INEC has postponed the 2015 general elections by six weeks as previously reported by huhuonline.com. As a result of this development, the presidential and National Assembly elections, which was to hold on February 14 will now hold on March 28, while the governorship and Houses of Assembly elections, originally scheduled for February 28, will now hold on April 11.
Full text of Attahiru Jega`s statement is reproduced below
Introduction
We invited you here today to make known the position of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the timetable for the 2015 general elections. Let me state from the outset that the Commission’s position was reached after carefully weighing the suggestions from briefings held with different stakeholders in the electoral process.
The conduct of elections in a country like Nigeria is invariably a collective venture that involves not just the Election Management Body (EMB), but also a diverse range of stakeholders, notably security agencies, political parties and their candidates, voters, as well as interest groups, such as the civil society organizations and the media. To guarantee successful conduct of elections, there are things that are wholly the responsibility of the EMB. But there are other things critical for the success of elections, which fall outside the control of the EMB.
In other words, while INEC must work hard to perfect its systems and processes for conducting elections, and take responsibility for any imperfections thereof, whatever the Commission does may not by itself be sufficient to guarantee the success of elections. There are a number of issues in the preparation and conduct of an election, the most critical of which is security, which is not under the control of INEC.
Current State of INEC’s Preparedness
On Thursday, February 5, 2015, I was invited to brief the National Council of State, which is the highest advisory to the President comprising past and present leaders in Nigeria, on the level of preparedness of INEC to conduct the 2015 general elections. I made a presentation to the Council titled ‘Preparations for the 2015 General Elections: Progress Report,’ in which I gave a detailed account of what the Commission has been doing in readiness for the national elections (National Assembly and Presidential) scheduled for February 14th, and the state elections (Governorship and State Assembly) scheduled for February 28th, 2015.
The summary of my presentation to the National Council of State meeting is that, for matters under its control, INEC is substantially ready for the general elections as scheduled, despite discernible challenges being encountered with some of its processes like the collection of Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs) by registered members of the public.
In addition, INEC has been doing everything it can to facilitate the collection of the PVCs by registered members of the public. As at 5th February 2015, the total number of PVCs collected was 45, 829, 808, representing 66.58% of the total number of registered voters.
In the delivery and deployment of electoral materials, INEC is also at a comfort level in its readiness for the general elections as scheduled (see the presentation to the Council of State). The Commission’s preparations are not yet perfect or fully accomplished. But our level of preparedness, despite a few challenges, is sufficient to conduct free, fair and credible elections as scheduled on February 14th and February 28th. Compared with 2011 when, within a short time, we conducted general elections that were universally adjudged free, fair and credible and the best in Nigeria’s recent electoral history, our processes are today better refined, more robust and therefore capable of delivering even better elections.
Other Variables
But as I mentioned earlier, there are some other variables equally crucial for successful conduct of the 2015 general elections that are outside the control of INEC. One important variable is security for the elections.
While the Commission has a very good working relationship with all security agencies, especially on the platform of the Inter-agency Consultative Committee on Election Security (ICCES) since its inception in 2010, it has become pertinent for it to seriously consider the security advisory presented to it by the Security and Intelligence Services. I would like to reiterate here that INEC is an EMB and not a security agency. It relies on the security services to provide a safe environment for personnel, voters, election observers and election materials to conduct elections wherever it deploys. Where the security services strongly advise otherwise, it would be unconscionable of the Commission to deploy personnel and call voters out in such a situation.
Last Wednesday, which was a day before the Council of State meeting, the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) wrote a letter to the Commission, drawing attention to recent developments in four Northeast states of Borno, Yobe, Adamawa and Gombe currently experiencing the challenge of insurgency. The letter stated that security could not be guaranteed during the proposed period in February for the general elections.
This advisory was reinforced at the Council of State meeting on Thursday where the NSA and all the Armed Services and Intelligence Chiefs unanimously reiterated that the safety and security of our operations cannot be guaranteed, and that the Security Services needed at least six weeks within which to conclude a major military operation against the insurgency in the Northeast; and that during this operation, the military will be concentrating its attention in the theatre of operations such that they may not be able to provide the traditional support they render to the Police and other agencies during elections.
