The case of Ushie Uguamaye, a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) member, facing alleged threats for criticizing President Tinubu’s administration highlights a concerning pattern of suppressing dissent in Nigeria. Her experience mirrors the ongoing controversy surrounding Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, further reinforcing fears that the government is actively silencing critical voices rather than addressing the legitimate grievances of its citizens.

This government continues to disgrace itself nationally and globally, oblivious to the reality that we now live in an interconnected digital age where nothing remains hidden. Every act of repression, every abuse of power, and every silencing attempt is instantly broadcasted worldwide. They fail to grasp that control over narratives has shifted—people no longer rely solely on state-controlled media, and information spreads faster than censorship can contain it. America, Britain, France, Canada, and other world powers are watching, and no government can escape international scrutiny anymore.

Freedom of Speech Under Attack

Uguamaye’s viral TikTok video did not contain hate speech or incitement to violence—it was an expression of frustration over Nigeria’s economic hardship and poor governance. In her video, she simply said, “Tinubu, you are a terrible president.” This was not a coup attempt, nor was it a call for anarchy—it was a cry of frustration, a sentiment shared by millions of Nigerians struggling under rising costs, unemployment, and a declining standard of living.

Yet, instead of engaging with her concerns, the response from NYSC officials was intimidation and threats. Amnesty International Nigeria’s condemnation of the threats against her serves as a reminder that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution and upheld by international law. When government agencies such as the NYSC resort to coercion rather than dialogue, it highlights a growing and dangerous trend of authoritarian governance.

The world is not blind. Nigerian leaders may think they can silence their people in isolation, but international watchdogs, human rights organizations, and foreign governments are watching. The more they suppress voices, the more their actions become global headlines, painting Nigeria as a country that fears criticism rather than embracing democratic debate.

Government’s Missteps and the ‘Streisand Effect’Rather than defusing the situation through dialogue, NYSC officials allegedly sought to pressure Uguamaye into deleting her video. However, their intimidation tactics backfired, amplifying her voice and drawing national and international attention. This is a classic example of the “Streisand Effect”—where attempts to suppress information lead to even greater public awareness.

In today’s world, social media ensures that no injustice goes unnoticed. The era of backdoor repression, where government officials could stifle dissent in silence, is long gone. Instead of learning from past mistakes, the administration continuously exposes itself to public embarrassment by failing to acknowledge that suppression only strengthens resistance.

A Pattern of Silencing Women

The parallels between Uguamaye’s case and that of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan are striking. Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended from the Senate shortly after publicly accusing Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexual harassment. Now, Uguamaye faces threats for speaking out against government failures. Just as Akpabio attempted to suppress Natasha, we now see an NYSC official allegedly calling and threatening Uguamaye, attempting to coerce her into silence.

The tactics remain the same—intimidation, manipulation, and the abuse of institutional power to subdue female voices that challenge the system. Nigerian women who dare to question authority are met with hostility, threats, and systemic efforts to erase their voices. These patterns reflect deep-seated misogyny within governance structures—structures that view women as threats when they refuse to conform to silent obedience.

The government has not learned its lesson. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has already taken Nigeria’s suppression of women’s voices to the global stage at the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in New York, exposing its tactics to international scrutiny. Now, this young woman—part of a fearless digital generation—may take it even further. Unlike previous generations, she has the full power of social media and international advocacy at her fingertips. Nigeria’s leadership is making the same mistake again, failing to recognize that the suppression of voices only makes them louder.

The Role of International ScrutinyWith Amnesty International and other human rights organizations weighing in, Nigeria’s government is under increasing global pressure to uphold democratic principles. If Uguamaye’s case gains further traction, she may even take her grievances to international platforms such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) or the United Nations, just as Akpoti-Uduaghan did.

The international community is no longer a passive observer—global human rights groups, diplomatic bodies, and foreign governments are all closely monitoring Nigeria’s response to dissent. The country’s image is deteriorating on the world stage, as repression continues to overshadow any claims of democratic progress. The government’s actions not only weaken its credibility but also reinforce the perception that Nigeria is governed by leaders who fear accountability.

The psychologist in me urges Nigerian leadership: Learn. Learn before it is too late. Repression is not governance. Silencing voices is not strength. Every time you try to hide the truth, it will find its way to the global stage, exposing you to greater humiliation. If you believe suppressing a young woman’s voice will make her disappear, you have gravely misunderstood the modern world. The more you suppress, the more defiant people become. Natasha globalized your oppression at the IPU—Ushie, from a fearless digital generation, may take it even further.

