Nigerian comedian and actor, Woli Arole, has sparked debate on social media after strongly criticising women who opt for surrogacy despite being physically capable of carrying a pregnancy.

In a post shared on his Instagram page on Monday, Arole described such choices as misguided and influenced by “wokeness” and modern ideologies that, according to him, undermine divine purpose.

He wrote,”Listen carefully. It is a blessing for a woman to carry her baby in her womb.

“That’s how God wants it. Don’t let wokeness derail you.

“Unless for medical reasons, she can adopt options like surrogacy, IVF and all.”

While acknowledging the need for assisted reproduction in cases of infertility or health challenges, Arole condemned surrogacy as a matter of personal preference.

He dismissed the notion that women should be free to choose surrogacy simply based on autonomy or convenience.

“You can’t say, ‘my body, my decision. I don’t feel like carrying a child. I want surrogacy.’

No!! Your body is God’s temple!!” A role said.

The comedian further argued that the womb is a sacred gift meant to fulfill a divine role, not something to be bypassed for lifestyle reasons.

“Don’t let wokeness derail you. Your body is God’s temple.

“Surrogacy is not something you just choose!! There’s a reason God gave you a womb,” Arole added.

His comments have since stirred reactions online, drawing both support and criticism over his stance on women’s reproductive choices and the broader conversation around bodily autonomy and evolving family structures.

[Punch

“If you forget where you are coming from, do not forget where you are going”— African proverb

It is 32 years since June 12, 1993. 

Millions of young Nigerians know the date as Democracy Day, a day politicians make speeches and  Nigerians ask for more from their democracy. Until 2018, Democracy Day was May 29th, the day our elected presidents and governors are sworn-in every four years after intensely contested elections.

 In 2018, President Buhari moved it up to June 12, quite possibly to gain political capital from series of events that represented the best and the worst of Nigerians. On this day, millions of workers stay at home, many at the expense of earning the daily income to feed the family. Newspapers write strong editorials reminding Nigerians why June 12, now Democracy Day, is significant. 

Historians and actors directly involved in the events that created June 12 have argued so violently over the substance and the details of June 12 that it has come to represent the character  of our written history as a nation: all-comers versions of real events that deprive us of solid nation-building blocks.

This year’s Democracy Day lived up to tradition. It was about speeches by politicians and widespread grumbling over the quality of our democracy by the citizenry. A threatened national protest to demand good governance flopped, sending signals that even hardened activists are losing steam. Governments heaved sighs of relief at empty streets and sleeping security personnel, as Nigerians voted with their feet in favour of the day’s meal, not ideals and values. There were  mentions of June 12, 1993 when the nation came closest to having the best election in its history, under the most undemocratic context. It was aborted at delivery by a military unable to read signs.

That reckless impunity by the military set into motion a chain of events that showed a smattering of remarkable personal courage, unmentionable levels of opportunism and betrayals for which the nation is still paying a price. The national outrage over the first step to restitution for democratic governance was, sadly, gradually ethnicized and transformed into a gross injustice against Yoruba people. One version of history will record another injustice done to Abiola, even more offensive than the abortion of an election he would have won. This was the hijacking of his mission to provide leadership as a Nigerian, not a Yoruba person. Then, champions of democratization and close allies of Abiola fell over themselves to partake in the spoils of the crime. A few others who had stepped up to resist the outrage were alienated for coming from the wrong part of the country, and they walked away. Key players stretched the aborted election into a struggle for democracy and built themselves as its champions.  The military blundered on, with pronounced complicity of many civilian politicians. The ghosts of 1993 haunted the military for five more years until it ran into a dead end. In between, Abiola, ‘Yar Adua, Abacha and a few others had paid for their parts with their lives. Others grew in stature while in exile. Many moved away, frustrated by suffocating primordialism. The military ran itself out of space and out of ideas. It rushed a terminal programme, with a pronounced element of placating Yoruba people, by this time, identified as the aggrieved people.

Thirty years on, June 12 has become just another of many days Nigerians are asked to take a holiday. A raging debate is going on around our severely damaged country with leaders being held as prime suspects. The relationship between elected leaders since 1999 and the struggles to build a sustainable democratic culture and system is uncanny. Obasanjo was the unlikely beneficiary of a struggle he had nothing to do with.His presidency was product of an alliance involving an exhausted and exiting military, key players of the Northern political establishment and a faction of Yoruba political elite. He contested against the candidate of another faction of the Yoruba elite which felt entitled to crown its own Yoruba beneficiary of Abiola’s legacy. President Tinubu was with the latter, but had enough standing and resources to win the governorship election in Lagos.

Obasanjo started his presidency with almost the entire South-West’s back turned against him. It says a lot about the power of political power that in the four years of his first term, he had turned almost the entire region round to support him, except Governor Tinubu in Lagos who remained implaccably opposed to him to the end. Obasanjo conjured a successor in Umaru Yar ‘Adua, younger brother of his friend Shehu Musa  Yar’Adua who also had to make the supreme sacrifice in the struggle to oust the military permanently from power. ‘Yar ‘Adua’s deputy finished his term and won his own term. He in turn was defeated by Buhari, himself an earlier beneficiary and casualty of the military’ grip when he ruled as military head of state from 1983 to 1985.

Tinubu’s ‘Emi lokan’ in 2022 was not, therefore, without some foundation. He had been part of the democratization struggle for 30-odd years. He stood with Abiola in trying moments. He propped up NADECO all the way to the departure of the military. He stood firm in defying Obasanjo’s roller coaster, digging deep into a stubborn streak to survive multiple attempts to make him and Lagos fall in line.  He loaned Malam Nuhu Ribadu, then Vice President Atiku Abubakar his political platform to contest the Presidency. He successfully paired his party with Buhari’s CPC to form the APC and win Buhari’s two terms. He survived multiple schemes by people who owed him a lot, to frustrate his campaign. He gambled on a Muslim-Muslim ticket, earning for himself a huge chunk of the North and South-West to win the presidency.

It would appear that June 12 has turned full circle to settle, at least for now, on Tinubu. How will the spirit of June 12 judge President Tinubu today? Will it look hard to recognize the person behind an enormous range of power and influence lording it over a severely distressed country? Will it scream when it sees him in an orgy of self-glorification, having pubic buildings, airports,  schools and  roads named after him just two years into a presidency? Will it recognize the schemer and visioner when it sees him at the heart of a political strategy that recommends eating up the opposition and laughing in its face, even when the race is only half-run? Will June 12 see Tinubu as its traitor or a worthy ambassador?

 One more word….

Happy 90th birthday to a Nigerian I hold with the greatest respect and admiration, my role model, Chief Sam Amuka.

 My best wishes, Sir.

….Tinubu-Shettima ticket sacrosanct, despite fracas —APC

More facts emerged yesterday regarding the reasons that triggered the brawl, which disrupted the North-East Consultative Meeting of the All Progressives Congress, APC, in Gombe State, on Sunday, as key political actors began to speak on the matter.

Vanguard learnt from credible stakeholders in the North-East that mistrust has existed among the governors over who should replace Vice President Kashim Shettima, amid speculation that President Tinubu may not run with him again in 2027.

It was gathered that while some of those opposed to Shettima’s retention as Tinubu’s running mate in 2027 based their position on what they termed the “ineffectiveness of the Muslim-Muslim ticket,” others consider him a “dull politician” who has failed to speak up when it mattered most.

Among those in that camp are individuals pushing for either the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, or another northern candidate to replace Shettima in the next election.

Others, who still prefer a Muslim as running mate, support the current Governor of Gombe State, Inuwa Yahaya, to be considered for the number two position. However, they had not openly presented the proposal until the zonal meeting provided an opportunity.

Although the brewing opposition to Shettima was relatively unknown to many stakeholders, the issue has remained a topic of quiet debate among the three APC governors in the zone.

To prevent the matter from spilling into the public domain, the governors of Yobe, Gombe, and Borno reportedly held a series of meetings aimed at ensuring that the disagreement over Shettima did not surface publicly before, during, or after the Gombe meeting.