INEC’s Decision
We have done wide ranging consultation to enable us have as much input as is necessary before taking an informed decision. In the series of consultations that we held with stakeholders, the questions consistently posed to them for consideration are:
(i) In view of the latest development, should INEC proceed with the conduct of the general elections as scheduled in spite of this strong advice; and if so, what alternative security arrangements are available to be put in place?
(ii) Or, should INEC take the advice and adjust the schedules of the general elections within the framework of Constitutional provisions?
The Commission held a meeting after the consultations, and decided to take the advice of the Security Chiefs and adjust the dates of the elections. We have done this relying on Section 26(1) of the Electoral 2010 (As Amended), which states thus: “Where a date has been appointed for the holding of an election, and there is reason to believe that a serious breach of the peace is likely to occur if the election is proceeded with on that date or it is impossible to conduct the elections as a result of natural disasters or other emergencies, the Commission may postpone the election and shall in respect of the area, or areas concerned, appoint another date for the holding of the postponed election, provided that such reason for the postponement is cogent and verifiable”.
INEC not being a security agency that could by itself guarantee protection for personnel and materials, as well as voters during elections, the Commission cannot lightly wave off the advice by the nation’s Security Chiefs. The Commission is specifically concerned about the security of our ad hoc staff who constitute at least 600,000 young men and women, together with our regular staff, voters, election observers as well as election materials painstakingly acquired over the last one and half years. This concern is limited not just to the areas in the North-eastern part of Nigeria experiencing insurgency; the risk of deploying young men and women and calling people to exercise their democratic rights in a situation where their security cannot be guaranteed is a most onerous responsibility. Under such circumstances, few EMBs across the world, if any, would contemplate proceeding with the elections as scheduled. No matter the extent of INEC’s preparedness, therefore, if the security of personnel, voters, election observers and election materials cannot be guaranteed, the life of innocent young men and women as well the prospects of free, fair, credible and peaceful elections would be greatly jeopardised.
Consequently, the Commission has decided to reschedule the 2015 general elections thus: the national elections (i.e. Presidential and National Assembly) are now to hold on March 28th, 2015; while the state elections (Governorship and State Assembly) are to hold on April 11th, 2015. It should be noted that this rescheduling falls within the constitutional framework for the conduct of the elections, notably, Sections 76(2), 116(2), 132(2) and 178(2). See also Section 25 of the Electoral Act 2010 (As Amended).
For the avoidance of doubt, we will under no circumstances approve an arrangement that is not in line with the provisions of our laws. Our hope is that with this rescheduling, the security services will do their best to ensure that the security environment needed for safe and peaceful conduct of the 2015 elections is rapidly put in place.
We in INEC reassure all Nigerians and indeed the international community of our commitment to do everything within the law and to conduct free, fair, credible and peaceful elections. We call on the security agencies to honour their commitment to restore sufficient normalcy for elections to take place within the period of extension. We also call on Nigerians, political parties, candidates and all other stakeholders to accept this decision in good faith and ensure the maintenance of peace.
As for us in INEC we’ll endeavour to use the period of the extension to keep on perfecting our systems and processes for conducting the best elections in Nigeria’s history. In particular, we believe that we would resolve all outstanding issues related to non-collection of PVCs, which agitate the minds of many Nigerians.
Finally, we wish to call on all Nigerians to accept our decision, which is taken in good faith and the best interest of deepening democracy ion our country.
Thank you.
Professor Attahiru M. Jega, OFR
Chairman, INEC
 |
|
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, on Saturday in Abuja, reaffirmed his administration's commitment to prioritising interfaith dialogue and promoting peace, harmony, and tolerance among Nigeria’s diverse religious communities.
The President made this statement while receiving in audience Archbishop Paul R. Gallagher, the Secretary for Relations with States and International Organisations of the Holy See, at his residence in Abuja. Archbishop Gallagher was ushered in by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Bianca Ojukwu.
President Tinubu said interfaith dialogue is the only path to addressing the country's security challenges.
He told the Archbishop that he had a long and cordial relationship with the Catholic Church, especially during his time as governor in Lagos. He said he strongly supports the Church's contributions to education and health.
The President said this belief led him to prioritise returning mission schools to religious institutions as soon as he became governor. The schools were taken over during the previous military administrations.
