With Senate Clearance yesterday, Lt Gen Oluyede has become the substantive Chief of Army Staff (COAS). He is, by all accounts, a thoroughbred professional soldier with no political flavorings. Confident in a very unobtrusive sort of way, sober, focused, methodical and not given to undue ceremonies and fripperies, the new COAS was once described by a peer of his to my hearing, years back, as someone who does not get involved in anything that is unnecessary. He is completely beholden to his professional calling and ocupies himself with it.

He is now heading an army that is overstretched and taking on what should ordinarily not be its business – such as deradicalization programmes and much more.  The soldiers we see on the road all over the country today have no business being there. The longer they are out there, performing policing duties and without strict professional military drills and supervision, the more “demobilized” they would be; from the standpoint of military discipline, grooming and readiness for combat.

The implication of the foregoing is that the new COAS is walking into an environment that is roundly beset with many asymmetrical security challenges that are partly contrived and partly avoidable. Imagine what the nation would have been like today if we had consistently enjoyed effective and responsible civilian leadership over the decay. The bulk of what our men in uniform are facing today simply won’t be there.

The more we look at some of the security problems facing many states of the federation today, the more we feel constrained to say that they are traceable to the antics of an out-of-touch leadership elite. The notion of leadership elite meant here goes beyond the purely political. It cuts across the political, business, traditional and religious leaders. They all seem to be working together, but apparently without intending it, to create an environment with unprecedented records of grinding poverty and unemployment.

The twin facts of poverty and unemployment have poured unto the national political and sociocultural landscape a massive population of unemployed, underemployed and also “unemployable” people. Many in the latter category are not unemployable by choice, no! They are unemployable either because they hold certificates they cannot defend, are morally so damaged that they cannot be trusted with responsibility or they simply have no skills and must be “retooled’ for them to be useful either to themselves or to the wider society.

Just think of the collapse of the educational system, particularly the dearth of vocational education for those who are not interested in pursuing an academic life and career. One of the questions we may wish to ask here today is this: “Would we be where we are today, in terms of national security challenges, if there had been serious and well thought out National Planning that is guided by strategic National Development Plans?

We have had, and still do have, “Episodic and Regime self-flagellation Plans and Programmes”. With these have come the reprehensible personalization of national resources by those charged with managing the resources on behalf of the people. Ethnic chauvinism and religious bigotry are easily recruited as major drivers of all the wrong things that are fueling insecurity in the country. And it would seem that the right lessons are still not being learnt

We see this every day and everywhere.  We have also had more than enough retreats, and summits, wherein we have wasted much of our time and national resources talking about the causes of insecurity, as if we do not know where it is all coming from. Conveners of the summits, conferences and retreats will always go out of their way to quote various authorities on the subject and then tell us about the effects of insecurity on the economy or the welfare of the people.

Well, we are the people. We know the effects. We cannot safely walk the streets without fear of one misfortune or the other. So, we know. So does the military and sundry security agencies. Yet, the business of talking takes over from the business of problem solving and some people even brag that they have been talking.

That’s why the Sultan of Sokoto said, at one such event about two years ago, that we had had enough of conferences and retreats on national security. Part of what could be inferred from the Sultan’s statement was that the Nigerian public is yet to fully apprise itself of the need for a holistic understanding of national security, as well as the specific roles assigned in principle and in fact to the military, particularly the Nigerian army, and the citizenry.

We can all see that, today, the Nigerian Army is the public scapegoat in all matters of national security, simply because it is the most visible symbol of the state wherever you look. That is why Oluyede needs, and must work with, a comprehensive facts-based overview of all dimensions of the current asymmetrical security challenges facing the Nigerian Army and as an Institution of State.

Banditry and insurgency are not inventions from outer space. Every bandit or insurgent has a local address. Intelligence about such an address can only mostly come from a cooperative civilian population.

That is why holistic perspective on the imperatives of a “whole of society approach to national security” demands of everyone a sense of responsibility towards those professionally charged with protecting the nation and the rest of us. We need informed linkages between political decisions and actions, the reflexes of the various strata of the elite and other less obtrusive stakeholders, in order to really address the security challenges in different parts of the country.

