The African Democratic Congress (ADC) appears to have emerged as the new political bride in Nigeria’s opposition landscape, following its adoption by a coalition of opposition leaders as the platform to challenge President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the 2027 presidential election.

Previously on the fringes of national politics, the party was adopted by coalition leaders on Tuesday night in what one proponent described as “the official birth of the coalition”.

The coalition, which is led by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, Peter Obi, and former Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai, was formally announced on March 20. However, a decision on which political platform to adopt had been delayed by several rounds of talks, initially with the Social Democratic Party (SDP).

The SDP had appeared the frontrunner after El-Rufai defected from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), sparking a wave of interest from his supporters and other northern political leaders. But cracks soon emerged. SDP’s national chairman, Shehu Gabam, ruled out participation in any party merger, publicly declaring that the party would not allow itself to be used as a “special-purpose vehicle by selfish politicians.”

Following weeks of consultations, coalition leaders met in Abuja on Tuesday night and resolved, among other decisions, to adopt the ADC as their platform of choice, Daily Trust gathered.

The meeting was confirmed by El-Rufai in Katsina yesterday, although he did not disclose details of what was agreed.
“Yesterday at 8 p.m., there was a very important meeting of the coalition we are putting together to ensure that President Tinubu returns to Lagos in 2027. But we will keep the minister (referring to Bosun Tijjani, the minister of communications and digital economy) because he is doing well,” El-Rufai said during remarks at Arewa Tech Fest.
Speaking to Daily Trust yesterday, Paul Ibe, media adviser to Atiku Abubakar, confirmed the ADC’s adoption as the coalition’s platform.

“Yes, ADC has been agreed as the party,” he said. “The coalition leaders have set up relevant committees and directed them to resolve grey areas in the arrangement and prepare for a public unveiling,” he added, when asked about the terms agreed with the ADC.

On the breakdown of talks with the SDP, Ibe said, “The SDP was never really a platform under serious consideration. It was a strategic move to house the CPC component of the APC ahead of a formal transition. You could call it a container to absorb CPC elements before moving to the final platform.”

“But they’ve moved beyond the SDP now. They are now in the ADC.”
Explaining the rationale behind the ADC choice, he said, “The party met all the coalition’s requirements. The coalition leaders were clear about what they were looking for in a platform, and ADC must have satisfied those expectations.”

While stating he was not privy to all the specific requirements, Ibe noted that ADC was not the only party considered, but it was ultimately chosen at the end of the process.

“The coalition is now official, but there is still work for the committees to do, including finalising the party structure and leadership. The public unveiling will simply formalise what was achieved during Tuesday night’s meeting of all major stakeholders.”

While it was gathered that the coalition leaders have yet to reach a consensus on who will fly the party’s flag in the 2027 presidential election, sources indicated that the unspoken understanding is that the conversation would likely commence now that the platform issue has been settled.

One source said, “Everyone will be allowed to contest for the presidency,” adding that there is a tacit gentleman’s agreement that whoever emerges as the candidate would receive the backing of the rest.

A brief on ADC

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) was established in 2005 by a group of political activists and reform-minded Nigerians. The key figure behind it is Ralphs Okey Nwosu, who has served as the party’s national chairman since its inception. The party positions itself as a centrist platform advocating inclusive governance, youth empowerment and national development.

Over the years, the ADC has participated in several general elections, fielding presidential candidates and contesting legislative seats. In the 2023 presidential election, the party nominated Dumebi Kachikwu as its flag bearer. While it has consistently taken part in presidential races, its candidates have not secured significant vote shares. For instance, in 2023, the party polled 81,919 votes, placing fifth overall behind the APC’s Bola Tinubu, PDP’s Atiku Abubakar, Labour Party’s Peter Obi and the NNPP’s Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso.

In the 2019 election, the ADC candidate, the late Dr Obadiah Mailafia, garnered 97,874 votes to finish fourth out of 73 candidates. In 2015, the party fielded Dr Mani Ibrahim Ahmad, who polled 29,666 votes and placed seventh out of 14 contestants.

In the 2023 National Assembly elections, Leke Abejide was re-elected to represent Yagba Federal Constituency in Kogi State under the ADC platform. He won with 23,271 votes, defeating candidates from both the APC and PDP. The party also secured another House of Representatives seat through Salman Idris, who was elected to represent Kabba-Bunu/Ijumu Federal Constituency of Kogi State, although he has since defected to the APC.

Analysts believe the ADC’s consistency in past presidential elections, where it has steadily emerged behind the major contenders, positioned it as a viable option for the emerging coalition—especially given the ongoing internal crises in the three leading opposition parties: PDP, LP and NNPP.

The Social Democratic Party (SDP), earlier considered by the coalition, reportedly fell short of expectations after concerns emerged that the ruling APC may have influence over its leadership, raising fears that the party could face the same fate as other compromised opposition platforms before 2027.

It was also gathered that the coalition factored in the possibility that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) might exercise its power to deregister political parties that fail to meet the threshold of winning seats in the National Assembly or state legislatures. This concern further tilted the preference toward the ADC.
Similarly, the absence of leadership tussles within the party since its inception was also seen as a positive factor.

ADC chair: We’ll meet coalition committee today

Also speaking to Daily Trust yesterday, ADC National Chairman Ralphs Nwosu confirmed the party would meet today with the committee it had set up to interface with the coalition.

“The coalition discussion is ongoing. We are still engaging many patriots—party leaders and civil society actors. If it works out, it’s not about quid pro quo. It’s about Nigeria,” Nwosu said.

“It’s for anyone ready to make sacrifices to save this country and make Nigeria work. As we speak, the poverty rate is alarming—75.5 per cent of Nigerians live below the poverty line. The only way we can reposition our country to become a continental leader and attain global relevance is through sacrifice. So anyone joining this coalition must be ready to make that sacrifice.”

