President Bola Tinubu yesterday addressed the nation in the wake of the recent so-called nationwide protest, a complete misadventure which turned out to be nothing more than a smokescreen for mayhem, looting, insurgency and regime change through patently unconstitutional means instigated by failed politicians who woefully lost election.

These failed politicians, led by Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, being keenly aware that they can never win a free and fair election in this country, duped a gullible section of the youths into believing that protest, rather than nation building, is the answer to national development.

In the process, they deployed incitement and instigation, ethnicism and religion, regionalism and division into a crooked protest they had all along planned to be infiltrated by thugs, miscreants, vandals, arsonists and all manner of godless elements determined to destroy their own country.

Our President's speech has been welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Nigerians because it calmed nerves, reassured the populace and set out a clear and coherent path forward for national rebirth and renewed hope.

Expectedly, those who hoped for destruction of the entire country through the protest have been propagating baseless narratives condemning the speech, claiming President Tinubu did not address the demands of the protesters.

The bitter truth is that the majority of Nigerians never supported the protest, were always suspicious of the intent of its mandateless organisers and sponsors, and, had absolutely no interest in burning down their own country.

Those criticising the President's speech are mainly those disappointed that the overwhelming mass of Nigerians rejected their call to anarchy and largely stayed back home rather than be hoodwinked to key into a clandestine plot to tear our nation apart.

While the genuine demands of the peaceful protesters are being addressed by President Tinubu, as elucidated in his address, the ridiculous, unreasonable, undemocratic, unconstitutional and criminal demands of the organisers of the protest lack legitimacy on a number of fronts.

The organisers of the protest are either failed politicians or persons without mandate, many of whom are mere social media loudmouths and noisemakers who can never win elections even within their own families, not to talk of in their villages, wards or larger constituencies.

Several of them live abroad, where their families are safe and sound, while they instigate crisis, violence, arson, looting and destruction back home.

They encourage the children of the poor to burn down our country under the guise of a protest their children are not participating in.

They seek regime change through abominably unconstitutional and undemocratic means.

The truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with President Tinubu's address except for those maniacally salivating for the impossible and undoable from him.

In short, regardless of what our President might had said in the address, they would still had condemned the speech.

Indeed, the only thing that would had placated them would have been for President Tinubu to become a traitor, turncoat, coward and anti-democrat by betraying his mandate, resigning for absolutely no reason and plunging the nation into complete chaos and disintegration.

In short, they are inconsolable that Nigerians have rejected the protest and have decided to go back to work and rebuild this nation.

They have failed and will continue to fail.

I urge all our dear fellow countrymen and adorable women to go back to work, to pray for our nation, to support our President in rebuilding this country, and to continue to key into the vision of renewed hope for Nigeria.

May God guide and protect President Tinubu.

God bless Nigeria!

Onokpasa, a lawyer, writes from Abuja.

We are witnessing some of the worst anti-government protests in our recent democratic history, fuelled by economic hardship, hunger and a general feeling of disillusionment among many Nigerians. Whatever the arguments are for or against the protests, it suffices that some Nigerians are making public their anger against the system and resolute to demand change. The protest, after Day 4, showcased the massive dichotomy in the various regions’ interpretation of their stake in the Nigerian project and the impact of the economic realities and peoples’ feelings about them. Understanding Nigeria’s fault lines is not just crucial, but it’s also enlightening to understand her socio-political dynamics and culture of resilience. I will point out six ways the #EndBadGovernance Protests have shown the stubbornness of our fault lines and differences in our level of political sophistication. 

First, the North-South divide plays out clearly in the attitude, feelings, and intensity of participation in the protest. In the South, the Southeast is entirely silent and has refused to join the protest, and the South-South is shyly participating. The southwest sees a little more participation, and Lagos is the epicentre of the protests in this region. On the other hand, the North is in turmoil, and participation is more active and resilient with all sorts of unprintable demands. Unfortunately, some parts of Nigeria, especially the North, have become chaotic and bloody. It is not surprising that this is the case. This correlates with the difference in poverty, hunger, and out-of-school children’s data respectively between the North and the South. 

