Connect with us

Opinion

How Akpabio’s Leadership Secured Nigeria’s Electoral Future* *

Published

on

President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio

By Rt.Hon Eseme Eyiboh mnipr

In the evolving story of Nigeria’s democratic consolidation, few issues have provoked as much intensity as electoral reform. The signing into law of the Electoral Act (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill 2026 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu marked another chapter in this journey, drawing applause, skepticism, and fierce debate in equal measure.

At the centre of this moment stands Godswill Akpabio, President of the Senate, who has consistently articulated a position that blends institutional caution with reformist intent. His assertion that the National Assembly met “the aspirations of Nigerians, not a few people who make noise” reflects not merely rhetorical flourish, but a deeper philosophy of lawmaking anchored in constitutionalism, legislative procedure, and national peculiarities.

To understand Akpabio’s positioning, one must situate the reform within Nigeria’s broader democratic trajectory. Since the country’s return to civilian rule in 1999, electoral reforms have often oscillated between technological optimism and structural reality. The 2026 re-enactment does not discard innovation; rather, it recalibrates it. In defending the new Act, Akpabio emphasized that the National Assembly undertook a “painstaking” and “thorough” process, mindful of the country’s infrastructural limitations, judicial precedents, and the ultimate objective of preventing disenfranchisement.

A key flashpoint in the debate was the question of electronic transmission of results. For many reform advocates, real-time electronic transmission became symbolic of transparency. Yet Akpabio’s argument was not against technology; it was against rigidity detached from capacity. He consistently maintained that technology must serve democracy, not endanger it. In a country where broadband penetration is uneven, where insecurity disrupts network infrastructure across multiple states, and where power supply remains inconsistent, embedding inflexible “real-time” mandates into statute could, in his view, expose elections to avoidable litigations and invalidation.

This perspective aligns with the constitutional role of the legislature. The Senate does not conduct elections; it makes laws. The responsibility for operational modalities rests with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which applies the law within its administrative and technical capacity. By leaving room for INEC to determine timing and modalities of transmission, the Act reflects a respect for institutional boundaries. Akpabio’s defense of this approach underscores his insistence that Parliament legislate for posterity, not for transient political advantage.

At the State House signing ceremony, President Tinubu reinforced this institutional clarity. He observed that Nigeria’s elections remain “essentially manual.” Ballots are cast manually, counted manually, and declared by human beings. While electronic viewing enhances transparency, the core process remains human-centered. Tinubu’s caution about broadband readiness and cyber vulnerabilities echoes Akpabio’s reasoning. Together, their statements project a governance philosophy that privileges clarity and feasibility over performative reform.

Perhaps the most celebrated innovation in the new Act is the formal legal recognition of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) result viewer, commonly referred to as IReV. This recognition represents a significant milestone. For the first time since independence in 1960, electronic viewing of polling unit results is explicitly grounded in statutory authority. Under the amended framework, results transmitted electronically—even if delayed due to connectivity issues—must ultimately reflect on the IReV portal once network is restored. This creates a verifiable digital trail that citizens, observers, and parties can scrutinize and interrogate.

Akpabio described this as a landmark safeguard against a historic problem: tampering between polling units and collation centres. By ensuring that Form EC8A—the primary polling unit result form signed by presiding officers and party agents—feeds into a publicly accessible portal, the law strengthens accountability without discarding manual collation procedures validated by courts.

The Supreme Court’s pronouncements in post-2023 election litigation had clarified that IReV, as previously configured, was not the definitive legal record of results. Rather than ignore this judicial interpretation, the legislature responded by integrating electronic viewing into statutory text while preserving the evidentiary primacy of signed result forms. This harmonization of law and jurisprudence illustrates legislative maturity.

Critics, including the opposition parties, alleged that the Act’s signing reflected partisan fear. Civil society voices such as Yiaga Africa described the reform as incremental where transformation was needed. Yet even among critics, a pragmatic thread emerged.

