The leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in Kebbi State is making frantic and last-minute efforts to prevent the planned defection of three serving senators to the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, DAILY POST learnt.

Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the senators: Adamu Aliero (Kebbi Central), Yahaya Abubakar Abdullahi (Kebbi North) and Garba Maidoki (Kebbi South), are expected to formally declare their defection to the APC on Tuesday.

This follows a high-level meeting with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the Presidential Villa in Abuja.

The lawmakers were led to the meeting on Friday by the APC National Chairman, Abdullahi Ganduje and are reportedly set to defect alongside a large number of supporters, including serving and former PDP executives across all three senatorial districts in the state.

The move has rattled the state chapter of the PDP.

Our reporter gathered that on Friday night that the PDP State Chairman, Usman Bello-Suru summoned an emergency meeting of party stakeholders in a bid to halt the looming political exodus.

A source at the meeting disclosed that members weighed multiple strategies, including the possibility of obtaining a court injunction or making personal appeals to the lawmakers.

However, the consensus was to engage the senators directly and urge them to stay and strengthen the party at a critical time.

“Several options were explored, including legal steps, but it was agreed that the best approach would be to convince them to remain in the PDP and continue building what they’ve helped to establish over the years,” the source said.

However, efforts to reach the senators have proven difficult.

“Since the defection news broke, they have stopped picking calls from the party chairman,” the source added.

This crisis comes just weeks after the same PDP chairman, Usman Bello-Suru, issued a public statement dismissing rumours of defection within the party.

He said then, “In a swift reaction to the insinuations that some members of the PDP in the state are making arrangements to defect to the ruling party, I assure our members that PDP remains one indivisible entity that will continue to play an opposition role in the state.”

The unfolding events appear to contradict that reassurance, especially with a high-profile figure like Senator Aliero, a former two-term governor of Kebbi, ex-Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and sitting senator, at the centre of the planned defection.

Aliero is no stranger to political cross-carpeting, having previously left and rejoined the PDP.

Some party members, however, remain stoic in the face of the crisis.

“If they decide to leave, life goes on,” a senior PDP chieftain told DAILY POST.

“PDP is like a military barracks, soldiers come, soldiers go, but the barracks remains,” he said.

Should the defections go ahead as expected, the APC’s numerical strength in the 10th Senate will rise to 68, while the PDP will be reduced to 30.

[DailyPost]

Gov. Babagana Zulum of Borno has directed the immediate ban on the sale of petrol in filling stations across Bama Local Government Area, including Bama town and Banki.

The directive followed consultations with security agencies as part of ongoing efforts to address security challenges in the area.

Malam Dauda Iliya, the governor’s Special Adviser on Media and Strategy, disclosed this in a statement on Saturday in Maiduguri.

“I have directed the immediate ban on the sale of petrol in Bama town, Banki, and other parts of Bama Local Government Area with immediate effect,” Zulum said.

He warned that anyone found violating the directive would face the full wrath of the law.

“Let me make it clear, there will be no sacred cows in the enforcement of this ban. 

”Security agencies have been given strict orders to clamp down on any filling station or individual contravening this directive. Anyone found culpable will be dealt with accordingly,” he said.

Zulum reiterated his administration’s commitment to restoring lasting peace in the state and called for the support and cooperation of residents in the ongoing fight against insurgency.

The governor has consistently implemented measures aimed at cutting off supplies to insurgents and curbing their mobility in conflict-affected areas.

(NAN)

A former Governor of Kano State and the National Leader of Kwankwasiyya Movement, Senator Rabi’u Kwankwaso has slammed some key members of the New Nigerian Peoples Party in Kano State, who recently defected to All Progressives Congress, describing their actions as betrayal of the the movement and party.

Kwankwaso made the remark at his Miller Road residence in Kano on Friday evening when he received hundreds of supporters from Takai Local Government who refused join the All Progressives Congress.

Recall that Senator Abdulrahman Kawu, who represents Kano South Senatorial District at the National Assembly, recently defected to the APC along with some federal lawmakers from Kano State.

