OTHERS' VIEWS

OTHERS' VIEWS

As the world anticipates the Conclave scheduled for Wednesday, May 7, 2025, many observers agree that this may very well be the most interesting and potentially transformative Conclave in the history of the Catholic Church. What sets this event apart is not merely the number, but the remarkable diversity of the College of Cardinals tasked with this sacred duty.

Under the visionary leadership of Pope Francis, the College has undergone a profound transformation. More than any of his predecessors, Francis significantly expanded the College’s global representation. Over the course of ten consistories, he created 163 Cardinals—133 of whom are under the age of 80 and thus eligible to vote. These appointments span 73 nations, including 23 countries that, until now, had never been represented in the College of Cardinals. This unprecedented inclusion of nations from every inhabited continent is not just symbolic; it signals a shift in how the Church perceives its universal mission.

Historically, papal elections have tended to be brief. The past two Conclaves held in 2005 and 2013 respectively were concluded within two days. However, this upcoming Conclave may take considerably longer. Out of the 135 electors expected to participate, 108 were appointed by Pope Francis and have never before met in such a capacity. The lack of pre-established relationships and political alliances could prolong the process of arriving at the required two-thirds majority.

Adding to the unpredictability is an old Roman saying that has become folklore within the Church: “Chi entra papa nel Conclave, ne esce cardinale”—"He who enters the Conclave as Pope, exits as a Cardinal." This adage captures the mystery and the often surprising nature of papal elections. In this case, the diversity of the electors is likely to challenge traditional assumptions and alliances, while opening the door to new and perhaps unexpected outcomes.

Indeed, this diversity may be the very reason why the next Pope is likely to be the most global pontiff in the Church’s history. He will not merely be a representative of a particular continent or theological leaning, but a product of an unusual global consensus. With electors representing all seven continents and over 156 of the world’s 193 countries, this Conclave presents an opportunity for the election of a Pope who embodies a more universal vision of the Church.

Such a Pope would likely transcend the longstanding binary of “Conservative” and “Liberal” within Catholic discourse. Instead, he may embody the emerging “moderate” current—those who combine the doctrinal fidelity of conservatives with the pastoral sensitivity often associated with more progressive voices. This could usher in a balanced and inclusive approach to Church leadership, well-suited to the demands of a complex and pluralistic global society.

History offers a similar compelling precedent in the election of Pope John XXIII, born Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli. Elected on October 28, 1958, after a prolonged, and nearly inconclusive Conclave, he was initially seen as a “transitional Pope.” Yet he defied expectations, convoking the Second Vatican Council—a watershed moment in modern Church history. John XXIII also expanded the College of Cardinals to better reflect the global face of Catholicism, setting the stage for the Church’s evolving international identity.

Since then, successive Popes have increasingly embraced a global vision. Pope Paul VI, elected in 1963, concluded the Second Vatican Council and implemented its reforms. He also became the first Pope to visit Australia in 1970, symbolizing the growing outreach of the Holy See. His successor, Albino Luciani elected in 1978, chose a dual papal name—John Paul, to signal continuity from his immediate past two predecessors — John XXIII and Paul VI. Though his reign lasted only 33 days, it set the tone for the energetic and internationally-minded papacy of Pope John Paul II.

Elected on October 16, 1978, John Paul II—born Karol Józef Wojtyła of Poland, was the first non-Italian Pope in 455 years. His 27-year reign was marked by unprecedented global engagement, as he traveled extensively and connected deeply with Catholics around the world. His successor, Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), served from 2005 to 2013 and brought theological depth and clarity, though many viewed him as struggling to fill the expansive shoes of John Paul II.

Pope Francis, elected in 2013, represented a radical pastoral shift. A Jesuit and the first Pope from the Southern Hemisphere, he chose to reside in the Vatican guesthouse rather than the opulent apostolic apartments—symbolizing his commitment to simplicity and humility. His papacy was marked by outreach to the peripheries: the poor, the marginalized, and even those traditionally viewed as outside the fold, such as the LGBTQ community. He preached mercy as a defining Christian virtue, emphasizing the Church’s role as a field hospital rather than a fortress.

His Jesuit formation, with its global apostolic mandate, shaped his ecclesial worldview. Throughout his pontificate, Francis appointed Cardinals from diverse and underrepresented regions of the world, ensuring the College reflected the universal Church. For the first time, Europe is a minority in the College of Cardinal electors. A combination of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania now play a more decisive role than ever before in determining the Church’s next leader.

This shift is not merely demographic—it is ecclesiological. It reflects a Church increasingly conscious of its identity as a truly global body. No longer Eurocentric, the Church now speaks many languages, celebrates diverse cultures, and addresses a wide range of social, political, and spiritual realities.

The upcoming Conclave, then, is more than a mere election—it is a manifestation of a maturing global Church. The next Pope, chosen by a College of Cardinals that better reflects the world, is likely to embody a more cosmopolitan spirituality, able to navigate the tensions of tradition and change, doctrine and dialogue, orthodoxy and outreach. The incoming Pope may likely (in practical terms) see himself as the Parish Priest of the whole world.

Just as Pope John XXIII’s unexpected election in 1958 led to a revitalized Church through Vatican II, we may be on the cusp of another such renewal. The next Bishop of Rome will inherit not just a throne, but a world-stage—called to lead with courage, compassion, and vision.

In the end, the Church’s future will not be shaped by geography or ideology alone, but by the spiritual wisdom and unity of its shepherds. As Catholics and global citizens alike look toward the Sistine Chapel with hope and curiosity, we await not only a new Pope—but perhaps a new chapter in the story of the Church.

May daylight spare us!

 

 

 

 

Dear Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas

You have been in office as the administrator of Rivers State for over a month, and I will like to draw your attention to a few important things that you might unwittingly overlook, especially with all the controversies that came in the wake of your appointment in March. As a sole administrator, you are in full control of the treasury and resources of the state, and by the instrument of the proclamation of the State of emergency, you are to report to the President and take instruction from him alone. Of course, the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike is your shadow boss. But you have no House of Assembly or any other mechanism for checks and balances. You will only work with the civil servants and some persons you may appoint; and they would all be beholden to you. You are free to take any decisions on the finances of the state government as you report only to President Tinubu. But since the FCT Minister is an interested part has a lot of ‘’structures’’ to take care of, I assume that he too would be talking to you regularly.

Even at that, you are the most unencumbered and unfettered chief executive in Nigeria. Rivers State has an IGR of about N35 billion in a month and receives a monthly allocation of N30 billion from FAAC. There is also monthly derivation revenue. That means, in a month, the state receives about N70 billion which sums up to almost N500 billion in the six months that you’d be in office as Administrator. You may award contracts; incur expenditures; make all sorts of payments and receive all sorts of requests or instructions from different quarters. Your tenure ends in September 2025, and may be renewed, depending on how the President feels about you. In a way, you are in El Dorado – a place of riches, abundance and opportunity for endless revelry. It also comes with great potentials for temptation, abuse and corruption.

 But this letter is to give you some pieces of advice that may guide you throughout your stay in Port Harcpourt. In the first instance, you should keep in mind that you may be called upon to give account of your stewardship and defend yourself, especially in matters concerning the finances of Rivers State, after your tour of duty. Second, take note that the man that appointed you to this position will not hold his own job in perpetuity. President Tinubu will not always be there to protect you, and so, a time will come when you would be completely on your own. See what is happening to Godwin Emefiele, former CBN Governor and Col. Sambo Dasuki, former National Security Adviser? Emefiele served as CBN Governor in the Jonathan and Buhari administrations. He actually claimed that he was acting on the instructions of the two presidents in everything he did. But the two former leaders have not come out to defend him as he is facing criminal trial for various charges. He has a lot to answer for.

There is a tradition or unwritten code in this country that no former president or Head of State would be brought to trial. But those who served with in their administrations would not be so lucky. Former ministers like Olu Agunloye; Saleh Mamman; Diezani Alison-Madueke and a few other senior officials are currently facing trial. But the presidents they worked for are going around free as if they are all innocent. Another President will come and a new administration will succeed this one. You never can tell what the attitude of the new government would be, and so, levels may change dramatically. Be careful, Sir. I therefore suggest that every request made to you should be in writing. Keep a copy of such requests for you may need it in future to defend yourself. But do not oblige any request that is patently illegal; unethical or dubious, no matter where it comes from.

Dear Vice Admiral, you will be 65 in September (you are just some eight months older than me). You were Nigeria’s 22nd Chief of Naval Staff (2015-2021) and a decorated sailor. You have a proud heritage and a distinguished lineage. Keep away from anything that may stain your records and desecrate your pedigree. We from Akwa Ibom and Cross River are nationally renowned for our honesty; hard work; decency and a sense of duty. Our forebears were sticklers for civility; truth and good values. They had early contacts with European missionaries and Western education since the 13th century. You attended Hope Waddell Training Institute, Calabar, one of the oldest secondary schools in Nigeria. You cannot afford to be messed up by politicians of dubious backgrounds and questionable character.