The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre and the Transition Monitoring Group urged acceptance of the law while focusing attention on demanding credible conduct from INEC. This convergence suggests that while disagreements persist about optimal reform design, there is recognition that institutional strengthening is iterative.

Akpabio’s stance during earlier debates further illuminates his approach. On February 8, at a public presentation of Senator Effiong Bob’s book in Abuja, he cautioned against hasty conclusions about an amendment process still underway. His insistence that commentators wait until Votes and Proceedings were finalized before passing judgment reflects a proceduralist ethos.

Legislative drafting is iterative. Clauses are debated, amended, harmonized between chambers, and only then crystallized into final text. By defending this process against what he termed premature media trials, Akpabio positioned himself as a guardian of institutional integrity.

His critique of “retreat politics” is equally telling. Consultative retreats, he argued, are valuable but not binding. Final authority rests on the Senate floor, where clauses are debated and voted upon. This distinction reinforces parliamentary sovereignty within Nigeria’s constitutional framework. It also shows a deeper democratic principle: advocacy informs lawmaking, but elected representatives deliberate and decide.

Another noteworthy provision in the amended Act concerns internal party democracy. By empowering party members to vote directly for candidates during primaries, the law dilutes the dominance of small delegate blocs. In theory, this broadens participation, reduces transactional politics, and enhances legitimacy. Akpabio’s highlighting of this reform signals an understanding that electoral integrity begins within parties, not merely at polling units.

The Act also addresses scenarios where leading candidates are disqualified by courts. By mandating fresh elections in such circumstances, it prevents outcomes where significantly lower-polling candidates assume office by default. This provision closes a loophole that had generated controversy in past cycles. In doing so, the legislature strengthens the moral authority of electoral outcomes.

The reduction of statutory notice for elections from 360 days to 300 days, may appear technical but carries practical implications. It allows scheduling flexibility, including the possibility of avoiding sensitive religious periods such as Ramadan and Lent. This demonstrates legislative sensitivity to socio-cultural realities—a recurring theme in Akpabio’s rhetoric about Nigeria’s peculiarities.

Opposition criticisms deserve engagement. The PDP characterized the signing as hurried and partisan. Yet the legislative timeline reflects deliberation across chambers, conference committee harmonization, and eventual executive assent. Moreover, the principle of the legislative-executive cooperation is intrinsic to constitutional governance. The swift assent by President Tinubu can be interpreted not as haste but as responsiveness to parliamentary consensus.

Support from figures like Nyesom Wike reinforces the perception that the reform commands cross-sectional backing within the governing architecture. Wike’s description of democracy as a “work-in-progress” aligns with Akpabio’s incrementalist philosophy. Reform, in this view, is evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

Central to Akpabio’s defense is the rejection of absolutism. Mandating real-time electronic transmission in a context of infrastructural fragility could render entire states’ results vulnerable to nullification due to network outages. He invoked comparative examples, including electoral disputes in advanced democracies, to illustrate that even technologically sophisticated systems encounter anomalies. The lesson he draws is humility: laws must anticipate worst-case scenarios.

This caution is not synonymous with conservatism. By embedding IReV recognition in statute, the Act advances transparency beyond previous frameworks. It creates a hybrid model—manual voting and collation complemented by electronic visibility. Such hybridity may represent a uniquely Nigerian pathway, blending global best practices with domestic constraints.

Akpabio’s rhetorical framing—distinguishing “noise” from lawmaking—has attracted attention. While critics may interpret it as dismissive, it also speaks to a tension in contemporary democracies: the amplification of vocal minorities through media ecosystems. Legislative legitimacy, however, derives from electoral mandate and constitutional procedure. By emphasizing the “generality of Nigerians,” Akpabio situates himself within a majoritarian democratic theory tempered by rule of law.

The question of disenfranchisement further illuminates his position. If technological failure in insecure or rural areas invalidated results, marginalized communities could bear disproportionate impact. By allowing delayed electronic uploads once connectivity is restored, the Act seeks to reconcile inclusivity with transparency. This compromise reflects distributive sensitivity.

