Your Ladyship,

I write this letter with profound sadness, my heart weighed down by the state of our judiciary. My hands shake—not from fear, but from the deep sorrow of witnessing what should be the last refuge of justice being turned into a tool for political manipulation. Madam Chief Justice, you are the steward of our judiciary, a symbol of integrity, and a model for legal excellence—yet under your watch, justice appears to be slipping away, leaving confusion, hardship, and despair in its wake.

This is not just a matter of legal technicalities—it is about real people, real lives, and the survival of an entire state. Children will go to bed hungry, not because their parents are lazy, but because their state has been deliberately strangled. The sick will be left without medicine, lying in pain on hospital beds, because political power plays have cut off critical funding. Workers, who have spent years serving the people, will soon cry out in anguish as their salaries are left unpaid, their families staring at an uncertain future.

I think of the market woman, who rises before dawn to ensure her children do not starve, only to find that the government she relies on is being torn apart. I think of the young graduates, full of dreams, only to realize that their future is being traded away for political interests. I think of the elderly, who have given their lives to this nation, now watching it descend into disorder, as lawlessness and political interference overshadow fairness and the rule of law.

Madam Chief Justice, we all know that judicial rulings are not always free from political influence. You have been part of this system for decades—you have seen how the judiciary is sometimes used for purposes beyond justice. But even if what happened under these five justices cannot be undone, I ask you to reflect in private, away from the pressures of politics, and ask yourself: Was this truly fair? Was this truly just? Is this the mark you want to leave on history?

And most critically, what happens now to the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, which is still actively handling this case? The matter has not been dismissed. The court is still in session. But now, the judges there sit in utter confusion, caught between fulfilling their legal duty and the overwhelming shadow of a Supreme Court ruling that came too soon.

Madam Chief Justice, what direction are they to take? Do they abandon their role? Do they ignore the case before them? Do they yield to pressure? Or do they uphold the Constitution as they swore to do?

You hold the power to guide this situation toward justice. You hold the power to preserve the integrity of the courts

Madam Chief Justice, I cry for Rivers State. I cry for Nigeria.

A Judiciary in Disarray—Confusion in the Lower Courts

Madam Chief Justice, if you remain silent, history will remember.

The Federal High Court in Port Harcourt had set April 16, 2025, to rule on the defection case. The law was clear, the judicial process was in motion, and due process was being followed. Yet, before the court could speak, before justice could take its rightful course, five Supreme Court justices—Justice Uwani Musa Abba-Aji (Presiding), Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, Justice Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, Justice Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme, and Justice Jamilu Yammama Tukur—ignored judicial boundaries, disregarded the ongoing legal process, and rushed in to deliver a ruling that has now left the Federal High Court in complete confusion.

My Lord, what was the rush? Who was pursuing them? Why did they not allow the Rivers court to reach its decision? Now, the Federal High Court is left in disarray, uncertain whether to proceed, abandon its own ruling, or bow to an already delivered judgment.

Justice is meant to be orderly, structured, and impartial—so why create chaos where there should have been clarity? Why throw the judiciary into turmoil instead of letting the law take its natural course?

What happens now? What do the judges in Port Harcourt tell the people? Do they bow in shame, knowing that their authority has been stolen? Do they throw away their own ruling because the Supreme Court has spoken before them? How does the judiciary justify this?

Madam Chief Justice, I beg you, with everything that is left of the rule of law, do not let this stand. The Constitution is clear—once lawmakers defect, they lose their seats automatically. This is not politics. This is not opinion. This is law. So why, then, has the Supreme Court chosen to ignore it?

Why has it chosen to breathe life into political lawlessness?

The Judiciary’s Role in Rivers State’s Collapse

And now, look at the results of this judicial blunder.

Governor Fubara—a man elected by the people—is suddenly being dragged into a battle for his survival. The same lawmakers who should be working for their state have abandoned their duty. They are not in the Assembly. They have gone on indefinite leave. They refuse to work. But the Supreme Court ordered Fubara to present a budget. How? To whom?