The economic hardship bites more in the North, and they feel the pinch and are more likely to protest it. The North have the poorest states, the most negligible GDP per capita, high infant and maternal mortality rates, and high incidence of hunger. A combination of the high prevalence of pharmaceutical opioids abuses and out-of-school children (almaJiri) in Northern Nigeria reflected in the violent dimension of the protest in that region. Kano, Zamfara, and Kebbi are the three states with the highest prevalence of opioid abuse. This high rate of idle, unengaged and uneducated youth is a ticking time bomb waiting to happen. However, these socioeconomic realities and sentiments often highlight our political certainties and show our fault lines and pain points. There is also the question of unsubstantiated ethnic and regional dimension to the north’s protest degenerating to a riot. 

Second is the Lagos – Abuja divide. Both are the two major cosmopolitan urban cities in Nigeria. There are pockets of protest across Lagos, and some have refused to be influenced by a massive campaign led by the Lagos political elite to stop the demonstrations happening in Lagos. The Lagos political elite worked hard to show that Bola Ahmed Tinubu was not that unpopular at his home base. Also, some residents did not want to pass a vote of no confidence on Mr President for various pecuniary reasons. The withdrawal of Igbos from the protest is not just in the Southeast. It was noticed that many Igbos in Lagos refused to participate in the protest, taking out an essential element in the bite of the protest. 

Abuja is home to a diplomatic community. Abuja civil society class showed themselves as enlightened and not beclouded by ethnic bias. The protest could not be restricted to the Moshood Abiola Stadium as initially proposed by the government but that did not reduce its efficacy. Police brutality in Abuja to some extent reduced the nuisance of the protest to public life. one take away from Abuja and lagos is that in cosmopolitan cities, no ethnic group can hold the cities or Nigerians hostage.

Third is the stance of the Southeast states and the Igbo ethnic group. The leadership and followership made a conscious decision not to participate. This may be a metaphor for silent political protest in the Nigerian state. The elites were united in framing the protest as not concerning the Igbos, who are victims of the Nigerian state. They sold it as a Yoruba versus Hausa-Fulani struggle. Igbos are beginning to see themselves as not part of Nigeria. The continued imprisonment of Nnamdi Kanu, the many seeming denials of Igbo’s opportunities in the higher political equation, the Igbo’s political opposition stance, and the general feeling that they are made scapegoats in conflicts like this are reasons some espoused as the significant justification  for the decision not to join the  protest.   

The fourth is the vast difference between the propaganda of government apologists and many ordinary Nigerians who refused to buy into the propaganda. Government apologists were primarily concerned with defending the government, its policies, and its actions. Although they mainly showed anger against the government at the centre, the people also looked at the subnational governments as a sore point. The federal and state governments put out arguments against the protest. They argued that first, the government is just a year old and needs time for their policies and actions that lead to growth and development start showing.

On the other hand, the people feel that one year is enough time to see signs of economic growth and prosperity that will inspire hope for a better future. The people argued that their conditions were worse on all indices one year after the new administration came to power, and they wanted things to change. The government also argued that the leadership of the protest was faceless. However, this is counterintuitive because the fear of the dictatorial tendencies of the government is driving voices of opposition and criticism underground. Civil society’s leadership typically boldly represents the masses’ views and is not afraid of a democratic government to clamp down on them for civil protest. 

The lesson here is that Nigerians who hitherto are resilient under extreme hardship are beginning to question and demand change from the government, and simplistic explanations for bad governance cannot dissuade them from reacting. Also, the government is throwing out a few “stomachs’infrastructure”to a few people here, and it is no longer sufficient to convince many people to support the government. People are against unjust laws, heavy taxation, inefficient systems, and destructive policies that lead to hunger and poverty. The government must be proactive in catering to the people’s needs and not reactive to the people’s actions because of failed promises and visions. 

The fifth is the adversarial relationship between the Nigerian police and the people. Although the Nigerian police do good work sometimes, the public perception of them is negative, and this affects the people’s reaction to the police. In managing crises and conflicts, the Nigerian police sometimes struggle. In this protest, their poor handling of de-escalation of crisis, crowd management, and more reliance on brute force to handle civil unrest are clear for all to see. Amnesty International raised concerns. The police job is difficult, especially in these circumstances. However, proper training and preparation for democratic-sanctioned civil protests are essential. The police must study their responses and modus operandi in dealing with this protest and learn the lessons that will guide future responses. 

