As the industrial action embarked upon by the lecturers at the Lagos State University (LASU) takes its toll on the institution, the State Government seems to have succumbed to pressure from both the students, lecturers and residents of the state for the downward review of the school fees.
Since 2012, when Governor Babatunde Fashola and the State House of Assembly approved the increase in school fees of the institution from N25,000 to between N190,000 and N350,000 depending on the course of study, the tertiary institution has not witnessed any peace.
Last week, the lecturers carried out their threat to embark on strike, demanding among others the reduction in the fees of the institution.
The governor, who had earlier threatened not to pay salaries to the striking lecturers, resorted to pleading with them for negotiation over the weekend, promising to review the school fees even though he faults the demands of the lecturers.
He urged the angry lecturers to embrace dialogue instead of continuing with their industrial action which government described as an unnecessary drawback for its spirited efforts to boost the academic standing and reputation of the institution.
While explaining its stance on the various issues raised by the lecturers, the State Government, through its Commissioner for Information and Strategy, Lateef Ibirogba, faulted them as a crude attempt to force new terms and conditions of service on the university without due regard to their practical feasibility or the State Government's interests and perspectives as employer of labour, proprietor and sponsor of the university.
In his statement, Ibirogba said the striking members of the local branch of Academic Staff Union of University (ASUU) appeared to be whipping up sentiments to justify a premeditated industrial action, as all the points they advanced could not be properly classified as trade disputes that should warrant an “indefinite strike action.”
According to Ibirogba, in an attempt to rush out on strike, ASUU executives have evaded all attempts to make them follow due process and engage in reasoned dialogue as regards the issues raised, most of which, he said, were not at all contemplated by the terms and conditions of the lecturers' employment as well as its financial and academic plan.
The commissioner said further that, the lecturers should have exhausted the dialogue option before resorting to a strike. He insisted that strike action could only be legitimately called after a well-constituted meeting for which a proper notice would have been served on all members beforehand, with a clear articulation of the agenda and procedure that would guide the decision for or against the strike.
According to Ibirogba, following a 14 day ultimatum issued by the union, the State Government set up an ad-hoc committee which examined all the points raised by the lecturers. Even though it was discovered that the issues did not warrant a strike action, the administration made clear it's determination to carry on the dialogue towards resolving the issues through the established processes.
He expressed surprise at how the demand to reduce school fees could have justified a strike, since the lecturers themselves knew that government was already in constructive discussions with the students.
"It is a matter of fact that the students have already submitted a position paper on the issue. The government has also constituted a 7-man committee to review and advice upon it," he said.
He added that the university’s main source of funding (80%) was from the State Government while the new fee regime accounted for only 10 percent with the Governing Council being mandated to fund the balance of 10 percent.
He also disagreed with the unsubstantiated claims of ASUU which blamed the new fee regime for low enrolment into the university. He maintained that the perennial unstable academic calendar of the university, caused by incessant restiveness among staff unions impacted negatively on the perception of the public and in turn affected the enrolment figures of the institution adversely.
According to the Commissioner, "it was concluded by the ad-hoc committee that in the absence of the conduct of a reliable survey to investigate the reported low enrolment into the university, ASUU-LASU’s position on the new fees cannot be justified."
He said part of the resolution of the committee was an advice that ASUU-LASU should articulate progressive ideas that will make the university a financially independent institution that would not rely solely on the State Government for its survival.
On the clamour for a repeal of the 'No Vacancy, No Promotion' Policy of LASU, the Commissioner explained that the committee examined the conditions of service for junior and senior staff and noted that there had always been a clause regulating promotion of staff based on “Available Job Openings.”
"The proviso is a very reasonable principle of management and has always been among the university’s conditions of service. It is not a recent invention of the management, hence it is morally, ethically and indeed statutorily expedient for staff to observe and respect the clause which was an express term of their own employment.
"It is also a common practice in universities, consistent with NUC policy guidelines for the number of professors and other staff which must be engaged in each department to be appropriately regulated. Academic staff profile must be related to the needs of each department and the moral burden is on the union to request and justify a review of the clause through the appropriate channels and not by a declaration of trade dispute."
