If you listen carefully to English spoken across Anglophone Africa, you'll notice three unmistakable "accent capitals": Nigerian, Kenyan, and Ghanaian. 

All other regional accents tend to branch out as derivatives or close relatives of this linguistic trinity. And nothing illustrates these fascinating differences quite like the word "work."

In Nigeria, it is pronounced emphatically as "wok," with the "o" booming proudly like the first sound in "all." Nigerians will tell you they’re off to "wok" with seriousness befitting an epic quest. 

Over in Kenya, however, the word undergoes a curious transformation into "wak," perilously close to "whack," as though every job involves a bit of spirited combat. 

And then in Ghana, our little stubborn brother, the pronunciation elegantly morphs into "wek," cheerfully rhyming with "check." 

Back in June 2003, these accent disparities sparked an unforgettable showdown between me and my Kenyan journalist friend, Douglas Kimani, during our days together in the United States. 

Douglas cheekily declared that Nigerians were burdened with the absolute worst English accent on the African continent. To drive home his point, he challenged me, saying, "Pronounce 'work' for me."

"Wok," I said, with Nigerian flair. Douglas erupted into uncontrollable laughter, nearly toppling over. "You mean 'wak,' my friend!" he retorted confidently.

This was too much. I responded by doubling over in hysterical laughter myself. Offended yet amused, Douglas insisted we settle this pronunciational dispute fairly. 

We approached an unsuspecting American lady, explained our accents, spelled the word for clarity, and then performed our distinct pronunciations. "Who’s closer to your own pronunciation?" Douglas asked, triumphantly certain of victory.

Without hesitation, our American "referee" sided with me. She gently explained to Douglas that "wak" would sound to an American like "whack," meaning either to hit forcefully or, if spelled "wack," something bizarre or totally uncool. 

Douglas’s expression was priceless. It was a cocktail of disbelief, mock outrage, and good-humored defeat.

From that day on, our banter took a hilarious turn. Each time I saw Douglas, I’d tease, "So, my friend, how is wak in Kenya today?" and he would gamely respond in a wildly exaggerated Nigerian accent, "Ah, wok is perfectly fine o!"

Lately, whenever I recall our playful linguistic duels, my thoughts drift amusingly to Rihanna's global hit, "Work." 

Imagine if Rihanna had adopted the Kenyan pronunciation, singing passionately, "Wak, wak, wak, wak, wak, wak!" Her song would have transformed instantly into an anthem fit for a flock of quacking ducks!

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time I got back to "wok." Or should I say "wak"…or "wek"?

I was one of the seven journalists invited to interview Gov. Umo Eno in Uyo on May 29 as part of his midterm anniversary activities. It was held at Akpan Isemin Hall in Government House and attended by the deputy governor, Senator Akon Eyakenyi; Secretary to the State Government, Enobong Uwah and several senior officials. The hall was packed with journalists and members of civil society organizations. Broadcast journalist Michael Bush moderated the interview while Mrs Mandu Essienobong (AKBC); Itoro Columba (Bridge TV); Oku Ekpenyong (NTA); Miriam Daniel (TVC); George Iniabasi Essien (Comfort FM) and I grilled the governor. It was an intense and wide-ranging two-and-a-half hour engagement and, undoubtedly, the most grueling interview session the governor has had since he assumed office. We asked about 20 questions on virtually every aspect of the administration’s blueprint. Only three questions were taken from the audience due to time constraint. Gov. Eno remained calm and spoke with passion and clarity of thought. He scored himself ‘’above 50%’’ when we asked him to evaluate his performance himself, but stressed that he would prefer to be assessed by the citizens.

The programme started at 2.45pm with a brief remark from the Commissioner for Information, Aniekan Umana, who stated that the event was an important media engagement through which the governor would speak to Akwa Ibom people across the world. I asked two questions on insecurity in our waterways and the true position of government’s finances. Gov. Eno explained steps taken to make our waters safer for travelers and fishermen, and noted that the government had ordered for two luxury boats that would convey passengers between Oron and Calabar, bringing back the glorious days of water transportation which we had in the 1070s. On the management of our finances, he said that he had created a savings account in which the government saves money every month. ‘’The state saves money and meets its contractual obligations on time. We have a cash flow plan that we follow’’, he said, noting that having been in business for over 25 years before his election, he has a good grasp of our to manage resources. He then launched into recent misleading press reports on the revenue of the government. An Uyo-based paper had reported that Akwa Ibom State earns N200 billion a month, a patently false claim based on the reporter’s misunderstanding of financial statements. The reporter had misinterpreted ‘’carried forward balance’’ in a financial report as an income line.