“I appreciate the Pope. It was an honour for me to lead the Nigerian delegation to his inauguration as Pope Leo XIV. It was a moment of history. I see his efforts all over the world to promote World Peace. We need his spiritual engagement, as millions around the world look up to him. I look forward to receiving him in Nigeria.
“My administration will continue to work on religious harmony among all faiths. Our Bishops and religious leaders have been doing a great deal. Please tell them to continue the good work they are doing. Let them continue to preach peace and tolerance. We cannot have an excess of that.
“I understand the roles that the Catholic church has been playing in expanding the frontiers of education, health and humanitarianism in Nigeria. It means a lot to us in Nigeria, and the country is benefiting from it.
“We are also doing a lot to guarantee freedom of worship. As you may be aware, my wife is a pastor at an evangelical church. This downplays the religious connotation that the religious controversy in our country might have taken.”
President Tinubu assured his guest that the Nigerian military has made significant progress in recent times and remains committed to sustaining these achievements, recognising that a single incident can undermine previous gains. He stated that more resources are being allocated to security, with intensified surveillance, particularly in previously ungoverned areas.
The President assured the Archbishop that his government is also investing in the youth to prevent their exploitation by terrorists and reduce vulnerability to radicalisation.
Archbishop Gallagher said he was in Nigeria for the 50th anniversary of the establishment of relations between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Holy See, noting that Nigeria is very strategic to the Catholic Church because of its vibrant Catholic community.
He also conveyed Pope Leo XIV’s appreciation for President Tinubu’s presence at his inauguration. He shared his impressions of Veritas University, established by the Catholic community in Abuja, noting its remarkable progress.
He described Nigeria as the heart of Africa and home to some of the most successful activities of Bishops on the continent. He commended President Tinubu’s efforts in promoting peace, particularly through military initiatives, and encouraged continued dedication. He also expressed appreciation to the Nigerian government for facilitating visas for bishops and for its responsiveness to the Church’s various needs.
Archbishop Gallagher informed President Tinubu that he looks forward to receiving the Nigerian Ambassador to the Holy See in a few weeks and assured him that this visit would be the first of several special visits from the Holy See.
Accompanying Archbishop Gallagher were H.E. Archbishop Michael F. Crotty, Apostolic Nuncio to Nigeria; Rev. Monsignor Suman Paul Anthony, Official of the Secretariat of State – Section for Relations with States and International Organisations; and Rev. Monsignor Patarne Koyassambia-Kozondo, First Secretary, Apostolic Nunciature in Nigeria.
News
Celebrating an African Institution: My Farewell from UBA
Why create an institution?
To ensure that an institution can live long, grow ever stronger and deliver a vision.
I have never been able to look at Africa and see only borders. Where many see fifty-four separate markets, I saw one continent, one destiny — waiting to be transformed, waiting to be believed in.
Africa does not have a shortage of brilliant women and men. Africa suffers a shortage of institutions that outlast brilliant women and men.
Today is a day of huge excitement – of potential delivered and continued opportunity.
Leadership is not about holding onto a position, but knowing when an institution is ready for the next chapter.
I conclude my tenure as Chairman of the Group Board of United Bank for Africa (UBA), on August 21, 2026, after twelve years and decades of association with this extraordinary institution, with profound gratitude, immense pride, and most importantly - great optimism for the future.
My objective was to build an institution that would outlive individuals, one capable of connecting Africa to itself and the world, creating opportunities for businesses, empowering entrepreneurs, supporting governments, rewarding shareholders, and transforming lives. Together, we pursued the belief that Africa deserved a world-class financial institution that remained proudly African at its core. We set out to do something that had not been done. We took a Nigerian bank and we made it an African one, Africa’s global bank. This has been my vision for UBA - the United Bank for Africa.
Today, that vision is reality. UBA Group serves over 50 million customers, operates across 20 African countries and four continents, supports trade and investment, and demonstrates that an African institution can compete globally, while being deeply committed to our continent's development.
This success belongs to generations of dedicated colleagues, exceptional management, visionary directors, loyal customers, supportive regulators, committed shareholders, and partners who believed in our shared purpose.
So, with great pride, I welcome Mr. Emmanuel N. Nnorom as the next Chairman of UBA. I have every confidence in his ability to lead the Bank. His experience, leadership, and deep understanding of our institution will provide the continuity and strategic direction needed to build on the strong foundation we have established. I ask our shareholders, customers, partners, and the entire UBA family to extend to him the same trust and support you have so generously given me over the years.