In evaluating Akpabio’s stewardship, one must also consider his broader legislative philosophy. He repeatedly asserts that laws must outlast individuals. This intergenerational perspective discourages tailoring statutes to immediate partisan contests. Whether one agrees with every clause, the emphasis on durability highlights a statesmanlike orientation.

The reactions from civil society, though critical, implicitly acknowledge the dynamic nature of reform. Calls to continue advocating improvements indicate that the 2026 Act is part of an ongoing process. Akpabio himself has stated that doors remain open. This openness suggests confidence rather than defensiveness.

Ultimately, the measure of electoral reform lies not only in statutory text but in implementation. INEC’s capacity, political party behavior, judicial adjudication, and citizen vigilance will shape outcomes. Yet legislation provides the framework within which these actors operate. By integrating electronic viewing, clarifying collation hierarchies, strengthening internal party democracy, and closing disqualification loopholes, the National Assembly has recalibrated that framework.

In positioning Akpabio in a favorable light, it is important to avoid hagiography. Democratic leadership entails contestation. However, his consistent themes—respect for process, infrastructural realism, institutional boundaries, and posterity—form a coherent narrative. Rather than capitulate to populist maximalism or resist reform altogether, he charted a middle course.

Nigeria’s democracy, like many across the globe, navigates between aspiration and capacity. Technological for determinism offers seductive simplicity; constitutional prudence demands complexity. In the crucible of electoral reform, Akpabio has presented himself as a custodian of that prudence. Whether history ultimately vindicates every provision of the 2026 Act will depend on future elections. But as of its enactment, the legislative record reflects a deliberate attempt to harmonize innovation with stability.

The broader democratic project requires precisely this balance. Transparency without feasibility breeds litigation. Feasibility without transparency breeds distrust. By embedding electronic visibility within a manual backbone, the Act seeks equilibrium. In championing this architecture, Akpabio aligns himself with a vision of reform that is incremental yet substantive, cautious yet forward-moving.

As Nigeria approaches future electoral cycles, the real test will be whether citizens experience greater confidence, fewer disputes, and clearer outcomes. Should that occur, the painstaking deliberations defended by the Senate President may be remembered not as noise, but as necessary groundwork. In that sense, Akpabio’s insistence that lawmaking differ from clamor may prove less a rebuke than a reminder: democracy flourishes not only through passion, but through patient construction of rules capable of enduring the storms of politics. Nigeria’s Electoral Future shall have Senator Godswill Akpabio positively mentioned in its repository.

Rt Hon Eseme Eyiboh mnipr
Special Adviser on Media/Publicity and official Spokesperson to the President of the Senate

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

They Ruin Our Schools, School Their Kids Abroad

Published

on

By

Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko

By Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko

This is certainly the season of intense competition among politicians in Nigeria to show off their foreign-educated children in the mass media, for whatever reason.

Perhaps they do this to let the rest of us—the wretched of the earth, in the words of Frantz Fanon, the French psychiatrist and political philosopher—know that they are building political empires and grooming successors who will take over from where they stopped destroying Nigeria.

Some of these politicians were once governors who purportedly built state universities but would never send their own children to those institutions. This is indeed their season and, from our observations, these politicians are increasingly educating their children abroad because Nigerians have failed to insist on accountability and transparency in government. This is why they send their children overseas for schooling and have started showing them off in the media for the rest of the people to see.

Most recently, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr. Nyesom Wike, was seen in what appeared to be a private jet alongside his political acolytes and associates, flying to the United Kingdom, where his daughter graduated from one of the country’s expensive universities.

Mr. Wike ensured that the graduation ceremony of his only daughter featured prominently across mainstream media in Nigeria. After all, many newspapers have been repeatedly patronised by the Federal Capital Territory Administration under his leadership to showcase the roads and flyovers built since he became minister. These generous advertisements have generated substantial revenue for the newspapers, which are now, in turn, repaying those favours—funded with public money—by prominently displaying to millions of ordinary Nigerians that Wike’s daughter has graduated overseas.