And now, because they refuse to sit, because they refuse to listen, because they refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has been ordered not to release state allocations.

Madam Chief Justice, do you see what this means?

It means that children will no longer receive free education because schools will shut down. It means that state workers will not be paid. It means that hospitals will run out of medicine. It means that pensioners who have already been struggling will have nothing left to survive on.

It means that Rivers State is now in a slow, painful process of economic strangulation.

Political Desperation—The Darkest Path

And what happens when people can no longer eat?

What happens when mothers watch their babies cry in hunger?

What happens when fathers who have worked all their lives realize their salaries will no longer come?

What happens when the sick lie helpless in hospitals with no medicine, no doctors, and no way to survive?

I will tell you what happens.

Chaos. Protest. Desperation. And, God forbid, bloodshed.

And when that day comes, when the streets of Rivers State erupt, when innocent people start dying, when angry youths pick up stones and march against oppression, who will history hold responsible?

Madam Chief Justice, the time to act is now.

The Supreme Court’s Name in the Mud

The actions of these five justices violate the principles outlined in the International Judicial Accountability Principles (IJAP) and the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP) guidelines. These frameworks emphasize judicial restraint, especially when a matter is actively before another court.

By bypassing the ongoing proceedings, the Supreme Court has undermined the integrity of the judicial process and public trust in legal institutions (THISDAYLIVE).

A Call for a Review—The Law Must Speak Again

The Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP) has called for a review of the Supreme Court’s judgment, highlighting concerns about its lack of alignment with previous judicial decisions and constitutional provisions (THISDAYLIVE).

Madam Chief Justice, you can stop this.

You can stand for truth, not politics.

You can correct this injustice, before Rivers State is plunged into irreversible chaos.

I do not ask you to interfere in the pending case in Port Harcourt.

I do not ask you to take sides in politics.

I ask you to do what is right.

I ask you to let the law prevail.

I ask you to not let history remember your name for this miscarriage of justice.

I ask you to be the voice of the voiceless, the protector of the people, the defender of democracy.

Save Rivers State. Save the Judiciary. Save Nigeria.

Madam Chief Justice, you have the power to change this.

If you choose to remain silent,

If you watch Rivers State collapse,

If you turn away while the people suffer,

Then history will not be kind.

Madam Chief Justice, save your name. Save the judiciary. Save the people. Save Nigeria.

If the courts cannot stand for justice, who will?

I write this in tears. I write this in grief. I write this as a citizen who still believes in the power of truth.

Do not let the law die. Do not let the people suffer. Do not let Nigeria bleed. 

Your Excellencies,

Nigeria finds itself in yet another avoidable crisis, this time centered around Rivers State, a region vital to the country’s economic and political landscape. To his credit, President Bola Tinubu stepped in at a moment when tensions were escalating dangerously, with political discord threatening to spill over into full-scale unrest. Given the volatility of the situation, his decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers—suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and lawmakers—may have been driven by the need to prevent an immediate breakdown of law and order. However, while this intervention may have temporarily calmed rising tensions, it has also deepened national anxiety and raised serious questions about the federal government’s role in the crisis.

Officially, the justification for this action is security concerns and pipeline vandalism, but the Nigerian people are not deceived. While the security of vital infrastructure is an important national concern, the core of the Rivers crisis is not merely about lawlessness or economic sabotage—it is a battle for political control, one that has been intensifying since Minister Nyesom Wike refused to relinquish his grip on the state he once governed. The silence of the federal government regarding Wike’s disruptive influence, paired with the forceful sidelining of Fubara, has sent a troubling message: powerful political figures are protected at all costs, while elected leaders who refuse to bow are removed under the guise of stability.

The Burden of Public Perception and the Shadow of One Man

Mr. President, except for the Speaker of the House, you, Senate President Akpabio, and Minister Wike have openly positioned yourselves against Governor Siminalayi Fubara. This is not a whispered conspiracy or a baseless accusation; it is the painful public perception, one that has deeply settled in the minds of Nigerians. It is what people see, what they feel, and what they are struggling to understand.