The sixth is the Nigerian elite and their discordant tones. There needs to be an elite consensus on issues that pertain to good governance and economic development. The elites hijacked the system and are benefiting from the system and, as such, are not united in one voice to change the system. The voices of the few elites who are not benefiting from the system are faint and inaudible to make any meaningful change. These elites uphold no Nigerian values, ethos, or shared ideals and visions. The elite sees Nigeria’s interests from personal interests and ethnic perspectives.

A critical evaluation of the protest must be done to learn from it, improve things based on new findings and push for a better Nigeria. There is a need for a total rejigging of Nigeria’s government and governance system from federal to LGAs.  The mission, vision, policies and structures must be reviewed to put in place a fit-for-purpose system that will achieve the dreams and aspirations of the people. The government may think it needs more time because one year is too small to judge them, but the people have not seen a clear roadmap for growth on which to base their hopes. 

The general perception is that the government is placing a dangerous knee on the neck of the masses and does not care about their plight. This perception is dangerous because it is fuel to extreme positions by the people. The government should not feel that the benign nature of this protest is a testament to its failure. It may be a warning sign of a more significant revolution if the administration does not change direction. Perception is everything. There is blood on the street; we must reflect and ensure the spilt blood count for something.

Operatives of the Department of State Services have arrested one of the leaders of the ongoing Endbadgovernance protests in the Federal Capital Territory, Micheal Lenin.

Lenin was picked up by the DSS around 2 am on Monday at his residence in the Apo area of the FCT.

Speaking with our correspondent, the Director of Mobilisation, Take It Back Movement, Damilare Adenola, said Lenin’s house was raided by the DSS.

He alleged that the DSS also assaulted him during his arrest.

Adenola said, “ Lenin has been arrested by the DSS. He was picked up during a raid on his house around 2am.

“He was arrested and tortured in the presence of his family. We are demanding his immediate and unconditional release.“

The DSS spokesperson, Peter Afunanya, could not be reached as of the time of filing this report.

He has yet to respond to a message sent to him.

Lenin, who is the National Coordinator, of the Youth Rights Campaign, was one of the organisers who spoke at a press briefing expressing disappointment with President Bola Tinubu’s broadcast on Sunday.

At the briefing, he said the President’s broadcast demonstrated that he is out of touch with reality in the country.

He said, “We wish to express our sadness and deep disappointment at the latest broadcast by President Tinubu which is his first address to the nation on the #EndBadGovernance protests, after over three weeks since Nigerians started mobilising to take to the streets and after scores of dead protesters and assaulted journalists from the first three days of the protests.

“ Many had requested that the President should just address the nation when the protest was being mobilised and when it started to escalate, but most of us did not know that the President would only justify state violence on protesters and journalists while dismissing the demands of the protesters whenever he decides to speak.

“This, plus the failed attempt to co-opt the progressive and radical language of the protests only shows how much President Tinubu is out of touch with the masses.“

Lenin, however, said the protest would continue massively on Monday, calling on the citizens to come out in large numbers.

He said, “We, therefore, call on Nigerians to come out in large numbers to continue these protests on Monday until our demands are met. The two-pronged approach of violence and propaganda has failed.

“The violence and repressions are just attempts to silence and control us, and the propaganda cannot sway or fool us.”

[Punch]

THE first detention of Ladi Olorunyomi was in 1993 under the Babangida military regime. That regime had annulled the June 12, 1993 presidential election, and was on rampage. She was a journalist, and journalism was a high risk profession during the military regimes. She was also a feminist, pro-democracy and human rights activist. But her detention had nothing to do with any of these. She was merely a hostage, seized by the authorities in order to pressurise her husband, the conscientious journalist, Dapo Olorunyomi, to give himself up.

Ladi had just had a baby in 1993 when they came for her. She refused to leave baby Aramide behind. So, they were both carted into detention.

However, her longest spell in detention was in the notorious cells of the Directorate of Military Intelligence, DMI, in Apapa, Lagos where some detainees never left alive.