The commissioner added that the ad-hoc committee in its findings also gathered that the conditions of service of the union members were already being reviewed by the university with ASUU members invited to partake in the exercise. He advised the union to avail itself of such a legitimate opportunity to inject its suggestions into the new document.
On the call for the implementation of the universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2012 in LASU, the State Government, through the Commissioner, posited that while education was on the concurrent list of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, states were allowed to establish universities and the terms and conditions of service of the lecturers they engage must necessarily be as determined by contract and relevant Law of the State Government.
"The State Government is not under any obligation to implement any aspect of a Federal legislation if the state legislature had not appreciated the need for amending its own Law in line with that of the Federal Government," he said.
The commissioner also decried a situation where lecturers in the employment of the State Government would always insist on enjoying the terms and conditions of lecturers in federal universities whenever it suited them.
Ibirogba disclosed that the ad-hoc committee in its report had also advised ASUU to study the State Government’s White Paper on the last Visitation Panel to the institution so as to appreciate the government’s position on the tenure of the university’s Principal Officers.
The White Paper states inter alia: "Government rejects the recommendation of the Visitation Panel and restates Schedule 1930 (3) of the LASU Law, 2007 that the Vice Chancellor shall hold office for a period of four years and upon such terms as shall, subject to the provisions of this law and the relevant statutes, be determined by the Council, unless he is removed from office and unless so removed, he shall be eligible for re-appointment for second term of four years only; provided that no person shall hold the office of the Vice Chancellor for more than two terms of office."
The commissioner reiterated the government’s commitment to ensuring cordial relationship with labour unions in the state within the confines of mutual understanding and respect for laid down rules and regulations.
He added that the state would not allow itself to be stampeded into acceding to demands, which are inconsistent with its policy objectives. He added that it is imperative for ASUU-LASU to have a rethink on its proposed industrial action in the interest of the students and allow for dialogue.
 |
|
The EFCC chairman, Olu Olukoyede, however, said that after concluding the investigation, he invited Eze, who is also the convener of the New Season Prophetic
Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ola Olukoyede, has said that he investigated the Lead Pastor of Streams of Joy International, Jerry Eze, for six months for alleged money laundering.
Olukoyede disclosed this at the Jerry Eze Foundation Business Grant Award Ceremony in Abuja on Wednesday.
He said that the agency observed that there was a domiciliary account where dollars and pounds were “dropping like raindrops” from different countries.
“I am going to embarrass you today. I never wanted to say it, but I just felt that was my little way of making this contribution.
“I investigated this man for six months for money laundering. We work by intelligence, we work by petitions.
“At some point, there was an account, a domiciliary account; dollars, pounds were dropping like raindrops from Colombia, from America, from Sri Lanka, even from Togo.
“I said, ‘Who is this man?’ Yes, I have been hearing about his name. I have seen his face a couple of times. I never bothered about what he was doing; he is a pastor,” Olukoyede said.
“So, they said it’s one Pastor Jerry Eze of Streams of Joy. Go and investigate him. So, we went into investigation; we combed the books. Yes, we saw the money coming in.
“So, my investigating officer came to me one day and said, ‘Sir, this is the preliminary report.’ I said I would like to see this man. Go and invite him.
“So, he (Eze) came to my office. I saw him. I had seen that face, but I didn’t know it was him, because I saw somebody who came in with baggy trousers, a T-shirt, and some punk with a parting.
“I was almost going to say, ‘Go and call your pastor, my friend; go and bring your bishop,’” the EFCC chief said.
Olukoyede, however, said that after concluding the investigation, he invited Eze, who is also the Convener of the New Season Prophetic Prayers and Declarations (NSPPD), and commended him.
“So, he told me what happens, how the money came, and how he has been helping people and all of that. I told him, ‘I didn’t call you here to explain to me. We’ve already done our work. I called you here to commend you,” he added.
