Trailing 4-0 going into Tuesday’s Champions League quarter-final return home leg against Barcelona, Borussia Dortmund coach Niko Kovac said his side can draw inspiration from Liverpool’s 2018-19 comeback against the same opponents.

In that season, eventual winners Liverpool scored four at Anfield in the return leg to reach the Champions League final, after a 3-0 loss in Catalonia.

Kovac said Barcelona were a better team now than six years ago, but told reporters “miracles happen all the time”.

“We can remember the (Liverpool) game — I can remember it. But that was then and now we’re in 2024-25. We know the situation — we didn’t play well in the first leg,” Kovac said.

“We want to show a different face tomorrow and we want to win. By how much, nobody can say now.

“Miracles happen all the time, but Barcelona have not lost a game in 2025, which makes the challenge much more difficult. It won’t be easy.”

Barcelona’s last loss came on Christmas Eve. Since then, Hansi Flick’s side have won 20 and drawn four matches in all competitions.

Dortmund midfielder Felix Nmecha said his team-mates “believed” in the comeback.

“With our fans behind us, anything is possible. We have to believe in it and we do believe in it,” the 24-year-old German international explained.

Dortmund captain Emre Can did not train on Monday due to “muscular problems” and Kovac said: “We don’t know if he’ll be able to play — it’s quite possible that he will not.”

Kovac, Dortmund’s third coach this season after taking over in January, praised Barcelona’s glittering forward line including Lamine Yamal and Raphinha, but singled out striker Robert Lewandowski.

Lewandowski won two Bundesliga titles and played in the 2013 Champions League final with Dortmund, before spending eight years at Bayern, where he was coached by Kovac.

He won the Champions League in 2020 under Kovac’s successor Flick, now the Barcelona coach.

“He’s a great professional,” the Croatian said. “I’ve seen many good ones. But this guy? He lives, eats, drinks like a pro and does everything possible to stay fit.”

Kovac, known for his focus on training and discipline, said anyone who hugs Lewandowski remarks “wow, what an Adonis”.

Although the rest of Africa seems to have forgotten about the crisis and wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), some scholars, intellectuals and thinkers from the continent are continually engrossed in finding the pathways to resolving the perennial problems in the continent’s largest country. Last weekend, they came together to examine the underlying causes of the conflicts and proffer solutions. It was at a webinar organised by The Pan-African Dialogue Institute (TPADI) on the theme ‘’Invasion of DR Congo: Global interests and implications for pan-Africanism’’ TPADI is an international think tank of African academics, professionals, students, civil society and grassroots leaders in different fields of life within Africa and the Diaspora, coming together for the study, practice, and propagation of Pan-Africanism.

The keynote speaker at the webinar, Prof G. Macharia Munene, is a professor of history and international relations at the United States International University Africa (USIU-A). He has taught in several universities in Europe, America and Africa, and published many articles and books. His academic excellence and advocacy have earned him an award as a UN-recognised expert on decolonisation. Prof. Munene gave a historical account of the Congo crisis, tracing it to the Berlin Conference of 1884, and argued that the country is “the source of both Pan-African agony and Pan-African consciousness”, because of being subjected to military, mercenary, commercial, mineral resource looting, and spiritual invasions.

Congo is geographically a big country and there actually seem to be two countries in one, Eastern and Western Congo. Those in Eastern Congo appear to be closer to East African countries than to Western Congo. To them, the zone around Kinshasa in Western Congo is like a foreign country and Eastern Congo is similarly a foreign country to those in Kinshasa. Congo is rich in strategic minerals and other forms of wealth like rubber and timber. He noted that DRC is similarly a source of African contradictions of extreme wealth in the midst of extreme poverty – a place of attraction for colonisers to extract wealth accompanied by the pain of poverty for African victims of colonialism. It attracts extra-continental adventurers and wealth looters.

Participants at the Berlin Conference, Munene reasoned, achieved two things. First, they partitioned the Congo zone so that the French, the British, the Portuguese, and the Germans each got a piece of the Congo zone. The biggest beneficiary of the partitioning was King Leopold of Belgium who acquired the entire DR Congo as his personal property, to be called ‘Leopold’s Congo’. The second achievement was to agree on how to claim other African territories without fighting. But Congo was set on a path of destruction.

