Set Militia Leaders Against Opposition . I applied for the job in 2010 but received approval on March 4 - Dr Fasehun . ‘Previous contracts didn’t halt oil theft’
“Most of the security agencies that are saddled with the responsibility to protect the pipelines have failed,” Otunba Gani Adams, the national coordinator of the Odua People’s Congress (OPC), said last week Monday, in reaction to questions being raised about the propriety of Federal Government’s award of multi-million naira contracts for pipelines and waterways protection to militant groups in the South-West. Adams, whose militant group, a faction of the OPC had, two days earlier, won the security contract was even more forceful in defence of what many Nigerians labelled as a largesse for vote. “People are dying every day. Nigeria is losing more than N3 billion everyday [to] illegal vandals,” he said, trying frantically to pin justifications to the job. “The agitation for that contract was started by Dr Frderick Fasehun, four and a half years ago and you know the bureaucracy of the Nigerian ministry,” he said to the approval of his face-cap-wearing supporters, accompanying him on a protest to press for the removal of the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Attahiru Jega. Coming at a time when tongues were wagging in consternation over the project, Adams’ explanation, instead of clearing the air, further choked it and elicited more questions. Why did the government suddenly realize the need to approve a contract proposal that had been left to gather dust, just two weeks to an election? The move was largely seen as the president’s trump card to sway predicted victory in the region from his opponent, Muhammadu Buhari, to his own side. President Goodluck Jonathan, afraid of losing the presidential contest to his main challenger in the battleground South-West, had temporarily relocated from the seat of power in Abuja to Lagos, a state with over six million registered voters, the largest in the country. While there, it was rumoured that the president had presented cash gifts to various groups, including traditional rulers, across the entire region. The security contract was interpreted as part of the last ditch struggle to save Jonathan from defeat. The OPC, last week, under Adams, Monday staged a protest in Lagos, demanding the sack of Jega as INEC chairman, accusing him of bias. That the group had never criticized the electoral umpire’s handling of the polls prior to the approval of the contract, sparked allegations linking the Federal Government to the protest, with the main opposition All Progressives Congress (OPC) threatening to report President Jonathan to the International Criminal Court (ICC). OPC’s founder, Fasehun, does not see any wrong getting the contract as a payback for supporting Jonathan’s political ambition “Does anybody grant favour to his or her enemy? We don’t even need to answer that. It is the law of nature,” he quipped, unapologetically.
The controversial contract Pipelines and waterways monitoring jobs are not new to militants in the Niger Delta, where companies owned by former warlords like Government Ekpemupolo (aka Tompolo) and Mujaheed Asari Dokubo were awarded millions of dollar contracts to ensure the safety of the oil infrastructure and waterways. In 2012, for instance, a company Global West Vessel Specialist Limited, belonging to Tompolo, was given a security contract to the tune of $103 million. The American Wall Street Journal once reported that Tompolo is actually being paid $22.0 million for a contract to guard pipelines of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). Niger Delta People’s Volunteer Force leader, Asari-Dokubo was also mentioned as getting $9 million for a similar contract, while two others, Boyloaf and Ateko Tom are receiving $3.8 million each, also for similar contracts. What is new, however, is the expansion of the beneficiaries of such lucrative contracts to many other ex-militant leaders in states South-South and, for the first time, OPC leaders in the South-West, about two weeks to the general elections. Media report listed companies like Egbe Security River One in Bayelsa, Gallery Security, Mosinmi-Ore; Close Body Protection, Edo State; Adex Energy Security, Rivers and Age Global Security, Mosinmi, Ibadan as the beneficiaries of the contracts which would come into effect from March 16, 2015. Government has always defended its policy of awarding contracts to militants with the prevalence of rampant oil theft, especially in the Niger Delta. In 2013, Minister of Finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, put the amount Nigeria was losing to oil thieves at N155 billion monthly. Earlier this month, the Chief of Naval Staff, Rera Admiral Usman Jibril, said the country was still losing N1.18 billon daily to oil theft.
