OTHERS' VIEWS

OTHERS' VIEWS

The silence is deafening. The lack of action is appalling. As the days go by, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s life hangs by a thread while the Nigerian Police, DSS, and the Presidency under Bola Tinubu appear indifferent to the terrifying allegations she has made. She has named names, exposed the plots, and gone through the proper channels by reporting to the Inspector General of Police. Yet, her cries for protection have been met with nothing but silence.

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan did not reveal these horrific plots to the world today for fame or sympathy. She did so because the institutions tasked with protecting her have failed to act. Where is the President of Nigeria, Bola Tinubu, in all of this? Where are the police? Where are the DSS? Where is justice? Nigeria’s institutions are failing, and the world cannot afford to remain silent.

By now, every day that passes without an investigation, without even the invitation of those implicated, brings her closer to the very fate she fears. Her blood is crying out for justice. And if these institutions do not act now, they are effectively endorsing her death.

 

Selective Enforcement and Institutional Failure

Nigeria’s security apparatus is built on the principles of justice, impartiality, and the protection of all citizens, regardless of their political status or social standing. However, the silence in the face of Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations reveals the hypocrisy embedded in these institutions.

Natasha has reported credible death threats from powerful figures—Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Governor Yahaya Bello. Yet, instead of immediately launching a full-scale investigation, the Nigerian Police, DSS, and other agencies have remained silent. Their refusal to act is not due to ignorance; it is a deliberate choice, rooted in a system that favors the powerful over the powerless.

 

Selective enforcement has become a chronic problem in Nigeria’s justice system. It is a disease that prioritizes political connections over truth and integrity. When ordinary Nigerians are accused of crimes, the response is swift and brutal. Yet when prominent figures are implicated, the machinery of justice grinds to a halt.

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case is a glaring example of this disparity. Despite her formal complaints and public statements, the response has been a deafening silence. What message does this send to the Nigerian people? That justice is only available to those who wield political power?

The failure of the Nigerian Police, DSS, and other relevant bodies to investigate such serious allegations is an indictment of the entire system. If the institutions meant to protect the people cannot act when the threats are so explicit, what hope is there for ordinary citizens who seek justice?

 

Alarming Allegations By Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations are not casual statements made in passing. They are direct, precise, and documented. The details she provided are chilling and demand immediate action. During her recent homecoming address, Natasha stated:

“On the 13th of March at 10:00 pm… Akpabio called Yahaya Bello. I was informed of everything… The meeting was on two folds – they told him to commence my recall and that he was going to fund it. The second thing he said was that he should try and kill me. I didn’t make this public, but I have written to the IG of Police. Akpabio told Yahaya Bello that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja, that it should happen here so that it will look as if it was the people that killed me here.”

 

These are not vague allegations. They are direct accusations against high-profile individuals, detailing a conspiracy to kill her and make it appear as though it was an act of public violence. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has made it clear that she has reported these threats to the Inspector General of Police, but no action has been taken.

The fact that she has had to go public with such information is a damning indictment of Nigeria’s security institutions. It highlights their failure to act on credible intelligence and their apparent unwillingness to protect a woman who has dared to challenge the power structures of the nation.

The implications of her allegations are staggering. If powerful men like Akpabio and Bello are allowed to plot against her with impunity, then Nigeria’s justice system is a hollow shell, serving only those who control it.

 

Political Influence And The Manipulation Of Law

The legal and security institutions of Nigeria have been compromised by political influence and manipulation. Instead of acting as impartial arbiters of justice, they have become tools for the powerful to suppress opposition and eliminate threats to their dominance.

Despite the gravity of Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations, the Nigerian Police and DSS have failed to even question the individuals implicated. Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Governor Yahaya Bello have not been summoned, interrogated, or even formally addressed. Why? Because their political stature affords them protection from the law.

 

Political influence over law enforcement agencies has created a culture of impunity where the powerful are untouchable. Akpabio and Bello continue to enjoy freedom and influence, despite allegations of conspiracy to assassinate a senator. This blatant manipulation of the law erodes public confidence in the very institutions meant to uphold justice.

President Tinubu must recognize that this culture of impunity cannot continue. By failing to act decisively, he is not only endorsing the actions of Akpabio and Bello but also undermining the credibility of his administration. The entire justice system is on trial, and the world is watching.

Systemic Rot And Corruption

 

Nigeria’s legal and security institutions are deeply infected by corruption. The failure to investigate Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations reflects a broader pattern of systemic decay where political power trumps the rule of law.

Corruption has permeated every level of Nigeria’s justice system. From the police to the judiciary, powerful figures use their influence to bend the law to their will. Natasha’s ordeal is not an isolated incident; it is a symptom of a larger problem that has plagued Nigeria for decades.

The lack of accountability for powerful individuals is a betrayal of Nigeria’s democratic principles. When justice is only accessible to the privileged, the entire system is compromised. Natasha’s case is a wake-up call that demands immediate and thorough reform.

 

The culture of corruption and selective justice must be dismantled. President Tinubu, the Nigerian Police, and the DSS must act now to restore faith in the nation’s institutions.

The Global Digital Spotlight: The World Is Watching

The world is not blind to what is happening in Nigeria. The allegations made by Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan are now circulating across international platforms, prompting concern and condemnation from human rights organizations, media outlets, and global advocates for justice. When a serving senator makes explicit claims of assassination plots involving high-ranking officials, the global community takes notice.

 

Foreign governments, international watchdogs, and human rights organizations are closely monitoring Nigeria’s response. Organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others dedicated to protecting the fundamental rights of individuals are listening. Nigeria’s continued silence and refusal to investigate such credible allegations will not go unnoticed.

In a world where information spreads within seconds, Nigeria’s leaders must understand that their actions—or inaction—will be scrutinized. The international community is not only aware of the allegations but is also documenting how Nigeria’s institutions respond. Every day that passes without action strengthens the perception that Nigeria’s legal and security systems are compromised by political influence and corruption.

President Tinubu, Akpabio, Bello, and all relevant parties must understand that the global community is waiting for accountability. They must realize that these allegations cannot be swept under the rug. The failure to act will only attract more condemnation and could potentially damage Nigeria’s reputation on the world stage.

 

Nigeria cannot afford to ignore the voices of its allies, partners, and advocates for justice. By refusing to address the allegations against Akpabio and Bello, the nation risks becoming a pariah state where political violence and intimidation are accepted norms.

Selective Justice: Why Hasn’t Akpabio Been Questioned?

Nigeria’s justice system is supposed to be impartial, equitable, and just. But the selective application of justice has become a defining characteristic of the nation’s institutions.

 

Why hasn’t Akpabio been questioned? Why hasn’t Bello been called in for interrogation? Why hasn’t President Tinubu demanded immediate action? These are the questions that echo through the minds of Nigerians and observers worldwide.

The failure to even question those implicated in Natasha’s allegations reflects a disturbing double standard. If the accusations were leveled against an ordinary Nigerian or a political opponent with less influence, the response would be swift and unforgiving. Police would have already launched an investigation, questioned those involved, and made arrests if necessary.

Yet, in this case, the accused are high-ranking political figures. They enjoy a level of protection that ordinary citizens cannot access. Their influence over the police, DSS, and other agencies has created a wall of immunity that shields them from accountability.

 

The selective nature of justice in Nigeria is a betrayal of the nation’s foundational principles. It sends a clear message that those in power are above the law. It also raises a fundamental question: If Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan cannot obtain justice, what hope do ordinary Nigerians have?

By failing to investigate the allegations, the Nigerian authorities are effectively endorsing a culture of impunity. They are signaling to the world that justice in Nigeria is reserved for the powerful and politically connected.

The Price Of Inaction: A Risk Too Great To Ignore

 

Every day of inaction is a day that brings Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan closer to danger. The threats she has reported are not theoretical; they are specific, documented, and credible. Yet, the refusal of the Nigerian authorities to act sends a chilling message.

The blood of an innocent woman will be on the hands of those who refuse to act. If Natasha is harmed, it will not be the result of a random event—it will be a consequence of deliberate neglect. The police, DSS, and the Tinubu administration will be directly responsible for failing to protect her.

But the price of inaction goes beyond Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s personal safety. It speaks to a larger issue of institutional decay and moral failure. If powerful figures can plot against a serving senator without consequence, then what hope is there for ordinary citizens?

 

The refusal to investigate this matter undermines the credibility of Nigeria’s institutions. It confirms that justice is only available to those who hold political power. It creates a dangerous precedent where violence, intimidation, and murder become acceptable tools for silencing opposition.

President Tinubu, Where Are You?

President Tinubu’s silence in the face of such serious allegations is both alarming and unacceptable. As the President of Nigeria, he is the ultimate authority responsible for ensuring justice, maintaining order, and protecting all citizens. His refusal to address the allegations made by Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan  could be seen as a failure of leadership.

 

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has reported her allegations to the police. She has made her case public. She has done everything within her power to seek protection. And yet, President Tinubu has remained silent. Why? Is his loyalty to Akpabio and Bello greater than his commitment to justice?