The post-independence killing of Lumumba plunged Congo into Cold War chaos and acted as a warning to other African leaders of what could happen. Leaders of the soon-to-be-independent Kenya took note of those happenings and assured the West that all would be well because thugs would not run the government. Nairobi tried to reconcile the Congolese factions in the 1960s but external forces made sure that the reconciliation would not go far. Mobutu was the main man to be protected by the Western powers in the 1970s even as he looted his country dry. He became so rich and ran his country bankrupt, so much so that he could lend money to his country. He tried derailing the events in Angola, sponsoring Holden Roberto. In his private visits to the US, he still received honoured treatment from US President Jimmy Carter.

Mobutu’s ouster was due to both internal weaknesses as well as external pressure. Internally, he had alienated the Congolese so much that he did not have an army to rely on. He instead relied on mercenaries and mercenaries rarely fight when they should. They simply take the money and move elsewhere. Mobutu’s mercenaries abandoned him to his fate. The external factors involved a coalition of Congolese in exile under Laurent Desire Kabila, a purported follower of Lumumba and who was supported by neighbouring countries such as Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Angola, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Zambia. Paul Kagame, initially operating from Uganda, came from the 1994 genocide in Rwanda as a saviour. About two million genocide suspects, who escaped to Eastern Congo, endorsed Kabila. And so did Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and other countries which joined the Kabila bandwagon which swept Mobutu out of office into exile in 1997.

With Kabila finally in Kinshasa as president, he changed the country’s name from Mobutu’s Zaire to Democratic Republic of Congo, DR Congo. He also chased his Ugandan and Rwandan supporters from Kinshasa. His bodyguards assassinated him in January 2001. He was succeeded by his son, Joseph Kabila. In addition, the anti-Mobutu allies started quarrelling as each country leader looked after his country’s national interests.

Some of those interests turned out to be exporting gold and other minerals from Eastern Congo. Some like Rwanda and Uganda, exchanged fire in Eastern Congo or, like Uganda and Zimbabwe, exchanging insults as to who was a lackey of the United States. Kabila transferred power to Felix Tshesekedi in 2019 after an election. Several countries have different excuses for having troops in Eastern Congo ranging from security to supporting Felix Tshesikedi’s government against such rebels as M23.

Congo also attracts extra-continental players who propel conflicts in return for access to different types of minerals. They supply the guns to keep the violence going and offer ‘humanitarian’ assistance for the victims. Among the extra-continental players in DR Congo are the EU, China, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, France, and Russia. Tshesekedi, probably observing Ukrainian indecision on giving minerals to Trump’s America, offered to give Trump access to Congolese minerals in return for security. The meeting with Masaad Boulos, advisor to Trump on Africa and the Middle East, who is also an in-law to Trump, reportedly yielded positive results. It might imply a return to the Mobutu days.

Prof Munene concluded that the violence in DR Congo is likely to continue partly because it is not in the perceived interests of the forces that control Congo’s resources such as the mining of the minerals. Those forces subject Congo to various types of invasions ranging from military invasion to commercial as well as beliefs that are designed to dehumanise and enslave people into submission. This is not a new challenge but a long-lasting one that has ravaged Congo for more than 140 years.

Another speaker, Prof. Mutombo Nkulu-N’Sengha, a citizen of DRC and a professor of Religion at California State University, Northridge, USA, is the Vice President of TPADI. In his presentation titled, Geopolitical and Pan-African Approach to the DR Congo Tragedy, he noted that foreign powers have vested interests in the Congo due to its vast mineral deposits. Western powers consider Congo, and indeed Africa, as their properties that can be used however they want, and keeping Africa in perpetual conflicts is part of their strategies for continued exploration and exploitation. Prof Mutombo said although many scholars are suggesting that DRC may be divided into two countries – Western Congo and Eastern Congo – just as the North and South Koreas, he is against demarcation of his native country. For him, the division does not necessarily bring a solution and gave the example of Sudan. Eastern Congo has been in the eye of the storm, he argued, because the largest deposits of minerals are found there. He concluded by calling on all Africans, particularly the Congolese, to rise up, and come together to engage the common enemy, the West.

The third speaker, Dr Peter Wafula Wekesa, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of History, Archeology and Political Studies at Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya, is a specialist in border community relations, border resources, identity politics, international relations as his main research focus. He is an accomplished academic with many publications to his credit. On DRC, Dr Wekesa believes that border and ethnicity issues may not be unconnected to the instability witnessed in the Congo region. Western Powers, he argues, capitalise on ethnic divisions amongst the Congolese to perpetrate their evil agenda, which is to keep the people under subjugation while they exploit their minerals. He therefore called on Congolese and indeed Africans to talk less about the things that divide them and dialogue more on those things that unite them.