The Abach junta has been the most vicious in Nigerian history. Nigerians were simply plugged from the streets. Public places, including buses conveying soldiers, were bombed by the regime. Also, the regime had on November 10, 1995, despite international appeals, hung famous writer Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight fellow environmentalists. By 1996, a number of journalists were in prison, including Kunle Ajibade, Mrs Chris Anyanwu, George Mbah and Ben Charles-Obi. All four had been sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly being “accessories after the fact of treason”. One of the journalists detained, Bagauda Kaltho of The News, never returned.

Early in 1997, Ladi came to my home in Lagos with the news that a mutual friend, Lemi Gbolahan, a reserved journalist who had just returned from London after over a decade sojourn, had been picked up by the notorious DMI goons. She reasoned that if the quiet Lemi, who was not known as a pro-democracy campaigner, could be arrested, then I, who was well known to the security services and military, was not safe. She urged me to leave the country. I told her, I would consider her advice.

Nothing prepared us for what happened next. On Thursday, March 20, 1997, the DMI invaded her home allegedly searching for her husband whom they knew had taken political asylum in the United States. She was released without charge on May 6, 1997, that is after 68 days in detention.

It was a harrowing experience for her not just because her husband had been forced into exile and her children, Kitan, 7; and Aramide, 4, were deprived of parental care and had to stop schooling. It also had to do with the conditions under which she was detained. There was no bed, so she slept on a table, chair or on the floor. She had no access to a bathroom. So, when permitted to take a bath, she had to do so in the open while it was still dark. She was fed starvation rations. Ladi told herself that despite the horrible conditions, she could not afford to fall sick because there was not even a basic health facility. Fellow detainees who fell sick had to find ways of being sent money to buy drugs or were left to their fate. There was a soldier-doctor who was supposed to visit once a week, but she never saw him.

She witnessed a detainee who emaciated badly and became so sick that he could no longer speak and was too weak to walk. When it was clear the man was about to die, the DMI contacted his relatives to come carry him away with a warning that once he recovered, he must be brought back to be detained!

Ladi was one of the very few detainees who were only interrogated but not tortured. However, torture which the DMI operatives called “drilling” was common place. Detainees were so battered that they were ready to sign any document or confess to crimes they never committed. One of the days she told me she would never forget was the torture of two friends from about 2am or 3am until they turned on each other, truly or falsely accusing themselves of crimes.

She also talked about the psychological torture they subjected detainees. It was drilled into all detainees, including political ones, that for them to be brought to the DMI, they must be criminals. So they were treated like convicted criminals with no rights, including to life. That way, detainees were worn out. She said: “When I got to understand that was what they were doing, I had to protect my mind against that onslaught.”

On November 3, 1997, the DMI operatives led by a Major Mumuni, alias Bashir, and Captain Daramola again invaded her home. The armed soldiers arrived at 12.30am, made a lot of noise like hyenas, jumped the fence, broke down her door and entered her home. She was seized at about 1am. They took her to her husband’s abandoned office, then around Ikeja, the Lagos State capital and, finally to their Apapa office three hours after her abduction. Since they left no traces nor any record, the military operatives could easily have eliminated her and then deny they ever abducted her.

This time, they said they were searching for Bayo Onanuga, one of her husband’s colleagues as if she were the custodian of his colleagues. She was released at about 3pm and ordered to report daily at the DMI. She was also told the soldiers could come to her home anytime and, was instructed to open the door whenever they came. The DMI also seized her bunch of keys for 48 hours, probably to duplicate them.

Six days after her latest release, she was getting the family ready for bed when an anonymous caller told her that the DMI bullies were coming that night and, advised her not to sleep in the house. She picked the kids and her sisters who were living with her, and slipped away that Sunday, November 9, 1997 night. She took the family to a friend’s place. Then slipped through the border with Benin Republic to take temporary shelter in Accra, Ghana before taking political asylum in the United States where she has lived with her family for the past 27 years.

She said the decision to go into exile became inevitable for her because the invasions by the military thugs were beginning to affect the children. For instance, the older child had begun to have nightmares about a gunman throwing him into a cell and he was unable to get out. Also, she could not explain to them why their father never came home or why armed soldiers would be breaking into their home. She told me: “At the end of the day, for their sakes, the option open to us was exile.”