The minister and his associates also organised lavish wining and dining sessions, which were extensively reported with photographs in the Nigerian media.

Mind you, Save the Children recently published a report stating that 36.2 million Nigerians across 26 states are facing acute hunger. Yet, the political elite continue to celebrate their children’s graduations and rub these flamboyant parties of wining and dining in our faces. Many other serving political office holders have also recently showcased their foreign-educated children in newspapers.

This was followed by the Governor of Anambra State, whose younger daughter also graduated from a university in the United Kingdom. The Governor’s wife issued a lengthy press statement in which she praised her daughter to the high heavens.

The only apparent exception among these celebrations of foreign education is the Governor of Osun State, whose daughter graduated from a Nigerian-based university owned by her uncle, the father of musician David Adeleke (Davido).

Many senators, members of the House of Representatives, and governors have children who hold second passports. Likewise, the son of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Seyi Tinubu, travelled last month to watch the recently concluded FIFA Club World Cup with his family, where they sat in the VIP section. Seyi was shown on television conversing with the American-born TikTok personality IShowSpeed, who was informed that Seyi is Nigeria’s First Son because he is the son of the current President. Amusingly, the American social media influencer jokingly asked Seyi to persuade his father to give him a Nigerian passport.

Perhaps this request was informed by the perception in parts of the Western world that African political leaders wield enormous powers and often act without due regard for due process. That may explain why the influencer jokingly requested a Nigerian passport from Seyi.

But why are politicians who wield power in Nigeria unwilling to trust either public or private universities within the country to educate their children?

Ironically, the politician who owns Baze University in Abuja was also shown in the media celebrating the graduation of one of his children abroad, despite operating one of Nigeria’s most expensive private universities.

The simple reason governors and ministers send their children to schools abroad is that they have easy access to enormous financial resources. In Nigeria, winning elections and holding public office have come to be seen as tickets to unearned wealth, and sadly, this is what many politicians have made public office represent.

This reality becomes evident when we examine some of the cases filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against politicians who have fallen out of favour with the ruling party. We are repeatedly shown how some of these politicians amassed enormous wealth to our detriment while they were supposed to be serving the public.

Recently, the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the permanent forfeiture of 48 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), to the Federal Government.

Delivering judgment, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had successfully established that the assets were reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities, while the respondents failed to provide satisfactory evidence of legitimate sources of income used to acquire them.

Among the forfeited assets are Rayhaan University and its facilities in Kebbi State, Rayhaan Radio, luxury hotels, residential buildings, commercial plazas, filling stations, warehouses, factories, large parcels of land, and several other high-value properties spread across Abuja, Kebbi, and Kano States.

The ruling followed an interim forfeiture order granted earlier this year, after which the EFCC invited interested parties to challenge the action. Although Malami and several associates contested the forfeiture, the court ruled that they failed to discharge the legal burden required to overturn the Commission’s case.

The judgment marks one of the most significant non-conviction asset forfeiture decisions secured by the EFCC in recent times.

The disturbing reality is that politicians holding public office often use their positions to corner enormous privileges for themselves, and their proximity to unmerited wealth is unmistakable.

They train their children in European and American schools and then splash photographs of their children’s graduations before us, almost as if to ask, “What can you do about it?”

We are, therefore, trapped in a Catch-22 situation, where the very people responsible for destroying, undermining, and destabilising not only our educational system but also the nation’s broader social and strategic infrastructure send their children to some of the most expensive universities in the Western world while doing virtually nothing to repair the broken schools attended by millions of ordinary Nigerians.

This pathetic situation can only change if citizens resolve to transform the country’s political culture by refusing to be bribed into voting for the same politicians who continue to preside over the deterioration of Nigeria’s educational and governance systems.

From available data and the overwhelming weight of evidence, many ordinary Nigerians appear content to accept the crumbs that fall from politicians’ tables and then repeatedly vote them back into lucrative political offices—not to serve the people but to continue enriching themselves at the public’s expense.