The Tinubu Administration’s Dilemma

President Tinubu’s administration now faces a critical choice: continue down the path of repression or embrace a more democratic approach by engaging with dissenting voices constructively.

A competent and confident leadership would recognize the growing dissatisfaction among citizens and seek to engage with them. Instead, this administration appears to believe that repression is a sustainable strategy in the digital age. It is not. Suppressing critics only fuels discontent, fosters resentment, and damages Nigeria’s international reputation.

Rather than allowing NYSC officials to intimidate Uguamaye, the administration should consider inviting her for a dialogue, listening to her grievances, and addressing the concerns she raised in her video. Doing so would demonstrate maturity, empathy, and a commitment to democratic ideals. Unfortunately, the government continues to opt for force rather than understanding, deepening public disillusionment with its leadership.

Conclusion: A Call for Institutional Accountability

The Nigerian government must come to terms with an inescapable truth: in a democracy, the suppression of voices does not erase dissent—it magnifies it. Threatening individuals like Ushie Uguamaye for expressing frustration or Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for speaking out against sexual harassment does not restore order; it exposes the fragility of leadership. Silencing criticism does not mask failures; it confirms them. True governance is not about control—it is about courage. It is about addressing real concerns, not punishing those who raise them.

President Tinubu, you always say you asked for this job. That is true, sir, but leadership is not just about assuming power—it is about managing it wisely. Many under your administration are not helping you. They are acting recklessly, targeting women, abusing institutional authority, and pulling your leadership into a vortex of controversy that diminishes your legacy. You may not have personally directed these actions, but history will not distinguish between what you ordered and what was done under your watch. The world is watching, and in an era where digital footprints are eternal, judgment is swift and lasting.

When Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was threatened for daring to expose sexual harassment, it sent a dangerous message that the system protects predators and punishes survivors. Now, Ushie Uguamaye is facing intimidation simply for voicing an opinion. These are not isolated incidents—they are symptoms of a deeper cultural resistance to accountability. This is no longer just about Nigeria. This is about the global perception of your administration. It is about whether the world sees Nigeria as a country that respects democratic values or one that stifles them.

Sir, I urge you to pause. I hope you are checking your blood pressure, prioritizing your health, and reflecting on the weight of this moment. Even your own daughter—whether by coincidence or conviction—has taken a stand for these women. If those closest to you can recognize the problem, why do so many within your administration continue to behave as though accountability is an option rather than an obligation? Leadership is not about silencing critics—it is about proving them wrong through decisive action, ethical governance, and a commitment to justice.

As a psychologist, I say again: Learn. Learn before your suppression of voices becomes the very thing that dismantles your authority. Learn before the culture of fear you permit today turns into the resistance you cannot contain tomorrow. The world is no longer silent, and neither are the people you seek to suppress.

The paths of two legends lately crossed at Baze University. The first was an educationist, entrepreneur, and scholar known as Sen. Datti Baba-Ahmed, and the second was a scholar, journalist, writer, and TV presenter named Dr. Reuben Abati. The two are in their fifties, although the former is midway, while the latter races to sixty in a few months. Both are notable achievers, brilliant in their endeavours and often an eleven on a scale of one to ten on their beats. Not unexpectedly, they crossed paths on a typical academic turf at the upbeat Baze University, Abuja’s first and fourteenth-anniversary lecture.

Datti Baba-Ahmed imagined Baze University when he was about age thirty-five. He had been up and about before then as a management and research consultant and a scholar after a PhD. at the Ivy League University of Westminster, with a foray into the legislature. Tales had it that he was hardly taken seriously by those in the audience on his plans. The reason was that private universities were then often the brainchild of more senior citizens or faith-based organisations, deeply rooted in fortune and finance and firm in institutional features. Datti Baba-Ahmed was, therefore, going to dare where the elders trod.

He stuck to his guns and guts, pulling through reductionist advisory barriers, conscious and unconscious nitpicking reproofs, and birthed Baze at about thirty-nine. With a license at hand, a sprawling space, and an echo away from the Abuja City centre, his experiment still looked like a joke. However, fourteen years later, the university now sits at a commanding height of fame, bursting with enthusiastic learners and a burgeoning club of knowledge producers and sharers. Eleven convocation ceremonies after, nine faculties, and about a hundred programmes on song at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, it was just right to create a stage to stimulate thought on national issues and mark a remarkable feat.

