In the heat of the afternoon bustle in Ogba, Ikeja, a single voice pierced through the simmering air of frustration, rice steam, and boiling politics. Amid the clatter of plates and the sizzle of stew, a well-known restauranteur interrupted a political argument unfolding at his buka and thundered, “If na your papa dey there nko? You go dey sleep for house?”

The question, raw and honest, stopped everyone cold was not just a rhetorical jab. It was a reality check. And more than that, it was a social mirror, one held up to a nation that loves to criticize from the sidelines but would, if given the same opportunity, do exactly what it condemns.

The subject of the now-viral question? Sheyi Tinubu, son of Nigeria’s sitting president, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a young man who has, over the past year, become a lightning rod for outrage, envy, and everything in between.

At this juncture, it is expedient to ask, “Who is Sheyi Tinubu and why Is everyone talking?” The foregoing question cannot be farfetched as Sheyi Tinubu is not a stranger to power. As the son of a political colossus who has now ascended to the highest office in Nigeria, Sheyi has always lived in a world of privilege. But since his father became president, Sheyi’s public profile has grown in ways many Nigerians find unsettling.

From attending official functions, with some Nigerians even accusing him of meddling in governance, his visibility has stirred resentment. People are asking, “Who elected Sheyi?”, “Why is he being given so much access?”, and “Why is he everywhere?”

And while these questions are not without merit, especially in a democracy that demands accountability, they are not always born from civic duty. Sometimes, they are born from envy, tribal bias, or deep-seated frustration at a country where opportunities seem sealed off for the masses.

That is what makes the restauranteur’s voice so profound. His question drips with realism, not idealism: If it were your own father, would not you do the same thing? Let us not pretend we would not.

Let us remove the mask. Most Nigerians, if they were to wake up tomorrow as the child of the president, would likely do what Sheyi Tinubu is doing or even worse. We know it. We have seen it.

We have seen people in government place their children in plum positions. We have seen nepotism take root in churches, companies, and family businesses. You get a job in the civil service and your first thought is how to fix your cousin. Your uncle becomes a local government chairman and suddenly your younger brother is the “Personal Assistant on Environment.” So why is Sheyi’s case different?

Because he is visible. Because the nation is angry. Because hunger is everywhere. Because salaries cannot buy a bag of rice. Because the masses are disillusioned. And when you are broke, hungry, and jobless, privilege feels like an insult.

But again, “If na your papa dey there nko?” The real problem is not Sheyi. It is the System. Let us get one thing straight: Sheyi Tinubu is not Nigeria’s problem. At least not the main one.

The problem is that our institutions are so weak that family members of politicians often step into unofficial roles of power without consequence. The problem is that proximity to the president in Nigeria grants unchecked access, influence, and control, no matter your official designation.

This should not be about Sheyi. It should be about the absence of boundaries between personal and state affairs.

In working democracies, presidents’ children are rarely seen at official events, and certainly not running government affairs behind the scenes. But Nigeria is not a fully matured democracy. It is a hybrid, somewhere between oligarchy and organized chaos, where institutions bent for personalities and power is passed down like family inheritance.

Aptly put, the hypocrisy in our anger is obvious enough. It is high time we admitted that a lot of our outrage is selective. We did not raise as much dust in the past political dispensations when children of politicians in various offices enjoyed perks of office. Many of us stayed silent when children of governors drove exotic cars in university campuses and flaunted wealth they clearly did not earn.

But we only find our voice when it is someone we do not support politically. That is not justice. That is partisanship. And it is hollow.

Besides, let us also be honest about our class warfare. Much of the anger towards Sheyi is not rooted in policy or fact, but emotion. Why him and not me? It is the pain of exclusion wrapped in fake moral outrage.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is germane we request for systems that work, not scapegoats. This is as dragging Sheyi Tinubu online daily might give some Nigerians a momentary sense of justice, but it would not change anything. The only way to stop the influence of unappointed individuals is to strengthen our institutions.

There should be clear rules about who can attend cabinet meetings. There should be transparency about appointments and decisions. If Sheyi is playing a role in government, let us demand to know what it is officially, and scrutinize it like we would any other political appointee. If he is not, then public appearances should not be confused with political interference.