Even in your emergency address, a moment that could have reassured Nigerians and reinforced balance in governance, you placed the weight of responsibility on this quiet, cool-headed governor, a man who—by all indications—has tried to steady the ship amid the turbulent storm that surrounds him.

Not once. Not once did you directly or indirectly acknowledge the root of the crisis—Wike.

What Exactly Does Wike Have On You?

Sir, let’s be real, a therapeutic question must be asked because Nigerians are asking it already:

What does Wike have on you all?

Mr. President, again—what exactly does Wike have on you? This is not a rhetorical question, sir. Nigerians are perplexed, confused, even entertained at this point because no man should be this politically untouchable unless he holds something deeper than we can see.

Is it God, juju, or secrets buried too deep to reveal? Because, let’s be honest, no man can consume you—unless you allow him to. But right now, the message being sent is louder than any press statement or emergency declaration:

You can hit Fubara, but you won’t touch Wike.

This has become more than a leadership issue—it is now a test of your authority. And the message it sends? That one man sits above even you, Mr. President.

The People Are Watching—Hit Him or Prove You Are Under Him

Nigerians are watching, and they are speaking loudly:

“Deal with Wike, unless he has something on you. And even if he does, for God’s sake, hit him one way or another for balance.”

You came into power as a man who takes bold action, who moves without fear—so why does it seem that Wike is an exception to that rule?

If you can hit Fubara, suspend lawmakers, and declare an emergency, then for balance, hit Wike. Prove you are not under his influence. Prove that no man holds sway over you.

Because, Mr. President, if you continue to punish one man while shielding the other, then Nigerians will conclude the truth for themselves: Wike is bigger than the presidency.

And that, sir, is not an image of strength—it is an image of submission.

A Dangerous Precedent That Demands Urgent Correction

At a time when Nigeria should be strengthening its democratic institutions, ensuring that elected officials are protected from undue political interference, and reinforcing the autonomy of state governments, this crisis has instead revealed a deep contradiction in how power is managed.

The people of Rivers—and indeed, Nigerians as a whole—are watching closely. The perception growing across the nation is that this state of emergency was never about protecting Rivers—it was about protecting Wike’s influence.

And this is a dangerous precedent—one that must be urgently corrected with balanced leadership.

If the government’s true aim is fairness and stability, then justice must be applied equally.

If Governor Fubara is to be reprimanded, then Wike must not walk untouched.

Mr. President, hit Wike the way you hit Fubara—or prove to Nigerians that you are under his control. The choice is yours, but the people have already made up their minds.

MILITARY OCCUPATION: A TEMPORARY FIX WITH LASTING CONSEQUENCES

Yes, military occupation under this state of emergency is meant to last six months. Even if extended, one reality remains unchanged: Governor Fubara was elected by the people. And since your declaration, Nigerians have been murmuring, “There Tinubu goes again, helping Wike.” They recall that every time you have intervened in the Rivers crisis, your actions have tilted in favor of Wike, sidelining Fubara. Now, this emergency declaration follows the same pattern—excusing Wike’s excesses while shifting the weight of responsibility elsewhere.

But let’s be realistic. Even with an extended military presence, you cannot control or possibly stop everyone. The population of Rivers State runs in millions, and their growing frustration cannot be silenced by force. Port Harcourt alone is home to millions, many of whom remain loyal to their elected governor. Military occupation may give a temporary sense of control, but it will not erase the people’s will.

History has repeatedly demonstrated that when people feel oppressed, they resist. The psychological burden of political suppression breeds resentment, anger, and, ultimately, defiance. Your administration must understand that governing through force is unsustainable. You cannot rule by intimidation—only by justice, fairness, and respect for democratic choice.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA OF GOVERNANCE BETRAYAL

Leadership extends beyond policies and strategies; it is built on trust, perception, and the emotional state of the people you govern. Right now, the people of Rivers State feel deeply betrayed. This is not just politics—it is psychological trauma on a collective scale.