Sen. Baba-Ahmed testifies: “It is an honour to celebrate fourteen years of excellence, innovation, and academic distinction at Baze University, a journey rooted in the belief that education is a powerful tool for national transformation. From humble beginnings to becoming a beacon of educational excellence, the university has consistently shaped minds, nurtured talents, and produced graduates ready to impact society positively. The presence of Dr. Reuben Abati, a distinguished journalist and intellectual, highlights the critical role of education in fostering leadership and national progress.”

Enter Reuben Abati. Dr Abati was a regular university lecturer in Ogun State until he joined the elite editorial board of the then inimitable The Guardian Newspaper. That board then paraded the leading thinkers in the land, to wit, Olatunji Dare, Lade Bonuola, Femi Kusa, Okey Ikechukwu, Yemi Ogunbiyi, and others. He quickly passed as the youngest with a groundbreaking doctoral degree from Ibadan. However, that was only in his biological age, not ideation and perspicacity. He showed this in his double barrel columns, one on Fridays and the other on Sundays, where he regularly captured social and political essences in stimulating inks atop power prose.

He was reputed as a shaper, a repository, and a surveyor of goings-on, with a magisterial voice on contexts. He would later become a presidential spokesperson and then a TV presenter. Every morning as a presenter, Abati has arguably upped the ante in real-time analysis, in the reflection of researched thoughts, the showcasing of balance, and the pattern of learnedness in the narrativization and examination of issues. His inclination to present a case, in advance of analysis, syncs with the textbook protocol of editorialising, just as the desire to give the audience their rightful window, the outlet to make up their minds, and form their opinion, from a presenter’s discussion. Channels TV Dr. John Momoh, a veritable Chevening Scholar, has been an apostle of the transmission genre. It is expositional, rather than impositional, inclusive, rather than exclusive, in addition to liberalising ratiocination.

With his wife, the ravishingly beautiful Mrs. Kikelomo Atanda Owo-Abati also in the audience, Abati mounted the podium on the back of his impressive pedigree, speaking on the seminal topic of “Leadership in a Disruptive Era: Ethics, Accountability, and the Future of Governance in Nigeria.” His intervention came after the critical opening of the ceremony by the university vice-chancellor, renowned educationist, former permanent secretary in multiple federal ministries, and professor of Consumer Science, Professor Jamila Shu’ara.

Professor Shu’ara paid homage to those who powered the university dream prior, concluding with worthy regard to the ultimate visioner, Sen. Baba-Ahmed. Read her “In just 14 years, Baze University has emerged as a beacon of academic excellence and innovation under the visionary leadership of its founder, Senator Datti Baba-Ahmed. From its humble beginnings, the university has witnessed remarkable growth, expanding into nine dynamic faculties that offer a wide array of cutting-edge programmes tailored to meet the evolving demands of the global landscape.”

She added “This strategic expansion underscores a steadfast commitment to nurturing intellectual rigour, fostering creativity, and producing globally competitive graduates. Establishing a world-class, standard hospital further exemplifies this transformative vision, positioning Baze University as a hub for academic pursuit and a centre of medical excellence and community service. The university’s trajectory is a witness to Senator Baba-Ahmed’s dedication to advancing higher education in Nigeria, creating an institution that continues to set new benchmarks in quality, innovation, and societal impact.”

Dr. Abati thereafter began saluting Baba-Ahmed, whose contribution can be underscored with regards to “how he has dedicated himself to the task of service by giving back to his own country and helping in the education industry to build the same country that nurtured him, by devoting time and resources to the empowerment of the younger generation through knowledge and skills. I salute also the diligence and commitment of all the men and women, who in various ways have joined this enterprise of building young persons into better men and women, providing an enabling environment for the flowering of the human spirit and the ideal of the university.”

He then pontificated with philosophic confidence: “The entire trajectory of human survival is on the production of knowledge, epistemology and adaptability, and as man learns anew, he strengthens his capacity to live. The significant burden that man faces is that the more he learns, the more he sees that he still needs to know. In the endless search for knowledge, he expands his horizons. Man, inexorably, realises that he is not the wonderful creature that he thinks he is, but a gnat, a small part of the Cosmos, a dot in God’s design, a work in motion, who needs to adapt and innovate, reinvent himself, to remain alive and relevant in the larger canvas of things. We keep learning to live, and the university, as a place of learning, stands at a critical pathway in this process.”