Asked if he had personally met Atiku, Obi or El-Rufai, Nwosu replied in the negative.
“What ADC has done is to set up two major committees. Each has a chairman, a secretary and members. One committee is led by Dr Bamidele Ganiyu Ajadi, our deputy national chairman in charge of politics. He heads one of them.

“The second committee is led by Dr Mani Ibrahim Ahmad. They’ve been travelling across the country, engaging with different actors, and they’re expected to brief us officially. That’s why we’re all in Abuja. They will brief us tomorrow (Thursday).”

He added: “We’ll have a major NWC and NEC meeting tomorrow, where we’ll receive committee briefings. By then, we should have more clarity.”

Asked about the committees’ terms of reference, Nwosu said: “Nigeria first, always. That’s number one. Then inclusion, which our handshake symbol represents. We must embrace full inclusiveness. There are those unwilling to do that—we don’t want to work with them.

“Our handshake says it all: a handshake across Nigeria. Members of this coalition must also have a continental worldview. You can’t focus solely on local, narrow, ethnocentric perspectives. That’s why we are the African Democratic Congress. Nigeria has over 20 per cent of Africa’s population. You can’t discuss Nigeria’s future without a continental approach.

“This is Africa’s moment. These are the parameters the committees were given—to prioritise inclusion and a strong African continental vision.”

On the involvement of APC members, Nwosu said: “This coalition is broad-based. We have people from all political parties, including APC, joining us. Many APC members are pushing for it because they’re disillusioned. What they see now is not what they bargained for.

“Many of our politicians start out with good intentions but get trapped in systems that corrupt them. This coalition process has taken over six months, and some ask why. It’s because we make people reflect deeply before any engagement. Are you ready to put Nigeria first? How can we correct past mistakes? If you’ve been a governor or held any position, how can you make amends and help us move forward?

“Those reflections have taken place—and they will continue. By the grace of God, by 2027, Nigeria will have a president ready to act from day one, one who will fundamentally change the country’s strategic direction.”
Recall that Nwosu had last week hinted that the party had been chosen as the coalition’s platform to challenge the ruling APC in the 2027 general election.

Speaking during the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting last Thursday through the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Mani Ahmed, Nwosu said that while the process of building consensus had been painstaking and time-consuming, it had now reached a decisive phase.

“I can categorically, today, by the grace of God, inform you that the African Democratic Congress is the coalition party in Nigeria. What remains to be done is nothing other than dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s,” he said.
He added that the coalition presents a significant opportunity for the ADC to embrace and accommodate all Nigerians, regardless of background.

“By this gesture, we are inviting every Nigerian who loves this country to join us in this new crusade to bring about enduring democratic change in our nation by coming into our party—the African Democratic Congress—which can easily be seen as the African Democratic Coalition,” he said.

It’s a walkover for us – APC

Reacting to the development, the APC National Director of Publicity, Bala Ibrahim, told Daily Trust yesterday that the 2027 election would be a walkover for the party.

He described the ADC as inconsequential and said that with its adoption by the opposition coalition, the APC could begin celebrating even before the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) releases the election guidelines.

“If Atiku is not confident of victory under the banner of the PDP, or he is not confident that the PDP can champion the cause to victory, and he is moving to a party that doesn’t even have a local government—and that is the platform they plan to rally round to give APC sleepless nights—I think they have made our job easier. We are not rattled; the election will be a walkover for us,” Ibrahim said.

We await official confirmation – PDP, LP

When contacted, Debo Ologunagba, National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), said the party would not comment until the development is officially confirmed.

Asked whether the party was concerned that its 2023 presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, could be on his way out just weeks after the departure of his running mate, Ifeanyi Okowa, the PDP spokesman said Atiku’s purported exit remained speculative.

“What we are focused on now is our upcoming NEC meeting,” he said.
Similarly, the Labour Party (LP) dismissed the report of the adoption of ADC as the platform to challenge President Tinubu in 2027 as hearsay.

The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Obiorah Ifoh, told Daily Trust on Wednesday that the LP would not comment on the matter.

“We can’t comment on hearsay,” Ifoh said.

His remarks followed the party’s repeated insistence that it was not engaged in any merger talks.
“The Labour Party is not in any merger or coalition talks with anyone—be it individuals, parties, or organisations. We are aware of individuals engaged in such talks for their personal and selfish reasons. They are not representing the Labour Party. We are not involved in any merger or coalition,” Ifoh added.

On his part, the National Coordinator of the Obidient Movement, Obi’s support group, Dr Yunusa Tanko, told Daily Trust that it was better for the leaders involved to formally address the matter.

“I have said that what is currently going on is discussion at individual levels, and the leaders in such discussions should be allowed to come public on their decisions,” Tanko said.

Asked about the reported collapse of merger talks with the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Tanko stated there was no such engagement involving the SDP, the Obidient Movement, or Peter Obi personally.
On the reported conditions met before the ADC was adopted as the coalition’s party for the 2027 elections, he said: “The individuals having discussions should be allowed to come public on their discussions.”

Coalition not considering PDP’s participation – Babachir Lawal

Former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir Lawal, has ruled out the PDP as a potential participant in the emerging coalition seeking to unseat President Bola Tinubu in 2027.

Speaking on Arise Television on Wednesday, Lawal — one of the leading figures in the coalition — said stakeholders have focused discussions on creating a new political platform, either through registering a fresh party or adopting and repositioning an existing one. According to him, the PDP has been deemed unsuitable due to entrenched structural defects.

“In all the meetings I’ve attended so far, nobody has ever considered adopting the PDP as the platform,” Lawal said. “We all agree that the PDP has an incurable virus. No antibiotics can cure what is ailing the PDP, and we don’t want to go into a house that we cannot modify, that is not willing to change.”