In fact, when the structure is fixed, the individuals would not matter. Therefore, let us talk about the bigger picture At its core, this debate goes beyond Sheyi Tinubu. It touches the wound Nigerians do not want to talk about: the pain of exclusion.

The truth is, everyone wants to be “connected.” Everyone wants access. The same people dragging Sheyi online are praying for a phone call from a senator, a federal board appointment, or a political godfather.

That is the real tragedy of Nigeria, not Sheyi. The tragedy is a country where who you know matters more than what you know. Until that changes, there will always be another Sheyi, and another round of outrage.

At this conclusive juncture, it is not out of place to opine that the restaranteur was right. He may not have gone to Harvard. He may not write op-eds. But his one-liner carried more weight than most think-pieces ever could.

“If na your papa dey there nko?” It is not an endorsement of abuse of power. It is a challenge to all of us to stop pretending we are better than those we criticize. Let us demand better. Let us fix the system. Let us build a country where even the president’s child must follow due process.

Until then, before you cast the next stone, ask yourself: “If na my papa dey there nko?”

Despite being a fundamental principle of democracy, the doctrine of separation of powers appears to be under threat in Nigeria, as recent remarks by Senate President Godswill Akpabio suggest a troubling fusion of legislative and executive roles. This article explores how the National Assembly’s posture under Akpabio undermines Montesquieu’s vision, blurring the lines meant to prevent tyranny and preserve liberty.

When Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, formulated the doctrine of the Separation of Powers in his seminal 1748 work, The Spirit of the Laws, it was intended as a safeguard against tyranny. By advocating for the division of government into three distinct branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, he proposed that liberty could only be preserved if each branch functioned independently and served as a check on the others.

Fast-forward to contemporary Nigeria under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and what we see playing out under the watch of Senate President Godswill Akpabio is the complete opposite of that ideal. The principles Montesquieu passionately laid out to prevent authoritarianism have not only been diluted, they have been brazenly turned on their head.

Senator Akpabio’s recent assertion that “lawmakers were not elected to confront the executive but to partner with it” is not only misguided but dangerous to the very foundation of democratic governance. His statement reflects a chilling truth about Nigeria’s current political reality: the walls between the arms of government have crumbled, and what remains is a unitary structure masquerading as a democracy.

Akpabio made the remarks in a documentary marking President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s two years in office, emphasizing legislative-executive collaboration and ongoing national reforms, according to a statement on Tuesday by Presidential Media Adviser Bayo Onanuga.

“When elected into the National Assembly, whether in the Senate or the House of Representatives, your constituents will not give you boxing gloves. It’s not a boxing tournament,” Akpabio said. “You are there to work in a bipartisan manner for the interest of Nigeria.”

To understand the gravity of Akpabio’s declaration, we must first acknowledge the constitutional role of the National Assembly. Under Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended), the legislature is empowered to check the executive, not massage its ego. It is the voice of the people, and its loyalty should rest with the electorate, not with the presidency.

Yet, Akpabio’s words and actions have continuously undermined this principle. His claim that “if you spend all your energy fighting the executive, who will work for Nigeria?” is emblematic of someone who fundamentally misunderstands, or deliberately subverts, the watchdog role of the legislature. This is not about political infighting; it is about institutional oversight and accountability, which are hallmarks of any functional democracy.

In a bid to justify his camaraderie with the executive, Akpabio flaunts the fact that the current administration features a president, vice president, and first lady, all former senators. According to him, this shared pedigree has fostered “unprecedented cooperation.” But cooperation, in the context he describes, is merely subservience in disguise. It is a scenario where the legislature becomes an extension of the presidency, a rubber stamp, rather than a check and balance.

The Nigerian democracy today, particularly under the Tinubu administration, is suffering from a dangerous synchronization of powers. Nowhere is this clearer than in the following observations:

From the approval of massive loans without rigorous scrutiny to the quick passage of bills forwarded from the presidency, the National Assembly has acted more like a civil service department than an independent arm of government. Laws like the Student Loan Act and Minimum Wage Bill may be lauded by Akpabio, but they are often passed without robust public consultation or debate. The question is not whether laws are passed, but whether they are passed through a process that reflects legislative independence.