Zeroing in on Nigeria, the writer stressed that Nigeria’s governance challenges demand urgent and comprehensive reforms from all sectors of society. “Transformative leadership, institutional strengthening, and ethical decision-making are crucial for the nation’s stability and prosperity. Policymakers must prioritise evidence-based decisions, long-term goals, and public participation, while political leaders should embody integrity and place national interests first. Civil servants must uphold professionalism, and citizens must actively hold leaders accountable. Ethical leadership is critical to addressing the nation’s socio-economic issues, including poverty and unemployment, and requires transparency and responsibility.”

His summary: “Reforms should include judicial independence, enhanced anti-corruption efforts, and digital innovations like e-governance to improve service delivery. Citizen engagement should be encouraged primarily through media, civil society, and academia. Leadership recruitment must prioritise merit, proven ability, and service over corruption and entitlement. Only through a collective effort can Nigeria establish a governance system that is transparent, inclusive, and responsive to its people’s needs. The future of Nigeria’s governance depends on committed reform now.”

No doubt some excellent submission from Abati, who graduated as the best overall student at the University of Calabar, where he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree, and furthered his education by obtaining a Bachelor of Laws (LL. B) from the Lagos State University (LASU) and a Master of Arts (M.A.) from the University of Ibadan. He also earned a Master’s in International Law and Diplomacy (MILD) from the University of Lagos after his doctorate (Ph.D.) from the University of Ibadan. Abati is a fellow of the Nigerian Guild of Editors (FNGE) and the Nigerian Institute of Management (FNIM), with an Honorary Fellowship from the Nigeria Academy of Letters. He was Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow in Journalism, a prestigious programme that further honed his expertise in the field. His appearance at Baze was one icing, with more to come, for him, Sen. Datti Baba-Ahmed and Baze University, a typical case of morning yet on the day of the increase. Over.

• Abiodun Adeniyi is a professor of communication and registrar, Baze University.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has criticised the new minimum wage of N70,000 which was approved for workers by President Bola Tinubu last year.

Obasanjo has claimed it is not enough to cover their basic needs, including transportation, food, and housing.

The former President also said labour leaders have betrayed workers by prioritising personal interests over collective welfare.

“That is the situation in Nigeria in the third decade of the 21st century.

“The minimum wage does not even cover transportation costs for some workers, let alone food, housing, and family upkeep,” Obasanjo wrote in his newly released book, “Nigeria: Past and Future”.

Obasanjo also claimed labour leader are more interested in pursuing personal interests.

“Because of their political ambitions, most union leaders are ineffective compared to the founding fathers’ expectations.

“The workers thereby become victims of selfish leaders who use their positions to achieve political heights.

“Rather than negotiate in the interest of the workers, they do sabre-rattling and they are called into the room and money in large amounts is stuffed into their hands and they keep quiet.

“That has been the case since 2015. And, if anything, it is going from bad to worse,” Obasanjo added.

[DailyPost]

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and former presidential candidate of the Labour Party’s Peter Obi have expressed support for Lagos-based corps member Ushie Ushie Rita Uguamaye, popularly known as Raye, following her viral video criticizing the Federal Government’s policies.

Raye had gained widespread attention after condemning President Bola Tinubu’s administration over the rising cost of living. 

She also alleged that some National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) officials threatened her over her remarks on the country’s economic situation.

However, Atiku and Obi praised Raye, calling her a brave young woman who deserves support rather than condemnation.

Atiku who wrote on X, said: “Raye embodies the spirit of a new generation of women who champion the ideals of popular participation and unwavering advocacy in the political sphere. I deeply admire her boldness and wisdom—her fearless resolve to speak truth to power, undeterred by the weight of opposition.

“She follows in the footsteps of formidable trailblazers like Gambo Sawaba, Funmilayo Ransom-Kuti, Margaret Ekpo, and countless other women who have stood resolute in defense of the common good.

“Rather than being met with hostility, Raye deserves encouragement and support. She is a shining emblem of the Nigerian youth—a testament to the long-held promise that the leaders of tomorrow are already among us, ready to shape a better future.”

For Obi, Raye’s experience “highlights a troubling trend in our nation—one where voices of reason and truth are met with intimidation rather than dialogue and engagement”.

The former Anambra Governor said the NYSC member’s experience is also “not isolated”.