He said the coalition — comprising prominent politicians disenchanted with the current political order — is driven by a shared commitment to building a credible alternative. He also confirmed that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar remains actively involved in the process.

According to Lawal, the coalition is expected to unveil its new political platform soon to address growing public interest and uncertainty over its structure and direction.

His comments followed a statement by Senate Minority Leader Abba Moro (Benue South), who insisted that the PDP’s nationwide presence and institutional experience place it in the best position to anchor any viable opposition coalition.

Political analysts weigh in

The National President of the Nigerian Political Science Association (NPSA), Prof. Hassan Saliu, said Nigerians should concede that the political actors who moved to the ADC may have done their groundwork before settling on the platform.

According to him, the current political trajectory has moved beyond the debate over the most preferred party, and only time will tell whether the coalition made the right call.

“ADC is a registered political party and does not want to remain a fringe player. The influx of disgruntled elements from other parties could help it gain national relevance. But the movement is more about capturing power than genuine affection for the party,” Prof. Saliu said.

He noted that the decision may have been spurred by the uncompromising posture of key leaders within the SDP where the coalition initially leaned. “They probably foresaw resistance to taking over the party structure and saw the ADC as a softer landing. Unlike the SDP, which appears somewhat rigid, the ADC has little to lose and more to gain.”

On whether the ADC could make a significant impact in the upcoming elections, Prof. Saliu said historical precedents like the merger that birthed the APC suggest that nothing is impossible in politics. “Every political gamble carries risks,” he added.

However, Prof. Gbade Ojo offered a more sceptical view, describing the move as a misstep that amounts to “starting from scratch”.

According to him, the ADC lacks the political structure necessary to mount a serious challenge—no senators, governors or local government control. “Politics is about structure, and the ADC currently controls none. Their move only strengthens the ruling party’s chances,” he said.

Prof. Ojo observed that the coalition elements appear confused, having flirted with both the SDP and now the ADC. “They’ve not crafted a coherent strategy. Their disarray may lead to voter apathy in 2027 if citizens are left with no viable alternative, which could affect the legitimacy of any eventual winner.”

He stressed that even the ruling party should be concerned about the weakening of opposition, noting that robust democracy thrives on a healthy opposition. “The fundamental problem is that these coalition elements are not ideologically aligned, which limits how far they can go. That’s bad for our democracy,” he warned.

For Chief Peter A. Olorunnisola (SAN), the larger issue is not whether the coalition can challenge the ruling party, but how to foster good governance.

“We must move away from the assumption that governance only improves when there’s a strong opposition. In the past, people like the late Chief Awolowo provided constructive opposition through intellectual engagement, not mere antagonism.”

He added, “Opposition should not be about pulling the government down at all costs. Even in countries with dominant party systems, governance can thrive when institutions work. What we need is maturity in our political engagement.”

[DailyTrust]

Just days before another wedding season in Kano, the joy of brides and their village-themed celebrations has been cut short.

On May 17, 2025, the Kano State Censorship Board announced a statewide ban on Kauyawa Day over alleged indecent behavior among young women.

“Kauyawa Day” is a traditional cultural event celebrated primarily in northern Nigeria, especially among Hausa communities.

The term “Kauyawa” translates to “villagers” in Hausa, reflecting the event’s emphasis on rural customs and aesthetics. Typically held a day or two before a wedding, Kauyawa Day is organized by the bride’s female friends and relatives where participants dress in traditional village attire, engage in singing and dancing, and showcase local foods.

The board however revealed that the decision to enforce the ban was made to safeguard “societal values” and prevent what it described as “unacceptable behavior.”

As part of the new measures, event venues and party halls are prohibited from hosting any activities linked to “Kauyawa Day” until existing regulations are reviewed and updated.

“The Board will work closely with security agencies to ensure strict enforcement of the law.

“Local vigilante groups and the Hisbah Board will also be mobilized to support compliance efforts. In addition, the Board plans to engage community elders and youth groups to raise awareness and encourage public support for the policy,” the board said in a statement.

The move has sparked some mixed reactions from residents raising concern on whether culture being protected or erased.

Fatima Muhammad, a resident of Darmanawa, expressed deep disappointment over the recent ban on Kauyawa Day in Kano State.

Speaking to Daily Post, she revealed that the cancellation of the event had caused her emotional distress, especially as her best friend’s wedding was approaching.

“This is the only time we women truly enjoy ourselves during weddings.”

She explained that women usually prepare weeks in advance for Kauyawa Day, selecting traditional attire, composing songs, and rehearsing dances that reflect village life.

“It’s our way of expressing joy, our nishadi,” she added.

She acknowledged that while some individuals may engage in behavior that goes against cultural norms during Kauyawa Day, that should not justify denying others the opportunity to celebrate in a decent and joyful manner.

Rabiu Musa, a resident of Farawa, described the ban on Kauyawa Day as unjust and called for its immediate reversal.

“This decision is quite wrong and should be reversed without delay. We must raise our voices collectively to ensure it is overturned.”

Rabiu criticized the move as an attempt at cultural homogenization, warning that it could lead to the erosion of Hausa identity.

“While global communities are promoting cultural creativity, what the Kano State Government is doing amounts to cultural homogenization,” he explained.

“It is making people lose touch with their cultural practices and beliefs. The creativity behind events like Kauyawa Day adds value and brings life to our fast-eroding traditions.”

He further emphasized the broader implications of the ban on cultural preservation.

“What the government is trying to do will eradicate our cultural norms and values, and ultimately, our total identity,” he said.

“Every community has its identity, and that identity is kept alive through cultural programs and events.”

Rabiu described Kauyawa Day as one of the defining elements of Hausa wedding celebrations.