The governor noted that such an erroneous reporting usually creates unintended problems for the government as neighbouring states would assume that the enhanced revenue is earned from crude oil wells ceased from them. ‘’This particular misleading news story was very troubling as a governor of an oil-producing state was brandishing the newspaper in a meeting in Abuja, claiming that Akwa Ibom had ceased its oil wells and that’s why we are earning N200 billion in a month’’, the governor said.

He noted that he has no intention of gagging the press, but advised journalists to be more meticulous in covering government affairs, especially financial matters as many people depend on media reports to form impressions and pass judgments. I started my journalism career 37 years ago as a Finance Reporter in a national newspaper and I can confirm that interpreting and reporting financial data could pose a problem for some journalists. But I expect every journalist, even if he read History & Anthropology in the university, to know that a balance carried forward from a previous accounting period is not a fresh income. I am considering working with the NUJ to organize basic courses on financial analysis for the journalists in Akwa Ibom.

Michael Bush’s question on what have been the major surprises the governor has met in office also drew an interesting answer. The expectation from some people that government’s money should be shared to them has been a major shocker, the governor responded. ‘’There are some people, maybe among the youths, who just wake up every morning and monitor Government House gate to see the number of bullion vans coming in with cash to be shared to them’’, he said to the amusement of the audience. He advised the youths to make the best use of the various empowerment programmes to improve their skills and businesses.

Of all the 23 questions asked, there was only one that Eno refused to answer. When will he move to the APC? His looming defection has been a subject of discussions in the state among every section of the populace. It has seized the imagination of the citizens and divided opinions, but almost everybody has conceded that the internal crisis in the PDP could be a threat to a governor seeking reelection.

The State Chairman of the NUJ, Amos Etuk, who is leaving office in July after serving two terms, gave the vote of thanks. He commended the governor for supporting the media through many initiatives such as contributing to the building of the auditorium at the NUJ Secretariat; construction of a new headquarter building for the AKBC (the government-owned broadcaster) and planning to turn it into a cable TV.

Thank you for your thoughtful and passionate rejoinder to my commentary on the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Aguolu v. Aguolu (2025) LPELR-80269(CA). As a senior advocate of Nigeria and a student of justice, I believe in the power of dialogue, especially when it comes from citizens who are directly impacted by our legal system.

Let me start by assuring you that I fully recognize and appreciate the invisible contribution of homemakers like you. Indeed, your sacrifices, raising children, managing households, supporting spouses, and building homes with emotional and physical labour are fundamental to the institution of marriage and the health of society. You raise important questions. However, I believe there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of the position I put forward regarding matrimonial property settlement in Nigeria.

At no point did I dismiss or undervalue the contributions of full-time homemakers. Rather, I emphasized that Section 72 of the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA) does not impose a rigid, automatic 50/50 formula, but instead gives the courts a discretionary power to decide what is “just and equitable”, taking into account both financial and non-financial contributions. That includes exactly the type of domestic and emotional labour that you and many women provide over the course of a marriage.

The false narrative that Nigerian courts disregard the work of homemakers is not supported by the law or its application. In Oghoyone v. Oghoyone (CA), for instance, the Court of Appeal, made it clear that contributions to the welfare of the family, whether monetary or not, are relevant and must be considered.

While the UK has indeed adopted a formula of 50/50 presumption in some cases, even their courts recognize exceptions based on need, contribution, and fairness. What I caution against is transplanting that model wholesale into the Nigerian context, where marriages vary widely in structure, contribution patterns, and economic dynamics.

More importantly, what is progressive is not necessarily what is rigidly equal, but what is contextually fair. A homemaker in a 20-year marriage may justly receive the house. A spouse in a two-year union without children or major joint efforts may not. This is why Nigerian courts examine the facts and circumstances of each case.

You expressed concern that discretion “often favours the man.” If that has happened in specific cases, then we must indeed critique enforcement, but not the principle. Judicial discretion allows for sensitivity to real-life nuances that a rigid rule may overlook.

The question should not be whether we apply a one-size-fits-all 50/50 rule, but rather whether our judges are trained, sensitized, and empowered to make equitable decisions. The Nigerian legal framework already provides room for justice for women. What we need is consistent application and fairness.

You mentioned the unfairness of women being expected to prove their worth when they have no financial documents. I agree that this is a challenge. However, legal practitioners, including my lecturers like Prof Dorcas Odunaike of Babcock, have long advocated for reforms in judicial procedure to better capture domestic and informal contributions of women like you

Courts are not blind to the reality that many women contribute informally to a spouse’s business or manage the home full-time. Testimonies, witness statements, and patterns of lifestyle are admissible in evidence. Where properly presented, they form the basis for equitable distribution.

Mrs. Ibrahim, your plea for justice is valid, and I support the evolution of our legal culture to be more responsive to the vulnerable. But evolution must be grounded in principled fairness, not emotional reaction or foreign imitation.