Tension among ex-militant groups Last week, ex- militants under the aegis of Ex-Freedom Fighters in the Niger Delta, staged a protest in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State capital, over the alleged plan by the state governor, Seriake Dickson, to hijack the multi-million dollar Oil Pipeline Surveillance Contract given to the oil producing communities in the state by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC. No fewer than nine persons were seriously injured in the protest which degenerated into a fierce confrontation between the ex-militants and the police. One of the leaders of the protest, Eris Paul, popularly known as General Ogunboss, said the protest was against an alleged plot by Governor Dickson to hijack multi million dollar NNPC pipeline surveillance contracts to communities in the state. “Most of the south southern states have signed the allocation of the surveillance contract, but Dickson is insisting that the job be awarded to a self-styled company known as Izon Ibe, a security outfit that we don’t know. Dickson should concentrate on the use of state allocation and internally generated revenue to advance the good of the state rather than hijack jobs coming to communities,” alleged. However, in its reaction, the Bayelsa State government said the rationale behind the establishment of the state-owned Izon-Ibe Security Company was part of efforts to address the challenges of youth unemployment. The position, which was made known in a government statement, said the security outfit was basically set up to provide special training for youths and engage them for the purposes of security services. According to the statement, “the Izon-Ibe Security firm is a limited liability company that is a community-based security and empowerment scheme for Bayelsa youths across the communities with the active involvement of the chiefs and leaders to train youths in the surveillance of pipeline and guard duties.” It stated that the government’s attention has been drawn to some ex-militant leaders, whose activities constitute a breach of the existing peace, noting that, hitherto, they were beneficiaries of pipeline contracts which they failed to execute. The statement expressed displeasure that such ex-militants were being used by those it described as misguided politicians to embark on “senseless public demonstrations” within and outside the state capital. “The position of the government is that pipeline surveillance contracts are not for ex-militant leaders alone, most of whom hail from a particular local government area. The state-owned security company is for all persons in the state and will ensure that they are made to carry out their duties effectively. There are youths from other local government areas that must benefit from these contracts and not just Bajeros, whose promoters are only from Southern Ijaw Local Government area”, the statement noted. But reinforcing the position of the ex-militants, another group implored the governor to stop creating problems in Ijaw land. In a statement signed by the head of the group, General Aso Tambo, the ex-militants urged the governor to concentrate on the task of providing leadership to the people of Bayelsa, instead of cornering contracts they had genuinely fought for. The group also accused the governor of conniving with the outgoing president of the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC), Udengs Eradiri, who is a director in the state-owned security company to corner 50 percent of the jobs for their private interest. But countering their position, another militant under the aegis of the Mangrove Boys of Bayelsa (MBB), issued a warning to ex-militant leaders, particularly Victor Ebikabowei (alias Boyloaf), Eris Paul (Ogunboss) and Pastor Reuben against causing trouble in the state. The group said it would no longer fold its hands and watch a few individuals from the Southern Ijaw Local Government area continue to hijack and selfishly enrich themselves with what they called the commonwealth of the people “The pipeline surveillance job is not their birthright. All the militant leaders disturbing the peace of Bayelsa and trying to hijack the contract through their company, BAJERO, are just from one local government area, which is Southern Ijaw. “They do not represent the interests of all of us in the entire state. As formidable freedom fighters, we will not allow these leaders to cheat us again because the contract is meant for our rural communities,” they contended. The statement, signed by the secretary of the group, Mr. Victor Adere, said the group would resist further violent demonstrations in the state by ex-militants and their leaders. Adere added that the group is fully in support of the governor, Mr. Dickson in his efforts to ensure that the state-owned Izon Ibe Security Company executes the contract for the benefit of everybody in the state. Meanwhile, the president, Ijaw Youth Council Worldwide, Mr. Eradiri, has raised the alarm that some ex-militant leaders were plotting to kill him. He claimed that the ex-militants wanted him dead because of his position on the NNPC surveillance contract.
Anti-Jega rally causes disaffection in OPC Following last week’s rally by the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) in Lagos where the Gani Adams-led faction of the body called for the resignation of INEC Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega, some members of his group have called on the National Coordinator to resign his position for joining partisan politics. The aggrieved members of the body yesterday (Saturday) described the OPC rally against Prof. Jega as a shame, not only to the Yoruba people, but the oppressed in the country that look forward to liberation through a free and fair elections. Speaking on the controversial rally, the National Welfare Officer of the body, Monsuru Akannde, said that the OPC factional leader had derailed from the aims and objectives of the organisation by becoming partisan and using the organisation as a political tool for President Goodluck Jonathan’s re-election. He alleged that the anti-Jega rally staged by OPC last week Monday in Lagos was organised by Gani Adams in his individual capacity and not supported by OPC as a body, to justify the recent contract worth several millions of naira awarded to him by the President Jonathan’s government. Akande said the majority of OPC members of Gani Adams-led faction were not in support of the use of OPC for personal motives and condemned his romance with politicians. He therefore asked Adams to disassociate himself from partisan politics or resign as OPC National Coordinator. “We are not in support of Gani Adams using OPC as political tools to campaign for any political party or politician. We advice him to put a stop to this or leave OPC and go into partisan politics. We abhor his romance with any political party, he should not kill the dreams of millions of OPC members. He should save us from being labelled Jonathan’s bulldog,” he said. Akande argued that his group’s stand against Gani Adams rally against Jega was not to create another faction of OPC saying, “All what we are saying is that he should separate OPC from politics. For organising a political rally in support of a political party or a candidate in a political election has shown the entire world that he is interested in politics. He shouldn’t continue to fool Yoruba that he is keeping their culture alive through OPC activities only for him to purse political agenda. It’s obvious he cannot protect the interest of OPC again,” Akande said. However, in a swift reaction to Akande’s group demand, APC National Publicity Secretary, Hakeem Ologunro described the new group as ‘the hawks’ that are beginning to display their desperation as the general elections draws nearer. He recalled that Akande has been suspended as the Welfare Chairman of the OPC since 2007 for shaddy deals. “As far as we’re are concern, the likes of Akande are not a reliable individual. He was expelled from the Congress for anti - party activities since 2007.