When people elect a leader, they are not just voting for governance; they are investing their hopes, struggles, and aspirations in someone they believe represents them. The forced sidelining of Fubara is not just a political maneuver—it is an act of disenfranchisement, a direct insult to the very people who voted for him. It sends a chilling message that their voices, choices, and votes are disposable.

The consequence? Mass frustration, suppressed anger, and a growing distrust in the federal government. Nigerians are not naïve. They have watched how this administration has handled Wike—with favor, protection, and indulgence—while Fubara has been repeatedly undermined, isolated, and now forcefully removed. The people see the injustice, and their response will not be silence.

MILITARY FORCE CANNOT HEAL A POLITICAL WOUND

History is filled with lessons about the futility of military intervention in political matters. The use of security forces in Rivers State may create an illusion of control, but even if military presence is extended indefinitely, it will not fix the root cause of the crisis.

Rivers is a state of millions, with Port Harcourt as a political and economic nerve center. The idea that military occupation will pacify an entire population is both unrealistic and dangerous. You can send armed forces to patrol the streets, but you cannot suppress thoughts, emotions, and resistance indefinitely.

When a people feel unheard, they do not simply fade away. They adapt. They resist. They find new ways to express their frustration—through civil disobedience, economic disruption, or prolonged defiance. Right now, the people of Rivers are watching. They are recording. They are remembering. Every unjust act against their elected governor deepens their resentment and fuels a crisis that force alone cannot resolve.

Be warned—Rivers and the entire Niger Delta are watching. The people are not blind to injustice, and even if the military remains stationed in Rivers indefinitely, they cannot consume or silence everyone.

A political wound cannot be healed with military boots. Justice is the only cure.

THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL MISMANAGEMENT

Rivers State is not just a political entity—it is a national economic asset. It is one of Nigeria’s largest oil-producing states, generating billions of dollars in revenue. Any instability in the region is not just a Rivers problem; it is a Nigerian problem.

Already, global oil markets are taking note of the crisis. Investors are growing concerned that continued unrest will lead to reduced oil production, sabotage of energy infrastructure, and instability in business operations.

If this crisis spirals further, Nigeria will experience:

Declining oil production as local communities begin to withdraw cooperation.

Increased energy infrastructure attacks, as seen in past grievances with the Niger Delta region.

Loss of investor confidence, leading to capital flight and economic downturn.

Greater economic hardship for ordinary Nigerians, as revenue from Rivers begins to drop.

A government that truly values national stability must understand that you cannot undermine the leadership of an oil-rich state and expect economic peace. The Nigerian economy cannot afford another prolonged crisis in an oil-producing region.

THE INCONSISTENCY OF PRESIDENTIAL INTERVENTIONS: WHY FUBARA, NOT WIKE?

One of the most glaring contradictions in this entire situation is the selective intervention of the presidency.

Why is Governor Fubara, an elected leader, being treated as the problem, while Minister Wike, the source of the instability, remains untouched, unchecked, and unaccountable?

Why has President Tinubu not once publicly criticized Wike for his disruptive role in Rivers governance? Why has the Senate President remained silent on the one person fueling division in Rivers State?

Nigerians are watching, and they are asking difficult questions. If this is about restoring order, why does Wike remain free to operate? Why does it seem as though this entire situation is being engineered to weaken Fubara while empowering Wike?

REBUKING WIKE—A NECESSARY STEP FOR BALANCE

Mr. President, even if for nothing else but psychological balance, rebuke Wike. Even superficially. Speak to him publicly. Condemn his role, even symbolically. Let the people of Rivers State see that their grievances are being acknowledged.

The psychological damage of selective justice is real. The people of Rivers need to hear you say Wike’s name—not in praise, not in justification, but in acknowledgment of his disruptive role.

If Wike is not held accountable, the people will see this administration as complicit in the crisis, rather than a neutral force trying to resolve it.

Even those who may support your administration are questioning the selective silence. This is a moment that requires strategic leadership, and sometimes, a few words can be more powerful than military action.