It was learnt that the purpose of the meetings was to adopt a unified position indicating that stakeholders from the six states of the North-East were unanimously backing both President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima for re-election in 2027.

A top politician and former governor from one of the states who attended the meeting said:
“The governors were divided over the endorsement of Shettima. Only Governor Babagana Zulum of Borno agreed to the idea, while the governors of Yobe and Gombe remained neutral.

“Indeed, the three governors held multiple meetings in an effort to adopt a common position to present to stakeholders, but they could not reach a consensus.”

No cause for alarm

Meanwhile, the Deputy National Chairman (North) of APC, Ali Bukar Dalori, has said there is no cause for alarm in the party’s National Vice Chairman (North East), Mustapha Salihu’s endorsement of President Tinubu for a second term in the 2027 general elections-without mentioning Vice President Shettima as running mate-during the party’s Zonal Consultative Meeting held in Gombe State last Sunday.

Dalori said among others, “I have read in various national dailies about the outcome of our APC North-East Zonal Meeting in Gombe Sunday. Yes, I agree there was a fracas where some people felt aggrieved and hurled objects at Hon. Mustapha Salihu, the APC National Vice Chairman (North East), because he did not mention Kashim Shettima’s name after endorsing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for a second term in 2027.

“But whether Salihu did it intentionally or not, I want to assure the people of the North-East and Nigerians in general that there is no cause for alarm. Salihu is entitled to his political opinion.

Ganduje endorses joint ticket

Also reacting, the Senior Special Assistant on Public Enlightenment to the National Chairman of APC, Oliver Okpala, condemned the attack on Dr Ganduje, during the meeting.

In a statement he said: “There is no space for violence in Nigeria’s political landscape at present. Party members should adhere to the civil tenets of political decency, decorum, and comportment in their political engagements.”

Okpala praised Ganduje’s leadership, saying: “The National Chairman of the APC is a father to all. Since assuming office, he has worked to unite members and shown love to all. His relationship with both the President and Vice President is solid-like the Rock of Gibraltar.”

“Even when Dr. Ganduje tried to diffuse the tension by reminding them that it is a joint ticket, these individuals-who seemed recalcitrant by nature-refused to see reason or accept his sincere explanation.
“He emphasized that the North-East produced Nigeria’s number two citizen and that the APC values the zone. The President and Vice President are constitutionally joined as one ticket-yet they still refused to listen.”

[Vanguard]

The Katsina government has reacted to the recent peace deals between repentant bandits and authorities in the state.

Speaking at a press briefing on Monday, Nasir Mu’azu, Katsina commissioner for internal security and home affairs, clarified that the state government is not negotiating with bandits.

Last weekend, Ado Aleru, a wanted bandit leader, resurfaced at a peace meeting in Bichi community, Danmusa LGA of Katsina state.

Aleru, who has been on the police watchlist since 2020, with a N5 million bounty on his head, was seen in a video addressing community members, government officials, security personnel, and traditional leaders.

The meeting was attended by personnel of the Nigerian Army (NA), Danmusa LGA officials, and religious and traditional leaders.

Some bandit leaders surrendered and embraced peace during the meeting.

In recent times, peace meetings with bandits have been held in other LGAs, including Jibia.

‘WE’LL DEAL WITH REPENTANT BANDITS IF THEY RENEGE ON AGREEMENT’

Mu’azu said while the state government would not engage in negotiations with bandits, it would offer them the chance to reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens if they drop their arms.

The Katsina commissioner said some communities in Jibia, Batsari, and Danmusa LGA recently held productive discussions with repentant bandits.

He added that if the ex-non-state actors renege on their promises, the government will deal with them.

“The position of government is very clear, from ab initio, the government of Katsina under Dikko Radda will not negotiate with bandits,” he said.

“If the bandits feel the need to drop their arms and come forward, the government is ready to give them the opportunity to live like every normal citizen of Katsina state.

“We are very lucky that bandits in Jibia and Batsari LGAs came forward, through their messengers, and initiated discussions with the leadership of their communities.

“Alhamdulillah, the discussions were robust and we are having peaceful activities in both Jibia and Batsari LGAs.

“Last week, bandits in Danmusa LGA also sent a messenger to their communities. There was also discussion and it yielded another form of peace deal with the LGA authorities as well as all the communities in Danmusa LGA.”

The Katsina commissioner said intermittent attacks will continue on bandit hideouts in Kankara, Faskari, Sabuwa, and Dandume.

“We will give them the opportunity for them to continue with normal activities but in case of them reneging their promises, we are going to deal with them as we used to,” he said.

[TheCable]

In his 2025 Democracy Day address to the nation, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu delivered a solemn and reflective tribute to Nigeria’s democratic journey, anchoring his message on the enduring legacy of June 12, 1993, a day widely regarded as when the freest and fairest election in Nigeria’s history was held. Central to the President’s message was the acknowledgement and recognition of the sacrifices made by heroes and heroines of democracy, both living and dead.

Among the most significant moments of his speech was the posthumous conferment of a national honour on Professor Humphrey Nwosu, the man who chaired the National Electoral Commission (NEC) and conducted the historic 1993 presidential election. Until now, Professor Nwosu had remained largely uncelebrated by the state, despite his instrumental role in organizing and supervising an electoral process that defied the entrenched culture of electoral fraud and impunity that characterized Nigeria’s past.

President Tinubu’s recognition of Professor Nwosu represents not just an act of justice but a symbolic restoration of truth in the nation’s political memory. By honouring the late Professor, the President corrected a historical oversight that had relegated a courageous public servant to the margins of national acclaim. Nwosu’s leadership in deploying the Open Ballot System and presiding over what was widely seen as a peaceful, credible, and transparent election was a watershed moment in Nigeria’s democratic evolution. Yet, for decades, the state had been hesitant to accord him due recognition, largely because the outcome of the election was annulled and politically suppressed.

In honouring Nwosu, President Tinubu gave voice to a long-suppressed national conscience and affirmed that the truth, no matter how long buried, would eventually emerge. It was a profound gesture of reconciliation with the past and a forward-looking affirmation that Nigeria would never again allow those who protect democracy to be forgotten or punished for doing the right thing.

The President’s words were not only an affirmation of democratic ideals but also a recommitment to the principle that the Nigerian people must remain the ultimate custodians of power. By highlighting Nwosu’s contribution alongside that of Chief M.K.O. Abiola and other martyrs of June 12, Tinubu subtly reinforced the narrative that democracy is neither an abstract concept nor a mere routine of elections. It is a hard-earned trust forged in the crucible of struggle, sacrifice, and national aspiration.

In this light, the 2025 Democracy Day was more than a ceremonial occasion. It was a redemptive moment. A time when a long-neglected chapter of national history was finally reopened and written with justice, honour, and gratitude. For Professor Humphrey Nwosu and all those who stood for truth when it was most dangerous to do so, Nigeria’s democracy now bears the imprint of their courage, publicly affirmed at last.

Paul Nwosu PhD wrote from Awka.

I sincerely propose the convocation of Special Police Constabulary Unit (SPCU), given the palpable insecurity and the lukewarm attitude of the governors to establish State Police.

Luckily the Special Police Constabulary Unit (SPCU), is expressly stated in Sections 105 -109 of the Nigeria Police Act 2020.

My recommendation is that the SPCU should be well equipped with sophisticated arsenal to contain kidnappers, terrorists and insurgents at the grassroots, without authoritarian antics.

Also the Special Constabulary Police Units nationwide should be funded by Federal and State Governments, jointly recruited from indigenes of the given state in collaboration with the governors and large input from the local community vigilantes. 

SPCU should be strewn with scant Federal strings if possibly funded directly from the Federal Account Allocation Commission (FAAC), with specific deductions from Federal, State and Local Governments allocations. This will provide efficiency and necessary moderation, so that the Governors are not rendered helpless.