Even though Kwankwaso did not mention their names, he said,” Kano South is a lesson. Voters rejected superghetti, N200 and Atamfa (wrappers) and were patient to vote for the NNPP.

“But those who won the election among us decided to abandone the masses and join those who do not have the masses at heart but are only after what they will get for themselves and their families.

“There is no worse political sin than leaving the party that gave you the opportunity and support but later you abandoned the party. This is the highest level of betrayal,” Kwankwaso said.

He, therefore, advised the youth to be wary of such politicians who are not after their well-being but rather they are after their pockets.

The former governor, who appreciated the decampees for “taking the courage to return to their base, said all those who betrayed Kwankwasiyya would regret their actions sooner or later.

“Fighting Kwankwasiyya is not an easy task, they will not know until when they engage in the fight.

In his remark, the state NNPP chairman, Hashimu Dungurawa thanked the decampees for taking the right step and assured them that the party would treat them equally.

The occasion was witnessed by the Senator representing Kano Central, Senator Rufai Sani Hanga, former Commissioner of Religious Affairs, Falali and chairman of Takai local government, Ibrahim Faruruwa among others.

[Punch]

Louis Prevost is still reckoning with what just happened in his family.

His little brother, Robert Francis Prevost, is now Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope in the Catholic Church’s history, an incredible fate for a boy from Chicago who dreamt of becoming a priest.

“We knew from a very early time, maybe when he was five or six, he was going to be a priest. There was no doubt in my mind,” Prevost, 73, told AFP from his home in Port Charlotte, Florida.

“When we played games, as kids, he liked to play priest a lot. I thought: ‘what the heck? Priest?’

“He bought Necco wafers, little candy discs, and he’d pretend those were communion and give it to all our friends the yard,” Prevost recounted with a smile.

“We were teasing him when he was six years old: ‘you’re gonna be the Pope.’ And he didn’t like that.”

On Thursday, after white smoke billowed out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, Prevost recalled feeling nervous because he felt the cardinal chosen to be pope would be his brother.

He turned on the TV, trying to calm down during the prolonged wait got the announcement.

When Cardinal Dominique Mamberti said his brother’s name at the Vatican, Prevost burst with joy.

“I was in the bed, sitting down. It’s good thing I was because I probably would have fallen over,” Prevost said.

“When I thought: ‘My brother’s the Pope. You’re kidding me.’ My mind was blown out of this world, it was crazy, ridiculous. So excited.”

– ‘Out of reach’ –

Now with the initial excitement subsiding, he is left wondering how his youngest brother’s new role might affect their personal relationship.

“This could be bad for the family. Will we ever see him again? Will we ever get to talk to him like brothers again? Or will it have to be all official? How are you Holy Father, blah, blah, blah. It opens up a lot of questions,” Prevost said.

“He’s still there, but he’s out of reach. We can’t just pick up the phone and call him. Now it’s got to be really special when you get to call the Pope,” he added.

Prevost hopes his other brother, John, will be able to give him some answers when he visits Rome from their hometown of Chicago.

He thinks his brother’s papacy will be able to unite the Catholic Church, attract more faithful and make the world a more peaceful place.

“Whether he has the ability to settle, like the Gaza thing or the Russia and Ukraine conflict, who knows? But I’ve seen him take two warring parties and make peace in five minutes between them,” Prevost said. “He’s got a gift to communicate to people and make them open their eyes.”

He also hopes having an American pope will revitalize the Catholic Church in the United States.

“When he comes to America, he’s going to speak English, not Latin or Spanish or Italian,” Prevost said.

“People will understand what he’s saying. They’ll see him, they’ll realize he’s one of us.”

AFP

Professor of political economy, Pat Utomi, has ruled out ever contesting for public office or accepting any government appointment in Nigeria, citing a desire to remain untainted by the corruption often associated with politics in the country.

Speaking during an appearance on Channels Television’s Politics Today on Friday, Utomi said he is focused solely on future generations’ well-being and has no interest in contracts, appointments, or political ambitions.

“Let me state clearly, I will not run for public office, I will not accept an appointment, contract by any government in Nigeria. My only concern is the well-being of the next generation.