“These events remind people of who they are, where they come from, and their rich cultural heritage,” he added.

“Kauyawa Day is one of the unique aspects of Hausa weddings that distinguishes them from Western culture. It’s part of what makes our weddings truly special.”

He concluded by urging the government to reconsider.

“This decision is uncalled for and should be reversed immediately,”he added.

However, supporters of the ban, including some clerics and traditionalists, argue that Kauyawa Day has strayed too far from its original purpose.

Nazeeru Dalhat, a resident of Ghari LGA, said the ban on Kauyawa Day was long overdue.

“This decision should have come much earlier. The way Kauyawa Day is celebrated today goes against our culture and traditions as Hausas.”

He expressed concern over the behavior of some participants, particularly from rural communities.

“Women now hide under the guise of Kauyawa to engage in acts that contradict our customs, from their outfits to their dances and overall conduct,” he said.

Nazeeru warned that allowing the celebrations to continue unchecked could have damaging effects on Hausa values.

“If this is allowed to continue, it will corrupt the character and behavior of our people,” he added. “I support the ban 100%.”

Nazir Nuhu, an Islamic scholar, in Mariri supported the ban on Kauyawa Day, stating that the practice is not rooted in Islam but rather in cultural traditions that have been adopted over time.

“Kauyawa Day is not Islamic,” he said. “It is purely a cultural practice, not something backed by Sharia.”

He commended the Kano State Censorship Board for taking action, describing the move as a step towards sanitizing society.

“This is a commendable effort to restore moral discipline. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: ‘Whoever sees something wrong should change it with his hand; if he cannot, then with his tongue; and if he cannot, then with his heart.’”

Nazir emphasized that the nature of Kauyawa Day activities clearly contradicts Islamic values.

“Just look at how they dress during these events. It is far from modest,” he added.

“It hasn’t even been long since this trend started, yet it’s already causing moral decay. Stopping it now is the right decision.”

Ultimately, the ban on Kauyawa Day highlights the ongoing tension between cultural preservation and moral regulation in Kano.

As voices continue to rise both in support and opposition, the decision raises important questions about who defines culture and who gets to celebrate it. While the government insists it’s protecting societal values, many argue that suppressing such traditions risks erasing the identity of the people. Whether reviewed or upheld, the decision will leave a lasting impact on how culture is celebrated in Kano.

[DailyPost]

The foremost Shi’a organisation in Nigeria, the Rasulul A’azam Foundation (RAAF), has dissociated itself from the radical views of the wife of the leader of the proscribed Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN),  Zinat Zakzakay.

In a statement by its Chairman, Muhammad Nura Dass, RAAF condemned what it called her provocative utterances during the fourth international conference organised by the group in Kano on April 11.

RAAF said the teachings of Shi’a Islam do not advocate for violence against a legitimate government in any circumstance.

It maintained that Shiites believe in a united and democratic Nigeria under the 1999 Constitution and reiterated that Shiites would not participate in or support any act that would violate the laws.

“We, the Rasulul A’azam Foundation, strongly dissociate ourselves and Shiites from her radical views of taking revenge or taking arms against the state.

“There is no place in the teachings of Shi’a Islam to fight a legitimate government on account of being provoked.

“It has never been the doctrinal, philosophical and political objectives of the Shi’ah in Nigeria to establish an Islamic government.

“The Shiites believe in a united, just, peaceful, progressive and democratic Nigeria, under the Constitution.

“Shiism is completely different from the dark picture painted by such baseless movements,” the statement said.

The organisation appealed to the Federal Government to treat Shiites with respect and honour, stressing that their doctrine is one of peace.

[TheNAtion]

In our society, it is uncommon for public officials to admit faults, let alone offer a tearful apology, and that seems to explain some of the reactions to the actions of JAMB registrar Prof. Is-haq Oloyede. We are used to poor leaders scoring themselves high and branding those who ask legitimate questions as “haters”, and so the reaction to Oloyede was either extreme vilification or wild applause. Take, for instance, the University of Nigeria chapter of the Academic Staff Union of Universities that alleged a conspiracy against their region and threatened to sue JAMB. Even if taking legal action was part of their mandate, one would still have expected them to pose logical questions to JAMB rather than merely bloviate. Their Yoruba counterparts were no better. The management of at least three universities—the University of Ilorin, the Lagos State University and the Federal University of Technology, Akure—jumped out to “stand with” Oloyede. Why? You look at them falling over themselves to provide a moral cover for a tribal compatriot and you see why mediocrity thrives in Nigeria. We are a people of incredibly low standards. To think that these are people training the next generation should make us shudder.

When students fail an examination like the UTME, opinion hawkers are always quick to ascribe the poor performance to a generational shortcoming. They will blame students for not being serious enough and for always being on social media. But when the public official who superintends the examination body fails, they applaud and recommend him for appointments into other public offices!

There are several problems that I identified from the extreme reactions to Oloyede’s admission of failure. One is that Nigeria suffers from a severe institutional trust deficit. Every society has that problem to a degree, but the local strain is so acute that we are easily blinded to reason. Those whose conspiratorial mindset will not let them accept that this could be a sincere mistake on the part of JAMB are ruled by the paranoia that typically afflicts Nigerians when the regional (or religious) blocs they identify with are far from the centres of political power. For every situation that arises, these ones must look for the story behind the story because reality cannot possibly be simple. Those quick to assert their faith in Oloyede do not make things better either. What they do by promoting an individual over the system is overcompensate for a crisis of institutional trust deficit. What is at stake in the JAMB matter goes beyond these petty insecurities.