Oil theft persists What is, however, worrisome to stakeholders is that even with the security contract in the hands of the ex-militant leaders, vandals are still breaking the pipelines and stealing crude oil in the communities, most especially in Southern Ijaw local government area. This development apparently led to the establishment of the Southern Ijaw Oil and Gas Task Force by the local government chairman, Chief Remember Ogbe. The task force is made up of community members and security agents, who patrol the area to check activities of pipeline vandals and oil thieves. Even so, security sources in the state say the worst cases of illegal crude oil refining and oil theft are recorded in Gbaramatoru in Southern Ijaw. Again, with the frequent arrests of suspected oil thieves and pipeline vandals by the Joint Task Force Operation Pulo Shield, the Central Naval Command and the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in the state, observers say the ex-militants are only pocketing millions of dollars on pipeline security without achieving any result.
How to protect pipelines better The issue of contracting ex-militants to protect oil pipelines cannot be entirely dismissed as an unholy practice because of their knowledge of the terrain and the difficulty in deploying government forces to effectively perform the task, a security expert, Col Aminu Isa Kontagora, has argued. The retired military officer explained that neither the police nor the Navy can singlehandedly guarantee security to the networks of hundreds of kilometers of pipelines that run the entire length and breadth of the Niger Delta creeks. “Imagine even Delta State alone. How many pipes criss-cross the state? The same as places like Rivers, Akwa -Ibom and Bayelsa states. There are so many of them. I don’t think the police can protect every inch of those pipes and that was why it has been extremely difficult. Even the Navy cannot. How many creeks are in the Niger Delta region? Many of the oil theft are done with wooden canoe barges. There are limitations to some of the Naval ships getting into the creeks,” he said. According to him, the need to protect the assets, more than ever before, was underscored by people’s exposure to easy money that oil stealing can provide. “The issue of oil theft will keep coming up because once they have seen that it is lucrative and with little efforts to protect the pipelines, those engaging in pipe breaking will always want to continue with it,” he said. If Tompolo, for instance, would be patriotic and honest in guaranteeing sustained oil flow in the creeks, it would be to Nigeria’s advantage to hire him, he said, pointing, however, that internal competition among the ex-militants may cripple such an arrangement in the long run. “He (Tompolo) must have participated in the vandalization at one time or the other. He cannot deny that. He knows the tactics, he knows his boys in the illegal business and if he can pay them well, maybe the pipelines will be safe. But I know that with the criminality in the oil industry, at one stage his boys will betray him and continue with the stealing of the crude,” he added. “In the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia where pipes are in the deserts, there are observation posts manned with cameras and satellite facilities to monitor the pipelines. Here, ours are in the creeks, in the mangroves and you know they grow very fast, so we have to clear the ways and this is another task. That is why our pipelines are more vulnerable to vandals’ activities and theft than most of the countries. But I know that there is nowhere in the world where this problem does not exist,” he said. The retired colonel advocated three strategies that could permanently address the challenges of oil pipeline management in the Niger Delta. “Who owns the pipes? Can we sell the pipelines to Tompolo, instead of telling him to man them, so that he gets royalty from anybody that pumps in oil? This will reduce the theft because he will now take it as his own personal business. But if they are seen as government property, because of our mentality, the theft will continue. Secondly, government can employ the locals along the routes to protect the pipelines. Thirdly, the business of the theft of crude can be made unattractive. That means we must destroy the barges that are used for stealing crude and impound the vessels that are found with stolen crude. We must as well destroy illegal refineries so that we can reduce the incentives to steal the crude. Crude oil is wanted all over the world, as such the criminality in the oil industry is so high that we can only reduce it; we can hardly eliminate it,” Kontagora said. A maritime consultant, Rear Admiral Godwill Ortom (rtd), also toed the line of applying force to discourage oil thieves. “To reduce pipeline vandalism, you have to blow up any ship involved in this sabotage and no other ship will come near Nigeria to buy stolen and cheap oil. Whenever oil is stolen, a mother ship is positioned on the high-sea to ferry the oil, so if you blow it up no ship would come to still your oil again,” he pointed.
