Once again, a voice of reason has emerged with hard truths about Nigeria’s economy, this time from no less a person than Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, President of the African Development Bank (AfDB). At the 20th anniversary dinner of Chapel Hill Denham in Lagos on Thursday, May 1, 2025, Adesina did not mince words. He told Nigeria what it needed to hear, not what it wanted to hear. He warned that the country must industrialize rapidly or continue to slide further into economic irrelevance, poverty, and underdevelopment.

But the burning question is: Will the presidency listen, or will it respond in its characteristic dismissive manner of attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message?

The reason why this writer is interested in his speech, and want the government to listen is that Dr. Adesina is no social media commentator or idle critic. His views carry the weight of experience, exposure, and empirical evidence. As a former Minister of Agriculture and now President of the AfDB, he has walked the corridors of power, interacted with global institutions, and steered major development initiatives across Africa. When someone with such a pedigree offers sober reflections on Nigeria’s dire economic reality, the least a serious government should do is listen.

He pointed out that Nigeria’s per capita income is now lower than it was at independence. This is an indictment on over six decades of mismanagement, inconsistency in policy, and misplaced priorities. Rather than seeing this as a personal attack or an attempt to discredit the current administration, the government should treat it as a mirror reflecting decades of collective failure and an opportunity to recalibrate.

It is germane at this juncture to recall that the government, specifically the presidency usually exhibit a pattern of Intolerance for constructive criticism, and in the same vein urge it not to exhibit such pattern of intolerance in this case of Adesina’s. 

Without any iota of exaggeration, the Nigerian presidency, especially through its appointees and media aides, has unfortunately developed a pattern of antagonizing critics, regardless of the merit of their message. Every well-meaning observation is met with a barrage of clap backs, sarcastic statements, character attacks, or outright denial.

Whether it is economists, former public office holders, civil society leaders, or international institutions, the default response seems to be “attack first, reflect later.” Constructive feedback is often interpreted as sabotage or unpatriotic behavior. This mindset is dangerously counterproductive, particularly in a country where open dialogue and accountability should be encouraged in a democracy.

In fact, Dr. Adesina’s speech must not be subjected to this same knee-jerk reaction. He is not a political opponent. He is a development technocrat, an economist, and above all, a patriot who has repeatedly demonstrated his belief in Nigeria’s potential.

There is no denying the fact that Adesina’s words are inherent with truth. This is as he rightly diagnosed Nigeria’s economic malaise: a refusal to industrialize, an overdependence on raw exports, poor infrastructure, and lack of private-sector-driven growth. While countries like South Korea, Malaysia, and Vietnam have transitioned into industrial and manufacturing powerhouses, Nigeria remains stuck in the past, celebrating small wins in digital payments and oil exports while ignoring the pressing need to create jobs, increase productivity, and generate wealth through value addition.

He also referenced the AfDB-led Special Agro-Industrial Processing Zones (SAPZs), a multi-billion-dollar initiative aimed at transforming agriculture from subsistence to agribusiness. These zones are designed to attract investment, create jobs, reduce food imports, and enhance rural economies. What is striking here is not just the vision, but the fact that the bank and its partners have committed $3.4 billion, a rare opportunity that Nigeria must not squander with red tape, corruption, or policy inconsistency.

It is not enough to acknowledge Adesina’s remarks. The federal government must act. Nigeria needs massive investment in power, science, technology, and infrastructure. These are not buzzwords, they are the foundations of any competitive economy in the 21st century. Without them, we are doomed to remain an import-dependent, poverty-stricken nation that fails its citizens and its position as Africa’s supposed giant.

The Tinubu administration must break away from the inherited culture of combative governance and embrace a new style, one that welcomes ideas, encourages collaboration, and is open to criticism. If the presidency cannot take observations from a figure like Adesina, then who else can it listen to?

Governing a nation like Nigeria demands humility. It requires the wisdom to acknowledge shortcomings, even when pointed out publicly. Leaders must realize that critics, especially those who speak from a place of experience and love for country, are allies, not enemies.

Sadly, too many in this administration wear power like armor and see every suggestion as an attack. This attitude has prevented many sound policies from taking root and scared away potential investors, both local and international.

Adesina has laid out a clear, actionable path: industrialization, agro-processing, infrastructure development, and private capital mobilization. These are not new ideas, but they are timely reminders that the window of opportunity is closing fast.

Nigeria is racing towards a projected population of over 400 million people by 2050. If we fail to industrialize and create jobs now, we are simply preparing for mass unemployment, insecurity, and social instability on a frightening scale.

This time, the presidency has a choice: it can respond with its usual condescension and PR gymnastics, or it can engage with Adesina’s ideas and work to implement solutions. The time for defensiveness is over. Nigerians are tired of empty rhetoric, recycled excuses, and reactionary governance.

Dr. Adesina spoke truth to power. He deserves more than a polite nod or, worse, a dismissive retort. His advice is a national resource, and ignoring it would be an act of economic self-sabotage.

As the Yoruba say, “Ogbon ju agbara lo”, wisdom is greater than strength. Now is the time for Nigeria’s leaders to prove that they understand this.

In the annals of Nigeria’s political history, courage has always had a price, and when that courage comes from a woman, the price is often doubled. This truth now stares us in the face as Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan stands firm in her petition against the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, alleging sexual harassment and abuse of power. What she is enduring is not merely political backlash; it is a coordinated assault aimed at silencing a voice too bold for the liking of Nigeria’s old guard.

In this moment of trial, one voice has risen with clarity, boldness, and unshakable moral conviction, the voice of Dr. Oby Ezekwesili, former Minister of Education, reputed to be one of Nigeria’s most principled voices in public discourse. In a powerful tweet, Ezekwesili reminded Senator Natasha, and indeed all Nigerians, that she is “not alone”. “You. Will. Never. Walk. Alone,” she declared. This was not just solidarity; it was a call to action.