My proposal is consequent upon a worrisome alarm that few months ago we jubilated when the National Economic Council (NEC) informed Nigerians that majority of the 36 State Governors had in bipartisan manner endorsed the establishment of State Police. 

Albeit we have not heard from the same National Executive Council (NEC) since April 24, 2025 meeting to date, thus exhibiting nonchalance mindset to such urgent national security policy. 

Their communique after the meeting was a tepid statement, “For your information, state police was part of our agenda today, unfortunately because of time demands after a very long meeting. You know we have been here for a very long time, because of the presentations, we were unable to get to that.” His Excellency, Bayelsa State Governor Douye Diri submitted. 

Now with over 200 brothers and sisters of ours killed in Yelwata; is the above statement not alarming that despite the gruesome insecurity in our dear country, the National Economic Council has on the issue of State Police gone on voicemail? 

My dear countrymen, now that our Emperor Governors are hesitant to convoke State Police, do we in all intents and purposes make altruistic sense to beg them.

In good conscience can we put our dear Governors in control of arms, when we know that they hate alternative views, most illiberal, and have scant regard to the rule of law doctrine?

Therefore, Special Police Constabulary is the answer and will perform similar functions if not better, because they will be better jointly funded. 

Mr Osita Okechukwu 

Foundation Member of APC

Let me state that, while I have no interest in joining issues with anybody, and I do agree that not just the Judiciary, but the legal profession as a whole, and most other sectors and institutions in Nigeria, even the family, require deep cleansing and possibly, a reset; but, in trying to do these repairs and moral rearmament, constructive, and not destructive criticism is required. The latter’s name is self-explanatory – it is destructive and counterproductive, achieving nothing but the enhancement of toxicity in more ways than we can count, all over the country. 

I recall seeing something on social media during the Buhari administration, in which Malam Nasiru El-Rufai had been asked why, as Governor of Kaduna State, he had made a u-turn on his stand about paying ransom to kidnappers to free abductees. Before his tenure as Governor and as a strong member of the opposition, Malam El-Rufai had stated that Government must do whatever it takes to free victims. As Governor, he recanted and said Government must not pay ransom to kidnappers. He then added that, even if the incumbent Government is doing well, as the opposition, they criticise their policies even if they are good! This type of attitude which is what we see from disgruntled Politicians and those who have an axe to grind, is unhelpful, dangerous, destructive criticism. Such critics use it as a means to discredit and breed enmity between the public and those who they criticise, in order to sway the hearts of the same people to their own side. Certainly, the goals of betterment that should be achieved, will not be reached by disgruntled Politicians, ethnic ‘gingoists’ (pretending that they are fighting for the implementation of Federal Character as per Section 13(3) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, when they were silent when their own ethnic groups held the best positions), those who have an axe to grind because the 2023 elections didn’t favour their candidates, and rumour mongers spreading falsehood and bile to the unknowing public, igniting the flames of hatred and generally heating the polity. And, this is certainly not what Nigeria needs. 

For instance, the Hausa/Fulani (though different are lumped as one), Igbo and Yoruba ethnic groups, have always been considered to be the three major ethnic groups in Nigeria. Take for example, INEC, FEDECO, ECN, or whichever name the Nigerian Electoral Commission has been known by. From its establishment in 1959 to date, the Commission has never been headed by a Yoruba man. Someone had told me that the rationale behind INEC, was that none of these aforementioned three majority ethnic groups should ever head the Commission, to allow for better objectivity/impartiality from the Head of the Commission. But, when this rule was broken in 1989 and 2005 by appointing two Igbos as INEC Chairmen, Prof Humphrey Nwosu and Prof Maurice Iwu respectively, I don’t remember hearing any outcry against it, at least, not concerning their ethnicity. Similarly, in the last 15 years, the Commission has been headed by Prof Attahiru Jega and then Prof Mahmood Yakubu who is about to complete his second term (first in INEC’s history to do two terms), both possibly Hausa/Fulani. If President Tinubu appoints a Yoruba man as INEC Chairman, he will be accused of ‘Yorubanisation’, even though out of the three major ethnic groups and the three Southern zones, the Yorubas (Southwest) are the only ones who have never been appointed as INEC Chairman. But, my question is, how progressive is this kind of thinking? Should it be about tribe, or the brightest and the best for the job? I believe that the latter is the correct answer, whatever the person’s ethnic origin. 

And, before anybody goes up in arms to say that they could use the same argument that the Southeast hasn’t yet produced a President in this Republic, we cannot ignore the fact that election and appointment are two different things. And, it appears that Politicians in the major political parties, including those of Igbo origin, aren’t committed to producing an Igbo President. The Igbo Presidential Aspirants must emerge from party primaries as the Presidential candidates of the major parties. If this had been the case in the 2022 PDP and APC Primaries, the electorate would have voted for one or the other Igbo candidate. Unfortunately, even the Igbo delegates in these two parties didn’t vote for their people!

Unsubstantiated Allegations Against the JSC

On Friday, I saw a post made by a platform called “The Nigeria Lawyer” on social media, citing posts by Prof Chidi Odinkalu accusing a Justice of the Supreme Court (JSC) of impropriety for being at Protea Hotel, Edo State, and allegedly being in the company of the Edo State Attorney-General, coinciding with the time when an appeal was  lodged at the Supreme Court against the Edo State Governor by the PDP Candidate, following the Edo State Gubernatorial election. The video of the gentleman who was allegedly named as the JSC, circulated to buttress the point was unclear, and even though the silhouette of a man could be seen, the identity of the man couldn’t be properly ascertained in the video that made the rounds. And, even if indeed, it was the JSC in the video, it was clear that his arrival at the place was in broad day light, and that he was alone, not in the company of anybody. 

My first observation is that, it is interesting that the video that is strangely being used to push a narrative that the JSC went to meet AG Edo for some shady meeting in the night, showed only a man during the daytime, and not two people, the man and the AG. If the video was meant to corroborate the narrative that was posted about the JSC, it did not, at least not for me, a Lawyer of almost 34 years standing, or any Lawyer worth his salt, as the video doesn’t even reach the level of circumstantial evidence. It only showed that the man in the video, even if it was the JSC, arrived at a place. 

In Ayinde v State (2023) LPELR-60153 (SC) per Amina Adamu Augie, JSC the Supreme Court held that “…the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling, and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Prisoner, and no one else, is the murderer. The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the Accused, and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypotheses than that of his guilt”. I submit that the video posted by Prof Odinkalu, certainly does not meet the threshold set in Ayinde v State (Supra) – it wasn’t cogent, compelling, unequivocal or complete – far from it! Aside from the fact that it only showed that the person in the video entered a lobby, and certainly proves nothing but the fact that he entered the place, the statement which has since been issued by the Supreme Court that the JSC had sought and obtained the permission of the CJN to attend a funeral in Benin, trumps any other unsubstantiated hypothesis proffered by Prof Odinkalu. 

I recall that when the Supreme Court judgement in Sunday Jackson’s murder case was delivered, Prof Odinkalu issued a statement in which, like so many others, he showed his dissatisfaction with the decision affirming Mr Jackson’s conviction for killing Mr Bawuro, a Fulani Herdsman. In his submission on the Jackson case, Prof Odinkalu made a statement which showed that he didn’t verify his facts fully, nor could he have read the 5 judgements in the case, or that, if he did, he preferred to suppress the fact that the Head of the Panel, Hon. Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC had delivered a dissenting judgement allowing Mr Jackson’s appeal, setting aside his conviction and recommending that the Adamawa Governor exercise the prerogative of mercy in his favour. Instead, Prof Odinkalu stated thus: “The miracle in this case, is how the court reached a unanimous judgement”; this part of his submission, was absolutely false. In a bid to bash the Supreme Court, spread bile and further turn the public against the Judiciary, Prof Odinkalu, didn’t mind disseminating a lie. What veracity can we then attach to his statements without proof or irresistible circumstantial evidence, if he is able to disseminate a blatant falsehood which could easily be verified by reading the judgements in Jackson’s case?

Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of Federal Republic of Nigeria

Though the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of Federal Republic of Nigeria 2016 (CCJO) may be considered to be somewhat of a derogation from some of the fundamental rights guaranteed Nigerians, such as Sections 39(1), 40 & 41(1) of the Constitution, that is, freedom of expression, association and movement (also see Section 45(1) of the Constitution and Rule 5 of the CCJO), as it has robust rules regulating the behaviour of judicial officers in Nigeria, the rules are designed to uphold the integrity of judicial office. If attending the funeral of the Mother of a recent President of the African Bar Association with the permission of CJN (see Rule 14.3 of the CCJO) is considered to be controversial by Prof Odinkalu and the Nigeria Lawyer, because Justices are no longer allowed to travel nor visit places for fear that they may run into litigants that have cases in their courts, then all judicial officers should never go anywhere, even the hospital or places of worship, aside from sitting in their courts! 

There is obviously a remedy for this in Rule 12.1 of the CCJO, which allows judicial officers to disqualify themselves from cases in which their impartiality can genuinely be questioned. Litigants may also apply to Heads of Court for their matters to be reassigned, where they allege bias on the part of the Judge. In the 2019 Presidential Election Petition Tribunal at the Court of Appeal, that is, Atiku Abubakar v Muhammadu Buhari, the then President of the Court of Appeal, Hon. Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa voluntarily withdrew from sitting on the Panel, or maybe not so voluntarily, because the Petitioner had also applied for her Lordship to recuse herself from the case because her husband and son were card-carrying members of the APC, and at the time, her husband was also a Senator-elect on the APC platform. See the case of R v Sussex Justices Ex parte McCarthy 1924 1 K.B. 259 where the Court held that “Justice must not only be done, but also seen as done”. Also see Rafiu Womiloju & Ors v Ogisanyin-Anibire & Ors (2010) LPELR-3503(SC) per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC (later CJN) on what must be established to prove allegations of likelihood of bias. 

Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners

Part IV of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004 (LPA) Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 (RPC) sets out how the Legal Practitioner should conduct relations with the court, and Section 31(1) thereof provides that a Lawyer shall treat the court with respect, dignity and honour. The RPC, nevertheless, recognises the fact that a Lawyer can have a complaint against a judicial officer, and provides that such complaint should be made to the appropriate authorities (see Section 31(2) of the RPC), instead of scandalising judicial officers in public without ample evidence. 

As Lawyers, Officers in the Temple of Justice, it is not only our duty but our training, not to be reckless in our utterances, and refrain from hurling false/unsubstantiated allegations at people/judicial officers which may tend to damage their reputation, bringing them down in the estimation of right thinking members of society without proof, when we know that, in law, this is called defamation. They may even be attacked physically by members of the public, with these kinds of unproven/false damaging narratives. In Emmanuel v Felix & Ors (2022) LPELR-57960(CA) per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, JCA (as he then was) the Court of Appeal held thus: “The tort of defamation aims at punishing and thereby, discouraging the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person. The Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition defines defamation as ”the act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person. A false written or oral statement that damages another’s reputation”. 

Conclusion 

It appears that by their utterances and publications, Prof Odinkalu and the Nigeria Lawyer have issued defamatory statements against the JSC and the Supreme Court. A person who wasn’t shy to push a false narrative that the Sunday Jackson judgement which was a split decision, was unanimous, just to disparage the Supreme Court, would be only too glad to disseminate any photos or videos of a clandestine meeting between the JSC and Edo AG if indeed, any such thing exists. The video circulated, goes to no issue. This is not to say that the Supreme Court, all JSCs or all judicial officers are perfect. No. Judicial officers need to take their judicial oath and the CCJO more seriously, as indeed, there are bad eggs within their ranks – some corrupt, some inept. But, my point is that, we cannot tar everybody with the same brush of iniquity, or frame them with guilt without proof, simply to scandalise them. Such destructive behaviour only further erodes public confidence in the Judiciary, and does absolutely nothing to improve it.

A good deal of bad behaviour perpetrated by Lawyers, especially the Senior ones – forum shopping; filing multiple actions; filing frivolous cases (see Section 14(1), (2)(e) & 32 of the RPC) and bringing the courts into odium and opprobrium with their abusive statements, particularly when they lose a case, qualify not just as defamation, but also as professional misconduct/infamous conduct – see Section 11 of the LPA on penalties for unprofessional conduct. Maybe when the LPDC becomes more up and doing in its duty to deal with erring legal practitioners, will we begin to see restraint and better behaviour from Lawyers. 

The way to bring about positive reform of the Judiciary, is not by spreading rumours. Holistic measures must be taken, including creating a better, transparent recruitment process of judicial officers based on merit and integrity, while the NJC must concentrate on instilling discipline and not sparing erring judicial officers. And, the way to bring about progress in the country, is not by entrenching ethnic division, but rather, by pooling our resources together, and united, facing the issues that confront us as a country. After all, poverty and hunger, are not tribalistic – they affect everyone.

Hon Justice Lawal Uwais, former Chief Justice of Nigeria, died on the 6th of June  2025. He was 89.

 In the annals of Nigerian constitutional history, few jurists have left a legacy as enduring and transformative as that of Hon. Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais.

 While his tenure on the Supreme Court bench was the longest in the Court’s history, it was his years as Chief Justice—from the twilight of military rule to the dawn of the Fourth Republic—that would define his judicial legacy.

Presiding over the Supreme Court during a fragile transition from authoritarianism to democracy, Uwais steered the Court through some of the most consequential constitutional battles in Nigeria’s federal evolution. Between 1999 and 2007, his Court was called upon to adjudicate in at least a dozen cases where state governments challenged the Federal Government’s overreach, testing the very boundaries of Nigeria’s federal structure.

 The disputes involved radical, novel, and far-reaching constitutional questions that demanded intellectual clarity, institutional courage, and unwavering fidelity to the Constitution.

Justice Uwais rose to that moment with  principled resolve. Without drama or personal posturing, he insisted that the Constitution—not political convenience—must always prevail. His judgments reflected a deep understanding of federalism not as a theoretical ideal, but as a living structure requiring balance, accountability, and mutual respect between the tiers of government.

Among the questions the Uwais Court was called upon to resolve was whether State governments could lawfully sue the Federal Government over constitutional disputes. In AG Ondo State v. AG Federation (2002), the Court affirmed this right unequivocally, holding that states had standing to bring legal action against the centre when federal laws or actions appeared to breach the constitutional order. It was a foundational ruling that affirmed judicial redress as a legitimate tool of federal self-defence.

When Lagos State challenged federal authority over urban development and physical planning, the question that arose was who truly controls land use and planning within a State’s territory, especially where federal lands are involved? In AG Lagos State v. AG Federation (2003), the Uwais Court held that the State government retains exclusive legislative and executive authority over urban and regional planning, even in respect of federal land located within its boundaries. The federal government, the Court ruled, must obtain necessary development permits from the state in accordance with its planning laws—an important assertion of territorial autonomy.

The boundaries of fiscal federalism were tested on the issue of ownership of oil revenues derived from offshore wells. In AG Federation v. AG Abia State (No. 2) (2002), the Court determined that offshore natural resources—particularly those beyond the 200 nautical-mile limit belonged not to the littoral states but to the Federation as a whole. This decision placed constitutional boundaries on resource control claims while paving the way for the derivation formula to be refined in subsequent fiscal arrangements.

Controversy also surrounded the power of States to create new local government areas. In AG Lagos State v. AG Federation (2004), Lagos had established 37 new Local Governments Areas. While the Court acknowledged the State’s authority to create such entities through enabling legislation, it stressed that these new councils could not be recognised as constitutional local government areas—and thus could not receive direct federal allocations—until their existence was ratified by the National Assembly via listing of the newly created local governments in part 2 of the First Schedule to the Constitution.

Of even greater moment was the courts  determination that the President lacks the constitutional power to unilaterally withhold funds due to existing local governments, underscoring that no tier of government may be arbitrarily denied its lawful entitlement from the Federation account.