Dr. Francis Khayundi looked at the DRC problems through a legal framework. An Assistant Professor of International Law at the United States International University, Africa, he is also an advocate of the High Court of Kenya. At USIU-Africa, he teaches and researches International Law, International Organisations, Refugee Protection, Human Rights, Governance, Data Protection, and International Relations. According to him, the Berlin Conference and its outcome were related to international law as the Western Powers needed to legitimise their actions in Africa through that conference.

The director of the TPADI Commission on African Politics, Governance and International Relations, Dr. Kakai considered the leadership question and its roles in the DRC crisis. He is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of History, Archaeology and Political Studies at Kenyatta University, Nairobi. Dr Kakai questions the quality of leadership in DRC and wonders if the invasion was as a result of the abundant mineral resources in the country or a result of the collusion between the government and foreign forces. He however insisted that no matter the level of conflict, the country should not be divided; but remain united and find a lasting solution to their problems.

The International President of The Pan African Dialogue Institute (TPADI), and organisers of the webinar, Dr Effiong Udo, thanked the panellists for giving the best of their scholarship in enlightening participants on the invasion of the Congo. He noted that what happens in the Congo was of paramount interest to the institute and should be of concern to everyone in Africa. ‘’As Pan-Africanists, we believe that an Injustice to one African is a tragedy to all Africans”, he said.

He regretted that the natural resources in Congo have become a curse that has sent millions of Congolese children, women and men to their early graves with no end in sight, stating that every blood spilt in Congo by the M23 militants is either feeding the greed of its leaders or enriching the Western contractors. He encouraged all to embrace dialogue, a peaceful and non-violent approach to this conflict against picking arms. According to him, violence has never solved a conflict. He called on the African Union to assist the leaders and citizens of Congo to resolve this prolonged conflict through dialogue and deep thinking or our people will continue to die like fools.

The Rivers government has asked the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to refund the N300 million allegedly paid for the hosting rights of the legal body’s 2025 annual conference.

The state government, under the leadership of the sole administrator, said if the NBA is truly anchored on principles, it should demonstrate it by returning the sum.

BACKGROUND

Last Friday, the NBA moved its 2025 Annual General Conference (AGC) from Port Harcourt in Rivers to Enugu.

The association premised its decision on “constitutional violations” in Rivers following the emergency rule in the oil-rich state.

“Currently, Rivers State is being governed by a retired military officer, appointed as a Sole Administrator, who operates with a command-style approach that disregards constitutional provisions, court decisions, and pending litigation,” the NBA had said.

The decision came weeks after President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers, citing a protracted political crisis.

The president suspended Siminalayi Fubara, governor of the state; Ngozi Odu, his deputy; and all house of assembly members for six months.

Tinubu also appointed Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired vice-admiral, as the sole administrator for Rivers.

‘NBA SHOULD DEMONSTRATE INTEGRITY’

In a statement on Monday, the government said the NBA’s position “overlooks the constitutional basis for the current administration in Rivers state”.

The statement signed by Hector Igbikiowubo, senior special assistant on media to the Rivers state government, said the declaration of the emergency rule in the state was a “necessary response to a breakdown of public order and democratic processes”.

“Contrary to the NBA’s assertions, the sole administrator has consistently reaffirmed his commitment to restoring democratic institutions as soon as practicable,” the statement reads.

“Upholding the constitutional rights of all residents, including freedom of movement, speech, and association. Respecting judicial pronouncements, including those of the Supreme Court, which have guided the administration’s actions.

“The NBA, as a body of legal minds, should know better than to reduce a complex constitutional matter to political sensationalism.

“While we respect the NBA’s right to choose its conference venues, we find it curious that the association — despite its ‘principled position’— didn’t address the refund of the N300 million already paid by the Rivers State Government for the hosting rights of the 2025 conference.

“If the NBA truly stands on principle, it should demonstrate the same integrity by promptly returning these funds rather than benefiting from a state it now publicly discredits.”

In August 2024, Afam Osigwe, NBA president, announced that the 2025 AGC would hold in Rivers state.

[TheCable]

Media personality Toke Makinwa has revealed she’s been inundated with marriage proposals after publicly expressing her willingness to remarry—regardless of whether it’s as a second, third, or even fifth wife.

The buzz began after an episode of her podcast Toke Moments where Makinwa spoke candidly about how her perspective on marriage has shifted over the years. In the viral clip, she said, “In all honesty, at this point in my life, if I have the opportunity to be the second, third, fourth, or fifth wife, I will take it.”

She further explained that being a high-achieving woman can feel exhausting at times, saying, “I am the boss everywhere and that could be tiring. You feel like you need someone to lean on—someone that could decide what’s for dinner. Must it be me?”