Ezekwesili’s statement is a masterclass in principled leadership. She went beyond the usual performative concern and took a firm stance, openly calling out the Senate President and the cabal of political enablers attempting to drown out Natasha’s demand for justice. Her voice represents what every well-meaning, justice-seeking Nigerian, particularly women, should echo, that no woman who dares to speak out should ever be left to walk through the storm alone.

Unfortunately, this moment has also exposed an uncomfortable truth about the nature of female solidarity in Nigeria, or rather, the lack of it. While Ezekwesili and a few courageous women from bodies like FIDA (Federation of International Women Lawyers) have thrown their weight behind Natasha, some women, especially within political circles, have shamefully aligned with her traducers. Rather than lend their voices to justice, they have chosen to serve as foot soldiers of a rotten system, eager to protect power over principle, and loyalty to men over loyalty to truth.

We must ask: “What is the cost of silence?” What does it mean when women, who should instinctively understand the weight of Natasha’s burden, choose to protect the status quo, either out of fear, political expediency, or sheer envy? What does it say of a society where women climb the ladder of power only to pull it up behind them?

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s battle is not hers alone. It represents the lived experience of countless Nigerian women, in government, in the corporate world, in academia, and in everyday life, who have been subjected to sexual harassment, intimidation, and gas lighting by men in powerful positions. Her decision to speak up against the Senate President is therefore not just personal. It is symbolic. It is a direct challenge to a deeply entrenched culture of impunity.

Oby Ezekwesili’s intervention is thus timely and necessary. She reminds us that fighting injustice, particularly gender-based injustice, should not be optional. It must be instinctive, non-negotiable, and absolute. “No amount of money, not even all the wealth in every Central Bank in the world, can buy my convictions, voice, and stance,” she wrote. These words should shame every Nigerian woman who has looked the other way in the face of this injustice, especially those in power who have chosen cowardice over courage.

Now is the time for all decent women, and men of conscience, to rise. This is more than a political issue; it is a moral and institutional test. If we fail Natasha, we fail every woman who dares to report a powerful predator. If we trivialize her allegation or let it be buried under manufactured lies and distraction tactics, we send a dangerous signal that Nigeria is not ready to protect its women, not even those with a mandate from the people.

Let us not forget that Senator Natasha has consistently faced smear campaigns, character assassination, and attempts to delegitimize her for daring to be outspoken, competent, and fearless in a space where many women are expected to be silent ornaments. The sexual harassment allegation she has raised against Senator Akpabio should trigger not just outrage but institutional action. A fair, transparent, and independent investigation must be carried out. Anything short of that is a disservice not just to Natasha but to the spirit of justice itself.

We have reached a fork in the road, where Nigerian women must decide who they are. Will they be enablers of oppression, just because the oppressor shares their party affiliation or fills their pockets? Or will they be defenders of justice, truth, and sisterhood?

To the silent majority of Nigerian women in politics, in civil service, and in the legal and media spaces, now is your time to speak. History is watching. The next generation of women is watching. Will you be counted among the bold, like Ezekwesili, or among the cowardly chorus of betrayers?

Let us be clear: injustice to one is injustice to all. If Natasha is crushed under the weight of a system that shields the powerful and punishes the brave, then we all lose. But if we rally, raise our voices, and refuse to be cowed, we not only protect her, we protect the future.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, this fight is bigger than you, and yet, you carry it with the grace and grit of a true warrior. In standing for yourself, you are standing for every girl and woman who has ever been told to shut up and endure. You are not alone. And you never will be.

Let justice rise, not as a whisper, but as a thunderous roar from every corner of Nigeria. Enough is enough.

When he was a Justice the Court of Appeal in the Port Harcourt Division, during the tenure of Mohammed Bello as Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) 1987-1995. Alloysius Katsina-Alu was the subject of allegations of serious misconduct which ended up before the Advisory Judicial Committee (AJC), the predecessor to the National Judicial Council (NJC). Upon finding the allegations established, the AJC determined that Katsina-Alu would be denied elevation beyond the Court of Appeal. Less than one decade later, he was a Justice of the Supreme Court. In 2009, he assumed the office of CJN.

On 30 April 2025, the NJC, this time under the leadership of a different CJN, announced that it would similarly ban from elevation for a period of five years, Inyang Ekwo, a judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja. Additionally, the Council decided to place him on a “watch list” for five years and to suspend him from judicial functions for one year.

According to the NJC, these measures became necessary because in a 2023 case, Inyang Ekwo “delivered a ruling in a pending application without hearing the parties” and “ignored an application to set aside the proceedings of the Court conducted in the absence of the parties.” These, the Council found, violate Rules 3.1 and 3.3 of the Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers in Nigeria.

For the avoidance of doubt, Rule 3.1 of the Judicial Code of Conduct requires judges to be “true and faithful to the Constitution and the law and [to] uphold the course of justice….” Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution guarantees fair hearing in judicial and legal proceedings as a fundamental right. Accordingly, Rule 3.3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct requires all judges to ensure that they afford to all parties in proceedings before them a “full right to be heard according to law.”

A judge holds office under the constitution. Before assuming office, the judge publicly swears to an oath to uphold that constitution and to do justice to all persons in accordance with it. Put differently, Inyang Ekwo violated the most basic expectations entitlements of litigants before a court and a judge.

Inyang Ekwo became a lawyer in 1991 after graduating with a degree in law from University of Cross River State. After a career spent mostly on the staff of the Corporate Affairs Commission in Abuja, he was translated to the bench of the Federal High Court on 3 January, 2008. His path to this judicial sinecure was smoothed in no small measure by family networks which lock-in closely with the founding military administrator of the South-Eastern State (the legacy state of both Cross River and Akwa Ibom States).

By 2023 when the facts of his latest misconduct arose, Inyang Ekwo had been a judge for over 15 years. Judicial inexperience was not one of his liabilities.

The measures announced by the NJC against Inyang Ekwo this past week were the second in eleven months. On May 16 2024, the same NJC found the same Inyang Ekwo guilty of “abuse of discretionary power of a judge by wrongly granting an ex parte order.” He was therefore “barred from being elevated to a higher Bench for a period of two years.” That decision of the NJC had not spent its first year when they found the same judge guilty of even more egregious violations this time. This suggests that Inyang Ekwo is a compulsive recidivist in judicial misconduct. Even now, there remain other serious complaints against the same judge still under investigation with the NJC and many more pending questions to resolve.