Business
In The Spotlight
It would appear there is no limit to the odium Nigerians will suffer at the hands of the administration of President Bola Tinubu, because just when the regime seems to have hit rock bottom in governance capacity; it somehow manages to find a way into further depths of ignominy. The latest spectacle, the raging scandal surrounding the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), does not merely hint at systemic corruption and ineptitude; it scream-sings it from the rooftops of Aso Rock Villa. The Tinubu administration has now officially transcended the mundane boundaries of standard political malfeasance and entered the surreal realm of gothic administrative fiction. To watch presidential spokesperson Bayo Onanuga breathlessly frantically script a narrative where a single "con artist" - one Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, unilaterally manifested a federal agency out of thin air is to watch a government aggressively self-indict; suggesting that under President Tinubu’s watch, the highest office in the land has degenerated into a "nest of fraudsters."
Let us engage in the precise dissection of reality that the administration’s spin doctors so desperately wish to avoid. In the 2026 Appropriation Act; a statutory document scrutinized by the Budget Office, vetted by the Federal Executive Council, passed by the National Assembly, and decorated with the actual ink of President Tinubu's signature; there sits a neat, undeniable allocation. The non-existent PFIPC was allocated ₦1.3 billion. Specifically, this "phantom" entity was earmarked: ₦802.98 million for personnel costs, ₦200 million for overhead, and ₦300 million for capital expenditure. By what administrative sorcery does a totally "fictitious" council successfully scale the multi-tiered architecture of state budgeting? How does a ghost collect over a billion naira? This is not a failure of oversight; it is a meticulous, codified arrangement. To claim ignorance of a line item in your own signed budget is to admit that the presidency signs state documents with the blind indifference of a rubber stamp.
At the epicenter of this disgusting swamp stands the President's Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila. He has leaped to disclaim the agency, yet he remains dogged by damning allegations. Prince Adeyemi insists that he was legally appointed, alleging he paid a staggering ₦400 million bribe through proxies to secure the role, with a further ₦200 million balance demanded. The dispute reportedly ruptured only when the "fake DG" refused to hand over a 48% kickback of a proposed ₦27.4 billion take-off grant. The presidency’s immediate defense is to sprint to the judiciary, slapping Adeyemi with an eight-count criminal charge. They highlight the suspicious hotel-room death of a key intermediary, Dolapo Tanimola, as if the mysterious expiration of witnesses magically absolves the state. To focus solely on exonerating Gbajabiamila; a figure whose history with disciplinary suspensions by the State Bar of Georgia has long provided fuel for skeptics, while completely ignoring the systemic structural bypasses that occurred, is a masterclass in political deflection.
The caustic comedy of Bayo Onanuga's position is found in its sheer impossibility. Consider what the presidency asks the Nigerian public to swallow. They claim a rogue citizen managed to: establish a physical, fully functional secretariat inside the Federal Secretariat complex in Abuja; secure an official waiver from the Secretary to the Government of the Federation to recruit 300 civil servants; bypass stringent Know-Your-Customer (KYC) protocols to open a Treasury Single Account (TSA) and multiple foreign currency accounts directly with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN); and hosted formal diplomatic interactions with foreign envoys, seeking visa support under official presidential stationery. If a lone scammer can commandeer the Central Bank, the National Assembly, the civil service bureaucracy, and foreign diplomacy without any top-tier internal collaboration, then the Tinubu administration has achieved a level of institutional vulnerability that borders on comedic farce. If they did not know, they are aggressively incompetent. If they did know, they are profoundly corrupt. There is no comfortable middle ground here.
The presidency would have us believe that it is the victim of a masterful illusionist. If the PFIPC never existed, then Nigeria faces one of the most astonishing failures of institutional oversight in recent memory. If, on the other hand, official processes gave it legitimacy before it was later disowned, then the public deserves a full accounting of how that happened. Either way, the affair has evolved beyond a dispute over documents or personalities. It has become a referendum on the credibility of government itself. The Presidency claims the PFIPC is fictitious; insisting that forged documents were used to create an elaborate deception. Yet that explanation raises more questions than it answers. How could an allegedly nonexistent body reportedly interact with government institutions, engage diplomatic circles, and allegedly appear in official administrative processes without multiple safeguards failing? Those questions go to the very architecture of governance.