Following the episode’s release, Makinwa took to social media to share a screenshot of her inbox, showing multiple messages from men expressing their desire to marry her.

One email stood out with the subject line: “GOAL: Can we get married?” The sender introduced himself as a senior data analyst based in Ibadan.

Her openness has sparked widespread reactions online, ranging from amusement to admiration. While some were surprised by the speed of the proposals, others applauded her honesty about the complexities of independence and relationships in today’s world.

[Opinion Nigeria]

In the bustling heart of Nollywood, where stories mirror the pulse of the nation, filmmaker Omoni Oboli’s Love in Every Word emerges not merely as a romantic drama but as a profound allegory for Nigeria’s enduring love affair with itself.

The film, which follows Chioma—a Lagos career woman torn between her past and an unexpected romance—unfolds like a parable for the Nigerian condition: a nation grappling with inherited flaws, societal storms, and a love so fierce it borders on obsession. This is not just a tale of two lovers; it is a reflection of Nigeria’s journey to reconcile its contradictions, heal its wounds, and embrace a future where “all will be well,” no matter the tempests.

Chioma’s story begins with resistance. A modern Nigerian woman shaped by ambition and trauma, she cuts ties with a lover who fails her expectations and recoils from a father whose flaws once shattered her family. Her resolve to avoid men who mirror her father’s shortcomings mirrors the disillusionment many Nigerians feel toward their nation. Like Chioma, citizens often wrestle with a love-hate relationship with Nigeria—a country whose potential feels perpetually undermined by systemic failures, corruption, and the ghosts of past betrayals.

The film’s opening scenes—where Chioma demands back the gifts she gave her ex—echo the frustration of a populace weary of investing hope in leaders and systems that yield little return. Her toxic workplace, ruled by a tyrannical boss, mirrors the daily grind of Nigerians navigating a society where merit is stifled, opportunities are hoarded, and survival often depends on gritting one’s teeth through indignities. Yet, like Chioma, Nigerians persist. They show up, they work, they dream—even when the dream feels like a mirage.

Enter Obiora, the Igbo entrepreneur whose confidence and persistence disrupt Chioma’s guarded world. Played with magnetic charm by Uzor Arukwe, Obiora is no flawless knight; he carries the cultural baggage Chioma despises—accent, traditions, and a boldness that unnerves her. Yet, he embodies something greater: an unshakable belief in his worth and his right to love her. Here lies the metaphor for Nigeria’s untapped promise.

Obiora’s grand gesture—buying an entire office building to win Chioma’s attention—is audacious, almost reckless. But isn’t this the essence of Nigeria? A nation that, against all odds, continues to bet on itself? From the bustling markets of Onitsha to the tech hubs of Yaba, Nigerians daily perform miracles of resilience. They build empires from nothing, create art in chaos, and innovate where infrastructure falters. Like Obiora, Nigeria may not fit the mold of what the world—or even its people—expects, but it refuses to shrink. It demands to be seen, not for its scars, but for its spirit.

Chioma’s workplace serves as a microcosm of Nigeria’s systemic struggles. Her boss, a symbol of oppressive authority, hoards power and undermines her efforts—a reality familiar to many in a nation where leaders often prioritize self-interest over service. Yet, Chioma’s journey teaches a vital lesson: storms refine us. Her resignation from the job, prompted by a crisis of conscience, mirrors moments in Nigerian history when citizens rise—#EndSARS, voter mobilization, civic activism—to reclaim agency.

The film’s tension lies in Chioma’s internal battle: Will she let past pain dictate her future, or will she rewrite her story? Similarly, Nigeria stands at a crossroads. Generations inherited the traumas of colonialism, civil war, and military rule, but the choice remains: Do we chain ourselves to history, or do we, like Chioma, step into the unknown for a chance at redemption?

In Chioma’s friends, Ify and Ivie, we find the Achalugo—the voices of reason and community that anchor her. They represent Nigeria’s vibrant civil society, its artists, its grassroots movements, and its diaspora, all urging the nation toward self-love. “You’re pushing away a good man because of an accent?” Ify chides, echoing the irony of Nigerians who shun local solutions while romanticizing foreign saviors.

Obiora, the Odogwu Paranran (great warrior), embodies the fearless love required to transform Nigeria. His persistence is the relentless hope of farmers tilling arid land, teachers in crumbling classrooms, and nurses battling epidemics with scant resources. He does not beg for acceptance; he earns it through action. This is the lesson for Nigeria: To win the world’s respect, we must first believe in our worth.