“I have lived my life decently without government money or stealing anybody’s thing. I want to take that away from people who talk nonsense like, ‘Oh, he is looking for contract,” he stated.

Utomi also spoke on the relevance of a shadow government structure, saying it provides a democratic platform for citizens to demand accountability from those in power.

“Nothing can be more democratic than a group of citizens coming together to find a structured way of asking the government to be more accountable. What could be more democratic than that?” he asked.

He urged Nigerians to engage with the findings of Afrobarometer, a long-running public opinion survey that has tracked sentiments about democracy across African countries since 1999.

“I usually pre-phase this conversation with what we’ve done to the African. There are Afrobarometer readings, an annual survey that has been going on since 1999, of how Nigerians, Africans generally, in every country, with all kinds of details. I mean all kinds of details,” he said.

“I want all Nigerians and who really want to understand what has happened to our country to go and study the Afrobarometer readings.

Citing the data, Utomi noted that while many Africans still value democracy, they are becoming increasingly frustrated by its failures across the continent.

“It states that Africans still love democracy, cling to it but they are tired because their democracies are not working.

“Any serious democrat has to read this data, longitudinal data showing that people are fed up with what we call democracy,” he said.

[Vanguard]

In a nation where survival has become a daily miracle, and where hunger, inflation, unemployment, and insecurity have become the norm rather than the exception, the spectacle of government officials and politically connected elites engaging in open display of wealth, what is stylishly coined “escalading” in this context, is not only insensitive but dangerously provocative. In fact, one must boldly state that in the face of worsening economic hardship, it is absolutely inadvisable for anyone in public office or with public funds to flaunt luxury, splendor, and extravagance. To do so is to spit on the suffering masses.

Let us be clear from the outset: the word “escalading,” as used in the Nigerian socio-political context, is derived from the brand name of the Cadillac Escalade, a luxury SUV often associated with affluence, prestige, and power. In the context of this piece, to “escalade” means to show off in a high-end car, particularly in convoy or during public events, often in the midst of people who cannot afford a square meal a day. It has become a symbol of everything wrong with Nigeria’s political class, a class that continues to wallow in opulence while the majority are neck-deep in misery.

It is no longer news that Nigeria is in the throes of an economic meltdown. The naira has continued to plummet, inflation has pushed basic food items beyond the reach of common citizens, and the cost of living is unbearably high. From Lagos to Sokoto, from Owerri to Maiduguri, stories of hardship, desperation, and despair echo through the markets, motor parks, and street corners.

Recent statistics from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) confirm what the average Nigerian already knows by instinct: food inflation is above 40%, general inflation is nearing 30%, and over 133 million Nigerians are multi-dimensionally poor. These are not just numbers, they are real human beings, real households, real stomachs going empty, and real dreams being dashed daily. So, when politicians drive by in convoys of Escalades and exotic cars, with sirens blaring and security personnel in tow, it is not just a display of wealth, it is a slap in the face of the downtrodden.

As gathered, the 2025 Cadillac Escalade is a luxury SUV with a price tag that reflects its premium status, starting at a hefty MSRP of \$90,295 and climbing to an eye-watering \$164,695 for the high-performance V-Series. Even the base model, which some listings show at around \$83,890, positions the Escalade far beyond the reach of the average buyer. While discounts of \$2,553 to \$5,382 may be available depending on trim and equipment, the lowest trims still approach six figures, with upper-tier models like the Premium Luxury Platinum and Sport Platinum priced at approximately \$112,690. In short, the Escalade is not just a car, it is a financial commitment.

There is an old African saying: When the house is burning, the wise man does not chase rats. Yet, in Nigeria, it appears that while the nation is metaphorically burning, our leaders are chasing luxury, image, and extravagance. It is highly inadvisable, indeed reckless, for public servants to be seen flaunting wealth during times of collective national suffering.

Take, for instance, the many political gatherings where convoys of Escalades, Land Cruisers, G-Wagons, and other high-end vehicles stretch for kilometers, while the roads themselves are riddled with potholes and death traps. Consider the birthday celebrations, wedding ceremonies, and private parties of government officials, events that could easily pass for Hollywood red carpet galas, with guests arriving in private jets, adorned in million-naira attires, and dining on imported wine and seafood.