In a previous article, I had written about JAMB during the Mmesoma Ejikeme debacle, I had mentioned that JAMB needed to understand that the future of millions of young Nigerians is directly tied to its capacities as an organisation and should therefore develop a protocol for responding to controversial issues or public criticisms. In Nigeria, where social mobility is propelled by academic credentials, who or what most of us will become in life has a lot to do with JAMB. You cannot be that pivotal to the destiny of people and afford to be flippant in your responses to those who raise concerns about your operations. In responding to critics (including the petty-minded ones), you can be sensitive to what you represent yet firm and resolute when addressing issues. Instead, JAMB exhibits the smug self-righteousness of an organisation that has allowed the applause of their registrar’s much-vaunted integrity to get into their heads. They seem to imagine every complaint comes from a sore loser.

Oloyede talks about his innovative efforts to reduce the tide of examination malpractices every chance he gets, but hardly ever addresses the question of improving the experience of the candidates. On the 2025 UTME test day, he was interviewed by some journalists. His responses to people who complained about the examination schedule were dismissive. He said the criticisms came from “people who have no job,” with “mob mentality,” and people “making a case out of no case”. He was too arrogant to listen to some of the complaints as the feedback necessary to make the right adjustments. He even compared the 8am examination schedule to the resumption hour on any regular workday. One would think that a whole JAMB registrar would know the difference between going to work as a routine exercise and taking a high-stakes examination.

The trouble with people like Oloyede—and I will join Dr Tunji Alausa, the education minister here—is that they belong to a generation of older people who have an outdated idea of what “standards” entail. Their generation walked five miles to school and tends to think younger people have it too easy. They will not budge when you tell them there is a better way of doing things. For them to make a process easier is to betray some lofty standards of difficulty to which they are undivorceably wedded. It is the mindset of “It was hard for me in my time; it must be hard for you too”. When Alausa heard about this year’s woeful examination results, he concluded that failure was the proof of success. I can bet that the prefabricated idea that the responsibility for failure or success solely rests on the students haunts every review meeting they have in the wake of every examination: the more people fail, the more they are convinced that things are getting better!

Try telling people like Alausa or Oloyede that some brilliant students underperform because they are poor test takers, and they will likely scoff. Not every brilliant person performs under exam conditions, but our society does not understand individual differences enough to be flexible. We think everyone functions the same, and we serially fail to make room for people left behind by the rigidity of the system. It is shaped up, or shaped out. Did they wonder how many of the students who were asked to report at 6.30am failed compared to those who did not arrive at the centres, trying to catch their breath? Instead of asking students to report for an examination at 6.30am, why not let them choose a time slot that might be most convenient for them? Some people do not function well enough at certain times of the day.

Also, why should almost two million people take the examination on the same day? Why not spread it out over a year? The exam can be held quarterly rather than annually. Why should someone who failed because they had a bad day or missed the exam for reasons out of their control wait another year to re-sit? Also, why not let people take the exam more than once and select the best result for their university application? Again, why should the exam’s validity expire after one year? JAMB does not need to be so inflexible.

Finally, I sincerely think Oloyede’s willingness to admit mistakes is commendable. He could have staged a cover-up, and the usual online crowd who have convinced themselves that all it takes for JAMB to run successfully is the integrity of a lone individual would have bleated his infallibility. Even the minister who spoke too soon would have been invested in a cover-up. But Oloyede admitted his errors. In our society, that basic minimum is worth acknowledging. I have never really bought into the whole thing about the man exemplifying integrity, simply because JAMB returns unspent funds to the government. However, for that one moment when he admitted failure, Oloyede modelled public accountability. Now, that is a much better example of personal integrity.

A coroner has blamed inadequate safety measures for the death of a 15-year-old Nigerian boy, David Ejimofor, who drowned after jumping off a breakwater into the sea at Aberavon Beach, Neath Port Talbot, South Wales.

The incident occurred on the evening of June 19, 2023, shortly after 7pm.

According to BBC, at an inquest into the teenager’s death on Tuesday,coroner Edward Ramsay concluded that a “lack of effective deterrents on the day in question” contributed to the fatal incident.

David, described by his mother, Maria Ejimofor, as a “cautious” swimmer, had jumped into the sea from the pier and quickly found himself in difficulty. 

Though he had received swimming lessons in the past, the coroner said his ability was not strong enough to keep him afloat.

“This was because whilst he had swam, and could swim, his swimming ability was not good,” Ramsay stated.

He further noted, “Despite the frantic efforts of David’s friends, his swimming ability was not sufficient to keep him afloat.”

Emergency services were called to the scene, and despite rescue efforts from bystanders, including off-duty police officer Tyler Rowland, who was paddleboarding nearby, David was pronounced dead at 8.05pm.

Rowland helped bring the boy back to shore, where members of the public attempted CPR until paramedics arrived.

The inquest revealed that David had been researching swimming locations earlier that day.

His phone contained internet searches suggesting he was planning to swim, but was unsure about jumping.

“He had expressed some caution about jumping,” the coroner noted.

The coroner was critical of the safety conditions at the breakwater, stating, “I have no idea if he saw the signage stating no access. Secondly, even if he did, there was no physical barrier deterring entry.”

He added that “the breakwater should not have been used for jumping into the sea but there was effectively unrestricted and undeterred access.”

The coroner also revealed that there was absence of a lifeguard at the time of the incident.

According to BBC, Ramsay suggested that had a lifeguard been on duty, “it was possible David would not have jumped and therefore not have drowned.”

An RNLI spokesperson, reacting after the inquest, explained that lifeguard patrols generally run between 10am and 6pm, based on incident data indicating this is the highest-risk period.

David’s drowning happened shortly after those hours.

“Providing lifeguard cover is one of a range of safety measures a landowner or Council can implement to mitigate risk,” the spokesperson added.

Mr Ramsay confirmed he would be issuing a formal prevention of future deaths report, aimed at preventing similar tragedies.

