It is no more news to announce that the Bola Tinubu-led Nigerian government recently sent a delegation to India to assess the safety and viability of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as an alternative fuel. However, this initiative has sparked controversy, not because of its purpose but due to the curious composition of the team sent for the task. Among those chosen were comedians and skit makers, including “Ola of Lagos” and Basketmouth. This decision has left not a few Nigerians questioning the seriousness of the government’s intentions and the direction of the country’s energy policy.

In a nation grappling with escalating transportation costs and the aftermath of subsidy removal, this choice of delegation has drawn ire across social media. Critics argue that by sidelining engineers, researchers, and experts in favor of entertainers, the government has undermined public trust in the credibility of its CNG policy.

India’s journey with CNG adoption offers a Masterclass in how to transition to alternative energy sources. Faced with alarming air pollution levels and an over-reliance on imported petroleum, India methodically introduced CNG as a sustainable alternative. This was achieved through a structured approach that cut across expert-driven implementation, infrastructure development, and public engagement.

To put explanatorily put the foregoing view, it is expedient to recall that India engaged engineers, environmental scientists, and energy policy specialists to spearhead its CNG rollout, even as research institutions conducted rigorous safety tests, ensuring public confidence in the new fuel.

Analyzed from the perspective of infrastructure development, before mandating CNG use, India invested heavily in pipelines, refueling stations, and vehicle conversion kits. This infrastructure minimized disruption for drivers and ensured accessibility.

Not only that, India embarked on robust and well-coordinated public engagement as all authorities in the country were compelled to conduct awareness campaigns, educating the populace on the benefits of CNG, even as incentives for vehicle conversions further boosted public acceptance.

Today, cities like Delhi boast extensive CNG networks that have reduced air pollution, saved costs, and set a benchmark for energy transitions.

Given the foregoing narrative, it is not out of place to opine that Nigeria’s CNG rollout: A Comedy of Errors?

In contrast, Nigeria’s approach has been marked by poor planning and, as critics argue, misplaced priorities. The decision to send comedians and skit makers to India for a safety assessment typifies a broader trend of trivializing critical policy issues.

As gathered from a news story titled, “Nigerians Kick As FG Sends Comedians, Skitmakers To India To Assess CNG Safety” dated, Thursday, 28 November 2024, and published on Reuben Abati news blog, social media erupted with reactions to the delegation, many of which were scathing. A user, @ourfavoriteonlinedoc, lamented, “They didn’t send professors of engineering. They didn’t send PhD researchers or MSc students from our best universities. They sent Ola of Lagos, who will come back just to roll on the floor and scream, ‘Put CNG in your car; you will love it.’ What a shame.”

Another user, @Arikeade, questioned the government’s preference for content creators over professionals, while @frankobaressi called the delegation emblematic of a leadership culture that defies logic. “This is what happens when touts handle the affairs of this nation,” he remarked.

In fact, the risks of neglecting expertise is costly. The uproar is not without basis. CNG, while celebrated for its affordability and environmental benefits, is not without risks. In Nigeria, concerns about the safety of CNG vehicles have grown following reported explosions. These incidents underscore the need for a meticulous safety assessment conducted by engineers and energy specialists, not entertainers.

Moreover, the optics of the government’s decision to send skit makers instead of technical experts weaken public confidence. Citizens question whether their leaders are genuinely committed to solving the country’s energy challenges or are merely staging another political performance.

However, irrespective of the uproar which the initiative has generated, particularly on social media platforms, the role of skit makers in national discourse cannot be pooh-poohed.

To be fair, skit makers and content creators hold significant influence in shaping public opinion, especially among younger demographics. Their inclusion in promotional campaigns could serve to popularize CNG adoption. However, sending them as the primary assessors of safety and quality raises serious questions about priorities and competence.

In fact, there is a clear distinction between leveraging influencers for public sensitization and tasking them with responsibilities that demand technical expertise. Nigeria’s decision to turn these roles into a show of comedy reflects a lack of strategic planning that could undermine the credibility of its CNG initiative.

Without a doubt, it is expedient we learn from India as it would unarguably serve as pathways for Nigeria.  In fact, if Nigeria hopes to replicate India’s success with CNG, it must prioritize expertise and infrastructure development, and it can be achieved by engaging professionals.

