When President Bola Tinubu presented the 2025 proposed budget to the National Assembly just eleven days ago, it was clear that even this extra pliant set of legislators would need some additional flexibility to pass the budget within the working days left in 2024. No president, until Tinubu came along, had ever waited till two weeks to the beginning of a new financial year to table his proposed budget. Not even in 1999 (when the newness of the experiment could be an excuse) or in 2009 (when a sitting president was mortally sick) was the budget presented this late. But there is a new sheriff in town who felt it was not a bad idea to wait until a week before Christmas to present the budget for parliamentary consideration.

Shortly after listening to the president amidst remarkable giggles and applauses, the legislators approved a separate request to extend the capital components of the 2024 budget(s) till 30^th June 2025. They dispensed with two traditions at a stroke. The first was the customary extension, if a new budget had not been passed, of the capital budget till the end of the first quarter (31^st March); then another extension till when the new budget was passed and signed. Tinubu requested for an extension of half a year at a go, and the parliamentarians promptly obliged without any condition.

Capital provisions are usually multi-year, and since capital allocations are usually released late, it made sense to allow their extension while salaries and overhead would continue as approved in the old budget. This is to prevent government from shutting down in case the legislators take their time in passing the budget (we have had instances where executive-legislative bickering stretched budget passage to seven or eight months). However, once a budget is passed, the other budget should naturally lapse. Things are neater that way.

The possibility of two or more budgets running concurrently was an oddity until the Tinubu era. Clearly, the 2025 budget will be passed within the first quarter of next year. Meanwhile, the capital budget for 2024 would be running till 30^th June. This shows that the aberration of implementing multiple budgets in late 2023 and throughout 2024 is being normalised, with the enthusiastic endorsement of our legislators.

The second tradition that has been casually shredded is keeping Nigeria within the predictability of the January to December budgeting cycle. It took a lot of heavy lifting, discipline and meticulous planning by the executive and legislative arms to return the country to this tradition. A major milestone was recorded on 17^th December 2019 when former President Muhammadu Buhari signed the 2020 budget. This good and necessary tradition stood for five years.

The only reason why this tradition is being rolled back now, even with a legislature that adopts a fast-food approach to law-making, is because the 2025 budget was not presented on time. It is difficult to find a persuasive justification for this tardiness. The only trick for getting the budget passed and signed on time is preparing the budget proposal on time. If budget circulars are issued early, say by the end of the second quarter, the president should be able to present the budget to the National Assembly by September. This will give the legislators a whole quarter to work on the appropriation bill, and enough time for the executive to do a proper review of the passed budget and request for changes, if necessary, before presidential assent. Not submitting budget proposals on time allows for all sorts, including insertions and overreach by legislators. The way to cure such mischief, assuming there is the appetite for it, is to start the budgeting process early. And there is no compelling excuse not to.

However, President Tinubu has not taken a saw to all our budgeting traditions. He is, in this sense, a selective iconoclast. One tradition that he has religiously kept is that of bogus projections. While presenting the N49.74 trillion budget, the president gave a brief review of the 2024 budget(s): revenue projection performing at 75% and planned expenditure at 85% as at the end of the third quarter. This is all well and good. But it is not a substitute for a detailed budget implementation report for Q3 2024, which should have been published by now by the Budget Office of the Federation.

This is where we can have a clear view of revenue flows, expenditures by type and the deficit so far. It is in the detailed budget performance report that the fiction of our projections comes out to mock us. In any case, a budget based on crude oil production of 2.06 million barrels per day, FGN net revenue at N36.35 trillion, deficit of N13.39 trillion and inflation at 15% continues the game of orchestrated optical illusion that we have played with ourselves for decades.

It is, however, not an innocuous game. Unmet revenue projection leads inexorably to budget underperformance, increased deficit and more borrowing, which increases our debt burden. In the proposed budget, N16.33 trillion or 33% of the proposed budget or 45% of projected revenue is devoted to debt service alone. Debt service is the highest single item in the 2025 budget (or the second highest item if the N3 trillion capital allocation in statutory transfers is added to the N14.85 trillion in the main budget to take overall capital to N17.86 trillion). Whatever option we fancy, debt service as the highest or the second highest budget item is not a good look. And with the over-ambitious projection and expansionary approach that is out of sync with probable revenue, we are further locking ourselves in a vicious cycle. This is a time to faithfully keep deficit and debt (and resultant higher debt service) in check.

A ready and oft-used counter to this argument is that we also live in a time of great need, and that we need to spend to put the economy on sound footing and increase the productive capacities of our people. While this line of argument might appear persuasive, more than a few of the proposed expenditure do not pass the muster of necessity and regeneration or even transparency. Why do we propose to spend N238.05 billion for a hospital for the Nigeria Intelligence Agency (NIA) while the capital budget for the entire Ministry of Health and Social Welfare is N653.61 billion? Why do we need to allocate N50 billion as capital supplementation for a building for FIRS, an agency that gets 4% as cost of collection and with a hefty budget likely to be about half a trillion Naira? And how do we have a N761.97 billion as a one-line item for Special Projects?

There are other curious items I have seen in the proposed budget. One glaring example is the plan to transfer N146.14 billion to MOFI (Ministry of Finance Incorporated) as counterpart funding for the Lagos Green Line Metro Rail Phase 1. This raises many questions. The proposed allocation for the metro-line within a state is 65% of the capital budget and 57% of the entire budget of the Ministry of Transport. If this is counterpart funding from a recapitalised MOFI, why is the money coming from the budget of a federal ministry? Why can’t MOFI raise its counterpart funding from the market? How was the decision arrived at that this is a project to invest federal money into and will such facility be available to other states outside of Lagos?

Similarly, the lavish allocations to the development commissions not only raise similar questions but will likely cause more challenges down the line. The proposed allocations are as follows: N290.99 billion for the North East Development Commission (NEDC); N341.27 billion for the South East Development Commission (SEDC); N498.40 billion for the South West Development Commission (SWDC); N585.93 billion for the North West Development Commission (NWDC); and N776.53 billion for the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC). For a strange reason, the proposed budgets for these commissions all go to personnel, with zero allocation for overhead and capital (which I think must be a mistake, but it is still rich that such mistakes can make it to such a sacred document).

Beyond being conduits for elite settlement, these commissions have done little to uplift the material conditions of the people in their respective zones. There is nothing in the trajectory of the NDDC or the NEDC to recommend the creation and federal funding of three new zonal commissions. Collectively, these five commissions account for 5% of federal budget. And since the FG is eager to start and fund these commissions, more will be created. The North Central will surely demand what has now become a national cake. It is also not improbable for the Niger Delta to ask for a region-specific commission since NDDC also includes Abia, Imo and Ondo states as oil-producing states. In short order, we may start creating federally funded state development commissions.

On a separate but related note, I have searched unsuccessfully for two items in the current budget documents, as I did in previous main and supplementary budgets: the funding of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway and the purchase of the presidential jet. Maybe they are tucked somewhere I am yet to get to or maybe they are couched in a way that is not apparent. Anyone who has seen them should kindly share. My interest is not about the utility or the urgency or even the cost of these items.

I am interested in them for two reasons. One, citizens deserve to know how their common wealth is being expended and the processes followed to ensure there is proper value for money. These things should not be a matter of speculations or gossips. Two, no public money should be spent without appropriation and accountability in a democracy. We are not under an absolute monarchy where the king owns all and can whatever he likes. Beyond the concern about the sanctity of the budgeting process, there are higher values of transparency, answerability and democratic stewardship at play here.

These higher values currently seem lost on those constitutionally bestowed with the power of the purse and oversight, but should never be lost on us as citizens. We are citizens, not subjects; and we have a duty to ask pointed questions of those holding power in trust and to always insist that they do better.

So soon after being inaugurated by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, duty beckoned for Professor Siyan Abdul Ghafar Oyeweso at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Osun State. The horizon blazed forth the shiny future in sync with the global proclamation gender activists that the future is female. Exemplifying instances played out thus: At the first convocation he presided over as the Chair of the University Council and Pro –Chancellor, a female pharmacy graduate, Susan Akinyuwa, emerged as the overall best. She earned 4.97 out of a total 5.0 GP. It’s just the flickers of the future that Professor Siyan Gafar Oyeweso and the rest council members as well as the management and the staff of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife are envisioning.

From the supply side, more like a long term investment, long forgotten, suddenly sprouting dividends, Nigeria’s First Lady, Oluremi Tinubu, graciously scooped out a whopping N1billion on Obafemi Awolowo University, OAU, for the comprehensive renewal of the landscape of the university that used to be reputable as the most beautiful in Africa. It was her own alma mater too, now endowed with a reliable leadership.

It is a leadership characterised by scholarly distinction and one with a trajectory dating back to years of Lagos bond with Nigeria’s first family. Till date, Oyeweso, remains the personality historian to be beaten on such Lagos achievers including the legendary businessman and nature conservationist, Chief SL Edu and of course the author of what has come to be known as New Lagos, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Believing so much in Tinubu, Oyeweso’s two distinct analytical volumes of landmark speeches of former Governor Tinubu remains the inimitable sources of primary data on the political vision of the President now playing out. Yet, there was no iota of the likelihood of any shot at the presidency then. But the historian in Oyeweso has manifested the kind of precision that can only matched by data scientist often aided by programmed machines.