You have reached the peak of your military career and you deserve to live in peace and happiness in your retirement after a long and successful military career. I recall that after your retirement from the Navy, President Buhari appointed you as Nigeria’s ambassador to Ghana. You come highly recommended with your experience and sagacity. You have the courage to decline any unethical request and say No to every crooked transaction that may be brought to your attention. As a retired general, you are not in penury.

I will like to end by recalling the case of Ahmadu Finitiri, governor of Adamawa State, as a lesson to guide you. In July 2014, Alhaji Finitiri, then Speaker of the State House of Assembly, was sworn in as acting governor of the State after the impeachment of the Governor, Murtala Nyako (a former chief of Naval Staff, just like you) and his deputy, for financial impropriety. Finitiri served for only three months as acting governor until October 2014. But two years after he left office as acting governor, Finitri was arraigned by the EFCC on June 30, 2016 for allegedly defrauding the state by laundering money to the tune of N1.9 billion. The sordid details are available on the EFCC website. He has been going for trial until he was elected governor in 2019; and reelected in 2023. His prosecution will continue when he leaves office in 2027. I’m recalling this case to show that even while acting as governor for only three months, a Nigerian can do as much damage as he wants to; but the EFCC will always be there, watching as an eagle.

Today marks exactly 180 days since Dr. Olajumoke Oduwole assumed the position of Nigeria’s Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment. In a nation grappling with innumerable economic challenges and seeking to bolster growth, beyond rhetoric, the lack of visible initiatives by her office is becoming increasingly concerning.

Oduwole’s appointment to her position last year by President Bola Tinubu came with lots of expectations, and many people thought that she would hit the ground running. No doubt, she brought a wealth of experience and expertise to her current role. As the pioneer Executive Secretary of the Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council (PEBEC) set up in 2016, the belief was that she had a full grasp of the factors making it difficult for businesses to flourish, promote trade and investment. But so far, she has not been able to pull her weight. 

The main objective of macroeconomic policy is to achieve sustainable economic growth in the context of price stability and viable external accounts. For this, it is essential to have a close degree of coordination among policymakers in the areas of monetary, fiscal, and trade policies. Today, the Minister of Trade and Investment has not been able to churn out policies that would support monetary and fiscal policies, sometimes leading to inconsistencies and challenges in achieving economic goals. This lack of alignment results in policies that sometimes work against each other.

Trade is crucial for economic growth as it facilitates specialisation, expands markets, encourages competition, and promotes innovation, ultimately leading to higher productivity and economic prosperity. Investment, on the other hand, is a key factor that determines economic progress in any nation, and Nigeria requires a great amount of investment to promote and enhance economic activities that guarantee better living conditions for its citizens and lift a lot out of poverty. Creating the conditions for investment and trade to flourish is essential to building robust pathways towards sustainable economic growth. This is because when businesses, domestic and international, feel confident about Nigeria’s environment, they are more likely to commit resources. Such capital injection drives job creation across various sectors. With this, new industries emerge, existing ones expand, and the overall productivity of the nation increases. Investment also brings with it transfer of valuable skills and technologies.

Nigeria has enormous economic potential due to its abundant resources and growing population. The country has the potential to manufacture many products that are currently being imported. 

However, economic growth and investment over the years have been hampered by its persistently low ranking on international measures of ease of doing business and it keeps punching below its belt. It is well documented that Nigeria has a difficult business environment. In 2023, the country ranked 131st out of 190 economies in the World Bank’s annual ease of doing business ratings as it faces challenges in areas such as getting electricity, registering property, paying taxes, and resolving insolvency. Also, Nigeria was ranked ninth in Africa for investment opportunities in 2024, according to the Rand Merchant Bank’s ‘Where to Invest in Africa’ report and Nigeria ranked 113th out of 133 economies in the 2024 Global Innovation Index (GII). Nigeria ranks 127th for infrastructure, 125th for institutions, and 121st for market sophistication, knowledge, and technology outputs.

In 2023, President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration launched the Trade Policy of Nigeria (TPN) 2023-2027, which was expected to enhance economic growth and development. The 59-page document is also expected to help the country pursue market-oriented policies, based on principles that are consistent with Nigeria’s rights and obligations in the World Trade Organisation and in global trade. At a period of heightened global economic uncertainties and complexity in the world occasioned by United States President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, how relevant is the TPN today? Oduwole must be at the forefront in designing a clear strategy for Nigeria to navigate the tides. The current situation in the global trade environment has created an opportunity for Nigeria to assert its dominance in Africa.  

Effectively leveraging existing trade agreements like the African Continental Free Trade Area to expand market access for Nigerian goods and services is key today and presents a significant opportunity for the country to increase its trade with other African countries. Oduwole needs to develop a clear strategy for Nigeria to maximise the benefits of the continental trade agreement. Her ability to deliver tangible results in the face of these challenges will determine her success.

In addition, Nigeria has historically struggled to attract consistent and substantial foreign direct investments. The minister is expected to implement policies and strategies that make Nigeria a more attractive destination for foreign investors. 

During a recent ministerial briefing, Oduwole, alongside her counterpart, John Eno, said the federal government aims to position Nigeria as a prime investment destination, to unlock a $50 billion Foreign Direct Investment commitment and that President Tinubu’s foreign trips have so far accumulated $50.8 billion in proposed investments. In addition, she said the ministry is collaborating commercial banks to provide soft loans for micro, small, and medium-scale enterprises across Nigeria’s 776 local government areas to boost the manufacturing sector and grassroots wealth creation. Nigerians are eager to see all these move beyond policy intentions that the investments commitments come to fruition. She must understand the fierce urgency to increase investment and expand trade in the country. 

Also, it is the primary responsibility of her ministry to create an enabling environment where people can do business, and investors would find it attractive to invest.  Simplifying regulations, streamlining bureaucratic processes, and fostering a more predictable business environment are not just desirable goals, but essential for Nigeria to reach its full potential. Creating a more business-friendly climate would signal to international investors that Nigeria is open for business and would encourage the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of any economy. Additionally, it reduces opportunities for corruption, promotes a level playing field for businesses, increases public trust in government, and enhances the country’s global competitiveness by making it more attractive for trade and investment in the long term.

Improving the ease of doing business in Nigeria is not just a technical exercise; it’s a strategic imperative for the country’s economic future. The achievement of double-digit growth which is the target of the government, achieving a drop in inflation, and a friendly macroeconomic environment would also require a shift in policy focus. 

In all of these, the minister’s success will depend on her ability to translate policy pronouncements into concrete actions and results. 

As I stated earlier, the media is littered with headlines such as “Oduwole Pledges…, Minister Promises….,” and she must do more going forward by focusing on tangible actions and results. 

With this, the ministry under her leadership will help attract the much-desired investments, create jobs, and improve the lives of its citizens. It will also be able to develop and execute well-thought-out trade policies to enhance Nigeria’s competitiveness, attract foreign investment, and promote export diversification. The time for action is now.

Who should rightly use the title Dr? This question has sparked intense debates in certain quarters. How do we distinguish holders of honorary doctoral degrees from those with academic qualification using titles?

A fundamental distinction exists between honorary doctoral degrees and academic qualifications, particularly the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). 

Unlike the PhD, which demands rigorous scholarly inquiry, original research, and academic rigour, honorary doctoral degrees symbolise exceptional individual achievements, contributions, and service to society, distinct from academic accomplishments.

Honorary doctoral degrees acknowledge non-academic achievements, including exemplary leadership, innovative entrepreneurship, exceptional artistic expression, and humanitarian endeavors. 

 

In the United States, these degrees are denoted by “Hon” or “HC” (Honoris Causa) in parentheses, preceding the degree 

In an interview with Nigerian Tribune, the Deputy Vice Chancellor, (Administration) University of Ibadan, Professor Peter Olapegba stated that medical doctors should not attach the title “Dr” to their names.

He noted that there is a craze for titles in Nigeria compared to abroad where medical doctors do not use the “Dr” title. According to him, it is only those that earn a PhD that are called “Dr.” 

He added that those who are awarded an honorary doctorate degree are not entitled to be called “Dr.” 

 

He said: “This is an ongoing controversy. Basically, abroad, for example, in United States of America precisely, medical doctors are not called Dr. 