The film’s crescendo is Chioma’s leap of faith—choosing Obiora despite her fears. It is a quiet revolution, akin to Nigeria’s moments of collective courage: the 2015 peaceful transfer of power, the creativity of Burna Boy and Chimamanda claiming global stages, and the resilience of IDPs rebuilding lives. Chioma’s choice whispers, “Love is not the absence of storms, but the courage to dance in the rain.”

Nigeria, too, must choose. Will we cling to cynicism, or embrace the audacity of hope? The “love” here is not naive—it is revolutionary. It is the love of Fela’s music raging against oppression, the love of Wole Soyinka’s pen defying tyranny, the love of market women pooling resources to send a child to school. It is a love that stares down dysfunction and says, “You cannot have my soul.”

Love in Every Word closes not with a fairy-tale ending, but with the promise of growth. Chioma and Obiora’s journey is just beginning—as is Nigeria’s. Our nation, like the film’s protagonists, is a work in progress. But progress demands faith.

To love Nigeria irrevocably is to be a realist and a dreamer. It is to acknowledge the oil spills in the Niger Delta and the ingenuity of startups turning waste into wealth. It is to decry banditry in the North while celebrating the peacemakers bridging divides. It is to groan under the weight of poor governance yet campaign tirelessly for accountability.

This love is not blind; it is visionary—seeing beyond the present chaos to the potential gleaming beneath.

Achalugo, the voices crying out for justice, and Odogwu Paranran, the warriors building a better Nigeria, are not mythical figures. They are the students coding through power cuts, the mothers rallying communities against insecurity, and the artists redefining our global narrative. They are you and I.

Nigeria, like Chioma, is learning to love itself—flaws, accents, and all. Our storms—insecurity, inflation, corruption—are fierce, but so is our resolve. The world whispers, “Break,” but Nigeria bends and rises, again and again, because our love is not a fleeting infatuation. It is an obsession, a covenant, a prayer etched into the soil of our ancestors.

In the words of Chinua Achebe, “Nigeria is what it is because its leaders are not what they should be.” Yet, the inverse is also true: Nigeria will be what it should be when its people—guided by the spirit of Achalugo and Odogwu Paranran—refuse to let go of love. We are Chioma, wrestling with our past. We are Obiora, daring to demand more. And in our collective story, the final act is not written by the storms we face, but by the love that outlasts them, and for me this is a testament to the unyielding faith in the fatherland.

All will be well. E go better. Because to love Nigeria is to believe in miracles–May Nigeria Win!

The Federal Government of Nigeria has uncovered unethical practices involving certain higher institutions and banks colluding to shortchange students whose loans under the Federal Government Student Loan Fund have already been approved and disbursed.

This revelation follows an investigation conducted by the National Orientation Agency (NOA), raising serious concerns about the administration of the loan scheme.

In a post on its X handle, Director General of the NOA, Mallam Lanre Issa-Onilu, reported findings from its Community Orientation and Mobilization Officers (COMO), which suggest that schools and banks have engaged in actions that deprive students of their rightful loan benefits.

However, the specific institutions and banks involved were not disclosed.

Investigation unveils unethical practices 

“Recent investigations into the disbursement of the Federal Government Student Loan Fund have uncovered several unethical practices by some institutions of higher learning,” the NOA stated.

The Director General of the Agency shared these findings after a meeting with Managing Director of NELFUND, Mr. Akintunde Sawyerr, the body responsible for overseeing the loan scheme.

According to the investigation, certain universities have deliberately withheld critical financial information regarding disbursed student loans for their personal gain.

In some cases, institutions have received the loan amounts directly into their accounts, but failed to inform the affected students, leaving them unaware of payments made in their names.

Additionally, some universities require students to pay tuition fees despite receiving funds from NELFUND on their behalf.

“The NOA’s feedback shows how specific institutions have, in connivance with some banks, deliberately delayed payments to successful student applicants for personal financial benefit,” said Issa-Onilu.

“Such actions are both unethical and a breach of the principles upon which NELFUND was founded. Legal action will be pursued against institutions engaging in such deceptive practices.” 

Government takes firm action 

To address the issue, NOA has directed its state directorates to gather additional feedback from students across the country to facilitate appropriate action against erring schools and banks.

• The federal government has also issued a stern warning to institutions and financial bodies involved in the malpractice to immediately desist.
• The NOA has emphasized the need for transparency in the disbursement process, urging institutions to uphold ethical standards.

Mallam Issa-Onilu expressed hope that stricter oversight and accountability measures would restore trust in the student loan program and ensure that funds reach those they are intended to help.