First, it is not clear whether the Council reminded itself of the subsisting punishment when it decided on its dispositions in the latest one.

Second, if the NJC determined last year to preclude Inyang Ekwo from elevation for two years; and this year in another case to do the same thing for five years, are these to run concurrently or consecutively?

Third, it is not exactly clear what placing a judge on an NJC “watch-list” means or why anyone would consider the proposition anything other than absurd.

Fourth, what would it take to persuade the NJC that a person is too crooked for judicial office?

This last question is at the heart of the problem with what the NJC claims to have done in this latest instalment of a pattern of decision-making that enables judicial corruption instead of curbing it.

Inyang Ekwo was one of three judges suspended by the NJC this time. Jane Inyang (no relation of Inyang Ekwo) was appointed a Justice of the Court of Appeal in September 2023 after eight years as a Judge of the Federal High Court. According to the NJC, while a case was still pending before her at the Federal High Court, Jane Inyang “issued inappropriate ex parte orders for the sale of a petrol station and other businesses” in dispute in the case. This was the same kind of misconduct for which the Council issued Inyang Ekwo with a letter of caution in May 2024.

This time, however, the NJC decided to suspend Jane Inyang from judging for one year and without pay. Like Inyang Ekwo, she will also be denied elevation for five years. That means that after five years and with this record, she could find herself as a Justice of the Supreme Court. The fact that a judge with this kind of record was promoted to the Court of Appeal while the complaint against her misconduct was - in all likelihood - pending says all that anyone needs to know about the state of disrepute into which judicial appointments in Nigeria have fallen.

In the case of Aminu Baffa Aliyu, another judge of the Federal High Court to whom the NJC applied similar measures, the Council found that he unlawfully restrained the security services from performing their statutory functions and, even worse, effectively overruled the Supreme Court in order to do so. The NJC decided in addition to suspending him without pay for one year, to preclude him from elevation for three.

In August 2017, when the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) issued a joint report naming the Nigerian judiciary as “the second highest receiver of bribes in the Country” after the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), the NJC bristled, dismissing the conclusion as “not only subjective but speculative.”

The NPF is the oldest institution in the country and also the largest employer. A standard cover-up procedure in the Force is to transfer out of station officers against whom serious allegations of misconduct subsist, granting them a cooling off sabbatical during which they are reported as unaccounted for. A not-too-dis-similar practice occurred in parts of the Catholic Church in the past to cover-up for priests caught in allegations of clerical abuse.

Academics sometimes also take sabbaticals with or without pay to enable them recharge their intellectual batteries or pursue other interests for the advancement of knowledge.

These latest dispositions by the NJC are worse than slaps on the wrist of errant judges. Far from discouraging judicial misconduct, the Council consecrates a ninth Beatitude: blessed are the crooked judges for they shall be entitled to a sabbatical. Put differently, the NJC seeks the beatification of judicial corruption into high virtue for which recidivist judges like Inyang Ekwo or rampant ones like Jane Inyang receive a year-long sabbatical. Judges who prize fidelity to their judicial oaths must wonder why they bother.

This institutionalizes cover-up under cover of judicial ceremony. Two words describe what the NJC now does on judicial discipline: complicit scandal. It is a tendency that deserves close attention and study as a model of how the judiciary accomplishes its own evisceration.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

In Nigeria, the term “National Cake” has long been a metaphor for the collective wealth of the country, an imaginary cake that, in principle, should be equitably sliced and served to all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or social class. But in reality, this proverbial cake has morphed into something else entirely: a lavish banquet for a privileged few and mere crumbs, if anything at all, for the rest. This growing disparity raises a pressing question that stares us in the face every day: Is it really a national cake, or has it been privatized into “their” cake?

This rhetorical shift is not just semantic; it is symptomatic of a deep structural malaise within the Nigerian polity. The national cake has become the preserve of the political elite and their cronies, a high table at which only the connected dine, while the masses hustle for the leftovers, often tossed in the form of palliatives, tokenistic empowerment schemes, or stomach-infrastructure politics.

To this writer, it is a shared inheritance denied every Nigerian that is not opportune or privileged to be in government or have somebody in politics. This is as the logic of a national cake presupposes a shared inheritance.

It is even surprising that despite the fact that Nigeria is abundantly blessed with natural and human resources that cut across oil, gas, arable land, solid minerals, a vibrant youthful population, enough to make any nation prosperous if harnessed justly and transparently, only a few Nigerians are eating the national cake.  The reason for the foregoing view cannot be farfetched as in more than six decades after independence, the commonwealth continues to be cornered by a self-serving elite, whose interpretation of governance is little more than “elite capture” disguised as “public service”.

Budgets are passed yearly with trillions of naira earmarked for capital projects, but year after year, the physical manifestations of these allocations remain invisible. Roads remain death traps, hospitals are glorified consulting clinics, and public schools are in shambles. Yet we are told the cake has been shared. To whom, and for what purpose?

It is no longer even shameful that government officials build sprawling estates, own fleets of luxury cars, send their children abroad for schooling, and access first-rate healthcare in foreign hospitals, all funded directly or indirectly by public resources. These are not benefits of service; they are fruits of exploitation. They are not eating the national cake on our behalf; they are eating it instead of us.

Nigeria’s political structure and reward system have institutionalized a form of legalized looting. Politics is seen as the surest path to wealth, not a call to serve. Elections are often nothing more than expensive rituals of deceit, where the highest bidder buys votes with stolen money, only to recoup it multiple times over once in office.

Appointments and contracts are rarely awarded on merit but on nepotism and patronage. The so-called federal character principle, originally designed to promote inclusiveness, has been bastardized into a tool for distributing slices of the cake among the powerful, not for equity but for appeasement. Ministries, departments, and agencies become silos of looting. Monthly FAAC (Federation Account Allocation Committee) disbursements often end up as salary payments and inflated overheads, while infrastructural decay festers across states and local governments.