“It is only those that earned an academic PhD that are addressed with ‘Dr’ title unlike here in Africa where everyone wants to be referred to using their title. For example, a veterinary doctor will also call himself a doctor, while a person who produces and prescribes herb will call himself doctor, that is ‘agbomola’ which is the Yoruba name for traditional medicine seller.

“Funny enough some professions use titles which do not exist. This includes surveyors who address themselves as ‘Surv.’ ‘Pharm’ is use to refer to pharmacists. Townplanners uses the title, ‘Tpl’. So there is a craze for titles. 

“So for someone who was awarded with a honorary doctorate degree, the person should not use the Dr title. The person should use ‘PhD Honoris causa’ at the back of their name to indicate that they were honoured with PhD by a university. 

“So they are not supposed to be addressed as Dr. Sadly because there is no regulation about it, everyone uses the title. If it was strictly regulated, such will be put to an end.”

Also speaking in an interview with Nigerian Tribune, the Director General, National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Professor Ayo Omotayo, was also of the opinion that a medical doctor should be addressed as a physician and not addressed with the Dr title.

According to him, when medical doctors take further courses in the field they are addressed as ‘registrar’ and later ‘consultant’. 

He, however, argued that a person who has bagged an honorary doctorate degree award can also be addressed with the title “Dr” just as a person who worked to earn PhD from a university.

“Ordinarily medical doctors are not to be called doctors. They are basically physicians; that is the more reason you see they are addressed as registrars and later they graduate to be called consultant. 

“Those who have PhD are the ones to be called a ‘Dr’ and those who bagged honorary titles are also free to be called Dr because they were given in honour of some achievements they might have had that otherwise qualified them to be called Dr, but not truly at the same level with those who worked hard to get the award. But then, society accepts them. Even though they did not go through the academic process, they can be addressed with the title if they have truly contributed in other areas which makes them worthy to be given the title.”

 [Nigerian Tribune]
 

By all accounts, the recent visit of Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara to his predecessor and political adversary, Nyesom Wike, has stirred a chorus of opinions from various quarters. For some observers, the optics of the visit suggested submission or a betrayal of political ideals. To others, it looked like weakness on the part of a sitting governor, who they believe should be asserting his executive independence instead of extending an olive branch to someone seen as a rival. However, such interpretations not only miss the deeper meaning of forgiveness and reconciliation in leadership but also reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of strength, especially in a society increasingly governed by ego and vengeance.

As Mahatma Gandhi rightly said, *“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.” This timeless wisdom encapsulates the heart of Fubara’s gesture. In a political climate marked by pettiness, vendettas, and unending cycles of revenge, what Fubara did was not weakness, it was strength. And if more Nigerian leaders adopted this posture of humility and reconciliation, perhaps our politics would not be the toxic, winner-takes-all terrain it has become.

To appreciate the weight of Fubara’s action, one must consider the backdrop of his tumultuous relationship with Wike. Their falling out, which has been widely reported, was not just personal; it had institutional and national implications. The rift led to alignments and realignments within the state legislature, a sharp divide among political loyalists, and a general sense of instability in the governance of Rivers State. It has become a textbook example of the dangers of godfatherism in Nigerian politics, with many waiting to see how the younger Fubara would handle the larger-than-life shadow of Wike.

 

Yet, instead of doubling down on animosity or playing the popular card of ‘defiance’, Fubara chose the unpopular path, a path less travelled in Nigerian politics: reconciliation. He visited Wike, and from all indications, it was not a media stunt but a genuine effort to heal wounds. This move should be celebrated as statesmanship, not mocked as capitulation.

Forgiveness, contrary to popular perception, is not a sign of weakness. It takes deep emotional strength, maturity, and self-control to offer peace when one has every reason to retaliate. It is easy to lash out, to hold grudges, and to surround oneself with sycophants who feed the fire of resentment. But it is profoundly difficult to extend a hand of peace, especially when the scars are still fresh.

This idea is not just spiritual or philosophical, it is practical. According to mental health experts, forgiveness is emotionally liberating. Holding onto bitterness and hate often leads to psychological stress, sleeplessness, anxiety, and even depression. In leadership, these emotional weights can cloud judgment, breed paranoia, and fuel poor decision-making. On the other hand, a reconciliatory spirit frees the leader’s mind to focus on development, peace, and progress.

 

Some critics argue that Fubara’s visit gives Wike undue political mileage or reinforces his influence. But this line of thinking is flawed. First, power dynamics are not always defined by optics. In fact, the real power lies with the individual who can afford to stoop without losing his dignity. Fubara, in choosing to seek peace, has shown that he is secure in his position and is not afraid to take bold, unpopular decisions. That, in itself, is power.

Secondly, this visit should be interpreted not as a personal plea but as a strategic act of governance. Political stability is crucial for development, and reconciling with Wike may be the needed ingredient to douse the simmering tensions in Rivers State. After all, the ordinary people of Rivers do not care about ego battles. What they want is peace, governance, and prosperity.

In fact, Nigeria’s political culture is, unfortunately, one where reconciliation is rare, and humility is often mistaken for cowardice. Our leaders are groomed in the school of political brinkmanship, a gladiatorial arena where showing any sign of retreat is interpreted as defeat. But what has this mentality produced over the decades? Endless political feuds, impeachment dramas, legislative-executive face-offs, and stalled developmental projects.

 

Perhaps it is time we began to redefine strength in leadership. True strength is not in chest-thumping or political grandstanding. It lies in being able to choose peace when one has the power to wage war. It lies in understanding that governance is not about ego, but about service.

Fubara’s act should serve as a moral lesson for other leaders, especially at a time when the political class is deeply fragmented. Imagine how much more progress Nigeria would make if governors reconciled with their predecessors for the sake of continuity. Imagine the peace we could experience if political parties were mature enough to resolve internal disputes through dialogue rather than litigation, expulsion and jumping ship to opposing parties.

Without a doubt, forgiveness breeds stability. It fosters cooperation. It encourages continuity of policies and protects public institutions from being turned into battlegrounds. These are essential components of good governance.

 

In both African tradition and religious teachings, forgiveness holds a revered place. In Christianity, forgiveness is a divine attribute, even Jesus Christ, at the point of death, asked for forgiveness for his killers. In African culture, elders often urge feuding parties to bury the hatchet for the sake of community peace. It is ironic that in a society that professes deep religiosity and cultural values, acts of forgiveness in leadership are viewed with suspicion.

Condemning Fubara for seeking reconciliation with Wike is not only inadvisable but counterproductive. It reflects a societal mindset that glorifies conflict and undervalues peace. Fubara’s visit should be seen as a bold and mature move, one rooted in the understanding that forgiveness is not a sign of weakness, but a powerful expression of strength.

In a nation as fragile as Nigeria, where political disagreements often snowball into ethnic and religious crises, we need more leaders who can rise above pride and personal vendettas. We need more Fubaras, leaders who are secure enough to forgive, humble enough to reconcile, and strong enough to place the common good above their own ego.

 

As citizens, our focus should not be on who “knelt” before whom or who made the first move. Instead, we should be asking: “Will this peace bring development to Rivers State?” “Will it create jobs, fix roads, ensure security, and improve governance?”  If the answer is yes, then we owe Fubara commendation, not condemnation.

After all, the real test of leadership is not in showing how many battles one can fight,  but how many fires one can extinguish without raising a sword. And for that, Governor Fubara deserves applause. Not criticism.

 

According to history, tradition, and Nigerian media narratives—when all else fails, when the presidency turns inward, the legislature nods along, the courts go silent, and police power overshadows the people—Nigerians have turned not to more politics, but to the gods, spirits, and ancestral forces for justice.

This pattern is not new. It is cultural. It is psychological. It is historical.

And in that spirit, this piece stands not as a provocation, but as a reflection—of what the people see, what the law is meant to protect, and what higher truths continue to whisper, even when institutions choose not to speak.

 

The Legal Eruption: A Cold Coup in the Language of Order

On the surface, it appears to be an “executive measure”—a declaration of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu. But beneath that surface, legal minds across Nigeria and beyond are describing something more severe: a constitutional disturbance, bordering on what might be called a soft-state override.

With the removal—some say neutralization—of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the state’s legislative structures, the act has left many legal practitioners, scholars, and ordinary Nigerians stunned. To many, it looks less like a democratic correction and more like a federal occupation masked in legality.

 

The Black March: Lawyers Choose Silence No More

Then came the black robes. Young Nigerian lawyers—men and women—marched in mournful dignity to the United States Embassy. Their march was not chaotic, not riotous. It was orderly, composed, and resolute.

They came with law books, not slogans. They came not just to defend Fubara—but to defend the Constitution itself. And their message was unmistakable: Nigeria is drifting into dangerous constitutional territory. Not through gunfire. Not through military trucks. But through executive ink and parliamentary silence.

