The visit of key political, religious and traditional leaders from Akwa Ibom State to President Tinubu last Friday has triggered lively discussions in the state on the next political move of Gov. Umo Eno. Will he or will he not defect to the APC? The 105-member delegation, comprising both PDP and APC members, as well as business and traditional chiefs, was led by both Senator Godswill Akpabio and the governor. It was a culmination of a series of events orchestrated by the governor since he assumed office to bring members of the two parties together under a canopy of harmony and unity. Eno has inherited a politically fractious and disunited state in which the two dominant political parties in the state have been perpetually at war with each other since 2013. But through deft reconciliatory tactics over the last 20 months, he has broken down partisan barriers that created divisions and acrimony along political lines. Akwa Ibom state has not enjoyed so much cordiality and togetherness since 1999, and the spinoff is this lively debate on his political future.

The meeting in the Villa was in two phases. First, President Tinubu met with Senator Akpabio; Gov. Eno and former governor Udom Emmanuel for over two hours in the president’s meeting room, next to his office, after which the quartet walked across the hallway into the Executive Council Chamber, where the full delegation was already seated for the formal event. Details of their discussions are still sketchy, but I have spoken to no fewer than 10 persons in and outside Akwa Ibom who should know, and I understand that two major related issues dominated the discussions: reconciliation of Senator Akpabio with Udom Emmnauel and the 2027 reelection of the President. With the open revolt of some governors and key politicians from the North against the President and his policies, and their open threats to work against his reelection, the president’s strategists are focusing on persuading all the eight opposition governors in the South to either decamp to the APC or work for the reelection of the President. The thinking is that if Tinubu wins all the 17 southern states, it would be easier for him to retain Aso Rock.

Gov. Umo Eno has publicly pledged to support the reelection of the president, but there’s been enormous pressure on him to join the President's party. The thaw in the frosty relationship between Akpabio and Udom Emmanuel is thus part of the broad strategy to swing the state to the governing party in 2027.

But among PDP members in Akwa Ibom, the possibility of the governor defecting is a difficult subject to broach. ‘’The governor has not told me about it; and I think I’m in a position to know if that was being considered’’, said Onofiok Luke, a respected PDP leader who had served as the Speaker of the House of Assembly and member of House of Reps. He added reflectively: ‘’unless it’s on a need-to-know basis’’. Another PDP chieftain, Chief Ndueso Essien acknowledges the possibility of some people piling pressure on the governor to defect because of his popularity and likability, but the important thing is the governor’s response to the overtures being made to him. ‘’The governor has not briefed me about it and until he informs me, it remains a rumour’’, said Chief Essien, a former minister and member of House of Reps.

On the other hand, APC members are quite enthusiastic at the prospects of Umo Eno joining their party. Chief (Arc) Otu Ita Toyo is hopeful that that the governor would contest his reelection on the platform of APC and would be overwhelmingly reelected. ‘’Umo Eno will achieve a lot, especially in completing Ibom Deep sea Port if he aligns fully with the President at the centre’’, he told this writer.

But the visit was no all about 2027. Inside the Council chamber, Gov. Eno made three important requests to the President, ‘’two of which have consequential effects on us as a sub national’’. First, he asked for the refund of billions of Naira spent on ‘’containing potential ecological disasters from the Ecological Funds’’. The governor listed the various ecological remediation projects the state had funded over the years, and noted that even his official residence and office were being threatened by gully erosion. Tinubu nodded intermittently. The second request is for the president to support the realization of the Ibom Deep Sea Port project. This is the number one dream of every Akwa Ibom person, and even a primary school pupil would have guessed right that it would feature in his speech.The governor wants the president to direct NPA to execute the Concession Agreement with the Port Development and Management Company (PDMC) because the ‘’realization of this project will be an economic game-changer for our state, region and the nation’’.