To the end of the foregoing, the government should involve engineers, energy specialists, and safety experts to conduct comprehensive assessments of CNG infrastructure and technology. Their findings will form the backbone of a credible rollout strategy.

In a similar vein, there is the need for Investment in Infrastructure. Without adequate pipelines, refueling stations, and conversion kits, the promise of affordable CNG will remain hollow. Nigeria must prioritize these investments to ensure accessibility for drivers nationwide.

Also, public awareness and incentives should not be ignored. Like India, Nigeria should conduct awareness campaigns highlighting the benefits and safety of CNG, even as offering subsidies for vehicle conversions could also encourage adoption.

Given the foregoing, it is expedient to note that skit makers and influencers can play a valuable role in educating the public, but their involvement should be limited to outreach efforts, not technical assessments.

In fact, the backlash against the government’s choice of delegation reflects broader frustrations with Nigeria’s governance. For many citizens, the decision symbolizes a pattern of misplaced priorities and disregard for expertise.

Also, the transition to CNG holds immense potential to reduce transportation costs, curb pollution, and diversify Nigeria’s energy portfolio. However, realizing this potential requires leadership that values competence over theatrics.

Without a doubt, Nigeria stands at a crossroads. The decision to send comedians and skit makers to assess CNG safety may be a moment of levity, but it also underscores the critical need for a paradigm shift in governance. To build a sustainable energy future, Nigeria must learn from India’s playbook: prioritize expertise, invest in infrastructure, and engage the public meaningfully.

Until then, the joke may very well be on us, a nation that has yet to decide whether it is serious about progress or content to laugh at its own missteps.

Balthazar Ebang Engonga, the nephew of Equatorial Guinea’s long-serving President Teodoro Obiang, has been acquitted by the country’s Supreme Court after facing a high-profile case involving intimate videos that made waves, both locally and internationally. The court’s ruling, which dismissed all charges against Mr. Engonga, was grounded on the lack of evidence to support the allegations, as well as the assertion that all parties involved in the videos were consenting adults.

This case first attracted attention after compromising footage of Mr. Engonga surfaced online, sparking a media frenzy. The court’s ruling brought clarity to the situation, stating that medical tests confirmed there was no transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, further cementing Engonga’s claim of innocence. However, beyond the acquittal, the case has brought to light broader issues surrounding privacy, consent, accountability, and the implications of the digital era on personal and professional lives.

The release of intimate videos of public figures is a frequent topic of discussion in today’s digital world, where personal lives are often exposed without permission. The leak of videos involving Mr. Engonga was no different, attracting significant media coverage and public attention. The nature of the videos was compromising, and the shockwaves reverberated far beyond Equatorial Guinea, drawing international scrutiny. As the videos spread on various platforms, they became a spectacle, fueling gossip and speculation about the private lives of the individuals involved.

Despite the sensationalism of the situation, Mr. Engonga has maintained that the individuals shown in the videos were consenting adults. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, supported this assertion, and the ruling emphasized the lack of any evidence to suggest non-consensual behavior. Medical tests were also conducted, which proved that there were no sexually transmitted diseases involved in the case, further supporting Mr. Engonga’s defense.

However, the public’s reaction to the videos did not stop at the question of consent. In an unexpected twist, several married men whose wives appeared in the footage expressed gratitude to Mr. Engonga. These men explained that the videos had revealed hidden aspects of their marital lives, prompting some to seek divorce. This development is a stark reflection of the complexities of modern relationships and the role that privacy, trust, and transparency play in marriage.

For many, the case became more than just a scandal involving a public figure, it became a symbol of the digital age’s power to expose even the most intimate corners of our lives. The internet, which has the potential to connect and inform, can also serve as a tool for destruction, often without regard for the emotional consequences.

In response to the leak, Mr. Engonga has vowed to take legal action against those responsible for disseminating the videos. He described the leak as a serious violation of his privacy, one that has caused significant emotional distress to his family. His wife, in particular, was deeply affected by the ordeal, as were many of the other people featured in the footage. The emotional toll that such an invasion of privacy takes on individuals is often underestimated. In Mr. Engonga’s case, it not only impacted his personal life but also his professional reputation and the public’s perception of him.

