Question 1: Why use Card Readers?
Answer: For the first time in Nigeria’s electoral history, electronic voter authentication system, with the aid of smart card readers, is being deployed for the 2015 general elections. Using Card Readers has enormous advantages, which include:
- Once configured, the Card Reader can only read Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs) issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Any person that shows up at the polling unit without a PVC or with a card not issued by INEC will not be able to vote.
- The Card Reader reads the embedded chip on the PVC, not the barcode, and it shares a secret code with the PVC; thus it is impossible to falsify the cards.
- The Card Reader authenticates the identity of the voter by cross-matching his/her fingerprints with that stored on the embedded chip. No person can vote using another person’s PVC.
- The Card reader keeps a tally of all cards read, comprising the details of all voters verified as well as those not verified, and transmits the collected information to a central INEC server via GSM data service.
- Information transmitted to the server will enable INEC to audit results from polling units, as well as do a range of statistical analysis of the demographics of voting.
- Collation officers will also be able to use information transmitted by the Card Reader to audit polling unit result sheets and determine whether accreditation figures have been altered.
Question 2: Is the usage of Card Readers for 2015 elections legal?
Answer: The use of the Card Reader for the purpose of accreditation of voters is one of the innovations introduced by the Commission to improve the integrity of the electoral process. It does not violate the Electoral Act 2010, as Amended, or the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as Amended. It adds value to the process in line with the yearnings of Nigerians for credible elections, and accords with international best practices. Whereas the Electoral Act prohibits the use of electronic voting, the Card Reader is not a voting machine and is not used for voting. The Card Reader is used only for accreditation of voters, and only accreditation (and not voting) data is transmitted by it.
Question 3: How does the Card Reader work?
Answer: The Card Reader uses a highly secure cryptographic technology that is used commonly in devices that need to perform secure transactions, such as paying terminals. It has ultra-low power consumption, with a single core frequency of 1.2GHz and an Android 4.2.2. Operating System. The INEC staff operating the Card Reader will scan the PVC of each voter to verify its genuiness before allowing the voter to get accredited. It takes an average of 10 to 20 seconds to authenticate a voter.
Question 4: How long is the battery life of the Card Reader?
Answer: The Card reader has a 3200mAh battery, which can lasts for about 12 hours in continual usage when fully charged. The device hibernates when not in use to save and lengthen the battery life.
Question 5: Who operates the Card Reader at the Polling Unit?
Answer: An Assistant Presiding Officer (APO) at the polling unit has the responsibility to operate the Card Reader. Poll officials that will operate the Card Readers have received extensive hands-on training and are well equipped to handle the task. The Commission has also painstakingly outlined the operational procedures in its ‘Approved Guidelines and Regulations for the Conduct of 2015 General Elections’.
Question 6: Have the Card Readers been tested ahead of the 2015 general elections?
Answer: The Card Reader units have been broadly subjected to simulation Quality Assurance, Integrity and Functionality tests and INEC has full confidence in their performance for election purposes. The device has also been subjected to Performance and Conformance Test, both locally and in Texas, United States, laboratories by the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Research Centre and found to be of the highest quality grade. Besides all these, and with additional time resulting from the rescheduling of the 2015 general elections, the Commission has directed that Stress Test be conducted on the Card Reader device in mock election scenarios – two states in each of the six geo-political zones – ahead of the new election dates. (Details of this exercise will be unveiled by the Commission next week.)
Question 7: Can the Card Reader fail to function?
Answer: Going by the results of tests already conducted, it is highly unlikely that the Card Reader will fail on Election Day. Still, INEC has drawn up serial intervention plans in the unlikely event of the Card Readers failing.
(i) Should there be a challenge with battery power for the device, the Commission has procured more than 35,000 back-up batteries that can be rapidly deployed.
(ii) If the device itself fails in the course of accreditation, the Commission has procured more than 26,000 spares that can be rapidly deployed in replacement within the scheduled accreditation hours of 8a.m. – 1p.m. Whatever time is lost on these scheduled hours in the course of replacement will be added and accreditation extended beyond 1p.m. to compensate for the lost time.
(iii) In the extremely unlikely and isolated event that a faulty Card Reader can’t be replaced within the scheduled accreditation hours, INEC has come to a firm agreement with political parties that the exercise be repeated the following day rather than revert to manual accreditation.
These procedures, which registered political parties have agreed to, have been written into the ‘Approved Guidelines and Regulations for the Conduct of 2015 General Elections’.
Question 8: What if the Card Reader verifies a voter’s PVC but his/her fingerprints cannot be authenticated?
Answer: The Commission has come to an agreement with registered political parties on what to do: namely that if a voter’s PVC has been read and it is evident that he/she is the legitimate holder of the card, but the fingerprints cannot be authenticated (or he/she doesn’t have fingers), the Presiding Officer of the voting point will complete an incident form and the voter will be accredited to vote. Party Agents and Observers would be there to witness to this.
Question 9: Is it possible to accredit all voters who turn out within the stipulated hours for accreditation using the Card Reader?
Answer: The accreditation of a voter, using the Card Reader, is estimated to last an average of 10 to 20 seconds per voter. Even if we double this time to 20 to 45 seconds for planning purposes, and working on the basis of a maximum of 750 voters per voting point, and using a generous projection of 70% voter turnout (the average being 54% from past elections), which equates to 525 voters, the card reader will need 6.5hours to process all the voters. This is well within the operating time for the elections as well as the battery life of the Card reader.
Question 10: How is the Card Reader programmed?
Answer: To prevent fraudulent use, the Card Rader is configured to work only on Election Days. In addition, the device is configured to specific polling units and cannot be used elsewhere without requiring reconfiguration by authorised INEC personnel.
Question 11: How has the INEC’s Card Reader addressed the problems experienced in other countries in the sub-region?
Answer: The challenge with a few of the Card Reader devices in Ghana, for instance, during the country’s 2012 general elections was the battery power, apparently because the affected devices were not fully charged. It was in learning from this experience that INEC designed the Card Readers to be used in the 2015 elections with 12-hour battery life in active usage, and also procured more than 35,000 units of back-up batteries. The imperative of adequate charging of the Card Readers is underscored during the trainings of election personnel.
The supposed technology failures during Kenya’s general elections in 2013 had nothing to do with card readers, as the country used computer poll books for accreditation. The challenge was rather with the electronic system used in transmitting results, and not card readers.
 |
|
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.