The third request came in the form invitation to the president to visit Akwa Ibom in May and commission some projects, notably the Arise Recreation and Leisure Park which is located on a large parcel of land previously ravaged by gully erosion. Designed as a family-themed leisure park, it consists of a nine-hole golf course; swimming pool; conference hall; children playground; lawn tennis courts and other facilities and 20 tastefully-furnished guest apartments. The adjoining land would be laid out as a residential estate. The concept reminds me of a friend I visited in Texas, US, whose home adjoins a golf course. It was so nice sitting out on his porch and watching rich Americans play golf. I have visited the Arise Park twice, and I’m amazed at the enormity of the project. The UNDP Resident Representative in Nigeria, Elsie Attafuah, is equally impressed. ‘’Seeing the Arise Park project firsthand is an eye-opening experience. The level of planning and execution is commendable and I sincerely hope to be part of this great transformation unfolding in Akwa Ibom", she said as she toured the site with Information Commissioner Aniekan Umanah.

From the Villa, the Akwa Ibom delegation went straight to the Hilton Hotel where a lavish dinner was held for them by the Senate President. Here, Chief Don Etiebet; Arc. Ita Toyo; Senator Helen Esuene and Akpabio himself spoke, with some making tangential references to the ‘’expected’’ political tsunami in the state. While some PDP members sat deadpan and somewhat somber, speaker after speaker commended the governor for bringing Akwa Ibom together in a political harmony and unity. Senator Akpabio urged the governor not to be discouraged by critics from charting his own political course. The Senate President looked across the room and acknowledged Senator Emmanuel Ibok Essien, the owner of Ritman University, Ikot Ekpene. Akpabio, in his characteristic wisecracks, noted that he was the founding Chancellor of the University soon after he left office as governor, and his photograph is still hanging at the Senate Building, but incidentally, it was at the university that Senator Ibok Essien and others met in 2023 to plan for him to lose the 2023 election. He asked Ibok Essien to invite him for the next convocation. There were laughs and applause.

Chief Don Etiebet described the day as one of his best political moments and praised the governor for orchestrating a new season of love, unity, peace and concord in the state. Every governor in the state before the incumbent has fought Etiebet for one reason or the other despite the fact that he has been a benefactor to them all, one way or the other. Another beautiful moment of the day was the embrace and handshake between Senator (Obong ) Bassey Albert (OBA) with the governor. The two were the bitterest contestants in the 2023 governorship election in the state. It reminded me of the ferociousness with which Umana Umana and Udom Emmanuel went for each other to get the top job in 2015.

The following day, the delegates flew back to Uyo in the chartered flight provided by the governor clutching the beautiful gift packs provided by the Senate President. But the question still remains: which way, Pastor Umo Eno in 2027?

Okechukwu Isiguzoro, Deputy President General of Igbo socio-cultural organization, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, last week demanded N10tn reparation and a letter of apology from President Bola Tinubu because of “the erroneous classification of the 1966 January coup as an Igbo insurrection”. He commended Babangida “for his exemption of the Igbo people from the unjust label of being ‘enemies of the North’ whilst not forgetting to hail him over his claim that the objective of Nzeogwu and his fellow insurrectionists was “to free Chief Obafemi Awolowo from prison and install him as Nigeria’s leader”.

The problem is that besides Isuguzoro, I am not sure many Nigerian will take Babangida serious. This is a man who has been trying to rationalize the unjust and malicious murder of Mamman Vatsa, his child hood friend while Vatsa’s appeal over alleged coup plotting was pending (General Donkat Balli The News May 22, 2006), a con man who took Nigerian through “eight years of transition without end” only to annul the most credible election in our nation’s history won by MKO Abiola his friend and business partner only to resort to buck passing 32 years later. And this is a man whose controversial book has been described as “a collection of distorted facts which cannot serve as a reference book for the younger generation but a good reference book for criminal-minded people”. (Jonathan Vatsa, Punch Feb 28). It is doubtful if much weight can be attached to Babangida’s mendacities. There are just too many lose ends in his tales.