 

Their symbolism is powerful. The judiciary is trained to be quiet, but here they were—breaking their own cultural code of silence. And that, more than any protest chant, should give pause to any government truly committed to democratic balance.

Federal Overreach—or Strategic Calculus?

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not vague about federalism. It does not permit a sitting president to singlehandedly dissolve or neutralize the governance structures of a state. Such power, as lawyers have reminded the nation, once belonged only to military heads of state—not democratic presidents.

 

And so, the question arises: Is this a lawful action, or a politically dressed intervention?

Most dangerously, a consensus is forming in the public domain that this move may be less about law and more about 2027. Nigerians are talking. Commentators are whispering. Observers are drawing lines: that this crisis may have less to do with Rivers’ “instability” and more to do with the strategic ambition of certain individuals ahead of the next election cycle.

Many believe that the influence of former Governor Nyesom Wike—once powerful in Rivers but now politically challenged—played a key role in persuading the presidency to act decisively. That Fubara’s calm defiance became a political embarrassment that had to be erased before 2027’s electoral map is drawn.

 

But Here Lies the Unspoken Question: How Do They Know They’ll Be Around in 2027?

This is not a death wish. It is not a threat. It is a question of political humility—of existential reality.

Politics is unpredictable. Power is never permanent. No officeholder, no matter how favored today, can claim tomorrow with certainty. Health changes. Public opinion shifts. Legal winds turn. Global optics reshape alliances.

 

So the people ask, quietly but sincerely:

What kind of certainty convinces some actors that they will still be key players in 2027?

What knowledge or assumption emboldens them to move the chess pieces so confidently—years before the board has even been set?

 

Such questions are not aimed at individuals. They are aimed at power itself, and the psychology that often blinds it to time, consequence, and the human spirit.

Echoes of Military Rule in Civilian Clothing

The deeper fear is not just about Rivers. It’s about precedent. Because if the President, with legislative affirmation, can dissolve the governance of one state today—under “emergency”—what stops it from happening again? Where is the boundary? Who watches the watchers?

 

Elders remember a time when such moves were reserved for military regimes. When federal power descended like a hammer without process. And the lawyers marching this week are warning: We may be drifting back to that era—only this time, in suits and agbadas instead of khakis and berets.

The Calm Governor: Why Fubara’s Silence Is Louder Than Their Noise

Siminalayi Fubara has not shouted. He has not threatened. But perhaps that is the very problem for those who seek total control.

 

His restraint is uncomfortable. His composure disarms chaos. And in a political climate addicted to confrontation, his calm is its own rebellion.

It is not that he has rebelled—it is that he has refused to be owned. And for some, that is more intolerable than open defiance.

So they push him aside.

 

But in doing so, they elevate him.

Because now, Fubara is no longer just a governor. He is a national metaphor—for quiet dignity, for stolen mandate, and for democratic betrayal.

A Judiciary under Watch, a People Under Strain

 

The silence from Nigeria’s judicial bodies—aside from the protesting lawyers—has been deafening. Whether it is fear, fatigue, or alignment, we cannot say. But one thing is clear: the people are watching.

More dangerously, the international community is beginning to take notice.

Images of black-clad lawyers, walking in legal dignity, are far more powerful in diplomatic corridors than tweets or protest chants. Those images raise questions in foreign capitals. They trigger quiet reports in foreign ministries. They shift how global actors view Nigeria’s internal affairs.

 

No administration—no matter how domestically secure—wants to become “that government” in the eyes of the world.

Final Word: They Can Influence Men, But Not the Spirits

Yes, President Tinubu may command the levers of federal authority. Yes, Minister Wike may still wield influence across the South-South’s political terrain. But there are forces—older, deeper, and beyond human manipulation—that neither of them can control:

 

The eyes of the international community

The judgment etched into legal history

The conscience of a betrayed populace

 

And the ever-watchful spirits of Nigeria’s ancestral realm

When governance begins to resemble conquest, when constitutional rights are treated as inconveniences, and when duly elected leaders are removed as though they are political appointments, the people do not merely protest—they invoke.

They call upon enduring values passed from generation to generation—not out of fear, but as expressions of cultural strength and psychological defense. These are not superstitions. They are symbols of moral resistance—reminders that power, no matter how entrenched, is never exempt from accountability or higher justice.

 

And so it should surprise no one that across platforms—social media timelines, radio call-ins, newspaper columns—a single refrain has risen with unmistakable clarity:

“Tinubu, you are not God.”

This is not a threat. It is not an insult. It is a cultural reminder—that no mortal, no matter how protected or powerful, can override the will of a people enshrined in their Constitution. It is ungodly to dismantle an entire state’s democratic structure. It is morally indefensible to silence a governor chosen by the people. And it is spiritually dangerous to presume the ancestors are asleep.

 

History Has Already Recorded Their Defiance

To President Tinubu, to Minister Wike, and to all those behind this unfolding constitutional rupture—history has already taken note.

What the young lawyers in black did was not ordinary. It was not angry. It was sacred. They did not shout. They did not burn. They walked—with law in their hands, and justice on their backs.

 

They did not mourn a man.

They mourned a system.

They marched not for noise, but for memory.

 

They carried no slogans—only the Constitution.

They carried no weapons—only truth.

And in doing so, they wrote your names—Tinubu, Wike, and all enablers of this moment—into the pages of Nigerian history. Not as reformers. But as those who stood against the very system they swore to protect.

 

Some among you may attempt the usual responses—subtle punishment, withdrawn appointments, whispered blacklists, legal smoke screens. But nothing can undo what has been seen:

The world saw it.

The Nigerian people felt it.

 

The ancestors have recorded it.

You may dominate budgets. You may direct institutions. You may maneuver the media. But you do not control truth. And truth, once revealed, does not go quietly. It outlives every regime. It survives every title. It becomes legacy.

Return Fubara—Before the Ground Shifts

 

So, I speak now not as a protester, but as a psychologist. Not to incite—but to reflect. Not to challenge authority—but to warn power of its illusions.

Return Fubara.

Not to please the crowd.

 

Not to ease global scrutiny.

But to preserve the last threads of your own moral legacy.

Return him—not as a sign of surrender—but as a mark of wisdom.

 

Return him—not for the optics—but for the order.

Return him—not for headlines—but for history.

Because if Nigeria’s journey has taught us anything, it is this:

 

Power passes. Memory remains.

While men may try to erase the past, the people remember. And the gods—those spiritual witnesses that hover over this land—they never forget.

You may shift courtrooms. You may suspend lawmakers. You may redraw the political map.

 

But you cannot erase what is already spiritually recorded:

That one calm governor was unlawfully removed.

That a silent march in black cried out without words.

 

And that those who held the reins of power broke the law in the presence of the world, and under the gaze of eternity.

So again, I say this not in anger—but in clarity:

Return Fubara. Now.

 

Before time does what it always does—exposes the truth, humbles the proud, and immortalizes those who stood for justice when others sought control.

This writer does not know any of the individuals involved; the focus is solely on upholding democracy, truth, and justice.

Can you imagine being born 50 years ago with poison in your system; assured that the only remedy is death? That was the fate of about three million Vietnamese who were sprayed herbicides called Agent Orange, specially manufactured by the United States, US, to ensure the victims were not only exterminated but also that their offspring would continue to die for decades.

The American plan followed the same logic of deliberately spraying a farm with toxic herbicide to control or kill weeds. The Americans were conscious of the long-term effects of spraying the chemical on human beings.

Wednesday, April 30, 2025, as the fiftieth commemoration of the end of the US war on the Vietnamese was being commemorated, millions of Vietnamese people are still suffering or dying from the effects of the 11.22 million gallons of the Agent Orange chemical sprayed on them across 20 million acres, from August 1965 to 1971. The victims and their offspring as a result, suffer, amongst other things, from miscarriages, severe birth defects, B-cell leukemia, bladder cancer, lung cancer, Type-2 diabetes and Parkinson disease.

The unintended victims included the invading US troops as 300,000 US veterans also died from exposure to Agent Orange.

The US Cleveland Clinic established in 1921, explains why the chemical was so devastating: “Agent Orange contains a chemical called dioxin. Dioxin is a compound made from burning chlorine with carbon and hydrogen. The molecules of these chemicals are toxic to plants, animals and humans. When dioxin enters your body, it can damage or destroy vital organs, cells, your immune system and your hormones. Dioxin is a carcinogen, which means it can cause cancer. Agent Orange was extremely deadly because the US sprayed 20 times more than the manufacturer recommended in the environment.”

Despite being subjected to such agony with effects as devastating as the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnamese refused to surrender, until they achieved victory over the Americans. To them: “Nothing is more precious than independence and freedom.”