“I, too, have been subjected to threats for daring to offer constructive suggestions and comments. I now face daily intimidation, harassment, and name-calling simply for expressing solution-based views on government policies. Such actions are antithetical to the principles of democracy. A government that silences its citizens is not democratic or one that is subject to accountability and good governance and is most often corrupt,” Obi wrote on his X handle.

He called on President Bola Tinubu’s government to “reflect deeply on its approach to dissent and recognize that constructive criticism is a cornerstone of democratic progress.

“To all patriotic Nigerians: Our nation’s future and development depend on our collective courage to speak out against misgovernance, injustice, and intimidation,” the LP presidential candidate for the 2023 election said.
“Do not let fear stifle your voice. Stand firm, support one another, and continue to advocate for Nigeria we all envision—a nation where freedom of speech is sacrosanct, and leadership is accountable to the people, especially in critical areas such as education, healthcare, and poverty alleviation.

“A just and prosperous Nigeria should be one where people like Raye are encouraged to speak out about the challenges they face, while those in government take urgent action to address these issues.”

China have included Brazil-born midfielder Serginho in their squad for crucial World Cup qualifiers, less than a week after he obtained Chinese citizenship.

In recent years China’s struggling national team has followed some other countries by turning to naturalised players, with limited impact on results.

Also named in Branko Ivankovic’s 27-man squad is Liverpool-born former England youth international defender Tyias Browning, now called Jiang Guangtai.

Serginho, known in China as Sai Erjiniao, obtained citizenship on March 12 and played his first minutes for the national team in a closed-doors friendly against Kuwait on Sunday, according to state broadcaster CCTV.

The 30-year-old, whose birth name is Sergio Oliveira, has played in China since 2020.

China are away at Saudi Arabia on Thursday and home to Australia on Tuesday next week as they battle to qualify for the 2026 World Cup in North America.

They are bottom of their group on six points but only trail Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain on goal difference, with Australia one point ahead. Japan lead the group on 16 points.

The top two will qualify automatically while the third and fourth-placed teams enter another qualifying round.

Serginho began his senior career at Brazilian club Santos, before moving to Japan’s Kashima Antlers in 2018.

He joined Changchun Yatai in 2020, scoring 30 goals in 100 appearances, before leaving for their Chinese Super League rivals Beijing Guoan in February.

Teenage prospects Wang Yudong and Liu Chengyu are also in the squad selected by Croatian head coach Ivankovic.

Brazil-born players Elkeson, Alan and Fernandinho, who had been regular performers for China, were not included in the latest squad.

China are ranked 90th in the world and have only qualified for the World Cup once, in 2002, when they failed to earn a point or score a goal.

AFP

Some Nigerians in the social media are beginning to question whether the system in the United States, US, under Donald Trump is democracy. But I think they should start by asking themselves if what we practise in Nigeria is democracy. 

Section 14(2) of our Constitution declares unequivocally thus: “Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority.” Since neither Americans nor Nigerians exercise sovereignty, then neither country, properly speaking, practises democracy.

This is because democracy is basically the decentralisation of power in ways that ensure the empowerment of the people in the affairs of the state and society; the humanisation of the political arena; and the development of society. To put this in a more contemporary usage, democracy is a system of government by popular representation, based on the vote of the electorate in which the will of the people prevails.

First, we may need to agree that democracy is not value-free. In fact, it comes in various shades and forms. In other words, there is not a single road to democracy. So, concepts such as ‘Western Democracy’ and ‘Liberal Democracy’ are, at best, contentious. Rather, there are various types of democracy, be it British Westminister, Chinese Peoples’ Democracy or American Presidential.

Today, US democracy has delivered what is perhaps its most unique verdict and most powerful President since its July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence. Donald Trump, operating outside the majority Republican Party, seized the party with his Make America Great Again, MAGA, group which is now the dominant faction.

He won both the popular and Electoral College votes. The party he dominates controls both the Senate and House of Representatives. Additionally, his party has a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court. So, perhaps for the first time in US history, one man has control of the Executive, Parliament and Supreme Court majority. But for the fact that this is happening in the US, it would have been called a dictatorship. Conscious of his powers, Trump is trying to run the United States with Executive Orders, and the world with sanctions and threats.