For instance, he claims the  “primary objective of the January 1966 coup was to free Chief Obafemi Awolowo from prison and install him as Nigeria’s leader” without telling us his source. And if his source was Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu who first sold the dummy during an interview, that also only raises more questions. If Ojukwu, who claimed to have foiled the coup in Kaduna while Aguiyi Ironsi foiled it in Lagos, were in possession of such privileged information, what stopped the duo from releasing Awo from an unjust incarceration despite his three different letters of appeal to Ironsi?

And if the coup plotters were performing their duty as custodian of the constitution as Babangida would want us to believe, the cleansing ought to have started with premiers Okpara and Ahmadu Bello, who refused to recognize Dauda Adegbenro, the Western Region recognised premier, followed by President Azikiwe and Prime Minister Balewa, who masterminded an illegal declaration of state of emergency in the West, imposition of Akintola of NNDP and Fani Kayode of NCNC as premier and deputy premier without election and  imprisonment of Awo over a fabricated claim he was about to overthrow the government of Her Majesty, the Queen.

And lastly, Babangida is a master of obfuscation; there is no evidence in our recent history to show Igbo ‘are enemies of Hausa/Fulani’ or that there has been any form of love lost between Igbo and Yoruba. Indeed if the phrase that best captures relationship between the former is ‘conjugal bliss’, the later will be “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”.

When it comes to power sharing, Igbo find Hausa/Fulani irresistible. For instance, following the outcome of the 1959 election Awo conceded leadership to Zik and agreed to work under him as finance minister. While his group was waiting in Asaba to seal the deal, Zik and his group were already in Kaduna cutting a deal that produced the NPC/NCNC alliance.

Then came Babangida’s 1993 ‘transition without end” (Oyediran). All the Igbo states except Anambra voted for Tofa, the NRC presidential candidate. Over 80% of those Babangida named during his last week book presentation as conspirators in the annulment of the election won by MKO Abiola were of Igbo ethnic extraction.

In 1999, Igbo voted massively for PDP and Obasanjo, the candidate the northern hegemonic power imposed as Yoruba candidate as against Olu Falae, the Yoruba sponsored candidate.

Unlike the enduring love of the Igbo, the ever ready beautiful bride and their Hausa/Fulani suitors, there has been no love lost between Yoruba and Igbo political elite since the 1930s when as leaders of urban immigrants, Igbo political elite wanted to make themselves relevant in the politics of Lagos and intimidation, blackmail and propaganda were some of the weapons of war freely deployed by Igbo against their Yoruba hosts.

This played out in 1934 during a struggle to have a member of the Nigerian Youth Movement move to the House of Representatives. Awo had supported Earnest Ikoli, an easterner against Akinsanya, his fellow Ijebu kinsman, sponsored by Zik. Because Akinsanya, Zik’s candidate lost the election after a bitter campaign, Zik pulled out all Igbo members and collapsed the movement accusing Awo and Yoruba of playing tribal politics. The seed of mutual distrust was thus sowed.

The Ibo Federal Union was formed in 1943. Zik became its national president. According to Obafemi Awolowo, “Dr Azikiwe himself was an unabashed Ibo jingoist who gave the game away when he said during his presidential speech at the Ibo Federal Union in 1949 that “It would appear the god of Africa has specially created the Igbo nation to lead the children of Africa from the bondage of the ages, not only to conquer others but also adapt themselves to the role of preserver”, (Awo autobiography PP 172). 

However when Egbe Omo Oduduwa was formed in Lagos in 1949 by Awolowo to unite the Yoruba, Zik, claiming it was targeted at Igbo and 27million Nigerians unleashed virulent attack on the Egbe and its leaders who were physically attacked along their properties in Lagos by  Zikist youths.

In1951, after the regional election, of the five members elected on the platform of Ibadan Progressive Union, Adegoke Adelabu remained loyal to Zik and NCNC, while Adisa Akinloye and others joined Awolowo’s Action Group. This followed a stalemate as Mbadiwe  and other Zik’s supporters insisted he should become the premier of the West while leading members of NCNC like Olu Akinfosile and TOS Benson, who regarded NCNC as a Yoruba party as there was only one non-Yoruba in its inaugural meeting, insisted one of them be chosen to be premier.