The issue of privacy in the digital age is complex, as the boundaries between public and private life are increasingly blurred. While public figures often have their personal lives scrutinized, the leak of private content without consent raises ethical questions. Who owns the right to one’s personal data, and what happens when that data is shared without permission? The actions of those who leaked the videos, and the subsequent viral spread of the footage, pose critical questions about accountability and the ethics of digital content sharing.

In many ways, this case highlights the difficulty of navigating the online space, where personal information is often treated as currency and privacy is viewed as a luxury. As social media platforms and online spaces become more pervasive, the consequences of sharing intimate content without consent are far-reaching. The damage done to individuals’ lives is not just legal but deeply personal, affecting their families, relationships, and mental well-being.

Before the scandal, Mr. Engonga was known for his role as the head of the National Financial Investigation Agency (ANIF) in Equatorial Guinea. In this capacity, he worked to combat financial crimes such as money laundering and illicit financial flows. He was seen as a key figure in the fight against corruption, particularly in a country where transparency and accountability in government finances have long been concerns.

However, after his arrest on October 25, 2024, allegations surfaced that he had embezzled substantial amounts of state funds, hiding them in offshore accounts. These allegations added an additional layer of complexity to an already controversial case. Despite being publicly accused of financial crimes, Mr. Engonga has not yet addressed these charges in public, leaving much to be speculated about the true nature of the case. His arrest brought him into the crosshairs of both his critics and supporters, leading to questions about his professional conduct and the personal scandal that followed.

The combination of his work in law enforcement and his personal indiscretions has raised eyebrows, particularly given the increasing attention on corruption within the government. His arrest and the subsequent revelations about his private life have cast a shadow on his professional reputation, forcing people to question the integrity of individuals in positions of power.

After his arrest, Mr. Engonga was imprisoned in Malabo’s infamous Black Beach prison, a facility notorious for its harsh conditions and its treatment of political opponents. Black Beach prison has long been associated with human rights abuses, with numerous reports documenting the mistreatment of detainees, particularly those viewed as enemies of the government. The prison has become a symbol of the oppressive nature of the country’s justice system, which has drawn international condemnation over the years.

For Mr. Engonga, his imprisonment in Malabo’s infamous Black Beach prison was a traumatic experience that only added to the already complicated nature of his case. The brutal conditions of the prison have been documented in multiple reports, with former detainees recounting instances of physical abuse, torture, and inadequate medical care. The prison has become a focal point in discussions about the government’s treatment of those it deems a threat, further fueling skepticism about the fairness of the country’s legal system.

One of the most striking aspects of this case is how technology, particularly the internet and social media, has played a central role in the unfolding drama. The leak of the intimate videos and their subsequent virality on social platforms demonstrated the immense power that digital content holds. While technology has made information more accessible and communication more instantaneous, it has also raised ethical questions about the sharing of private content without consent.

The ease with which personal videos and photos can be shared in the digital era has led to an explosion of online content, much of which is not intended for public consumption. The unintended consequences of this are vast, and they often include emotional distress, reputational damage, and legal ramifications for those involved. The sharing of intimate content, whether for revenge, profit, or entertainment, has become an all-too-common occurrence, and the impact it has on the lives of those affected cannot be underestimated.

As a society, we must reckon with the ethics of digital content sharing and its consequences. While freedom of speech and access to information are fundamental rights, they should not come at the expense of an individual’s right to privacy and dignity. The case of Balthazar Ebang Engonga serves as a stark reminder of how quickly personal information can be weaponized, and how the digital world can invade our private spaces in ways that are both harmful and irreversible.

This case highlights several critical issues surrounding consent, privacy, and accountability in the digital age. It also underscores the need for stronger legal frameworks to protect individuals in an era where the boundaries between the private and public spheres are increasingly difficult to define. In particular, it calls attention to the dangers of sharing intimate content online and the emotional toll that such invasions of privacy can have on those involved.

The actions of those responsible for leaking the videos, coupled with the wider public reaction, show how digital media can reshape our understanding of consent and accountability. As the world becomes more connected through the internet, it is essential that we address the ethical and legal implications of digital content sharing. The case of Mr. Engonga is a poignant reminder of the power of technology in modern society, and the importance of respecting privacy in an increasingly transparent world.