The Uwais Court also addressed the question as to whether the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) could lawfully impose additional registration criteria on political parties beyond what the Constitution prescribes. In INEC v. Musa (2003), the Court invalidated several provisions of the Electoral Act and INEC’s guidelines that required evidence of national spread, physical offices in 24 states, and electoral victories as conditions for continued registration. It held that only the requirements stated in Section 222 of the Constitution—namely a registered office in Abuja, a defined party name and logo, and  membership open to all—were valid. Any further conditions imposed by statute or regulation were declared ultra vires and struck down, thereby widening the democratic space for political participation.

Equally pivotal was the Court’s clarification of legislative powers over primary education. In AG Ogun State v. AG Federation (2002), the Court ruled that primary education fell within the domain of concurrent legislative authority, meaning both federal and state governments had the constitutional competence to legislate in that field. This reaffirmed the cooperative nature of Nigerian federalism, where shared responsibilities do not imply subordination.

 In Fawehinmi v. IGP (2002), the Court confronted the tension between executive immunity and the rule of law. It held that while governors enjoy constitutional immunity from prosecution while in office, they are not shielded from investigation. The distinction was critical: although they cannot be tried until they leave office, law enforcement agencies such as the police or EFCC may investigate alleged misconduct, thereby ensuring that accountability mechanisms are not frozen by immunity provisions.

The Court also pronounced on the independence of state legislatures from gubernatorial interference. In Balonwu v. Governor of Anambra State (2004), the Court ruled that the governor has no role in the internal affairs of the House of Assembly, including its choice of leadership. Any attempt by the executive to influence the appointment or removal of a speaker constituted an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative autonomy and violated the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Perhaps the most far-reaching judgment of the Uwais era came in AG Abia & 35 Others v. AG Federation (2005), where the Court considered whether the Federal Government could deduct various “first-line charges” from the Federation Account before distributing revenue to the states and local governments. The Court reaffirmed the supremacy of Section 162 of the Constitution, holding that revenue must be distributed strictly in accordance with the formula approved by the National Assembly. Except for deductions expressly permitted—such as the 13% derivation for oil-producing states—all other first-line deductions, including payments to the NNPC for joint venture operations, external debt servicing, and even funding for the National Judicial Council (of which the Chief Justice was chair), were declared unconstitutional.

Remarkably, the Court ruled that although the NJC enjoys constitutional financial autonomy, it must receive its funding from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not directly from the Federation Account. In doing so, the Uwais Court placed the integrity of the Constitution above institutional interest—even its own.

For Justice Uwais, the Constitution was clearly not merely a ceremonial document. He understood it as a living covenant that bound all arms of government—and all levels of government—to a shared discipline. The Court he led did not shy away from calling the Federal Government to order, nor did it allow States to overreach their bounds. In his quiet, resolute way,  his Lordship elevated the authority of the judiciary and deepened Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

He will be remembered not only as the longest-serving Justice of the Supreme Court, but as one who laid critical foundational stones in the evolving legal architecture of a true federal republic.

The judgments delivered by the Uwais court  continue to shape Nigeria’s democratic journey and will remain beacons of principled adjudication for generations to come.

•Yemi Osinbajo, SAN, is immediate Past Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria – June 15, 2025

Chairman of THISDAY editorial board and former presidential spokesman, Olusegun Adeniyi, will today release his latest book, THE GHOST OF JUNE 12. It is a compilation of four books he wrote between 1992 and 2005 on the transition to civil rule of Generals Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha.

Adeniyi said he decided to make the compilation for “members of a generation that do not know what Nigerians went through under the military or what the whole ‘June 12’ story is all about,” while also stating that there will be no public presentation. “The period between 1992 and 1998 was one of betrayal, resistance, and hope. It was a time when the Nigerian people demanded democracy but were repeatedly denied. It was also a time when individual sacrifices played a crucial role in shaping the future,” Adeniyi wrote in the introduction. “This book is therefore more than a recounting of events. It is a reminder of where we have been and how easily history can repeat itself if we are not vigilant.”

The four books compiled into one are ‘Fortress on Quicksand’, published in 1992 on the 23 presidential aspirants of the defunct and military-created Social Democratic Party (SDP) and National Republican Convention (NRC) who were all disqualified and banned from contesting elections; ‘POLITRICKS: National Assembly under Military Dictatorship’, published in 1994 to detail the intrigues of having a civilian legislature with General Babangida as a military president; ‘Abiola’s Travails’, published in August 1997 to mark the late M.K.O. Abiola’s 60th birthday at a period he was in detention and ‘The Last 100 Days of Abacha’ published in August 2005.

Although written at different moments, these four books capture distinct yet interwoven aspects of the transition process. Combined, they piece together the threads of those turbulent years. The unified volume, according to Adeniyi, presents the story of ‘June 12’ in its full context, revealing how the military’s hold on power shaped the fate of Nigeria’s institutions and people. “The compilation is a story of political manipulation, of courage and betrayal, and of a nation’s determined struggle to reclaim its voice.”

Adeniyi said the book will be available in bookstores as well as on Amazon and Kindle.

[ThisDay]

After twenty-six years of uninterrupted democratic governance in Nigeria (1999 to date), the masses had hoped to be enjoying the dividends of democracy by now—primarily through poverty alleviation and improved living standards. However, for a significant number of Nigerians, that dream has remained elusive. Rather than experiencing prosperity, many continue to grapple with poverty, hunger, and rising hardship.

This harsh reality persists despite the leadership efforts of five presidents since Nigeria’s return to democracy: Olusegun Obasanjo (1999–2007), the late Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (2007–2010), Goodluck Jonathan (2010–2015), Muhammadu Buhari (2015–2023), and Bola Ahmed Tinubu (2023–present).

Over these 26 years, Nigeria’s economy has witnessed both periods of remarkable growth and phases of stagnation. The nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—a key indicator of economic productivity—has seen notable fluctuations. For example, during Jonathan’s administration, GDP growth peaked at around 8%, largely driven by high global crude oil prices that exceeded $100 per barrel. In contrast, under the current Tinubu administration, GDP growth hovers around 3.4%, with oil prices now ranging between $65 and $80 per barrel.

Yet, despite these varying levels of economic performance, the expected transformation in the lives of average Nigerians has not materialized. The dividends of democracy remain out of reach for the majority, as poverty continues to define daily life for many.

This disconnect is further highlighted by data from a report commissioned by the Buhari administration. According to the 2022 Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), a staggering 63% of Nigerians—approximately 133 million people—were classified as multidimensionally poor before Tinubu’s presidency. This means a significant portion of the population suffers from deprivation not just in income, but across multiple areas including healthcare, education, living conditions, and access to work or protection from economic shocks.

In essence, despite positive macroeconomic indicators like GDP growth, the lived experience of most Nigerians tells a different story. This gap between economic statistics and street-level reality is a recurring dilemma in development economics—one that policymakers struggle to explain to populations undergoing structural reforms while still mired in daily hardship.

While government officials and economic advisers may celebrate rising GDP as evidence of progress, ordinary Nigerians are more concerned about their ability to afford food, pay rent, access medical care, and meet transportation costs. Today, with the naira severely devalued and denominations like ₦5, ₦10, and ₦20 effectively worthless, it’s difficult for citizens to believe in slogans like “Renewed Hope” when their basic needs remain unmet.

Many are overwhelmed by hunger and homelessness, with inflation making essential goods and services increasingly unaffordable. In such a context, official rhetoric about economic growth sounds abstract—if not completely alien—to the struggling masses.

This stark mismatch between government optimism and popular despair explains why many Nigerians feel disillusioned. After 26 years of democracy, they expected a nation on the path to prosperity. Instead, they are left questioning whether the system has truly worked for them.

The situation described above is the current reality for most Nigerians. This has compelled me to take a closer look at the disconnect between rising GDP figures and the persistent poverty experienced by citizens. Specifically, I aim to explore why economic growth—reflected in higher GDP—does not automatically translate into an improved standard of living or immediate poverty reduction.