The decision of some Yoruba in NCNC to join Awo’s AG in order to control their own destiny became a subject of intense propaganda and blackmail and misinformation by Zik; today’s equivalent of the ‘Obdients’. They crowned Obafemi Awolowo, who emerged leader of government, king of tribal politics and enemy of Igbo.  Not even the world-celebrated Chinua Achebe could restrain himself from spreading misinformation when he wrote in his last major work – There was a country – that he witnessed carpet crossing of Zik supporters on the floor of Western House in 1952.

The misinformation and misrepresentation of the 1952 events have continued to define Yoruba and Igbo politics.

Finally, I think Ohanaeze will have to search beyond Babangida’s tenuous claim to justify their N10trn reparation demand especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that confirmed  that both the January insurrectionists and Ironsi were mere pawns in the hands of highly cerebral Igbo political leaders including Dr. Nwafor Orizu, the senate president, Dr  Ben Nwabueze, Ironsi’s adviser  and Dr. Ozunba Mbadiwe (the man of ‘timber and calibre’), a cabinet minister  during the January 31 night of many knives.

For instance, it has now been established that Zik was the first to seek the support of the military following the constitutional gridlock that followed the massively rigged 1964 election. It was believed it was the negative response of the military that claimed to be answerable to the prime minister that precipitated insurrection by younger elements in the military sympathetic to Zik’s course in January 1966.

There was also sufficient evidence from those present at the meeting, including Richard Akinjide, that the senate president, instead of supervising the election of the most senor surviving minister as acting prime minister, was playing the ostrich game until Ironsi declared himself head of state.

And finally, Igbo’s  two other dominant ethnic groups will need to be convinced that Ironsi’s Decree 34 that turned a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural  federal state into a unitary state, a system promoted by Igbo up to the London 1957 Constitutional Conference, was not an Igbo agenda.

During his visit to the White House on Friday, February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced a tough reception from President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Their handling of him demonstrated their firm approach to diplomacy, signaling a shift in global power dynamics.

As the saying goes, a beggar has no choice—their hand is always beneath that of the giver, not above it. This principle was clearly reinforced when President Trump made it explicit that Ukraine had little say in negotiations regarding the resolution of the ongoing three-year war with Russia. Initial discussions had already taken place in Saudi Arabia without Ukraine or European nations at the table. Instead, the negotiations involved Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Russia.

In response, Zelensky expressed his frustration:

 “It feels like the U.S. is now discussing the ultimatum that Putin set at the start of the full-scale war. Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine. I wonder why they believe Ukraine would accept all these ultimatums now if we refused them at the most difficult moment.”

Similarly, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer voiced concerns over Trump and Vance’s strategy of excluding Europe from the discussions:

 “Nobody wants the bloodshed to continue, least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything that they have suffered, after everything they have fought for, there can be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine, and the people of Ukraine must have a long-term, secure future.”

However, the reality is that Zelensky is in no position to dictate terms. This was emphasized when Vice President Vance rebuked him during the Oval Office meeting:

 “Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

Trump had long accused Zelensky of being a shrewd negotiator who, during Biden’s presidency, would visit Washington and leave with massive financial aid. Determined to change this dynamic, Trump made it clear that such a practice would not continue under his administration. Summarizing the meeting, he stated:

 “We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.”

Trump went further, saying: “He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for peace.”

By securing a deal that would grant the U.S. control over some of Ukraine’s rare earth resources as repayment for previous military aid, Trump demonstrated his negotiation skills. This approach mirrors historical precedents, such as Kuwait compensating the U.S. with oil after being liberated from Iraq in 1990 and Europe repaying America for the post-World War II Marshall Plan by allowing the formation of NATO under U.S. leadership.

The war itself stems from Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, which Russia perceived as a threat, prompting the invasion. Biden’s administration rallied U.S. allies to support Ukraine, possibly influenced by Biden’s personal connections—especially considering that Zelensky previously shielded Biden’s son, Hunter, from scrutiny over alleged financial misconduct in Ukraine. This decision may have played a role in Biden’s election victory in 2020, sparing him political damage from Trump’s opposition research.