The judiciary, the supposed last hope of the common man, has become increasingly politicized. Judicial appointments are heavily influenced by the executive, and judgments on politically sensitive matters often tilt in favor of the ruling party. The separation of powers cannot exist where judges are afraid to rule against the government for fear of retribution or lack of promotion.

The core function of the National Assembly, to hold the executive accountable through oversight, has become more theatrical than substantive. Committees summon ministers and heads of agencies more for show than for genuine interrogation. Reports are swept under the carpet, and corruption probes often end without consequence.

Akpabio boasts that the Senate has rejected some of the president’s nominees, as if that alone proves independence. But rejecting a handful of appointees while approving dozens of questionable decisions does not restore credibility. It is a tactic to project a façade of impartiality while maintaining the status quo.

Montesquieu wrote: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty.” This is exactly what Akpabio is institutionalizing. The Nigerian Senate, under his leadership, has become a co-pilot in a plane that the executive solely navigates.

Rather than serve as a balancing force, the legislature has surrendered its identity, its dignity, and its purpose. The claim that legislators are elected to “work in a bipartisan manner” sounds noble on the surface, but in Nigeria’s context, it often means turning a blind eye to injustice, incompetence, and impunity, all in the name of unity.

The effect of this breakdown in the separation of powers is dire. Nigeria is teetering on the edge of elected authoritarianism, where elections still happen but the institutions that should guarantee fairness, accountability, and transparency have been neutralized. The legislature no longer asks tough questions. The judiciary is slow or reluctant to challenge the executive. And the executive rules almost unimpeded.

The average Nigerian citizen, reeling from economic hardship, insecurity, and poor governance, is left with nowhere to turn. When all three arms of government sing the same tune, dissent becomes a crime, and the interests of the people become secondary to the interests of the ruling elite.

What Nigeria desperately needs is not lawmakers who see themselves as partners in governance, but as protectors of the people’s trust. They must reassert their constitutional role, not for the sake of confrontation but for the preservation of democratic integrity.

Senator Akpabio’s model of legislative-executive “synergy” may win him applause in the corridors of Aso Rock, but such relationship would not in history be seen as a legacy that should be replicated. By turning Montesquieu’s principle of separation of powers on its head, he is helping to erode the very fabric of democratic governance in Nigeria.

In this precarious moment in Nigeria’s history, the question is not whether the arms of government should work together, but how they should work together without compromising their constitutional independence.

For if the legislature continues to abandon its oversight role and the judiciary its impartiality, then Nigeria will not just be a flawed democracy. It will become a democracy in name only, a sad irony for a country that once fought so hard to escape the yoke of military dictatorship.

In Nigeria’s current political theatre, a headline recently broke with thunderous resonance: “2027 Coalition: Atiku Camp Offers Obi VP Role in One-Term Deal.” According to reports, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has allegedly offered Mr. Peter Obi a Vice Presidential slot in a coalition arrangement that would see Atiku contest for president and serve only one term before supposedly handing over power to Obi.

On the surface, this sounds like political maturity, a show of compromise to oust the All Progressives Congress (APC) and bring in what they call a “Government of National Salvation.” But beneath the carefully crafted headlines lies a deeper question about self-worth, political identity, and how Nigeria’s long-suffering electorate perceives true leadership.

Peter Obi, this is not just about political arithmetic. This is about legacy. This is about knowing your worth and not settling for less. And to be blunt: accepting a vice-presidential slot in 2027 would be akin to a first-class graduate begging for “any job” after waiting five years post-graduation.

For the sake of clarity, let us at this juncture unpack the analogy. There was once a graduate, brilliant, qualified, loaded with potential, who walked from office to office, CV in hand, only to be asked repeatedly, “What kind of job are you looking for?” And each time, out of frustration, he would say, “Any job.” That answer, although sincere, always came across as desperate and undefined. Nobody hires “anyone” for “Any job.” The real world does not work that way. Just like in politics, perception is everything.