The people must fully appreciate the issues at the core of our national security challenges. This includes a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the key actors, as well as the dysfunctionalities that would inevitably arise whenever there is lack of synergy in the national security activity chain.

Intelligence gathering at community and other levels rests more on the willingness of the communities concerned to cooperate and collaborate, than it does on the military and security professionals deployed to various localities. Some of the challenges with tracing the whereabouts, and hideouts, of bandits and insurgents lies in the fact that this role of intelligence support from various localities is being observed in the breach.

Once this role is observed in the breach, with some communities and community leaders even nurturing, and facilitating, the very security threat the army is trying to deal with, the problems will only fester and get worse. As it stands today, the Nigerian Army is the public face of the war against banditry and insecurity. It has also become the people’s “Whipping Boy” for everything wrong with the safety of lives and property in Nigeria today.

We need to think seriously about some overlooked aspects of the security challenges facing the nation. They include the wrong attitudes of the civil populace towards the military and security agencies, conspiracy with embedded targets in communities, refusal to support security operations with local intelligence, the targeting of military personnel for hostile civilian attention, deliberate misrepresentation of the activities and achievements of the Nigerian Army through fake news, misinformation and disinformation, among others.

The new COAS is coming on board at a time that the nation desperately needs simple and implementable solutions, around the deeper motions of personal, community and environmental security that we have since abandoned. He is also coming on board to sustain the gains made by his predecessor, to ensure that the wrong idea that it is purely the job of the military, and the security agencies, to secure us, is summarily retired.

The civilian populace is not meant to just sit down and do nothing but watch the military “doing their job of securing us”. Communities which do not report the presence of strangers, suspicious characters, or even suspicious activities, to Institutions of State that exist to protect them only further endanger themselves and complicate our national security challenges.  

Undermining the nation’s efforts at improving security comes in the form of Attitudinal, or Orientational Asymmetry. It is a distortion, and disruption, of the right attitude every citizen should adopt in his response to the nation’s security personnel and problems. It is also one of the greatest asymmetrical security challenges facing Nigeria today.

Unless we approach national security issues with a proper sense of history, we might end up mistaking hysteria for substance. The citizen’s duty in the national security ecosystem must be reaffirmed, for everyone to identify with, understand and carry out his role in the national security ecosystem.

The new COAS is familiar with retreats, conferences and summits. He does not need to organize another one now, since these often offer mostly descriptive, and sometimes purely “lamentational”, submissions. Their detailed descriptions of the problems and the generalized recommendations without any clear implementation strategies are all too familiar.

The solutions to our current national security problems do not lie in the declaration of a State of emergency on national security, either. No verbal declaration of a state of emergency can make uncooperative communities to suddenly become cooperative. To urge anyone to declare a state of emergency will not dramatically raise the morale of officers and soldiers who are overstretched. Neither will it remove the fact that the job of our men in uniform is further complicated by the missteps of a civilian ruling elite that has created a massive pool of impoverished, unemployed, underemployed and unemployable youths with the wrong social skills.

The ongoing civil/military relations efforts should be ramped up, because the military needs the independent perspectives that would arise from such engagement. Ditto for the new programs for middle level officers and soldiers. It will all help improve the quality of soldiering, as well as public understanding of the roles, and achievements, of the Nigerian Army in the ongoing efforts to protect and secure the Nigerian State.

For this to happen, we need an overarching perspective that is focused on a “whole of society approach”. This is a critical success factor that we should focus on and press for, as Lt Gen Oluyede comes on board.

THIS week, as I refueled my car, I couldn’t help but be struck by the sharp contrast between petrol prices here in Metro Atlanta and in Nigeria.

In Metro Atlanta, fuel prices hover at $2.70 per gallon, which is equivalent to around 67 cents per liter.  (Four liters make up a gallon.) Translating this into naira reveals a stark discrepancy. At the current exchange rate of 1,647 naira to the dollar, a gallon of petrol in Atlanta equates to approximately 5,200 naira or 1,102 naira per liter. That’s astonishingly cheaper than Nigeria’s prevailing rate of around 1,300 naira per liter.