A report from BBC stated that a spokesperson for Associated British Ports, which owns the breakwater, said: “Our deepest sympathy and thoughts remain with David’s family, friends and all who knew him.”

The company added that it continues to work with “local stakeholders and partners regarding water safety at Port Talbot.”

Neath Port Talbot Council, in a separate statement, extended its condolences to David’s family and friends and acknowledged the safety concerns raised.

“We are in the process of monitoring activity for the 2025 season and will continue to review beach safety provision,” the Council said.

It added that it would respond formally to the assistant coroner’s concerns in due course.

[Punch]

Nasir el-Rufai, former governor of Kaduna, says Bosun Tijani, minister of communications, innovation, and digital economy, will retain his position if the coalition defeats President Bola Tinubu in 2027.

El-Rufai spoke on Wednesday during the second edition of Arewa Tech Fest held in Katsina.

The three-day event was convened by the former governor to bring together startups, investors, tech professionals, policy leaders, and innovators to discuss tech-related innovations, especially in northern Nigeria.

Tijani delivered the keynote address at the event.

El-Rufai, who arrived late, apologised to participants for his delay.

The former governor explained that he could not travel with the organising team to Katsina due to a coalition meeting held at 8pm on Tuesday.

“They (the organising team) had to come without me because yesterday (Tuesday) at 8pm there was a very important meeting of the coalition we’re putting together to ensure that President Tinubu goes back to Lagos,” he said.

“Though we will still keep Bosun Tijani, we will still keep the minister because he is doing good work.

“I had to attend that meeting at 8pm. The Katsina airport does not operate after 8pm, so I could not come until this morning.”

El-Rufai is one of the opposition politicians mobilising to create a coalition of political parties to unseat Tinubu in 2027.

In March, the former Kaduna governor dumped the All Progressives Congress (APC) for the Social Democratic Party (SDP).

[TheCable]

Nigerian politicians are a funny lot who have perfected the inelegant art of majoring in minor things, which explains why, at a time like this when the country is at a socio-economic and political crossroads, the House of Representatives is going around chasing rats while the house – Nigeria – is on fire.

Their puerile antics reminds me of the July 13, 2000 book, “This House Has Fallen: Midnight in Nigeria,” by Karl Maier which chronicled the problems threatening Nigeria’s existence. “We… ignore Nigeria at our peril,” Maier, a London Independent correspondent stationed in Africa for more than a decade, admonished the world. Sadly, 25 years thence, those problems are not only still prevalent but have, indeed, become metastatic cancer.

And so, rather than address Nigeria’s existential threats, the National Assembly is chasing shadows, wasting scarce resources on frivolities that neither add value to Nigerians nor promote good governance.

On May 15, a bill seeking to amend the Electoral Act 2022 to make voting compulsory scaled second reading in the House of Representatives. First introduced in February by Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, the proposed legislation, which has been referred to the House Committee on Electoral Matters for further legislative action, includes a provision for a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to N100,000 for failure to vote during elections as an antidote to low voter turnout, which Abbas claimed undermines democratic institutions.

It is harebrained to think that making voting a legal obligation will promote public accountability. To be sure, Nigeria’s electoral democracy is imperiled and Nigerians’ enthusiasm has waned significantly. Since return to democracy in 1999, voter turnout has progressively plummeted, reaching its lowest point in 2023 with only 26.72 percent voter turnout. Out of the total 93.47 million registered voters, only 24.9 million voted in the Presidential and National Assembly elections, representing one in four registered voters. That was an 8.03 percent decline compared to the voter turnout of 34.74 percent in 2019.

Even in 1999 when enthusiasm ought to be at its lowest ebb given the fact that the military had taken Nigerians for a ride for too long and many were not convinced that they had truly turned the corner even with the death of General Sani Abacha, 29.8 million Nigerians voted in the presidential election that ushered in President Olusegun Obasanjo. Yet, 24 years after, only 24 million voted, representing a drop of 5.8 million.

The highest turnout was in 2003 when 39 million people — representing 69.08 percent of registered voters — cast their ballots. Since then, the percentage turnout has been on a downward spiral: 57.54 per cent in 2007, 53.68 per cent in 2011, 43.65 per cent in 2015 and 34.75 per cent in 2019. The absolute numbers rose from 35.4 million in 2007 to 38.2 million in 2011 but have been dropping since then: 28.6 million in 2015, 27.3 million in 2019 and 24 million in 2023.

So, there is clearly an issue that should worry every well-meaning Nigerian. But any altruistic effort to address the problem must start with answering the all-important question: what went wrong? How is it that a people who waged an existential battle against the military to usher in democracy have suddenly become lethargic?

Truth be told, the people have lost confidence in the potency of the ballot. Why should anyone bother to vote when the votes don’t count? What incentive is there for anyone to risk going out to vote in an environment where electoral officials and citizens are killed or kidnapped by thugs and where politicians make the environment for elections a war theatre with voter suppression and violence being the hallmark of political astuteness?

Indubitably, addressing low voter turnout is crucial to strengthening the quality and substance of democracy but it will be tantamount to putting the cart before the horse if the causative factors driving voter apathy – insecurity, electoral violence, voter suppression, lack of trust in the election management body and poor governance – are not addressed first. Twenty-six years after the return of democracy, rather than strengthening and deepening it, politicians are busy dismantling its guardrails with reckless abandon.

So why would any Nigerian bother to vote when the votes won’t count? The voter is shortchanged at every stage. At the polling booth, he is bullied and humiliated and even when he manages to vote, the umpire announces results quite at variance with the votes cast. As if that is not bad enough, at the end, the courts, not the votes of the electorate, decide who gets elected, a process Professor Chidi Odinkalu, former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, NHRC, calls “judicial selectorate.” And few months after, elected officials whimsically trade off their party’s mandates as was the case in Delta State and the legion of lawmakers joining the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, with very scant regard to the political parties that propelled them into office.