However, Zelensky’s alignment with one side of U.S. politics carried risks. Hunter Biden’s business dealings eventually came under investigation, leading to his conviction, though his father pardoned him before leaving office. Some speculate that Biden’s support for Ukraine was a way of repaying Zelensky, providing him with financial and military backing against Russia.

This led Ukraine into a protracted war, with devastating consequences. Europe, drawn into the conflict through NATO, has suffered economic strain due to sanctions on Russian energy, with Germany experiencing economic downturns and the UK entering a recession. Africa has also been affected, as food shortages have worsened due to disruptions in wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia.

Had former President Barack Obama acted in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, this war might have been avoided. However, Obama, who prioritized ending wars rather than starting them, resisted calls for military action, despite pressure from figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Biden, who was Obama’s vice president at the time, later led Ukraine into a war that his former boss had deliberately avoided.

With around 400,000 Ukrainians killed or wounded and much of the country’s infrastructure in ruins, the war has proven catastrophic. As Trump attempts to broker peace, it remains uncertain whether Zelensky will adapt to the new realities of U.S. foreign policy. Unlike the previous administration, Trump and Vance do not view Ukraine as a victim but as a country that must make concessions to secure peace.

Trump has already played a key role in de-escalating the Gaza conflict, and a similar approach could be applied to Ukraine. However, for this to happen, Zelensky must recognize that the geopolitical landscape has shifted and that the U.S. will no longer provide unconditional support. If Ukraine truly seeks peace, its leadership must engage with the new administration on its own terms.

The cold reception President Trump gave to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was evident when he labeled him a dictator and accused him of starting the war—though he later jokingly retracted the statement, expressing disbelief that he had said it. This exchange took place in response to reporters’ questions on the matter.

Trump’s firm stance signaled a shift from past U.S. support, and Zelensky might have adjusted his approach accordingly, handling the new White House administration with more caution. However, he chose a more assertive approach and was met with strong pushback from Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. The two leaders discarded diplomatic formalities and sternly reprimanded Zelensky for what they perceived as arrogance regarding global security and an attempt to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities—something they were unwilling to tolerate.

Through their bold policies, which are reshaping international relations, Trump and Vance are clearly dismantling the old world order and crafting a new one. This is evident in Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on U.S. trading partners, a move that is redefining alliances worldwide. Simultaneously, he is pushing for a swift resolution to conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine—wars he insists would never have started under his leadership. Despite domestic political challenges, Trump has vowed to bring these conflicts to an end.

For the sake of a more comprehensive global peace effort, it would be worthwhile for Trump to extend his focus to ending conflicts in Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. These regions hold vast reserves of critical resources—Congo with its cobalt and Sudan with its oil—both vital for sustaining global energy production and technological advancement.

Even before formally taking office, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric influenced global events. His warning that chaos would erupt if Hamas refused to negotiate a ceasefire prompted a temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). A pattern of strategic pressure appears to be emerging. After Trump excluded Europe from negotiations on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, French President Emmanuel Macron, a longtime acquaintance of Trump, was among the first European leaders to visit him in Washington, seeking clarity on France’s position in the shifting geopolitical landscape. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer soon followed, with Zelensky arriving thereafter.

Notably, Scholz maintained Germany’s trademark direct and pragmatic approach during his White House visit. Macron, having built a rapport with Trump during his previous presidency, engaged in lighthearted banter, reflecting the French leader’s personable style. Starmer, adhering to Britain’s tradition of diplomatic finesse, presented Trump with a letter from King Charles III, inviting him for a state visit—an overture that reportedly charmed the U.S. president. This diplomatic strategy was reminiscent of how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had won Trump over with personal letters, following initial hostilities.

Unlike these European leaders, who carefully navigated discussions with Trump, Zelensky adopted a confrontational tone, attempting to lecture Trump on why defending Ukraine was also in America’s best interest. He argued that, despite the Atlantic Ocean separating the U.S. from Europe, Russia still posed a threat. However, Trump and Vance found this stance presumptuous and swiftly dismissed his arguments, reminding him that he was in no position to dictate U.S. security policy.