Meanwhile, those who dare raise their voices against this rot, journalists, whistleblowers, and civil society activists, are hounded, silenced, or branded enemies of progress. In some cases, they are made scapegoats to distract from the real culprits. This deliberate gas lighting only reinforces the perception that the national cake is no longer a collective resource but a rigged buffet.

One of the clever manipulations that continue to fuel this systemic greed is the myth that everyone will eventually “benefit” from the cake if they stay loyal, play politics right, or wait for their turn. This myth is how the elite class majorly comprising of politicians control the masses and perpetuate the status quo. It is how party loyalists are groomed into sycophants, not advocates for the people. It is how civil servants become complacent. And it is how the youth are lured into cybercrime, fraud, and political thuggery, with the false promise of a share of the cake.

But the truth is glaring: it is not your cake. It has never been. And unless something drastic changes, it never will be. The distribution of wealth in Nigeria is one of the most skewed in the world. According to Oxfam, a handful of Nigerians control as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the population. That is more than 100 million people. The implication is that the so-called national cake has already been sliced, served, and eaten, over and over again, by a tiny cabal. And they are not planning on baking another one for you.

Nothing exemplifies the insult to the masses more than the recent distribution of palliatives in the form of rice, noodles, and N10,000 cash transfers in the wake of economic hardship triggered by subsidy removal and devaluation. These palliatives, publicized with elaborate media fanfare, are meant to pacify the people, not empower them. It is the equivalent of throwing bones to a starving dog while you feast in opulence.

For the sake of clarity, palliatives are not policies; they are placeholders for real governance. They do not address the root causes of poverty, unemployment, and inflation. Instead, they reinforce dependency and encourage short-term gratitude for long-term suffering. The idea of palliatives being rolled out while politicians receive wardrobe allowances and security votes in the billions is the clearest sign that what they are eating is not our cake.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is germane to opine that if Nigeria must survive as a functional nation-state, the idea of the national cake must be radically redefined. It cannot continue to be about who gets what from the treasury; it must be about how wealth is created, distributed, and sustained for the benefit of all.

Therefore, to create wealth, distribute it and make it sustainable for all Nigerians, there must be institutional reform. We need real consequences for corruption, not plea bargains or political rehabilitation. Institutions like the EFCC, ICPC, and Code of Conduct Bureau must be depoliticized and empowered to work without fear or favor.

Again, there must be public finance transparency. To achieve the foregoing, every naira spent must be accounted for. Tools like the Freedom of Information Act must be actively utilized by journalists and citizens to demand answers.

In a similar vein, there must be active citizenship. This is as Nigerians must discard apathy, given that democracy does not end at the ballot box. Rather, they should understand that civic engagement, peaceful protests, public commentary, and watchdog journalism are all tools for reclaiming ownership of the national cake.

Also in a similar vein, there should be pragmatic and intentional moves toward economic diversification.  Therefore, the cake must be enlarged through value addition, industrialization, and entrepreneurship as a country cannot eat what it does not bake.

Also, there must be constitutional restructuring. We need to revisit the foundations of our union. True federalism, resource control, and decentralization are key to ensuring that no part of Nigeria is parasitic on another, and that wealth is not hoarded in Abuja.

In fact, the harsh truth is that for now, it is their cake, held in the death grip of a few who believe the rest of us are either too poor, too tired, or too scared to challenge them. But history shows that even the most entrenched elites fall when the masses awaken to their power.

The question is not whether there is a national cake. The question is: who is eating it, and who is going hungry?

Until we confront this truth, Nigeria will continue to be a land of potential without progress, riches without equity, and dreams deferred indefinitely. It is time we rise and say: Enough of their cake. We want our share.

The Patriots for the Advancement of Peace and Social Development (PAPSD) has described the calls for a state of emergency in Zamfara as “politically motivated, ill-conceived, unwarranted, unpatriotic and unconstitutional”.

The Executive Director of PAPSD, Dr Sani Shinkafi, in a statement on Saturday in Abuja also described the calls as calculated attempt to destabilise Zamfara.

He said that it was also planned to cause confusion and political upheavals in the state to undermine Gov. Dauda Lawal’s giant strides in transforming Zamfara from an agricultural- base to an industrial state.

He condemned those sponsoring youths to stage protests calling for a state of emergency in Zamfara as declared in Rivers, saying there was no comparison between the two states.

He said that the situation that led to the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers was not applicable to Zamfara, even as Lawal was focused on fulfilling his campaign promises, with the support of most members of the State House of Assembly and citizens.

Shinkafi noted that Sections 188 and 189 of the 1999 constitution, as amended provided the procedure for the removal of a governor or deputy from office.

He added that Section 305 of the constitution also related to the power of the president to proclaim a state of emergency .

Shinkafi, the Patron, Tinubu-Shettima Presidential Campaign Council 2023, said it was obvious that Zamfara was not in a state of war to require a state of emergency.

“Compared to previous years, security in Zamfara State has significantly improved.

“Sadly, most of the videos and pictures of attacks circulating on social media were past attacks mischievously reposted to overheat the polity and undermine the visionary leadership of Gov. Lawal,” he said.

Shinkafi also noted that like other governors, Lawal had no constitutional power to deploy security agents if there was a security breach in any part of the state.

“The appellation of chief security officers of their states is merely ceremonial.

“It is an aspect of the constitution that should be amended to give powers to governors to deploy security agents to curb insecurity in their states,” he said.

Shinkafi urged President Bola Tinubu and the military high command to quickly address the security breach as previously done.

He commended the military personnel for their efforts and urged the Federal Government to motivate them and provide necessary weapons to defeat the enemies.

He also urged Lawal to summon an emergency security summit in the state involving security chiefs, religious leaders, traditional rulers, local government chairmen and civil society organisations to chart the way forward.

“This will further guarantee public safety and order, and forestall the security breach witnessed recently at Kaura Namoda.

“The PAPSD further urged the Zamfara State House of Assembly to quickly resolve the issues that led to the suspension of nine members to enable them to discharge their constitutional duties to their constituencies.