This reality contradicts the assumptions held by many Nigerians who mistakenly believe that GDP growth will swiftly lead to poverty eradication. In truth, and largely unknown to the general public, poverty reduction requires the convergence of multiple factors working together in sync. Until these elements align harmoniously, the so-called dividends of democracy will not effectively reach the grassroots.

To put it simply, GDP tends to measure the concentration of wealth, typically in the hands of the elite. Unless that wealth is reinvested in productive ventures that generate employment and include the poor, poverty reduction remains elusive—more a dream than a measurable outcome.

Through this piece, I aim to clarify the often misunderstood relationship between GDP, poverty, and insecurity. Without a clear understanding of these links, ordinary Nigerians will continue to feel disconnected from government proclamations about economic progress, especially when those claims don’t align with their daily struggles.

For the average citizen, rising GDP means little if food remains unaffordable, transportation costs are unbearable, and basic needs like housing and healthcare are out of reach. Until the cost-of-living crisis eases and daily life becomes less punishing, many will continue to mockingly refer to President Tinubu as “T-Pain”—a nickname that emerged in response to the painful, short-term effects of his reform agenda.

Yet, it’s important to note that economic reforms take time. There is always a gestation period before policies yield tangible results. Because these reforms require a complex mix of socio-economic factors to align, public patience understandably wears thin, especially among those struggling to survive.

This article is my attempt to bridge the gap between policy architects and the masses. By using relatable examples, I hope to shed light on how economic development works, and why GDP growth doesn’t always equate to immediate poverty reduction.

Take, for example, the $20 billion Dangote Refinery in Lekki, Lagos. While this mega-project will undoubtedly boost Nigeria’s GDP, it does not directly create a large number of jobs for low-income earners, as it is capital-intensive and employs mainly high-skilled labor. In contrast, the ongoing construction of the 750-kilometer Lagos-Calabar coastal highway by Hitech Construction will have a more immediate impact on poverty reduction. Road construction tends to be labor-intensive and creates a wide array of job opportunities—from engineers and skilled technicians to informal workers, food vendors, and even homeowners renting rooms to laborers along the project corridor.

These examples illustrate a crucial point: economic growth and poverty alleviation are not always simultaneous or automatic. They often unfold in phases, depending on how different sectors interlink and how policies are implemented and sustained over time.

Ultimately, the lengthy implementation period of reforms often leads to public frustration, especially when politicians have raised expectations during campaigns with ambitious promises. Sadly, this pattern has become a recurring problem in Nigeria, and it is the root of the disillusionment currently gripping the nation.

When President Bola Tinubu returned to Lagos for the first time a few months after assuming office, it was expected to be a celebratory homecoming. However, the mood was quickly sobered when he was met by chants of “ebin kpa wa”—Yoruba for “we are hungry”—from frustrated Lagos youths.

This public outcry likely struck a chord with Tinubu, who, as a former governor of Lagos and a native son of the state, could not ignore such a message. In response, his administration swiftly removed import duties on food items to ease the skyrocketing cost of living, worsened by the elimination of subsidies on petrol and the naira. These decisions, although economically necessary, triggered a widespread cost-of-living crisis that continues to burden millions of Nigerians.

Adding to the crisis is the escalating insecurity in rural areas, where farmers are unable to work their land due to fear of attacks—resulting in declining food production and worsening scarcity.

During his most recent 10-day visit to Lagos to celebrate Sallah, President Tinubu, now midway through his term, acknowledged that food prices remain high and that many citizens are suffering economic hardship. To his credit, he did not attempt to downplay the challenges Nigerians face. He reminded the public that he inherited a nation in financial distress, and that the reforms he introduced—though painful—were necessary to stabilize the country.

There are valid arguments suggesting that, without these reforms, Nigeria could have spiraled into a crisis akin to Venezuela’s—a fellow oil-rich nation plagued by economic collapse, a classic case of the “resource curse.” Tinubu’s government has sought to reverse decades of flawed policies—such as fuel, currency, and electricity subsidies—that were originally introduced as temporary solutions but eventually became entrenched, contributing to Nigeria’s long-term underdevelopment over its nearly 65 years of independence.

In his Democracy Day speech on June 12, Tinubu reaffirmed his identity as a progressive by honoring 66 of his fellow democracy activists with national awards—individuals who fought alongside him for the restoration of civilian rule after years of military dictatorship. He also admitted that Nigeria has not yet become the prosperous nation its people hope for, but assured citizens that relief is on the way through new programs and projects aimed at addressing their struggles.

Yet, as the saying goes, “talk is cheap.” For many Nigerians, government rhetoric—amplified since May 29 through widespread media campaigns showcasing the administration’s midterm achievements—rings hollow. A significant gap remains between official claims of progress and the harsh realities felt by ordinary citizens across the country.

This disconnect between rising GDP figures and deepening poverty is not unique to Nigeria; it’s a global challenge. Economists have long debated why economic growth doesn’t automatically reduce poverty. Several theories attempt to explain this:

 1. Kuznets Curve: Proposed by Simon Kuznets, this theory suggests that as economies grow, inequality initially rises but eventually falls once a certain level of development is reached.

 2. Trickle-Down Economics: This theory argues that wealth generated at the top eventually benefits the lower classes. However, critics argue that this process is often slow, incomplete, or entirely ineffective.

 3. Unequal Exchange Theory: This concept highlights how developing countries often engage in trade relationships that favor developed nations, leading to persistent poverty and inequality at home.

 4. Dependency Theory: It suggests that developing nations are structurally dependent on developed countries, which keeps them locked in cycles of poverty and underdevelopment.

The gap between GDP growth and actual improvements in people’s lives is due to complex and often overlooked factors. To make this clearer, I drew an analogy between two major projects: the Dangote Refinery and the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway by Hitech Construction. While the refinery significantly boosts Nigeria’s GDP through high-value industrial output, it creates relatively few jobs for low-income earners. On the other hand, the highway project—though smaller in GDP impact—generates widespread employment for engineers, laborers, vendors, and local landlords, offering more direct poverty relief.

This comparison helps illustrate the subtle but crucial difference between economic growth and equitable development—something policymakers must keep in mind when designing reforms intended to benefit all Nigerians, not just a privileged few.

 1. Income Inequality

GDP growth doesn’t automatically result in fair wealth distribution. Often, the benefits are concentrated among a privileged few, leaving the wider population with limited access to opportunities and resources. A prime example is the $20 billion Dangote Refinery—while it boosts GDP, it risks deepening income inequality unless the benefits are widely shared.

 2. Poverty and Unemployment

Economic growth does not guarantee lower poverty or unemployment rates, particularly when it is driven by capital-intensive sectors that create few jobs. Projects like the Dangote Refinery and the $5 billion Bonga offshore oil field investment exemplify such growth—they contribute significantly to GDP but generate limited employment for the general population.

 3. Inflation and Rising Cost of Living

While GDP growth can be a positive indicator, it often comes with inflation that erodes purchasing power. When the cost of goods and services rises faster than wages, the majority of citizens feel no tangible improvement in their lives. This is the current Nigerian experience: despite monetary tightening policies from the Central Bank, inflation continues to impoverish the masses.

 4. Inadequate Social Services and Infrastructure

Growth in GDP does not always reflect improvements in public services such as education, healthcare, or infrastructure. Unless economic gains are reinvested into these sectors, the benefits may not reach the broader population. That said, both government and philanthropic efforts—led by figures like Tony Elumelu, Aliko Dangote, and Mike Adenuga—along with investments in railway and road infrastructure, are helping to close this gap.

 5. Corruption and Weak Governance

Poor governance and corruption can significantly undermine the advantages of economic growth. When the gains from GDP expansion are siphoned off by corrupt elites, the population sees little to no improvement in their lives. Unlike his predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari—who declared a war on corruption in 2015—President Tinubu has taken a quieter, action-oriented approach. Though he hasn’t made loud proclamations, Tinubu has shown commitment by removing corrupt officials, such as former Humanitarian Affairs Minister Dr. Betta Edu, when credible allegations emerged. His strategy leans more toward silent enforcement than public grandstanding.