Olukoyede said that the EFCC also has a preventive mandate, adding that the agency should also identify with righteous people with integrity.
The EFCC chairman urged him to continue to keep his hands clean, because the anti-graft agency, according to him, “will always come for you”.
“The only thing that is remaining now is to give you a letter of validation, but I’m not going to give you because I’ll still continue to monitor your finances,” he told the pastor.
News
Lagos, Nigeria – April 2026 – United Bank for Africa Plc, leading Pan-African financial institution, has released its unaudited financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2026, demonstrating resilient operating performance and continued balance sheet strength despite a moderated profitability environment.
Gross earnings increased by 5% to ₦801.5 billion, driven by growth across key revenue lines. Interest income also rose 6.9% to ₦641.1 billion, while non-interest income grew 17.3% to ₦137.1 billion, highlighting the Group’s expanding and diversified revenue base.
Net interest income advanced 10.5% to ₦383.7 billion, supporting a 12.2% increase in operating income to ₦520.8 billion, demonstrating sustained momentum across core banking operations.
UBA recorded notable improvement in key profitability and efficiency metrics, reflecting a more sustainable earnings profile.
While return on average equity rose to 13.7%, return on assets improved to 1.77%, signalling stronger earnings efficiency. Cost of risk declined significantly to 2.02%, underscoring improved asset quality and disciplined risk management. Cost of funds moderated to 3.73% from 3.83% in Dec 2025, reflecting improvement in funding cost.
Profit before tax moderated to ₦160.7 billion, while profit after tax moderated to ₦146.6 billion, representing declines of 21.4% and 22.8% respectively, consistent with the Group’s guidance on earnings normalisation.
The bank also did well in maintaining a strong and resilient balance sheet with total assets of ₦33.1 trillion and customer deposits of ₦26.2 trillion.
Commenting on the results, Group Managing Director/CEO, Oliver Alawuba, said: “UBA’s Q1 2026 performance underscores the strength of our diversified Pan-African model and the resilience of our core banking franchises. While profitability has moderated in line with our expectations for a transition year, we are seeing strong underlying momentum across our markets, supported by improved earnings quality and disciplined risk management.
Our continued investments in digital capabilities and regional expansion are enhancing revenue resilience and positioning the Group for sustainable long-term growth. We remain firmly committed to driving financial inclusion, enabling intra-African trade, and delivering superior value to our stakeholders.”
Also speaking, Executive Director, Finance & Risk Management, Ugo Nwaghodoh, added: “The Group’s Q1 performance reflects a deliberate shift towards a more sustainable and scalable earnings profile following our successful recapitalisation. Key profitability indicators, including return on equity and return on assets, show improvement on a year-to-date basis, despite the normalisation of headline earnings. Our balance sheet remains robust, supported by a diversified funding base and disciplined loan growth. With stable funding costs and improving asset quality, we are well positioned to drive operating leverage and long-term value creation.”
UBA expects 2026 to remain a transition year characterised by continued investment in digital transformation and operational scalability; strengthened risk management and provisioning frameworks; enhanced focus on high-quality, sustainable earnings and deeper penetration across African markets.
The Group remains strongly capitalised, highly liquid, and strategically positioned to execute its long-term growth agenda.
United Bank for Africa Plc is a leading Pan-African financial institution, serving over 45 million customers through 1,000 business offices and customer touchpoints in 20 African countries. With operations in New York, London, Paris, and Dubai, UBA connects people and businesses across Africa through retail, commercial, and corporate banking, payments, trade finance, and cross-border solutions.
Business
In The Spotlight
Once upon a time, elections in Nigeria were fought in town halls, party secretariats, and the noisy arenas of Abuja and Lagos where political legitimacy was earned through persuasion, coalition building, and the unpredictable alchemy of Nigerian democracy. Today, the political class has discovered a more glamorous battlefield and a grotesque new theatre has emerged: Nigerian politicians now conducts its fiercest battles not at home, but in Washington, London, Brussels, and any foreign capital willing to rent out its influence for a fee. What used to be a domestic contest for legitimacy has mutated into a transcontinental lobbying war; one that threatens not only Nigeria’s sovereignty but the very idea that Nigerians, not foreign policymakers, should determine their own future.