By refusing to act, President Tinubu is undermining the credibility of his administration. His silence gives the impression that he is complicit in the injustice being perpetrated. If he allows political allegiances to override his duty to protect Nigerian citizens, then he has failed in his role as President.

President Tinubu must recognize that this issue will not simply disappear. The world is watching, and his administration will be judged by how it responds to these allegations. If he continues to ignore the matter, then he is inviting condemnation and ridicule on both a national and international level.

 

The time to act is now. President Tinubu must demand immediate investigations, ensure that the police and DSS do their jobs, and demonstrate that no one—regardless of their political status—is above the law.

Demand For Immediate Action

The gravity of Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations requires immediate and decisive action. The following steps must be taken without delay:

 

Immediate Investigation: The Nigerian Police and DSS must, right now, initiate thorough investigations by inviting and questioning Akpabio, Bello, and all others implicated. This cannot be delayed any further.

Accountability: Akpabio and Bello must be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their political status. No individual should be above the law.

Presidential Action: President Tinubu must intervene, ensure immediate investigations are conducted, and demonstrate that his administration values justice over political allegiance.

 

International Pressure: The international community must press Nigeria to act on these serious allegations. Silence is complicity, and global bodies must demand justice.

Protection of Human Rights: Nigeria must demonstrate its commitment to justice, democracy, and the protection of all its citizens. Anything less is a betrayal of its foundational principles.

Conclusion

 

If, at the time of this writing, no action has begun—no urgent investigations, no invitation of Akpabio, Bello, and others for questioning—then it must start now. Not tomorrow, not next week. Now.

President Tinubu, you are the leader of this nation. You are responsible for upholding justice and protecting your citizens. You must act now before Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s blood stains your hands and becomes a permanent scar on your administration’s legacy.

The world is watching, the Nigerian people are demanding justice, and your leadership is on trial. Act now before it is too late.

 

This writer does not know any of the individuals involved; the focus is solely on upholding democracy, truth, and justice.

In Nigeria’s murky political landscape, where opposition voices are often stifled, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s ordeal stands out as a glaring example of how power is wielded against those who dare to challenge the status quo. The relentless political persecution she has faced before, during, and after her election into the Senate reveals a disturbing trend of intimidation, gender bias, and an apparent fear of her rising influence.

From the moment she declared her intention to contest for the Kogi Central Senatorial seat, Natasha has been subjected to a series of orchestrated attacks. The political establishment, particularly the ruling party in Kogi State, has continuously thrown roadblocks in her way. The latest chapter in this troubling saga is her ongoing suspension from the Senate, a move that reeks of political witch-hunting.

In fact, before the election, it was no doubt a rough road to the Senate.  This is as Natasha her political ambition has always been met with hostility from entrenched political forces. As a woman in a male-dominated political space, she was never going to have it easy. However, the level of resistance she encountered went beyond mere political rivalry; it became a full-blown war against her person.

 

Her 2019 gubernatorial ambition in Kogi State was met with a violent and systematic crackdown. Her campaign offices were attacked, her supporters were harassed, and she faced relentless smear campaigns in the media. Rather than engage her on the issues, her opponents resorted to intimidation tactics designed to break her spirit. The same pattern followed her senatorial bid in 2023.

From the moment she secured the ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), all manner of legal and extra-legal obstacles were thrown her way. Her candidacy was challenged in court on flimsy grounds, and there were multiple attempts to manipulate the electoral process to ensure she did not emerge victorious. However, despite the numerous hurdles, Natasha triumphed, winning the Senate seat in a keenly contested election. But even after her victory, the battle did not end.

The moment Natasha was sworn into office, it became clear that certain powerful forces were not ready to accept her presence in the Senate. The political persecution she endured before her election seamlessly transitioned into a new phase, one that involved attempts to frustrate her legislative efforts and, eventually, remove her from office.

 

The situation reached a boiling point when she was suspended from the Senate under controversial circumstances. The reason given for her suspension was a supposed breach of parliamentary rules, but many political analysts believe it was nothing more than a calculated move to silence her for crying out loud that she was being harassed sexually by the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio.

Her suspension followed a series of confrontations with powerful figures within the National Assembly and her state government. Unlike many lawmakers who prefer to toe the line of political godfathers, Natasha has remained vocal in her criticism of policies that do not favor the people she represents. This, undoubtedly, made her a target.

Given her travails, it is not out of context to ask, “Is she a victim of being a woman, or rather is it because she is a fearless woman in a man’s world?

 

In answering the foregoing question, one cannot overlook the gender dynamics at play in Natasha’s travails. Nigerian politics has long been an exclusive club for men, with women often relegated to the background. When women dare to challenge this dominance, they are met with aggressive resistance, and Natasha’s case is a classic example.

From verbal attacks laced with sexist undertones to physical threats and outright political exclusion, Natasha has faced it all. The hostility towards her is reminiscent of the experiences of other female politicians in Nigeria who have had to fight twice as hard as their male counterparts to gain recognition and respect.

Rather than judge her based on her capabilities and contributions, many of her critics have chosen to focus on her gender, using it as a weapon to discredit her. If she were a man, would she have faced the same level of opposition? This question lingers in the minds of many who have followed her political journey.

 

There is no denying the fact that Kogi State has a reputation for political turbulence, and Natasha’s struggles cannot be divorced from the power play within the state. Her victory in the senatorial election was a significant blow to the ruling party in the state, as she defeated a candidate who had the backing of the former governor, Yahaya Bello.

The ruling party in Kogi has made no secret of its disdain for Natasha. The state’s political machinery has been mobilized against her at every turn. The legal battles, the threats, the propaganda, all point to a coordinated effort to undermine her influence.

One of the most telling signs of this political vendetta was the alleged role played by state-sponsored thugs in disrupting her campaign activities before the election. Even after winning, her victory was contested in court in what many saw as a desperate attempt to keep her out of the Senate.

 

Concerning her suspension from the Senate, it is not an exaggeration to opine that it is a dangerous precedent. In fact, her suspension from the Senate is not just an attack on her but a dangerous precedent that could be used to silence other dissenting voices. If a senator can be suspended simply for speaking out about her plight in the Senate, what does that say about the state of democracy in Nigeria?

Her suspension also raises questions about the impartiality of the leadership of the Senate. If parliamentary rules were truly the issue, why have other senators who have engaged in far more controversial activities not faced the same fate? The selective application of disciplinary measures suggests that Natasha’s case is politically motivated.

Given the foregoing backdrop, it cannot be wrong to contextually scream, “Enough is enough!” The persecution of Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan must stop. It is time for those behind this unrelenting campaign against her to step back and allow her to perform her legislative duties without intimidation.

 

The Senate must revisit her suspension and ensure that due process is followed. If she is guilty of any offense, let it be addressed in a fair and transparent manner, not through politically motivated vendettas. More importantly, the political class in Kogi State must recognize that democracy thrives on diversity of opinions. The constant attempt to shut out opposition figures does not bode well for the state or the country at large.

Natasha has shown remarkable resilience in the face of adversity. She has refused to be cowed by the intimidation tactics used against her. Her story is an inspiration to many young Nigerians, particularly women, who aspire to leadership positions. If she can stand her ground despite the odds, then others can too.

 

Just today, April 1, 2025, she defies Kogi rally ban, even confirms Sallah visit to constituency, and announced that she would not back out on her plan to return to her constituency for the Sallah break. She also urged her supporters to disregard speculations making the round that she has cancelled her scheduled visit.

Without a doubt, the political war against Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is excessive and unjustifiable. It is a reflection of a broader problem in Nigeria’s political system, where opposition voices are often treated as enemies rather than partners in governance.

It is time for the powers that be to allow Natasha to breathe. She won her election fair and square, and she deserves to serve her people without undue interference. This roforofo fight against her must stop—haba, wetin happen?

 

The recent tragic incident in Uromi, Edo State, where a vigilante group allegedly killed 16 hunters of Northern Nigeria extraction, has sparked national outrage. The media has been flooded with reports, some portraying the people of Uromi as hostile and unjust in their actions. However, the deeper, underlying issues that led to this unfortunate event have been largely ignored. A critical question must be asked: Who pushed the people of Uromi to the wall?

Without a doubt, Uromi, and neighboring communities in Esanland have been witnessing a history of hostility and survival from the hands of herdsmen and hunters of Northern extraction. For years, Uromi, a largely agrarian community, has been under siege from armed herdsmen. The people have suffered relentless attacks, farm destruction, kidnappings, and killings. The tension between herders and farmers in Nigeria is well documented, but in Uromi, it has been particularly intense. Their plight has often been overlooked by both state and federal governments, leaving them to fend for themselves in the face of grave security threats.

The people of Uromi are not aggressors; they are victims who have had to adopt self-defense mechanisms for their survival. The killing of the 16 hunters, while tragic, cannot be viewed in isolation. It is a culmination of years of terror, frustration, and a desperate attempt to secure their land and lives.

 

To aptly put it, Uromi people have been fight a silent war as they have been under attack. There have been several documented cases of herdsmen attacks on Uromi and other Esan communities. In 2018, suspected armed herdsmen attacked a farm settlement in Uromi, killing farmers and displacing many families. The attack left the community in mourning and heightened fears among locals.