So, democracy is not a given. There is no commodity called democracy which can be bought off the shelves. It is a product of each society. One of the reasons why democracy seems to falter in Africa is that we have tried to copy other peoples’ political systems and, uncritically, adapted them to our situation. Part of the fallout has been political instability, so serious that all West African countries, except Senegal, have witnessed destabilising military coups.

So, Africa must develop its own democracy, based on its history, values, culture, tradition and diversities. The basis of such democracy must be equity for, and equality of, all. This means that we must not allow the rule of any dominant or powerful ethno-nationality, religion or region. Minorities must have a sense of belonging and clear roles in running the state.

We must allow ideas to blossom and groups to breathe. For instance, communities should have the right to form political parties of their choice, based on their needs and aspirations, as it was in the First Republic.

So, the political system should be liberalised, democratised and humanised. Africa’s democracy should ensure that the populace is so empowered that even if the electoral system throws up an Adolf Hitler or a Donald Trump, the populace should be able to curb his excesses.

Also, democracy is not a religion. It is not a set of beliefs. Rather, it is practical governance that must solve the existential and developmental needs of the people.

One of the greatest Africans that ever lived was Amilcar Cabral, the liberation fighter who led the independence movement of Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde. He said in 1974: “Always bear in mind that the people are not fighting for ideas, for the things in anyone’s head. They are fighting to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children…”

So, the people are not just living for the ideals of democracy, capitalism, liberalism, socialism, or any ‘ism’. Rather, they want food on the table, clothes on their backs, roofs over their heads, healthcare when they are sick, education for their children and security of their lives and property.

 It is if these basic needs are met that they would fight for principles, or fight to ensure they are provided their basic needs. If democracy provides these basic needs, God help anybody who tries to endanger the system that provides them.

Nobody needs talk to my generation of Nigerians about the nightmare that was the cumulative 29-year military misrule that we suffered. This is why some of us insist that democracy must deliver dividends to the people, if we expect them to defend it.

However, the issue is beyond unconstitutional; there is the equally important issue of peoples’ reaction to such unconstitutional change.

In clearing the debris of democracy in places like Nigeria and reconstructing people- centred democracies, it is important to re- orientate the military. It should not be encumbered with basic civilian duties such as involvement in running elections. Its personnel’s role should simply be to perform their civic duty of voting.It should simply adhere to its code of ethics. 

By taking the road to democracy, we are basically saving the military from itself as it has the tendency to commit suicide by constantly purging its ranks in the name of coups, counter-coups, attempted coups and phantom coups. Although the military is claimed to be the strongest institution in society, but in reality it is one of the weakest. History has shown that when the state collapses, the military is the first that goes under. Put differently, the first sign that a state has collapsed is the collapse of its military. The first indication that the Syrian state had collapsed on December 8, 2024 was that its mighty military had melted away.

In contrast, the civil service remained, and continued to run administration. In reality, the civil service that is supposed to be seen, not heard, is a far stronger institution. So any thought that the military in any country is above society is illusory. The military must be humble and dutifully serve the society which is the only body that can defend it when the chips are down.

As we build or rebuild democracy, Nigerians should realise that the democracy of the rich, by the rich for the rich, as in the US, will not be of use. Nor will the democracy of the cunning by the cunning for the smart, as in Europe, be useful. Our democracy, more so as we head towards 2027, will not be useful if based on ethnocentric, religious, regional or calculations by the greedy. Only a people- centred democracy where no one will be oppressed will serve our needs.

In his book “The Power of Regrets”, Daniel Pink explores how retrospection can be a powerful tool for growth and improvement. Reflecting on the Supreme Court judgment that has thrown Rivers State into chaos, I ask myself fundamental questions. If the Supreme Court justices were to reflect on their ruling, would they regret the consequences it has unleashed? What about the two primary political figures at the heart of the crisis—Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Minister Nyesom Wike? What could be their regrets when they reflect on what is going on? Most significantly, the people of Rivers State, bearing the brunt of the judgment’s repercussions, indeed have the deepest regrets, spanning social, economic, and political dimensions. Their sense of injustice is palpable. Regrets are a part of life. Pink said clearly from his research that we all have something we wish we had done differently.
Justice is the bedrock of any democratic society, providing stability, fairness, and order. However, when a Supreme Court ruling not only deepens an existing crisis but also fuels political strife, it calls into question the Judiciary’s integrity and role in governance. The recent Supreme Court judgment concerning Rivers State has ignited a political firestorm, raising fundamental questions about its implications for governance, democracy, and the rule of law.