The new team lead at OAU, Oyeweso, has been so unequivocal, even at the risk of being expressly repetitive, declaring his strong intent to bring back the enviable glory of the world class institution dating back to those years the university nurtured him and others to be the best in their respective realms of practice.

A first class history graduate of the then University of Ife, Oyeweso believes so strongly that OAU, his alma mater, cannot, under whatever consideration, be made to be co-habit in the same bracket with low performing or struggling institutions. Oyeweso’s speech at the inaugural meeting of the council he is leading is as declaratory as it is retrospective:

“We pledge our unflinching commitment to the educational agenda of BAT’s Administration. We promise to deliver and we will not fail him… We are here today as co-inheritors of a wonderful heritage that has contributed significantly to our lives and career. I am happy to be here today as friend, partner, and son. I was sired, nurtured and bred here. But today, I am here with you to give back to this Great University all that we can give to ensure a more enduring and vibrant institution. We shall do this together in peace and harmony by the grace of God Almighty. When I entered this university in 1978, I came in with so much joy in my heart and an unusual glint in my eyes, for being counted worthy to come and study in Africa’s most beautiful university campus. But that was not the only reason. By then, Ife products had become famous and vibrant. They showed great elan in whatever they were doing. We wanted to be counted amongst the lot.”

The lull suffered by the entire education sector in Nigeria over time notwithstanding, OAU, according to Oyeweso has remained a most outstanding training hub for ICT in Nigeria even as he acknowledges the innovative drive of the Faculty of Social Science.

In a most convincing demonstration of his familiarity with the situation on the campus of OAU, Oyeweso notes the degeneracy of the hygiene and sanitation in particular. According to him, unlike the good old days characterised by ample water production and supplies all around the campus from a major source, boreholes are now sunk arbitrarily everywhere rendering the campus to possibility of tremor and allied disasters that may derive from such reckless abuse of nature. Many of the roads too are pothole ridden fall easily to torrents of rainfall making them impassable.

For him, universities like OAU, have daunting problems not only because owner governments fail in their duties but because policy implementors too engage either inadequately or wrongly with issues.

Two days ago, mankind celebrated the anniversary of the coming and the unveiling of the Light made manifest in a human being in our midst. I am referring to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of the Most High God, A Part of Him, which explains His Sonship. “The Father is in Me and I am in the Father; the Father and I are One,” He did say. The other Part is the Justice Arm, the Holy Spirit Whose true Identity is veiled to billions of human beings till this day, or so they believe. He is also a Son, the Third Arm, both swinging in Holy Trinity with the Father. Thus, Christ is on the right Hand of God the Father as His Love and the Holy Spirit on the left Hand of the Godhead as His Executive Justice. God is, therefore, both Love and Justice, and Purity.

Jesus was born in Palestine, among the Jews. Ironically, the Palestinians and the Jews have been at each and one another’s throat for centuries, indeed for more than three thousand years. As of now a most devastating, most ruthless war with the most mindless destruction in humans and property as harvests has been raging between the two peoples going to two years. Hardly is it ever remembered that not until the death of Solomon the proverbial wise king and the mounting of the throne by David was Palestine divided into two Kingdoms. Jeroboam founded the Kingdom of Israel with 10 tribes and his brother, Rehoboam established the Kingdom of Judea with two, with Jerusalem as its capital. Bethlehem is in Judea, on the Judean Mountains, six miles (10 kilometres) south of Jerusalem and 45 miles (73 kilometres) northeast of today’s beleaguered Gaza City and the Mediterranean Sea. Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem for census and could not find a more befitting accommodation than the stable. Joseph was able to prove that he was descended from David, and therefore had a share in the ancestral possession of what was called the Davidic family. The property situations in Israel and the Roman census necessitated Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem. It thus came to pass that the Lord Jesus would be born in the City of David.

“But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel.” The prophecy of Micah (5:2).

Ernest Schmitt writing on the Historical, Political and Religious Aspect of the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ states: “Their forefather Abraham was already so far developed spiritually as to be able to receive and hand down to his descendants the revelation of the Supreme and Only God, Jehovah. Through this they were prepared and made ready to receive the Will of God in the form of the Ten Commandments. Those so blest had thus been shown the Light-Way, and had been offered a Covenant, the upholding of which guaranteed them support of all the Laws of Creation that had arisen in the Living Will of God.”

Schmitt goes on: “A chain of spiritual guides strove to preserve among the people the memory of their unique destiny, and the high responsibility arising from it before God and men. Prophets exhorted and warned in fearless dedication. They branded the transgression of the commandments. They roused the people, and untiringly showed them the ruinous consequences of becoming lukewarm and turning away from God.

“The human spirits in whose midst the promised Messiah was to incarnate were carefully led and prepared. According to Eternal Light-Laws this could only happen in the spiritually most highly developed people, who at least to some extent showed certain homogeneity, thus offering a suitable soil to the Light-Anchorage.”

And so Jesus the Lord was born in Bethlehem in Judea. Angels jubilantly accompanied Him and stayed for 40 days. There was rejoicing in the firmament, in all spheres of Creation that help was come, anchored for the redemption and salvation of sinking mankind. The Lord Jesus brought the Truth about life and existence as only He and the Holy Spirit as Parts of the Father could. The picture of what happened on the Holy Night that Christ was born in Bethlehem was captured most glaringly in the unique Work, “In the Light of Truth,” The Grail Message. Because of the uniqueness of that Night’s happening, I wish to copiously extract quotes from The Grail Message of Abd-ru-shin in the hope this will trigger deep reflections. Hitherto, Christmas has been marked more in revelry than beneficial thinking and reflecting even in the face of accelerating spread of devastating mess our world is plunged daily. Why did Christ come? What about his gruesome death on the Cross? Was it a licence for mankind to go on sinning? Questions, questions and questions! It is he who has reservations about life and existence and begins to ask questions that is at the point of seeking the Truth of life!

The Grail Message says of the Night the Lord was born in Bethlehem: “Holy Night! Exultant singing in jubilant gratitude once streamed through all the spheres of Creation when the Son of God Jesus was born in the stable in Bethlehem! And shepherds in the fields, from whose eyes the bandage was removed during the joyous upheaval of the universe, so that they could bear witness to this immense happening and thus call people’s attention to it, fell upon their knees apprehensively because they were overwhelmed by what was so new and incomprehensive to them.

“It was fear on the part of the shepherds, who for this purpose were temporarily made clairvoyant and clairaudient. Fear of the greatness of the happening, of the Omnipotence of God thus made manifest! For this reason the herald from the Luminous Heights first spoke to them reassuringly: “Be not afraid!”

“Whenever a herald from the Luminous Heights speaks to human beings you will ever again find these words, for it is fear that earthmen always perceive first when seeing and hearing heralds from on high. This is called forth by the pressure of the power, to which they are also opened a little in such moments. But only to the smallest part, for anything more would surely smother them.

“And yet it should be joy, not fear, as soon as the spirit of man strives for the Luminous Heights!

“In those days people believed the shepherds, at least for a short period! Today, such people are only derided, considered eccentric, or even as impostors wishing to obtain earthly benefits thereby! For mankind has sunk far too deeply to be still able to accept calls from the Luminous Heights as genuine, especially when they themselves cannot hear or see anything…

“Do you really believe, men, that on account of your great downfall God will now set aside the perfect Laws in Creation just to serve you, to bridge over your faults Himself, and to balance your spiritual indolence? The Perfection of His Laws in Creation is and will always remain inviolable, immutable; for they bear the Holy Will of God!”

In the spirit of questioning, my colleague and friend, Femi Kusa with whom a great many would take oath that I share the same world view, was to forward his contemplation about this season to me to reinforce the imperative of deep reflection, which I find thought-provoking for wider reflection. In what he captions Christmas: Some thoughtful questions, he writes:

Every Christmas season, as in every Easter season, I retreat from bread and butter life, including revelry, to retreat as well in spirit as a Christian, ask myself certain questions and deepen my recognitions of faith. Over the years, I have found that the same questions or similar ones have not left many Christians in peace in whose souls and spirit kernels the longing for the Truth still burns bright. I feel inwardly urged to share some of these questions today.

Question: Where did this Star, The Star of Bethlehem, come from? If it was one of the stars in the firmament, with a defined orbit, why has  it not returned since Jesus ascended to Heaven?

Answer: The Star of Bethlehem did not come from our Universe, Ephesus, which is one of the seven universes in the world. In Creation “geography”, the world is not our earth. It comprises those regions and spheres of existence which lie between the lowest realm of Paradise and our earth. It is a training ground for human spirit seed germs sent out of Paradise to gather experience which will make them mature enough during their wandering for re-admission to Paradise as useful Human Spirit Beings. The world comprises seven universes of which our own is one. It is to them that John the Baptist’s address in the Book of Revelation is directed when he says: ”To the seven churches of Asia”. He did not mean a Christian organization and a continent on earth. Here churches refer to the seven universes of the world, and Asia is the spiritual name for the world. The Star of Bethlehem came from the highest of the 14 spiritual realms known as Paradise. If we perfect ourselves on earth to become Human Spirit Beings, we would be admitted to the lowest of these 14 spiritual realms. The Spiritual Beings in the seven highest realms never had to come to the world or to the earth to mature. They are the Primordial Beings created by God in His Image. We human beings on earth are to develop after their likeness. We are not the direct Creation of God Who, being Perfection, can never create imperfection.