‘It’s wrong to reward rebellion’ However, the Chairman of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), Alhaji Ibrahim Coomassie, has a different opinion with regards to the propriety of awarding security contracts to ex-militants, saying the practice was wrong. Coomassie, a former police Inspector General, said it was inappropriate for government to award security contracts to people who rebelled against the country or people suspected of illegal behavior. “It is very wrong. How can you give a rebel - someone who took up arms against his country - “security contract?” He said there were qualified government agencies to handle maritime security matters, not individuals with questionable integrity. The former police boss advised the government to review the contracts in the interest of the nation, adding that such matters must be approved by the National Assembly. Also reacting, a civil society activist and executive director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CSLAC), Auwal Ibrahim Rafsanjani, faulted the contract on the grounds of its capacity to destroy public institutions. The legislative and anti-corruption campaigner further observed that the awards had not met basic due process requirements. “Unfortunately, it is Nigeria and Nigerians that are losing, because if he (Jonathan) bastardizes this institution by dashing out public money to militant leaders, it means he is encouraging them to do whatever they like and this is inviting violence to the country,” he said. Rafsanjani held that struggle for power and political gains must not promote illegality. “If Boko Haram is ready to support the president, does it mean it can also be given the money and the space to do what it is doing? If you look at what the sect is doing and what the militias are doing, there is little difference in them because it is about killing, disrupting public peace and terrorizing the people,” he asserted. He said the Nigerian security agencies had been undermined by Jonathan’s administration to the point that they were not being allowed to carry out their constitutional duties. “How can a government hire or award contracts to militias to protect its waterways and pipelines when the security agents are there? Despite this, the oil theft has not stopped, in fact, it is on the increase. The contract will only perpetuate the leakages, vandalization and theft in the oil industry,” he noted. He added that Nigeria records the highest rate of oil theft in the world despite the contracts awarded to the militia warlords to provide security for the oil installations. “These people do not have any track records to show that they are capable of providing the required security for our waterways and oil pipes. We have the naval personnel that are well trained, but were sidelined and replaced with militants in the name of politics. This is very unfortunate for the country because we will be encouraging militias to thrive in Nigeria. This is not a good approach to involve them in politics; it’s a way of encouraging them to carry arms against our country,” Rafsanjani cautioned.
‘Contracts will provide jobs’ However, both Fasehun and Adams, have defended the job, arguing that it would create a platform that can provide thousands of job opportunities to youths in the South-West. “This is a contract coming from a government agency, the NNPC, coming to a Nigerian company that will be making use of Nigerian people to do the job. And the company which has the award will also be making use of about 30,000 to 40,000 Nigerians, who will be executing the contract. If you consider the dent on the unemployment statistics in Nigeria, you will agree with me that the approval is worthwhile. Again if you consider the ripple effect, the number of ancillary people attached to these beneficiaries, many of whom have fathers, mothers, uncles, brothers, sisters and wives, you will agree it is worthwhile,” said Fasehun. When asked if the award was politically motivated, Fasehun retorted: “All that should concern Nigerians is that the contract was awarded, that unemployment will be reduced by over 40,000 people. It is not Dr Fasehun that will execute the contract. It is the youths of this country, many of whom are unemployed. So, if anyone is going to make a comment, it should be a positive comment…. And even if Jonathan was the one who thought of awarding the contract, God bless him. What was the cry of the Nigerian youth against him? Was it not that unemployment was going higher and higher?” Similarly, Adams said the contract would give him the opportunity to empower 15,000 youths. “We are not part of the amnesty the Niger Delta (militants) have been enjoying which runs into billions of naira. No dime was given to the OPC and we have paid our price and suffered casualties, more than the Niger Delta (militants) did. Why should it benefit only the Niger Delta and not the South-West too…. It will end hooliganism and empower youths,” he added.(Culled From Daily Trust)
 |
|
More than 76 ISWAP terrorists have abandoned their enclaves and surrendered to troops within the North-East theatre of operations as part of the Joint Task Force (North East), Operation HADIN KAI (OPHK), and continued operational successes.
The North East geopolitical zone comprises six states: Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba, and Yobe.
In a statement by the Acting Military Information Officer, Headquarters Joint Task Force North East Operation Hadin Kai, Captain Mohammed Goni, revealed that among those who surrendered were key members of the terrorist network, due to relentless military pressure.