“As democrats, they should apply a political solution to issues, resolve them and move the state forward,” he said.

(NAN)

In commemoration of International Firefighters’ Day, Fire Protection Association of Nigeria (FPAN) has called for the government to go into strategic partnership with fire services, in order to better cope with emergency and disaster risks.

This was the thrust of a Press Conference, held by FPAN, at Ikeja Fire Station, on Friday.

FPAN president, Shehu Dambatta, reported that in 2024, Nigeria recorded over 100 fire-related deaths and a loss estimated at 67.1billion naira in property, 30,000 lives saved, as well as properties estimated to be worth 1.94 trillion naira.

Dambatta, noted that irrespective of the occurrences, fire fighters were able to respond to them with glaring inadequacies in staffing, obsolete equipment and lack of platform for training and continuous professional development.

He, however, urged for the acknowledgement of their unwavering efforts and sacrifice in the midst of disaster.

“Today, we remember and honour the sacrifices they make, both big and small, responding to emergencies with unwavering determination, battling raging fires, rescuing people from perilous situations, or providing essential first aid. They are not just firefighters; they are heroes, protectors, and pillars of our communities.

 “We also remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Their legacy reminds us of the high cost of the safety we often take for granted,” he stated.

Chairman, Board of Fellow, FPAN, Engr. Peter Onyeri, appealed for more Fire fighters training, provision of the equipment, adding that a lot of fire fighters sustain all sorts of injuries and hazards to their health in line of duty. 

“The government should provide adequate training for fire fighters so that their risk exposure will be reduced. They should be provided with personal protective equipment, improve on their welfare, specifically their remuneration and insurance because of the risks that they are exposed to, insurance has to come in to be able to take care of such hazards,” he appealed.

Mr Onyeri, further noted that firefighters  contribute to the economy of the country by securing lives and properties. Hence , the need to honor and support them.

“The last statistics of 2024, the fire fighters were able to secure 1.97 trillion naira in terms of saving for properties towards the national GDP and then, they have saved lives in spite of fire incidents that happened across the country. They are making a huge contribution to the national economy. So, we are asking the government as it is done all over the world, that they should look in the direction of the fire services in Nigeria to give them what they need so that they would improve on their contributions to the national GDP,” he said.

 Mr. Amodu Shakiru, lamented over the lack of cooperation by members of the public in Lagos state and several attacks by hoodlums during duty.

He said: “Basically, in Lagos, our own challenges are far much more than hoodlums attacks, false calls, the public not cooperating with us. This year in Lagos, we have witnessed attacks by hoodlums. Last year, we witnessed 578 false calls, away from the 1798 fire emergency.

 We need the public in carrying out our duty. We should salute firefighters. It is self-care. It’s humanitarian. Salute the men who are running in during a fire outbreak to save lives and properties.”

[TheNation]

Governors elected under the Peoples Democratic Party and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, may have agreed to make concessions to foster unity within the party ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

A reliable source told Sunday PUNCH that the Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, represented PDP governors in a meeting with Wike in Lagos last week.

According to the source, discussions during the meeting focused on resolving the political crisis in Rivers State involving Wike and the suspended Governor Sim Fubara, as well as addressing concerns related to the South-South zonal leadership, the National Secretary, and other matters to balance the interests of both sides.

Since the 2023 elections, the PDP has been battling internal crises.

The situation worsened with the conflict between Governor Sim Fubara and Wike in Rivers State, along with disagreements over the South-South zonal leadership and the unresolved National Secretary position since December 2024.

Attempts by the party’s leadership bodies—the National Working Committee, Board of Trustees, National Executive Committee, and the PDP Governors Forum — to mediate have only deepened divisions.

These efforts have led to further splits within state and zonal chapters of the party.

As the crisis drags on, many party leaders have grown disillusioned, with some defecting to the ruling All Progressives Congress and blaming the PDP’s unresolved internal issues.

On April 23, Delta State Governor Sheriff Oborevwori, former Governor Ifeanyi Okowa, and other officials from the state joined the APC.

Their departure has dealt a major blow to the PDP’s image and weakened its chances ahead of the 2027 elections.

A source close to the Oyo State governor revealed that after the Lagos meeting, Makinde agreed to brief fellow governors, while Wike would relay the outcome of the talks to his loyal supporters.

He stated, “Makinde and Wike met in Lagos, where Makinde represented the PDP governors and Wike attended on behalf of his loyalists.

“During the meeting, Wike expressed concerns about the Governors Forum’s recommendations, claiming they were made without considering party laws. He stated that some of the positions taken by the governors were illegal. The minister also pointed out that despite the Forum’s numerous positions, it has only succeeded in complicating matters rather than resolving them.

“Wike informed Makinde and other PDP leaders that he was unhappy with the Forum’s decisions regarding the National Secretary, South-South Zonal leadership, and the ongoing issues in Rivers State.

“He promised to stay in the PDP but requested that the forum and party leadership reconsider their positions on these issues in accordance with the party’s considering, to ensure peace, unity, and help reposition the party.”

The source stated that Makinde also expressed frustration over how the behaviour of some of the officials involved had worsened the situation.

He said, “In his response, Makinde also mentioned that the attitude of some officials towards the PDP governors was disrespectful and was not helping the situation. He reassured Wike that no one was trying to embarrass anyone, but rather, everyone was doing their best to reposition the party.

“Makinde promised to brief the governors on or before the forum’s next meeting and assured Wike of his support. They both agreed that concerned members should withdraw the pending litigation and pursue political solutions.

“Additionally, they agreed that the Governors Forum’s decision on issues such as the zonal congress, especially that of the South-South, the Rivers State crisis, the National Secretary position, and other matters should be revisited to accommodate all interests.”

A senior member of the PDP National Working Committee, who chose to remain anonymous, also confirmed that the meeting involving Makinde, Wike, and others was aimed at addressing unresolved matters.

The source said, “Yes, Wike and Makinde met to resolve some issues, and their resolutions will go a long way in unifying and repositioning the PDP.”