What message does this send to the unemployed youth? What signal does it give to the market woman in Ijebu Ode who has had to halve her food portions to feed her children? Or to the university graduate roaming the streets with a CV that nobody wants to read? The answer is simple: “We do not care about your suffering.”

At this juncture, it is expedient to recall that the French Revolution was not sparked by mere political ideology. It was the visible, shameless disparity between the aristocrats and the starving populace that ignited the powder keg. Marie Antoinette’s infamous quote, “Let them eat cake”, whether apocryphal or not, captured the arrogance and disconnection of the ruling class. Nigeria is not far from such a tipping point if current trends persist.

With every show of affluence in the face of public agony, the political class inches closer to sowing the seeds of a revolt. Social media is already ablaze with resentment. Protests, although often clamped down, are beginning to simmer beneath the surface. The youths are watching. The masses are groaning. The patience of the Nigerian people, long known for its elastic resilience, is wearing dangerously thin.

It is no coincidence that attacks on politicians’ convoys, public jeering of public office holders, and online outrage are increasing. These are signs of a brewing social volcano. And the more our leaders “escalade” in the face of escalating hardship, the more they stoke the fires of public dissent.

Leadership, especially in hard times, is not just about policies and programs; it is about symbols. The masses read meaning into every gesture, every appearance, and every public statement. When leaders choose to fly commercial instead of private jets, citizens take notice. When they reduce their convoys and delay lavish celebrations, people feel seen.

Unfortunately, symbolic leadership is almost alien to Nigeria’s ruling elite. The president, governors, ministers, and lawmakers continue to live as if they govern Switzerland rather than a third-world nation battling debt, poverty, and underdevelopment. Meanwhile, fuel subsidy removal has left millions gasping for breath, with transport costs doubling and businesses shutting down.

A responsible leadership would, at the very least, cut back on excessive spending as a show of solidarity. They would freeze new luxury car purchases, slash estacode allowances, shrink convoys, and prioritize local hospitals over medical tourism. But that would require empathy, a virtue seemingly lacking among those at the helm.

It is time for Nigeria’s political class to have a sober reflection. The continued display of wealth in a country writhing in economic pain is morally bankrupt and politically unwise. The people are not blind. They may be hungry, but they are watching. And while they may appear docile today, hunger has a way of waking the boldest spirits.

The concept of “inadvisability” may not be found in any English dictionary, but its message is clear: It is inadvisable, imprudent, and out rightly stupid to flaunt wealth when your people are starving. It is an insult to intelligence and an affront to decency.

Let every leader, politician, and public official note: you may escalate your convoys today, but tomorrow, it may be the people who escalate their anger.

The country is at a critical juncture, and what Nigeria needs now is not another Escalade SUV, not another champagne party, not another foreign trip for ‘medical checks’, but humility, sacrifice, and true service.

Because in the end, it is not the glitter of your cars that history will remember, it is the footprint of your conscience in the sands of national suffering.

When the Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors (NARD) released its statement condemning the National Universities Commission (NUC) for upgrading degree titles in Pharmacy, Physiotherapy, and Optometry to “Doctor” status, one would think this body was filled with forward-thinking young men and women, equipped with global knowledge and a vision for progressive healthcare. But no, what we saw instead was a blatant display of backwardness, raw jealousy, and an embarrassing level of intellectual shortfall that should alarm every Nigerian genuinely invested in healthcare reform.

Backwardness Masquerading as Righteousness

In a world that is moving towards interdisciplinary collaboration and advanced healthcare training, NARD’s reaction reeks of archaic thinking. Globally, the Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD), Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT), and Doctor of Optometry (OD) have long been recognized as doctorate-level qualifications that empower these professionals to serve patients with specialized care. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and several European nations, these titles are not just ceremonial—they reflect deep, rigorous academic and clinical training. Yet, in Nigeria, the so-called resident doctors scream of “quackery” and “confusion,” as if patients are so gullible that they cannot distinguish between a medical doctor and a clinical pharmacist.