Ultimately, the idea of democracy is to promote common good and the primary function of government is to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens. Nigerians are seeing little or no democracy dividends – political, economic, social and legal. So what incentive is there to vote in 2027?

It is obvious that the National Assembly is on a wild goose chase, a voyage of mischief with this vexatious bill which flies in the face of reason and law, a point which the Nigerian Bar Association eloquently made last Tuesday when it dismissed the effort as unconstitutional and draconian and a blatant violation of civil liberties and democratic principles.

“In a democracy, voting is a civil liberty, not a legal obligation. Compelling citizens to vote through coercive measures infringes on their fundamental rights,” the NBA said in a statement by its President, Afam Osigwe. “Compelling individuals to vote, regardless of their faith in the electoral process or the choices available, violates their personal convictions and political freedoms… Democracy thrives on consent, participation, and trust, not coercion. Forcing citizens to vote under threat of imprisonment undermines the essence of free and fair elections,” the group further said.

Speaker Abbas and his co-travellers know that the quickest way to solve the problem of voter apathy is to give the people a reason to believe by addressing the evils of electoral violence, outright rigging and ‘go to court’ ridicule, not by criminalising non-participation in an electoral process plagued by mistrust, insecurity and systemic flaws, because to do so will amount to double jeopardy for the longsuffering and much abused electorate. As NBA rightly noted, “Nigeria’s democracy requires trust, transparency, accountability, and inclusive reform.”

By attempting to criminalise voter apathy, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas is being smart by half. It is not an act borne out of altruism or originating from concern for common good, independently of personal benefit. Instead, it is a cold political calculation with the ultimate goal of legitimising fraud. He knows that low voter turn out robs those in authority legitimacy. President Bola Tinubu garnered only 8,794,726 votes, a fraction of the 93.47 million registered voters, and only 37 percent of the 24.9 million that actually voted. He has no national mandate to govern, which explains the legitimacy crisis that has dogged his administration in the last two years.

This is the malady that Abbas wants to cure with this bill. To be sure, he is not interested in credible, free and fair polls in 2027. If anything, the 2027 elections will be worse than 2023. After all, voters from a section of the country have been warned beforehand not to bother coming out to vote on Election Day in some parts of the country unless they will vote for particular political tendencies. It will be a miracle if the voter turnout in 2027 exceeds 15 percent unless consequential steps are taken to restore the integrity of the electoral system. Abbas knows that he and his colleagues are doing nothing to fix the country’s broken electoral process. So, the idea of the bill is to cajole Nigerians to vote so that the weak mandate stigma will be circumvented.

But it won’t be as easy as he thinks. If he insists on making a law that will make voting a legal obligation, he should also strive to make law(s) before the 2027 elections that will make the votes count. If not, the Tinubu government should build more prisons to accommodate the millions of otherwise eligible voters, including my humble self, who have decided to become conscientious objectors in 2027.

Peter Obi, former Labour Party presidential candidate, has denied the report that he travelled to Rome to meet President Bola Tinubu over an alleged ₦225 billion debt linked to Fidelity Bank.

In a statement released on Thursday, Obi said the report is part of a blackmail campaign aimed at damaging his reputation.

“It’s obvious that the biggest business for blackmailers now is talking about Peter Obi from every negative perspective.” He said, “Even my solemn spiritual trip to Rome has been twisted into yet another blackmail campaign by merchants paid ostensibly to propagate anything negative against Obi.”

A media report recently alleged that Obi met secretly with Tinubu in Rome to plead for intervention in a purported financial scandal involving Fidelity Bank, where he served as a board member.

However, the former Governor of Anambra State categorically denied ever requesting or holding a private meeting with the president on account of any bank.

“I have never sought an audience with, nor met, President Tinubu since he assumed office, except about 1 minute meeting at the arena of Saint Peter’s Basilica Rome during the inauguration Mass of Pope Leo XIV, where I was seated behind, and had to respectfully greet him, and other dignitaries present,” he said.

Obi also cleared the air on his relationship with Fidelity Bank, saying he does not own the bank.

He said, “The self-proclaimed “blackmailer-in-chief” and others who thrive on spreading pain and falsehoods have also claimed that I own Fidelity Bank. For the record, I do not. Throughout my career, I have served as Chairman/Director of 3 banks/Financial institutions, of which Fidelity is one of them. Fidelity has over 500,000 shareholders, none of whom hold a majority stake. What this blackmailer seeks is to harm these hard-working Nigerians and cause them needless distress.”

Vanguard News

In an era when a single manipulated image can ricochet around the globe in seconds, our collective grasp on reality teeters dangerously on the brink. The media office of former Anambra State governor and Labour Party presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, this week dismissed as “clearly photoshopped” the photographs circulating on social media that purported to show him kneeling before President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at a Vatican ceremony graced by the Pope’s moral authority.

According to Mr. Obi’s Media Adviser, Mr. Valentine Obienyem, these doctored images are “not reflective of the actual proceedings at the solemn occasion attended by global dignitaries” and would have “made the front pages of major newspapers” had they been real. That no credible outlet reported such a spectacle, Obienyem noted, speaks volumes about the lengths to which political mischief–makers will go to bend public perception to their will.

This latest affront is but the tip of a swelling iceberg: Nigeria today is drowning in a tsunami of fake news, filter-bubbled rants, and recycled rumors masquerading as fact. From the bogus “death” of Nollywood icons to fraudulent videos designed to inflame ethnic tensions, we’ve grown jaded, and dangerously complacent, about verifying what we consume. Yet beneath the surface of this chaos lies a simple truth elucidated by Source Credibility Theory: if the messenger is suspect, so too is the message. And in our Twitter-obsessed, like-driven world, we have surrendered our right to question not just the content of a story, but the very credentials of its originator.