The public concerns deserve to be addressed on their merits, not merely rebutted through political messaging. If a private individual managed to deceive numerous public institutions, the failure is systemic. If public officials knowingly facilitated the activities, the failure is even more profound. Neither scenario inspires confidence. This scandal is no longer simply about whether one individual forged documents or misrepresented authority. It is about whether Nigeria's institutions possess the internal controls expected of a modern state. Budget preparation, civil service recruitment, diplomatic engagement, financial administration, and security oversight are designed precisely to prevent unauthorized entities from acquiring official recognition. If those mechanisms failed, Nigerians deserve to know why.
The official posture is that the matter is sub judice, pointing to the July 27 Federal High Court hearing. This is a cowardly shield. A trial cannot answer why the Budget Office and National Assembly printed billions for a phantom. The government's explanation cannot stop at identifying the perpetrator. Accountability requires tracing every administrative decision, every official correspondence, every approval, and every institutional lapse. Public confidence is restored through transparent facts, not through competing press statements. The implications extend far beyond domestic politics. Government institutions depend on credibility. Foreign governments, investors, development partners, and international organizations expect that official communications genuinely represent the Nigerian state. Any uncertainty surrounding that assumption carries reputational consequences that outlast news cycles. Equally important is the principle of equal accountability. Public confidence depends not only on whether investigations occur, but whether they are seen to apply without regard to political proximity or influence. Allegations involving senior public officials inevitably attract greater scrutiny because public office carries greater responsibility. That scrutiny should neither presume guilt nor confer immunity.
An independent inquiry would therefore serve multiple purposes. It would establish the factual record, identify institutional failures where they exist, recommend reforms, and either vindicate or implicate those involved based on evidence rather than political narratives. Such a process is far more likely to restore confidence than exchanges between government spokespersons and political opponents. This is not a moment for reflexive partisanship. It is a moment for institutional seriousness. Democracies are ultimately judged not by whether scandals emerge but by how transparently they are investigated and how consistently accountability is applied.
The PFIPC scandal has conclusively stripped away any remaining pretense of administrative integrity. The controversy presents Nigeria with a choice. It can become another episode consumed by political point-scoring, or it can become an opportunity to strengthen public institutions through independent scrutiny and meaningful reform. The latter course demands transparency, evidence, and due process, not assumptions, selective outrage, or premature conclusions. Until the facts are fully established through a credible investigation, the questions surrounding the PFIPC affair will continue to cast a shadow over the integrity of the Tinubu administration. That uncertainty serves no one; not the government, not the opposition, and certainly not the Nigerian people.
Opinions
In The Spotlight
Nigeria’s First Lady, Remi Tinubu, would be the subject of two fascinating books. The longer one would be autobiographical, because nobody can tell her story, let alone in the detailed form I presume she would like it.
I imagine that the former Senator, one-quarter politician, one-quarter wife, one-quarter Aso Rock Quarterback and one-quarter writer and editor, could produce her manuscript in one night.
And that the book would be published the following day, given that her account would require no additional eyes.
On the presidential campaign trail in February 2023, she famously admitted having begged the wife of now Vice President Kashim Shettima for money.
But then, three months later, just days before her husband took the oath of office, she declared her family to be rich and not requiring the resources of the state.
And she is, according to her own accounts, a generous woman. Various reports in the past three and a half years identify her with grants, scholarships, food relief, agricultural support, disaster relief, and support for elderly citizens and conflict victims.
In June 2026, she appeared to tweak her giving, offering politically targeted personal vehicles to APC women leaders in non-APC states.
Days later, she formally appeared to step into the Renewed Hope fairgrounds, perhaps to set the tone for the forthcoming election campaigns.
But it was her arrival in the pigsty, not the playpen she appeared to imagine: “We’re trying to give hope, and to start Akara business doesn’t take a lot of money,” she said. “To start roasting corn, or somebody even said kuli kuli doesn’t take much. We didn’t give them a loan; we gave it to them as a grant…
“I remember giving for TB. When I heard there were so many TB cases, I gave N2 billion. To breast cancer, I gave a billion. For food malnutrition, I gave half a billion…”
I know power and money can change people, particularly First Ladies, and make them lose perspective.