The victory came after 30 years of resistance from 1945: first against inhuman French colonialism, then criminal American imperialism. In the war against France, over 200,000 Vietnamese lost their lives, while France and its European and American allies lost over 70,000 soldiers with 65,000 injured and 40,000 taken prisoner. In the one against the US in which the Americans also used other chemicals, including Agent White, Agent Blue, Agent Purple, Agent Pink and Agent Green, about two million Vietnamese were killed while US lost 58,202 soldiers with 75,000 severely disabled.

On the significance of the Vietnamese victory half a century ago, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, To Lam wrote this week that:  “It left a powerful mark on the international stage, giving strong momentum to national liberation movements across Asia, Africa and Latin America. It encouraged nations to rise up against neo-colonialism and reclaim their right to freedom and independence. It was a triumph of justice over tyranny, an affirmation to the international community that even a small nation, armed with a just cause, unity, and unyielding will, and with the wholehearted support of international friends, progressive forces, and peace-loving people around the world, can defeat powers many times stronger.”

As for the future, Lam said: “We cannot rewrite history, but we can shape up our future. The past is to remember, to be grateful for, and to learn lessons from. The future is for building, creating, and developing together. That is the honourable promise of today’s generation to those who laid down their lives, as well as the common aspiration of a nation that has endured great suffering, yet has never been defeated.”

Just as Vietnam is looking forward to the future, so are Mexico and Nigeria who are unsure how the Trump administration might impact on them. This is more so in an era of unreasonable tariffs.

Therefore, on April 29, 2025 in Abuja, they inaugurated and commissioned the Nigeria-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, hoping to build on the modest beginnings already achieved. The Chambers says, for instance, the dried hibiscus flowers from Nigeria, locally called Zobo, “has successfully entered the Mexican market—generating over $3 billion in annual sales.”

It is a crop that grows widely in Northern Nigeria and the health benefits from the drink include reduced blood pressure, cells protection against damage (antioxidants) and improved heart health.

The President of the new Chamber, Ms Arim Topete, grew up in Mexico and has lived and worked in the Nigerian pharmaceutical industry in the last 15 years. She posited that: “Mexico is an industrial and manufacturing powerhouse with the capacity to support Nigeria’s infrastructure development and growing consumer market.” Topete said, simultaneously: “Nigeria’s vast agricultural and natural resources could provide essential inputs for Mexico’s industries.”

In situating the growing Nigeria-Mexico co-operation within the socio-economic global politics, Topete said: “This Chamber is more than a business platform; it is part of a growing global movement showing that countries in the Global South are ready to lead, work together and shape trade and business opportunities in our own terms. For too long, our regions have engaged with each other primarily through third parties or out-dated paradigms. We are now entering a new era—one where cooperation between us is direct, equal, and driven by our shared goals.”

Nigeria’s Minister of Livestock Development, Idi Mukthar Maiha, held that Nigeria with its huge livestock has a lot to learn from Mexico. He said although the civil war in Sudan is unfortunate, it has left a huge gap in livestock supply which Nigeria can fill. He said Nigeria itself is a huge market, remarking that if 47 million school children are provided milk, that is already a big market.

Foreign Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, who spoke through Ambassador Anderson Madubuike, said Nigeria needs to build its local resources and, on the basis of this, reach out to other economies, adding that: “You must use two hands to wash your hands.”

Mexican Ambassador Alfredo Miranda provided statistics on what Mexico has to offer Nigeria. This includes its being the 12th largest economy in the world, with a Gross Domestic Product of $1.8 trillion. A significant reduction of government borrowing needs from 1.99 trillion Mexican pesos to 1.43 trillion Mexican pesos. An inflation under control and forecast decline to 3.8 per cent by 2025. A global export leader with over $1 trillion with 83 per cent of exports to the US being non-oil and automotive products alone accounting for over 35 per cent of manufacturing exports.

He lamented that trade between Nigeria and Mexico is paltry, hence the need for the Chambers which can move their joint trade up from the paper weight category.

 

Last week, on this page, I reproduced a letter from Rescue Rivers, a group I founded, to President Tinubu. The opening paragraphs:   

We, the People of Rivers State and as concerned citizens of Nigeria, are writing to express our utmost outrage and condemnation of your recent [unconstitutional] declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the subsequent suspension of:-

1.    The democratically elected Governor, His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara. 2. Deputy Governor Professor Ngozi Odu. 3. All elected Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

Due to lack of space, I wasn’t able to name the co-signatories. So, let me do so now because I am very proud of them for publicly standing up to be counted and they deserve credit for their principled stance:

Aleruchi Cookey-Gam, Ibim Semenitari, Lloyd F. Ukwu ( NADECO USA/Project Coordinator), Julie A Dyer (Coord/ Admin), Ibiba Omotoso, Kariba Braide, Aselle Abigo-Tshiunza, Karibo Lawson, George Ibifubara Jumbo, Dr Pax Harry, Ogu Emejuru, Nimi Amachree, Osa Cookey, Soala Iyalla, Daba Ibiama, Arnold Amino Amacree, Ibiba DonPedro, Derego Somiari, Michael Aloega, Abosi Israel, Sam Warmate, Osmond Dumo Barango, Aji Amachree Ihetu, Onu Nkiru Uba and Pius Dukor.

Only time will tell how the situation in Rivers State will eventually pan out. Rumours are rife that our PDP Governor, Sim Fubara, will soon defect to the APC, to prevent his tormentors (FCT Minister Nyesom Wike primarily) from making mincemeat of him.

I will be extremely disappointed if Fubara follows the path of least resistance and takes this easy way out because most Rivers indigenes are tired of bullying from Abuja and firmly behind him.

I cannot be sure that Fubara will win this dirty political game if he fights back against the powerful federal hijackers and usurpers who have humiliated him and seized control over our money.

But I do know for sure that Fubara will go down in history as a premier league hero if he girds his loins, behaves like a leader of substance, displays self-respect and courageously refuses to cave in.

Let’s wait and see what happens. Watch this space!!!

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

A friend posted this write-up on a WhatsApp group we belong to; and I think we all need to heed the wise words therein.

“I chuckled the first time I came across the phrase, ‘Until you have money to finance your temptations, don’t brag about morals.’

“Too much is hidden in poverty.”

“It was clever – yes – but more than that, it was quietly confronting.

“It peeled back the comfortable layers of ‘self-righteousness’; we often wear and expose an uncomfortable truth: that what we sometimes call morality may, in fact, be a privilege of limited options.

“It reminded me of another saying: ‘You call it corruption – until it comes your way. Then you’ll call it connections. And if you’re religious, you might even call it grace.’

“In our moral superiority, we confuse being untempted with being upright. We mistake the absence of opportunity for the strength of character. In doing so, we judge others through a lens clouded by comfort, detachment, and unchecked privilege.

“It’s easy to seem disciplined when nothing desirable is within reach. Easy to appear loyal when there’s no better offer on the table. It is easy to claim honesty when a lie has never promised to save you.

“And so we stand on our ‘safe little hills’ of assumed virtue, pointing fingers at those who fall—never pausing to ask whether we’d have done any better in their place. Maybe we haven’t resisted as much as we think. Perhaps we’ve just never been offered the shortcut.

“This isn’t to ‘romanticize’failure or excuse poor choices.’ It’s not to say wrong becomes right if it’s understandable. No. It’s a call to humility.

“A reminder that judgement without context isn’t strength. ‘It’s laziness masquerading as righteousness.’ It’s easy to judge others simply because they sin more differently than you.

“It’s easy to look down on the woman who stays in a toxic relationship—until life forces you to choose between safety and self-worth. Easy to mock the man who numbs his pain—until you’ve carried a grief that words can’t hold. Easy to scoff at the one who compromised – until your own values are tested not in theory but in fire.

“And when that ‘fire’ comes – and it does come – you begin to understand that real morality is quiet. It’s forged in private. And it costs.

“So, no, we shouldn’t glorify mistakes or blur the line between right and wrong. But we must stop weaponising virtue. Because morality isn’t proven by the absence of failure. It’s revealed in the presence of options.

“It’s folly to assume we’re better simply because we haven’t faced the same storms. Life has a funny way of humbling people. The very thing you once judged may become the thing you one day understand. And when that moment comes, may you be met with compassion – not condemnation.

“We’re all human. All learning. All navigating the chaos of life with the tools we’ve been given in stories the world may never fully know. So hold your standards high – but hold your heart higher. Speak truth—but season it with tenderness. And let your integrity be the kind that doesn’t need a stage to be real.”