This disparity grows even more troubling in light of the wildly differential minimum wage standards between Nigeria and the United States. In the United States, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, which amounts to roughly $1,200 a month. Converted into naira, this comes to nearly 1,974,000 (one million, nine hundred and seventy-four thousand) naira.

Note that almost no one earns the minimum wage. Even the lowest remunerated workers here earn above the minimum wage. For example, my 16-year-old daughter who works at an entertainment restaurant chain on weekends earns $13 an hour.

Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage in Nigeria is a piddling 70,000 naira, or around $42.55. In other words, Nigerians with a minimum wage of 70,000 per month pay a higher rate at the pump than Atlantans with a minimum wage of 1.9 million naira per month.

When one presents these figures, defenders of past and present Nigerian regimes— and clueless, stonyhearted neoliberal evangelists— often argue that it’s fruitless to compare Nigeria with the United States, the world’s largest economy.

Yet, it’s worth noting that the U.S. does not indulge in the luxuries afforded to Nigeria’s ruling political elites. For instance, while American presidents pay for their own meals, including the meals of their guests, Nigeria allocates billions for the upkeep of its first families.

Such contrasts illustrate not merely economic differences but also the broader question of public accountability and fiscal priorities.

In much of the developed world, government subsidies for fuel are deemed vital, particularly where public transport systems are not robust. In the U.S., for example, state governments sometimes provide targeted subsidies to cushion residents from high fuel prices.

The lower fuel prices in America are facilitated by state subsidies aimed at counterbalancing a lack of comprehensive public transit options, as is the case in Western Europe.

For instance, the governor of Georgia, Governor Brian Kemp, recently decided to suspend fuel taxes in Georgia following Hurricane Helene, which temporarily reduced petrol prices to around $2.50 per gallon. This is typical all over the United States.

The Center for Investigative Reporting found that the true cost of petrol in the United States is $15 per gallon, that is, $3.75 per liter. Converted into naira, that would amount to 24,648.90 naira per gallon or 6,162.23 naira per liter. But the average pump price of petrol in the United States is $3.16 per gallon.

(Gas prices can vary greatly within each state, with Texas having the lowest price of $2.669 per gallon and California the highest price at $4.68 per gallon. Note that California’s minimum wage is almost twice the federal minimum wage at $16.00 an hour.)

Americans don’t pay the actual cost of petrol because their state governments spend billions to subsidize their petrol consumption. According to the IMF, which has demonized fuel subsidies in the developing world, compelled governments to remove subsidies, and recruited scorn-worthy traitors to brainwash poor people into accepting that subsidies are bad for them, the United States spent $757 billion in fossil fuel subsidies in 2022 alone.

Globally, the IMF said, “subsidies surged to a record $7 trillion [in 2022] as governments supported consumers and businesses during the global spike in energy prices caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the economic recovery from the pandemic.” That represents 7 percent of global GDP.

U.S. state governments spent a significant sum on fuel subsidies, largely as part of measures to alleviate the impact of elevated energy costs. These measures included gas tax holidays, direct consumer grants, and discounts, aiming to shield residents from the global surge in fuel prices following supply disruptions caused by international events like the Ukraine crisis.

These interventions illustrate the fiscal lengths governments are willing to go to stabilize fuel costs for their citizens amid economic challenges.

Countries as diverse as Egypt and Indonesia have similarly leveraged fuel subsidies to maintain price stability, alleviate poverty, and stimulate their economies. These examples illuminate a fundamental principle that subsidies, when properly managed, can serve as powerful tools to bridge income disparities and invigorate economic growth.

But not Nigeria. Nigerians face relentless economic strain despite residing in an oil-producing nation. It’s a country where, somehow, people have been persuaded by a sophisticated mob of well-compensated spin doctors that exorbitant fuel prices are an unavoidable reality to which they must resign themselves.

For a resource-rich nation, which is also among the poorest globally, this is a bitter, disconcerting irony.