Peter Obi is no political novice. He is not “anyone.” In 2023, he became the poster boy for Nigeria’s youthful aspirations, a beacon for issue-based politics, and the only candidate who forced the status quo to reckon with new political realities. He inspired a generation of first-time voters and civilly engaged Nigerians who rejected both APC and PDP not out of rebellion, but out of reason.

To now consider playing second fiddle again in 2027, after running a formidable presidential campaign that shook two political giants to their core, would be nothing short of political regression.

To in this context explain why this is the wrong move, it is germane to first talk about credibility. In 2019, Peter Obi ran with Atiku under the PDP and lost. That loss was not only because of the APC machinery, but also because the duo failed to inspire genuine transformation. When Obi broke away in 2022 to pursue the presidency under the Labour Party, it was a masterstroke. It was not just a change of party, it was a change of politics. That bold move drew in young people, professionals, and first-time voters in droves.

Now imagine trying to tell those same people in 2027, “I’m back as number two to the same man I left behind.” It would be seen as a betrayal of hope. The “Obidient Movement” was not built around Atiku. It was built around Peter Obi. If he accepts to return as a Vice Presidential candidate, he risks not only losing the movement but diluting its very essence.

Second, there is no guarantee Atiku will keep his one-term promise. Nigerian politics is not built on trust. If there is anything history has taught us, it is that political agreements, especially unwritten ones, are hardly worth the paper they are not written on. Even if it is documented, there is no legal obligation for Atiku to hand over after one term. Power, once tasted, rarely gets relinquished easily.

Furthermore, let us not forget: Atiku is a serial contestant. He has been on the ballot more times than most Nigerians care to count. Each time, he says it is his “last try.” Why should anyone believe 2027 would be any different?

Given the backdrop of the foregoing views, it is not out of place to opine that desperation should not be mistaken for Strategy.  Let us return to our graduate job seeker analogy. What does it mean when a qualified person says, “I will take any job”? It means he or she is not thinking clearly. Such graduate is tired, and vulnerable. And more often than not, exploited.

Peter Obi must not become the desperate graduate of Nigerian politics. He must not act like a man who just wants to enter Aso Rock by any means, even through the servant’s quarter. Because, like the graduate who undersells himself, he would be telling Nigerians and the world: “I don’t know my worth.”

Without mincing words, this is not the Peter Obi Nigerians followed in 2023. The Peter Obi they followed was bold, precise, intentional, and principled. He did not wait to be offered a position, he declared his interest, challenged the establishment, and proved that a new Nigeria was possible. That Peter Obi cannot and must not be reduced to a “Spare Tyre”

It is time to go all in, or step aside. This is as 2027 must be all or nothing. It must be a presidential bid or none at all. If there is no room for him to run as president under the Labour Party due to internal crisis, then let him rally the Obidient Movement, civic groups, and credible political stakeholders to create or adopt a platform that truly represents the people’s interests. Nigerians are tired of recycled promises and tired political marriages that do not translate into better governance.

Obi must not allow Atiku to rebrand himself using his clean slate and integrity. He must not allow the political establishment to piggyback on his credibility simply to gain votes and then dump him once power is secured.

If Atiku is truly serious about making way for Obi, then let him step aside now and support Obi as the coalition’s presidential candidate. Anything less than that is deception.

To the millions of Nigerians who stood in the sun and rain to vote for Peter Obi, in the last presidential election in 2023, do not let this pass quietly. Politics is not a one-man game. Movements only succeed when they are loud, persistent, and clear. Make your voices heard. Let Obi know that anything short of a presidential ambition in 2027 is unacceptable. Let him know that he was not chosen to be a second option. He was chosen to be a first choice.

Peter Obi has a chance to go down in history as the man who redefined Nigerian politics, or as the man who played safe and faded into political footnote. He must decide whether to rise like Nelson Mandela or shrink into a supporting role that history would not remember.

This is not the time to act like the jobless graduate begging for any job. Peter Obi is overqualified for the vice presidency. He is presidential material. Let it be presidency or nothing. Nigerians are watching. The world is watching. And history will judge.

