President Goodluck Jonathan on Wednesday evening told Nigerians that he was not consulted before the country's electoral umpire, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) postponed the general elections earlier scheduled for February this year. This is against insinuations that the election postponement had some political undertone.
Jonathan, who answered questions from journalists at a special edition of his Media Chat, also expressed confidence in INEC as is currently composed and further expressed optimism that the INEC would conduct free and fair elections in the country.
Jonathan further promised that he remains resolute that a new government would be formed in May this year whether he lost or won the presidential election. He warned Nigerians against believing all stories they hear and read about his alleged plot to truncate the country's democracy.
"Let me reassure Nigerians that elections would be conducted and an inauguration would be made this year. Let them not be perturbed by statements like the President wants to send INEC chairman on a three months leave...it is better for INEC to conduct elections that we all believe to be free and fair," the President said.
He said he understood that Nigerians are concerned about the shift in the election date, but that during the Council of State meeting, "we met and discussed. They emphasised issues of security, which details they did not tell everybody. When INEC came up with the date for the election, there was no much issues until we began our campaign," he said complaining also that most people in the country do not have their Permanent Voters Cards. "In Lagos for example, only about 38 percent have their PVCs. There are some states where you have up to 68 percent and some states 38 percent and there are security implications to it," he said, adding that he wants a situation where eligible voters would be able to vote.
He said though he was not assuring that Boko Haram, being a major reason for the shift, would be totally wiped out in the six weeks demanded by the service chiefs, the government would make substantial progress in the confrontation and ensure that elections hold in the states currently being ravaged by Boko Haram.
"Adamawa, before this time, there were seven Local Governments taken over by Boko Haram. But as we talk now, it is Madagali that it left," he said promising that enough progress would be made and the internally displaced people could then go back to their villages where they can vote and that the government would build tents for those whose houses were destroyed.
Asked about what he would do differently if re-elected, President Jonathan gave the impression of not being satisfied with those currently working around him. He said would take seriously the impression people have of those working around him.
"We will need to adjust the way we do certain things because I have realised that in the society, what people assess you of is not the things you do, but how those things are done. The common things that people say is: 'oh! The President means well for this country'. Yes I mean well for this country because I am passionate about Nigeria. But they say: 'oh! People around the President are not good'.
"Then of course you must be very watchful of the actions and inaction of people around you so that they don't continue to drive the name of the government...it is not like many of them have done anything wrong, but the perception is worse...sometime you who are sitting there know the exact thing but if the perception is poor, then...
"Of course, we will manage the perception better. Most of the problems we are having is the perception. If you talk about concrete things that this government has done, I can challenge any group; if you look at the PTDF, the number of youths we are taking for technical training at the graduate level, masters and PhD, the number we have trained within this five years is more than the number we have trained from inception of that institution," he said.
Concerning the abducted Chibok girls, Jonathan promised that some of them would be recovered during this military onslaught. He however said Nigerians would begin to see the result of the confrontation from three weeks even though he does not want to make a specific promise.
He noted that it was not possible that all the abducted girls could be recovered and added that people had played much politics with the issue of the girls.
The President who confessed that he was always weighed down by the lack of support from Nigerians, noted that in other countries where terrorism reigns, people collapse political boundaries to find solutions to the challenge, but that in Nigeria, people take advantage of their contacts abroad to disgrace the country.
"Now that we are working with Chad and Cameroon, the story of the Chibok girls would get better. At least we can be able to rescue some of them. We have mapped out our configuration, just give us sometime.
"People try to misinform the world, play politics with the issue of Chibok girls. In most countries where you experience issues of terror, political boundaries collapse and people work together, but in this case, we have terror and you think the best way is to go to US and the others to celebrate.
"It is a collective responsibility. Is it by going to carry flags that you can bring back the girls? Those who have links outside used them negatively instead of positively.
"We will recover them alive. These girls have been in the hands of criminals. About 200 girls were kidnapped and you do not expect that the President would say he would bring back all the girls," he said while lamenting that some people even claim he is the one who has allowed the Boko Haram insurgency to fester.
Asked what would happen if the war against Boko Haram is not won in six weeks, the President answered: "in 2011, when we conducted elections, there was Boko Haram. Nobody is saying they must wipe out Boko Haram completely before conducting the elections. Definietly in the next six weeks or so, serious advancements would be made, we are not saying we would wipe out Boko Haram. Elections would be done."
He further lamented the rate at which politicians cross-carpet, saying it was not the best for Nigeria's politics. "In politics, there is no permanent friend or enemy but permanent interest. If you look at even the carpet crossing that is so much abused...some governors moved from the PDP to other parties and some moved to the PDP. It is not good.