My advocacy is, and I think you should join, to advocate for:

Stronger judicial training on evaluating non-financial contributions.

Legal aid and access to justice for vulnerable spouses.

Better documentation practices in marriages.

Encouraging courts to speak more boldly in defending homemakers’ rights.

Conclusion

Our legal system, though imperfect, does not punish homemakers. Rather, it gives room for their voices to be heard when presented properly. The call, therefore, is not for a blind 50/50 rule but for a legal culture that ensures the full dignity of women like you is recognized and preserved.

Let us work together, lawyers, homemakers, and policymakers to build that culture.

With utmost respect, Ma'am.

Dr. Monday O. Ubani, SAN

As President Bola Ahmed Tinubu marks two years in office, a comprehensive mid-term assessment by the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), the Nigerian chapter of Transparency International, presents a complex picture of governance marked by reform ambitions intertwined with persistent challenges across Nigeria’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The report highlights an administration grappling with economic transformation and security management while facing increasing public dissatisfaction and democratic erosion.

Economically, the Tinubu administration has pursued bold reforms, including the removal of fuel subsidies and unification of exchange rates, which have won praise from international financial institutions. Nigeria’s foreign reserves have risen to over $37 billion, and foreign investment is tentatively returning. Yet for ordinary Nigerians, the harsh realities of these reforms have manifested in soaring inflation surpassing 33 percent, a doubling of food prices, and stagnant real wages. The absence of a comprehensive social safety net has exacerbated poverty and deepened the crisis of survival, exposing a dissonance between macroeconomic recovery indicators and everyday hardships experienced by the populace. This economic strain has contributed to widening inequality and heightened public discontent.

The government’s handling of civil liberties has drawn sharp criticism. The Tinubu administration’s response to increasing dissent has been heavy-handed, with crackdowns on protesters, including minors, and restrictions on peaceful assembly becoming commonplace. Despite constitutional protections for freedom of expression and assembly, the narrowing civic space signals a troubling drift toward authoritarianism. Security concerns are frequently cited as justification for repression, yet CISLAC warns this growing securitization of governance risks undermining fundamental democratic rights and weakening the nation’s social fabric.

Security remains one of the administration’s most daunting challenges. Despite expanded defense budgets and the creation of new security outfits like the Forest Security Service, violence persists across key regions, including Zamfara, Kaduna, Plateau, and parts of the South-East. Kidnappings, killings, and clashes have not abated, underscoring the limited impact of military deployments unsupported by effective intelligence reform. CISLAC advocates for a paradigm shift toward integrated security approaches emphasizing inter-agency collaboration, community policing, transparent procurement, and rebuilding public trust in law enforcement, which remain crucial for long-term peace and stability.

On anti-corruption efforts, the government has maintained some institutional mechanisms such as project tracking and procurement monitoring. The Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) has monitored over 1,700 projects with some fund recoveries reported. However, the campaign is marred by selective enforcement, notably the failure to prosecute high-profile figures such as former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello and the frequent defections of opposition politicians into the ruling party to avoid prosecution. This pattern has undermined the integrity of the anti-corruption drive and fed public cynicism about equal application of justice. CISLAC describes the campaign as weakened by double standards and stresses that impartiality is essential for meaningful progress.

The judiciary, as Nigeria’s third arm of government, faces persistent structural challenges despite commendable strides in filling judicial vacancies, digitalizing court processes, and ruling on electoral disputes. Backlogs, inconsistent verdicts, selective accountability, and executive interference have continued to erode public confidence in the justice system. The judiciary’s constitutional guarantees of financial and operational autonomy remain largely unrealized, with many state governments failing to domesticate critical laws such as the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. In a political climate characterized by increasing authoritarian tendencies and disregard for court orders, the judiciary’s independence is vital to safeguard civil liberties and uphold the rule of law. CISLAC warns that any further erosion of judicial impartiality risks accelerating impunity and democratic backsliding.

Agriculture, a vital sector for food security and employment, paints a similarly uneven picture. Despite the government’s declaration of a food emergency in 2023 and interventions like the “Earn from the Soil” initiative, over 31 million Nigerians remain food insecure, especially in conflict-affected zones. Budget allocations have not translated into commensurate agricultural output due to insecurity in farming regions, diversion of inputs, and inadequate access to credit and infrastructure. CISLAC emphasizes that without addressing land safety, rural development, and market access beyond seasonal handouts, sustainable food security will remain elusive.

The administration’s appointment pattern has also attracted criticism for lack of inclusivity and failure to uphold the federal character principle. Key positions have been filled with apparent regional bias, sidelining women and other marginalized groups. While competence is essential, appointments that disregard Nigeria’s ethnic, religious, gender, and generational diversity threaten national cohesion and unity, undermining the government’s broader stability agenda.