It was, perhaps, no surprise that when President Bola Tinubu spoke to newsmen after the coronation of Pope Leo XIV in Rome on Sunday, the theme that he chose was the diversity of the Nigerian nation. The significance of the invitation and the symbolism of Tinubu’s presence at the Vatican were widely perceived against the background of the perennial question of diversity in this multi-religious and multi-ethnic country. Here was the President, a Muslim, leading the Nigerian delegation to the epochal Christian ceremony that attracted many leaders across the world. Tinubu said of his presence: “(It is) consistent in the true sense of unity in diversity… We must continue to work on it. It’s a work in progress…”

Now, identity politics is a global phenomenon. It is a challenge to nation-building in many countries. In the specific case of Nigeria, the manifestation of identity politics is more pronounced in the religious, ethnic and regional dimensions. In particular, the question of ethnic identity will be examined in this column. Virtually every issue in the polity and society is now ethnicised, thereby compounding the process of finding solutions.

To start with, a lot of conceptual problems becloud rational discussions. Terms are used without clarity about their meanings. So, during debates there is hardly any mutual understanding of the words being employed to advance arguments from opposite sides.

One of those often-misused words is “tribe.”

It is in this light of the foregoing that a revised copy of a piece entitled “So, where are the tribes?” published here on April 14, 2021, is being reproduced as follows:

Simply put, there is no tribe anywhere in Nigeria today. There are instead communities, ethnic groups and nationalities making up the country. These categories are different from tribe.

Despite this obvious sociological fact, in official documents and public discussions ethnic groups comprising tens of millions of people are incorrectly referred to as “tribes.” Hence, from the professor to the senator and from the pundit to the roadside mechanic, comes the conclusion that the problem of Nigeria is “tribalism.” 

When you make a statement at the police station, you have to indicate your “tribe” on the paper. A line in the Nigeria’s resurrected national anthem even says: “Though tribes and tongues may differ; In brotherhood we stand…”

It’s often considered supremely charitable when you say a political personality is “detribalised.” But, this is grossly erroneous.  To be “detribalised” is to be removed from a tribe. Here is the definition of “detribalise”, according to the Oxford Dictionary: “remove (someone) from a traditional tribal social structure.” The dictionary further gives the examples of usage of the word “detribalise” as follows: “these policies attempted to detribalise native people by extricating them from their land base; (detribalised as adjective):  the 250,000 include many detribalised urban people. “

It is, therefore, a monumental insult to say, for instance, that an Igbo man belonging to an ethnic group of over 40 million people is “detribalised” when what you simply mean to say is that he is no ethnic chauvinist. When you describe a man as “detribalised” what you are saying unwittingly is that the gentleman has just been taken out of a primitive enclave and relocated, perhaps, in an urban civilised setting. And it doesn’t strike some pundits as strange that while the British discuss the issue of “Scottish nationalism” Nigerians talk of “Yoruba tribalism” even though the Yoruba population in Nigeria is larger than that of the Scottish in United Kingdom. You will never read in British newspapers stories about Welsh or English tribalism. No, they don’t discuss “tribalism” because they know the implication of inferiority in the meaning. Rather, they talk of “nationalism” Britain.   

It should obviously sound offensive that over 250 ethnic groups in Nigeria are derogatorily referred to as tribes. Some persons talk of their “tribe” when the appropriate word should be nation, nationality or ethnic group.

It is amazing that some pundits seem not to be rankled by these conceptual contradictions.

Imprecision is a social and intellectual malaise in Nigeria. This is because the scientific approach is hardly adopted in solving everyday problems. Scientific method is not yet entrenched in the national culture. It takes discipline to do so. The imprecise use of terms is part of the deficit in the current debate of the Nigerian condition. Hardly is there any agreement on the meanings of many of the buzzwords used in discussing the nation’s problems. For instance, despite the legitimate impatience of some well-informed advocates of “restructuring” with those still ask for the meaning of the term, a lot of clarification is still necessary in some quarters. This may sound indulgent or pedantic; but it is important.