“The development highlights the devastating impact of the sustained offensive by Operation HADIN KAI, which continues to dismantle terrorist strongholds, disrupt command and logistics structures, and deny the insurgents freedom of action across the theatre”.
“Persistent military operations have continued to degrade the terrorists’ combat capabilities while eroding confidence within their ranks and leadership. Within the last week alone, a total of 76 terrorist foot soldiers with some families surrendered to troops”
“They are currently in a secure location undergoing profiling, debriefing, and other established procedures in accordance with extant operational protocols,” the statement reads in part.
According to Captain Goni, the operational gains demonstrate the effectiveness of the Nigerian military’s comprehensive counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency strategy, combining precision combat operations, intelligence-led engagements, and coordinated joint efforts with partners.
He added that “the Operation HADIN KAI remains resolute in its mission to completely defeat terrorism and restore lasting peace and security across the North-East and the pressure on the remaining terrorist elements will continue unabated until they are completely neutralised or forced to surrender”.
For decades, the financial elite of Zurich and London viewed international drug trafficking as a coarse, localized problem. It was a menace measured in street corners, plastic baggies, and gang rivalries. However, a major global sting operation has smashed this illusion. The arrest of Nigerian billionaire Amadi Simon in Switzerland, alongside his female co-conspirators in West Africa, reveals a much deeper issue. It exposes a sophisticated, multi-billion-dollar network where modern fintech, West African drug wealth, and Russian sanctions evasion meet. This case is not just about a single drug bust. It serves as a modern lesson in how easily global finance can be weaponized. When illicit drug cash from European streets can flow smoothly into the Russian financial system through Swiss fintech firms, Western regulators must face a harsh truth: their digital anti-money laundering systems are failing.
The Mirror of the Network
At the center of this web sits Amadi Simon, a high-profile tycoon who lived luxury lives in both Nigeria and Western Europe. While he presented himself as a legitimate businessman, international investigators saw a different reality. They uncovered a massive, globe-spanning drug baron. The network operated with corporate precision: The African Anchor: In Nigeria, female kingpins Jecinta Amara Ikechi and Blessing Ngozi Amadi managed the local footprint. They ran operations in Anambra and Delta states to handle logistics and secure assets. The Swiss Conduit: In Zurich, Sergey Salpanov, a Russian-trained lawyer turned tech founder led Swiss Remit. This fintech firm provided the crucial financial pipeline for the group. Together, these players linked West African networks with European drug markets and eastern financial systems.
Weaponizing the Fintech Frontier
The cartel successfully bypassed traditional global banks by exploiting the gaps in modern financial technology. Traditional banks use slow compliance systems that flag suspicious transactions days after they occur. Fintech apps like Swiss Remit, however, pride themselves on instant, cross-border transfers.
The network exploited this speed to stay ahead of the law. They poured cash into virtual banking platforms through complicit money transfer businesses. Once the dirty paper money became "digital ledger cash," the fintech infrastructure quickly routed it into Russian financial systems or crypto assets.
To hide their digital tracks, the cartel used a strategy known as "nested banking." They passed funds through a confusing maze of foreign exchange businesses, shell companies, and virtual wallets. This completely hid the original owners of the cash. They also broke up large deposits into small amounts using "money mule" accounts opened with fake or stolen IDs. By the time computer algorithms flagged the transactions, the money had already cleared and disappeared into another country.
From Laundromats to Luxury Hotels
When the money returned to Nigeria, it was poured directly into the local economy to look like legitimate profit. The cartel relied heavily on high-end luxury hospitality assets to blend their drug wealth with clean, mainstream commercial cash flows. Following Simon's arrest, Nigeria's National Drug Law Enforcement Agency working closely with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), moved swiftly to seize his multi-billion naira real estate portfolio: Jovi Hotel Asaba: a prime hospitality property used as a major commercial footprint in the Delta State capital. Jovi Hotel and Suites Agbor: a prominent multi-story hotel venture built to absorb massive amounts of cash. Jovi Apartment Abuja: a luxury residential complex in the upscale Mabushi district used as an administrative front. Alongside these physical properties, authorities froze numerous traditional bank accounts and cryptocurrency wallets. These accounts held hundreds of billions of naira in digital ledger cash before they could be moved out of the country.
The Geopolitical Trap
The most alarming aspect of this case for Western security agencies is how organized crime intersects with geopolitics. By routing hundreds of millions in drug wealth directly into Russian financial systems, these networks do more than just clean dirty money. They create alternative pipelines of hard currency into Russia, bypassing traditional banking guardrails and international sanctions. For the Kremlin, cash-heavy networks like Simon’s are highly useful. They offer a steady supply of Western currency that is completely hidden from the eyes of global regulators. This exposes the fatal flaw in the West's current economic defense system. While governments impose strict sanctions on paper, the digital backdoors remain open. A fintech startup in Zurich can accidentally undermine the foreign policy of major world powers, simply by failing to verify the identities of its users.