THE URGENT CALL FOR ACTION

Public self-reflection from President Tinubu, indirectly acknowledging the concerns of favoritism while reaffirming his commitment to impartial governance.

A public rebuke of Minister Wike—even if symbolic—to signal fairness to the people of Rivers.

Immediate reduction of Minister Wike’s influence over Rivers State’s affairs to restore the authority of the elected governor.

A shift from military intervention to political reconciliation, ensuring that this crisis is resolved through governance, not force.

A commitment from the National Assembly to uphold institutional independence, preventing political interference in state-level leadership.

FINAL WORDS: CHOOSING JUSTICE OVER POLITICAL ALLIANCES

Mr. President, Rivers State is not just another political battlefield; it is a symbol of Nigeria’s democratic future.

If this crisis is handled with bias, if Wike remains shielded while Fubara is continually undermined, your administration will bear a defining stain—one that history will not erase.

Leadership is not just about loyalty; it is about fairness, courage, and the wisdom to act beyond political debts. The decisions you make today will shape not just the road to 2027, but your legacy in the years beyond. If this crisis is managed with injustice, the trust placed in your leadership will fracture, and the echoes of today’s actions will fuel tomorrow’s resistance.

Yes, Wike fought to deliver Rivers for you in 2023, using every means within his reach. Yes, 2027 looms ahead, but no one controls the future. That is why, in this moment, you must stand on the side of justice. As you rebuke Fubara during this emergency declaration, do not turn a blind eye to Wike’s role in this crisis. Let him too feel the weight of accountability. True leadership is not about selective discipline; it is about ensuring that justice prevails, no matter how powerful the individual.

History will not forget this moment. It will record whether you chose to rise above politics or allowed personal alliances to plunge Nigeria into further instability.

Be careful—Rivers and the entire Niger Delta are watching. The people are not blind to injustice, and the Nigeria Police and Military cannot suppress them all.

The choice is yours. Nigerians are watching. Nigerians are waiting.

The decision of President Bola Tinubu to suspend Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Mrs Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for six months is illegal as it cannot be justified under any of the provisions of the 320 sections of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

No doubt, Section 305 of the Constitution empowers the President to take extraordinary measures to restore law and order if, among other reasons, there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security or there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger.

But, the extraordinary measures which may be adopted by the President to restore peace and security in the Federation or in any particular State does not include the suspension of an elected Governor, an elected Deputy Governor and the dissolution of other democratic structures. For the avoidance of doubt, section 45(3) of the Constitution provides that a 'period of emergency' means "any period during which there is in force a Proclamation of a state of emergency declared by the President in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 305 of this Constitution."

Thus, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, the office of an elected governor can only become vacant upon death, ill health, resignation, or impeachment. Even where the office of the Governor becomes vacant for any reason whatsoever, the Deputy Governor shall be sworn in as the Governor.

And where the offices of the Governor and Deputy Governor become vacant at the same time, the Speaker of the State House of Assembly shall become an Acting Governor for not more than 3 months. During the 3-month period, a fresh election shall be conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission for the election of a new governor.

It is pertinent to state that the failure of a House of Assembly to function in Rivers State can not be a justification for the dissolution of democratic structures in any State of the Federation. Indeed, the Constitution had envisaged that a State House of Assembly may not be able to function due to one reason or another. Hence, section 11(4) of the Constitution stipulates as follows:

"At any time when any House of Assembly of a State is unable to perform its functions by reason of the situation prevailing in that State, the National Assembly may make such laws for the peace, order and good government of that State with respect to matters on which a House of Assembly to be necessary or expedient until such time as the House of Assembly is able to resume its functions; and any such laws enacted by the National Assembly pursuant to this section shall have effect as if they were laws enacted by the House of Assembly of the State:

Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring on the National Assembly power to remove the Governor or the Deputy Governor of the State from office."

In 2004 and 2006, we condemned the illegal dissolution of democratic structures when President Olusegun Obasanjo imposed emergency rules on Plateau State and Ekiti State, respectively. Regrettably, on both occasions, the Supreme Court refused to determine the constitutional validity of the dissolution of democratic structures on the ground that the suit were procedurally incompetent because they were instituted during the six-month emergency period by the suspended legislators in the name of Plateau State without the authorization of the Sole Administration of the state!