This incident may have concluded with an acquittal, but the broader questions it raises about consent, privacy, and accountability in the digital age are far from settled. As we continue to navigate the complexities of the online world, it is vital that we remain vigilant in safeguarding the rights and dignity of individuals, both in their personal and professional lives.

When news broke that the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) had published a list of 9,532 alleged land title defaulters, including heavyweights like former Nigerian Head of State Ibrahim Babangida (IBB), it did not take long for discussions to circle around the interplay of power, influence, and the game of land politics in Nigeria. The inclusion of IBB, one of Nigeria’s most astute political figures, in a list of debtors owing ₦152 million for a plot in Asokoro, sent shockwaves through the political corridors of Abuja, raising one intriguing question: “Shey Wike think say e go fit dribble Maradona?”

This line of inquiry, coming from a colleague in the office, plays on a larger political conversation, whether Barrister Nyesom Wike, former Governor of Rivers State, and currently the minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), known for his political sharpness, could truly outmaneuver IBB, who, in his heyday, earned the moniker “Maradona” for his political sagacity. IBB’s deft maneuvers on the political field were legendary, and as the news of his alleged debt circulated, it was easy to see how the dynamics of power and influence in Nigeria’s political landscape could be at play in this seemingly mundane land dispute.

Ibrahim Babangida, Nigeria’s military ruler from 1985 to 1993, is no stranger to political intrigue. His tenure, marked by both controversy and skillful maneuvering, set the stage for him to be a political kingmaker long after his time in office. Known for his ability to play rival factions against each other, IBB’s name has remained synonymous with political power broking in Nigeria. It is not an overstatement to suggest that IBB’s influence still looms large, especially in the corridors of power where alliances and rivalries are constantly shifting.

So, when the FCTA named IBB among the defaulters for a ₦152 million debt on land in Asokoro, the first thought might be: Is this an attempt to bring down a figure as influential as Maradona? The FCTA’s move to expose such a prominent figure is unusual, considering the history of political protection and patronage that surrounds Nigeria’s elite. Land, particularly in Abuja, is not just a matter of real estate; it is a symbol of power, status, and influence.

What makes this more interesting is the timing. Governor Wike, a man known for his combative political style and ability to challenge the status quo, has been rising in political prominence. His recent activities, especially his push for reforms and changes in political alignments, seem to coincide with this new wave of land titling scrutiny. Could this be a subtle way for Wike to assert his dominance over Nigeria’s power structures? Could he be trying to check Maradona’s seemingly untouchable status, leveraging this land debt to his advantage?

Governor Nyesom Wike is a seasoned political player, particularly in the volatile world of Nigerian state politics. His reputation for being direct, tough, and unyielding in his approach has earned him both admirers and enemies. Wike’s penchant for challenging entrenched political interests has made him a figure to watch, especially as he moves into the national political stage with an eye on greater influence.

The ongoing tussle between Wike and some political elites has been brewing for some time. Wike’s influence is undeniable, particularly in the Niger Delta region, but his recent moves show a man eager to expand his national reach. His confrontations with federal government policies, his vocal support for opposition parties, and his strategic positioning in the aftermath of the 2023 elections all point to his desire to reshape the political order. In that light, the question of whether Wike could “dribble” IBB, who is, after all, the man who has maneuvered around Nigeria’s political landscape for decades, is both timely and intriguing.

Wike’s confrontational style may suggest that he is testing the waters with his political rivals. The publication of IBB’s alleged land debt could be part of a larger strategy of political positioning, one where Wike seeks to challenge the perceived invincibility of the old guard. By targeting landholders like IBB, Wike might be sending a subtle message that no one is above scrutiny, not even Nigeria’s most seasoned political players.

Land in Nigeria is more than just property, it is a symbol of wealth, power, and influence. The recent naming of top political figures as defaulters by the FCTA signals that land title disputes, especially in the capital, are closely tied to the intricate webs of Nigerian politics. As Abuja has grown into the heart of Nigeria’s political and administrative activities, land ownership in the city has become a marker of one’s proximity to power. A plot of land in Asokoro, for example, is not just real estate; it is literarily a seat at the table of political elites.