The Way Forward
Dismantling this network required an extraordinary international coalition, including the NDLEA, the U.S. DEA, and Swiss and Greek federal authorities. This level of cooperation shows that law enforcement can successfully work together across borders. However, chasing criminals after the money has already moved is no longer enough. If governments want to protect the global financial system, they must change how they regulate the fintech sector. Fintech platforms can no longer be allowed to prioritize speed and user growth over basic security. Regulators must enforce strict, real-time identity checks and treat virtual banking platforms with the same scrutiny as traditional banks. Until the digital loopholes are closed, global syndicates will continue to exploit the international financial system—laundering drug money, evading sanctions, and hiding their wealth in plain sight.
In The Spotlight
President Bola Tinubu's Democracy Day address was an exercise in a peculiar form of political optimism: the sort that flourishes most luxuriantly when reality is at its bleakest. One almost admired its audacity.
The address read more like a dispatch from a parallel republic, blissfully detached from the grim realities of the nation he governs. To praise twenty-seven years of unbroken civilian rule is a fine thing for history books, but it offers cold comfort to citizens who cannot afford bread. Nigeria is currently caught in a vice of worsening socio-economic misery and pervasive insecurity, making the president's lofty rhetoric feel not just out of touch, but deeply offensive.
As schoolchildren languish in captivity, as retired generals die in the custody of bandits, as churches and mosques organize national prayers against insecurity, and as vast swathes of rural Nigeria remain subject to the whims of terrorists, kidnappers and armed gangs, the President invited Nigerians to celebrate "the enduring Nigerian spirit" and contemplate a nation moving "from uncertainty to stability". The most striking failure of empathy in the address is the lecture directed at Nigeria’s youth. Tinubu urges them to "build here, code here, work here, and vote here," scolding those who leave as "abandoning ship." This is a rich demand from a political elite whose own children are routinely educated and housed abroad. Young Nigerians are not leaving out of a lack of patriotism. They are fleeing a system that actively stifles their talent, devalues their labor, and threatens their physical safety. To expect the youth to stay and fix a broken ship while the captains lounge in luxury is not leadership; it is rank hypocrisy that stinks to the high Heavens.
Democracy Day is, of course, a suitable occasion for reflection. The heroes of June 12 deserve remembrance. The struggle against military dictatorship remains one of the noblest chapters in Nigeria's modern history. Yet the purpose of democracy is not merely to remember freedom; it is to exercise it. Citizens cannot meaningfully enjoy liberty when they are afraid to travel roads, cultivate farms, attend schools, or sleep in their homes. The President himself inadvertently acknowledged this contradiction when he declared that "democracy without security is a mirage." Quite so. Democratic institutions are empty shells if they cannot provide basic human security. While Tinubu extols the virtues of resolving disagreements in courtrooms rather than through violence, millions of Nigerians face a different kind of daily violence. Wild inflation and a collapsing currency have made feeding a family an act of daily heroism. Bandits, kidnappers, and insurgent groups operate with terrifying freedom across vast swathes of the country. The state's primary duty is to protect its people and their livelihoods. In this duty, the current administration is failing. Celebrating the "ballot" when the state cannot secure the "bourse" or the "boma" is a luxury only the ruling class can afford.
The difficulty is that this statement functions less as a defense of his administration than as its most devastating indictment. For if democracy without security is indeed a mirage, then millions of Nigerians are currently inhabiting precisely such a mirage. The President's solution was familiar: statistics. Thirteen thousand terrorists neutralized. Terror-related deaths down. Thousands recruited into the police and military. Trillions allocated to defense. Governments facing difficult questions often retreat into arithmetic. Numbers possess an attractive quality. They cannot be interrupted. They do not ask follow-up questions. They create the impression of progress without the inconvenience of proving it. Yet Nigerians are not experiencing security through spreadsheets. They experience it through the inability to move freely across their own country. They experience it through ransom payments. They experience it through abandoned villages. They experience it through children kidnapped from schools. They experience it through the extraordinary fact that a retired Major General; a man who once stood near the apex of Nigeria's security establishment could be abducted and die in captivity. If the state could not protect one of its former defenders, what reassurance does it offer everyone else?