Zelensky’s misstep revealed his lack of diplomatic finesse, likely stemming from his inexperience—having transitioned directly from a comedian satirizing politicians to a wartime president. His extensive international support, largely driven by Western sympathy for Ukraine as the underdog in its struggle against Russia, may have inflated his sense of importance, leading him to expect universal backing. But Trump was not swayed by this sentiment.

The flurry of European leaders visiting Washington underscores Trump’s influence as a dominant global figure. While critics often overlook it, Trump’s approach is rooted in pragmatism and his commitment to his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda. His numerous executive orders are designed to strengthen the U.S. economy and give it an edge over competitors.

A key aspect of Trump’s legacy-building efforts is tackling the U.S. budget deficit, which currently stands at approximately $36 trillion. He is also seeking to reverse trade imbalances with major partners like China, Mexico, and Canada. One of his unconventional strategies to generate revenue is the significant increase in the EB-5 visa investment threshold—from $1 million to $5 million—offering a direct pathway to U.S. residency for high-net-worth individuals willing to invest in the country.

Similarly, his tariff hikes are aimed at shifting trade dynamics in America’s favor. These strategies are already causing ripples globally, sending shockwaves across markets and international relations. While some argue that Trump’s ambitious goal of attracting 10 million investors through the $5 million EB-5 visa is unrealistic—citing the UK’s modest intake of 1,000 applicants for its similar program—others believe the U.S. will draw significant interest, particularly from wealthy individuals in China, Korea, the Middle East, Russia, and even Britain.

For many affluent foreigners, the opportunity to secure U.S. residency through the “Golden Green Card” is worth the steep price tag. With Trump’s administration pursuing aggressive economic and geopolitical strategies, the global landscape is rapidly evolving—whether the world is ready for it or not.

A provision in the U.S. Constitution, which the new administration attempted to nullify through an executive order, was subsequently suspended by a court ruling.

Many may be surprised to learn that people worldwide already pay amounts equivalent to or even exceeding $5 million to participate in the U.S. citizenship-by-investment program. This is similar to how, in Nigeria, bureaucratic hurdles and corruption sometimes force citizens to pay up to four times the official cost to obtain an international passport. Likewise, visa application fees for certain countries are often inflated by syndicates, as seen in recent allegations against South African High Commission officials accused of visa racketeering.

The current $5 million fee is significantly higher than the original cost when the EB-5 visa program was introduced in 1990. To put this into perspective, the U.S. Congress initially established the EB-5 Program to stimulate the economy through job creation and foreign investment. In 1992, lawmakers expanded the initiative by creating the Immigrant Investor Program, or Regional Center Program, allowing investors to fund projects tied to designated regional centers that promote economic growth. While the program initially required a $1 million investment, this amount increased to $1.8 million in 1992 and has now been raised to $5 million under President Trump in 2025.

Critics who accuse Trump of being overly transactional for increasing the cost of the EB-5 visa may be unaware—or deliberately ignoring—the fact that he is not the first president to revise its pricing.

Following his tense meeting at the White House, Zelensky has shifted his tone, seemingly acknowledging the need for a more conciliatory approach. On Saturday, he issued a statement of appreciation, saying, “America’s help has been vital in helping us survive, and I want to acknowledge that.” He also emphasized the need for open dialogue, stating, “Despite the tough discussions, we remain strategic partners. But we need to be honest and direct with each other to truly understand our shared goals.”

At its core, Zelensky’s visit aimed to secure U.S. security guarantees against future Russian aggression. His skepticism toward any agreement with Moscow is understandable, given that Russia previously invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexing Crimea during President Obama’s tenure. Zelensky does not trust Putin, especially since Russia violated the 2015 peace agreement with Ukraine.

However, his confrontational approach—marked by emotional appeals rather than pragmatic diplomacy—worked against him. As a result, he left the White House empty-handed, failing to secure his key objectives, including a potential deal to trade rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. military protection.