One recent First Lady, cornered with tens of millions of US dollars, said they were an assemblage of gifts. Another one humiliated her police ADC publicly for failing to deliver billions in cash gifts he had allegedly collected on her account.
Mrs Tinubu can avoid that crossroads: the one where temptation crosses paths with temptation. I could recommend strong, professional advisers, but I am not sure there is an answer to the question as to why anyone would listen to anyone less powerful or rich.
Nonetheless, Mrs Tinubu’s comments have seen Nigerians emptying their frustration upon her on social media.
The fundamental issue is her lack of clarity about who or what she is in Nigeria’s constitutional set-up.
The Office of the First Lady is simply a shorthand expression for whoever currently holds matrimonial, alias “other room”, chores. It is a domestic location publicly identified.
It is certainly not a real office. The First Lady is not, and cannot be, elected by anyone, and she has no executive authority to appropriate, disburse, or administer public funds. She has neither location nor voice in the law.
What this means is that when Mrs Tinubu ventures outside the private quarters of Aso Rock and speaks about funds she has “provided,” she must choose the words that follow very carefully. When she described her family as being “rich,” that was clearly referring to private resources.
Usually, when people like Warren Buffett or Aliko Dangote speak in the same way, the world can track the authority behind their words.
If the funds to which Mrs Tinubu says she is providing are public funds, were they appropriated by the National Assembly?
If so, through which ministry, department, or agency, and when? Because that is what the law says.
If they are not, she is breaking the law. Being related to a public official does not make you one, and public funds are subject to full constitutional scrutiny, transparency, audit, and legislative oversight.
For emphasis: the constitution does not disburse power or funds to an unelected spouse to perform governmental functions without constitutional accountability.
I must also flag Mrs Tinubu’s tell-tale pronouns: she switches between “I” and “We” as if they are options from a government playbook. When is she “we” and when is she “I”? Someone owes Nigerians an important clarification, so we do not mix up church offerings with infrastructure funding, the Auditor-General will be querying three months from now.
And then we come to her diagnosis, which suggests that she has come to teach Nigerians resilience. Nigerians are among the hardest working people anywhere, as anyone who works or competes with them would testify, and as is evident within our borders.
Our privileged elite, particularly those for whom traffic is routinely halted so they can breeze by in their opulent 100-SUV convoys, may be unaware, but Nigerians are not poor because they lack hustle. Nigerians are not hungry because they are lazy.
Nigerians are not unemployed because they have refused to sell things by the roadside. Nigerians are struggling because public policy has failed them.
A government cannot impose harsh economic reforms, preside over rising inflation, insecurity, currency instability, multiple taxation, poor electricity, collapsing purchasing power, and then tell citizens to go and trade by the roadside as if hardship is merely a motivational challenge.
To suggest roadside businesses as a national economic policy is condescension.
It is to walk through the battlefield and bayonet the injured. What Nigerians need, and cry for, are public policies to set them free to live and work in dignity.
And this is what the APC feasted on to win the presidency 12 years ago.
The party called it the APC Manifesto, but it betrayed Nigerians so profoundly that within two years of taking power in 2015, I labeled it a historic swindle.
Bola Tinubu appeared to agree that we were right. In 2023, he launched his Renewed Hope Agenda, which was basically the APC manifesto sprinkled with local perfume.
Both documents sing and dance in the language of lions and tigers, but stink like mice and cockroaches. As the government’s Renewed Hope review starkly demonstrated on its third anniversary just one month ago, Hope is a layer of lies atop a column of deception.
This is why a country of over 200 million people, many of whom are trained in some of the finest institutes worldwide, are being offered patronising roadside businesses on insecure streets.
We want our people to sit down and shut up rather than rise and conquer.
Let us be clear: charity cannot replace governance.
Nigerians are looking for governance, not tokenism. Offering shallow public palliatives while the elite spend billions on jets, yachts, SUVs, mansions and foreign travel and hurling no-bid contracts at friends is the same insult as throwing loaves of bread at hungry voters from moving trucks.
A graduate selling by the roadside because there are no jobs is not an economic success story.
A mother hawking under the sun because food prices have doubled is blackmail, not “empowerment.”
What are the Nigerian people asking for? Leadership. And it is not complicated.