A meta-analysis of 134 expert legal commentaries in the media on the ruling reveals an overwhelming consensus—130 commentators argue that the verdict did more harm than good, failing to uphold legal standards and instead entrenching political instability. Those 130 commentators believe that the apex court did not dwell on the law but rather on extraneous issues. Only four legal experts expressed a differing opinion, highlighting the near-universal disapproval of the judgment within the legal community.
Justice Mojeed Owoade (rtd) led 11-man Independent Judicial Accountability Panel delivered a scathing critique of the judgment. The panel noted that the Supreme Court failed to resolve the crucial issue of the alleged defection of 27 lawmakers, leaving a gap in legal interpretation. In their words, “the judgment of the Supreme Court in the consolidated appeals leaves a gap as to whether the issue of the alleged defection of 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is still alive or has been settled. This is because the court commented on the defection issue without actually addressing it.” This failure is significant given that a similar case in 2012 saw the Supreme Court uphold the removal of lawmakers who defected without due process.

One of the most contentious aspects of the judgment was its handling of local government elections. The Supreme Court verdict in annulling the elections did not follow any precedence known to law. To make matters more complicated, the Supreme Court nullified the elections without providing a timeline for fresh polls, leaving the fate of governance in limbo. LGA chairmen have been elected and sworn in yet the Supreme Court without hearing the chairmen or their political parties annulled the election. The only justification given by the apex court is that INEC had not updated the voter register. The fact that this is a hatchet job does not require a soothsayer .
This judicial oversight has triggered widespread confusion. Over 10,000 local government workers remain uncertain about their employment status. Vital social services may be affected .
Even more curious is the fact that 32 other states have conducted local government elections under similar conditions without interference. Why was Rivers State singled out? The Supreme Court ruling raises serious concerns about selective judicial intervention and inconsistency in legal precedents.

In another troubling move, the Supreme Court ruling directing the withholding of federal allocations to Rivers State, a constitutional entitlement without preconditions , has plunged the people of Rivers state into financial uncertainty. How could the Supreme Court expose the people of Rivers State to unprecedented suffering based on a disagreement between two politicians? The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the federal government lacks the authority to withhold statutory allocations due to constitutional infractions, as seen in the case of Lagos State vs. the Federal Government. This action contradicts the court’s precedent, particularly in the landmark Lagos State vs. Federal Government case, where the court ruled that federal allocations cannot be withheld due to constitutional infractions.
The impact of this decision is profound. Thousands of civil servants face delayed salaries and economic hardship. Infrastructure projects and public services have ground to a halt. The ruling has exacerbated economic instability in a state critical to Nigeria’s oil revenue, which accounts for nearly 40% of the country’s crude oil production. Instead of resolving the crisis, the Supreme Court ruling has deepened the political turmoil in Rivers State, creating a perception of partisanship within the Judiciary. By failing to uphold impartial justice, the court has inadvertently set a dangerous precedent where judicial rulings can be weaponised for political ends. Future political conflicts may escalate as parties exploit judicial verdict gas.
Fubara and Wike, who is fighting through his proxies, must be full of regrets if they have a conscience. The thrill of defeat and the agony of victory cannot help them. For Wike, the Supreme Court ruling has given him an opportunity to assert his dominance over Rivers State’s political landscape- real or imagined . After the Supreme Court judgement, Wike has invested time, media appearance and money to escalate the crisis and prove that he is the “political god of Rivers State “. If Wike has any regrets,they are likely overshadowed by his sense of imperial entitlement .
Fubara, on the other hand, has struggled to maintain stability while attempting to comply with the apex court ruling. He has repeatedly attempted to present the budget to the Rivers State House of Assembly, highlighting his commitment to complying with legal processes. The intentional act of the Assembly making itself unavailable for the Governor to present the budget is not about Rivers State’s interest but about their ego and one man’s interest. They have prioritised their personal and political gains over the well-being of Rivers people. Added to that is the assembly’s latest attempt to ambush the Chief Judge of the state and hound him out of office.

While politicians manoeuvre for power, the real victims of this crisis are the ordinary people of Rivers State. Rivers people will be exposed to unprecedented social dislocation, crimes and hardship. The judgment has led to economic hardship due to delayed salaries and disrupted services. Increased crime rates have been fuelled by political instability and financial strain. There has been an erosion of trust in the Judiciary and democratic institutions.
Furthermore, the judgment risks disrupting Nigeria’s oil revenue. Niger Delta youths and militant groups witnessing the impoverishment of their families while their resources sustain the nation, may resist oil extraction, further threatening national economic stability.