Attempts to reach the PDP National Publicity Secretary, Debo Ologunagba, were unsuccessful as he did not respond to our correspondent’s calls.

The PDP Deputy National Youth Leader, Timothy Osadolor, expressed confidence that the meeting, along with others held previously, would reposition the party.

In an exclusive interview with Sunday PUNCH, Osadolor suggested that PDP leaders were engaged in consultations and taking steps to strengthen the party.

He stated, “ Our leaders are not sleeping; a lot of meetings have taken place and more will take place in the future. The PDP will not only bounce back, but it will also reclaim its rightful place. I am sure you can see the movement taking shape as we speak.

“It is already gaining momentum, and people are beginning to speak out and align themselves with the party. I believe that as the days unfold, we will see that this is truly the party to be a part of.

“At this moment, there is no other party to be in. The other party, APC is like a ship with limited capacity. As more people crowd and overload it, it will either sink or capsize. It’s just a matter of time it’s not a question of if, but when. And that will happen.”

Atiku blamed for party crisis

In a related development, a member of the National Working Committee, who asked not to be identified for fear of victimisation, and a former Deputy National Publicity Secretary, Diran Odeyemi, blamed former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s ambitions for the ongoing crisis in the PDP.

They stated that Atiku, the PDP’s presidential candidate in both the 2019 and 2023 elections, had not contributed to the party’s growth over the years.

Instead, his actions had often complicated matters.

The party leaders urged him to publicly declare that he would not contest the 2027 presidential election.

According to the NWC member, some party leaders who believed Atiku had had his fair share in the PDP will persist in opposing the former vice president.

He stated, “Atiku in the past led five PDP governors and left the party. The party did not die. We came back stronger. From all indications, Atiku’s 2027 ambition is part of what is aggravating the crisis in PDP.

“Even the statement he made when Okowa defected, he shouldn’t have made such statement. Because if you critically look at the statement, it creates an impression that Atiku is also leaving the party soon. His defection doesn’t matter.

“If he continues to push for 2027, those who feel it should go to the South and others who also feel Atiku had had his opportunity will continue to fight him within the party and the crisis will continue.”

Odeyemi, on his part, stated that Atiku had the power to bring peace back to the PDP.

He said, “This situation in the PDP is demoralising party members nationwide, especially the governors. Some have defected, and there are rumors of more planning to do so.

“Part of the solution is this: Atiku Abubakar should publicly declare his support for the PDP. He must set aside the structures and ambitions that have divided the party.

“Yes, his presidential ambition is contributing to the party’s division. Many are fighting internally because they believe he plans to run again. He holds the key to restoring unity.

“That key lies in setting aside his presidential ambition. Of course, it is his democratic right to contest, but sometimes, when things are falling apart, one must consider the greater good of the party. He should prioritise the party’s survival over personal ambition.”

In response, the former vice president dismissed as absurd any claim that his presidential ambition was the cause of the PDP crisis.

Speaking through his media adviser, Paul Ibe, Atiku said those blaming him were the ones who triggered the crisis due to their selfish interests.

He said, “It’s ridiculous to suggest Atiku is the problem. He has never been the problem. If others want to run, they should come forward and face the process. This is a democracy. Let me use an analogy: blaming Atiku is like a son blaming his father for his own failures and hoping for his father’s downfall so he can have a clear path. That’s not right.

“Atiku is not stopping anyone from running. He hasn’t told anyone not to contest. People are simply looking for scapegoats, inventing excuses, and blaming him unfairly. The truth is, some of these individuals created the crisis and are now trying to shift the blame.

“Atiku’s statements after recent defections showed he remains a committed democrat. He has continued engaging stakeholders and seeking solutions behind the scenes. Most of the work he’s doing doesn’t make it into the newspapers. But he’s actively involved in efforts to reposition the party and build coalitions.”

[Punch]

Political defections occur in many countries of the world. Donald Trump, the current president of the United States of America who is now a Republican was once a Democrat. Defection is therefore neither new nor restricted to Nigeria. Whereas it is not too difficult to appreciate the rationale for political defections in other climes, the nature and frequency of Nigeria’s unending carpet-crossing from one party to another has no doubt become worrisome.

Only last week, governor Sheriff Oborevwori of Delta State defected from his party, the People’s Democratic Party PDP with scores of associates to the ruling All Progressives Congress APC. His predecessor in office, Ifeanyi Okowa moved along with him thereby leaving the PDP in Delta State in a quagmire of confusion. 

 Bearing in mind that for some time now, materialistic political defections in Nigeria have become a common trend with their adverse effects on the nation’s democracy, many Nigerians have expressed deep concern over the situation. While some people think that the country should design a strategy for discouraging the trend, others think defection has the advantage of creating flexibility in the political system. There is indeed the argument that it can make political parties to be more conscious of the expedience of a better management of their organs and structures. But as a developing political system, whose democratic norms and ethos are yet to be institutionalized, there is ample wisdom in regulating political defections in Nigeria before they derail her fragile democracy.

  It is perhaps against this backdrop that our constitution places some restrictions on defections by legislators. According to Sections 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g) “members of the National Assembly or a House of Assembly shall vacate their seat if they join another party or change their political party without the approval of their constituents or the party.” Sadly, these provisions have been adhered to more in the breach. In the case of the executive, the same limitation is absent from the constitution making it appear that presidents and governors are free to defect from their political parties whenever they so wish. As if to further throw some light on this viewpoint, it has been argued that the freedom of association guaranteed under Section 40 of the constitution covers the field.

 I disagree with the argument that a president or governor can under the guise of freedom of association be free to defect from his party to another. My position is that such supposedly free movement can have its minuses for society. To start with, the movement ought not to be allowed if the person moving is taking along with him to his new location, a property which belongs to someone else. Put differently, an elected office-holder under the banner of party Y cannot validly move to party Z with votes that belong to his previous party. To accept that is to allow the imposition on an electorate of a political party that had earlier been rejected during polls. It is worse that the party is now essentially the custodian of stolen goods.