Again, in 2020, gunmen, believed to be herdsmen, stormed another farming settlement, killing four people and destroying large hectares of farmland. The police response was lackluster, as no arrests were made, and the community was left to deal with the trauma alone.

In 2022, another brutal attack took place in Uromi, where a farmer and his son were slaughtered in cold blood while working on their farm. Their only crime was resisting the invasion of their farmlands by cattle. In response to this growing insecurity, many communities, including Uromi, formed local vigilante groups to protect themselves.

 

Despite the incessant attack on the people of Uromi, it is widely alleged that the government has been silent to the people’s response for years, even as pleas from the people of Uromi for better security have fallen on deaf ears. Without a doubt, the government has failed to provide adequate policing or deploy military forces to curb the activities of these violent herdsmen. This neglect has fueled local efforts to establish self-defense groups, a move that some authorities have criticized, despite providing no alternatives.

When people are pushed to their limits, when their sources of livelihood are threatened, and when they live in constant fear for their lives, self-defense becomes inevitable. The people of Uromi, like many other Nigerians facing similar threats, have been left with no choice but to take matters into their own hands.

Given the foregoing backdrop, it is expedient to ask, given the unfolding tragedy, “Was the killings in Uromi perpetrated due to self-defense or murder?

 

According to reports, the 16 men who were killed by the Uromi vigilante group were found with arms. The vigilantes, already on high alert due to past attacks, likely saw them as a potential threat. In a region where armed men have frequently carried out massacres, such an encounter was bound to escalate.

However, rather than painting the Uromi people as ruthless murderers, it is imperative to understand their fears and the history that shaped their response. It is easy to condemn an action without considering the buildup of events that led to it. It is important to ask whether these 16 men were truly hunters or if they had other motives, especially in a region that has suffered immense trauma from armed groups.

Given the foregoing backdrop, it is expedient in this context to urge the government to look beyond the Killings.  While investigating the incident in Uromi is necessary, the Nigerian government must look beyond the killings and address the root cause of the conflict. The real issue at hand is the unchecked movement of armed herdsmen and hunters of Northern extraction, who invade farms and disrupt the livelihoods of people in the South. The government must recognize that this pattern of violence, displacement, and destruction is the primary factor fueling tensions between local communities and these groups.

 

It is unacceptable for individuals to roam freely with dangerous weapons under the guise of being hunters or herdsmen. This has led to consistent clashes, with innocent farming communities like Uromi bearing the brunt of the violence. If the government is truly interested in peace and justice, it must take immediate steps to regulate the movement of these armed groups and put an end to their activities.

For too long, the government has turned a blind eye to the complaints of farmers in the South, who continuously suffer losses due to cattle destruction of their crops and attacks from armed herdsmen. This neglect has left communities with no option but to resort to self-help, which can sometimes lead to tragic incidents like the recent one in Uromi. Instead of merely condemning the actions of the vigilantes, the government must take decisive action to prevent future clashes by addressing the issue from its root.

In fact, the Nigerian government must step in, not just to investigate this latest tragedy, but to address the root cause of the conflict. It is not enough to condemn the killings in Uromi while ignoring the years of attacks on the community. Justice must be served on both sides. If indeed the slain men were innocent hunters, then the perpetrators should face the law. However, if they were part of the larger insecurity problem in the region, the government must acknowledge this and act accordingly.

 

Moreover, security agencies must do more than issue statements. There must be a proactive approach to ensuring that all Nigerian communities, including Uromi, are protected from armed non-state actors. Policies should be put in place to prevent future conflicts and ensure that no community feels abandoned or forced into vigilantism.

To the view of this writer, by virtue of being an Edolite, having socialized with many Uromi people, particularly in his secondary school days, the people of Uromi are not evil, nor are they bloodthirsty. They are hospitable, peace-loving people who have endured years of suffering in silence. They have been pushed to the brink, left to defend themselves in the absence of government protection. The real question remains: Who pushed Uromi to the wall?

Until the Nigerian government takes decisive action to protect vulnerable communities, similar incidents are likely to occur across the country. It is time to address the underlying security crisis, restore faith in law enforcement, and ensure that no community is left to fight for its survival alone. The government must look at the bigger picture and acknowledge that allowing armed herdsmen and hunters to move freely is a threat to national security. Only then can lasting peace be achieved.

Natasha Akpoti was just a woman like Benazir Bhutto. Benazir, was a passionate, brilliant woman who loved her country, her people, her family and friends. She was the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Pakistani Prime Minister who was execution by the state of Pakistan. It’s difficult to describe Benazir Bhutto in words. She was a woman of so many faces; she was so many things to so many different people.

Sometimes, I still look back and find myself humbled by the thought that I had created a ‘look’ for such an empowering woman, a great amazon and iconic global figure. As time progressed, Benazir became more than just a politician – she was an inspiration to many of us who desire a decent society and detest violence. Sadly, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto which took place on 27 December 2007 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. It was a tragic end of the great Amazon.

NATASHA AT UN

Benazir Bhutto profoundly posited: “You can imprison a man, but not an idea. You can exile a man, but not an idea.” “Ultimately, leadership is about the strength of one’s convictions, the ability to endure the punches, and the energy to promote an idea.” These are some of her profound statements (quotes).

 

Eight years after fleeing into exile, Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan in October 2007 to contest elections in which she had a strong chance of becoming prime minister again. Both her supporters and her family’s old enemies were prepared. There comes the first female prime minister of Pakistan, a rival of General Pervez Musharraf, and an important role model for Malala. Benazir Bhutto is a talented and charismatic politician who uses her influence to fight for women’s rights, and claims that she will fight the forces of religious extremism in her country.

In her own world, Natasha Hadiza Akpoti, a Nigerian politician and lawyer who serves as a member of the 10th Nigeria National Assembly representing Kogi Central Senatorial District since 2023. She is the first elected female senator in Kogi State. Ironically, events in the past few weeks characterized by nostalgia evoke the sad memories of the dark era of which the global world rise to condemned.

Natasha on Tuesday alleged that Senate President Godswill Akpabio contracted the former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, to commence her recall and assassination. Speaking during her homecoming rally on Tuesday, April 1, Akpoti-Uduaghan told her supporters that although the alleged plot was not publicly revealed, she had officially reported the matter to the Inspector General of Police.

 

Detailing the events, she alleged that Akpabio had initially contacted Kogi Governor Usman Ododo, urging him to begin her recall process. When Ododo reportedly declined, citing her strong grassroots support, Akpabio allegedly reached out to Bello, promising to fund the recall effort. Against all odds, she stormed her constituency in a chopper, defying warnings by the police, state governor, and a curfew declared in her local government to stop her from coming home.

Historically significant, it has been established that, we have a proactive governments and security forces when it comes to moving against opposition elements and innocent citizens who are demanding for their fundamental rights and responsive leadership, but a sleeping one when its banditry, insurgency, criminal herdsmen killings and other criminal issues.

In conclusion, the world is tired of the dark era of politically motivated assassinations. Aside from the fact that this is an extremely stupid thing to do. Nevertheless, the memories of the past ugly examples are there to put us in check. Apart from the example of Benazir Bhutto, the sad memories of many others including that of Chief James Ajibola Ige (Bola Ige) who was shot to death right in his home at Bodija in Ibadan at 8:30pm evening of Sunday 23, December 2001 are clear examples of politically motivated assassinations.

 

Finally, it seems that, there are far too many leaders who are useless for peace and in creating a world working together and cooperating for the good of everyone, rather than deliberately creating tension and threats of aggression and war; invariably for self aggrandizement while exacerbating the self-centred, corruptive attitude of the few power drunk elements which signposts political intolerance and abuse of power.

 

The earliest form of governance system is the monarchy. Even the Holy Books confirm this. That is why in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and many countries in the Middle East, they are still ruled by kings. England, Spain, and Morocco are still ruled by kings. In the traditional and pre-colonial Nigeria, all the communities, towns and villages were governed by traditional rulers-kings and queens. There was Queen Amina of Zauzau, King Jaja of Opobo, Oba of Benin, Alaafin of Oyo and Ooni of Ife, to mention but a few. These kings perform the executive, legislative and judicial functions with the support of their kingmakers and palace chiefs.

For instance, the Alaafin of Oyo heads the old Oyo Empire that covers most of South-West Nigeria down to Dahomey in the present Benin Republic.  The empire’s military is under the Aare-Ona-Kakanfo (Generalissimo), who is answerable to the Alaafin. The Oyomesi and Ogboni assisted the Alaafin in the performance of the legislative and judicial functions. The empire had prisons called Tubu where those convicted of crimes served their prison terms. There was also an effective tax system. Vassal communities pay Isakole to the Alaafin, and failure to pay may lead to war being declared on such communities. Any Alaafin who commits an abominable act could be asked by the Oyomesi to compulsorily commit suicide by opening a sacred calabash. This well-structured governance system was the reason the colonial masters decided to adopt indirect rule in Northern Nigeria and Yorubaland. It was only in the South-East, especially Igboland, that the colonialists decided to adopt direct rule.