Those who denounce subsidies as inefficacious or detrimental often betray a limited understanding of their societal role, or worse, they may advocate for policies that consolidate wealth at the top.

In societies grappling with inequality, subsidies can mean the difference between bare survival and a modest but dignified life for millions.

To disparage such measures, particularly in a nation with profound economic inequalities, is to endorse a vision of society that is untenably divided—and to invite criticism that should rightly be directed not only toward them but, if you’ll pardon the expression, toward the legacy of those who espouse such values.

It is a grave irony, and a deeply unjust one, that the people of Nigeria — a nation abundantly blessed with oil wealth — must endure petrol prices that surpass those of Atlanta, a city in one of the world’s richest nations. This, while the average Nigerian subsists on a minimum wage of approximately $45 a month, a pittance that could scarcely fill a tank, let alone sustain a family.

The removal of petrol subsidies is not merely an economic policy; it is a sentence handed down to the already struggling, forcing countless Nigerians to choose between transportation, sustenance, and survival. The ripple effects are evident in unchecked inflation spirals, faltering businesses, and tragic loss of lives in the wake of avoidable hardship.

To govern is to protect, to prioritize the well-being of the many over the convenience of the few. To abandon subsidies under the guise of fiscal responsibility while the vulnerable teeter on the edge of despair is neither responsible nor just. It is, instead, an abdication of moral duty.

President Tinubu should restore the subsidies, not as a concession, but as an obligation to the people he is obligated to serve. To do so is not to admit defeat but to affirm humanity, to wield governance as a tool of compassion rather than austerity.

After all, what use is a nation’s wealth if it is not deployed in the service of its citizens? Let Nigeria’s oil be a blessing once more, not a bitter reminder of inequalities entrenched and lives disregarded.

Barely weeks into his tenure as the governor of Edo State, Monday Okpebholo finds himself at the center of an unrelenting storm of political distractions. These challenges are primarily emanating from the camp of his predecessor, Godwin Obaseki, and his loyalists. While political transitions often involve disagreements, the incessant nature of these attacks risks undermining Okpebholo’s administration before it gains full momentum. For the sake of the people of Edo State, it is imperative that this trend ends so the new governor can focus on fulfilling his mandate.

For instance, the Edo State chapter of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) recently leveled serious allegations against Governor Okpebholo. At a press conference, Dr. Anthony Aziegbemi, the caretaker chairman of the PDP in Edo State, accused Okpebholo of squandering over ₦30 billion supposedly left behind by the Godwin Obaseki administration within 14 days of taking office. The funds, he claimed, were used to compensate political “godfathers” who facilitated Okpebholo’s electoral victory.

Additionally, Aziegbemi alleged that Okpebholo had procured ₦5 billion worth of vehicles without following due process and was attempting to justify ₦2 billion as inauguration costs. He also criticized the APC-led administration for failing to pay November salaries on time, a deviation from the prompt payments that characterized the Obaseki era.

While these accusations are concerning, they have not been substantiated with concrete evidence. The Edo State government, through Fred Itua, Chief Press Secretary to Governor Okpebholo, has strongly denied these claims, labeling them as baseless propaganda intended to tarnish the new administration. Itua also stated that the government was committed to exposing the alleged rot left behind by Obaseki’s administration, setting the stage for a clash of narratives.

In response to the allegations, Governor Okpebholo announced the formation of a 14-member State Assets Verification Committee. The committee was tasked with reviewing the handover process and ensuring transparency in the management of state resources. While this move might seem like a logical step toward accountability, it has been met with sharp criticism from Obaseki’s camp.

Crusoe Osagie, media aide to Godwin Obaseki, dismissed the probes as a “circus of meaningless theatrics,” accusing Okpebholo of using them as a smokescreen to distract from his lack of preparedness for governance. Osagie argued that Okpebholo’s focus on investigations rather than delivering tangible results was indicative of an administration that had no clear developmental agenda.