For IBB, who once held absolute power in Nigeria, land ownership in Abuja is a status symbol, something that reflects both his past political dominance and ongoing influence. However, the fact that his name appeared on the list of defaulters raises questions. Could it be that there is a larger political maneuver behind it? Perhaps the timing is not coincidental; perhaps it is an attempt to chip away at his legacy and influence.

The question that lingers is whether Wike, with his recent political endeavors, can truly outplay IBB in this game of political chess. IBB’s reputation as a master of realpolitik suggests that any move against him is unlikely to go unnoticed. Maradona’s ability to navigate Nigeria’s complex political terrain is well-documented; his alliances and machinations are often subtle, yet highly effective.

If  Wike indeed sees this as an opportunity to undermine IBB’s influence, it would not be the first time he has taken on formidable political figures. Wike has consistently demonstrated an ability to rally public opinion and apply pressure in ways that force even the most established players to reconsider their strategies. However, challenging IBB is no small feat. The former Head of State is known for his networks, his ability to play the long game, and his capacity to keep his political cards close to his chest.

The fact that prominent figures like IBB are part of the FCTA’s land defaulter list suggests that no one is immune from scrutiny, no matter how powerful. But whether this move will diminish IBB’s stature or simply fuel his political survival instincts remains to be seen.

The unfolding land title dispute in the Federal Capital Territory is more than just a case of defaulters and overdue payments. It is a reflection of the larger struggle for power in Nigerian politics. Wike, known for his combative and strategic nature, may very well be attempting to make a move against one of Nigeria’s most skilled powerbrokers. However, IBB’s decades of political experience, combined with his vast network, suggest that he will not go down without a fight.

As the FCTA’s ultimatum looms, the game of political maneuvering continues, and the outcome remains uncertain. One thing is clear: in Nigerian politics, nothing is as it seems, and every move is part of a larger chess game where only the most astute players can survive. Will Wike be able to outmaneuver Maradona? Time will tell. But in Nigerian politics, as in the world of football, anything is possible.

Journalism holds a powerful position in society. It informs, educates, and serves as a vital check on power. Yet, despite its role as a cornerstone of democracy, journalism is not without its ethical dilemmas, especially for those who seek to balance their faith with their professional responsibilities. At the heart of this conflict lies the tension between two distinct approaches to journalism: developmental journalism and adversarial journalism. Each has its own set of challenges, and each places journalists at a crossroads, forcing them to choose between truth and duty.

For Christians, the call to truth is non-negotiable. Scripture teaches that truth is central to faith and practice (Exodus 20:16), a principle that all Christians strive to uphold. But for journalists, truth becomes entangled in a web of professional pressures, editorial choices, and expectations from both the public and government. While journalists are tasked with reporting the truth, the realities of the profession, just like that of lawyers, often compel them to compromise, creating a tension that many find difficult to navigate.

Developmental journalism, a model that seeks to highlight national achievements and foster growth, demands a specific narrative. Practitioners of developmental journalism are often asked to paint a rosier picture than reality might suggest, sometimes even portraying the nation’s economy as thriving despite evidence to the contrary. In a country grappling with economic challenges, for instance, journalists who adopt this model might be expected to emphasize growth and stability, even when the facts tell a different story.

This expectation is not limited to journalists alone. Just as Davido, a popular Nigerian singer, has recently been labeled for his comments during an interview in America, the pressure to present a certain narrative can transcend professions. During his interview, Davido was seemingly accused of not portraying Nigeria to be in state of Eldorado. Some critics suggested that his global platform should have been used to speak more glowingly about the state of the nation. Similarly, journalists following the developmental model are sometimes expected to echo a version of national success, even when such a narrative risks obscuring pressing social and economic issues. The case of Davido highlights a broader tendency to demand loyalty to a polished, often idealized portrayal of national progress, at the cost of confronting uncomfortable truths.

But this model comes with ethical implications. For journalists of faith, presenting misleading or partial truths raises difficult moral questions. Can one genuinely say the economy is thriving when so many are struggling? Can a journalist faithfully report on the benefits of government policies when the public is not experiencing those benefits?