The Star of Bethlehem is not part of our universe, Ephesus or from any other. Rather, it came from the highest Spiritual Realm of Paradise to usher in on earth the Age of the Son or Age of the Love of God, Jesus. It brought greetings from the Almighty Father to His Son on earth. The Age before that one was the Age of the Father, dated from the time of Abraham when humanity on earth had become mature enough to come to the recognition of the One Supreme God. This was after a step by step recognition of Nature Beings, elemental beings, Lords of the Elementals and Spiritual (Created or Developed) Beings. Each Age is subject to the Law of the Cycle. Every event in our personal lives is a cycle, the time it opens and the time it ends, like day and night or birth and death. Time is allotted to everything. The coming into being of the earth is also an event which has a terminal period in the Law of the Cycle.

As the closing of the cycle of Earth approached, and with many of us still trapped in earthly enjoyments and lusts with the possibility of our being lost in the inevitable dissolution of the Earth under this Law, The Love of God became substantiate in the Person of the Lord Jesus to forewarn us of the impending doom and to teach us what we had to do to escape damnation. There was jubilation in Paradise when this Divine Mission was announced to the inhabitants, the clarified, perfected Spirits. On their own, they had been of not much help in the various missions of the Prophets. In Paradise, many spiritual Beings volunteered to support the Divine Mission. They were specially chosen, anointed and prepared for their tasks in their duty posts. 

The Grail Message says, for example: “the Star became physically visible, but nobody on earth saw this luminous herald and the luminous hosts surrounding him. None saw and heard this but the few shepherds chosen for the purpose, who through their simplicity and close connection with Nature could be most easily opened to receive it. 

“And such great revelations on earth can never take place other than through a few chosen for the purpose! Remember this always!”     

The Mission was a sort of “war”, though peaceful, to salvage humanity from fallen Lucifer (the fallen Archangel) who was misleading them toward perdition. War because the political and priestly establishments or their agents lay in wait in nearly every place—those He said would not go in and would not allow others to do so, blocking ways with creeds!

Four Wise Men, each representing a Pillar of Creation were chosen. Remember the four Winged Animal Beings at the foot of God’s Throne! The Four Wise Men were prepared to recognise The Star of Bethlehem in the sky over Bethlehem as Greetings from the Father to His Son on Earth. They were also endowed with property and influence and were to always, protecting, be around Him. Three of them made it to Bethlehem when the Star shone. The fourth was unable to immediately able to join them. By the time he arrived in Bethlehem, the three had been done with Baby Jesus, abandoned their duty post, gone to King Herod to announce what they were to have kept a secret from him, inadvertently setting up a chain of reactions in which several newborn male children were killed in King Herod’s lust for power, ignited from the background by Lucifer. Meanwhile, Joseph, advised by an Angel in a Vision, had taken Mary and Baby Jesus in hiding in Egypt. All these events teach us Christians and persons in other religions who stand in serious duty posts to never lower their guards.

Meanwhile, the Star of Bethlehem returned to its Home in Paradise. The cycle of events It opened on Earth about three thousand years ago will be closed by the Great Comet, another Spiritual Star from the same Origin, the same Height. The Great Comet will open the cycle of the Age of the Holy Spirit. The Great Comet is exactly of the same nature as the Star of Bethlehem. While the Star of Bethlehem heralded love, this time the Great Comet is heralding the judgment as the Handmaiden of the Holy Spirit Who is the Justice of the Almighty God. “The Star takes its course in a straight line from the Eternal Realm” of Primordial Spirit. Its core is filled with high spiritual power. Its first direct effects have already begun such as the extra-ordinary events of these times. We are told the Great Comet would suck up waters of the earth ‘’high up’’, create flooding even in unusual places, cause catastrophic climate changes, cause lands to sink and sunken lands to rise, overturn every wrong principles and more.  Several predictions of this Age have been made. The Lord Jesus forewarned us of the Task of the Holy Spirit when He said this Personality we little understand would not forgive sins against Him whereas the Father and the Love of God, Jesus, would forgive sins against them. This should forewarn us that the Holy Spirit created the World and will judge it according to law, however we may have deluded ourselves with teachings that the Blood of Jesus had washed us clean of our sins. Did the parables of the Lord Jesus say such a thing? Does the Revelation not say we have to wash our dirty linen clean? “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the city by the gates. (Rev. 22: 14). Thou shall not get out of thence until thou hath paid the last farthing! 

Questions, questions and questions and misconceptions, all of which we must be able to clear up convincingly if we must make progress in our quest and ascent to the Spiritual Realm, Paradise, the destination of our return journey back Home.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

God’s Truth as a Defense: Farotimi Appeals for Divine Reckoning on Bola Tinubu, Afe Babalola, CJN, Ekiti Magistrate, Ekiti Police Commissioner, Nigeria’s IGP, and Other Oppressive Leaders Defying Justice and Fairness

During the sacred season of Christmas, Dele Farotimi’s powerful declarations take on profound spiritual significance as he places his faith in God to confront the systemic oppression he describes as Nigeria’s “evil empire.” Without directly naming his plea, Farotimi invokes the Almighty to act against entrenched powers that perpetuate injustice and suffering, turning to divine intervention as the ultimate reckoning for a system that thrives on corruption and cruelty.

With the resounding statement, “God told me that the truth is enough. It is the only weapon with which you can slay the monster called Nigeria under Tinubu,” Farotimi shifts the fight from human hands to divine judgment. Referencing the themes in his book, Nigeria and Its Criminal Justice System, his call resonates with those abandoned by leadership and systems that prioritize power over humanity, subtly asking for God to bring the sorrow, reckoning, and justice that earthly institutions under oppressive and evil leaders have failed to provide. Farotimi’s plea reflects the collective yearning for accountability and hope in a higher power to dismantle a system built on oppression.

Invoking Divine Justice Against an Oppressive System

In a fearless and spiritually charged declaration during the sacred Christmas season, human rights lawyer and activist Dele Farotimi placed his faith in God to bring justice to those he described as architects of Nigeria’s “evil empire.” His words, resonating with the themes of hope, truth, and redemption, invoked divine intervention to confront the oppressive powers that have sought to silence him.

“God told me that the truth is enough. It is the only weapon with which you can slay the monster called Nigeria under Tinubu, which is the truth,” Farotimi proclaimed. These words carried profound spiritual weight as Farotimi entrusted his fight to the Almighty, implicitly calling on God to hold accountable President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, legal luminary Afe Babalola, Nigeria’s Inspector General of Police (IGP), the Ekiti State Police Commissioner, and the magistrate presiding over his case.

The Nigeria Evil Game: Gagging Truth but Not God

As part of their coordinated strategy to suppress him, Farotimi was subjected to harsh bail conditions, including a directive from the magistrate that he refrain from speaking to the media—a blatant attempt to muzzle his voice. Yet, Farotimi made it clear that while these powers may try to gag him, they cannot silence God. His defiance of their oppressive tactics reflected a belief that divine truth and justice cannot be restrained by human edicts.

He seems to be saying: “These powers can try to gag me, but they cannot gag God,” Farotimi implied as he spoke boldly of divine consequences. By invoking the Almighty, he shifted the burden of justice from flawed human institutions to a higher, incorruptible authority. His words called for God to bring relentless pain, unending sorrow, and devastating reckoning to those who perpetuate injustice. Farotimi’s invocation extended to the hope that those responsible would face anguish that pierces their comfort, despair that dismantles their strongholds, and ruin that reveals the depth of their corruption. His plea reflected a belief that divine power not only surpasses the reach of oppressive earthly systems but obliterates them with consequences they cannot escape. His implicit plea for divine intervention underscored an unshakable faith that no earthly power could withstand the unyielding force of truth when wielded by a power greater than all.

An Ordeal of Systemic Oppression and Divine Reckoning

Farotimi’s ordeal highlights the extraordinary and alarming lengths to which these powers have gone to silence him over a civil matter of alleged defamation or cybercrime. Stemming from his book, Nigeria and Its Criminal Justice System, Farotimi was forcibly taken from his Lagos law office in a dramatic abduction orchestrated by the Ekiti State Police Commissioner, acting under the supervision of the Inspector General of Police (IGP). Held without bail for nearly four weeks, his persecution intensified with efforts to strip him of his law license. In an act widely condemned as excessive and unjust, the magistrate, responding to what critics have deemed a ludicrous request, issued a restraining order banning his book entirely. This chain of events exemplifies the oppressive measures wielded to suppress dissent and silence truth, all under the pretense of upholding the law.

Despite these oppressive measures, Farotimi placed his fight in the hands of God, asking for divine justice to bring sorrow and retribution to those aligned against him. His faith was not merely a personal solace but a declaration that the consequences for such systemic evil would come directly from God.

“Let God Bring Pain and Sorrow”: A Call for Divine Consequences

Farotimi’s implicit plea was not for human retaliation but for God to act decisively against his oppressors. “God, deal with them with pain, sorrow, and terrible effect,” he seemed to say, as he confronted the entrenched forces of oppression. He did not mince words in suggesting that the reckoning would be severe—measured in sorrow, despair, and divine retribution for those who wield power to silence truth.