One of the major side effects of the pre-colonial rulership system was the recurring inter-tribal and inter-ethnic wars as empires embarked on an expansionist agenda, wanting to conquer more territories to increase their economic prosperity. This act of aggression is often resisted, and rebellion became the order of the day within the empires, whether it was the Kanem-Borno or Oyo Empires. Slave raiding and trading were also a prominent feature of the pre-colonial traditional governance systems. But for the coming of the British colonialists, many towns and villages currently in existence would have been wiped out by bigger ones. It was the colonialists who brought all traditional governance systems under their control, which moderates the influence of big towns over the small ones. Where would Aawe, Fiditi, Iroko, Akinmorin and smaller towns around Oyo have been if not for the moderating influence of modern governance systems?

Recall that Ile-Ife attempted to subdue Modakeke for many years. Online sources said, “Historians have described the crisis between Ile-Ife and Modakeke as one of the oldest intra-ethnic conflicts in Nigeria. Seven major violent clashes have been recorded between them in 1835-1849, 1882-1909, 1946-1949, 1981, 1983, 1997-1998, and 2000.” Likewise, the Kiriji War, also known as the Ekiti-Parapo War, was a 16-year-long civil war (1877-1893) between Yoruba sub-ethnic kingdoms, primarily pitting Ibadan against the Ekiti-Parapo confederation. All these wars were fought on the orders of their respective traditional rulers. Before the declaration of any war, there is usually an aroko, which are totems sent by the oba of the town that wants to declare war on the oba of other towns to be attacked.

Interesting thing about kingship is that those who belong to royal families enjoy special privileges. They are referred to as having blue blood and are served by the people of the town. The king, his household and his clan live large at the expense of their respective communities. They do not have to work but are rather fed, served and honoured by their people. This is why ascension to the royal throne is often acrimonious, as princes from the royal families sometimes apply the Machiavellian principle of “end justifying the means” in the bid for the throne. Though in many communities Ifa oracle is consulted by the kingmakers in the selection of a new king in Yorubaland, despite that, as is recently with the case of the newly installed Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Abimbola Akeem Owoade, litigation, strife and spiritual attacks are still used as weapons by losers against the winner.

 

Quite unfortunately, the enthronement of royal fathers has been greatly politicised as divination has been waved aside. Even if the oracle chooses any king now, the governor of the state has the final say, as he is the one to give a certificate and royal staff of office before such a king can be coronated and recognised. Aside from politics, the financial inducement of the kingmakers is now frequently cited as the major influence in the choice of modern kings. The throne now goes to the highest bidder. Perhaps except Ibadan town, whose ascendancy to the throne is based on a long queue of aspirants from the ruling houses.

While it is true that subjugating kingship under state and local government control has diminished the esteem and influence of modern kings, I dare say it is highly desirable because if not so, inter-tribal conflict would not have ceased. Imagine that as recently as last month (March 2025), there was still a communal rift among Ilobu, Ifon and Erin Osun, where the Osun State governor had to impose a curfew and threatened to depose the monarchs of the towns if they failed to maintain peace.

Talking about dethronement, that is another weapon the political class has been using against any monarch who is perceived to be against their government. That is what is playing out in Kano currently between Emir Aminu Ado-Bayero and Sanusi Lamido Sanusi. Indeed, during the colonial rule, the British colonialists deposed Oba Ovonramwen Nogbaisi of the Benin Kingdom as well as King Jaja of Opobo. The Western Region government deposed the late Alaaafin of Oyo, Oba Raji Adeniran Adeyemi. He became Alaafin in 1945 and was deposed and exiled in 1954, 10 years later, for sympathising with the National Council of Nigerian Citizens. King Dosunmu of Lagos was also deposed and had to relocate to Epe before he later regained the throne. The Alake of Egbaland, Oba Ladapo Ademola, who ruled between 1920 and 1962, was exiled between 1948 and 1950, following the popular women’s uprising against taxation, led by Mrs Funmilayo Ransom-Kuti. However, Oba Ademola regained his throne.

The Zarki of Arigidi-Akoko, Oba Olanipekun, was a minister without portfolio under the Akintola government in the Western Region. The rift between the Action Group and the Nigerian National Democratic Party polarised his town. The monarch was alleged to have taken sides with a political tendency. His people revolted, and the king went into exile. But 25 years later, he returned to his throne. Similar to that was that of Olowo of Owo, Oba Olateru Olagbegi, who was dethroned by the Western Region government and came back to the throne 25 years later.

Is kingship still relevant in Nigeria? Yes. This is because they are the custodians of our culture and tradition. They are supposed to be the embodiment of societal mores and values. Though their function is largely ceremonial now, they are still needed as they play vital roles in settling family disputes, squabbles and maintenance of law and order at the grassroots. I sincerely believe that there should be a constitutional role for them with appropriate guidelines and a code of ethics. It is unfortunate that some traditional rulers are morally bankrupt and sometimes collude with criminal elements to terrorise their communities; nonetheless, with a proper code of conduct, such fifth columnists can be weeded out.

Those within Nigeria’s petroleum sector who are working in the interest of Western international monopoly capital to foil the naira-for-petroleum deal President Bola Tinubu offered domestic petroleum refiners should be fished out of the system really quickly.

And they are not all too difficult to identify.

Someone, whose name does not readily come to mind now, is quoted to have said that Nigeria’s political elite, equivalents of fifth columnists, are no more than custodians of Nigeria’s wealth on behalf of foreign interests.

No sooner had President Tinubu given the naira-for-petroleum directive to Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited than some of those unpatriotic economic saboteurs quickly jumped out to remind Nigerians that petroleum is an “international citizen” that can only be traded in the US dollar.

They may need to be reminded that America had pledged to ensure that the House of Saud would forever rule Saudi Arabia if they could convince other members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel to adopt the dollar-for-petroleum payment scheme for the international petroleum trade.

Indeed, there is nothing sacrosanct about the dollar-for-petroleum option. Any other currency is eligible for petroleum trading. The naira-for-petroleum option that President Tinubu introduced into Nigeria is equally viable. And it should significantly contribute to strengthening the naira if it is extended to foreign buyers of Nigeria’s high-grade Brent crude.

This is how it will work: To buy Nigeria’s crude or refined petroleum, buyers must first buy the naira (from the Central Bank of Nigeria) and use it to pay for commodities from NNPCL. That way, Nigeria will still have the dollars that can be used to pay for its imports.

Additionally, the increased demand should strengthen the naira. After all, the law of supply and demand, the foundation of Western economic theory, postulates that increased demand should increase the price of a commodity, all things being equal.

It is regrettable that members of the Technical Sub-Committee, whom the President charged with the administration of the deal, could not work out a long-term template within the initial six-month trial period that was given to them.

It is true that President Tinubu, who met the petrol pump price at N195 per litre, unnecessarily announced that “fuel subsidy is gone”, and thus raised the pump price to N557 the day after his inauguration. It went further up, to as much as N1,184 and beyond in the black market. And the cost of everything else rose to dizzying heights.

But when his directive that NNPCL should sell petroleum to local refineries in naira took off on October 1, 2024, Dangote Refinery, the major beneficiary of the naira-for-petroleum deal, was able to initiate a steady drop in the price of petrol just before Christmas in 2024.

Within three months, the price tumbled from N970 to N870, to N825, to N815, which is N70 lower than the landing cost of imported petrol, whose price increased by N88. This got the dander of the “secret agents” of international monopoly capital up, and they began to look for ways to surreptitiously end the deal.

They probably thought that if Dangote Refinery continued that trend, the price of petrol could further drop to N500, or even lower, in 2025. Dangote Refinery, which is neither Father Christmas nor the Red Cross, would not have been shaving the price of petrol if it were running at a loss.

This suggests that it has always been possible to produce and sell petrol at a price lower than what NNPCL has always offered. It is just that those who have been running NNPCL have either been incompetent or insensitive to the plight of the poor masses of Nigeria.

Those running NNPCL, which has been doing its business by generally spewing half-truths and illusions, lately hugging media attention to announce that they are finally running NNPCL’s Port Harcourt and Warri refineries, must be more adroit in meeting their obligations.

 

They did not need the Petroleum Products Retail Outlet Owners Association of Nigeria to announce that (one of) the Port Harcourt refineries, which had been idle for 20 years, has been steadily producing petroleum products in the past 180 days.

Despite the antiseptics of the propaganda sandpapering, the people at NNPCL still felt the heat and the shame of their loss of the market to Dangote Refineries, so much that they had to find a way to hamper the operations of a refinery in which they have as much as 7.2 per cent stake.

Industry watchers say that, from the inception of the deal, NNPCL had consistently failed to provide Dangote Refinery with 350,000 barrels of petroleum per day as the President had directed. At best, they only supplied 120,000 barrels per day. By February 2025, they had halted the supply completely.

Obviously, someone is running rings around the President, who is the Minister of Petroleum Resources. Somehow, those with the responsibility to run the project could not work with a template for the whole six months of the trial.

They probably endured President Tinubu’s naira-for-petroleum deal with the hope that they would gleefully report how it could not work and must end. In their usual lying manner, they have started to manufacture a device to invent the next spin.

The Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, which should have been supervising the scheme in the first place, is reported to be asking the Technical Sub-Committee, a special-purpose vehicle, to make suggestions on how to sustain the deal.

The depressing news is that the meeting between the Technical Sub-Committee on the naira-for-petroleum deal and Dangote Refinery was stalled because NUPRC (expectedly) failed to provide a way to perform an assignment that its “simulated” incompetence caused in the first place.

In the end, Dangote Refinery thought up a wise and diplomatic way to tell Nigerians that the deal of selling its petrol for naira is off because its deal to buy petroleum for naira from NNPCL is off. Nigeria’s economic saboteurs finally got around to botching the President’s idea of regularly providing petrol to Nigerians whilst also strengthening the naira.

Now, Nigerians can only expect to pay more for petrol. Indeed, almost immediately after Dangote Refinery announced that the prices of its products would rise because the naira-for-petroleum deal had collapsed, the pump price of petrol jumped to N930 in Lagos and N970 in parts of Northern Nigeria.

Understandably, PETROAN, which dreads the sale of petroleum products in dollars, has weighed in, calling on the government “to ensure that all transactions within the country are conducted in the local currency, the naira, to protect the economy and the welfare of Nigerians”.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission should begin to enforce Sections 20(1) and 20(5) of the CBN Act, which respectively provide that only currency issued by the CBN shall be legal tender in Nigeria and that no one can refuse to accept the naira for economic transactions in Nigeria.

Though other currencies shall be acceptable for bona fide tourists and for CBN’s foreign exchange trading and approved foreign exchange transactions, even as the Senate is said to be considering a bill to outlaw the use of foreign currency in Nigeria.

President Tinubu and NNPCL Chairman, Pius Akinyelure, should not rely on the petroleum sector bureaucrats but use their private sector experiences to return the naira-for-petroleum deal in the interest of Nigerians.

Before the mid-70s, a team of young Nigerians enjoyed the privileged opportunity to be admitted into Annunciation Catholic College (ACC), Irrua, which was one of the best secondary schools in the old Bendel State, now Edo and Delta States.

They came armed only with their dreams, innocence and excitement to pursue a future which looked far away but attainable. For them, education provided the only super-highway to the future and being at ACC was a predictable prelude to fulfilling that future. ACC was not only the dream of children but more for their parents who wanted to enjoy the pride of having their children in an elite school.

Behind them was the blighted wreckage and fatalities of a 30-month Civil War whose nightmare still cast an overhang over life after four years. The students came from different parts of the country, including that part of the country that was severely hurt and most affected by the war. The new government came with a “no victor no vanquished mantra.” The young children were only too happy to begin the new journey of life, build new relationships and nurture dreams that could one day see them live their lives and rule their world.

 

They were dream seekers and life is for those who dream and have the strength of character to make their dreams a reality.

 

Years later, life has changed. The world has changed even more, getting increasingly more connected, to create a global village and satisfy the ever expanding human quest and capacity for world’s secrets in the form of knowledge still floating out there. The more immediate benefit of a global village is that people separated for decades can seek out each other and basically shout across the divide which only excludes the opportunity to touch each other but more of feelings and euphoric recollections.

Meanwhile, those innocent dream seekers have come of age, and now scattered across the world, into professions and opportunities to become real men, influencing their world while creating new opportunities and providing broad shoulders for others to climb on.

Here, the dramatis personae begin to emerge from the shadows, from a world of the past, into reality. After decades in separate worlds and even beyond the precincts of career dreams, Commodore Christian Anuge (Rtd.) and Henry Edeko, who lives in the UK, got connected in 2013 and were regularly in touch. They discussed the general old boys group and had, at this time, also reconnected with Christopher Okoh, also in the Uk. Henry and Chris Okoh relayed their different experiences at the various attempts to form or connect with the ACC Old Boys Association, UK branch.

 

Fast forward to 2015, WhatsApp was just becoming a useful tool for communication and social media networking. Some time around 2017, The ACCCLASS OF1980 WhatsApp group was formed by Thomas Imafidon(aka Arula) and he added Henry Edeko and Christian Anuge either by commission or omission. Thomas was originally our classmate. Henry and Christian must have been on that platform for most of 2017 sometimes joining in discussions. Someone, a 1980 old boy then mentioned on the platform and reminded their Admin that Henry Edeko and Christian Anuge were a year their senior, in a rather graceful way – ACC style. It was mentioned on the platform that we were enriching their discussions and it was from then on that we just became silent members of that platform until very recently.

All the same, we were amazed by the level of interaction and strength of bonding amongst the 1980 Class Old Boys. This is the beauty of technology, being able to look deep into the past, and then beautify the present with its excavations while shaping the future ahead. The seed to form our own class platform had been sown; so in January 2018, Henry Edeko proceeded to form the ACCCLASSOF1979 WhatsApp group to enable members of the set interact with one another, and be able to pull resources together for the upliftment of our Alma Mater, the Annunciation Catholic College, Irrua.

When the dream seekers came to ACC, there were no phones. Perhaps the only phone would be at the local government headquarters in Ubiaja or Ewohimi for administrative purposes. The new world is different. There are mobile phones everywhere which have attracted the benign involvement and invitation of WhatsApp, which is an over-the-top (OTT) operation.

From that moment in January 2018, members of the set didn’t disappoint. They could sit virtually from time to time and relive the world they dreamt about in the 70s. Thankfully, God has been kind. A majority have made good, and could connect from different parts of the world.

 

The founding trio of Henry Edeko, Christian Anuge and Christopher Okoh contacted Dr. Paschal Isele, who was also the Senior Prefect of the School during our final year in 1979, to secure his imprimatur. The whole episode caught the fancy of other classmates; Martins Akhigbemidu, Dr Peter Olumese, Daniel Arewoh. At the same time Henry Edeko extended Admin rights to other old boys as administrators of the platform, so that they too, could be in a position to add other identified classmates to the platform.

Within one week, the platform had about fifteen members added to it, and this engendered a regular informal discussion until it was decided to formalise the Class Association which resulted in an initial meeting, held on February 27th, 2021, via Zoom. At this inaugural meeting, the first task was to establish the leadership positions of the Class of ‘79. It was easy for members to nominate and agree that Dr. Paschal Isele should be the Chairman of the Set, as he was the Senior Prefect of the School in our final year at ACC Irrua. To continue from where he stopped over 40 years ago!

With the Chairman in place, other nominations were made which saw the election of the following members of the executive: Dr. Paschal Isele – Chairman, Mr. Christopher Okoh – Secretary, Dr. Peter Olumese – Assistant Secretary, Prof. David Ogbeifun – Financial Secretary, and Commodore Christian Anuge (Rtd.) – PRO/Publicity Secretary.

With the ExCo members now in place, it was time to begin work on the main objective of forming the 1979 Set of ACCIOBA. Members agreed, after a painstaking selection of what needs to be done for our Alma Mater, that we should buy and donate Lawn Mowers to ACC Irrua, since members saw that the school lawns were now poorly kept. By March 2021, membership in the platform has grown to over 20; donations were generously made by members which raised enough money that enabled the Set to buy four (4) Lawn mowers which were donated to the school on 30th March 2021, to the joy of every member of the set and the entire ACCIOBA community.

 

Membership drive became a major need for the Set. Hence, at every subsequent meeting, the need to grow our membership on the platform was always emphasized. By 2022, membership has grown to be about thirty-one. Given the strength of the Set in 2022, it was easy to again decide on a new project to be executed in ACC Irrua. At this time, the Global body of Accioba had drawn up several developmental projects in a development plan for the rebuilding of ACC Irrua. Amongst the expected projects was the perimeter fencing of the school compound. In fact, some other sets had started the fencing of the front area of the school up to the fourth side and the 1979 Set decided to embark on the fencing of about 200 metres stretch of the remaining side from the back. This area had a deep valley which made the task of constructing the fence particularly challenging to execute.

Following the successful execution of two key projects in ACC Irrua, members took a decision, in one of our meetings in 2022, to have some Welfare Plans in place for members. A three-man Committee was set up to come up with a welfare package to be put in place for members of the Set which saw, amongst others benefits, the provision of a token support to any member who is celebrating any of his children’s Wedding. This was however, limited to a maximum of four children per member. Few members have so far benefitted from this Welfare Package to the joy of all members.

 

Not much was done in 2023 other than the continuous membership drive. The Chairman took the initiative to publish on the set’s WhatsApp platform, the names of all the students of 1974 set that left ACC Irrua in 1979 as a rear view memorial of that epochal time of our lives. This helped in bringing out more names of classmates to be further contacted to join the set as we believe that the more we are, the better it should be for us all and for our Alma Mater. However, in 2024, we again decided to execute another project. This time around, the need to support the completion of the Government approved new hostel complex became paramount. Two members of Class 79, Dr. Peter Okojie and Dr. Godfrey Ekhomu had taken up the building of four out of the eight halls of residence in the hostel complex at the school. Some handsome amount was contributed to the project by the Set.