Unfortunately, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has yet to undertake sustained public enlightenment campaigns against vote-buying. Consequently, we may continue to witness these routine media displays of politicians proudly celebrating the foreign university graduations of their children.

Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko is the Founder of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) and a former National Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Zamfara Bleeds Again: HURIWA Urges President Tinubu to Declare a State of Emergency and Restore Constitutional Order

Published

on

By

Zamfara Bleeds Again: HURIWA Urges President Tinubu to Declare a State of Emergency and Restore Constitutional Order
By George Mgbeleke
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) is deeply outraged by the latest massacre of at least 23 innocent farmers in Sauna/Ruwan Gora community of Talata Mafara Local Government Area of Zamfara State. This latest atrocity is yet another grim reminder that Zamfara has become a vast killing field where terrorists exercise authority with near impunity while innocent citizens continue to pay the ultimate price.

HURIWA in a statement signed by its National Cordinator,Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko extends its heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families and stands in solidarity with the people of Zamfara who have endured years of relentless killings, kidnappings, village burnings, displacement and destruction of livelihoods.

This latest massacre is not an isolated incident. It is part of a sustained campaign of terror that has persisted for over a decade despite repeated military operations and enormous public expenditure on security.

According to recent assessments by Amnesty International, hundreds of people have been killed in Zamfara within the last two years alone, while hundreds more have been abducted. The organisation further reported that since the onset of the security crisis, hundreds of communities have been sacked and vast areas across 13 local government areas remain under the influence or control of armed bandits, creating one of Nigeria’s gravest humanitarian emergencies.

Independent conflict monitoring by ACLED, as referenced by the European Union Agency for Asylum, recorded about 760 violent security incidents in Zamfara between January 2024 and August 2025, resulting in approximately 2,806 fatalities. The report described Zamfara as one of Nigeria’s most dangerous states, with violence affecting every local government area.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) also continues to document repeated mass displacements across the state. In one incident in June 2026 alone, attacks in Gummi Local Government Area displaced nearly 8,800 residents, illustrating the devastating humanitarian consequences of the continuing violence.

These statistics paint a disturbing picture of a state where constitutional governance is steadily giving way to the authority of armed criminal groups.
HURIWA is therefore compelled to ask: how many more innocent Nigerians must die before extraordinary constitutional measures are considered?

The association believes that the deteriorating security situation in Zamfara now meets the threshold of a grave emergency requiring decisive federal intervention.
Accordingly, HURIWA calls on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to invoke the relevant constitutional provisions for the declaration of a state of emergency in Zamfara State, just as extraordinary constitutional measures were taken in Rivers State under a different set of circumstances. If constitutional institutions can be suspended to address political instability, it would be difficult to justify withholding similar intervention where thousands of lives have been threatened by sustained terrorist violence.
HURIWA therefore urges the President to consider measures that would allow the Federal Government to take direct control of security coordination in the state for a defined period, strengthen military and intelligence operations, restore civil authority in occupied communities and protect the fundamental rights to life and security guaranteed under the Constitution.
The association stresses that any constitutional measures adopted must strictly comply with the provisions of the Constitution, remain temporary, be subject to legislative oversight and focus primarily on restoring public safety and democratic governance.
HURIWA further notes with concern that notorious bandit kingpin Bello Turji rose to prominence partly because previous attempts at negotiating peace with armed groups created opportunities for several criminal leaders to consolidate influence, regroup and expand their operational networks instead of laying down their arms permanently. Security experts have repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of those initiatives, arguing that while intended to reduce violence, they often enabled some criminal groups to rearm and strengthen their hold over vulnerable communities.
The latest massacre demonstrates that piecemeal responses have failed. Zamfara requires sustained military pressure, improved intelligence gathering, effective border surveillance, prosecution of terror financiers, protection of farming communities, humanitarian support for displaced persons and the complete restoration of lawful government authority throughout the state.
The Federal Government must equally investigate every allegation of official collaboration with criminal networks and ensure that any public officer found aiding or protecting terrorists faces the full weight of the law.
Nigeria cannot continue to normalise the mass slaughter of its citizens.
History will judge today’s leaders not by the number of condolences they issue after every massacre, but by the courage and effectiveness of the actions they take to stop the bloodshed.
The time for half measures has passed. Zamfara deserves peace. Nigerians deserve security. The Constitution demands no less.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Why ‘They’ Hate General Christopher Musa