President Bola Tinubu’s broadcast this morning, intended to quell the fervour of public protests against his administration's poor governance, utterly misses the mark. His speech neglects the pressing economic hardships that have besieged Nigerian families since the very beginning of his tenure.

This address lacks credibility and fails to offer any immediate, tangible solutions to the Nigerian people. Given the extensive publicity surrounding the protests and the threats issued by government officials against demonstrators, one would have expected President Tinubu to present groundbreaking reforms, particularly those aimed at reducing the exorbitant costs of governance.

But alas, no such announcements were made. The President ignored the protesters' demands, such as suspending the purchase of aircraft for the President, downsizing his bloated cabinet, or even eliminating the costly and burdensome office of the First Lady, who has been indulging in extravagant trips at the nation's expense.

In his lacklustre recorded speech, President Tinubu offered a superficial account of his so-called reforms, revealing his own tenuous grasp of policy as he failed to convince his audience. While the President has spoken, it is unfortunate that his words lack substance and respect for the protesters’ sentiments, leaving Nigerians with little faith in his reform agenda - if one exists at all.

We urge the President and his team to own up to their failures over the past 14 months and abandon the absurd theory that the protests are orchestrated by the opposition. This administration has failed on all fronts, even in the simple task of keeping a presidential speech confidential.

Typically, presidential addresses are shared under embargo with media houses. However, the premature leak of this speech, allowing Nigerians to read along with the President in real-time, starkly illustrates the media nay Nigerians dwindling confidence in this administration.

The opposition did not create the economic quagmire we find ourselves in; this disaster is solely the result of the Tinubu administration's trial-and-error policies. It is high time they stopped the blame game and faced the reality of their failures.

Signed:

Paul Ibe

Media Adviser to Atiku Abubakar

Vice President of Nigeria (1999-2007) and Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic (2023)

4th August, 2024.

Throughout history, great speeches have effectuated great change. Former United States President John F. Kennedy set the tone for a new America with the 'New Frontier Address'; Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, and other exceptional leaders stirred consciences, evoked national allegiance, and rallied the people not only by the artistry of their words, but also by the candour and courage of their individuality.

President Bola Tinubu sits in the pantheon of such great leaders who have shown rare honesty, courage, and purpose, especially through a vagarious time.

The President addressed the nation today, August 4, 2024, on the backdrop of the nationwide protests, with a surfeit of compassion and empathy, yet showed great strength and leadership as the Commander-in-Chief.

As Consoler-in-Chief, President Tinubu appealed to all Nigerians to keep the peace, acknowledging their concerns. He condoled with bereaved families, the injured, and all those who have lost property to the recent violence in some parts of the country.

As Chief Advocate of National Unity, President Tinubu warned against divisive rhetoric, declaring that ethnic and religious bigotry has no place in the new Nigeria he envisions and is forging.

As a leader attuned to the needs and concerns of his people, the President reeled out the interventions of his administration across sectors to include: N45.6 billion processed for payment to students and their respective institutions under the Student Loan Scheme -- with an additional N50 billion each to be released for NELFUND and the Consumer Credit Corporation: $620 million secured under the Digital and Creative Enterprises (IDiCE) – a programme to empower young people; over N570 billion released to the 36 states to facilitate critical subsistence support to their citizens; the exponentially reviewed national minimum wage of N70,000; suspension of import duties on rice, wheat, maize, sorghum, drugs, and other pharmaceutical and medical supplies for six months to drive down the prices, and many other interventions.

As Chief Economist of the nation, the President stated that the nation's economy was on the path of recovery as vibrancy is returning to critical sectors. The coast is clear, the direction certain, and the horizon coruscating with fetching possibilities.

As Chief Architect, the President outlined the essentiality of the ongoing Renewed Hope City and Estate project, which will provide housing for many Nigerians across states and geopolitical zones.

As Commander-in-Chief, President Tinubu emphasized that his administration remains resolute in maintaining law and order, condemning the spasmodic acts of arson and violence. 

As Statesman, the President pledged to always keep his ears open to the yearnings of citizens.