The latest episode - Atiku Abubakar’s $1.2 million contract with the Washington lobbying firm Von Batten–Montague–York, illustrates the scale of the problem. According to publicly available filings, the firm is tasked with “counterbalancing” the Nigerian government’s messaging in Washington, briefing members of Congress, shaping US policy narratives, and even taking concerns about INEC’s internal decisions directly to President Donald Trump. This is not subtle diplomacy. It is a direct appeal to a foreign power to intervene in Nigeria’s internal affairs. And Atiku is not alone. Abuja itself has long maintained its own lobbying presence in Washington.
The implications for Nigerian sovereignty are profound. When political actors outsource legitimacy to foreign capitals, they implicitly concede that domestic institutions - INEC, the courts, the legislature - are insufficient arbiters of political competition. Every time a Nigerian politician hires a K Street firm to “shape narratives,” they reinforce the perception that Nigeria’s democratic institutions are too weak, too compromised, or too distrusted to manage their own affairs. This is not merely embarrassing. It is dangerous. Foreign governments, including the United States, act according to their own interests. Their priorities - counterterrorism, energy security, migration, geopolitical competition - rarely align neatly with Nigeria’s democratic aspirations. When Nigerian politicians invite foreign actors into the electoral arena, they risk turning domestic politics into a bargaining chip in someone else’s strategic calculus.
The internationalization of Nigerian elections is unmistakable. Nigerian elections are no longer fought solely in Abuja, where institutions are contested; Lagos, where money and media converge; Kano, Port Harcourt, Enugu, where political blocs mobilize. They are now fought in Washington, through lobbyists and congressional briefings; London, through diplomatic signaling and media narratives; Brussels, through human rights reports and EU statements, and global think tanks, which increasingly shape elite opinion. This internationalization is not inherently new. Nigeria has always been entangled in global politics, but the scale and brazenness are unprecedented. Lobbying contracts worth millions, public statements aimed at foreign leaders, and strategic leaks to international media have become routine tools of political warfare.
Three forces drive this trend. First, elite signaling: Nigerian elites - governors, financiers, power brokers, watch Washington closely. A photo op with a US senator or a favorable mention in a congressional report can shift alliances faster than any manifesto. Second, institutional distrust: When domestic institutions are perceived as compromised, politicians seek validation abroad. This is a symptom of democratic fragility, not strength. Third, narrative power: International narratives shape domestic legitimacy. A critical report from a foreign government can damage a candidate more than any local scandal. But the revelation that Atiku’s lobbyists intend to brief President Trump directly on Nigeria’s internal political disputes marks a new frontier. It suggests that Nigerian actors now view foreign leaders not merely as observers but as potential arbiters of domestic political legitimacy. Even if Trump takes no action; and there is no evidence he will, the symbolism is corrosive. It signals to Nigerians that their political destiny is being negotiated in rooms they cannot enter, in conversations they cannot hear, by actors they did not elect.
It would be naïve to pretend that only opposition figures engage in this behavior. Successive Nigerian governments have spent millions on lobbying firms to burnish their image abroad, counter criticism, and influence foreign policy circles. Abuja’s own lobbying footprint in Washington is well documented. The Tinubu administration entered a significant lobbying contract with the DCI Group in Washington DC, with payments totaling $9 million per annum. The lobbying effort is designed to improve the image of the Nigerian government, particularly in countering reports of religious persecution and Christian killings, which led to the US designating Nigeria as a "country of particular concern." An initial $4.5 million was paid as an upfront retainer. Thus, the problem is not partisan. It is systemic.