In the specific case of the inappropriate use of the   category “tribe,” the concern here transcends academic anthropology. The error is in a sense a measure of Nigeria’s social and political development. Historically, the colonialists in their perverted sociology used the word “tribe” to describe a people they regarded as primitive. It was part of the ideological hegemony of the racists to portray the colonised people as inferior with no social or political history. It didn’t matter that kingdoms and empires existed for centuries in places the colonialists later described as tribal enclaves. Imagine still describing Edo as a tribe centuries after the Benin Kingdom established relations with Portugal.  Today, the Portuguese will not refer to any part of their country as a tribe. Talking about sociological evolution, it was a racist insult to describe as tribesmen the producers of the masterpieces of art stolen by the white man during the colonial conquests.  

The irony is that decades after independence well educated Nigerians continue to describe their ethnic groups and nationalities in the same pejorative term those sociologists in the service of colonialism describe black people in the 19th Century.

To be sure, members of a tribe belonged to one of the lowest rungs in the ladder of human civilisation; they were still at the pre-state stage in political evolution. The tribal space is the universe of some members of the tribe.   As a member of a tribe you might not even be aware of the existence other tribes in the same region. 

It is noteworthy that in the West, in contemporary discussions of inter-group relations the category “tribe’ is reserved only for those regarded as backward with all the socio-economic and political connotations. So the Aborigines in Australia are described as “tribal’” people. In the American context, ethnic and racial groups are not called tribes. The category of tribe applies only to some native Americans still consigned to the dungeon of underdevelopment by virtue of racist policies. Tribesmen as a group and as individuals are markedly separated from other people in terms of development and modernisation. The areas occupied by the extremely disadvantaged groups are still described as “tribal.” 

However, none of the Nigerian ethnic groups, nationalities and, some would even say, nations, could be described as caves of primitive tribesmen.  No part of Nigeria today could be said to be occupied by people completely detached from civilisation.

Regional disparities are, of course, undeniable.  No ethnic group is immune to the  socio-economic underdevelopment which defines the Nigerian society. Yet no group is excluded in the process  of elite formation regardless of the size.

It was quite instructive watching a retired service chief  on television the other day telling his remarkable life story which illustrates  the point at issue. He  belongs to “a minority group within  a minority area.” Yet he rose to be a defence chief some years ago. Similarly, a former senator told his own story. If you use language as the yardstick of ethnic classification, his mother tongue is spoken by only a few hundreds of people. The distinguished senator became a reputable principal  officer of the  senate. There are several examples of citizens belonging to small ethnic groups who have gained national prominence on their own  individual merit. Certainly, these ladies and gentlemen cannot be described as tribesmen and women. In contrast, it was great news in the United States early four years ago when a native American was appointed into a high political office. 

It is pertinent  to draw attention to the   error of calling ethnic groups tribes  because of its consequences for the current  identity politics. There is a way in which tribal identification tends to eclipse the factor of national integration in discussions.  The description of ethnic groups as tribes is, perhaps, an unconscious denial  of the currents of integration. Those who employ the category tribe in identifying themselves and others in puristic terms ignore these obvious currents.

For instance, the sensibilities of the products of inter-ethnic marriages are routinely ignored when some separatists beat the drums of war by peddling ethnic prejudice against members of other groups. The biological   products of  the  cosmopolitan  trends in the Nigerian society can definitely not be tribesmen by the very  definition of their birth. A person may decide to identify with the ethnic group of his mother or father; but that doesn’t make him a tribesman or woman.

The matter even becomes more absurd  when the dynamics of integration is considered.  Those who still talk of tribes and tribalism have static view of things. Take a sample. A citizen is born outside the homestead of his grandparents. He is of the third generation of his family members who have made the place outside their  place of origin  home. He has only visited the place of origin only on a few occasions. In every material sense the man is integrated into his place of abode where he works, pays his taxes and builds his family.  But in this upsurge of identity politics in the land, the man described above would likely be told by some ethnic champions  that  he doesn’t belong to the “tribe” that owns the place in which he lives. To talk of tribe in this context  is an insult to the man as well as those accusing him of being a stranger to the so-called tribe.

It is astonishing that this racist categorisation is embraced in everyday conversations by Nigerians themselves in the playing identity politics.