This is one judgement that, in all respect has led to the displacement of the confidence of the people in the Judiciary by the perceived manipulation of judicial processes and proceedings in the far-reaching decisions of the Supreme Court on issues of defection of the 27 former lawmakers that were not pleaded by the parties before it or tried by the Federal High Court. Rivers people and the rest of Nigerians cannot understand how the Judiciary in the 21st century Nigeria would allow a baleful manipulation of the processes to allow a clear violation of Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution by defectors to the point of the Supreme Court rewarding such travesty by punishing the Governor who at all material times has worked to protect and defend the Constitution by his Oath of office.

The Supreme Court should have better handled the critical point of the status of the 27 decamping legislators. A more balanced approach would have sent a different signal . In the past, the Judiciary has taken firmer stances on similar cases, such as in 2007 when lawmakers who defected in Anambra State were asked to vacate their seats by constitutional provisions. Instead, this particular ruling has emboldened political actors seeking to privatise the state ,undermine governance, creating an atmosphere where impeachment and humiliation of the Governor appear viable strategies for political gain. The general perception in Rivers State is that the president has unleashed his minister against the people of Rivers State. None of these scenarios benefit the people of Rivers State.

Thankfully , the Governor had not acted in disobedience to any court order since appeals were filed in all of the rulings on interlocutory applications in the courts below. Generally speaking, parties are bound by the judgment of Courts, which are or constitute a final determination of matters brought by litigants. Thus, it is wrong or unfair to unnecessarily accuse a party of disobedience to Orders subject to appellate jurisdiction on cases pending before the lower Courts.

When we speak of justice, we reach for the foundation of human existence. Justice is the cornerstone of human togetherness. The rule of law should be a stabilising force, ensuring justice and accountability. However, in this case, it has been manipulated to aggravate the crisis rather than assuage it. The Supreme Court’s ruling has failed to uphold its fundamental duty—to serve justice impartially and safeguard democratic stability. Morally dubious decisions haunt us, and some justices of the Supreme Court involved in the Rivers State case must be dealing with their regrets. Restoring confidence in the Supreme Court requires addressing perceptions of bias and ensuring decisions are grounded in constitutional principles rather than political agendas.

The Supreme Court ruling on Rivers State has left a trail of confusion, economic hardship, and political instability. It has raised serious questions about the Judiciary’s integrity and its mediatory role. There must be mechanisms for judicial accountability and reforms to prevent future rulings that exacerbate crises rather than resolve them to restore public confidence in the legal system. Justice in a democracy should serve the people, not feudal lords or political interests. It should provide stability, not chaos. The Supreme Court must rise above political influences and uphold the principles of fairness, integrity, and constitutionalism. Only then can democracy truly thrive in Rivers State and across Nigeria.

The Rivers state house of assembly has issued a notice of “gross misconduct” on Siminalayi Fubara, govenor of the state, and Ngozi Odu, his deputy.

Martins Wachukwu, special assistant on media to Martin Amaewhule, speaker of the Rivers assembly, relayed the development to TheCable on Monday.

The “gross misconduct” allegation is the first stage of impeachment proceedings.

BACKGROUND

Rivers state has been bogged in a political crisis stemming from the power struggle between Fubara and Nyesom Wike, his predecessor and minister of the federal capital territory (FCT).

The rift led to the ploarisation of the Rivers assembly.

The crisis took a new twist on February 28, when the supreme court upheld a federal high court ruling barring the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the accountant-general of the federation from releasing Rivers state’s statutory monthly allocations.

The court also nullified the local government elections conducted in the state on October 5, 2024.

In response, Fubara pledged to comply with the apex court’s ruling in an attempt to address the state’s political impasse.

He invited the lawmakers to a meeting but the legislators shunned the proposed parley, accusing Fubara of not following due process.

Days later, the governor wrote again to the assembly, requesting a new date to present the 2025 appropriation bill.

About 24 hours after the governor issued the letter, the assembly adjourned plenary indefinitely.

At the peak of the crisis in 2023, an attempt to impeach the governor resulted in the demolition of the Rivers house of assembly.

On Saturday, the faction of the assembly loyal to Wike accused the governor of playing to the gallery.

[TheCable]