This was not a wish for simple punishment but a call for transformative pain—one that would expose the lies, break the systems of oppression, and bring unbearable consequences to those who believe they are untouchable. His words carried the weight of a man certain that the Almighty would ensure justice in ways no earthly system could resist or contain.

Christmas as a Season of Truth and God’s Judgement

Farotimi’s declaration during the Christmas season lent his message a profound spiritual resonance. This sacred time, dedicated to the triumph of light over darkness and truth over lies, underscored the depth of his faith in divine justice. By invoking God during this season, Farotimi aligned his struggle with the universal themes of renewal and moral reckoning, presenting his fight as part of a greater spiritual battle.

His words reflected the belief that God’s judgment would strike where it was most needed: dismantling the systems of oppression and bringing sorrow to those who use power for evil. The Christmas spirit amplified his call, reminding all that divine justice cannot be delayed or denied. Farotimi’s faith in this ultimate reckoning was a rallying cry for those left broken by a system that thrives on their suffering.

Tinubu’s Endorsement of Injustice Leaves Families Homeless

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s public praise for FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, despite the latter’s widely condemned actions of demolishing homes sometimes without due process, reflects a chilling indifference to the plight of Nigeria’s most vulnerable. Entire families, including children, have been rendered homeless under policies that prioritize power over people. This blatant disregard for justice and humanity underscores the systemic evil that Dele Farotimi has courageously spoken against.

For families forced into the streets, with their lives reduced to rubble, Farotimi’s plea for God’s intervention becomes not just justified but urgent. His call for divine justice to strike these oppressors with sorrow, pain, and reckoning is a reflection of a nation’s despair as its leaders fail to protect the most basic rights of its citizens. Tinubu’s endorsement of such inhumane acts further cements the narrative of a governance model steeped in oppression, making Farotimi’s reliance on divine justice a powerful symbol for the oppressed.

Families Betrayed, A Nation Turns to God

The demolition of homes without due process, the rising insecurity, and the crushing poverty inflicted by government policies have left families across Nigeria with no hope in human institutions. These actions betray not just individual lives but the very fabric of a society that should protect its most vulnerable.

As Farotimi declared, “We have only God.” His plea for divine justice, for God to bring devastating consequences to those who wield power to harm, echoes the cries of children and families abandoned by a system designed to oppress. Farotimi’s unwavering faith in divine reckoning offers a glimmer of hope for those left homeless and hopeless, a belief that the Almighty will intervene to dismantle a system steeped in cruelty and corruption.

By highlighting the failures of leadership and the unchecked abuse of power, Farotimi has drawn a line between earthly oppression and divine accountability. His trust in God’s judgment as the ultimate force to bring sorrow and justice upon the oppressors reflects a profound conviction that truth and faith will prevail where human systems have failed.

Inhuman Indifference: Tinubu’s Response to Stampede Tragedies

Farotimi’s plea for divine justice finds greater resonance in light of President Tinubu’s response to the recent stampedes that left over 60 people, including children, dead during palliative distributions. Tinubu shifted the blame to the “poor organisation” of these events, ignoring the deeper root causes—his administration’s harsh policies, including the removal of fuel subsidies, that have driven millions into extreme hunger and desperation.

Describing the incidents as “a grave error” by the organisers, Tinubu failed to acknowledge that it is his own governance that has forced Nigerians into such desperate conditions. His remarks, focusing on organisational failures and comparisons to structured food banks in developed nations, revealed an alarming indifference to the suffering caused by his policies.

Farotimi’s call for divine reckoning becomes a reflection of the collective anger and sorrow of a nation betrayed by its leaders. As leadership shifts blame while ignoring its role in creating this tragedy, Farotimi’s invocation of God’s justice stands as a powerful demand for accountability where human systems have failed.

A Divine Reckoning for the Oppressors

Farotimi’s plea is not merely a call for relief but a demand for divine retribution to confront those aligned with systemic injustice. His reliance on God to bring sorrow and pain to the perpetrators of oppression is a reflection of his unwavering faith that no human power can escape the consequences of divine justice. His words serve as a rallying cry for the oppressed to place their trust in God’s ability to right the wrongs inflicted by the powerful.

Faith Over Fear: Resisting Evil with Divine Power

Farotimi’s steadfast reliance on God in the face of systemic evil exemplifies courage and faith. Despite the coordinated attempts to silence him, he stands firm, trusting that the Almighty will deliver justice in ways that human systems cannot obstruct. His implicit call for divine intervention is a declaration that truth, guided by God, is the ultimate force for dismantling oppression.

The Spirit of Christmas: Justice Through God’s Hand

As the Christmas season reminds us of the power of faith, truth, and redemption, Farotimi’s reliance on divine justice serves as a testament to the enduring strength of the human spirit. His fight transcends personal grievances, becoming a broader call for God to illuminate the darkest corners of society and hold the oppressors accountable.

Farotimi’s words, steeped in faith and conviction, embody the belief that divine power will triumph over human injustice. His defiance stands as a powerful reminder that while human systems may try to suppress truth, they cannot escape the consequences of divine reckoning. Neither Farotimi nor this writer is directly asking for God’s punishment on these Nigerian powers that be; rather, it is a plea for God to observe and ensure justice unfolds, especially when justice appears unattainable from these powers. In his plea for God’s intervention, the spirit of Christmas finds profound expression—a call for sorrow and pain to be visited upon the oppressors as justice is delivered through God’s hand.

The New Year 2025 promises to be full of conflicts, most of them avoidable. The hottest spot might be in the Middle East where fierce proxy conflicts are going on with Israel at the centre. Only the naïve would think that the wars Israel has been involved are entirely fought by it, whereas that country is a proxy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO.

It is backed by the war machine of the West mainly run by the United States, US, United Kingdom, UK and France. They provide Israel with intelligence, embedded soldiers, missiles and anti-missile shields, military hardware and, of course, funds. On August 13, 2024, the Department of State announced that the US alone had approved a $20 billion weapons package to Israel which includes advanced airto-air missiles and fighter jets.

Those countries also have their warships on the side of Israel. Such warships include the American USS Wasp, USS New York and USS Oak Hill while the UK has its Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. On its part, France, has the Languedoc and Alsace warships in the area which can come to Israel’s aid as it did when Iranian missiles were fired at Israel. This is why Israel is enabled to carry out genocide in Gaza and the West Bank, and attacks in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iran.

There is the senseless war in Sudan in which troops from the same armed forces, nationality, religion, language and culture are engaged in a siblings conflict. Its only parallel, in terms of stupidity, is the 36-year conflict in Somalia. Another that comes a bit close is the 13-year civil war in Libya ignited and controlled by NATO. In West Africa, the conflicts are mainly against terrorists and bandits with Nigeria being the main centre. Some of the countries, namely Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have entered into a military and economic alliance to fight the criminals.

They have also expelled France which not only exploits the situation in those countries, but also plays a double game. Partly for these reasons, countries like Chad and Senegal have joined in expelling the French military, while, disturbingly, Nigeria is getting closer to the same France. The conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, which became complicated when the USA, UK and Belgium organised the ouster and execution of founding Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba on January 17, 1961, are still raging.

The DRC’s main sin is that it has huge mineral resources. The low intensity combats in the Central African Republic, CAR, took ethnoreligious dimensions in 2013. It is still simmering. One country that has strenuously tried not to be involved in armed conflicts is China despite having territorial disputes with countries like Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Brunei, Malaysia and the Philippines. It has also refused to take the bait of the US to draw it into an economic war. China’s strength lies in this and advancing its economic interests and powers as is evident in the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, BRICS+ alliance.

A unique country that has strenuously avoided war and has tried to be friends with all humanity is Cuba. Apart from the April 1960 Bay of Pigs Invasion in which it defeated mercenaries from the US, and its unique sacrifice in fighting the Apartheid armed forces to free Africa from colonialism, Cuba has, since its 1959 revolution, avoided war. The only unique wars it has fought in many countries have been against diseases and pandemics like Ebola and COVID-19.

But the main challenge of Cuba is that the US treats it like a mortal enemy. Its primary sins include the fact that it is a mere 151 kilometres from the US city of Florida. Now, the US regards Cuba as its backyard and believes it must always control it. This, Cuba has heroically rejected, insisting on its sovereignty and freedom to run its own affairs. Secondly, Cuba in pre-revolutionary times was the playground of the US Mafia and the rich. The American elites have insisted on returning Cuba to that status.

Thirdly, Cuba in carrying out its revolution and insisting on its maintenance, is seen by the US establishment as a bad example in the hemisphere which must not be allowed to stand. Fourthly, the US sees Cuba as an inspiration to revolutions across the world. Fifthly, it sees Cuba as being very dangerous because it is socialist and, an ally of radical governments across the world. So, since 1962, the US has tried to squelch tiny Cuba which is a mere 109,884 kilometres or the size of the US state of Tennessee.

One of its main weapons against Cuba is to impose a blockage against it, stopping it from trading freely or running its business. On October 30, 2024 the United Nations General Assembly voted for the 32nd time that US ends its illegal 62- year economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba. The resolution, passed by 187-Member States, with only the US and Israel voting against, and Moldova abstaining, again reaffirmed the total support of the international community for the just struggle of the Cuban people and government.