There is the need to mention here that the 1979 set of ACCIOBA are made up of prominent members that have been able to make significant contributions to the rebuilding of our Alma Mater. It is also on record that the 1979 Set is blessed with members that are holding key positions in the Global body of ACCIOBA. The immediate past Global President of ACCIOBA, Dr Paschal Isele, is a member of the Set. Another member of the Set, Dr. Peter Okojie, is the current President of the North American Branch of ACCIOBA. Also, a staunch member of the UK ACCIOBA branch and member of the Set, Mr. Henry Edeko, has also made significant donations to the Global body for the continuous rebuilding of ACC, Irrua. It must be mentioned too, that when aggregated, members from the 1979 set of ACCIOBA have made more donations towards the rebuilding of ACC Irrua than any other set to the glory of God. Some of our members were indeed honoured by the former governor of Edo State, Mr Godwin Obaseki, for their efforts.

 

Annunciation Catholic College, Irrua was founded in 1955, which made the School 75 years old by March 2025. A Platinum Jubilee Celebration was held last week by the Global body of ACCIOBA to commemorate this great attainment by the school. The 1979 set has therefore decided to organize a Reunion Party to coincide with the Platinum Jubilee Celebrations by ACCIOBA Global. For the first time since 1979, the members have a blessed opportunity, this weekend, to convene at the College ground where the journey began decades ago. It is not virtual reality any more but a physical gathering of those tiny little boys who have grown into real men affecting their world in a most positive way.

I dedicate this column today to two illustrious Nigerians who have achieved great things and made giant contributions to our society in their different forays. In the order in which our paths crossed, the first is Dr. Aderotimi (Rotimi) Adelola and the second is Professor Babafemi Badejo (BB). My path and Dr. Adelola crossed at the Omegabank (formerly Owena Bank). The Revd. Segun Agbetuyi had been hired to reposition Owena Bank and Dr. Adelola was one of the fine technocrats he recruited to help get the job done. My path and Agbetuyi crossed when the union leaders opposed to his radical restructuring efforts attempted to bribe me into publishing a story that would damage Agbetuyi and his restructuring agenda.

The unionists came to my office with cash stashed in two cartons of beer. After listening to them, I rejected their offer and drove them away with the bribe money. As they amassed their bait; the union leaders had boasted that Agbetuyi would smear himself once their damaging report was published by the high-flying Saturday PUNCH, which I edited together with the daily, The PUNCH. Saturday came, no dice! It was then Agbetuyi realised I had turned down the unionists’ offer. He anxiously wanted to meet me and sent Sola Oloidi, the Bank’s Public Relations guy at the time. 

When I got to the Apapa head office of the bank at the time, Agbetuyi himself was downstairs waiting to receive me. That was how a relationship with the bank and its key managers developed and blossomed for many years. Its PR department became a second home to me after I left the PUNCH - what with the likes of Segun Ilori, Ademola Akinbola, and Ayo Arowojolu holding sway there at one time or the other! I printed the bank’s Omegabank newsletter for a spell of time until Soludo’s bank consolidation dabaru of the banking sector.

From Omegabank, Dr. Adelola went on to accomplish other milestones, one of which was as the longest-serving Secretary to the Ondo State Government under Gov. Olusegun Mimiko (aka Gba-sibe). What you are about to read are excerpts from the “Foreword” to Adelola’s “Working under the Sunshine: Reminiscences on how a State Government in Nigeria created values for the People”. Incidentally, Professor Femi Mimiko who wrote the “Foreward”, is not only the blood brother of Gov. Mimiko, he was also my classmate at the then University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University), Ile-Ife. Femi read Political Science while I read History/Political Science. I invite you to enjoy the bit of the “Foreword” that space constraint will allow us here.    

“A major lacuna in Political Science, Public Administration, and governance scholarship, which we have so often referenced, is the tendency to undertake analysis of social formations, and the workings of their political economy, only at the macro level, to the exclusion of the nuances presented by the sub-national realm. The immediate implication of this marginalization culture is that the particular is often lost in the treatment of the general. A preponderance of academic inquiry into, as well as the softer levels of discourses of Nigeria, fits within this disturbing mould.

“To be certain, Nigeria’s system, by a combination of the state formation process, the character of the state, organisation of its politics, and the structuring of its economy suffers from the lingering challenge of throwing up responsive governments capable of answering to the yearnings and aspirations of the people – their own ‘revolution of rising expectations,’ as it were.

“The central government in Nigeria, without much regard to the theoretical precepts in federalism, under which the federating units and central government are supposed to be ‘coordinated and independent’, remains the very locus of power, authority, and influence; animating the other levels of government. The truth, which we have to deal with, is that this governance structure detracts from the possibility of throwing up leaders with the vision and technical capacity requisite for transformationalism. It instead has proven itself adept at producing leaders, many of whom are ‘short in capacity, limited in vision, and too compromised, to be the anchor for national unity and development.’

“In specific terms, the nature of the compromises that many a political practitioner must make to access power, heavily concentrated in the central government – under the rubric of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) – are such that constrain the prospects of emergence of leaders ‘of such quality and commitment requisite for a fresh berth for the country.’ Small wonder, the outcomes in mediocre performance, often paraded in the Nigerian leadership landscape since independence in 1960.

“This, however, does not suggest that the ecosystem of governance in Nigeria is completely bereft of flashes of captivating performance at the sub-national levels – local and State. Yet, under the restrictive analytical framework referenced here, the failure of the Nigerian central government is often projected over the entire country, denying observers the opportunity to engage with significant and impressive efforts at transformational leadership at the other levels of governance. The point being made here is that in the wholescale focus on the macro level, and prioritization of the central government in analysis, the dysfunctionality often associated with that level of government in Nigeria is magnified and projected over the entire social formation, without regard to regional specificities.

“For a fuller, truer, and more nuanced sense, it behooves any serious analyst to look beyond the bigger picture and apprehend critical trends at the lower (sub-national) levels, some of which may be significant enough to shape the nature of the analytical narrative, and the conclusion reachable. It is also not impossible to have what constitutes best practices across governance landscapes within a country. Except the details of such possibilities are tracked and interrogated, it becomes difficult to exact the advantages thereto as we keep at the task of reinventing government, to the ends of good governance, conceived by Goran Hyden in his 1992 work on the same subject, as ‘the conscious management of regime structures to enhance the legitimacy of the public realm…’

“This is one of the primary reasons why Adelola’s (book) deserves the attention of scholars and practitioners of development alike. As the title suggests, the book is a dissection of the patterns of governance of a sub-national unit in Nigeria, over eight years, under a civil democratic dispensation. In the words of the author, it is an effort to elucidate ‘the workings of the people-oriented State Government under the transformational leadership of Dr. Olusegun Mimiko, CON, and the first Governor of Ondo State to serve an undisrupted two terms in office.’ “

I agree with Professor Mimiko that Abuja is not Nigeria, just as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu or his government is not all there is about governance in the country. Focus must not only be on the government at the Centre but also on States and Local Governments just as Dr. Adelola has appropriately done in his reminiscences. 

Professor Badejo I met during COVID-19 in company of other egg-heads at the University of Lagos Staff Club where we met to discuss the state of the nation and the way forward. Since then, we have become like family. Thus, his latest success did not come to me as a surprise. Let’s savour it with him as much as space would permit us!

“The Award Committee of the 2025 Africa Annual Events and the University of Texas at Austin have conferred the prestigious Nelson Mandela Distinguished Africanist Award on Professor Babafemi Badejo, a political scientist, lawyer, and diplomat, in recognition of his lifelong dedication to African studies and service to the African people. In a statement, the committee announced that the award “named in honour of the late Nelson Mandela, is a lifetime achievement recognition given to individuals who have demonstrated resilience, courage, and commitment to African liberation, the promotion of freedom and rights for Africans, and outstanding leadership in public service”. Past recipients include renowned scholars and leaders such as Bonny Ibhawoh of McMaster University, Canada (2018), and Abdul-Rasheed Na’Allah, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Abuja (2024).”

Advocate for African development and professor of Political Science and International Relations at Chrisland University, Abeokuta, Badejo’s career has been dedicated to shaping African governance, peacebuilding, development, and international relations. His extensive research, publications, and policy engagements have significantly influenced discussions on Africa’s role in global politics, security, and socio-economic advancement. He has also played a practical role in peacebuilding efforts across several African countries during his tenure at the United Nations.

Badejo’s work reflects his strong conviction in celebrating African culture and consciousness. His intellectual contributions span key issues such as corruption, leadership deficits, and the evolving nature of democracy in developing nations. The award coincides with Badejo’s 70th birthday, marking a significant milestone in his career. The recognition, according to the statement, serves as an inspiration for future generations of African scholars and leaders. 

In his acceptance speech, Badejo described the award as both a privilege and solemn responsibility. “To be recognised in the name of Nelson Mandela—an enduring symbol of Ọmọluabi, Ubuntu, courage, resilience, justice, and African dignity—is truly remarkable.”, he said. Addressing Africa’s challenges, Badejo emphasised the continent’s leadership deficit and the external forces that exploit its vast natural resources, pledging, however, “a renewed commitment to research, peace, and governance reform in Nigeria and the continent”

We say congratulations to Dr. Adelola and Professor Badejo and wish them more power to their elbows!