What you should know 

The student loan scheme, initially enacted in June 2023 under President Bola Tinubu, was designed to provide interest-free loans to assist Nigerian students.

• Initially scheduled for rollout in October 2023, delays in implementation pushed the re-enactment of the program to April 2024, with the pilot phase commencing in May 2024 to cover federal tertiary institutions.
• The government’s intervention highlights its commitment to safeguarding the rights of students and ensuring the effective implementation of policies aimed at expanding access to education for all Nigerians.

[Nairametrics]

Rivers State is currently facing a pressing and time-sensitive threat. The oil-rich state has come under intense political scrutiny following President Bola Tinubu’s state of emergency proclamation on March 18, 2025. Despite official assurances that this step was necessary to tackle a supposed breakdown of law and order, many observers argue that the constitutional criteria for such a declaration were never met. No credible reports indicated imminent danger to lives or property, and even preliminary police statistics showed no unusual surge in violence across the state. Nevertheless, the federal government acted swiftly: in a single directive, it removed the authority of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and dissolved the legislative apparatus, handing over day-to-day governance to Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired military officer appointed as ‘Administrator’. This has sparked concerns about potential ‘long-term democratic erosion.’

This arrangement immediately raised red flags for those who initially opposed the measure. Critics argue that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution—cited by the Presidency as justification—does not grant the power to remove or suspend an elected Governor and legislature. Equally concerning is that instead of simply approving or rejecting the state-of-emergency proclamation, the National Assembly reportedly modified its contents, thereby exceeding the boundaries that the Constitution sets for such an intervention. Opponents hold that neither the President nor federal legislators have the authority to replace elected officials at the state level. The jury is out on the legality or illegality of the state of emergency. Hon. Linus Okorie, a former legislator, described it this way: “The entire emergency process is riddled with constitutional breaches, political motivations, and authoritarian overreach”.

However, since taking office, Admiral Ibas has waded deep into areas typically reserved for elected officials. Among his first actions was to replace civil servants overseeing local government administration and appoint politically aligned persons to key positions across local government areas. As a result, the constitutionally mandated practice of running councils via democratically elected officials has been set aside.

While the original proclamation from President Tinubu allegedly stressed that the Administrator should formulate only “regulations” limited to security concerns, what has taken place on the ground looks far more like lawmaking. Admiral Ibas began preparing the state’s 2025 budget without legislative oversight, triggered the dismissal of Governor Fubara’s political appointees, especially those who were nominated and cleared by the then “United” House of Assembly — and most conspicuously the changing of the leadership of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission and the Local Government Service Commission. According to local reports, many new appointees are known loyalists of Minister Nyesom Wike, fuelling suspicion that the entire emergency rule is a ploy to reshape Rivers politics in Wike’s favour.

There is a trend of alleged unconstitutional acts. Critics list the illegal nature of the emergency declaration itself, the contravention of Supreme Court orders regarding the disbursement of state funds, and the public misrepresentation of reconstruction efforts at the House of Assembly complex—among many others. The removal of statutory political appointees is high on that list, especially since no effort was made to show how such dismissals advance public safety or quell any threat. Community leaders, particularly the Rivers Rescue Organisers, point out that neither the restive areas of the riverine communities nor the capital city, Port Harcourt, have witnessed any large-scale disruptions.

Under these circumstances, questions continue to swirl around President Tinubu’s motives. Why plan to replace municipal civil servants with new politically aligned local government heads if the priority is truly stabilising the state? Why reconstitute the state electoral commission under emergency rule, especially if elections are not immediately at stake? How can an appointed Administrator validly prepare a budget, an act of lawmaking, without any form of legislative debate or approval? And does the National Assembly’s role in modifying the state-of-emergency order amount to an overreach that effectively sanctioned the removal of an elected governor and state assembly? Detractors note that emergency powers are supposed to be short-term, narrowly tailored, and strictly limited to restoring order. However, what they see in Rivers is a sweeping overhaul of political power that extends to every layer of governance. The reality is that Admiral Ibas is acting more like a governor-legislator hybrid than a temporary peacekeeping official. Hon. CID Maduabum, a lawyer and former federal legislator, warns, ” The administrator’s unconstitutional actions could exacerbate tensions in the state and plunge the state into total chaos”.

These moves have led many commentators to label what is happening in Rivers as a ‘coup in civilian clothing,’ an accusation arising from the wholesale transfer of authority from constitutionally elected officials to a single federal government appointee. The shift to Wike-aligned figures in strategic positions has heightened suspicions that the state of emergency is an avenue for orchestrating a prearranged political outcome. Much of the controversy also hinges on allegations of political engineering. Local journalists report that of the 15 newly appointed officials to key institutional boards—such as the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission and the Local Government Service Commission—11 are loyal to Minister Nyesom Wike, a former Governor who is a central figure in the crisis.