Employment and poverty continue to be critical concerns. Though the Student Loans Act signals some progress in educational financing, it falls short of addressing Nigeria’s structural unemployment and the escalating brain drain, popularly known as “Japa.” CISLAC contends that this exodus reflects economic despair rather than a lack of patriotism. The government must urgently focus on job creation, entrepreneurship, and industrialization to stem the loss of Nigerian talent and ensure sustainable development.

Social services remain underdeveloped despite increased budgetary allocations. Public education quality is deteriorating, and healthcare services remain largely inaccessible to the poor. Infrastructure improvements are largely symbolic, often lauded in press briefings rather than felt in everyday life. The national power grid remains unreliable, and rural electrification lags far behind expectations. CISLAC underscores that genuine progress must be measured by tangible improvements in citizens’ daily lives, not by superficial ceremonies or social media campaigns.

The 10th National Assembly, running concurrently with Tinubu’s administration, embodies both the promise and challenges of Nigeria’s democracy. The legislature plays a critical role not only as a lawmaking body but also as a forum for representation, checks and balances, policy scrutiny, and accountability. During this period, the Assembly has recorded some legislative activism, passing key bills, engaging constitutional amendments, and establishing committees to tackle national concerns. Notable efforts to enhance public participation and electoral reforms have been undertaken, along with oversight of security and economic challenges.

Yet, the Assembly’s record is marred by political dysfunction, including internal controversies, suspensions of members, allegations of executive interference, legislative gridlock, and defections that weaken democratic accountability. The failure to decisively address major national issues such as insecurity, corruption, and youth unemployment reveals a troubling disconnect between lawmakers and citizen expectations. The suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, and the apparent weaponization of legislative privileges, have raised questions about the Assembly’s commitment to fairness and democratic norms. These actions risk undermining the constitutional guarantees of representation and free speech.

Moreover, the legislature has often shown insufficient independence from the executive branch. Oversight of critical policies has been tepid, responses to emergency declarations have been muted, and resistance to centralization of power remains weak. The House of Representatives, despite passing numerous bills, has sometimes failed to secure complementary Senate action, leading to legislative paralysis that stalls national progress. Issues such as land racketeering and informal taxation in Abuja’s Federal Capital Territory expose governance gaps that legislative committees have yet to fully address.

Political defections motivated more by personal survival than ideology further erode public trust and weaken party systems, deepening democratic fragility. Despite these setbacks, the 10th National Assembly still holds the potential to reassert its mandate through bold legislative action, robust oversight, and constitutional reform. This midterm review serves as a call for lawmakers to prioritize national interest above partisan or personal ambitions and to renew their commitment to the Constitution and the Nigerian people.

In this delicate democratic moment, the judiciary’s role is paramount. It must recommit to independence, impartiality, and the rule of law to serve as the final safeguard of democracy. Courts should be sanctuaries of justice, free from political manipulation, ensuring that citizens’ rights are protected, and that the government remains accountable.

CISLAC’s mid-term report concludes that while President Tinubu has initiated important reforms aimed at economic stability and governance, the administration’s overall performance is undermined by implementation gaps, rising authoritarianism, and insufficient empathy for citizens’ hardships. The Centre urges a shift toward people-centered policies, including increasing the minimum wage, comprehensive judicial and security sector reforms, equitable anti-corruption enforcement, and renewed investments in agriculture, infrastructure, and social services.

The next two years present a critical window for Nigeria to recalibrate its governance trajectory. Only through strengthened democratic institutions, transparency, and inclusion can the administration restore public trust and deliver on the promise of a prosperous and unified Nigeria. For civil society, media, and citizens, the challenge is to sustain engagement and pressure to ensure accountability and a government that truly serves its people.

Signed:

Comrade Auwal Musa Rafsanjani

Executive Director,

Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC)

The Governor of Anambra State, Professor Chukwuma Charles Soludo, CFR, has expressed very dear congratulations to His Excellency, Prince Dapo Abiodun, MFR, CON, Governor of Ogun State and Chairman of the Southern Governors Forum, on the occasion of his 65th birthday.

In his congratulatory message, Governor Soludo hailed Governor Abiodun’s remarkable contributions to the governance and development of Ogun State and the Southern Nigeria region. 

Governor Soludo noted that the leadership, patriotism, and dedication of Governor Abiodun have been inspiring, fostering unity and progress within the region and across Nigeria 

Governor Soludo also affirmed that as the deputy chairman in the Southern Governors' Forum, he has witnessed firsthand Governor Abiodun’s untiring resolve and collaborative spirit, which embody the essence of true leadership.

Thus, Governor Soludo celebrates this momentous occasion with his brother Governor, and prays for his continued strength, good health, and more wisdom to navigate the challenges ahead in driving progress and prosperity for our people and the entire nation.