 

Yesterday 

In the understanding of ‘ethnicity as the expression of solidarity and common loyalty of peoples who share among themselves a country and a culture’- Chief Obafemi Awolowo was right to commit himself to the notion and evolution of ethnic solidarity among the Yoruba. To put it in his precise phrase “I would see to it that the Yoruba evolved an ethnic solidarity among themselves” Awolowo made this significant pledge at his departure from Nigeria to study law in the United kingdom, UK, in 1941. The vision was subsequently consummated with in the formation of the Egbe Omo Oduduwa in London in 1945 . 

The pre colonial Yoruba political unit (nation) that antedated Nigeria, holistically found political and constitutional expression; and sociological continuity in the egbe omo Oduduwa and ultimately the Western region of the Nigerian state until 1962. This development was in consonance with Dan Elazar’s postulation of a postmodern global trend in which there is a general movement from class-based to ethnic-based politics. 

Within the context of seeking political power in the ethno regional predicated Nigerian politics, it would have been unrealistic of the Egbe omo Oduduwa not to rouse and magnify the urgency of the ethnic mobilization of the Yoruba. Nationalism tends to remain quiescent until there is the need to activate it, the Egbe and the Yoruba found themselves with such a need in 1945.

The seed that germinated in the constructive confusion and identity instability of Afenifere (aka Action Group, AG) was presaged by the overlapping identities of the egbe and the AG. Of the same interpretation is the role of Awolowo as the founder of the two organisations, which further engendered the conflation of one with the other. 

Prior to the formation of the AG, the dominant party in the Western region was the National Council of Nigerian citizens, NCNC. It was the enlistment of the ethnic rally (what Awolowo called the “ethnic solidarity”) provided by the egbe that enabled the AG to turn the tide of political supremacy against the NCNC in the Western region. 

This trend was replicated in the other regions. It was a similar instrumentality of ethnic mobilization that accounted for the political dominance of the Northern Peoples Congress, NPC and NCNC in the Northern region and the Eastern region respectively. It was in recognition of this political pattern that recommended federalism as the most adaptable constitutional structure to the circumstances of Nigeria. 

Specific to the Yoruba, the legacy of its 19th century history, especially as represented by the Afonja/ Alimi syndrome, reduced the threshold and tolerance of the Yoruba for internal political squabble and disunity more so as it concerns any relationship with the Fulani dominated North. 

This background served the exclusionary purpose of the consolidation of the AG towards becoming the dominant party in the Western region. Awolowo and the AG were themselves not in a hurry to shed this pan Yoruba toga until 1959. “the open declaration of ideology did not come until 1959 when the party made public a document containing a statement of its ideology”. 

This was in deference to the imperative of projecting the AG as a national party in order to confer cosmopolitan panache on the ambition of Awolowo to become the Prime Minister of Nigeria. Needless to say that his position as leader of opposition equally required of him a pan Nigerian outlook. 

Upon the breakout of the AG crisis in 1962 and as it degenerated into his political isolation, Awolowo strategically and fervently sought to register the AG as a detribalised party in the collective consciousness of Nigerians. The short term compensation of this outreach was the alliance with the Igbocentric National Council of Nigerian Citizens, NCNC to form the United Progressives Grand Alliance, UPGA. 

The typical tendency for victims of political persecution to rebound in the martyrdom of the victim played out in favour of Awolowo among the Yoruba. 

The harbinger of the grand return of Awolowo to the pinnacle of Nigerian politics were the military coups of January and July 1966 respectively. Had the coup succeeded, the January Coupists said they were going to release Awolowo and make him the Prime Minister of Nigeria. 

In the attestation of Awolowo himself “In fact Akintola would not have been killed if he had behaved like fanikayode. When the soldiers came for him, if he had surrendered quickly they would have arrested him and he would have been safe, because the policy of the coup makers wasn’t to round up all politicians and bring them to dodan barracks. Then they were going to release me and we would have been brought to state house in Lagos to form an administration. If I had refused, they would have tried to govern in my name” 

In the event it was the counter coup and the return of another Northerner (Lieutenant Colonel Yakubu Gowon) as the head of the federal military government that resulted in his immediate release from prison. As we all know, this courtship was not altogether altruistic. It was calculated to secure the support of the Yoruba in the run up to the civil war. Hence Awolowo was given his freedom and enlisted to serve in the Federal military government of General Yakubu Gowon in the capacity of Federal Commissioner of finance and Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive Council. 

Given his ultimate ambition to contest for the office of Prime Minister he found himself in the albatross of the role that equates him and his leadership with the Yoruba. It is a role definition that exalts him but makes it difficult for him to secure political mileage outside the boundaries of Yoruba land. 

I’m on record as criticising him for quitting as Premier of the Western region in pursuit of the mirage of seeking the office of the Prime Minister of Nigeria.The momentum of the socioeconomic development of the Western region that had been generated by his leadership was on the upswing and needed to be consolidated.That purpose was best served by him remaining the Premier especially within the context of a dysfunctional Nigerian status quo that was constitutionally and structurally rigged against reformist minded politicians like him.

Today

Predictably, after the announcement of the earthly passage of the Afenifere leader Chief Ayo Adebanjo, there ensued a resurgence of efforts by well meaning Yoruba to broker reconciliation between the ‘Ayo Adebanjo’ and ‘Reuben Fasoranti’ factions. The typical entreaty from them was that the two factions should cease the moment as an opportunity to effect a reconciliation. 

I balked at the suggestion because it carries the implication that Adebanjo was the personification of the conflict, that it was a personality clash between him and the other group. It also betrays the subconscious inability of the Yoruba to accept the role definition of Afenifere as an ideological pressure group rather than a 21st century reincarnation of egbe omo Oduduwa.

In an audacious revisionist version of history, Chief Bisi Akande rhetorically assorted that Bola Ige was the founder of Afenifere. According to Akande  “The death of Bola Ige was the death of Afenifere. He found it and he took it away,” When the interviewer said “but Afenifere is not dead.” Akande said, “I don’t know but it is not the Afenifere we formed.” As far appellation goes, I can only recall Ige talking of egbe Ilosiwaju (or Itesiwaju) Yoruba not Afenifere. 

An indication that Afenifere is also not in a hurry to adhere to its definition as a political pressure group is it’s membership of the illustrious South and Middle-Belt Forum, SMBLF. The group comprises nationalist representatives of the Igbo (Ohaneze) , the Niger Delta (Pandef) and the Middle Belt (Middle-Belt Forum). These three organizations have consistently self-defined as sociocultural and nationalist umbrella of their respective regions.

They understand and frame Afenifere as a peer group. Alongside Afenifere they are commonly opposed to the Nigerian status quo and express equal commitment to the restoration of federalism. In this regard, they have fulfilled the criteria precedent to be cited as Progressives. 

Tomorrow

One important task that desperately requires a deliberate intervention by Afenifere is the cultivation of a successor generation. I had, many years ago, identified this problem (in my column at the Guardian newspaper) in a saucy article titled the ‘Young Shall Grow’. This was in response to what appears to be the drift of the Afenifere leadership towards gerontocracy. 

Subsequently, groups like Idile and alajobi rose to the challenge. The members of those groups are on their way to becoming the geriatrics of today leaving a vacuum that has not been meaningfully filled by another successor generation. The success of any society is dependent on how adequately it can fulfil renewal in leadership recruitment and reproduction of successor generations.

In a reflection of the adoption of ‘Democratic socialism’ as the ideology of the AG, Awolowo clarified this ideology in an interview with Peter Enahoro of the Daily times in 1982 as follows. “It has been said that because I bought a land of million Naira, I’m no longer a socialist. I don’t know where socialism advocated poverty and wretchedness. The whole purpose is to raise the status of all the people. It may be necessary by the process of taxation to take part of the wealth of the so-called wealthy people and give it to the government for use in the development of the masses of the people”. 

What can be extrapolated from this clarification is that Awolowo is not a doctrinare socialist. As a matter of fact, his clarification is theoretically interchangeable with the concept of ‘State Capitalism’. Following this trajectory and origin, Afenifere is a left of center ideological pressure group which will, at all times, logically find companionship with organisations or political parties that are ideologically opposed to the Nigerian status quo of a pseudo unitarist state. 

If Afenifere can be validly branded as of social welfarist ideological persuasion, it is equally important to note that more than any other value, what Awolowo bequeathed to the Yoruba and Nigeria is the legacy of competence, credibility and integrity not socialism or capitalism.

For instance, were Awolowo to wake up suddenly, he is not likely to recognise the bread and butter mockery of many who parade themselves as Afenifere. As the holy book says, by their deeds ye shall know them.

It is important to address certain misconceptions on the cause of poverty in Nigeria. On the account of the nation’s immense human and natural resources, Nigerians ought not to be associated with poverty. But poverty cannot be abolished in a capitalist country. For instance, 37.9 million (11.5%) of the residents live in abject poverty in the United States that is said to be the richest country in the world.