But as it has done since 1992, the US continues to ignore the rest of humanity. This Christmas week marking the birth of Jesus Christ, known as the Prince of Peace, the Cuban nation decided to march in its capital city, Havana, to demand that the US brigandage and injustice against the Cuban people must be brought to an end. The peace march led by Cuban President Miguel Díaz Canel Bermudez and his successor, Raúl Castro Ruz, passed in front of the US embassy.

During the march, President Bermudez said: “We do not profess the slightest feeling of hatred against the American people. To the noble citizens of that country, we offer our full respect, and our hand is always extended to strengthen the bonds of brotherhood between the two peoples…but if the US persists in its efforts to undermine our sovereignty, our independence, our socialism, they will only find rebellion and intransigence.” The US message to Cuba is clear: when chosen by war, you’ve no right to choose peace.

There is no denying the fact that for many Nigerians, this is their bleakest Christmas ever. It is not because they have lost the zeal to celebrate. No! They simply cannot afford to even contemplate, not to talk of actually making merry in this triumphant season. Happiness has become a luxury in the land. Rather than celebrating, many Nigerians are mourning. That, in itself, is a tragedy.

But the bigger tragedy is the fact that despite the obvious sad realities, President Bola Tinubu continues to live in denial, refusing to accept the truth of our unpleasant circumstances. He has perfected the art of playing the ostrich, burying his head in the sand rather than face the reality which is a direct consequence of the policies of his presidency. Granted, the fact that he continues to deny the consequences of that reality is typical, yet his feigned pretence during his media chat on Monday is amoral.

It is difficult to say with any measure of certainty if Tinubu’s denial of the stark realities is a defense mechanism, a way of protecting himself from a truth that is too bitter to accept or if he truly believes that Nigeria is at the cusp of redemption. In his perfunctory ripostes to the questions thrown at him, he came across as an impervious leader who is disconnected from the prevailing sad realities.

Fielding questions from journalists at his Lagos residence on topics that included subsidy removal, tax bills, economic reforms, size of governance and corruption, Tinubu displayed an unbecoming cavalier attitude, pretending not to see a correlation between the policies of his administration, particularly the sudden removal of fuel subsidy, floating of the Naira and hiking of electricity tariff, and the country’s dire straits. These are policies that have led to an unprecedented cost of living crisis.

What is most disconcerting is the hypocrisy. He blamed the citizens for their financial woes, accusing them of ostentatiousness. Just like his Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu, who on April 6, 2024, accused Nigerians of lacking the culture of power consumption management, Tinubu chastised fellow citizens along the same line. “It is not negative to learn to manage. You learn to control your electricity bill, switch off the light, let’s learn to manage,” he said on Monday.

But good leaders lead by example, demonstrating the behaviours and values they expect from others. People are more likely to follow leaders who practise what they preach. Tinubu has not demonstrated that capacity. For instance, Nigerians agree on the need to cut the cost of governance. Tinubu has the largest cabinet ever. Yet, he would not countenance any idea of reducing the size of his bloated cabinet. “I am not prepared to reduce the size of my cabinet,” he told his interviewers. “I saw the need when I put them together. Don’t give someone an assignment they cannot fulfil.”

One of the areas he saw a need was in the creation of Ministry of Livestock Development. Before now, livestock development used to be a department in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security that already has two ministers. Creating another ministry out of the parent ministry is superfluous. It is like creating a Ministry of Football or Ministry of Lawn and Table Tennis as a substantive standalone ministry out of the Ministry of Sports Development. The President knows this for a fact. Yet he had to fritter away scarce resources on the altar of prebendal politics.

It is needless talking about his take on corruption because I doubt if there is any discerning Nigerian that will expect him to wage a vigorous war against corruption. Suffice it to say that it is highly disingenuous for the leader of a political party that made a song and dance of prosecuting former top military officers, including a former National Security Adviser, for allegedly stealing public funds while in office, to now say that he will not probe “any service chief,” because doing so will be tantamount to disrespecting the military institution.

But what I found most distasteful was the attempt to deflate the criticism of his government’s harsh economic policies for the fatal stampedes that occurred in Oyo, Anambra and Abuja last week claiming the lives of scores of hapless citizens mostly women and children.

On December 18, 35 children were confirmed dead during a stampede at a funfair event in Ibadan, Oyo State capital; on December 21, ten people, including children, also died in another stampede at the Holy Trinity Catholic Church in the Maitama district of Abuja during the distribution of palliatives; at least another 22 people died during a rice distribution event in Okija, Anambra State, on the same day. 

Blaming the organisers of the charity events for the fatalities, Tinubu said he has been sharing palliatives in his Lagos residence for 25 years without an incident. “It is very sad that people are not well organised. We just have to be more disciplined in our society… I have been giving out foodstuff and commodities, including envelopes in Bourdillon, for the last 25 years, and I have never experienced this kind of incident because we are organised and disciplined. If you know you won’t have enough to give, don’t attempt to give or publicise it.”

That is most uncharitable. While it is true that he has been giving out foodstuff, commodities and money to his cronies for the last 25 years without any ugly incident, it is also true that the Catholic Church through the St. Vincent de Paul society, Chief Ernest Obiejesi and his ObiJackson Foundation, and even Queen Naomi and her Wings Foundation have also been organising such charity events without fatal stampedes.

The Catholic Church is, perhaps, one of the most organised groups in the world. There was the presence of policemen and local vigilante at the Okija event. The difference between what happened this year and previous years is that Tinubu’s administration has pushed many more people into the poverty loop, orchestrating extreme hunger in the land. The uncertainty has made the desperation worse. Poverty has a way of robbing people of their dignity. When possible starvation is added to the toxic brew, life becomes meaningless.

The difference between what happened in previous years and what is happening now is captured in the lamentations of Amarachi Nwosu, a 32-year-old woman, who miraculously survived the stampede with his three-year-old son Obinna at the Holy Trinity Catholic Church grounds on Saturday.

“It has been hard. The cost of food is unbearable. Even a cup of rice is now a luxury for us. I didn’t even know what was happening. I just wanted to get food for my children. I thank God we survived. But what do we eat now?”

Eighteen-year-old Terngu Nyam, who survived with a broken arm, went there for the sake of his starving family. “I just wanted to help my mother. We’ve been struggling to eat one meal a day. I didn’t think this would happen.”

Tinubu should not talk down on organisations, churches and individuals who are helping to clear the mess he has made of governance by seeking ways of easing economic hardship caused by a cost-of-living crisis.

What is leading to these tragedies is not lack of organisation. It is the sheer number of people who are now turning up for palliatives because of the mass poverty and starvation. Some of these people had waited overnight to get food. For instance, Amarachi arrived at the Holy Trinity Catholic Church grounds in Maitama from her Mararaba home, a distance of about 25 kilometres around 5am. That is desperation.

These deadly crowd crushes have become a recurring decimal under Tinubu’s watch. In March, two students died and 23 were hurt as thousands of people gathered for bags of rice being handed out by authorities at Nasarawa State University. Four women were killed later the same month outside the office of a wealthy businessman in Bauchi, where they were waiting to collect a cash gift of N5,000 to help pay for food during Ramadan.

In any other country where almost 70 people, mostly women and children are trampled to death, the government will declare a day of national mourning and the national flag will fly at half-mast. Not in Nigeria. Instead, Tinubu said: “I see this as a grave error on the part of the organisers, but things are improving. It doesn’t kill our happiness for the season; we should just get on with it.”

Which things are improving? And where is the happiness when over 70 families have been thrown into deep mourning as a result of circumstances beyond their control?

Tinubu and his supporters may continue living in denial, but the fact is that these fatal stampedes are a direct consequence of the cost of living crisis in the country caused by the fiscal and monetary policies of his government in the last 18 months. Living in denial will not take away that fact. 

In line with the recommendations of the State Advisory Council on Prerogative of Mercy, Governor Ademola Adeleke has exercised prerogative of mercy towards 53 convicts serving various convictions within the Nigerian Correctional Service.

The letter of commutation dated December 24th, 2024 and which has since been received and acknowledged by the relevant prison authorities read as follows:

"WHEREAS: the inmates whose names are set out in the schedule to this order have been convicted to various terms of imprisonment to wit.

(i) Simple offences and have served substantial portions of the sentences, 

(ii) Convicts sentenced to death

"(having spent a minimum of 10 years in custody.)

"AND WHEREAS: following the recommendation made to me by the state advisory council on the prerogative of mercy that I should exercise my power in relation to the said inmates in order to mark the 2024 Christmas celebration.

"AND WHEREAS: in the case of the 30 (thirty) inmates convicted of simple offences, I have decided in accordance with the said recommendation to remit and forgive the remainder of the said sentences in whole.

"AND WHEREAS: I have decided in accordance with the said recommendation to grant outright pardon to 12 (Twelve) inmates convicted of simple offences.

"4 (Four) Convicts have their sentences commuted from death to outright pardon. AND WHEREAS: I have decided in accordance with the said recommendation to commute the sentences as follows;

"1 (One) convict has his sentence commuted from death to 15 (Fifteen) years imprisonment.

"6 (Six) Convicts have their sentences commuted from death to outright release.