Signed,

Christian Aburime

Press Secretary to the Governor

As the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) commemorates its 50th anniversary in 2025, the moment calls for both celebration and sober reflection. Founded on May 28, 1975, with the lofty vision of regional integration, economic cooperation, and collective security, ECOWAS was conceived as a panacea to the socio-political and economic woes of West Africa. Half a century later, the regional bloc finds itself navigating one of the most turbulent chapters in its history.

The recent exit of three key member states, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, on January 29, 2025, has cast a long shadow over the golden jubilee celebrations. Their withdrawal, following prolonged tensions between the ECOWAS leadership and these military-led governments, underscores the fragility of the union and raises uncomfortable questions about its relevance, resilience, and roadmap for the future.

To understand the gravity of the current crisis, one must examine the journey so far. Over five decades, ECOWAS has made commendable strides. It has established a free trade area and a common market, created institutions like the ECOWAS Court of Justice and the ECOWAS Parliament, and played pivotal roles in peacekeeping missions across the sub-region, including in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and The Gambia.

The protocol on free movement of persons, goods, and services remains one of ECOWAS’s most celebrated achievements. It has empowered millions of West Africans to live and work across borders, enriching the socio-cultural and economic tapestry of the region. The ECOWAS Passport is symbolic of a shared regional identity, an ambitious dream of African unity long before the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) was even conceived.

However, these gains have often been undermined by internal contradictions. ECOWAS has struggled with inconsistency in enforcing democratic norms, a weak response to human rights violations, and a perceived overreach in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Accusations of elitism and disconnect from the grassroots have further dented its image.

The withdrawal of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, now united under the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), is not just a protest. It is a political earthquake. These countries, each governed by military juntas, cited a lack of support, respect, and solidarity from ECOWAS. They argued that rather than being assisted during their moment of transition, they were sanctioned and isolated, pushing them into an alternative regional alignment.

Critics of ECOWAS argue that its knee-jerk reaction to coups often lacks nuance. By swiftly imposing sanctions, the bloc inadvertently punishes already suffering populations and drives these states further into geopolitical alternatives like Russia and China, which offer strategic partnerships without lectures on democracy.

To many observers, the exit of these three states is not just about juntas versus democracy. It is about a deeper crisis of confidence in ECOWAS. A significant portion of the populations in these countries support their military regimes, not because they reject democracy, but because they see the previous civilian governments, often backed by ECOWAS, as corrupt, ineffective, and out of touch.

At this juncture, it is expedient to conjecture that the future of ECOWAS rest on three likely scenarios that cut across fragmentation and irrelevance, reform and reinvention coupled with coexistence and competition.

Explanatorily put, if the current trend of disunity persists, ECOWAS risks becoming a toothless bulldog, an institution with grand pronouncements but little influence. More member states could align with the Sahel bloc or choose to drift toward nationalistic isolation. Without trust and unity, the core idea of regional integration collapses.

In a similar vein, the current crisis could become a catalyst for radical introspection and reform. ECOWAS must re-examine its governance structures, sanction mechanisms, and methods of engagement. Instead of isolating errant members, a dialogue-based, inclusive approach should be prioritized. The bloc must also reform to reflect grassroots concerns, not just the interests of heads of state.

Also, a more realistic scenario may involve ECOWAS continuing to exist alongside alternative regional alliances like the AES. In such a configuration, competition may spur institutional reforms and efficiency. However, it could also lead to policy conflicts, trade barriers, and duplicated efforts, hardly ideal for a region already grappling with poverty, insecurity, and underdevelopment.

Given the backdrop of the foregoing likelihoods, it is germane to ask, “What must be done?” The answer cannot be farfetched as there is no denying the fact that for ECOWAS to survive and remain relevant beyond its golden jubilee, it must adopt a bold, new mindset.

In a similar vein, there is an urgent need to put the people first within the scheme of ECOWAS. This is as the real strength of ECOWAS lies not in presidential palaces or summit resolutions but in the people of West Africa. Therefore, policies must reflect their needs that cut across jobs, security, education, health, and dignity. To achieve the foregoing objectives, the language of sanctions must give way to solutions.

Also, there is the need for the embracement of multipolar engagement. In fact, ECOWAS must accept that the days of sole Western alignment are over. Its member states, especially in the Sahel, are exploring relations with China, Russia, Turkey, and others. ECOWAS should play a facilitative role, not a gatekeeping one.

In fact, after the Golden Jubilee, the leadership of ECOWAS should embark on strengthening institutions, rather than strengthening individuals. Too often, ECOWAS has been hijacked by a few dominant leaders. Again, its institutions, parliament, court, commission, must be strengthened to act independently, with transparency and accountability.