In justifying the harsh economic pains inflicted on the Nigerian people due to the zealous implementation of neoliberal economic policies, the federal government has blamed oil theft and smuggling of petroleum products as the cause of poverty in Nigeria. However, President Bola Tinubu has said that, “After the initial turbulence… the take-off was very cloudy and uncertain. Today, we see a light at the end of the tunnel.” Since we do not share in the optimism of the government, we are going to review the task of abolishing poverty in the country. 

The World Bank says that a poor person is anyone who lives on less than $2.15 (N3,440) a day. We all know that most Nigerians live on less than N3,440 per day.  In 2018, Nigeria was rated as the poverty capital of the world as about 87 million Nigerians fell into extreme poverty that year. In 2022, it was reported by the Nigerian Bureau of Statistics that 133 million citizens had become “dimensionally poor.”  The World Bank’s latest Africa’s Pulse report has projected a grim future for Nigeria, with poverty expected to rise by 3.6 percentage points by 2027. 

Released during the ongoing IMF and World Bank Spring Meetings in Washington, DC, the report cites Nigeria’s reliance on oil, economic fragility, and governance challenges as key drivers. It highlights the country’s structural economic weaknesses, dependence on oil revenues, and national fragility as key barriers to meaningful poverty reduction.  

It has also been confirmed that Nigeria has been downgraded to the fourth position on the list of top African countries by gross domestic product (GDP). Nigeria’s GDP has plummeted to $188.27 billion. In the African continent, South Africa leads with a GDP of $410.34 billion, followed by Egypt at $347.34 billion, and Algeria at $268.89 billion.

The Premium Times has observed that “Nigeria, which until 2023 was the continent’s biggest, fell to the fourth position after two sharp devaluations of its currency shrank its GDP by more than half, causing the naira to lose roughly 70 per cent of its value against the dollar.”

As a result of the reckless devaluation of the currency, the business environment has become hostile as a result of rising interest rates and scarcity of forex needed to import raw materials and machinery.  According to the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria, 335 manufacturing companies became distressed and 767 shut down in the year 2023 with hundreds of thousands of job losses. 

In a saner clime, political leaders, regardless of political party differences, would have united in addressing the grim picture of poverty and political instability painted by the World Bank, a vigorous supporter of the Tinubu administration. Instead of confronting the crisis of poverty headlong, the ruling party, (the All-Progressive Congress) is busy promoting political prostitution by receiving spineless defectors from other political parties to its fold. 

As the nation prepares for the 2027 general election, the ruling party has almost concluded arrangement to convert Nigeria to a one party state.  But have the leaders of the APC forgotten that General Sani Abacha’s dream of metamorphosing into a civilian president did not materialise even though he had been adopted by the five registered political parties? Did the leaders of the Peoples’ Democratic Party not boast of ruling the country for 60 years? 

Even though section 14 of the Nigerian Constitution stipulates that the State shall provide for the security and welfare of the people, poverty and insecurity are on the ascendancy in the country. Section 16 thereof outlines the economic objectives of the state. It directs the state to harness the nation’s resources, promote national prosperity, and establish an efficient, dynamic, and self-reliant economy. Additionally, it emphasizes the state’s responsibility to ensure that citizens have adequate shelter, food security, a reasonable minimum living wage, and social welfare benefits like old age care, unemployment benefits, and support for the disabled.

In utter violation of the economic objective of the State, the members of the ruling class have sold public enterprises and awarded oil blocks and licences for solid minerals to themselves. Thus, the State has engaged in concentrating the commonwealth in the hands of a few people contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. However, some of those who lost out in the criminal diversion of the commonwealth through privatisation and award of oil blocks have engaged in the smuggling of solid minerals. 

Even though the members of the ruling class have conspired to make the fundamental objectives and direct principles of state policy non justiciable in any court, the struggle of the Nigerian people for dividends of democracy has compelled the State to adopt policies and enact a numbers of laws  that are designed to promote the welfare of the Nigerian people. 

The welfare laws include Pension Reforms Act, National Minimum Wage Act (yet to be implemented by 20 states), Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education Act, Employees Compensation Act, Factories Act, National Commission for Mass Literacy, Adult and Non- Formal Education Act, Child Rights Act in FCT and Child Rights Law in every state, Student Loans (Access to Higher Education) (Repeal and Re-enactment) Act, National Senior Citizens Act, Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act, Federal Mortgage Bank Act, National Housing Act, etc.

It is regrettable to note that the welfare laws are observed in breach by the Nigerian State to the detriment of the working people. For instance, the Child Rights Act and Child Rights Laws Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education Act have imposed a legal duty on the federal and state governments to ensure that every child is given free and compulsory education from primary school to junior secondary school. 

The immediate past Executive Secretary of UBEC, Dr. Hamid Bobboyi, during his presentation of the 2020 and 2023 budget implementation report to the Senate Committee on Basic and Secondary Education in Abuja, disclosed that N135,540,905,308.92 in matching grants have not been accessed by states in the last few years.

Owing to the refusal of state governments to contribute counterpart fund to access the matching grant of about N135 billion in the UBEC Account as stipulated by the law, Nigeria has 20 million out of school children. The Alliance on Surviving Covid-19 and Beyond (ASCAB) dragged the Federal Government and the 36 state governments to the Federal High Court seeking to compel them to comply with the education laws. Since there is no defence to the case, the defendants have challenged the locus standi of the plaintiffs to institute the action. 

Furthermore, the recent data released by the National Pension Commission show that total assets in the Nigerian Pension industry rose by 23% year-on-year to N22.5trn in December 2024. Instead of ensuring that pensioners are promptly paid their pension the federal government has borrowed N10 trillion from the fund. Worried over the concern of pensioners the house of representatives has resolved to recover the loan on the ground that most pensioners are unable to access their retirement funds despite complying with the requirements of the contributory pension scheme.

The House Committee was mandated to investigate the status of the pension fund assets of over N15.5 trillion with a view to ensuring that the N10 trillion loaned to the federal government from the pension fund is duly recovered and modalities are put in place to hinder the collapse of the pension schemes.

Under the Federal Mortgage Bank Act, workers are required to contribute to housing primarily through the National Housing Fund (NHF), where a mandatory 2.5% of their monthly salary is deducted and remitted to provide affordable housing loans to eligible workers. The contribution, together with other contributions from other lowly placed citizens, helps to fund the NHF.

The National Housing Fund (NHF), like other interventionist administering programmes, has become a subject of abuse and fraudulent practice. In November 2024, the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) arraigned Mr. Gimba Ya’u Kumo, former chief executive officer, of the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN), for allegedly diverting $65 million housing fund. The money was for the construction of 962 units of residential houses at the Goodluck Jonathan Legacy City in Kubwa, a satellite town in Abuja.

The Nigeria Labour Congress and the Trade Union Congress should closely monitor the trial and request the ICPC to investigate the allegation made in 2012 by Mr. Gimba Ya’u Kumo, that some “unscrupulous employers” had milked the fund dry to the tune of N100 billion. The NLC and the TUC owe workers a duty to ensure that the stolen sums of $65 million and N100 billion are recovered and utilised for building houses for workers. 

In spite of shortcomings and lack of independence, the anti-graft agencies have continued to record success in the recovery of looted wealth and other assets. In its 2024 report, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) detailed a breakdown of the sums recovered to include N364.5bn, $214.5m, £54,318.64, €31,265. Other recovered assets included the forfeiture to the Federal Government of over 753 duplexes and other apartments, the largest recovery by the Commission since its inception. 

In 2023, the EFCC recovered nearly N250 billion, along with millions in foreign currencies, including dollars and pounds sterling. On its part, the independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences (ICPC) recovered assets/cash worth N105.82 billion between 2023 and 2024. The Nigeria Customs Service, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control etc.

The EFCC also stated in the report that some of the monetary recoveries have been reinvested by the Federal Government in initiatives that provide significant benefits to the Nigerian people. It cited the example of the N50bn granted by the Federal Government to the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND), a programme launched in 2024 to provide interest-free loans to students in tertiary institutions. 

The EFCC reported that other recovered funds were being invested in development projects—such as improved roads, hospitals, and power supply—to elevate standards and support Nigeria’s long-term growth. The remaining funds that have been recovered are paid into the account of the Federal Government. 

In view of the fact that the recovered loot had been criminally diverted or re-looted in the past, it is suggested that a special account be opened for warehousing recovered loot. The proceed of such recovered loot should be earmarked to fix dilapidated educational institutions and medical facilities in the country. The 753 housing units recovered from a former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria should be handed over to the Federal Mortgage Bank for completion and onward distribution to workers. 