"Now know ye therefore that, I Senator Ademola Jackson Adeleke, the Governor of Osun State of Nigeria, in exercise of the power conferred on me by paragraph (a), (c) and (d) of subsection (i) of section 212 of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended), I am pleased to extend my grace and mercy unto the said inmates.

"My will and pleasure thereof, is that you commute the death, life and years of imprisonment as indicated herewith in the schedule"

Those in the schedule are as follows:

CONVICTS RECOMMENDED FOR OUTRIGHT PARDON (SIMPLE OFFENCES)

1. OLABOMIJI NURUDEEN

2. MUSTAPHA ISAH

3. OLALEKAN ABDULLAHI

4. AYOMIDE OLOJEDE

5. AKEEM RAPHAEL

6. ADEYEMI ABIODUN

7. OLADIPUPO SEGUN

8. OMISAKIN SUNDAY

9. ADEMOLA ADIO

10. TUNDE OLAPADE

11. LATE CHIEF WOLE OLA

RUFUS OJO

12. OMOLOYE OLAJIDE

OLAYEMI

CONVICTS RECOMMENDED FOR OUTRIGHT RELEASE (SIMPLE OFFENCES)

1. OLUBO SUNDAY

2. ISAH UMAR BIODUN

3. FAWAS KAREEM

4. OMIRIN TEMITAYO

5. OLARENWAJU AYOMIDE

6. DARE SUNDAY

7. OLADAPO TUNDE

8. GANIYU SAHEED

9. ADEWUMI SODIQ

10. ADEBAYO ADEOYE

KEHINDE

11. LASIS KAZEEM

12. DAUDA OJO (59 YEARS)

13. ISMAILA RAJI

14. OSENI MICHEAL

15. AJAYI KOREDE

16. ABIONA NURUDEEN

17. OSHI SAMUEL

18. SHEU YUSUF OLATUNJI

19. OJO AANU

20. MUSTAPHA KEHINDE

21. LASIS ABEEB

22. ALEXANDRA IORLAHA

23. OJO TAIWO

24. AZEEZ MUJEEB

25. AKINYEMI DAVID

26. ADEOSUN ADEKUNLE

27. OLAOBAJU SAMUEL

28. ADURA ADEFEMI

29. PAUL BASIL

30. KUNLE DAVID

CONVICT RECOMMENDED FOR OUTRIGHT PARDON FOR GOOD CONDUCT (CAPITAL OFFENCES) - 4 (FOUR)

1. SUNDAY MORAKINYO

2. SEGUN OLOWOOKERE

3. TUNDE OLAPADE

4. DEMOLA ODEYEMI

CONVICT RECOMMENDED FOR OUTRIGHT RELEASE ON HEALTH GROUND, (CAPITAL OFFENCES) -

1 OLUWAFEMI FAGBEMI

2 BEWAJI SUNDAY

3. AMEHIN GEORGE

4. AYOMIDE ARULOGUN

5. TAIWO OLUWATOBI STEPHEN

6. ABUBAKAR ABDULAZEEZ

CONVICT RECOMMENDED TO BE COMMUTED FROM DEATH TO 15 YEARS IMPRISONMENT HAVING SPENT AT LEAST 10

YEARS IN CUSTODY

1. OJEKUNLE TIMOTHY

Signed

Mallam Olawale Rasheed,

Spokesperson to the State Governor.

With only 15 months left for banks to meet the deadline for the new share capital benchmarks, the Central Bank has warned that the March 2026 deadline will not be shifted. Speaking to this writer, a CBN director said, ‘’the idea of extension or shift of the deadline does not arise. They were given more than two years to meet the new threshold, and by our calculations, that is enough time. We are not contemplating an extension’’. So far, of Nigeria’s 36 lenders, only Access Holdings has concluded the capital raising exercise, bringing in a little over N351 billion from its Rights Issue of 17.772 billion shares that sold for N19.75 per share. The offer closed in August. With this, Access Bank has thus become the first to meet the CBN’s N500 billion minimum capital requirements for Banks with International Authorization well ahead of the March 2026 regulatory deadline. The bank’s share capital would increase to N600 billion, N100 billion above the regulatory minimum requirement.

 For the other 35 banks, the next one year will be a crowded and busy period. A few have gone far while many others are yet to make appreciable progress. Some like the other four tier one lenders – GT; UBA; First Bank and Zenith – have already announced their offers, but are yet to conclude the process, others, especially the small regional and some national banks are still lagging behind. There have been a host of challenges, though, even among the big ones. FBN Holdings, the parent company of First Bank, has had its programme slowed down considerably by Boardroom crisis. The long drawn battle between Femi Otedola and Oba Otudeko for the control of the company has just been settled, with Otedola emerging chairman of the holding company. While Zenith Bank has had to juggle both capital raising with reconstituting itself into a holding company at the same time, GT Bank has just survived a major service disruption and customer backlash due to migration to a new IT platform.

 To meet the new capital requirement, the banks are expected to go for public offers; rights issues; private placements; mergers and acquisitions or a combination of these. In terms of mergers and acquisitions, there are indications that two banks, Providus and Unity, are in talks to merge together. Both are national banks, but with a combined market share of less than 20 per cent in terms of deposit liabilities. Providus has a huge Lagos State shareholding just as Northern State governments hold huge interests in Unity Bank. ‘’That’s the only discussions in the market for now for mergers and acquisition; but I won’t be surprised if more candidates join the discussions in the next few months’’, said a senior executive of a bank.

 Younger and better managed banks seem to be doing better generating new capital. Nixon Iwedi, executive director of Globus Bank said his bank is on track to meet the deadline. ‘’We are raising N150 billion through a private placement and Rights Issue. The first has been successfully completed and we are on the second phase now’’, he said, noting that they prefer to approach the process in a rather quiet and restrained manner. Globus has a national license and the minimum for this category is N200 billion.

 For Access Holdings, the process has become quite a momentous. It has become the first Nigerian financial holding company to successfully execute a fully digital Rights Issue embracing the power of technology to improve access to equity capital market. By leveraging the NGX’s E-offer platform, the company provided its shareholders with a convenient and efficient subscription process, leading to the participation of many of its retail shareholders in addition to institutional investors. Speaking on the successful offer, Board Chairman Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede, said: “The Access brand has always resonated strongly with the local and international capital markets. Since 2004, Access Bank has raised billions of dollars in capital to meet successive CBN recapitalization directives. We are pleased that this time we are the first to breast the tape. The success of the Rights Issue demonstrates the resilience of Nigeria’s capital market and reinforces our shareholders confidence in the present value and potential of our company’’.

 While a few banks are already set on a course of action to meet the deadline, many others are still weighing their options. As a CEO pointed out to me, ‘’it is too early to understand the options that they would explore. It would become clearer as we get into the second half of 2025’’.

Nonetheless, the Nigerian capital market has once again demonstrated capacity and depth to meet the expectations of investors, issuers and professionals. We saw this during the indigenization programme of Gen. Yakubu Gowon; the privatization programme of Gen. Babangida and the consolidation programme of President Obasanjo. Its mutualization a decade ago also signified the market’s ability to adapt to change.

Apart from General Sani Abacha, I have met one-on-one with every Nigerian leader since 1992, from General Ibrahim Babangida. However, I have only participated in one televised live group media chat with former President Olusegun Obasanjo. 

If you have met Obasanjo before – whether for an interview or anything else – you might agree that he’s a handful and more. You never know what to expect with Obasanjo, especially when he is in his lair. 

I narrowly missed being punched by the former president during an untelevised interview in his Library in the Villa in 2004 for asking why his government was letting a political outlaw, Chris Uba, run amok in Anambra State. The combined effort of presidential aides, the late Remi Oyo and Professor Julius Ihonbvere, rescued me from Obasanjo’s fury.  

Are you OPC?

My experience wasn’t very different during the live presidential media chat. I had asked him why he ordered a shoot-on-sight against members of the militant Yoruba self-determination group Oodua People’s Congress (OPC), which operated mainly in the South West, Obasanjo’s home base.

He was livid. He warned me, on air, that if I were going to bring the irreverence of my weekly column to the Villa, he would immediately throw me out of the panel. I insisted on an answer, to which he said, “If you’re a member of OPC, tell your people that I mean what I said!”

Three presidents, different styles

Presidents Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, Goodluck Jonathan, and Muhammadu Buhari, whom I also met at different times in different untelevised encounters in the line of duty, were distinct in their peculiar ways. 

Yar’Adua spoke a little, measuredly and candidly. Jonathan was gentle, felicitous, and vulnerable without a care in the world. Buhari was taciturn, defensive, and tight-lipped, except when you touched on a raw nerve, mainly around his family or his relationship with Babangida, with whom he has had a fascinating Tom-and-Jerry relationship. 

I poked Buhari on this soft spot in an untelevised group interview in 2016. His unusually animated, angry reply inspired a widely publicised story that covered The Interview magazine, entitled “Why Babangida removed me from power.”

Road to interview

The Monday televised interview with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu differed in many ways. Multiple sources, including those inside his cabinet, had pressured him to host an interview many times, but he refused, insisting that the time was not right and that there was much to be done. 

In October, 17 months into his presidency, there was a nearly interview on the eve of the planned second round of the #EndBadGovernance protest. He cancelled at the last minute for personal reasons. 