Zelensky has since sought solace among European leaders, but this offers little real security. Even those comforting him recognize their own vulnerabilities, as they, too, rely on U.S. military support. Despite Europe’s show of solidarity with Ukraine during a recent meeting in London on March 2—where they agreed to form a coalition—it remains clear that Europe cannot effectively defend itself without the United States. This reality, which became evident after World War II and led to NATO’s formation under U.S. leadership, remains unchanged.

Recognizing this, European leaders—including those from France, the UK, Germany, and Italy—have prioritized maintaining strong ties with the U.S., frequently traveling across the Atlantic to engage with President Trump, despite the turbulent state of their current relationship.

Trump has made it clear that he intends to end both the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars, possibly through unconventional means. In a phone conversation with Putin, he reportedly expressed no opposition to Europe deploying a peacekeeping force in Ukraine—a concept that closely resembles Ukraine’s original desire to join NATO, which sparked Russia’s invasion in the first place.

Strangely, this significant development has received little attention, with European leaders instead opting to continue funding Ukraine’s war efforts. The UK, for instance, approved a $2.8 billion loan to Ukraine just last Sunday, despite the reality that Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive military victory, no matter how determined it remains.

Ultimately, the U.S. remains central to resolving these major conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This reality must be acknowledged in any serious discussion about achieving lasting peace in regions where wars have left millions dead or struggling with extreme hunger.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

Despite his long absence from the epicentre of power, General Ibrahim Babangida remains a subject of constant fascinations. The attention commanded by his recently published autobiography, My Journey in Service, attests to his hold on the public imagination for good or evil. Love him or hate him, you dare not ignore him. Younger Nigerians may not understand the full import of Babangida’s allure, yet his career has so much to do with what we are today. This is the man offered a place in history by Destiny but who through his reckless idiosyncratic preoccupations, destroyed the house he had built with so much meticulous husbandry. He tried to ramble about the June 12 debacle by speaking through both ends of his mouth. Now all his story, whatever else he may be struggling with in his winter years, would be reduced to the tragedy of the man who annulled the freest election in Nigerian history.

It is a fact that Abiola did not have the opportunity to tell his own side of the story. Abiola was eager to display his love affairs with Babangida. In those days, as you climb the flight of stairs leading to the first floor of Abiola’s palatial mansion in Ikeja, you will see the giant picture of Babangida on the wall. Abiola wanted it be known that Babangida was his friend. He was very successful in his primary assignment of making money. He had almost everything. He kept acquiring more. He acquired good friends. He acquired a multitude of dangerous and envious enemies whom he thought were his friends.
During the Second Republic, Abiola made a spectacular foray into politics, colliding with the immovable obelisk of Yoruba politics, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, first Premier of the defunct Western Region. His ambition was high and he thought he had arrived. He had money and relied on the dangerous friends he had acquired in the military. One of them was Babangida.
It was believed that Abiola was recruited into millionairedom through his friendship with General Murtala Muhammed, General Yakubu Gowon’s Minister of Communications. It was a turbulent and profitable friendship and when Gowon was toppled in 1975, Abiola’s friend became the new Head of State. Six months later, Muhammed was assassinated during the botched coup of February 13, 1976 and Abiola’s kinsman, General Olusegun Obasanjo, became the new Head of State. It was an endless summer time for Abiola and the harvest was big. He found his way into the Constituent Assembly and made more friends.

One of his new friends was Alhaji Shehu Shagari, a suave subaltern of the late Sardauna of Sokoto, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello. Shagari was Abiola’s colleague at the Constituent Assembly. He was elected the first President of Nigeria under the new American style Constitution. Despite his money, Abiola’s National Party of Nigeria, NPN, did not make much inroads into Yorubaland. Despite the passage of years, the Yoruba people have not forgotten the Fulani, who dominated the NPN, as the traditional enemy. For almost 50 years in the 19th Century, the Fulani, after seizing Ilorin, an Oyo provincial town, by subterfuge, embarked on a ceaseless campaign to impose Fulani rule over the rest of Yorubaland on the presence that they were spreading Islam. They have succeeded in doing the same in Hausaland, where they killed all Hausa kings and replaced them with Fulani rulers. Their unforgiving and unrelenting quest for total power also manifested during the First Republic when they hounded Obafemi Awolowo into prison. By the time of Abiola’s bumptious challenge, Awolowo had joined the pantheon. To the Yoruba people, he was now an irunmole; one of those ageless deities inhabiting Oke Itase in the sacred land of Ile-Ife.