 

 

In all functional democracies across the world, from the OECD countries to the continent of Africa, the successes and failures of democratic governance are directly proportional to the readiness of the governments to pursue institutional and governance reforms. These reforms prioritize the public service first as the inevitable complement of democracy (to paraphrase Joseph Schumpeter), and second, as the mechanism for implementing good public policy. Democratic governance, in other words, depends on how optimal and efficient the public service is as the powerhouse of government’s policy commitment to its citizens. This is the reason why the difference between a prosperous democracy and a failing one is the commitment to institutional reforms.

However, complementing democracy is a task that would not come automatically. The political and bureaucratic leadership must make a conscious effort to make reform an enabling framework that achieve the capability readiness of the public service. It is only within this context that we can start talking of a democratic order that is founded on the responsiveness of the public service to the aspirations of the citizenry. The struggle to initiate reform designs and blueprints, and follow through with their implementation does not often come easy as the trajectories of reforms in Africa often reveal. 

But we only need to look at comparative efforts across the world to see why the capability readiness of the public service is key especially in a developing country like Nigeria. The experience of Japan after the disastrous bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War is a significant example of how a country could leverage policy and institutional reform to get back on its feet. The establishment and efficiency of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) and its operational philosophy mirrors the significance of the governance policies that brought the Asian Tigers into reckoning. Apart from a strict governance regulation, including protectionism, that influenced the market in specific regulatory manner; as well as the deployment of sociocultural principle, like the Keiretsu principle that organized the private sector into a cooperative economic structure, the public service was also organized around the idea of technocratic and meritocratic “embedded autonomy” which implies that the bureaucracy was insulated from political exigencies and eternal pressures. Now, the governance resolve of post-war Japan and the Asian Tigers has become a governance and reform lesson no country can ignore.      

The inauguration of any democratic government is always interesting. Electioneering campaigns regal the citizens with promises of good policies. This comes from the recognition that governance and institutional reforms form the bedrock of development planning that articulate government programs, especially for effective and efficient service delivery to the people. Once electioneering is done with, the move from election victory to governance articulation is meant to concretize clear development performance and outcomes that bear significant impact on the lives of the generality of people. What is rather interesting, from a Nigerian perspective, at least, is the heightened attention that public service institutional reforms received in the early years of a government’s administration which all too gradually get sidelined in a way that undermine the progressive transformation of the public service into a formidable complement of democratic governance. 

Inevitably, government is then constrained into an arbitrary engagement with governance and administrative matters and problems that leads to setting up ad hoc committees and task force structures which elevate the already burdensome cost of governance problem. This is further aggravated by the penchant for administrative discontinuity that insists, quite illogically, that a government must reinvent the reform wheel rather than deepening and consolidating the reform agenda of the previous administration, or at best incorporating some of its elements into a new framework. The reformer in me worries about the danger that reform complacence or the trade-off of solid reform measures for short-term political gains poses for Nigeria’s transformation trajectory.

The administrative history of institutional reforms in Nigeria is laced with cogent examples of what I am saying. Let us start with the Gowon administration and the Udoji Commission report of 1974. It was the keen awareness of the significance of the public service in the context of enhanced, expanded and deepened role of the state, and what it could contribute to the development planning and management in Nigeria needed as a post-independent country, that led the constitution of the Commission to recommend a way to get the public service capability ready for the objective of national development. And yet, the administration turned deaf ears to the fundamental implications that the recommendations of the creative managerial disruption of the system the Udoji Commission proposed. Those recommendations were meant to take the Weberian “I-am-directed” public service beyond its post-golden age era into the future that demands some critical reforms to withstand modern administrative and national exigencies of a newly independent country. At a critical moment when political will was required to take the recommendation beyond the pages of the report, the government faltered.   

The government’s political will was not lacking in the need to implement the Dotun Phillips report of 1988, initiated by the Buhari administration and carried through by the Babangida administration. The study group was given the objective of a professionalized civil service circumscribed by a managerial philosophy into the institutional context of presidentialism. However, there was an underlying conception-reality gap that disrupted the significance of the report and its recommendation, and this was further aggravated by the inflexibility of the administration’s endorsement of Decree 43 as a legal instrument for the implementation of the recommendations. When some aspects like the politicization of the office of the permanent secretary who ceased being accounting officer and whose tenure was coterminous with that of Ministers therefore failed in the face of reality, and in a governance context of command and control, the system chose to throw away the baby with the bathwater rather than getting back to the drawing board and initiating amendment to the legal instrument as part of a learning journey. 

Unfortunately, the succeeding reform commission—the Ayida Panel—got the marching order to simply reverse the trajectory that was already leading away from the traditional model for doing government business to a managerial reform blueprint. This was a foolhardy attempt at rescuing the form of the golden era of public administration of the 1960s and 1970s without the full benefits of the new managerial revolution that demands professionalism and performance management. By the time we arrived at the Obasanjo administration, and the commencement of the democratic experiment in 1999, Nigeria has sufficiently learnt some administrative and reform lessons that led to the inauguration of the National Strategy for Public Service Reform (NSPSR), the most comprehensive reform blueprint ever in Nigeria’s reform history. The approval and opportunity for the civil servants to reform the system led to the establishment of the Bureau of Public Service Reform as the lead agency and engine room for continuous learning, change management and the incremental institutional improvement of the public service. Implementing the NSPSR raised lots of fundamental issues, like whether or not the civil service can reform itself; whether or not to policy choices should be made based on selectivity or comprehensiveness, and the issue of getting the basics and details of institutional reform right so as to be able to manage the sequencing of the reform around building new systems and models on the restructured Weberian bureaucracy. 

In a 2005 study of the administrative trajectories of twenty-nine African countries, Ladipo Adamolekun introduced a useful typology for reckoning with the administrative progress of African states. He characterized the 29 African states into four different categories: the advanced, committed, hesitant and beginning reformers. Nigeria fell into the ‘hesitant’ reforming African state. Unlike the committed and advanced reforming states, the hesitant reformers, like Nigeria, manifest the symptoms of not always seeing through reform designs, innovation and ideas, just like we saw with the Udoji reform. To be hesitant is to be enthusiastic about reform ideas, commit to seeing them through, but stopping short of implementing the key reform innovation in ways that impact the efficient service delivery capability of the public service. 

The perfect example that articulates Nigeria’s reform hesitancy is the failure of successive Nigerian governments to deal with the cost of governance issues that has been limiting Nigeria’s institutional coordination and functional capacity. Nigeria operates one of the most expensive governance systems in the world. This derives from the multiplication of structural and institutional processes and dynamics that not only burden budgetary allocations through the large chunk of money spent on recurrent expenditure, but also undermine functional efficiency due to wastage and redundancies. This phenomenon was consequent on the breakdown of the internal establishment control mechanism built around the control tool of organization and method (O&M) and the treasury control of establishment that regulates the capital and recurrent ratio of the budget. The core elements of this controls were the manpower forecasting and planning system of identifying, planning and acting upon human resource requirements and problems related to the conceptualization of the role of the state in the running of the national economy, as well as the trend analysis of service’s growth in size and expansion of the scope of responsibilities. 

The Oronsaye Report—or, the Presidential Committee on the Rationalization and Restructuring of Federal Government Parastatals, Commissions, and Agencies—was meant to first articulate a rationalization framework that reduces all parallel, ad hoc and redundant structures; and second, achieve governance accountability that will instigate more efficiency in the conduct of government business. The overall objective was to get the MDAs to achieve more with less. The Committee was guided by five fundamental principles: (a) the economic challenges and the need for Government to make more efficient use of its resources to achieve its development objectives and goals; (b) the fact that Nigeria had undertaken reforms in the past; (c) it was imperative to reform to meet the challenges of a better socio-political and economic society; (d) there was no need to create another body to perform the functions of an already existing statutory entity. The fact that an institution was inefficient and ineffective should not warrant the creation of a new one; and (e) the reform would ensure efficient and effective management of Government structures and functionaries to guarantee better service delivery and good governance. 

And yet, given the fundamental significance of the Report of the Committee, no government from the Jonathan administration to date has been unlock the binding constraints nor muster the audacity to fully implement the recommendations of the Committee. Several reasons can be adduced for this. The first is that the long-term demands of reforms are counteracted by the short-term tenures of many administrations. Second, since there is no making an omelet without breaking eggs, reform implementation requires offending vested interests that would be affected by the hard-political decision these reforms require. Third, reforms possess deep and expensive psychological implication due to the trauma that would attend, for instance, the rationalization and consequent rightsizing of the MDAs will demand in terms of specific downsizing and severance compensations. 