These factors contribute to the persistent gap between GDP growth and improvements in the living standards of everyday Nigerians. Unless these issues are tackled through well-designed, mass-oriented policy implementation, economic growth will continue to feel distant and disconnected from the realities on the ground.

Interestingly, many of the root causes behind the gap between a rising GDP and worsening poverty—issues that also fuel insecurity and public discontent—are already being targeted by the Tinubu administration through various poverty reduction initiatives.

However, the government has struggled to effectively communicate its efforts. The absence of a clearly structured and consistently communicated policy framework has left many Nigerians unaware of what is being done. This communication failure has opened the door for critics to brand Tinubu’s administration as reactive and directionless. In reality, these reforms are gradually improving Nigeria’s economic fundamentals—a fact recognized by institutions like the IMF, World Bank, Fitch, Moody’s, and even The Financial Times of London. Yet, the absence of a compelling domestic narrative leaves many Nigerians unconvinced, even as the government celebrates these international endorsements.

In my assessment, the Tinubu administration has implemented several policies intended to ensure that GDP growth translates into real poverty reduction. These include:

A) Pro-Poor Growth Strategies

These are targeted policies aimed at reducing poverty and inequality, particularly through social welfare programs and human capital investments.

To this end, the administration established a dedicated Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs tasked with supporting vulnerable populations. One key initiative under this ministry is the Conditional Cash Transfer scheme.

Though the program initially faced criticism over the low stipend amount, President Tinubu responded by increasing the cash benefit from ₦25,000 to ₦75,000 for 15 million households, according to the National Social Safety Net Coordination Office.

B) Job Creation and Youth Empowerment

Efforts to reduce unemployment have focused on promoting entrepreneurship, job creation, and skills development.

Beyond the initiatives led by various state governors and their spouses, the Federal Ministry of Education recently launched the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) program. This program aims to equip Nigerian youth—especially internally displaced persons (IDPs) and other vulnerable groups—with practical skills in areas like digital coding, cloud computing, and data analytics. Participants are provided with seed capital and equipment to enable them to become self-employed and economically active.

Before this, private sector actors like the Tony Elumelu Foundation (TEF) had been pioneering similar youth empowerment initiatives across Africa. The federal government’s current program appears to be a scaled-up, national version of that successful private sector model.

C) Social Protection Programs

These initiatives act as a safety net for society’s most vulnerable, offering support in the form of subsidies, direct aid, and empowerment tools.

First Lady Senator Oluremi Tinubu has played a hands-on role by visiting various states—such as Rivers, Delta, Bayelsa, Enugu, and others—to distribute empowerment tools including medical equipment, grinding machines, and refrigerators. These programs cut across party lines and aim to uplift women and disadvantaged communities.

D) Human Capital Investment

A major part of reducing poverty lies in long-term investment in education, healthcare, and essential social services.

On the education front, high-caliber institutions like Charterhouse UK have established a branch in Lagos, signaling growing confidence in Nigeria’s private education sector. These developments are expected to reduce the outflow of foreign exchange spent on sending children abroad for secondary and tertiary education.

Further supporting this effort is the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND), a key initiative under Tinubu’s administration. NELFUND enables access to tertiary education for nearly 300 million Nigerian students (likely referring to applicants or potential beneficiaries over time), encouraging more students to study locally rather than abroad and rejuvenating local universities in the process.

In the healthcare sector, the opening of high-quality medical institutions such as Evercare Hospital in Lagos—funded through venture capital—and the African Medical Centre of Excellence (AMCE) in Abuja—supported by the African Development Bank (AfDB)—marks a significant upgrade in local healthcare infrastructure.

These advancements are projected to significantly reduce the $1 billion annually lost to medical tourism. Much like the elimination of petrol and naira subsidies, which has saved billions and cut petrol imports by approximately 30 million liters annually, improved healthcare services at home are expected to curb the financial drain on foreign healthcare spending.

Although many of these projects are private-sector-led, they are no less vital. They contribute meaningfully to national productivity, improve the quality of life, and help align GDP growth with poverty reduction goals.

Understanding the Disconnect Between GDP Growth and Poverty Alleviation

Although Nigeria’s economy has experienced measurable growth, the benefits have not translated into improved living conditions for the majority. Several systemic factors help explain this gap:

 • Wealth Concentration: When economic progress disproportionately benefits the wealthy few, poverty and inequality remain deeply entrenched.

 • Growth Without Jobs: Economic expansion driven by industries that rely heavily on machinery and technology often fails to create jobs, especially for unskilled labor.

 • Weak Social Safety Nets: In the absence of robust welfare programs, vulnerable populations are left exposed to economic volatility and hardship.

Tackling the Roots of Poverty and Inequality

Closing the gap between economic growth and real improvements in living standards requires targeted, inclusive interventions. Key areas of focus include:

 • Quality Education and Skills Training: Boosting literacy and access to functional education is essential. Initiatives like the Helpers Social Development Foundation’s free schooling and sponsorship for students are vital in empowering young Nigerians.

 • Empowering Women and Educating Girls: Fostering equal opportunities for women through education and economic initiatives not only uplifts families but positively shapes the next generation.

 • Fighting Corruption: Transparent governance and stronger accountability frameworks are critical to ensure public funds serve their intended developmental purposes.

 • Fairer Income Distribution: Adopting strategies that shift resources toward low- and middle-income earners can stimulate consumption, spur local industries, and generate employment.

 • Infrastructure Development: Strategic investments in transportation, power supply, and digital infrastructure can connect markets, improve efficiency, and drive inclusive growth.

 • Diversifying the Economy: Moving away from oil dependency by supporting agriculture, small businesses, and tech innovations will foster long-term stability and job creation.

 • Affordable Healthcare: Strengthening the healthcare system reduces the economic strain of illness on families and enhances national productivity.

 • Expanding Financial Access: Improving access to financial services—especially in rural areas—through digital banking and fintech tools enables broader economic participation.

 • Strengthening Social Programs: Initiatives like conditional cash transfers, food support, and targeted subsidies must be scaled up to cushion the most vulnerable.

Practical Measures for Redistribution

Achieving a more equitable society demands well-structured redistribution mechanisms, including:

 • Progressive Taxation: Tax systems where high earners contribute more can fund essential public services.

 • Social Assistance: Direct support programs like unemployment benefits, food aid, and housing assistance offer immediate relief to low-income groups.

 • Minimum Wage Enforcement: Guaranteeing fair wages helps lift working families out of poverty.

 • Accessible Public Services: Investing in public healthcare and education provides critical upward mobility pathways for disadvantaged communities.

 • Cash Transfers and Subsidies: Financial support through direct payments or subsidies for essentials like housing and energy helps bridge economic gaps.

 • Tax Credits: Reducing tax burdens for low-income earners can improve household financial security.

 • Affordable Housing Projects: Public housing schemes play a key role in combating urban poverty.

 • Skills and Job Training: Government-led programs that teach vocational and digital skills increase employability and self-sufficiency.

Both federal and state governments have already established skill acquisition centers nationwide to support this agenda.

Additionally, the National Assembly is currently reviewing four tax reform bills, aimed at easing the pressure on low-income earners while expanding the government’s revenue base.

Closing the Trust and Communication Gap

While the administration has highlighted President Tinubu’s midterm achievements with pride, everyday Nigerians remain unconvinced. With inflation, unemployment, and insecurity still pressing, citizens see little evidence of improvement in their day-to-day lives.

As former Lagos governor Babatunde Fashola once framed it, the “stomach infrastructure”—the basic needs of food, shelter, and security—still feels out of reach for many.