There was something especially curious about the President's plea that Nigerians should not "assign blame or point fingers." In ordinary circumstances this might sound statesmanlike. In a democracy it sounds peculiar. Assigning responsibility is, after all, one of the principal functions of democratic government. Citizens elect leaders precisely so that someone may be held accountable when things go wrong. A President asking citizens not to assign blame for a worsening security crisis is rather like a football manager urging supporters not to discuss the scoreline. One suspects the request is made because the scoreline is unfavorable. The address was similarly optimistic about the economy. Reforms have restored credibility. Investment is returning. Revenues are rising. Stability is replacing uncertainty. Perhaps. But the true measure of an economy is not found in ministerial presentations or investment brochures. It is found in kitchens, markets and pay packets. There is a reason the administration repeatedly tells Nigerians that prosperity is coming. It is because prosperity has not yet arrived.
The political danger for Tinubu is not merely that Nigerians are suffering. Nations can endure hardship when they believe sacrifices are producing visible results. The greater danger is that citizens increasingly feel they are being asked to trust official narratives that bear little resemblance to their daily experience. The President spoke eloquently of hope. Hope is a valuable political commodity. But it is not an inexhaustible one. The tragedy of contemporary Nigeria is not that its leaders lack ambition. The speech was full of ambition. It was rich with plans, reforms, initiatives, task forces, strategies and promises. The tragedy is that these aspirations coexist with a mounting sense that the state is losing its monopoly on security in significant parts of the country.
A government may survive economic disappointment. It may survive political controversy. What it cannot indefinitely survive is the perception that it cannot perform the most elementary function of government: protecting citizens from violence. The most revealing line of the speech may not have been the celebration of democracy or the defense of reform. It was the President's appeal to traditional rulers, faith leaders and community heads because "the government cannot do it alone." That was intended as a call for national solidarity. It sounded, instead, like an admission. For governments are not elected merely to join collective efforts. They are elected to lead them. The heroes of June 12 fought so Nigerians could choose their leaders. They did not fight so that elected leaders could explain why they are unable to secure the republic entrusted to them.
The president invites criticism from the press and civil society, calling them the "guardrails of our republic." Yet, these guardrails are being tested to the breaking point by economic mismanagement and official corruption. A democracy cannot be strengthened by speeches alone. It requires a government willing to cut its own waste, secure its borders, and create an environment where business can breathe. Until the Tinubu administration faces these harsh truths, Democracy Day will remain a celebration for the politicians, while the rest of Nigeria continues to suffer. Twenty-seven years after the restoration of democracy, Nigerians deserve more than commemorations of freedom. They deserve the substance of it. And until insecurity ceases to dominate national life, until children can attend school without fear, until citizens can travel without calculating ransom values, until communities no longer depend on prayer as a substitute for protection, the gap between official rhetoric and lived reality will continue to widen. Democracy Day was meant to celebrate how far Nigeria has come. Instead, it served as a reminder of how far it still has to go.
Opinions
In The Spotlight
Yes, Nigeria’s presidential election is seven months away and the campaigns, should there be any, have not begun.
But today, I will tell you how it will play out and who will win.
First, let us recall that Bola Ahmed Tinubu won the contest in 2023 on a nationally embarrassing record-low 26.72% voter turnout.
Of that, he received just 36.61% (8,794,726 votes), the lowest winning share in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. He is ruling Nigeria on less than nine million votes.
That happened because a fragmented opposition split the anti-incumbent majority three ways. But Atiku Abubakar (29.07%), Peter Obi (25.40%) and Rabiu Kwankwaso (6.23%) together secured 60.7% of the vote, collectively outpolling Tinubu by a wide margin.
Here in June 2026, three and a half years later, that fragmentation has worsened. His principal 2023 contestants, Atiku Abubakar and the Obi-Kwankwaso bloc, are again on separate platforms following the collapse of the Ibadan coalition just two months ago, where they had teased unity and collaboration.
Tinubu enters 2027 with a deeply unpopular economic record (peak inflation above 34%, 643% petrol price rise, 141 million in multidimensional poverty), a worsening security crisis 19,980 killed, 12,362 abducted since May 2023 per CSO data), and an Electoral Act 2026 widely criticized for entrenching incumbency.
Nothing exposes the futility of the administration more than the numbers in its own flagship document, PROMISES DELIVERED, published on its third anniversary last month, a self-indictment and that in normal times would be a major liability in an election year.
But the structural advantages of office, access to resources of all forms and sizes, and his All-Progressives Congress control of 31 states and the National Assembly make him a clear favourite.
The biggest factor granting him that status? The fragmented opposition.
But history demonstrates that even fragmented oppositions can win.
In Zambia in 2021, Hakainde Hichilema, in his sixth presidential run and third contest against Edgar Lungu, defeated the incumbent.
His UPND, which was backed by an alliance of 10 opposition parties, “won with 2,810,777 votes to Mr Lungu’s 1,814,201,” the BBC reported: a landslide of more than a million votes.