The result is a grotesque spectacle: Nigerian factions fighting proxy battles on American soil, each hoping that a congressional hearing, a think tank panel, or a raised eyebrow from a US official will tilt the balance of power back home. Every time a Nigerian politician hires a foreign lobbying firm to “shape narratives,” they send a clear message: Nigeria’s institutions are not trusted to referee Nigeria’s politics. This is not merely a symbolic problem. It is a structural one. When domestic actors outsource legitimacy to foreign capitals, they weaken INEC’s authority, judicial independence, public trust in elections, and the principle that Nigerians, not foreign policymakers, should determine Nigeria’s future.
The cost to democracy and the consequences are severe; not the least of which is the delegitimization of domestic institutions. If foreign capitals become the ultimate referees, INEC’s authority erodes. Courts lose credibility. Elections become performative rather than decisive. Besides, it can engender voter alienation. Ordinary Nigerians, already skeptical of political elites, see foreign lobbying as proof that elections are elite games played on foreign turf. In addition, there is policy distortion. When foreign approval becomes a political asset, leaders prioritize external optics over domestic needs. Finally, there is sovereignty erosion. A nation that allows foreign actors to shape its electoral outcomes, directly or indirectly, risks becoming a client state in all but name.
Foreign governments can issue statements, hold hearings, or express concern. But they cannot, and should not determine Nigeria’s political future. The real contest will still be decided by economic performance, institutional credibility, voter mobilization, coalition building, and public dissatisfaction or approval. No amount of lobbying can substitute for legitimacy earned at home. Nigeria’s political class must rediscover a basic democratic principle: sovereignty is not merely territorial; it is political. A sovereign nation does not subcontract its political disputes to foreign capitals. It resolves them through its own institutions, however imperfect. If Nigerian leaders want stronger institutions, they must build them. If they want international respect, they must earn it domestically. And if they want credible elections, they must stop treating foreign governments as political referees. Until then, Nigeria’s democracy will remain vulnerable; not because of foreign interference alone, but because its own leaders keep inviting it.
Opinions
In The Spotlight
When President Bola Tinubu announced that Nigeria would extend the 2025 budget implementation deadline to June 30, 2026, three months beyond the original March 31 closure, the decision barely registered as a scandal.
Instead, it was packaged as practical governance: a mere extension to “allow for full utilisation of funds for ongoing infrastructure projects.”
But within 48 hours, three events revealed the ruse: Tinubu fired Finance Minister Wale Edun. Just hours later, on April 23, he requested Senate approval for another $516.3 million external loan.
Read together, these moves tell a story of institutional collapse so profound it should terrify every Nigerian who believes governance matters.
Edun’s removal was not sudden. According to Premium Times’ exclusive reporting, tension between Tinubu and Edun stemmed from “widespread complaints about low capital budget releases and slow budget planning,” which had “serially disrupted the country’s January-to-December budget cycle.”
In February, lawmakers accused Edun of recording “zero implementation” of the 2025 capital budget despite approving N1.15 trillion for capital components.
By December 2025, tensions erupted. At a Federal Executive Council meeting, Edun and Tinubu allegedly clashed so severely over capital releases that a presidential aide had to advise the Minister against raising his voice at the president.
One official present said, “From that point, it seemed that his goose was cooked.”
We know better now: Edun was not fired for releasing money recklessly. He was fired for not releasing it. He had resisted the “unsustainable” practice of “printing money” to pay contractors and instead prioritised debt servicing.
In a government committed to borrowing without limit, Edun represented a constraint. Now, that constraint is gone.
On April 23, Tinubu requested Senate approval for a $516.3 million external loan for the Sokoto-Badagry Superhighway.
This loan, like many before it, was swiftly approved by a Senate that has abandoned any pretence of fiscal scrutiny.
This follows a pattern that alarmed even opposition figures.
In early April, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar issued a searing critique after the Senate approved $6 billion in external loans in less than four hours.
The loans comprised $5 billion from Abu Dhabi Bank (for budget deficit coverage and debt financing) and $1 billion from London Citi Bank (for port rehabilitation).
Four hours. For $6 billion. Not even the most elementary debate.
Atiku condemned the Senate for reducing itself to “a conveyor belt, processing requests of grave national consequence without due diligence. Borrowing decisions that will bind generations yet unborn cannot, and must not, be treated with this level of casual urgency.”