Fredrick Nwabufo is Senior Special Assistant to the President on Public Engagement

CLEARLY, there is a difference between when Alhaji Aliko Dangote goes on protest and ordinary folks like us lining the streets to tell President Bola Ahmed Tinubu that we cannot cope with insecurity and the ascending cost of living.
We are all protesters. We are all hungry. Ordinary folks are hungry for bare necessities. Dangote is hungry to keep up his status. We are not Dangote, we agree. We are all hungry. Let us not argue that.

Dangote is the richest man in Africa. His hunger is for riches. We are mostly nationals of a country that has been confirmed the global capital of poverty. Nobody should be proud of that.

President Tinubu, possibly one of the richest Presidents in the world feels nothing about leading the largest mass of the poorest people in the world. He should not be angry, if he is actually the world’s richest President and I failed to acknowledge his achievement.
The President acts as if we barely exist. We are a great inconvenience to him, giving him headaches and sleepless nights. We have turned our First Lady into a peripatetic farmer whose fame now rest in failing, just like her husband, to listen to us.

Mrs. Oluremi Tinubu is consumed with television displays of a basket of vegetables that she says she planted in the surroundings of the presidential villa. It is a monumental success for her and a supposed lesson on us growing what we eat, just like her. Do you believe for a moment she eats only vegetables?

If the objective is for the First Lady to get air time, she has succeeded hugely. The deeper worry is that the First Lady is distant from the people, so distant that she does not know that majority of Nigerians, those most hit by hunger, live in spaces insufficient for them to rest their heads. Others are mainly on the move because their means cannot sustain any semblance of permanence at a place.
And the food needs of Nigerians has suddenly reduced to vegetables so that the First Lady would be hailed for pushing her unique nothingness to national prominence.

The hunger is real. It is not one that vegetables can manage. Dangote made that point with the aggressiveness he applied to rescuing his refinery that was apparently heading nowhere.
Within weeks of seizing the media space, Dangote had Nigerians behind him, in a deft move to buy Nigeria’s crude, on his own terms, for his monstrous refinery. The harsh words that flew between Dangote and the authorities were unprecedented.
The people, we, thought Dangote would remain implacable. He was beating the drums hard. He seemed to have no cares whether he would shred the leather.
Accusations and allegations verged on poor business practices. The affected parties went at full throttle at each other. The blows misses the plexus, deliberately it now appears, by inches.
Presidential panjandrums engaged full gears in attacking Nigeria’s global business icon. Dangote replied in like manner. The more stinging the blows were, the lower the devastated party went, the lower the scruples the other applied.
Nigerians became Dangote’s friends, adopting their “enemy’s enemy” as their friend.

The script that saw Dangote shedding tears, recounting his sacrifices for Nigeria, never for once mentioned Nigerians’ sacrifices that contributed to Dangote’s riches. His hunger was high voltage drama executed with Dangote as a victim of Nigeria’s notoriety for dealing with its own without counting the consequences.
Not for once did Dangote accept that Nigeria made him. He never discussed the impact of the waivers that Nigeria has fanned his way over the years. Is it possible that he forget? What would he have been without the waivers? How many other businesses got those waivers?

Dangote’s retort to his delight in running monopolies was to mock Nigerians by asking us to buy the refinery off him. The mockery was intentional. Where would a country that survives on borrowing raise $20 billion and more to buy Dangote’s discomfort? Why would we have had to buy the refinery?
Nigerians were busied with Dangote’s stories of owing no houses abroad, or in Abuja – distractions that only brought more tangentiality to an otherwise elevated conversation on how Nigeria has subsidised Dangote over the years.

Had the conversation on subsidising Dangote’s businesses been sustained, we may have had insights into what Dangote does for Nigeria. His foundations and donations, are investments that advance his businesses. They are not charity in the way we look at it.

Dangote’s hunger and anger were protested with a nudity that made many doubt his acclaimed business acumen. Who builds a $20 billion refinery without any confirmed sources for the supply of crude, the raw material to run it? What business plan did lenders peruse to hand Dangote $20 billion?
Many may be fooled. The few who are not are wondering what the drama was about, if not to navigate unconventional routes to confirm that Dangote gets what he wants.