However, since institutional reforms are inevitable, it becomes imperative that the Tinubu government has to facilitate specific systemic and structural changes in order to get the basic rights. These include the following: (i) elimination of the dysfunctional non-value adding processes including silos operations which create red tapes and operational bottlenecks; (ii) the efficient activation of the performance bond that MDAs signed with the President as the means of instituting the performance management system; (iii) strengthening of MDAs’ programme and project management capabilities; (iv) the recalibration of research and policy analysis functions of MDAs through the re-professionalization of their Department of Planning, Research and Statistics (DPRS); (v) the identification of core skills requirements of the MDAs that touch on the implementation of the Renewed Hope Agenda, and their sourcing and deployment through retraining, fresh recruitment, contract appointment, staff exchange, sabbatical, donor technical assistance, etc.; (vi) strengthening the merit system through more rigorous entry-level assessment and induction system to mitigate the extent to which the service inherits low-quality education and deficits from the tertiary institutions; (vii) reprofiling of public service institutional capacity to better optimize the potentials of PPPs to boost service delivery; and (viii) the imperative of launching a national waste reduction strategy that involves (a) the unbundling of the expenditure structure of government; (b) productivity audit of the MDAs, (c) getting MDAs to articulate their productivity and waste reduction plans based on agreed national benchmark, (d) launching of the productivity metrics and tools for holding MDAs accountable to national productivity targets, and (e) launching of the new national assets and facility management and national maintenance system.

However, and preparatory to institutionalizing the above, it is logical and expedient that the Tinubu administration establish the Program Management Office (PMO) in the short term to act as the MDAs’ institutional life support model. This becomes functional, for instance, in generating project management ideas which can then be mainstreamed to activate performance-managed operations in the MDAs. This will serve to reinforce the MDAs with required skills and competency upgrade needed to deliver high performance that urgently backstops the Renewed Hope Agenda. This involves, among other things, a backend review of the capability readiness of the MDAs (or at least carefully selected ones based on criteria that are aligned with the eight national policy objectives and priorities of the federal government). There is also, following on this, the need to activate the performance management system components of the Federal Civil Service Implementation Strategy. This demand that the federal government institutionally insist, through the support of key players provided by a consortium of experts and firms, that the MDA deliver on the performance bonds signed with the government.  

The Tinubu administration has what it takes, in terms of extant reform blueprints and designs, professional expertise and technocratic know-how, and the political will to break the jinx that has bedeviled other administrations in terms of passing on reform ideas that could have turned the tide of efficient service delivery to Nigerians. All that is required is taking the first step, say, by going full throttle with the implementation of the Oronsaye Report, and dealing a final blow to the cost ofd governance problem in Nigeria’s governance framework. 

 

  

  

Since the rift between Nyesom Wike, the former Rivers State governor, and Siminalayi Fubara, his successor, blew open in October 2023, I have written four articles on the saga in this column. The last piece before this was titled “Wike-Fubara high-stakes feud: Blame Tinubu if Rivers implodes” (BusinessDay, May 27, 2024).

That intervention was prescient, as, indeed, Rivers State has now imploded politically. Recently, on March 18, Bola Tinubu, Nigeria’s trigger-happy president, declared a state of emergency in Rivers, sacking its governor, deputy governor and members of the House of Assembly. In parallel, Tinubu appointed a retired vice admiral and former Chief of Naval Staff, Ibok-Ete Ibas, as the state’s Sole Administrator.

In a democracy, that’s a political cataclysm of great proportions. But, as I said in my May 2024 article, the blame rests squarely with Tinubu. For self-serving political calculations, Tinubu took sides in the conflict and empowered one party against the other, thereby fuelling the crisis and enabling it to fester and snowball into an apocalypse. Thus, for me, the state of emergency must be viewed not only through its constitutionality, but also its political context. So, before we come to the constitution, let’s start with the political.

At the heart of the Rivers State saga are, politically, three evils: they are: godfatherism, political corruption and abuse of powers. On the first, it’s no secret that Wike handpicked Fubara as his successor. But as is often the case between political godfathers and godchildren, the relationship went sour. Wike wanted to entrench himself as the ultimate godfather of Rivers’ politics and turn Fubara into his poodle, but Fubara was determined not to be Wike’s lapdog. That “insolence” drew Wike’s ire and triggered his deep animus towards Fubara. As Wike himself said in October 2023, he was fighting for his political life. Hear him: “All of us want to be politically relevant; all of us want to maintain our political structure. Everybody has a base. If you take my base, am I not politically irrelevant?”

Of course, Nigeria’s quintessential political godfather is Tinubu. Although he left office as Lagos State governor in 2007, he handpicked all his successors, who became his serfs. Mutual belief in godfatherism makes Tinubu and Wike kindred spirits. Thus, instead of supporting the elected governor of Rivers State, Tinubu sided with Wike against Fubara, expecting him to submit to his “godfather”. But Tinubu’s bias wasn’t just about shared values. He was more motivated by self-interest. Tinubu needed to reward Wike for controversially helping him to secure the crucial 25 per cent in Rivers State in the 2023 presidential election. But, more importantly, he wants to capture Rivers State and much of the South-South in the 2027 presidential race. Hence, he made Wike the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and steamrollered through Godswill Akpabio as Senate President.

Q: “At the heart of the Rivers State saga are, politically, three evils: they are: godfatherism, political corruption and abuse of powers.”

But, as I wrote in a column titled “Wike is not a fit and proper person to be FCT Minister” (BusinessDay, November 20, 2023), being the FCT Minister, the equivalent of a state governor, made Wike extremely powerful and emboldened him to leverage the office to control the politics of Rivers State. Truth is, Wike is irrelevant without political office; it is what gives him oxygen. To quote him again: “If you take my base, am I not politically irrelevant?” But it’s being the “Emperor of Abuja”, and backed with federal might, that enables Wike to wield political and financial patronage powers, which he uses to fuel his “base”, remain “politically relevant” and foment trouble in his state. Yet, Tinubu’s self-serving relationship with Wike prevented him from being even-handed; instead, he strengthened Wike politically and weakened Fubara. Even now, Tinubu sacks Fubara, a democratically elected governor, but keeps Wike, the agent provocateur, in office as a crony minister. It is utterly perverse, an abuse of political powers.

 

But there’s also the abuse of judicial powers. The Supreme Court validated the membership of the 27 members of the Rivers State House, who, as recorded in the House’s Hansard, unlawfully defected to another party and should have, under section 109 of the Constitution, forfeited their seats. But once their seats were validated, the 27 lawmakers, Wike’s loyalists, triggered the governor’s impeachment. The judiciary is certainly complicit in the crisis.

Which brings us to the constitutionality of the state of emergency. Of course, section 305 of the Constitution empowers the president to declare a state of emergency under some grave circumstances. But the state of emergency that Tinubu declared is flawed substantively, procedurally and morally. In terms of substance, there is nowhere under section 305 that gives any president the power to declare a state of emergency and then sack a democratically elected state governor and other elected state representatives.

In 2004, when President Obasanjo used a state of emergence to sack the then governor of Plateau State, Joshua Dariye, Chief Rotimi Williams, who chaired the Constitution Drafting Committee that drafted the 1979 Constitution, which the 1999 Constitution mimicked, said: “There is no provision contained in any part of our Constitution which confers such a power on the President.” In constitutional interpretation, judges are guided by the original intent of the drafters. So, while would anyone ignore the views of Chief Williams, whose committee drafted the 1979 Constitution? Those views were shared by Mohammed Adoke, the Attorney-General of the Federation under President Jonathan’s administration, who advised Jonathan not to sack the governors of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe after declaring a state of emergency in those states in 2013. According to Adoke, “the removal of a Governor is nowhere provided for in the mechanism for implementing a State of Emergency.”

But faced with the Obasanjo model and the Jonathan model, Tinubu and his Attorney-General, Lateef Fagbemi, opted for Obasanjo’s authoritarian approach, ignoring the views of constitutional drafters, lawyers and scholars. Ideally, the Supreme Court should clarify the matter. Unfortunately, there’s no judicial independence in Nigeria. With the Supreme Court seemingly in cahoots with the presidency and given its penchant for perverse rulings, few trust the apex court to be an impartial arbiter.

Which brings us to the constitutional process. Section 305 (6)(b) of the Constitution provides that a state of emergency must be approved by “two-thirds of all the members of each House of the National Assembly”. That’s a high threshold, meaning two-thirds of 109 senators (i.e., 72) and two-thirds of 360 members of the House of Representatives (i.e. 240). Now, how can any parliament determine those numbers by a voice vote? Yet, that’s what Nigeria’s supine and rubberstamp National Assembly did! The President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Afam Osigwe, said the so-called “ratification” was “unconstitutional”. Truth is, both substantively and procedurally, the state of emergency is illegal and unconstitutional.

Yet, there’s also morality. Tinubu strongly condemned Obasanjo’s state of emergency proclamations in 2004 and 2006, which, respectively, removed the governors of Plateau and Ekiti States. He brutally attacked President Jonathan’s state of emergency in the terrorism-ravaged states of Bornu, Adamawa and Yobe in 2013 even though their governors were not removed. But now, Tinubu defends his power-grabbing state of emergency by saying: “I have a country to run.” Really? Well, leaving aside Tinubu’s customary hypocrisy, he’s acting as a tyrant, an autocrat. That puts Nigeria’s social cohesion and democracy in danger!

Page 2 of 211