How is it that a body representing supposedly educated minds can display such stone-aged thinking? Does NARD believe that its patients are intellectually inferior to those in the Western world? Or is this just a shameful attempt to hold on to hierarchical power in an already broken system?

Jealousy Cloaked in Professionalism

Make no mistake about it—this is not about patient safety or healthcare standards. This is pure, unfiltered jealousy. NARD’s statement whines about how pharmacists, physiotherapists, and optometrists do not deserve the title of “Doctor” because it would create “confusion.” But confusion for whom? Globally, healthcare systems have embraced the title without the world collapsing into chaos. Patients understand that their optometrist is not a cardiologist, just as they understand that their dentist is not a neurosurgeon. Only in Nigeria, apparently, is this distinction too difficult to comprehend.

The real issue here is NARD’s desperate attempt to protect its perceived monopoly over the healthcare field. For years, they have fought tooth and nail to suppress the growth of other health professions, clinging to an outdated sense of superiority. Now that the NUC has decided to bring Nigerian healthcare into the 21st century, NARD responds with a tantrum that exposes its insecurities. Rather than embracing progress, they dig their heels into a regressive mindset that serves no one but their own fragile egos.

Intellectual Deficiency Disguised as Concern

If there was ever a testament to a lack of critical thinking, it is NARD’s suggestion that upgrading these titles would lead to quackery. This is not only misleading; it is profoundly uninformed. The PharmD, DPT, and OD are internationally accredited programs designed to elevate the quality of care and expand healthcare access. These are not honorary titles handed out as favors—they are earned through extensive academic and clinical work.

By suggesting that this move would lead to “quackery,” NARD is essentially questioning the integrity of global educational standards. It is ironic that those who claim to be at the forefront of medical advancement are so glaringly unaware of how the rest of the world operates. This is not just a matter of being out of touch—it is willful ignorance.

The Absurdity of Using Britain as a Justification for Regressing Progress

And to crown this embarrassing showcase of outdated thinking, NARD goes on to justify its opposition by citing practices in Britain. Britain? Really? Are we seriously looking to a nation whose medical structure is still largely conservative in its recognition of advanced clinical roles? A country that has not kept pace with the United States, Canada, and Australia in expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists, physiotherapists, and optometrists?

This is not just backward—it is embarrassingly myopic. Britain’s healthcare model is not the pinnacle of global healthcare innovation. In fact, many of its conservative practices are currently being challenged and reformed to meet the demands of modern healthcare delivery. Countries like the United States and Canada have long recognized the need to elevate clinical roles, granting “Doctor” titles to those who complete advanced training in their fields. PharmD, DPT, and OD professionals in these nations carry out clinical assessments, prescribe medications, and manage chronic conditions with competence and legal authority.

The Mindless Argument Over Salaries—A True Testament to Shallow Thinking

If backwardness, jealousy, and intellectual deficiency were not enough, NARD stooped even lower by declaring that medical doctors must always earn more than pharmacists, physiotherapists, and optometrists. This is one of the most absurd, anti-progressive, and outdated arguments one could imagine. The real world does not work this way, and neither should Nigeria’s healthcare system.

Look around the world: salaries are determined by specialization, scope of practice, clinical impact, and market demand—not just by a title. In the United States, for example, anesthesiologists, nurse practitioners, and even some clinical pharmacists earn salaries that rival or surpass those of general physicians. Why? Because their specialized skills are indispensable. Their expertise is acknowledged not by title alone but by the impact and demand for their clinical contribution.

Professor Peter Olapegba’s Odd Thinking on Titles

Not to be outdone by NARD’s backwardness or Mamman’s archaic policies, Professor Peter Olapegba, the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Administration) of the University of Ibadan, displayed his own form of knowledgeable stagnation. His commentary on who deserves the title of ‘Dr.’ is yet another testament to Nigeria’s obsession with gatekeeping professional titles as a means of preserving hierarchy rather than embracing progress.