Published

on

By

Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko

By Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko

The Minister of Defence, General Christopher Musa (rtd.), made the front pages of major newspapers on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, after becoming the target of agents of misinformation and disinformation who spread the false rumour that he had tendered his resignation to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Those who fabricated the story circulated a message in the Hausa language, which they falsely attributed to the Minister, across various social media platforms. The Minister, who had the good fortune of moving from the prestigious office of Nigeria’s Chief of Defence Staff—the highest-ranking serving Army General in the country—to the equally significant position of Minister of Defence upon his retirement, could not understand how, when, or to whom he had supposedly communicated his “resignation.” An individual using a name and profile photograph circulated the Hausa-language message claiming that the Minister of Defence had confirmed his resignation.

The Minister dismissed the report as nothing more than a fabricated tale. Indeed, many Nigerians who saw the story did not take it seriously, as social media is often awash with unverified reports, misinformation, and outright falsehoods that are later corrected when those concerned issue official denials or report such content to the relevant platforms.

Fundamentally, many Nigerians believe it is rare for public office holders to voluntarily resign from highly paid political appointments. In the public perception, most office holders leave only when removed by the appointing authority. Consequently, few people believed the original story. When General Musa publicly debunked the rumour, Nigerians were therefore not surprised. While the public may have dismissed the report, the Minister himself expressed shock and wondered why anyone would wish him to abandon such an important office, which had been entrusted to him by President Bola Tinubu.

As expected, the Minister of Defence, General Christopher Musa (rtd.), said on Tuesday that he was “shocked” by reports of his supposed resignation and vowed to take legal action against those responsible for spreading the false information.

General Musa said he had no idea where the rumours originated. Responding to questions after a closed-door meeting with President Bola Tinubu at the Presidential Villa in Abuja, the former Chief of Defence Staff said:

“I am not going anywhere. I have never discussed this. I don’t even know who the person is that brought that information. But whoever it is, we will take legal action against them.”

The Minister denied ever discussing resignation and said the reports were the handiwork of people uncomfortable with the administration’s improving security record.

“Whoever it is, we will take legal action against them. I am sure we will get them. He will come and explain who gave him such information.”

Musa described the rumours as a deliberate attempt to undermine public confidence in the administration’s security gains.

“We are surprised. I was shocked when I saw that. I don’t know where that came from.

“But you always expect that there will be people who will not be happy when things are going well. Security is improving, things are getting better, and for them, that is a sad development. They always want to make it look as if it is not so.”

He added that his private meeting with the President was a routine security briefing and that President Tinubu had expressed satisfaction with the military’s performance.

According to him:

“I just came back from briefing Mr President on the current security situation, and he is very happy with us. We are going to continue doing well.”

I believe General Musa has chosen not to speculate publicly about those behind the rumour. At the very time the false report was circulating, he had reportedly travelled to China on official duty. Likewise, the Minister of State for Defence was reportedly on an official trip to Turkey on matters relating to Nigeria’s national security.

In my view, there are two possible groups that may have been behind the rumour that General Musa had resigned.

First, General Musa’s appointment came as a surprise to many observers. He was not known as a card-carrying member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) before President Bola Ahmed Tinubu appointed him, reportedly on the basis of merit, competence, and his extensive military experience.

One group that may continue to oppose General Musa consists of hardliners within the APC who regard him as an outsider occupying a position they believed should have gone to one of their own within the party’s inner circle. It had been expected in some quarters that, after the departure of the former Minister of Defence, either another party loyalist or the Minister of State for Defence would be elevated to the position. That expectation was not realised, and some may therefore harbour resentment toward General Christopher Musa.