When I received a message on December 18 that I had been selected for a panel to interview the president, I assumed it would be live. Not that there’s any journalistic rule forbidding a recorded interview. Some of the best interviews I’ve read about or seen, from Oriana Fallaci to Larry King, were recorded. In a more recent example, the CNN interview with President-elect Donald Trump was recorded on November 25 and aired on December 12.

Live or recorded?

However, I hoped the interview with Tinubu would be live – a point I later found was shared by all panel members – because this was the first nearly halfway into his presidency. If eating this toad had taken 19 months, it’s better to eat it big for Nigerians to hear their president engaging them unfiltered. 

The choice of live or recorded can sometimes be tricky. Like Ebenezer Obey’s famous story in the song of the Journeyman and his Donkey, you can’t please everyone. Some want it live because it allows spontaneity and could sometimes be a window on the persona of the interviewee. Others prefer a live interview for traps to catch the interviewee in their unguarded moments, which is why others oppose it.

The panel

We—a panel of seven—comprising Dr. Reuben Abati (ARISE TV/ThisDay), Maupe Ogun-Yusuf (Channels TV), Nnamdi Odikpo (NTA), Jide Otitoju (TVC), Umar Farouk Musa (VOA), Ruth Olurounbi (Bloomberg News), and me—wanted to have this interview live and for two hours for the reasons I’ve explained.

That didn’t happen. Hours before the interview, which was postponed from Sunday to Monday because of the tragic deaths from palliative stampedes in different parts of the country, we finally settled for 90 minutes. The questions were entirely ours to decide, and that was what happened. 

Some folks have been upset that the interview was not live and, to make matters worse, not a brawl. One gentleman, obviously with a heavy heart, said, “I expected my seniors on the job to rattle the President.” I get that. Another was not even interested in the interview. He aimed at me instead, saying that even though I’m an Igbo man (which I’m not), I did not wear a red cap (which I’ve never worn) because of an “inferiority complex!”

To cut or not?

It’s the nature of recorded interviews—and this one was no exception—that not everything is aired. Twenty questions were prepared, and at least 17 were asked point-blank, excluding unscripted queries and follow-ups. 

Among the unaired questions were whether the President considered Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), a political liability and whether direct payments to the local governments were not a derogation of the principle of federalism, which recognises the centre and the states as the fundamental constituent units of the federation. 

Questions also arose about #Endsars and state police and whether the president would request the Code of Conduct Bureau to release his assets, as one or two newspapers requested under the FOIA of 2011.

His answers were fascinating. He described Wike as a performing minister and a very good man. He said it twice, slowly but louder and with a hearty laughter of approval the second time. In response to the Supreme Court’s judgement on local government autonomy, he said, “There are at least two ideological views on that. The thing is that the constitution created the local governments, and there isn’t such a thing as ‘unfunded mandate.’” 

Translation: If the law created local governments, it is not unlawful for them to receive their funding directly. That debate continues.

‘I’ll consider’

On state police, he said he didn’t expect any obstacles but expected a negotiated outcome in the country’s best interest. His response to the question on asset declaration was even more fascinating. I remember that in 2012 this question left Jonathan with a media chat black eye. He was asked if he didn’t care about the growing public demand that he should declare his assets. In what was initially thought to be a slip, he said, “I don’t give a damn!” That turned out to be a damn good headline the next day. 

Tinubu took a different approach. He said he had done his part by filing his assets as required by the law and would do so again at the point of exit. But when asked if he would ask the CCB to release it since there is currently no law mandating the CCB, despite the FOIA, he said, “I will consider doing so.” That, I think, is worth holding onto.

Everything couldn’t be covered in a one-hour broadcast, and perhaps one live or recorded interview will hardly satisfy the pent-up hunger to hear the president. But one presidential interview at a time, the gap is closing.

The ongoing leadership crisis at the University of Abuja (UniAbuja) reflects deeper systemic challenges that extend beyond the mere selection of a Vice-Chancellor. As a psychologist, it is clear that the interplay of emotional, ethnic, seniority, youthfulness, and religious biases driving this crisis is damaging to the institution’s mission and the well-being of its stakeholders. Leadership should not be about clinging to outdated traditions but about fostering progress through unity, innovation, and inclusivity.

The constant infighting has undermined the university’s fundamental purpose: serving students and advancing education. Whoever ultimately assumes the Vice-Chancellor position—whether it is Prof. Aisha Maikudi or another qualified candidate—must rise above personal, political, and sectarian agendas to prioritize transparency and institutional growth. This is a pivotal moment for UniAbuja to part with relics of the past and adopt governance models that reflect the realities of modern academia.

UniAbuja has the potential to transform into a beacon of progress. However, this transformation requires leadership grounded in collaboration, innovation, and a student-centered vision. It is time to move beyond power struggles and embrace changes that align with the evolving demands of global academic landscapes.

The leadership crisis at UniAbuja highlights the dysfunction and outdated governance models that continue to hinder Nigerian academia. What should have been a transparent and structured process to select a Vice-Chancellor has devolved into violence, favoritism, and resistance to reform. These events reveal a toxic environment where regressive mindsets obstruct much-needed progress. While this writer and psychologist remains neutral, it is difficult to ignore the backward arguments opposing innovation and reform—arguments that perpetuate stagnation in a system in dire need of evolution. Apologies to readers for this extended explanation, but such a critical issue warrants deep reflection.

Violence as a Governance Tool: An Alarming Trend in Academia

The use of violence and intimidation to resolve disputes at UniAbuja signals a deeply rooted crisis. Reports of thugs disrupting Senate meetings, journalists being assaulted, and academics silenced illustrate a governance culture where intimidation has become normalized. Such actions, including the brutal treatment of Channels Television reporters and the vandalism of their equipment, tarnish the university’s reputation and undermine its mission as a center of intellectual excellence. This descent into coercion reflects a system incapable of engaging in constructive dialogue.

Rejecting Violence and Nepotism in Governance

Reports of attempts to impose Acting VC Prof. Aisha Maikudi, allegedly despite not meeting job advertisement criteria, expose systemic governance failures. Allegations of nepotism, favoritism, and rushed processes raise serious concerns about transparency. While Maikudi’s rapid ascent—from becoming a professor in 2022 to her appointment as Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC)—has drawn criticism, the real issue lies in the absence of an open and impartial selection process.

It is crucial, however, to avoid conflating these criticisms with a rejection of progress or innovation. The resistance to arbitrary benchmarks should not be mistaken as support for rigid traditions. If the only objection to Prof. Maikudi’s candidacy is her inability to meet tenure-based criteria, then such objections must be dismissed. Her ability to lead, innovate, and adapt should be the primary criteria—not the length of her tenure. These outdated benchmarks, while once relevant, no longer align with the evolving demands of contemporary university leadership. Leadership today requires vision, strategic thinking, and a commitment to fostering collaboration—qualities that cannot be measured solely by years of service or academic titles.

Manipulation of Leadership Processes: Merit Takes a Back Seat

The allegations surrounding Acting Vice-Chancellor Prof. Aisha Maikudi’s candidacy expose the failures of the leadership selection process. Claims that the selection joint board was manipulated to favor her while sidelining numerous other qualified candidates raise serious concerns about transparency and fairness. These controversies overshadow any potential merits of her candidacy and cast doubt on the integrity of the entire process. 

Outdated Benchmarks: A Hindrance to Progress

One of the most glaring issues is the reliance on outdated benchmarks to determine leadership eligibility. Critics of Prof. Maikudi cite her limited post-professorial experience as a disqualifier, clinging to traditional metrics such as years of tenure and academic publications. However, this narrow focus fails to account for the qualities needed to lead a modern university. Leadership in today’s world demands innovation, strategic thinking, and the ability to foster collaboration and adapt to global challenges. The obsession with arbitrary qualifications traps institutions in mediocrity and stifles progress.

Backward Thinking Reflects an Institution Stuck in the Past

The insistence on rigid academic qualifications as the sole measure of leadership capability highlights a regressive mindset. Today’s university leaders must go beyond academic expertise; they must be strategic thinkers, resource mobilizers, and visionaries capable of navigating global challenges. Clinging to outdated benchmarks not only limits the pool of potential candidates but also fails to equip institutions for the future. It reflects an institution that is unwilling—or unable—to adapt to the realities of modern academia.

This does not mean endorsing a rejection of academic standards but rather advocating for a holistic approach that values diverse leadership qualities. It is time for institutions like UniAbuja to move past the rigidity of tradition and embrace a future where leaders are chosen for their ability to inspire transformation, innovate, and build sustainable institutions.

Students as Forgotten Stakeholders in the Crisis

The ongoing leadership crisis at UniAbuja has glaringly neglected the university’s most critical stakeholders—its students. At its core, a university exists to serve its students, equipping them with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to thrive in an increasingly competitive and interconnected world. Yet, in the current atmosphere of administrative battles, internal power struggles, and outdated traditions, the essential focus on student-centered goals has been abandoned.

Students require leaders who prioritize their growth and development through the provision of modern facilities, innovative curricula, and access to global opportunities. Instead, they are left to bear the fallout of a leadership system bogged down by outdated benchmarks and internal conflicts. The struggles to impose candidates or cling to antiquated traditions fail to address the pressing needs of the student body, leaving them under-resourced and underprepared to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving global economy.