Olapegba made the outrageous claim that only those who earn a Ph.D. should use the title ‘Dr.’ According to him, medical doctors, pharmacists, physiotherapists, and optometrists have no business using the title, because in his view, ‘abroad,’ medical doctors are simply called ‘physicians.’ This claim is not only false but embarrassingly ignorant of global practices. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and across Europe, medical doctors (MD), dentists (DDS), and even veterinarians (DVM) are rightfully addressed as ‘Dr.’ based on their rigorous training and clinical expertise. This is not a matter of tradition but one of professional respect and global standardization.

Furthermore, his dismissal of honorary doctorate holders as undeserving of the ‘Dr.’ title is another example of intellectual elitism that has held Nigerian academia in a chokehold for far too long. Globally, honorary doctorates are recognized for contributions to society, innovation, and transformative impact, not just academic labor. This is why global institutions from Harvard to Oxford bestow honorary titles with the full acknowledgment of the ‘Dr.’ prefix.

Olapegba’s comments expose a deeper issue: the fear of progress and the obsessive need to gatekeep titles as symbols of superiority rather than as markers of professional achievement. His archaic thinking is precisely why professional spaces in Nigeria remain mired in outdated hierarchies instead of embracing interdisciplinary respect and modernization.

Integration with Mamman’s Archaic Policy and Dr. Tunji Alausa’s Reform 

The previous Minister of Education, Prof. Tahir Mamman’s decision to impose an 18-year minimum age requirement for university admission is another example of regressive thinking. His policy ignored global models like Dual Enrollment and Advanced Placement (AP) that prepare students for university education as young as 14. Thankfully, The current Minister of Education,Dr. Tunji Alausa reversed this backward policy, re-establishing a 16-year minimum age and signaling a shift towards progress.

Dr. Alausa’s decision is a breath of fresh air and shows alignment with global standards. To fully modernize, Nigeria must implement Dual Enrollment Programs, AP Courses, and Early College High Schools that empower young minds to progress based on ability, not age.

Conclusion: Breaking Free from the Chains of Mediocrity

The madness of backward thinking that plagues Nigerian institutions like NARD and was exemplified by Mamman’s archaic policies is a barrier to progress. If Nigeria is to thrive, it must cast aside this obsession with professional elitism, age-based restrictions, and outdated conservatism. Leaders like Dr. Tunji Alausa provide a glimpse of what is possible when innovation and global alignment are prioritized.

Nigeria must abandon these shackles of mediocrity and step boldly into the future—one where education, healthcare, and professional recognition are defined by merit, modernization, and global standards, not archaic gatekeeping.

Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi is an American psychologist, educator, and author specializing in forensic, legal, and clinical psychology, cross-cultural psychology, police and prison sciences, and community justice. Born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, he is the son of a 37-year veteran of the Nigeria Police Force—an experience that shaped his enduring commitment to justice, security, and psychological reform.

Nigeria is at a crucial juncture in its political and economic journey. Once buoyed by the promise of post-colonial growth, the country now grapples with poverty, inflation, and public dissatisfaction. A recent World Bank report highlights the severity of the crisis: over 56 percent of Nigerians approximately 129 million people live below the national poverty line, a staggering increase from 40.1 percent in 2018. 

Urban poverty has doubled, inflation exceeds 30 percent, and while structural reforms have been well-intentioned, they have often intensified hardships.

In this climate of uncertainty, Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, President of the African Development Bank, made remarks that compared today’s economic challenges with those of the 1960s. With clarity and empirical depth, he noted that real GDP per capita has plummeted from $1,847 at independence to just $824 today, a reality that underscores Nigeria’s regression despite its abundant resources. He attributed this decline to decades of weak institutions, policy missteps, and chronic underinvestment in essential public goods.

Adesina’s analysis was not a political attack; it was a data-driven assessment grounded in the realities faced by millions of Nigerians. His comments strongly resonated with the World Bank’s statistics indicating that rural poverty now exceeds 75%. Projections suggest that Nigeria, despite being one of the world’s resource-rich nations, faces one of the steepest uphill battles against poverty.

In response, the Presidency, through Bayo Onanuga, quickly dismissed Adesina’s figures as “inaccurate” and “narrow,” citing a GDP per capita of just $93 in 1960 to counter his comparison. However, this rebuttal not only relied on outdated or inconsistent data but also deflected from a broader truth: Nigeria’s quality of life, institutional coherence, and social infrastructure were demonstrably stronger in the immediate post-independence era than they are today.