But Nigerians do not really need to advance beyond their own boundaries to identify a model that has worked. In February 2015, three opposition parties (ACN, CPC, ANPP) and a faction of the ruling PDP merged and became the APC: not a loose alliance, but a genuine party merger.
To understand what happened eight years earlier, consider that Mr Tinubu, the architect of that merger, did not contest the presidential ticket. It went instead to Muhammadu Buhari, a northerner better positioned to deliver the core North vote, balanced by southern running mate Yemi Osinbajo.
Buhari defeated incumbent Goodluck Jonathan by 2.6 million votes, marking the first time an opposition party unseated a ruling party in Nigeria and the country’s first peaceful transfer of power between political parties. The APC achieved the feat with a nine-point margin.
What made that triumph possible were the factors of a single merged platform, a credible candidate with a fixed support base, elite willingness to subordinate personal ambition, the defection of disaffected PDP governors, and a unifying “change” message amid economic discontent and insecurity. It is these same factors that are about to put opposition political egos in Nigeria on trial.
Related News
Olodo uprising: Tinubu aide faults critics of First Lady’s Akara, Kuli kuli comment
Insecurity: Ex-militant calls for calm ahead of 2027 polls
Obi urges FG to fix existing roads before new projects
The APC merger of 2015 and Zambia’s 2021 UPND coalition are excellent models, but only when rivals subordinate personal ambition to a single ticket early, build a genuinely merged party, and deploy parallel vote protection. As I write this article, Nigeria’s opposition has done none of these.
As last week ended, all the major parties appeared to be proceeding as if they have all the time in the world, not only between themselves, but towards APC, while the Obi-Kwankwaso ADC was dangling from the edge of political exclusion.
Translation: the opposition’s greatest enemy is not Tinubu’s machinery but its own dysfunction.
The way forward for Nigeria’s opposition is clear: learn from APC, and from Mr Tinubu, who in 2015 began to play the long game. That game became “Emilokan” in 2023, executed with his “Grab it, snatch it, run with it” philosophy. From the point of view of strategy, it worked.
For today’s opposition, the time for a merger is now gone, but the long game is still available to the opposition if it wants to be a credible, competitive entity now and in the future.
First, and understanding that fragmentation hands victory to the incumbent, they must now pick one candidate behind one party and let the loser’s ego be bought out the way APC did it in 2015. And no, don’t pretend that personal goodwill will settle the ticket. Resolve the presidential question through a pre-announced method that all major camps sign before the process begins. That method should combine two criteria that matter in Nigeria’s system: electability and spread.
Nobody should be pressured merely to “step down for Nigeria,” but they should sign a political contract that makes stepping down survivable.
Concede that Obi (who has the youth/southern energy and the cleaner brand) and Atiku (who has northern reach) cannot both run.
The 2015 template, where Tinubu ceded the ticket to the better-positioned Buhari and took compensating influence, is the proven path. With the primary window now closed, the only practical plan would be to build a state-by-state non-aggression and joint-ticket framework.
Nigeria is a federation, and opposition strategy should behave like one, pooling and pulling together rather than testing against one another everywhere.
A realistic alliance would pair a single presidential ticket with negotiated zoning for Senate, House, governorship, and state-level endorsements in places where one camp is plainly stronger than the others.
The losing camps should receive guaranteed and written compensation, such as running-mate negotiations, campaign leadership roles, and cabinet-allocation principles.
The second element is to invest in building result-protection infrastructure to neutralise the Electoral Act 2026 loophole, learning from Zambia’s parallel vote tabulation. Because Section 60(3) leaves “communication failure” undefined and removes the real-time upload requirement, the opposition cannot rely on INEC’s IReV alone. It should train, equip, and station paid polling agents in as many of the 176,000 polling units as possible, instructed to photograph and transmit signed EC8A forms and to document any “communication failure” in real time; and run an independent parallel vote tabulation with civil-society partners.
The third element is to expand the base and raise turnout.
Tinubu won 2023 on 26.72% turnout; the opposition’s structural advantage is the hungry, angry and disengaged majority, including the newly registered young voters. A unified ticket should:
Prioritise voter mobilisation and PVC collection drives in high-population, low-turnout urban centres.
Craft a single economic-relief and security message.
Lock in a credible North-South balanced ticket to avoid the zoning resentment that has repeatedly fractured both the PDP and the coalition.
The coalition should avoid trying to write a manifesto that reconciles every ideological difference. It is more realistic to agree on a concise covenant built around five or six issues that cut across region, religion, class and party.
Because while Tinubu is deeply vulnerable, he is not weak. One army can defeat him, but not two or three, no matter how powerful they may individually be.