be about reviving past glory; it would be about creating a new chapter, one that honors their legacy while embracing new opportunities.

As the French band’s performance reminds us of P-Square’s brilliance, it also challenges the brothers to reflect on what they can achieve together. The world has not forgotten them, and the stage is set for a grand comeback.

Imagining how far P-Square could have gone is both inspiring and bittersweet. Their story is a testament to their immense talent and a reminder of the power of unity. As the world continues to celebrate their music, the hope for a reunion burns bright.

P-Square has already left an indelible mark on the music world. But the potential for more remains. Together, they can once again capture the hearts of millions and show the world the true power of Afrobeat.

The French band’s tribute was more than a performance, it was a call to action. Now, it is up to Peter and Paul to answer it. The question is: “Will they rise to the occasion?” For the sake of their legacy, their fans, and the music industry, we can only hope the answer is yes.