In fact, there is an urgent need for the tackling of insecurity as a regional challenge. Terrorism, banditry, and organized crime are no longer national problems. They crisscross borders and demand a coordinated regional response. The AES nations’ frustration partly stems from a perception that ECOWAS abandoned them in their darkest hours.

Without a doubt, fifty years is a milestone worthy of celebration, but ECOWAS cannot afford to be lost in nostalgia. The anniversary must be a moment of reckoning. It must ask the tough questions: Is ECOWAS still a “community” in the true sense of the word? Can it evolve beyond being a club of presidents into a union of people? Will it take the exit of three sovereign states as a wake-up call or dismiss it as political noise?

The future of ECOWAS depends on what it chooses to become in this critical moment. West Africa is at a crossroads. Unity is no longer guaranteed, but neither is disintegration. What remains certain is that a reinvented, inclusive, and responsive ECOWAS is not only possible, it is urgently necessary.

Your Excellency,

Today, I write to you not as a critic but as a patriot—one deeply concerned about the state of our beloved nation. I write as a citizen who believes in the urgent necessity of a national rebirth—a renaissance of values, leadership, and collective purpose. My hope is that millions of our compatriots, at home and abroad, will begin to experience a unity that transcends division and a renewed commitment to our shared destiny.

Your Excellency, I also write as a stakeholder—someone who played a significant and active role in the journey that brought Your Excellency to the presidency of our dear country. As we formally mark the midpoint of your administration this May 29, we stand at a historic juncture—one that invites reflection, responsibility, and resolute action.

One of the most visible consequences of our national stagnation is corruption. It has permeated virtually every layer of society—draining public resources, undermining institutional trust and sustaining a culture of impunity. This systemic ailment continues to stunt development and frustrate the legitimate aspirations of our people.

Nigeria is a nation rich in potential—blessed with human capital, natural resources, and cultural vibrancy. Yet we have, for too long, underperformed. The causes are many: poor governance, inconsistent policy, fragile institutions, and the erosion of national values. The consequences are stark—manifesting in economic hardship, social instability, and widespread disillusionment.

Expectations for the Years Ahead

As over 200 million Nigerians look to the second half of your tenure with cautious hope, we are at a moment of critical introspection. This midterm point presents an opportunity to recalibrate—to assess what has worked, acknowledge what has not, and align with the vision of Renewed Hope that inspired many at the start of this journey.

We need more than reforms—we need a new national mindset. One that rewards productivity over piety, innovation over consumption, and service over status. In a world marked by volatility and uncertainty, Nigerians are yearning for clear leadership, policy consistency, and a sense of purpose that speaks to both their material and moral aspirations.

Your Excellency, history watches. And so does posterity. May this season of reflection inspire a season of renewal—not just in policy, but in the soul of the nation.

With utmost respect,

Richard ODUSANYA

For a region that was still trying to come to terms with the JAMB’s bungling of the tertiary institutions’ entrance exams in the zone, a fresh mistreatment, just a month after, is a jolt too many. The JAMB’s refusal to disclose the actor(s) behind the ruinous human error on southeast candidates’ scripts has been interpreted by some, as hints of a plot. Not surprisingly, the expose of the southeast’s exclusion from federal government’s N3.2t irrigation plan, left many asking, what is all this? The ignominy echoed by the revelation was shocking, beyond words, for others. And yet for some others, it was a painful moan of not again; not again. How could this happen? And six days after the alert on such a major contention, there has been no word on the subject by the federal ministry of water resources and or any other agency saddled with the responsibility. Where is the sensitivity to inclusive governance?

The plight of the southeast was brought up in the Senate by Senators Kenneth Eze, Orji Uzor Kalu and Osita Ngwu. In a motion that was stepped down at the last minute to pave way for engagement with concerned authorities, Senator Kenneth Eze (Ebonyi State) cited the omission of the southeast in N38b irrigation projects in the 2025 budget as inequitable. He faulted the non inclusion of Anambra – Imo River Basin Development Authority as inconsistent with a nationwide irrigation initiative. In the course of contributions to the motion, the Ivo Dam, Ebonyi State, Uzuakoli, Igbere, and Abba dams, Abia State, were identified as other irrigation projects in the zone qualifying for the N38b fund. ThisDay, May 23, 2025, reported that Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele advised that the matter be brought back to plenary for appropriate legislative action after Senate leadership interface with the Minister of Water Resources.” The publication stated that “in an attempt to calm the angry lawmakers, Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin, described the situation as likely an administrative omission.”