In this context, journalists are often caught in a dilemma: do they fulfill their duty to support national development, or do they uphold their ethical commitment to truth? When speaking the truth might harm national pride or image, the answer is not always clear.

On the other hand, there are adversarial journalists, those who view their role as standing apart from the powers that be and holding them to account. These journalists are willing to expose the truth, even when it risks damaging the reputation of government officials, powerful corporations, or society as a whole. Their job is to uncover corruption, report on injustice, and speak out when the system fails.

From an ethical standpoint, adversarial journalism aligns more closely with Christian principles. The Bible calls for justice and righteousness (Isaiah 1:17), and many adversarial journalists see their work as fulfilling this divine mandate. They understand that sometimes, exposing uncomfortable truths is necessary for the greater good. By reporting on societal wrongs, they hope to provoke change and bring about accountability.

However, the path of the adversarial journalist is fraught with danger. Adversarial journalism can cost a reporter his or her career, freedom, or even his or her life. In authoritarian regimes or politically charged environments, journalists who refuse to tow the official line often face retaliation. In less extreme cases, journalists working for media outlets owned by the government, or sympathetic to it, may find their careers stifled or their jobs at risk.

For those in government-controlled media, taking an adversarial stance can be akin to professional suicide. The pressure to conform to the government’s narrative can be overwhelming, and any journalist who dares to speak out may find himself or herself marginalized or fired. In this environment, speaking the truth becomes a dangerous game, where the stakes are higher than simply reporting facts.

The dilemma faced by journalists is not unique to the media industry. In many professions, individuals are often forced to balance personal values with professional requirements. But in journalism, this conflict is particularly acute. Journalists must decide whether to prioritize their professional duty to inform the public or adhere to the ethical principles of honesty and integrity. For instance, what kind of reportage is expected from a journalist who has been promised an advertisement space?

The cost of this compromise can be steep. Journalists who choose developmental journalism over adversarial reporting may find themselves compromised by a system that encourages the distortion of facts for the sake of national unity or pecuniary gain. Those who opt for the adversarial path may risk their careers, reputation, or even personal safety.

For Christian journalists, the decision is even more profound. Their faith calls them to truthfulness and integrity in all aspects of life. But the very nature of journalism often forces them to choose between doing what is right and doing what is professionally expedient.

The dilemma is not just about ethics but about survival. Can one remain faithful to Christian principles in a profession that sometimes rewards deceit or silence? Can a journalist navigate the tension between personal integrity and professional duty without losing his or her soul?

Be that as it may, the expediency of striking a balance between faith and professionalism is not negotiable.

In fact, the key to navigating this dilemma lies in balance. Journalists can, and should, adhere to ethical guidelines that prioritize truthfulness, fairness, and transparency. The practice of journalism must always be rooted in integrity, even if it means going against the grain. But journalists also need to be strategic in their approach, especially when dealing with powerful interests.

Adversarial journalism, while important, should be practiced with care. While it is crucial to hold power to account, it is also important to provide context, avoid sensationalism, and seek constructive solutions. Likewise, developmental journalism can be a powerful tool for promoting national growth, or protecting the interest of an organization where a media house has a pecuniary interest, but it must not be used as an excuse to ignore systemic issues or suppress critical voices.

For Christian journalists, the answer is clear: Truth must always be the foundation of their work. However, they must also be mindful of the consequences of their reporting and the ethical dilemmas that arise. Journalism, like any other profession, particularly the law profession, is not without its compromises. But by adhering to a strong moral framework and seeking guidance from their faith, journalists can navigate the difficult terrain between truth and duty.

Journalism, in all its forms, demands that its practitioners confront ethical crossroads on a daily basis. The choice between developmental journalism and adversarial journalism represents a profound moral dilemma for those who seek to stay true to their profession while adhering to their faith. But the ethical challenge goes deeper than the question of which path to follow; it is about finding the courage to remain truthful, even when the consequences are steep.

For Christian journalists, the question is not just about what they report, but how they report it. Can they be faithful to their calling as truth-tellers, even when the truth is uncomfortable? Can they navigate the treacherous waters of professional compromise without sacrificing their integrity? In the end, the answer lies in their commitment to the principles of truth, justice, and righteousness, a commitment that must guide every decision they make, both as journalists and as people of faith.