Some have dismissed these claims as ‘partisan conspiracy theories,’ insisting that ‘all appointments are based on proven track records, not political patronage.’ Still, the public’s scepticism runs high, with online forums and call-in radio shows flooded by residents who question why the emergency rule appears far more focused on dismantling existing political structures than addressing any tangible threats to public safety. Community organisers note that hardly any newly appointed officials have prior experience in crisis management or security coordination, raising further doubts about the purported rationale behind their placement. Some worry that Rivers is a test case for 2027, with potential ramifications for other states that may not align with presidential or ministerial interests. In Rivers State, some described this situation as a ” democratic time bomb” where political actors hide under emergency rule to subvert democracy and core norms of constitutionalism. This trend could set a dangerous precedent for the 2027 elections, potentially influencing the political landscape of Nigeria. 

The broader implications of the Rivers situation are hard to ignore. With state-level institutions effectively suspended, Governor Fubara sidelined, and the plan for local government councils to be replaced by appointed administrators, many believe constitutional order in the state has been covertly, if not overtly, suspended. Civic organisations warn that disenfranchised populations may react with widespread protests, especially if the promised swift return to normal governance does not materialise. The potential for widespread protests is a cause for concern, as should this standoff persist, it could create a dangerous template for federal interference in states nationwide.

For the people of Rivers State, the immediate concern is the return to constitutional order and preserving their franchise in a system that seems precariously close to unravelling. On the streets of Port Harcourt, protestors have been seen carrying placards reading “Democracy, Not Decrees” and “Our Votes Still Matter,” while religious leaders convened a meeting in different parts of the state to pray for what they described as “the restoration of the people’s will.” Some youth groups have launched social media campaigns using hashtags like #RestoreRiversDemocracy and #LetFubaraGovern, urging the international community to pay attention to “an unfolding civilian coup.” With calls for the Supreme Court to reassert its authority and for civil society groups to mobilise nonviolent demonstrations, tension remains high. If the political impasse continues, Rivers could see a spike in civil disobedience or sporadic unrest, especially given that many young adults in the South-South region believe that political justice, or the lack thereof, is a key driver of local violence.

At the heart of this entire debate lies whether Nigeria’s constitutional framework still holds firm under the weight of executive discretion. Emergency powers, after all, are meant to be invoked only when a true crisis emerges—and even then, only in ways that address the immediate security concerns while respecting democratic principles. The repeated references to Sections 305 and 11 have not alleviated suspicions that the fundamental objective is political control. Local watchers note that the last time an emergency was declared in a state—albeit under different circumstances—the Governor remained in office, and the National Assembly did not assume powers to alter the structure of local councils or reconstitute electoral commissions.

Ultimately, Rivers has become a crucible for Nigeria’s democracy, forcing citizens and the judiciary to consider whether checks and balances can withstand what some describe as an “unconstitutional assault.” Calls for reinstating elected structures have grown louder, particularly as the administrator delves into lawmaking and politics. The Constitution was never meant to be a smokescreen for personal or political ambition. Stripping away entire layers of governance under the pretence of emergency is not what the framers envisioned. Grassroots organisations are gathering signatures, staging peaceful demonstrations, and submitting petitions to the courts to restore what they see as Rivers State’s rightful democratic order. For now, no matter how this chapter ends in the state, constitutional democracy has been fatally damaged, and normalcy and order may be far away.

If there is a silver lining, it is that many Rivers residents—despite feeling sidelined—remain vocal in asserting their rights. Though limited in scope, public opinion polls suggest that a significant percentage of the populace demands a return to constitutional rule. The task of democratic forces in the state now is to use the six-month period to expose the fraud of the emergency administration and undermine its original intentions.

While the political actions of the citizenry and how the courts will ultimately rule remain to be seen, the state of emergency in Rivers has transcended its initial justification and transformed into a high-stakes test of Nigeria’s federal and democratic systems. The outcome may decide whether democratic norms can remain intact when confronted by executive power cloaked under security.

Many workers are struggling to meet basic needs, with many unable to afford to feed their families.

As revealed by data analyzed by The Guardian, states have set an average minimum wage of ₦73,471.43, which is ₦3,471.43 higher than the federal government’s minimum wage of ₦70,000—representing a 5% increase. States like Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta, Enugu, Lagos, Niger, Oyo, and Rivers are paying higher than both the federal government’s wage peg and the national average.