To clearly understand the foregoing situation, it is germane I recount that years ago, long before I fully grasped the media industry’s nuances, I found myself in the corporate trenches delivering “news” of a prominent Nigerian politician’s death. My boss, the very picture of seasoned detachment, leaned back, arched a single eyebrow, and crooned, “Which newspaper reported it?” When I named the outlet, he snorted and waved the rumor away. “Forget it. It is fake.”

At the time, his flippancy stung. Was I so naïve as to believe every headline? Yet as I transitioned into journalism, I realized his skepticism was not borne of cynicism but of wisdom: information is only as valuable as its source. His instinctive application of what scholars call the Source Credibility Theory in Mass Communication would have made him a star pupil in any journalism school.

At its core, Source Credibility Theory argues that a message’s persuasive power is directly proportional to how trustworthy and expert its originator appears. Trustworthiness gauges perceived honesty and integrity; expertise measures knowledge and competence. Together, these twin pillars dictate whether an audience will accept, or reject, a claim.

Mainstream Nigerian dailies such as The Guardian, Punch, and ThisDay once, or still, command high scores on both counts. They painstakingly buttress each report with multiple sources, fact-checkers, and editorial oversight. Their hard-won reputations lend weight to every headline, strengthening democracy through informed debate. But today, the rise of digital influencers, amateur gossip blogs, and hyper-partisan WhatsApp chains has turned that paradigm on its head. Reach has eclipsed reliability; virality trumps veracity.

Every smartphone is now a de facto newsroom. Every social media user a self-declared journalist. The only qualification needed to break “news” is a large follower count, and a flair for the dramatic. Fact-checking? Optional. Attribution? Overrated.

This shift has unleashed a maelstrom of fake death announcements (remember Ngozi Ezeonu? Olu Jacobs?), conspiracy videos, and clickbait meant to enrage, not enlighten. Ned Nwoko, the politician-businessman, has had to publicly debunk false reports of his demise, twice.

Back to Peter Obi, an image claiming to show him meeting the Pope might as well have had a watermark from the “Emperor’s New Clothes” for all the truth it bore. Yet such doctored visuals spread faster than any correction could catch up.

Meanwhile, audiences judge credibility not by scrutinizing sources but by how an item makes them feel. Emotional resonance, confirmation bias, and the illusory-truth effect ensure that the more we see a lie repeated, the more we believe it, even if it originated from an anonymous handle with zero track record.

The Vatican incident crystallizes this crisis. A solemn gathering, featuring the spiritual leader of 1.3 billion Catholics, is reduced to a political stunt by opportunists wielding Photoshop as their paintbrush. Mr. Obienyem’s statement underscores three sobering realities:

1. “Silence Speaks”: “If such an event had occurred, it would doubtless have made the front pages of major newspapers.” The absence of mainstream coverage is, in itself, evidence.

2. “Procedural Protocol”: Pope Francis “extended personal greetings only to Heads of State, their official representatives, and members of the diplomatic corps”, a category not inclusive of Mr. Obi.

3. “Selective Targeting”: Of all Nigerian attendees, only Mr. Obi was slapped into the political crosshairs, a sign of malice, not accident.

This is not a mere prank. It is a calculated effort to redirect attention from the Pope’s real message, justice, peace, and care for the poor, and ethical leadership, toward specious clickbait that serves no purpose but to inflame partisan passions.

We are complicit in our own deception. We no longer pause before retweeting a fiery headline; we do not pause to check if the handle belongs to a reputable journalist or a newly-created sock puppet. The default assumption is: social media = truth. This blind faith undermines both the Source Credibility Theory and the very function of a democratic press.

Confirmation bias only deepens the wound, as we gravitate toward stories that validate our worldviews, regardless of their factual footing. In a country as ethnically and politically polarized as Nigeria, such bias becomes a weapon of mass distraction, one that drowns out serious discourse and corrodes civic trust.

If Nigeria is to stem the tide of fake news, we must re-embed Source Credibility Theory at the heart of our information ecosystem:

In fact, from primary schools to churches, it should be expedient to teach Nigerians to interrogate sources like they would inspect medicine labels. Who is speaking? What are their credentials? Have they cited evidence?

In a similar vein, legacy media must beef up their verification teams and publicly shame purveyors of fake content. Organizations like Dubawa and Africa Check need more funding, and higher profiles.

Also in a similar vein, social networks must be compelled to filter out manipulated media and penalize repeat offenders. Algorithms optimized for engagement should be recalibrated for accuracy.

In fact, the state can play a role without trampling press freedom. Legislation against malicious misinformation should target intent and patterns of deception, not stifle legitimate critique.

Again, brands and NGOs must vet the platforms they sponsor. If money stops fueling fake-news mills, their incentives evaporate.

On our own parts, we should always bear it in mind that each of us bears a responsibility. Before forwarding “breaking news” on WhatsApp, ask: “Who originated this? Have I seen it elsewhere? Could it be manipulated?”

My former boss never read Hovland and Weiss, yet he instinctively applied the lessons of Source Credibility Theory. He knew that the merit of any claim flows from the integrity of its messenger. Today, as a journalist, I stand alarmed at how easily our collective guard has been lowered. If we continue to elevate sensationalism over substance, amplify Photoshopped stooges over seasoned reporters, and reward clicks over credibility, then Nigeria’s democratic prospects will be undone by our own blindness.

In a world awash with “pixels of deceit,” we must reclaim the bedrock principle that trust and expertise matter. We must champion truth over tactics, ethics over expedience. Otherwise, we risk becoming a nation guided by the loudest liars rather than the most reliable sources, and in such a nation, democracy, development, and dignity will be the first casualties.