The university’s purpose must transcend the ambitions and egos of those at the helm. A leadership crisis that prioritizes self-interest and perpetuates stagnation inevitably fails the very people it exists to serve. Students do not benefit from rigid adherence to outdated academic benchmarks or from the resistance to reform that keeps the institution tethered to the past. They deserve leaders who are visionaries, willing to implement bold changes that modernize the university, enhance academic offerings, and create clear pathways for success in today’s world.

Africa is Moving Forward: UniAbuja Risks Falling Behind

Across Africa, universities are increasingly embracing forward-thinking leadership models to address the demands of a rapidly evolving academic landscape. Institutions in Ghana, Kenya, and even Nigeria’s private universities have begun to prioritize leaders with entrepreneurial mindsets and innovative visions. These institutions understand that success requires adaptability, inclusivity, and a commitment to modernization. By clinging to outdated practices, UniAbuja risks falling further behind, not just regionally but globally, in its ability to attract and retain top talent and students.

If Objections Are Rooted in Tradition, They Must Be Dismissed

Again, if the opposition to Prof. Maikudi’s candidacy hinges solely on her inability to meet outdated academic benchmarks, such objections deserve to be dismissed outright. To be blunt, this reasoning is nonsensical and reflects a rigid adherence to the past rather than a forward-looking perspective. The argument that two to three years of professional experience renders her incapable of leading senior professors is an outdated and elitist mindset. Universities are not mere bastions of hierarchy—they are enterprises, dynamic ecosystems requiring leaders who understand that modern academic institutions must function as centers of innovation and influence, not just tradition.

Leadership in today’s universities demands vision to see beyond immediate challenges, adaptability to navigate the complexities of a rapidly changing world, and an unwavering focus on outcomes that benefit students, staff, and the institution as a whole. If Prof. Maikudi—or any candidate—has been vetted transparently and demonstrates the capacity to lead with these qualities, then objections rooted in tradition are not only misplaced but harmful to progress. Institutions must embrace leaders who drive transformation, not cling to the nostalgia of ineffective and exclusionary traditions.

The Absence of HR Processes: A Structural Flaw

One of the most glaring omissions in the UniAbuja crisis is the absence of a professional Human Resources (HR) framework in the leadership selection process. HR departments are designed to ensure transparency, inclusivity, and alignment with institutional goals. By establishing clear, objective criteria, HR-led processes can eliminate personal biases and political interference. Such frameworks prioritize merit and innovation, focusing on the qualities that truly matter in leadership. If HR processes had been in place, the controversies surrounding Prof. Maikudi’s candidacy and the subsequent chaos could have been avoided entirely.

The Way Forward: Reform and Innovation

The UniAbuja crisis highlights the urgent need for systemic reform in Nigerian academia. Institutions must adopt transparent governance models that prioritize student outcomes, embrace innovation, and break free from the constraints of tradition. Balanced HR frameworks must guide leadership appointments, ensuring that decisions are based on merit and institutional goals rather than personal or political interests. Universities must focus on selecting leaders who can adapt to global challenges, foster collaboration, and implement transformative policies.

Educating Key Stakeholders

Nigeria’s educational stakeholders, including the Minister of Education, the National Universities Commission (NUC), university senates, and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), must urgently adapt to the evolving demands of modern university leadership. These institutions are not just centers for teaching and research—they are engines of national development and global competitiveness. For them to succeed, their leadership must reflect the qualities required to navigate complex challenges in a globalized world.

The Role of the Minister of Education and NUC

The Minister of Education and the NUC hold the power to champion reforms in university leadership appointments. By prioritizing transparency, merit, and innovation, they can introduce guidelines aligned with global best practices. Modern Vice-Chancellors must go beyond academic credentials to embody visionary leadership, strategic insight, and entrepreneurial abilities with a proven capacity to foster growth and collaboration.

University Senates and ASUU Must Embrace Change

ASUU, while vital in advocating for academic standards, must move beyond its attachment to outdated traditions and its interference in leadership selection. ASUU is not an HR department, and its influence often disrupts the reforms needed for progress. Likewise, university senates frequently act as gatekeepers of entrenched practices rather than champions of modernization.

This approach hinders not only universities but also students, the economy, and the broader educational system. Students suffer the most from outdated methods, as leadership controversies divert focus from modern curricula, improved facilities, and global opportunities. Universities need leaders who prioritize student-centered goals and institutional advancement over rigid academic hierarchies.

ASUU and senates must support environments that promote transparency, fairness, and inclusivity in leadership selection. Decisions should focus on candidates’ vision, innovation, and ability to secure funding and foster global partnerships. Adopting professional, merit-based frameworks will align Nigeria’s universities with international standards, benefiting students and the nation’s economic development.

The Importance of Open Competition

The debate over the Vice-Chancellor position at UniAbuja highlights the need to move beyond rigid academic benchmarks like 10 years of professorial experience or a long list of international publications. While these qualifications reflect academic dedication, they are not sufficient indicators of the leadership needed to guide a modern university. Leadership today demands vision, strategic thinking, and an inclusive approach to institutional growth, with a focus on delivering transformative academic experiences for students.

Modern universities prioritize leaders who can build international partnerships, secure funding, and foster collaborations that benefit students and faculty. Entrepreneurial skills and resource management are just as critical as academic credentials, ensuring institutions remain adaptive and competitive. Relying solely on traditional standards often excludes candidates with diverse, non-traditional experiences that could revolutionize governance.

Globally, universities are appointing leaders from entrepreneurial and professional backgrounds who bring creativity, adaptability, and global engagement to their roles. A Ph.D. or strict academic benchmarks are no longer mandatory; what matters is the ability to align institutional goals with societal impact and innovation.

UniAbuja has a chance to modernize its selection process by adopting inclusive and transparent criteria that value academic credibility alongside vision and innovation. Academic achievements like international publications are valuable but should not outweigh broader leadership qualities. Transformative leadership will ensure Nigerian universities can compete globally and provide exceptional opportunities for students and staff.

How Modern Societies Approach University Leadership

In modern educational systems, the process of selecting university leaders reflects professionalism, transparency, and alignment with institutional objectives. Unlike traditional methods that emphasize rigid academic benchmarks, these systems focus on attracting leaders who can inspire innovation and navigate complex global challenges. Human Resources (HR) departments play a pivotal role in ensuring that the selection process is fair, inclusive, and strategically oriented.

Comprehensive Job Advertisements

Universities in advanced societies craft detailed job advertisements that go beyond academic credentials to outline the leadership qualities, strategic vision, and practical skills required for the role. These advertisements attract a diverse pool of candidates, including those with entrepreneurial or professional backgrounds, ensuring that potential leaders are evaluated on their ability to meet the evolving demands of modern academia.

Merit-Based Selection Panels

The evaluation process is carried out by diverse, merit-based selection panels comprising internal and external stakeholders. These panels focus on candidates’ strategic vision, leadership capabilities, and track records of delivering measurable results. This ensures that the chosen leader has the capacity to drive institutional growth and foster an inclusive academic environment.

Embracing Transparency and Change for a Better Future

Modern university leadership demands openness and inclusion at every level of the selection process. By actively engaging students, faculty, and administrative bodies, universities can ensure that their leadership choices reflect the collective needs of the academic community. Professional oversight eliminates biases and ensures that decisions are made based on merit. If Nigerian universities adopt these approaches, they can move beyond outdated governance models, prioritizing innovation and growth to compete globally.

Leadership Beyond Academic Titles

A Vice-Chancellor or President should embody transformative leadership, far surpassing mere academic credentials. Insisting on outdated benchmarks risks rendering institutions irrelevant in a world that values innovation, adaptability, and visionary thinking. Leadership today must focus on advancing institutions to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving educational landscape.

The time to break free from outdated practices in Nigerian universities is now. Sticking to rigid traditions only hinders progress while the world continues to evolve. Universities must prioritize inclusivity, innovation, and transformative leadership to achieve national and global educational goals.

The ongoing leadership crisis at UniAbuja highlights the critical need to refocus on students. A leadership framework that overlooks their needs is fundamentally flawed. Institutions must foster an environment where excellence in education, innovation, and inclusivity replace outdated traditions and administrative distractions.

What Does Infighting Bring?

Does infighting provide better facilities, reliable electricity, clean water, or smooth roads for growth? Does it offer students the innovative programs and global opportunities they need? Clearly not. Infighting only distracts from education’s true purpose, leaving students and society worse off.

This is the moment for UniAbuja and Nigerian universities to transform into engines of progress, focusing on students and adopting governance frameworks rooted in transparency, innovation, and inclusivity. Whoever emerges as Vice-Chancellor, whether it’s Prof. Aisha Maikudi or another candidate, it’s time to drop the emotional, sentimental, and personal power games. Let’s leave behind the ethnic, religious, and political nonsense that only divides and distracts. These petty squabbles do nothing to advance education or improve the lives of students.

What truly matters is creating an environment where learning thrives, students’ needs are prioritized, and universities serve as hubs of innovation and progress. Let the focus shift from power struggles to meaningful outcomes. The future of Nigerian academia demands leaders who can unite diverse perspectives and steer institutions toward global competitiveness. Let’s ensure this is the legacy UniAbuja leaves for its students and the nation.