  Those who argue that votes belong to a candidate are certainly not correct especially in the Nigerian context in which there are no independent candidates; it is political parties and not individuals that win elections. I had previously disagreed with the position of some analysts that former governors Ben Ayade of Cross River State and Dave Umahi of Ebonyi State were free to defect to the APC from the PDP. The attempt to sack the two governors failed because the judiciary was unable to find a place in our constitution, where the punishment for defection is to remove the defecting governor from office. I want to believe that the verdict would have been different if the party had simply sought to nullify the defection because the defecting governor has no right to so mischievously use the party’s vote.

 I do not believe that our courts would have found it hard to accept that the votes which enabled the two defendants to become governors belonged as a matter of fact to the PDP. Instead, the courts would have agreed with the clear provisions of Sections 177(c) and 182(1)(a) that “a candidate for governorship or presidency must be sponsored by a political party.” In which case, without a party a candidate is nothing. It stands to reason therefore that a governor cannot appropriate the votes of party Y and donate them to party Z. Indeed, whereas the judiciary should decline to remove a governor from office for defecting from one party to the other, it should also decline to validate the act of dispossessing a party of its votes. 

Political parties should therefore recraft their prayers and stop asking for the removal of a defecting governor as can be done to a defecting legislator. Accordingly, it would be unwise to ask the judiciary to remove defecting governor Sheriff Oborevwori of Delta State from office. He should neither be removed from office nor be allowed to defect. If governors find that they cannot legally defect to other parties while holding-on to the votes of a different party to sustain themselves in office, it would be left with those of them who so much love their new parties to first resign before defecting or to abandon the desire to defect. The judiciary can consider this suggestion while interpreting our defection laws with a view to helping Nigeria to strengthen its democracy. 

On the other hand, to consider the argument that candidates are co-owners of votes with their parties would amount to giving defectors loopholes to further experiment with our political system. This is because even if they were to be seen as co-owners, they cannot validly dispossess the party which is clearly the originating main shareholder. One reason why defectors are always left off the hook is the fact that their parties hardly keep to the issue at stake. It is therefore hoped that the PDP would concentrate on its loss of the governorship of Delta State rather than bothering itself with irrelevant moral issues that are purely a distraction. For example, a case against former governor Okowa is unnecessary. 

At this point, Okowa holds no office under the banner of the PDP. His case is therefore one that is covered by the principle of the freedom of association. His previous position as running mate to the party’s candidate during the 2023 election is now redundant and cannot bind him to the party for forever. It would be the party’s undoing to allow any focus on Okowa and others to distract them from the main goal. All opposition parties should therefore stand firmly to object to any of its governors defecting. Here, the case which stands out is that of governor Umo Eno of Akwa Ibom State who has become the most visible of all opposition governors with a body language that is currently singing the anthem of the ruling party. They need to reach him now before he holds more rallies to use his analogy of Ibom air flight to escape. 

Eno can even imagine that he got the mandate of his people to defect through his analogy of flying in an aircraft that is set to board instead of his own that is reportedly under repairs. The problem with his analogy is that his original aircraft may never be fit to fly, because he and the entire government apparatus, its most priced passengers may have departed with an alternative flight. The greater danger is that the competitor may easily acquire the entire company of the airline in the belief that the company had liquidated. This would be most unfair to the original owners of the company who are known in history to have consistently rejected other companies. This is why the sellers and the buyers need to respect the wishes of the founding fathers of the company.

But analogies aside, the political party of a governor hardly matters as there is no evidence that any governor would govern better simply because he defected to the ruling party. In fact, the best governors today are by no means those elected under the banner of the APC. What Nigerians want is good governance; not governors of a particular party. The last time I visited Delta State, there were visible signs of gigantic and exciting projects which should be sustained rather than defections which blow cosmetic matters out of proportion. Nigerians must thus stand together to reject defections which add zero value to society. Otherwise, the trend of our gale of defections may push Nigeria to a one-party state which is the same as military rule that Nigerians rejected more than two decades ago. Stopping the defections is therefore long overdue.

“More Nigerians will become poor by 2027 – WORLD BANK” – VANGUARD, APRIL 25, 2025.

Acute poverty is already fuelling massive increase in all sorts of crime in Nigeria today.

Predicting that more Nigerians will become poorer in 2027 amounts to passing a vote of no confidence in ALL the governments of Nigeria; not just the Federal Government.

It is also a death sentence on several million citizens – because infant and maternal mortalities rise with poverty. The International Monetary Fund, IMF, had, a few days before the World Bank announcement, informed Nigerians that inflation will increase by the end of the year and by 2027 – making nonsense of the attempt to deceive people with rebasing the economy.

To rub salt on the gaping wound, we have just been told that Nigeria accounts for 15 percent of all poor people globally.

That percentage is set to increase by 2027.

The reasons are as concerning as the consequences.

Nigerian governments, federal and states, are gradually losing control. When Tinubu ordered the Governors of Plateau and Benue States to take control of their states, it was buck-passing of the worst kind. Governors are impotent.

 ALARMING CONSEQUENCES OF INCREASING POVERTY

  “The most dangerous person is someone who has nothing to lose.” A black American friend of mine, who fought in Vietnam in the 1960s, summarised for me why the US lost the war in these words: “We were fighting the Viet Congs, mostly people in rags but armed. They were unemployed and destitute when drafted and promised the equivalent of one dollar a day – if they survived and military rations every day. Without the army they had nothing; no homes to return to; no family waiting for them. By contrast, the American fighter wanted to stay alive and return home. They were ready to die; we wanted to live. We killed ten of them for each of us they hit; but more kept coming.”

General Westmoreland, who was the longest serving Commander of American forces during the war, assumed that comparative body count figures – how many Viet Congs were killed for each American who lost his life – would very quickly persuade the enemy to surrender.

He was wrong.

Being armed and presumably fighting for his country against imperialists gave the Viet Cong soldier two advantages he never had and would not have if he dropped the gun.

One, an armed gang on patrol was guaranteed food and other forms of social welfare (“man no be wood being one of them”) which the other poor, suffering and smiling, could never have. They could seize food, pillage, rape and commit atrocities with impunity – as long as they carried weapons and shot Americans.