However, less than a year after the new wage law was introduced, inflation has eroded much of its real value, leading to fresh agitation from stakeholders. Labour leaders are already setting their agendas for the 2027 renegotiation, citing that while the government made wage adjustments last year, these increases have been largely offset by inflation.

With inflation hovering around 24%, nominal incomes have lost more than one-fourth of their value. The average minimum wage across states, which is ₦55,000 in real terms, is far below the intended value when the wage was set.

Stakeholders point out that while the minimum wage has been implemented, the government at various levels has failed to make the necessary adjustments to keep up with inflation. Consequential adjustments to wages have yet to be agreed upon with all state governments, further exacerbating the financial strain on workers.

The rising costs of living, including telecommunications, transportation, food, electricity bills, school fees, house rents, and fuel, are pushing many workers to the brink. For instance, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), the average daily cost of a healthy diet for an adult in Nigeria is ₦1,255. A worker earning ₦70,000 a month would spend ₦37,650 on meals for the month, accounting for over 53% of their salary.

While many state governments are negotiating with their respective labour councils on the implementation of the minimum wage, Enugu state is yet to begin formal negotiations but has started a provisional payment of ₦80,000 minimum wage to its workers. The state’s negotiations are expected to proceed soon.

The update on the implementation of the national minimum wage also shows differing dates for the wage’s application across states. As of July 29, 2024, when President Bola Tinubu signed the 2024 national minimum wage bill into law, inflation stood at 33.4%. Although inflation slowed to 23.18% by February 2025, prices of basic food items and household goods remain high.

In states like Abia, Adamawa, Anambra, and Bauchi, the agreed ₦70,000 minimum wage has already been implemented. Akwa Ibom and Bayelsa, which negotiated ₦80,000, commenced payments in November 2024. Despite this, the National Minimum Wage Act does not apply to part-time workers, workers on commission, seasonal workers, and those in establishments with fewer than 25 employees.

While some labour leaders have praised the reduction of the negotiation cycle from five years to three, they have also expressed concerns about the current wage’s inadequacy due to inflation. Peters Adeyemi, General Secretary of the Non-Academic Staff Union (NASU), said that the previous five-year cycle was too long given the volatile economy.

He hopes that the reduced cycle will allow for wage adjustments that better reflect the current economic realities.

He argued: “I have always argued that the five-year period was too long in a volatile economy. Prices of goods and services go up almost daily, which renders the take-home pay of workers inadequate. Devaluation, price of PMS and inflation are the real enemies of the working class in Nigeria because these are what consume a large chunk of their salaries. With a year renegotiation period, hopefully, the figure that will be arrived at will be pocket-friendly.”

The President of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Joe Ajaero, also expressed dissatisfaction with the wage, stating that the increasing costs of living, particularly the deregulation of the downstream oil sector, have made the ₦70,000 minimum wage insufficient.

He accused the government of going back on its promise not to increase the pump price of petrol, which had been a key condition for agreeing to the ₦70,000.

However, he believes that agreeing to a three-year negotiation cycle, which will be due in 2027, presents the movement as unique to further push for a wage that will be closer to the reigning economic reality.

Emmanuel Onwubiko, National Coordinator of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), argued that no governor deserves commendation for implementing the minimum wage, claiming that ₦70,000 is far too low, especially with the devaluation of the naira. He emphasized that the real value of the wage has been eroded by inflation and the high cost of living.

He argued that a wage that is below $50 for 30 days is one of the lowest in the world.

Speaking to Guardian, he said: “The minimum wage is too low at ₦70,000. In these states, no one knows the number of workers they have. How can we then arrive at how much they are paying from what they get? We simply take whatever they tell us. The argument that the compliance level is high is not tenable to me.”

Onwubiko added that for a currency that has lost more than 100 per cent of its value in the last year, ₦70,000 is not enough to sustain a family of three for one month, saying: “The cost of living has skyrocketed by at least five folds in the last one year. What the former minimum wage of ₦30,000 could buy, ₦70,000 of today cannot buy it.”

He urged the tripartite bodies to gear up for another round of negotiations before the 2027 date.

Tolulope Alayande, an investment banker, acknowledged that while ₦70,000 is inadequate, it is a step in the right direction considering Nigeria’s economic constraints. He pointed out that the removal of the petrol subsidy was necessary, despite the economic burden it has placed on Nigerians.

As the country faces persistent inflation and high costs of living, labour unions and government officials are expected to continue discussions on how to adjust wages and improve the living conditions of Nigerian workers.

[NaijaNews]