Doubtless, identity politics will be enriched by bringing conceptual clarity to the issues in dispute. A requirement for this is a good understanding of the meaning of words and phrases used in the debate because of their  implications.  Far from being pedantic on this topic, it is worth stressing that precision in terms of  the use of concepts is important for the urgent  task of diversity management. Those employing  categories to describe groups should be clear about what they mean precisely.

In sum, the Nigerian diversity is not defined by differences among tribesmen.

Among the diverse groups are ethnic groups and nationalities. Some even proclaim their own groups as nations. National integration is, therefore, not about forging an amalgam of tribes. Indeed, integration could be achieved with the instruments of well-articulated policies to promote equity in inter- ethnic and inter-regional relations and social justice for all citizens wherever they choose to reside in the country.

This should be an urgent task for all the tiers of government so that the promotion of national unity could be a legacy of this generation of leaders.

Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai has accused the All Progressives Congress (APC) of infiltrating opposition parties to sow seeds of discord.

He lamented that the APC might make an attempt to destabilise the Social Democratic Party (SDP), which he recently joined.

Speaking in a recent interview, El-Rufai stated that SDP has become a beacon of hope for citizens disillusioned with Nigeria’s two dominant political parties.

He said, “So there has been an influx [of members], but as part of that influx, we also expect that the sitting government and ruling party will try to inject viruses into the party to create crisis — as it has done, or they have done, in the Labour Party, NNPP, and PDP.

“Since I joined the Social Democratic Party on 10 March, I have been gratified by the reception of Nigerians and love expressed for the party.

“It seems clear to me that most Nigerians have lost hope in both the APC and PDP and are looking for a credible alternative.”

He attributed this growing confidence to the SDP’s legacy and the calibre of individuals recently joining its ranks.

El-Rufai added that the party has taken preventive steps to avoid internal crises by ensuring only credible individuals are placed in leadership roles.

“We’ve worked hard to prevent crisis in the party by being thorough and carrying out due diligence with regards to those that will be entrusted with the leadership of the SDP,” he said.

[NaijaNews]

The Oyo State government has assured that medalists at the ongoing 22nd National Sports Festival, otherwise dubbed Gateways Games 2024 in Ogun State, will be adequately rewarded for their performances.

This clarification comes in response to allegations from various quarters suggesting that the state government’s instant cash rewards for medalists fell short of the actual rewards peomised medalists at the festival.

The Commissioner for Youth and Sports, Mrs Wasilat Adegoke, in a statement released on Wednesday, emphasised that the instant cash rewards were designed to motivate athletes who have won medals during the festival.

“The instant cash reward also aims to challenge those who are yet to compete in their respective sporting events,” she stated.

Adegoke further explained that the immediate rewards differ from the more substantial recognitions that Governor Seyi Makinde will officially announce for medalists, athletes, and officials at the conclusion of these biennial sporting events.

“This is how we operate. We are the pacesetter state. We are different, unique, and strategic.

“Our governor has previously rewarded athletes in earlier editions of the NSF. In addition to the festival, he also acknowledged Oyo athletes at the last Commonwealth Games.”

The instant cash rewards include N20,000 for gold medalists, N10,000 for silver medalists, and N5,000 for bronze medalists, primarily intended to motivate, encourage, and challenge athletes during the events. “This is our approach.”

Furthermore, Adegoke confirmed that all registered athletes in Abeokuta have received their allowances, with many excelling on the medals table.

“Our governor will continue to support and motivate athletes in the state. I can assure you that our athletes will be hosted, celebrated, and rewarded generously by the governor.

“People should review our records; we have done this before, and we will strive to do even better,” she added.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Oyo State finished fourth at the NSF 2022 in Edo State, securing 50 gold medals, 51 silver, and 62 bronze.

Medalists were received by the governor, with gold medalists awarded N1 million, silver medalists receiving N500,000, bronze medalists collecting N350,000, while non-medalists were given N250,000 each.

Former and incumbent vice presidents, Atiku Abubakar and Kashim Shettima, on Wednesday, met in Jalingo, the Taraba State capital.