However, in 2013, when a state of emergency was declared in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States by former Presidents Goodluck Jonathan, we urged him to reject the pressure mounted on by anti democratic forces to remove the elected Governors and dissolve democratic structures in the affected States. President Jonathan followed the path of constitutionalism.

In 2021, the then Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN announced the plan of the federal government to declare a state of emergency in Anambra State over insecurity and threat to a complete breakdown of law and order in that part of the Federation We advised President Buhari not to demolish democratic structures even if emergency rule was imposed on the state. President Buhari followed the path of constituionalism.

In the cases of Adegbenro vs. Attorney-General of the Federation (1962) 1 NLR 338 F.R.A. Williams V Dr. M.A. Majekodunmi (1962) 1 NLR 328 the Supreme Court of Nigeria validated the Emergency Powers Act 1961 to justify the dissolution of democratic structures as well as suspension of fundamental human rights in western region. As there is no equivalent of the Emergency Powers Act 1961 under the current constitutional dispensation, the suspension of an elected Governor by an elected President is a constitutional anomaly under the 1999 Constitution.

In Attorney General of the Federation v. Attorney General of Abia State & Ors (2024) LPELR-62576 (SC) filed by the Bola Tinubu administration, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that the removal of elected chairmen and councilors as well as appointment of sole administrators or caretaker committees by State Governors to run local government councils are illegal and unconstitutional. It follows to reason that the suspension of elected governors and elected members of the House of Assembly by the President is illegal and unconstitutional in every material particular.

To that extent, a serving or retired military officer can not be imposed as a Sole Administrator to govern any state in Nigeria. Similarly, a military officer cannot be appointed by the National Assembly as a Sole Administrator to govern the Nigerian people during a war between Nigeria and another country.

In the Speaker, Bauchi State House of Assembly v Hon Rifkatu Danna (2017) 49 WRN 82 and several other cases, Nigerian Courts have held that the suspension of elected legislators is illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, the National Assembly should not endorse the illegal suspension of the Rivers State legislators that have not defected from the People's Democratic Party to the All Progressive Congress. Instead of approving the illegal dissolution of democratic structures in Rivers State, the National Assembly should assist Governor Fubara by invoking its powers under section 11 (4) of the Constitution "to make laws for the peace, order and good government of that State"

Therefore, we are compelled to call on President Bola Tinubu to follow the path of constituionalism without any delay. The President should proceed to reinstate the suspended Governor Fubara and Deputy Governor Odu and restore all democratic structures in Rivers State. This call is without prejudice to the duty imposed on the President to adopt extraordinary measures to restore law and order in Rivers State under Governor Fubara in strict compliance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

They were both born, raised and acculturated in Africa.

They both left their motherland, Africa, in search of the elusive golden fleece, driven by their unique aspirations and visions for the future.

After completing their academic pursuits, one returned to the continent of his birth to combine the entirety of his experience with the mystical ingenuity of his Ijebu people to build enduring, multi-generational wealth.

The other chose to remain in the United States, recognizing that pursuing the American dream offered a more exponential path to success than returning to Africa. To contextualize the impact of this choice, the net worth of the wealthiest South African Johann Rupert, is $12.8 billion, while Elon Musk’s net worth is $335.2 billion, the highest in the world.

The gulf between their wealth is as vast and unbridgeable as the ocean. If Elon had remained in Africa, he might not have topped Johann’s net worth of $12.8 billion. He made the right call back then.

Back to Adenuga and Musk, one is now in his early 70s, the other in his early 50s.

Both share striking similarities across the nobility in the leadership value chain:

Entrepreneurial Vision & Leadership: Both are visionary business leaders who have significantly shaped their industries—Musk in fintech, space, electric vehicles, and AI, and Adenuga in telecommunications and oil. Their ability to innovate and lead massive enterprises highlights their strong leadership qualities.