Dangote got what he wanted. He will get more if he asks. Regulatory agencies that are famous for tardiness were thoroughly worsted in the Dangote drama.
The sucker punch would be that the leaders of NNPC and a Nigerian oil firm were refining crude in Malta for the Nigerian market. Dangote said the quality of the Maltese import was poorer, in response to the regulatory agency’s queries on Dangote’s products. Plainly put, Dangote thought his enterprise was being sabotaged by the unfair competition from Malta.

Dangote got the President’s ears. Tinubu conceded to everything Dangote wanted, with the sweetener that he can pay for the crude in Naira.
Tinubu’s government that cancelled subsidy with his inauguration speech handed a subsidy to Dangote. The applause is deafening. People see this as a right decision. Every waiver that has been awarded to Dangote is subsidy. That is the real name. The footnote that other domestic refineries will pay for crude oil leaves the question, which domestic refineries? Will Tinubu investigate the Malta refinery that Dangote alleged was doing underhand business with NNPC Limited?

Ordinary folks are hungry and angry. They will not be allowed to protest. They are too poor to merit attention or dispatch in their affairs unlike Dangote who can protest without hindrance and get results post-haste.

The President asks Nigerians to be patient. Was Tinubu patient in purchasing two presidential jets? Patience was forbidden in getting a N21 billion palace for the Vice-President. Dangote’s matters, too, abhor patience. What are patient Nigerians expecting? When will they get it?

What conditions are attached to the latest waiver to Dangote? When he gets 450,000 barrels of crude daily, what do Nigerians get? Is he refining for export or domestic consumption? Should we even know the terms of the contract? Who will determine the price of Dangote’s products?

President Tinubu snatched fuel subsidy from the poor public. He has created subsidy for the richest man in Africa, Dangote. Do we have to be Dangote to be heard? We all cannot be Dangote.

President Tinubu should allow Nigerians to participate in Nigeria’s affairs.
If the President realises that we are all Nigerians, he would be kinder in managing the genuine aggreviances that he just decisively dismisses.

•Isiguzo is a major commentator on minor issues

Nigeria’s Favour Ofili ran a season best time of of 22.24s to win her heat and book a spot in the semi-final of the women’s 200m event.

Ofili outran a field that also had Great Britain’s Dina Asher-Smith and Gambia’s Gina Bass-Bittaye.

Ofili’s finishing time put her in overall second place only behind USA’s Gabrielle Thomas who ran 22.20s.

While Asher-Smith finished in 22.28s, Bass-Bittaye came home in 22.84s.

The Nigerian is participating in her first Olympics.

[Vanguard]

Early Sunday morning, President Bola Tinubu addressed Nigerians in a televised broadcast amid the #EndBadGovernance protest, which commenced on Thursday in many parts of the country.

Hours before his address, his speech surfaced on the internet in what many called a “leak”.

Public figures, including politicians, knocked the presidency for “fooling Nigerians”, while some expressed concerns about the safety of other classified documents.

But was the president’s speech top secret in the first place? Here’s what to know about presidential broadcasts.

HOW IS A PRESIDENTIAL BROADCAST DISSEMINATED?

Hours before a presidential broadcast, an embargoed copy is disseminated to select media houses, especially the print media.

These media houses are trusted with the speech to enable them to prepare timely and accurate reports as the president delivers his address. 

WHO IS IT SHARED WITH?

The presidential speech is usually dispatched to the editors of the media houses ahead of the broadcast.

WHAT ARE THE STIPULATED CONDITIONS WHEN SHARED?

The speech will be under strict embargo until the president delivers his address. In most cases, the media houses are permitted to share the speeches at least 15 minutes into the broadcast. 

Sharing the speech before the president’s broadcast flouts the agreement with the media and creates a lack of public trust in the presidency. It also affects the relationship between the media and the government.

WHY IS EARLY DISSEMINATION IMPORTANT?

To ensure the broadcast makes the front pages of mainstream newspapers, it is expected that the speeches are disseminated the night before, especially for broadcasts that are made early in the morning. 

For print media houses, this gives them ample time for production. 

IS IT GLOBAL BEST PRACTICE?

Disseminating presidential speeches before they are televised is not a practice peculiar to Nigeria; it is done globally.

The practice is not only restricted to presidencies. Large multilateral organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and other international non-governmental organisations also engage in this practice.