Atiku made this known in a post on his Facebook page while sharing still photos of him and Shettima exchanging pleasantries.

He wrote, “I just arrived at the Taraba International Investment Summit in Jalingo. -AA”.

Aside from Atiku and Shettima, some governors and other dignitaries are expected to grace the Taraba International Investment Summit currently taking place in the state.

Designed to highlight Taraba State’s rich resources, the summit aims to attract both local and international investors by showcasing opportunities in the agriculture, energy, and mining sectors.

Earlier, the incumbent vice president, who represented President Bola Tinubu at the event, inaugurated the rehabilitated and expanded Danbaba Suntai Airport in Jalingo.

[DailyPost]

The National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON) says it has successfully airlifted 32,549 pilgrims, representing 79.1% of the total intending pilgrims for the 2025 Hajj exercise.

A statement by NAHCON’s Assistant Director Information and Publication, Fatima Sanda Usara, said the achievement was made through 79 flights operated since the commencement of the airlift operations on May 9, 2025.

Daily Trust reports that 42,000 Nigerians are expected to participate in the annual pilgrimage from the government quota.

Usara added that many states including Adamawa and Plateau, had concluded their airlift operations, while those with only one flighteach will complete their operations on Wednesday.

 “Jigawa State and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) are also expected to complete their pilgrim airlift today. Kwara State, with 137 pilgrims remaining, will conclude by joining a Kano Max Air flight this afternoon.”

Meanwhile, Benue pilgrims will join intending pilgrims from the South-South section to undertake a combined and only flight from the region on May 23rd, marking the last phase of the airlift for the area.

“Importantly, no flight cancellations have been recorded since the airlift began. However,  deliberate minor delays were arranged to allow for the proper clean-up and decongestion of hotels in Madinah especially with the surge in arrivals.

“Such cleanup procedures are standard operational routines following vacation of rooms during the Hajj season. This goes unnoticed during initial airlift periods but cause misinterpretations at peak periods when a higher number of pilgrims are on the ground, requiring immediate turnover.

“NAHCON thanks the Nigerian intending pilgrims and entire communities for their goodwill, patience and prayers, and reaffirm the Commission’s resolve to ensure a smooth Hajj for every pilgrim.”

[DailyTrust]

Nigerians are renowned for seeking better career opportunities abroad, and celebrities are no exception, often transitioning to new paths for improved prospects.

Below is a list of Nigerian celebrities who have publicly announced their enlistment in the US military, showcasing their career shifts from entertainment to military service.

1. Princess Chineke: The former beauty queen and actress relocated to the United States for better opportunities and joined the US Army in 2024. Known for roles in films like To Love a Sister, Stormy Hearts, and Masters at War, Chineke expressed her patriotism and gratitude toward her adopted country.

On Instagram, she wrote: “I’m an American soldier, I’m a member of a team, we are the Army and proud of our name. I answered the call of service to my country, to serve the people of the United States of America. This I will defend, so help me God. God bless America.”

2. Mayowa Dosu: The actress and producer recently joined the US Army, marking a significant career change. With a filmography including Fears (2005), Mamami, Mojere, Compromise, Pawon Strippers, Lastlaugh, and Valentino, Dosu announced her enlistment on Instagram, stating: “I am an American Soldier, I am warrior and a member of a team, I serve the people of the United States and live the army values…..! Oops!! what a journey. Who miss me ?? Sorry I was busy being an American soldier.”

3. Grace-Charis Bassey: Grace-Charis Bassey, previously known as Belinda Effah, is the latest Nigerian celebrity to enlist in the US Navy, a move that also earned her US citizenship. A prominent Nollywood actress who debuted in the 2005 TV series Shallow Waters and won the ‘Most Promising Act of the Year’ at the 9th Africa Movie Academy Awards, she shared her milestone on Instagram.

She posted: “Last week, I graduated from U.S. Navy boot camp as a Sailor and took the oath as a citizen of the United States. Nigeria raised me. America challenged me. I stand today stronger and more determined than ever.” Bassey dedicated this achievement to her late father, Naval Commander Asido Bassey Effah.

[TheNation]