This rebuttal reflects a troubling trend in Nigerian public discourse, where defensiveness and political loyalty often overshadow facts. Rejection of the symptoms does not change the underlying condition, akin to ignoring a medical diagnosis. As the proverb states, “Raising your voice cannot make a deaf person hear.”

Amid this contention, HURIWA emerged as a vital voice of reason and solidarity. Standing firmly behind Adesina, HURIWA criticized the Presidency’s response as “unwarranted, disrespectful, and indicative of a broader refusal to engage honestly with Nigeria’s realities.” The organization commended Adesina not only for his statistical rigor but also for his moral clarity in articulating the hardship faced by ordinary Nigerians.

HURIWA’s support underscores the idea that truth-telling is a civic duty rather than merely a political act. By defending Adesina, HURIWA highlighted the importance of expert analysis in policymaking and reaffirmed that challenging authority with facts is a hallmark of democratic engagement, not an act of treason.

The organization emphasized the need for a candid reckoning. Adesina’s intervention was a call for strategic change, not a censure. The facts he presented demand an accompanying policy shift one that combines prudent macroeconomic reform with intentional investments in job creation, education, health, and institutional integrity. This framework must also include robust social protections to support the most vulnerable during economic transitions.

The core of Adesina’s clarion call was about Nigeria rising, elevating itself from deepening and widespread poverty, and achieving a much faster pace of economic growth. Adesina is not someone to ignore. His outstanding leadership and achievements at the African Development Bank and the ingenuity of his innovative ideas have earned him the trust of Presidents and leaders around the continent and globally. His very thoughtful speech (for anyone who actually reads it, is unbiassed and dispassionate) is actually solutions oriented, forward looking and very pragmatic on what Nigeria should be in 2050.

The Presidency should not politicise the patriotic assessment of Adesina, which if taken seriously has the potential to set Nigeria on a faster pace of economic growth and prosperity. As Adesina said, it is time to turn Nigeria into a developed economy. How can that be wrong and missed in the raging rush to smear his well-intentioned push? 

Interestingly, Onanuga forgot that in the same speech Adesina’s patriotism as a Nigerian comes out strongly as he helped to mobilise $2.9 billion to support the development of special agro-industrial processing zones for 28 States in Nigeria, all in support of the same Presidency that is pillorying him? Few weeks ago when Adesina was in Nigeria, he launched the groundbreaking of the first set of 8 special agro-industrial processing zones, together with Vice President Kashim Shettima and Governors of Kaduna State and Cross Rivers State, all APC controlled States. Adesina does not play politics. He is a serious minded, selfless and patriotic Nigerian who works relentlessly and passionately with everyone to advance the economic progress of Nigeria. 

Nigeria cannot achieve long-term growth through selective amnesia. It requires a willingness to confront painful truths and to recalibrate governance accordingly. As Adesina has made clear, acknowledging decline is not an act of defeat but the first step toward renewal.

In defending Adesina, HURIWA reminded the nation that public officials owe citizens more than dismissive rebuttals; they owe accountability. Their intervention helped steer the national dialogue back to what truly matters: the lived experiences of millions, the credibility of national data, and the moral imperative to respond with empathy and evidence-based policies.

History will judge not only those who spoke but also those who listened. Whether Nigeria chooses to embrace truth as the foundation for recovery or continues to disguise the crisis with noise will ultimately shape its legacy for generations to come.

. Sani writes from Abuja 

Nigeria’s political landscape is being reshaped before our very eyes. The chess pieces are moving across the board with calculated precision, as defections sweep across the nation like wildfire in the harmattan season. 

Make no mistake about it – we’re witnessing a high-stakes power play that threatens the very fabric of our democratic experiment.

Last month, Delta state governor Sheriff Oborevwori shocked the nation by defecting with his entire cabinet to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). As if that wasn’t dramatic enough, Delta lawmakers in the House of Representatives followed suit, effectively turning a PDP stronghold since 1999 into a one-party state overnight. The political tsunami didn’t end there.