Courage & Risk-Taking: Both leaders exhibit extraordinary courage in taking risks. Musk has pushed forward with revolutionary ideas in space travel and electric vehicles despite scepticism and huge setbacks, while Adenuga disrupted Africa’s telecom and took bold steps in the oil industry, competing in both instances against African and global giants.

Generosity & Philanthropy: Both are known for their charitable efforts. Musk has contributed to renewable energy, space exploration, and AI safety, while Adenuga has funded scholarships and community development programs in Nigeria and beyond, where he is also regarded as the king of individual empowerment.

Influence & Global Impact: They are both highly influential figures in their regions and globally, shaping industries, inspiring entrepreneurs, and influencing policies in technology and business.

Loyalty: Both have shown dedication to their missions and the communities they serve. Musk focuses on global tech, while Adenuga prioritizes Nigerian and African development.

I used The Nurturing Nobilities Group (TNNG) parameters for nobility in leadership to rate the two leaders, and the outcome was a hit. The rating was based on public perception and documented actions.

Despite differences in style and personal philosophy, their overall nobility scores are remarkably equal, showcasing their shared commitment to innovation, leadership, and societal impact. Musk excels in disruptive vision but faces criticism on ethics and humility, while Adenuga balances ambition with community-focused humility.

The Divergence: Conventional Wisdom

While strikingly similar across several pillars of nobility, they are remarkably different in conventional wisdom. While both are highly rated for strategic innovation, Adenuga shows distinct discretion regarding practical wisdom in business-government relations.

Take the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the US for instance. How would Mike Adenuga have handled such a situation? Efficient government operations are undeniably essential for any nation. If implemented with transparency and impartiality, DOGE promises to become a groundbreaking initiative. Elon Musk’s visionary approach to devising a program that could cut government costs, boost efficiency, stimulate economic growth, and reduce national debt brims with transformative potential.

However, Mike Adenuga likely would not have volunteered to run such an organization directly. Given the magnitude of the billionaire class’s investment, he believes in minding his own business and nurturing his enterprises privately. He does not see why a business leader should expose his enterprises to undue risks by actively participating in governance and running a business department.

That is, indeed, conventional wisdom. Political neutrality is the bridge that connects all customers of a product across party lines. Once any political party thinks a business leader has crossed the political line, it may call for a product boycott. The consequences might be disastrous if the situation is not diffused or effectively managed.

Therefore, Adenuga believes entrepreneurs must not be openly affiliated with any government. Even when he has sympathies and affinities, he prefers to show them privately as his inalienable right.

He also firmly maintains that if you are a businessman with extensive investment in a country, never fight the government in power, especially in Africa. They will crush you.

A Case Study in Conventional Wisdom

In 2007, President Olusegun Obasanjo’s government moved against Mike Adenuga and his business interests. He could have chosen to fight back but was more concerned about his extensive business investments across Nigeria. He knew the government’s agenda was to use trumped-up charges as an excuse to take over the running of Globacom. He understood the government had no capacity to run such an operation and feared his staff might lose their jobs while the business could be ruined. He made the tactical decision to leave the country in self-exile.

It took the intervention of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua to persuade him to return to the country. Now of blessed memory, Yar’Adua said he would do whatever it took to motivate rather than antagonize or persecute investors who create jobs and keep the oil of a nation’s progress flowing.

This approach to business-government relations represents Adenuga’s conventional wisdom: maintain political neutrality, focus on business growth, and avoid confrontations with the state. While Musk may possess the “Adenuga spirit” in entrepreneurship and vision, this fundamental difference in engaging with political power sets them apart.

Where Musk sees direct engagement as a path to influence, Adenuga sees discretion as the better part of valor. Both approaches have their merits, but in the African context, Adenuga’s conventional wisdom has preserved his business empire through turbulent political transitions – an affirmation of the power of subtle influence over confrontation.

This is a tribute to celebrate Dr. Mike Adenuga’s 72nd birthday in advance from a global comparative perspective. May the fountain of his wisdom never run dry.