What emerges is not disorganisation but a deliberate strategy: approve massive budgets, execute them poorly, extend deadlines to hide execution failure, and request external loans continuously, not to finance new infrastructure, but to service existing debt and plug gaps created by poor spending.
According to theWorld Bank data cited by Atiku, Nigeria’s exposure to the International Development Association had risen to $18.7 billion by February 2026, placing the country among the largest recipients of concessional loans globally.
In March, while Edun was still nominally Finance Minister, the government requested an additional $6 billion in external borrowing, even as the Debt Management Office pursued aggressive domestic borrowing through high-volume bond auctions.
The math is inescapable: Nigeria is now borrowing not to invest in growth, but to service prior borrowing.
Few writers can claim to have criticised Atiku more than myself in the past two decades, but he is certainly correct on this one: “Resorting to fresh borrowing to service existing debts, plug budget gaps, and meet routine obligations…reflects a troubling absence of fiscal discipline, clear prioritisation, and sustainable economic planning.”
Atiku posed the critical question: “What does a government that appears to be preparing for electoral rejection in 2027 intend to do with an additional $6 billion in borrowed funds, on top of the mounting obligations it has already accumulated in just the first quarter of 2026?”
This is why Edun’s removal makes perfect sense: He was an obstacle to a borrowing drive on steroids.
His insistence on debt servicing, his resistance to “printing money,” his refusal to release capital budgets when execution capacity was nil, all these made him expendable.
His firing signals that the path is now clear: borrow continuously, execute sporadically, extend budgets infinitely, and rotate out any official who asks uncomfortable questions.
If budget execution failure was the genuine problem, two evidence-based policies could have addressed it without the fiction of extension deadlines.
Policy One: Use-It-or-Lose-It Reversion with Mandatory Public Inquiry:
Under this mechanism, any funds unspent by March 31 would revert to a centralised contingency account, jointly overseen by the Budget Office and National Assembly. Before reallocation, these reverted funds would trigger mandatory public inquiry: Which ministries failed? Were procurement processes broken? Was deliberate underspending occurring to preserve cash for debt service?
This creates real consequences for non-performance and makes execution discipline a matter of institutional reputation. Several nations use variants of this approach. The result is visible accountability, and that visibility itself creates incentive for improvement.
Policy Two: Quarterly Budget Reviews with Automatic Reallocation:
Every 90 days, the Budget Office would assess spending velocity. Ministries on track continue spending; underperforming ministries have allocations immediately reallocated to performers. The underperforming ministry must justify failure publicly, in writing.
This makes execution visible in real-time. It rewards actual performance rather than optimistic projections. Ministries and contractors would have every incentive to execute, because underperformance is immediately visible and immediately punished through reallocation.
Budgetary discipline is foundational to democracy. When a government can spend money on undefined timelines under invisible oversight with no consequences for failure, it has exempted itself from accountability.
The National Assembly becomes ceremonial, as exemplified by the current one under Godswill Akpabio. Citizens lose the baseline to measure whether tax revenue was wasted or stolen.
In an election year, this matters intensely. A government seeking re-election should demonstrate efficiency and disciplined execution. Instead, the pattern—budget extension, Finance Minister removal, serial loan requests, Senate approval in hours, signals an administration so insulated from consequences that it need not demonstrate competence at all.
Atiku stated it plainly, “Nigeria is not a private enterprise to be leveraged at will. The future of our nation cannot be signed away in a matter of hours.”
He was right. That future is being mortgaged systematically, with institutional blessing. And the real scandal is that the one official who stood between the presidency and unlimited borrowing authority has been removed.
Between Tinubu, Akpabio and the man for whom the president holds out the federal hat, …Chagoury, it is party time at Aso Rock.
Now, Nigerians learn the truth, not because Edun is gone, but because of that “Anybody else?” glance around the room.
This moment is another reminder that, unlike every successful nation or endeavour, Nigeria is not run by rules or regulations, patriotism or principle.