To win public trust, the government must do more than promise reforms. It must deliver results—and communicate them clearly and honestly. Many of its initiatives remain disjointed and underdeveloped. What’s needed now is strategic execution, tangible progress, and a compelling narrative that assures Nigerians that better days are not just promised—they’re coming.

Of all the challenges that President Tinubu inherited from his predecessor, including rescuing the country from the brinks of bankruptcy as it was weighed down by foreign and local debts to the IMF, foreign banks and airlines, some of which have commendably been repaid, even as the, CBN has also recorded increase in FX balance in the national treasury

Similarly, the good news that state oil behemoth, NNPC has ramped up crude oil production to 1.8 million per day from a low production of about 1.2 million per day some two years ago, with a target of 2 million BPD is partly responsible for higher FX inflow into the CBN. That is cherry news, however, the economy is still not out of the woods, although it is effectively on the trajectory of recovery.

In the same vein, the erstwhile volatility in the naira exchange rates with foreign currencies and its scarcity that had been the bane of the Nigerian economy have been relatively stabilized to about N1,600/$1.

That is on top of the fact that FX has become readily available on demand which is quite unlike in the past when sourcing hard currencies was like a nightmare for manufacturers who need to import raw materials to keep their factories in operation. The failure to successfully source FX is the reason that some of them were forced to shut down operations and relocate from Nigeria to other climes particularly Ghana and other neighboring countries from where they were producing essential items and exporting to Nigeria further causing our country to lose income by exporting capital.

Thankfully the exodus of manufacturing firms is no longer the case. Rather those who fled are likely going to be returning soon as the business environment changes for the better.

By far the worst thorns in the flesh of most Nigerians in terms of impact are not the inflation rate which remains high but coming down to a little over 23% nor the price of petrol which is currently hovering around N800 per litre, down from N1,300, but not yet where it should be. Rather the challenges that have lingered like malignant tumors are (1)insecurity of lives and properties, and (2) the outrageous hike in electricity charges currently designated into band A to E without commensurate supply to consumers who see the ill-conceived development in the electricity supply system as a scam.

Although the human carnage arising from the constant murder of innocent people in the Kaduna and Borno states northern Nigeria has abated since president Tinubu mounted the saddle in Aso Rock villa, the alarming rate of vicious killings in the middle belt states of Benue and Nassarawa which have become the new epicenter of violent displacement of farmers by heavily armed bandits is worrisome and unacceptable, so it needs being addressed frontally by President Tinubu as he has affirmed in his statement following the murder of an estimated 200 people in Benue state over the last weekend.

Apparently, while President Tinubu has recorded significant progress in other segments of society as earlier catalogued, he appears to be confounded and overwhelmed by the alarming scourge of insecurity as evidenced by the escalation of killings in the past couple of years, especially in Benue and Plateau states.

The Benue state governor Hycinth Alia's allegations that the killing of villagers in his state by heavily armed bandits who also burn the houses resulting in the villagers fleeing into the bushes while abandoning their homes and which is often followed by the arrival of herdsmen and their cattle should be investigated.

That would help determine if indeed the attacks have international dimensions/elements and the invasion and seizure of our lands to be occupied by foreigners which is the unfolding scenario, is not a very high security threat to the sovereignty of Nigeria since the Wagner group (Russian private military contractors for hire) and other foreign mercenaries are currently operating in neighboring countries like Niger Republic, Mali and Burkina Faso which have withdrawn their membership of ECOWAS -a regional organization serving the common interests of the nation that are located in the region.

In light of the above, it would appear as if instead of insecurity going down, it has been rising under President Tinubu’s watch.

That is not good optics for the incumbent administration. As such, tackling insecurity needs to be prioritized by President Tinubu. It is a promise that he has made for the umpteenth time but the talk has not been transformed into action.

So, l would like to suggest that in the same manner that President Tinubu has significantly tamed inflation, stabilized the naira and ended petrol pump price subsidy, insecurity that is making the Benue and Nassarawa states look like killing fields, metaphorically, should compel the president, commander- in- chief of the armed forces of Nigeria, Tinubu to dorn his thinking cap and figure out, an out-of- the -box way, how to guarantee the security of the lives and properties of the Nigerians living in Benue and Nassarawa states who have been under siege by vicious outlaws without protection the federal government which our compatriot in those targeted states are entitled.

Some of the options available to President Tinubu include defeating the bandits by dislodging them from our forests from where they launch the attacks and retreat to hide by ensuring that our law enforcement officers occupy the forests permanently and do not leave the forests fallow for the outlaws to re-occupy. 

In this regard, the concept of forest guards earlier proposed should be activated without further delay. There is no doubt that insecurity in Nigeria needs to be de-escalated so that the other goals of the administration such as the reduction of food inflation due to the inability of rural dwellers to attend their farms. To protect them so that their fundamental human rights will not be continuously violated, they need to save themselves from the dastardly activities of bandits terrorizing our fellow countrymen and women in the hinterlands of the states that are reputed to be the breadbasket of Nigeria.

In my assessment, the reason, the villagers in north central Nigeria are being decimated wantonly by the bandits is that the criminal elements are armed with sophisticated weapons while the victims are unarmed.

Justified by the reality that the prevailing dire atmosphere of violence in Benue and Nasarawa states requires extraordinary measures to counteract, President Tinubu may need to take some extraordinary measures which should not be a declaration of emergency rule which would amount to killing democracy softly. 

Unsurprisingly, some unusual actions are being recommended as a panacea.

As if to create an atmosphere of balance of force, a former chief of Defense staff, Gen.T.Y Danjuma (rtd) had advised his people from Taraba state and environ who were at some point targets of the outlaws to arm themselves to protect themselves otherwise they will be killed continuously as the Nigerian government has proven incapable or unwilling to protect them from the marauders. In a similar vein, the Director-General of State Security Services, DS Mr Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi also recommended the arming of people in vulnerable communities for self-protection.

The above recommendations are patently extreme as they contravene the 1999 constitution of Nigeria which provides that only members of the armed forces should bear sophisticated arms. 

Apart from law enforcement officers, the statutes book permits issuing licenses to civilians only for hunting.

So, proposing that locals who are not members of the military or law enforcement agencies should bear arms must have been made due to the hopelessness and helplessness of the vulnerable communities by the high-ranking and well-respected former army chief of staff and the current chief security intelligence officer. 

But are there no alternative measures that can be taken as a counteroffensive to the armed bandits wreaking havoc in our hinterlands? 

My hunch is that if we engage in critical thinking there would be more viable solutions to the menace.

I recently came across a news report indicating that about 6,000 cadet police officers had just been recruited and commissioned. 

In my view that is very minuscule. 

To rein in insecurity in Nigeria, the authorities need a massive recruitment of law enforcement officers of at least 100,000 not 6,000 every year in the next five (5) years until the ogre of insecurity has been killed. 

To achieve that objective of creating a surge in security personnel to repel the current wave of attacks by the outlaws, the option is to adopt the existing local vigilante groups into the special force, which most states and regional governments are falling back on for security in their respective states and regions.

Their members should constitute the core of the recruits as law enforcement personnel being proposed since they have already undergone through preliminary training.

They can be easily transitioned into the state police which has been on the drawing board for the past 26 years since multi-party democracy returned in Nigeria in 1999. If the state police option is not viable they can be adopted into a community police system.

 It is on record that it is during the reign of President Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2007) that the concept of state police was first mooted.

For swiftness in action, conditions or prerequisites for the recruitment of the vigilante personnel into the special forces should be lowered. And all the men/ women who exited the military or law enforcement agencies under extraordinary circumstances should be considered for recruitment into the force.

They should not be recruited into the traditional police force rather they should be designated as special police in the manner that SPY police which is essentially dedicated to guard duties in banks was formed and is currently being operated.

When insecurity ebbs in five years or thereabout, the special force can be disbanded with the option of the men/women engaged to be absorbed into the other law enforcement agencies after being retrained.

President Tinubu must declare zero tolerance for insecurity which is giving oxygen to all the socioeconomic and political challenges bedeviling our beloved nation.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, and development strategist.