Osagie further touted Obaseki’s achievements, including the creation of Edo State’s first-ever asset register, and accused Okpebholo of attempting to rewrite the narrative surrounding the transition process. He went on to suggest that the probes were motivated by the interests of Okpebholo’s alleged political godfathers, who were seeking revenge for being denied access to state resources during Obaseki’s tenure.

It is evident that the ongoing squabbles between the camps of Obaseki and Okpebholo are less about governance and more about political dominance. Obaseki, who defected to the PDP after a fallout with the All Progressives Congress (APC), spent much of his second term battling political adversaries. His administration, while praised in some quarters for reforms, was also criticized for alienating key stakeholders.

Okpebholo’s emergence as governor under the APC banner signaled a return to power for the party in Edo State. However, rather than accepting this reality, Obaseki’s loyalists seem intent on undermining the new administration. By focusing on unsubstantiated allegations and dismissing every move made by the governor, they risk creating an atmosphere of perpetual instability in the state.

Lost in this political tug-of-war are the people of Edo State, who stand to lose the most from these distractions. Edo citizens elected Okpebholo with the hope that he would address pressing issues such as unemployment, poor infrastructure, and economic stagnation. Every minute spent on political mudslinging and counter-allegations is a minute lost in addressing these challenges.

It is essential for both parties to remember that governance is about serving the people, not settling political scores. The PDP and Obaseki’s camp must understand that their time in power has ended and allow the new administration to focus on its agenda. Similarly, Governor Okpebholo must rise above the noise and concentrate on delivering the promises that got him elected.

While the probes initiated by Okpebholo’s administration are essential for ensuring accountability, they must not become the centerpiece of his tenure. Governance should prioritize development, not endless investigations. The governor must strike a balance between holding the previous administration accountable and driving forward his vision for Edo State.

If Obaseki’s administration was as transparent as it claims, then the probes should not pose a threat. Instead of resisting them, Obaseki’s loyalists should cooperate with the process to prove their innocence. At the same time, Okpebholo must ensure that the investigations are thorough, fair, and devoid of political vendettas.

For Edo State to move forward, both the ruling and opposition parties must prioritize the state’s development over their personal or political interests. Constructive criticism is essential in a democracy, but it must be based on facts and presented responsibly. Opposition for opposition’s sake benefits no one, least of all the citizens of Edo State.

Governor Okpebholo, on his part, must remain focused on governance. Key areas that require immediate attention include the prompt payment of salaries, improvement of public infrastructure, and creating a conducive environment for economic growth. By delivering tangible results, he can win the trust of Edo people and silence his critics.

Edo State cannot afford to be trapped in a cycle of political vendettas. The time has come for all stakeholders to set aside their differences and work toward a common goal: the progress and prosperity of Edo State. Obaseki’s loyalists must recognize that their time in power is over and allow the new administration to function without unnecessary interference.

As for Governor Okpebholo, his mandate is clear. The people of Edo State have placed their trust in him to deliver meaningful development and address the challenges facing the state. It is up to him to prove that their trust was not misplaced.

The distractions must end. Let Monday Okpebholo work.

It is not an exaggeration to opine that Senator Jimoh Ibrahim’s recent remarks on Nigeria’s borrowing strategy during an interview on Channels TV have sparked heated debate. The billionaire-turned-politician advocated for the country to take on substantial loans of at least $50 billion to address infrastructure deficits and economic stagnation. While he passionately defended his stance, likening it to Dubai’s $168 billion infrastructure-driven transformation, this proposal is worrisome for many Nigerians already grappling with the crushing effects of excessive borrowing.

Senator Ibrahim’s argument, though seemingly bold, raises critical questions about Nigeria’s debt culture, the track record of managing borrowed funds, and the implications for future generations. Before we plunge headlong into further debt, it is essential to critically analyze the senator’s suggestions and the broader implications of his proposals.

Comparing Nigeria’s borrowing needs to Dubai’s experience is flawed. Dubai’s debt-fueled development was guided by visionary leadership, meticulous planning, and stringent accountability. It was also supported by a relatively small population and a thriving tourism sector capable of generating substantial revenue to service its debts.