There is a brewing coalition led by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and former Kaduna state governor Nasir el-Rufai, purportedly aimed at unseating President Bola Tinubu come 2027. Presidential spokesman Daniel Bwala dismissively labelled these coalitions as mere “hallucinations,” insisting no credible political figure has endorsed such a move. But we know better, don’t we?

On the other side of the chessboard, President Tinubu isn’t sitting idly by. Sources close to the presidency reveal that at least five governors are poised to join Tinubu’s camp. It’s now a battle of coalitions – a political arms race where the currency is loyalty and the prize is power.

Have we paused to consider what this means for governance? While our politicians are busy playing musical chairs, the business of actual governance has been unceremoniously shoved aside. The media space is saturated with defection stories while pressing national issues gather dust on the shelf of neglect.

Nasarawa state governor Abdullahi Sule attempted to calm frayed nerves when he said, “We don’t even want Nigeria to be a one-party state. We just want to be the dominant party. If we can win 90 percent of the votes, that’s okay.” Let that sink in for a moment. A 90-10 split is what the APC considers healthy democracy. If that doesn’t set alarm bells ringing, I don’t know what will.

Former President Goodluck Jonathan, speaking at the memorial lecture for the late Edwin Clark, warned that creating a one-party state “through the backdoor by political manipulations” would inevitably lead to crisis.

He reminded us that while some countries have adopted single-party systems, those were meticulously designed with clear national objectives in mind – not cobbled together through opportunistic defections.

“Yes, countries have practiced a one-party system. It may not be evil after all,” Jonathan noted, citing Julius Nyerere of Tanzania who used a one-party state to stabilize the country in their early days of independence.

But there’s a world of difference between a carefully planned system and the chaotic power grab we’re witnessing.

The opposition coalition thinking that hardship caused by economic reforms is enough to unseat Tinubu in 2027 is engaging in wishful thinking of the highest order. Have we learned nothing from our political history?

Performance in office is just one factor in Nigeria’s complex electoral equation. Religion, ethnicity, party loyalty, and financial muscle play equally significant, if not more decisive, roles.

Let’s be brutally honest here: ethnicity and religion remain the twin towers that dominate our political skyline. After former President Muhammadu Buhari’s eight years, there’s an expectation that the south should have its eight years at the helm. We’re not yet politically mature enough to say our president can come from anywhere.

The opposition coalition must factor this reality into their calculations. Presenting Atiku, a Fulani northerner like Buhari, would be dead on arrival. They should abandon that notion if they’re serious about wresting power from Tinubu.

What’s particularly disheartening is the cowardice displayed by our politicians. Most can’t survive outside the corridors of power or without aligning with the center. That’s why the opposition is gradually withering away – they lack the backbone to stay the course and build a formidable alternative.

Ironically, President Tinubu himself was in opposition from 1999 to 2015, and his patience eventually paid dividends. Some of our faint-hearted politicians could learn a thing or two from his playbook. Politics isn’t a sprint; it’s a marathon that rewards endurance and strategic patience.

The real victims in this political chess game are the Nigerian people. While politicians calculate their next moves, the citizenry watches helplessly as their interests are sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. The opposition’s inability to provide a credible alternative forces voters into a Hobson’s choice – either vote for the dominant party or waste your ballot on fragmented opposition parties with little chance of victory.

Democracy thrives on competition. When one party becomes too dominant, accountability suffers, corruption flourishes, and governance deteriorates. The APC’s apparent strategy to absorb opposition figures isn’t just about strengthening their ranks – it’s about systematically dismantling any meaningful opposition. This should concern every Nigerian who values democratic principles.

As we approach 2027, we must ask ourselves: do we want a vibrant democracy with robust debate and genuine alternatives, or are we content with a pseudo-democratic one-party state?

The battle of coalitions we’re witnessing isn’t just about political survival; it’s about the soul of Nigerian democracy.

Our politicians need to develop some spine and stay to build the opposition instead of always running to the party at the centre at the first sign of political headwinds. After all, democracy isn’t a spectator sport – it demands active, principled participation from all stakeholders. The alternative is too grim to contemplate.