By 1982, Abiola was having a rethink. He left the NPN and claimed that he was no longer interested in partisan politics. However, when the military struck on December 31, 1983, sacking the regime of President Shagari, Abiola’s friends were back in power. Some people were even ready to speculate that Abiola was one of the sponsors of the coup that toppled the Shagari regime. He was flamboyant and large and through him, possibilities were many. He was very successful; too successful. That was the problem.

Among the stories of Orunmila, there was a man who was too well fed that he started looking for medicine that could burst his protruding belly. So, Abiola started looking for battles to fight. He sought and was given honours from different corners of the world. He was the Pillar of Sports in Africa. He was the Bashorun of Ibadan, a title once held by Oluyole, the Oyo prince who became the second ruler of Ibadan after the legendary Ife general, Lagelu. He wanted visibility. He wanted power! He had the unquenchable desire to change the world.

He soon started having trouble with his old friends. In 1991, the African Concord, one of the publications of the Concord Group of Newspapers owned by Abiola, wrote a story that annoyed the Babangida regime. The regime simply passed a decree banning all newspapers in the Concord stable including the National Concord, Sunday Concord, Weekend Concord, Isokan and Amana. When Abiola humiliatingly arranged a truce, asking his editor, Bayo Onanuga, to apologise, Onanuga refused flatly, declaring in a letter to Abiola: “I am not going to write any apology to anyone!” Instead, he resigned, along with his colleagues; Kunle Ajibade, Femi Ojudu, Dapo Olorunyomi and Seye Kehinde, to start TheNews magazine.

Despite his travails, Abiola still believed so much in Babangida. In 1992, I was among a group of journalists that travelled with him to Goree Island in Senegal, as part of his global campaign for reparation from the West for their two centuries of Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. On our return journey, I sat beside him on the plane to conduct an interview for TELL magazine. He said he would not join politics again. “What else do I want in my life,” he said. I believed him.

Then he visited his friend in the newly built Aso Rock Presidential Villa, Abuja. Babangida took him on a tour of the palace, culminating in a pleasurable moment at the presidential office. “This would be your office,” Babangida told him. Abiola believed him and he plunged into the presidential race, culminating in the June 12 debacle.

My late boss, Mr Dele Giwa, the first Editor-in-Chief of Newswatch also believed that Babangida was his friend. Then one day early 1986, my colleague, Chuks Iluegbunam, was assigned to cover the opening day of the trial of Major-General Maman Vatsa and 15 others accused of plotting to topple the new military regime of Babangida. I told the Editorial Board of Newswatch that I believe Vatsa will be killed because he was put in handcuff and leg chains. You cannot do that to a general unless you are prepared to finish him.
“He is Babangida’s childhood friend,” Giwa said. “Babangida was his best man at his wedding.” Giwa believed Babangida would spare Vatsa.
Giwa was very sober when the news came via an announcement by General Domkat Bali that Vatsa and the others “have been executed about an hour ago!” Bali added with blatant irony: “In the military, the price of treason is death!”

After that death came for Giwa on October 19, 1986 wearing the innocent mask of a parcel.
Babangida said in his book that he did know anything about the death of Dele Giwa. I believe him.

He would have a lot of explanations to make when he finally makes the inevitable journey to God’s Headquarters. He may have to contend with many restless ghosts before he finally keeps that appointment before the Judgement Throne. Then his comprehensive mendacity may not be of any use. Francois-Marie Arouet, better known as Voltaire, his nom de plume, the French philosopher of the 18th Century said: “Lord, protect me from my friends; I can take care of my enemies!”

-the end-