Nigeria, on the other hand, faces systemic challenges, including widespread corruption, lack of accountability, and a history of mismanaging borrowed funds. Despite decades of loans from institutions like the World Bank and IMF, critical sectors like health, education, and infrastructure remain in disarray. Senator Ibrahim’s suggestion of borrowing $50 billion is akin to pouring water into a leaking bucket unless these systemic issues are first addressed.

As of now, Nigeria’s debt profile is already staggering, with external debts exceeding $40 billion. Servicing this debt consumes a significant portion of the nation’s revenue, leaving little room for developmental projects. The recently approved $2.2 billion loan, which Ibrahim dismisses as “insignificant,” adds to this burden. If we were to follow his advice and borrow $50 billion or more, future generations would inherit a mountain of debt, with little guarantee of corresponding economic returns.

Senator Ibrahim’s assertion that loans will be used exclusively for transformative infrastructure projects is, unfortunately, hard to believe. Nigeria’s history is littered with instances of poorly executed or abandoned projects despite hefty loans. The Ajaokuta Steel Plant, for instance, consumed billions of dollars over decades but has yet to deliver on its promise.

Without stringent safeguards, transparency, and accountability, there is no assurance that new loans will be used effectively. The senator’s call for legislative oversight and penalties for fund mismanagement is laudable, but Nigeria’s weak institutions and the politicization of oversight functions make such measures difficult to implement in practice.

Given the foregoing backdrop, it is germane to opine in this context that Nigeria should begin to look towards alternatives to Borrowing.   Rather than saddling the nation with more debt, Nigeria should prioritize harnessing its vast resources to generate revenue. The country boasts abundant natural resources, a large and youthful population, and untapped sectors like agriculture, technology, and renewable energy.

In fact, there is the need to expand revenue generation. Therefore, the government should focus on diversifying its revenue streams beyond crude oil. By investing in agriculture, manufacturing, and technology, Nigeria can create jobs and boost exports.

In a similar vein, there is the need to cut wasteful spending. This is as a significant portion of the nation’s revenue is lost to corruption, inefficiency, and excessive government spending. Reducing wasteful expenditures and plugging revenue leaks can free up funds for critical projects.

Also, instead of borrowing, the government should explore Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) to fund infrastructure projects. PPPs have proven effective in many countries and can provide the necessary expertise and funding without burdening the nation with debt.

Also in a similar vein, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) should be encouraged. In fact, creating a conducive business environment can attract foreign investors, who can fund infrastructure projects and drive economic growth.

It is crucial to reflect on Nigeria’s borrowing history before embarking on another borrowing spree. The Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) of the 1980s, introduced under heavy borrowing conditions, left a legacy of economic hardship. The same pattern has repeated itself with recent loans, intended for development but diverted or mismanaged, leaving the masses worse off.

At this juncture, it is expedient to say a word to Senator Jimoh Ibrahim.  Oga Jimoh, while your intentions may be good, your proposal ignores the harsh realities of Nigeria’s economic and governance challenges. Borrowing “good money” is not a panacea; it is a recipe for chronic dependency if not paired with robust economic reforms and strict accountability measures.

Your comparison of Nigeria to Dubai overlooks the unique circumstances that made Dubai’s borrowing strategy successful. Nigeria cannot afford to gamble its future on a debt-driven model without first fixing its systemic issues.

Moreover, your suggestion that Nigeria negotiate debt forgiveness after accumulating more debt raises ethical and practical concerns. The global financial system is not a charity, and such an approach risks tarnishing the nation’s reputation and creditworthiness.

Nigeria’s path to economic prosperity lies not in reckless borrowing but in prudent financial management, strategic investments, and leveraging its immense human and natural resources. While infrastructure development is critical, it must be achieved sustainably without mortgaging the future.

Oga Jimoh, Nigeria does not need lessons in becoming a chronic debtor. What it needs are leaders who can think innovatively, act decisively, and prioritize the long-term well-being of the nation over short-term gains. The solutions to our economic challenges lie within us, not in the coffers of foreign creditors.