We cannot fail to commend the action of the referenced southeast senators as well as Senate officers. Their expressed concern and responsiveness speak to a sense of responsibility. While it is hoped that the needful will be done at the shortest possible time, it’s even more important to look at the climate that has shaped the controversy. Yes, there is a possibility, that the sidelining of the southeast was an “administrative omission” as the Deputy Senate President, Barau Jibrin suggested. The likelihood would stand if the incident was an isolated one. In such accidental circumstances, the urge to issue unreserved apologies would be strong; so strong that a prompt pacification would have followed the embarrassing disclosure. But no dice; no clarifications, no pledge of investigations from the concerned institutions. Alas, marginalisation of the southeast is not an occasional occurrence in Nigerian government and politics. It goes back to 1970, beginning with post war, restrictive measures which reduced the Igbo to minority in every sphere of public life in Nigeria. The trend reached nauseating levels under general Sani Abacha’s rule and retired general Mohammadu Buhari’s presidency.

The systemic disadvantages faced by the southeast in power and resource allocations are persisting under the Bola Tinubu government.
While not traveling the disdainful road of Buhari’s a dot in a circle, the current administration has still not been fair to the southeast. In it’s 49 man cabinet, the southeast has five ministers in a make up of six zones. Out of 33 substantive ministers distributed across six geo – political zones, the southeast has only two full fledged ministers.

A distribution of 20 military, paramilitary and other security appointments released by the Presidency in November 2024 showed the northwest clinching eight slots; followed by southwest with five; north central closely following with four positions; northeast three slots and southeast and southsouth rocking the bottom with one bar each. And in the latest round of appointments on Friday, May 23, 2025 the southeast was once more shortchanged. Of 21 headship of federal agencies announced by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser, Media, the southeast got only two positions in the persons of Anyim Pius Anyim and Ken Nnamani.

A more disturbing picture emerges in the area of project undertakings by the immediate past dispensation. Characteristically, the authorities neglected the southeast in the multi-million-dollar AKK Gas Pipeline Project (NGEP) and the National Gas Masterplan, which runs from Kogi State through Kaduna, Kano and Niger Republic. The region’s peripheral inclusion in the $5.8b rail modernisation plan was reduced to narrow gauge rather than the standard gauge tracks designed for other parts of the country. But the earth – shaking dose of marginalisation was dropped recently by Works Minister, Senator Dave Umahi. On Thursday, May 22, 2025, www.channelstv.com posted the story “Tinubu’s Government Inherited No Projects in the Southeast.” The damning report quoted the Works Minister as saying the administration inherited “almost no projects” in the southeast on assuming office. Yet, at the time of this near – boycott of the southeast, “President Tinubu inherited 2604 ongoing projects in the works sector at a total value of N13t.” The report noted however that with the advent of the Tinubu administration, Owerri – Onitsha, Enugu – Onitsha and Abakaliki – Enugu roads are currently under construction. There we have it, from the most competent authority on the subject. That for the merciful change of government two years ago, the southeast was condemned to watch as outsider as other parts of the country benefited from N13t infrastructure works. Now, if it could happen in the Works Ministry, why can’t it happen in some ministries and agencies? If the southeast could be shut out in a programme with such humongous budget, would she fare better in lower cost, less publicised national undertaking?

Against the background of a recurring, structural marginalisation of the southeast, the zone’s skipping in the national irrigation projects does not lend the impression of an “administrative omission.” In the estimation of supremacists, the southeast became a minority and junior partner after the war. Fifty – five years is more than sufficient time to orientate groups with a mindset and to socialize society on false consciousness. The perception of the southeast as an inferior entity has taken hold in the spheres of Nigerian government and politics. Without bold moves to implement the spirit and letters of federal character principle in government, emphasized with sanctions on violations, discrimination against disadvantaged groups as the southeast, look set to continue. If the under recognition of the southeast was not deliberate, what stopped the use of statutory lists in planning and execution of government policies? In the many cases of exclusion or disproportionate allocations to the southeast, what happened to the traditional mechanisms for checks and review? The national assembly has largely abdicated it’s responsibility in the quest for a just and balanced federation. Certain categories of presidential appointment require the Senate’s approval. Yet, the Senate since inception of the Fourth Republic has not used it’s leverage to correct appointments that negate the federal character principle. In the instant agro – dam projects, the Senate will do well to ensure proper investigation and necessary disciplinary measures. Ignoring the marginalisation outcry would be shoring up Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal.

As Nigeria commemorates May 29, the day that symbolically marks our return to civilian rule, there is no more appropriate time for sober reflection and national soul-searching. It is a day drenched in symbolism, a day when Nigerians ought to celebrate democracy, yet we do so under the shadows of unfinished business. Kola Abiola’s bold and timely opinion piece, “IBB’s A Journey in Service: A Substantive Response”, published on May 28, 2025 in some selected news platforms, could not have come at a more appropriate moment.

The Federal Government should do more than merely mark this day with rehearsed speeches and empty slogans. Instead, it must embrace Kola Abiola’s clarion call to action, a call grounded in history, soaked in sacrifice, and propelled by the moral imperative to correct the wrongs that have marred Nigeria’s democratic journey since the June 12, 1993 election.