The US Commander had to beg for more troops to be supplied whereas the leader of the North Vietnamese forces, Ho Chin Minh, did not have to worry about getting more troops.

Acute poverty and hunger brought hundreds of thousands to the recruitment centres everyday.

In the end, the millions of people who had nothing to lose wore down the US troops who wanted to stay alive – if possible.

Americans did not learn their lessons.

They backed the Shah of Iran and lost; then tried their luck in Afghanistan and suffered another humiliating defeat. Each time the world’s greatest military power was taught that superior arms alone don’t win battles – when other human elements intrude.

THE RISE OF BOKO HARAM AND HERDSMEN

  “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

If you are wondering what all these have to do with Nigeria, allow me to patiently explain to you why all Nigerians are living in desperation.

Herdsmen and Boko Haram represent the two most dreaded terrorist groups in Nigeria today.

The two share one thing in common. They are partly supported and protected by powerful Northerners.

Mention of Northerners is deliberate because nobody in his right senses would accuse any Southerner of being complicit in the atrocities committed by the hoodlums threatening the existence of the nation.

While the latter had been largely confined to the Northeast, the former is nationwide and a source of danger to every Nigerian everywhere.

Truth is they were not in existence until after Obasanjo left office.  

“COAS vows tough offensive as Boko Haram kills 40 in Borno” – Report, April 30, 2025.

The report about killings in Borno came after another report in VANGUARD of April 27, 2025, titled, “We have spent over N300m on ransom, ECWA laments”, was released.

Sandwiched between the two blood-chilling stories was one which must have escaped the attention of many Nigerians.

The Borno State government announced that it has “rehabilitated 300,000 repentant Boko Haram insurgents”.

How and why the Governor of Borno State became a court of law to try and discharge heinous criminals who have killed over 200,000 fellow citizens is a mystery – which only the Governor can unravel.

Insurgency is a federal crime; which should only be tried by federal courts. Why and how the Federal Government allowed Borno State to pardon 300,000 mass murderers – with scant regard for their victims, numbering over 1.2 million – is a deeper mystery.

What is not mysterious is the fact that 300,000 hardened killers have been let loose on the Northeast of Nigeria by Professor Zulum; and, nobody should be surprised that the state is now on fire again.  

The obvious questions are: Who told Zulum that the hoodlums released are repentant?

How are they employed?

The truth is; a captured or badly injured hoodlum is not repentant and cannot be said to be rehabilitated without a job. Otherwise, he is merely on break; and would pick up the gun again at the earliest opportunity.

American troops learnt this from the enemy soldiers captured.

Nobody can claim to rehabilitate a jobless man who has been trained to use a gun to extort fellow citizens.

Boko Haram was a “gift” of the YarÁdua/Jonathan governments to Nigeria.

The danger to Nigerian lives, particularly in the Northeast, has lasted sixteen years; and there is no end in sight. Herdsmen overtook all the other terrorist groups only after 2016 – when the rape of Agatu was approved by the FG. Professional managers, studying decision making under conditions of uncertainty, know very well that doing nothing is also a decision – which might bring repercussions.

When the FG ignored the genocide at Agatu, it deliberately or inadvertently, sent out a powerful message – genocide by herdsmen is permissible; your Life Patron in Abuja will protect you from reprisals.

It was a grievous blunder; and everybody, Buhari included, is now desperate on account of unexpected developments.

Buhari fled from Daura to Kaduna because the security situation in his state had deteriorated so much his safety cannot be guaranteed.

POVERTY IS THE LINK BETWEEN ALL THE FORMS OF INSECURITIES

  “The poor cannot sleep because they are hungry; and the rich cannot sleep because the poor are hungry and awake” – Nigeria’s Professor Sam Aluko: 1929-2012.

Professor Aluko was the man whose PhD in Economics persuaded me finally to ditch Medicine for Economics.

I thank God for the change of course. Nobody in Nigeria sleeps comfortably any more.

Nobody is immune from insecurity. When the World Bank declared that poverty in Nigeria will increase by 3.6 per cent this year, there were at least three obvious conclusions implied.

First, it means approximately 7,920,000 more Nigerians will be added to the pool of those living desperate lives.

Over 122 nations worldwide have populations less than 7.92 million. Second, the government in an economy which increases the number of people living in poverty by nearly 8 million cannot by any stretch of imagination, claim to be performing well.

Almost all will be unemployed; the number of idle hands will rise and the Devil’s workshop will be fuller.

Third, the security situation will inevitably get worse because, poor people don’t just stay home and starve to death.

They resort to all sorts of means to survive.  

WHY MARCHING ORDERS TO SECURITY CHIEFS DON’T WORK

  President Tinubu had issued several “Marching Orders” to his security chiefs. He might not realise it, Buhari also did the same – to no avail.

 FROM MAIGADI TO MEGIDA IN ONE ADMINISTRATION

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”  – John F Kennedy, US President, 1917-1963

If you don’t know that Nigeria is already involved in a violent revolution, then get ready to read the truth and tremble. Nigerian intellectuals have always asserted that “what is needed in this country is a revolution”.

Unfortunately, they failed to recognise it when it arrived.

The Nigerian political elite, like those in any country, kept their attention on the erudite promoters of violent change. Those they either paid-off or wiped out or hounded out of the country.

At any rate, the intellectual revolutionaries were busy fighting the last war.

The new revolution began with unknown thousands of faceless men and some women who have now changed Nigeria forever.

This country will never be the same again.

“Right now, bandits and kidnappers are probably holding another set of victims – perhaps, the eighth set after Buhari  promised on March 1, 2021 to make the abduction of school children the last”.

Recollect my warning to Nigerians – “If you believe that, you will believe anything.”

Buhari had made a promise he should not because the security forces were not ready to help him redeem it.

The bandits now openly treat the President of Nigeria with contempt. He asked for it. That article was written in 2021; Buhari ignored it.

The consequences are here. Tinubu should stop issuing Marching Orders; they don’t work.