It is not in dispute that the country has been beset with soaring inflation after the scrapping of fuel subsidy and liberalisation of the exchange rate for the naira. Instead of reverting the dangerous economic policies the federal has continued to blame the unpatriotic elements that have engaged in crude oil theft and smuggling of fuel from Nigeria to neighbouring countries. It is our submission that the Federal Government is not prepared to end the economic sabotage due to the involvement of multinational oil companies and their local lackeys. 

A few months ago, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited announced that the Port Harcourt and Warri publicly owned refineries had resumed production while the Dangote Refinery said that it has the facilities to refine the entire fuel consumed in the country. But the Federal Government has continued to waste trillions of Naira on the importation of fuel from foreign countries. For instance, the media reported that between October 2024 and January 2025 (4 months), the nation spent a whopping sum of N5.5 trillion importing fuel, diesel and kerosene. 

Despite the removal of fuel subsidy, it has been confirmed by the Nigeria Customs Service that the smuggling of fuel from Nigeria to neighbouring countries has continued because it is sold at N2,000 whereas it is sold cheaper in Nigeria. Since the government is not prepared to stop the nefarious trade of fuel smuggling, another increase in the price of fuel may be in the offing. However, i wish to point out that the Federal Government’s efforts to end oil theft and smuggling of fuel have been frustrated by well-known public officers and multinational oil companies without any sanction. Permit me to provide some irrefutable evidence of such economic sabotage. 

In 2010, the Petroleum Equalisation Fund (Management) Board, said it would commence the electronic monitoring of petroleum products distribution from the first week in January 2011. The management of the Board said that officials of the Fund had been extensively trained and deployed to the over 50 depots operated by the PEF across the country to begin the implementation of the new business solution, termed ‘Project Aquila’ which aims to revolutionise products movement in the downstream subsector. It turned out that the officials were demobilised and prevented from monitoring the movement petroleum products distribution.

On 8th August 2018, the Federal Executive Council approved the installation of technology monitoring schemes and structures under the Petroleum Equalisation Fund (PEF) for N17 billion. Dr. Ibe Kachikwu, the then Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, disclosed that the deployment of the automated fuel system management and censor network would ensure 100 per cent tracking and monitoring of petroleum products. But the technology monitoring device was not installed while the N17 billion earmarked for it was criminally diverted. 

On July 13, 2024, the federal government awarded contracts of $21 million to ensure the full metering of Nigeria’s 187 oil flow stations as well as a software to track the movement of Nigeria’s oil in the high seas. The Minister of State, Petroleum Resources (Oil), Senator Heineken Lokpobiri, stated that the move was to remove all doubts as to the quantity of oil that Nigeria produces on a daily basis as well as to be able to track crude oil to their expected destinations. 

In December 2019, the Directorate of Petroleum Resources (DPR) turned to French data firm Kpler, just six years old and staffed by a hundred mostly young employees, to help it ferret out the smugglers from the thousands of ships plying Nigerian waters. The head of Kpler partnership with Nigeria, Antoine Pillet said, “In some ways, we’re the CCTV of what’s going on in Nigerian waters. We provide the data, but don’t really give opinions on what may be going on.”

DPR’s Head of Public Affairs, Paul Osu, said: “This technology is a way of improving the way we do things. Of course there are problems here and there, but we don’t have inherent problems. Technology is the way to boost transparency of operations and improve investor confidence.”  

Apart from the above measures, the Federal Government awarded a contract of $144 per annum for pipeline surveillance, coastal protection, and safeguarding of critical infrastructure in the Niger Delta region. Meanwhile, the armed forces have deployed a task force to end oil theft and pipeline vandalism in the Niger Delta region within the shortest possible time. Despite the above measures put in place, the country still loses 400 000 barrels of crude oil valued at N2.39 trillion per day. A 2022 report by the Nigerian Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (NEITI) confirmed that about 619.7 million barrels of crude oil, valued at $46.16billion have been stolen in the last 12 years.

From to time, the involvement of the multinational oil and shipping companies has been exposed. But due to lack of political will on the part of the State to end oil theft, smuggling of fuel and solid minerals, poverty has increased in the land. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to specific cases of oil theft by the powerful oil cartel. Between 2011 and 2014, the federal government conducted investigation into the incessant oil theft. The House of Representatives too carried out an investigation into the heinous economic crime. 

Hon. Ehiozuwa Johnson Agbonyinma, who was the chair of the House Committee which investigated the incidence of crude oil theft and made discoveries that are yet to be addressed, said: “The crude oil that landed in the United States port of Houston and port of Lake Charles, these are information produced by the US Customs – 391,141,049 million barrels, that is from Nigeria to the United States alone. We have the vessel numbers, we have the IMO number, we have the loading date, we have the loading order, we have the off-take date, off-take owner, off-take country and the number of barrels involved”.

Another investigation conducted by a team of Nigerian lawyers commissioned by the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), revealed that crude oil stolen from Nigeria and discharged in a port in Philadelphia was 60.2 million barrels of crude oil. The value was $12.7 billion. The well-known oil and shipping companies involved in the criminal enterprise have been treated like sacred cows by the federal government.

On October 6, 2022, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) disclosed that it had uncovered a four-kilometre illegal oil connection line from Forcados Terminal into the sea which had been in operation for nine years. The company’s chief executive officer, Mr. Mele Kyari, disclosed this at the Senate’s Joint Committees on Gas and Petroleum (Upstream and Downstream). He said that it was not clear how the line operated unnoticed for years but that the Forcados terminal is operated by Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC).

The NNPCL said that the theft point extended from the Trans Escravos pipeline and that the Afremo platform, operated by the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited was the suspected exit point of the stolen crude. Although NNPCL promised to investigate the use of Shell pipeline for oil theft for 9 years, nothing has come out of the investigation. 

According to geo-scientific data, Nigeria’s solid minerals wealth is said to be worth about $750bn. The Minister of solid minerals development, Dr Oladele Alake has said by the time an accurate data exploration is completed, “trillions of naira will be a child’s play, and we will be nudging trillions of dollars.” But like the oil sector where the Government is losing billions of dollars annually to oil theft, solid minerals are equally stolen in billions on dollars in a sophisticated manner. 

Former minister of state for mines and steel development, Dr. Uche Ogah had revealed that about $9 billion worth of gold was smuggles from Nigeria annually through private jets. The serious allegation was never denied by the indicted private jet owners. In fact, the current Minister, Dr. Alake has corroborated Ogah’s position when he alleged that the powerful Nigerians behind illegal mining are also the ones sponsoring terrorism and banditry in the country. He also said that most of the foreigners engaged in illegal mining in the country had no proper immigration.

Notwithstanding the no-fly zone imposed on Zamfara state for security reasons, some private jets still land to steal precious stones with the connivance of top secured officers. Apart from involvement in terrorist activities, the criminals are also engaged in environmental pollution of mining sites. But like the powerful people involved in oil theft the criminal justice system is too weak to arrest the owners of private jets who are involved in smuggling of solid minerals out of Nigeria.

In February this year, the Ilorin Zonal Command of the EFCC arrested 41 suspects and impounded 12 trucks for their alleged involvement in illegal mining and possession of different types of solid minerals without appropriate licences. Most of the suspects are Chinese nationals. The Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dele Alake, has said gold mined in the country is being exported illegally to the United Arab Emirates. The federal government ought to have enlisted the support of the UAE authorities to end the smuggling of gold from Nigeria. 

CONCLUSION 

The removal of fuel subsidy, devaluation of the national currency as well as oil theft, smuggling of fuel and solid minerals have compounded the crises of poverty and underdevelopment. We have proven that the Nigerian State is not committed to the eradication of oil theft and smuggling of solid minerals. It is left for Nigerians to demand the provision of dividends of democracy include the huge revenue from the nation’s enormous mineral resources. 

Since the Tinubu administration has no solution to the crisis of poverty, insecurity and unemployment, security forces have unleashed violence on peaceful protesters. During the #endbadgovernance of August 2024, many protesters including children were arrested and charged with treason. To cow citizens to silence, critics are arrested, detained and charged with criminal defamation and cybercrime offences.

While it is gratifying to note that Nigerians are prepared to challenge the reactionary forces that are holding the country down, the Nigeria Labour Congress and Trade Union Congress should organise workers to ensure that all welfare laws are enforced in the overall interests of the oppressed people. As shown in this presentation, the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy have been made non justiciable by the ruling class. It is only through a political struggle that the democratic rights of the Nigerian people can be actualized and made justiciable. That is not possible under a peripheral capitalist system. Therefore, the task before genuine forces of change is to mobilise the people to abolish all forms of poverty in the land through the socialist reconconstruction of the society.