"I know two presidents who have asked me what is wrong. It is because the courts have not taken a decision," he said.
Asked if this would not affect his support base, he said elections are about convincing people especially as history had shown that it is more difficult to win elections for a second term in office than in one's first term.
He also accused some unnamed politicians of instigating youths to pelt him with stones, saying it was a treasonable offence that could earn the perpetrators death, but that many of those who took part in the act were ignorant.
"You could be killed. The President is the only person that is guarded by soldiers. The Vice President is guarded by the police," he said maintaining that such actions and the provocative statements people have been making were not helping the electioneering.
He confessed that he got aggressive at the flag-off of his presidential campaign in Lagos because he was provoked by statements that the opposition had been making before that day.
Reminded that some people close to him have said there would be war if he lost, President Jonathan insisted that he was concerned about the people around the candidates. He recalled that it was the same Muhammadu Buhari, his main rival, that also contested against him in 2011 and the electioneering was not as bad as it is now.
He also insisted that the country was bigger and more important than any of their ambitions and that while other candidates could do what they liked, he cannot because he takes all the blames for whatever goes wrong including poor conduct of the elections where that happens.
"Within this campaign period, there are some instigations which are necessitated by some politicians. We are noticing some traces and no chief security would take it lightly," he noted.
Asked about the adverts of character assassination against some candidates contesting against him as well as those like chief Edwin Clark making provocative statements, President Jonathan said in most cases, he does not know those sponsoring such adverts adding that in politics, one must have friends and enemies but that for the friends, it is difficult to know what they do or say.
"One thing about politics is that you have a number of people who support you, but you do not know what they do or say. More than 80 percent of those who carry adverts about Jonathan, you may not even know," he said.
He however noted that hate speeches come from the two major candidates, "but we will do it in such a way that people do not go war. We must protect this country and those who are supporting us."
Asked why he visited churches and would not visit mosques, he said most of the pastors and churches invite him when they have events but that that it was not the same with the Muslims who prefer to invite the Vice President instead while he (President) only attends youth events but has not visited mosques because it is a purely religious issue.
Jonathan used the opportunity to clarify his much talked about controversial distinction between stealing and corruption. Jonathan who had said stealing was not corruption, said he was actually quoting a former Cheif Jistice of Nigeria, Dahiru Mustafa who had said when he checked the files, 80 percent of what people call corruption are stealing.
Explaining in details, he said many Nigerians do not know the difference and that as a result, they cover issues of stealing with the word 'corruption'. He said that in most villages and towns in the country, people saw stealing as more grievous than corruption.
"The good thing is that those who are making the statement did not say the President said stealing is good. I used that statement because I quoted Mustafa, a former ICPC chairman. Justice Mustafa said he took most of the files and more than 80 percent are just stealing. Our people hate thieves more than they hate people who are corrupt.
"If you say some people are corrupt, some people do not even know what you are talking about. A thief should be called a thief, ole should be called ole. If somebody is a thief, call him a thief. If somebody is ole, call him ole. Don't cover it with corruption. Let us communicate properly," he said adding that the ICPC is the legally authorised agency among the anti-corruption agencies that is saddled with the fight against corruption.
He also said in terms of prosecuting people, his government had achieved more conviction, "but even if you convict one million people, it won't stop it." He said the government was now making use of information technology to combat corruption just like the government had successfully done in the agricultural sector.
He disclosed that his government had not started drawing the $1b loan approved for security and the issue of the $9.3 billion seized by the South African government was in court. He said money had been paid to the company for the supply of arms and ammunition but that the company did not handle the cash well. He however said the arms for which the money was paid had been delivered.
The President further explained that the US refused to sell arms and hardware to Nigeria because of human rights concerns but that Nigeria was dealing with other countries even though some of the hardware were not as powerful as the ones needed for the battle.
He insisted that his government would not stay more than May 29 if he lost the forthcoming election. He however said the campaigns would continue since the elections had been postponed.
Concerning the failed ceasefire with the Boko Haram, the President said it was not that the government was swindled, but that though people actually met with the government, the Boko Haram seemed divided and factionalised, that was the reason the negotiation did not work.
Asked to assess Buhari, he said it was not a fair demand since they were both contesting for the same position.
"If I should assess Buhari, it is not fair of me. I think the garbage on me is much more than the one on Buhari. I don't even have the time to do social media. Some of the things I have observed I feel sad...I remember that the APC started their campaigns before me. If you listen to the way I spoke in Lagos, I was a bit aggressive because of the statements that have been made," he said.
 |
|
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.