What Kola Abiola laid bare is not just a personal grievance, nor is it a mere historical recounting. It is a damning indictment of Nigeria’s failure to reconcile with its past. It has been over three decades since that election, yet the scars remain open, not because time has failed to heal, but because the Nigerian state has consistently refused to apply the balm of truth, justice, and official accountability.

June 12, 1993, was not an ordinary day. It was the day when Nigerians, across ethnic, religious, and regional divides, united to elect Chief M.K.O. Abiola as President in what is widely acknowledged as the freest and fairest election in our history. Yet, in one fell swoop, that victory was erased by military fiat. It was not just MKO who was robbed, the entire Nigerian populace was betrayed.

To President Muhammadu Buhari’s credit, he finally gave institutional recognition to the stolen mandate. His 2018 declaration that honored MKO Abiola posthumously with the GCFR title and named June 12 as Democracy Day was a long-overdue but commendable gesture. But as Kola rightly notes, this was just the beginning.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who himself was a major NADECO figure and political exile during the military era, bears a unique historical burden. As the current custodian of Nigeria’s democratic project, and someone who intimately understands the cost of that struggle, Tinubu should take the baton from Buhari and finish the race. That finish line includes recognizing all the foot soldiers of the June 12 movement: Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, Chief Alfred Rewane, and countless journalists, civil society actors, and nameless Nigerians who paid with their lives and freedom.

Kola Abiola’s frustration is justified when he questions whether Nigerians have truly learned any lessons from the June 12 tragedy. The truth is, we have not. If anything, we are dangerously close to rewriting or forgetting history altogether. A nation that forgets is doomed to repeat its errors. Already, the political space is again riddled with impunity, electoral manipulation, and the subversion of public will. The lessons of June 12 are being disregarded by a new generation of political elites who neither know nor respect the path that brought us here.

That is why the inclusion of June 12 in the national curriculum is not just a symbolic suggestion, it is a strategic necessity. With over 65% of Nigeria’s population being under the age of 45, most of them have no lived memory of that day. If we do not educate them truthfully, we are allowing our collective conscience to erode. That is a luxury Nigeria can no longer afford.

It is disheartening, though not surprising, that after 32 years, General Ibrahim Babangida (IBB) still dances around full accountability. His recent book and speech offer selective disclosures. While he finally admits that June 12 was sabotaged by internal forces, his refusal to name names,  especially those still alive, reinforces the impression that his priority is self-preservation, not national healing.

Let us be blunt: IBB’s fear of naming the living conspirators, while boldly naming the dead like General Sani Abacha, reeks of cowardice and manipulation. How can we claim to confront our history while sanitizing it for public consumption? If General IBB truly seeks redemption, he must go beyond vague confessions and provide concrete facts. Nigeria deserves the full story, not another round of half-truths wrapped in military euphemisms.

Kola Abiola also raised a lesser-discussed but equally devastating aspect of the June 12 fallout: the economic destruction targeted at MKO Abiola’s businesses. Concord Press, Summit Oil, Abiola Farms, these were not just businesses, they were institutions that employed over 15,000 Nigerians. Their systematic dismantling not only destroyed livelihoods but crippled economic structures that had national relevance. In a country still grappling with massive unemployment, the intentional economic sabotage of Abiola’s empire deserves formal redress.

This also raises a larger question: should victims of political injustice in Nigeria continue to suffer in silence while perpetrators enjoy state pensions and perks? Justice is not just about apologies; it is about restitution.

To mark May 29 meaningfully, the Federal Government must act on Kola Abiola’s proposals. We need a National Monument dedicated to the June 12 struggle, a space that immortalizes not just MKO Abiola, but every other martyr and survivor of that dark chapter. Furthermore, we must open a national register to formally recognize victims, both named and unnamed. Nigeria must show, in words and in concrete action that it respects those who fought for her democracy.

President Tinubu must resist the temptation to reduce May 29 to a ceremonial ritual. His administration, which owes its very political genesis to the fallout of June 12 and the NADECO struggle, must take bold steps to complete the arc of justice. This is not just about MKO Abiola. It is about institutionalizing historical justice and teaching future generations that democracy is not handed down, it is fought for, and those who fight for it must be honoured.

As Kola Abiola so poignantly noted, governance is a continuum. And where one administration starts a process of national healing, another must continue and complete it.

This May 29 should not be another hollow Democracy Day. It must be the day we finally say: never again. Never again will the will of Nigerians be discarded. Never again will we bury our heroes without honour. Never again will we allow a stolen mandate to be swept under the carpet of convenience.

The Federal Government must hear Kola Abiola, not out of sympathy, but out of duty. Nigeria’s democracy demands it. Her history demands it. And her people deserve it. God bless Nigeria.