This is not intended to implicate the Minister of State for Defence. On the contrary, he appears to be a committed nationalist who, in my opinion, has no connection whatsoever with any alleged campaign against his colleague. He is himself reportedly facing political opposition from rivals in his home state who are unhappy with his close relationship with President Tinubu.

The second group, in my opinion, consists of hardline Islamists who were dissatisfied with the replacement of a Muslim minister by General Musa. Although Musa bears a common Muslim name and is from Northern Nigeria, he is a Christian. While he was born in Sokoto, one of the historic centres of Northern Nigeria, his religious identity and background distinguish him from those who may have expected the office to remain in Muslim hands.

According to this perspective, such religious hardliners may seek every opportunity to portray General Musa as ineffective or unsuccessful. Yet, despite being of Southern Kaduna origin, he continues to serve as Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

General Musa has also publicly advocated strong military action against Boko Haram, ISWAP, and other terrorist groups operating in Nigeria. It is therefore argued that extremist elements who oppose such measures would naturally view his leadership unfavourably.

Beyond religious and political considerations, there are also those within both political and military circles who are alleged to benefit from the persistence of insecurity in Nigeria. Such individuals, if they exist, would have little interest in seeing the Minister of Defence succeed in weakening terrorist networks through more aggressive military operations across the North-East, North-West, and North-Central regions.

As General Musa continues to monitor developments carefully—as the popular Nigerian expression goes, “there is nothing Musa no dey see for gate”—it is expected that the source of this latest episode of misinformation and disinformation may eventually be identified, allowing the law to take its course.

Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko is the Founder of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) and a former National Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria.

Continue Reading

Latest

General News6 hours ago

OBYC Worldwide fault Ineife led IYC over planned protest against Bayelsà Industrialist. ….urges IYC to respect for Court Process

By David Owei,Bayelsa The Ogbia Brotherhood Youth Council (OBYC) Worldwide has condemned the planned protest over the legal dispute involving...

General News6 hours ago

OBYC Worldwide fault Ineife led IYC over planned protest against Bayelsà Industrialist. ….urges IYC to respect for Court Process The Ogbia Brotherhood Youth Council (OBYC) Worldwide has condemned the planned protest over the legal dispute involving Azikel Group President, Dr. Azibapu Godbless Eruani, CFR, and Mr. Kariyai Daukoru, describing the action as unnecessary while the matter remains before a competent court. OBYC, in a statement issued on Saturday and made available to newsmen, urged Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) Central Zone Chairman, Comrade Peres Ineife, to suspend the proposed protest and allow the judicial process to run its course. It also appealed to the newly elected IYC Worldwide President, Dr. Doubra Collins Okotete, to promote dialogue and reconciliation among the parties involved in the Aviation Training initiative. OBYC maintained that Dr. Eruani’s aviation training initiative was a philanthropic programme designed to empower Bayelsa youths and rejected allegations that he intended to victimise anyone. The Council further called on Ijaw youths, political leaders and stakeholders to exercise restraint, respect the rule of law, and avoid actions capable of undermining the judiciary or disrupting peace.

By David Owei,Bayelsa The Ogbia Brotherhood Youth Council (OBYC) Worldwide has condemned the planned protest over the legal dispute involving...

Sports6 hours ago

More Talents Spotted in Bayelsa United/Prosperity Cup Tourney ‎ ‎… As Competition Enters Matchday Three ‎

By David Owei,Bayelsa ‎ ‎The quest to return Bayelsa United to the Nigeria Premier Football League, NPFL next season is...

General News6 hours ago

Two Fishermen Feared Dead ln Bayelsa Ocean

By David Owei,Bayelsa Two fishermen have been declared missing after their boat capsized off the coast of Opu-Okumbiri in Brass...

Business & Economy10 hours ago

NCDMB Commends Brentex on $50m Steel Pipe Facility, Assures of Industry Patronage

By David Owei The Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB) has lauded Brentex Petroleum Services Limited on the significant...

Politics10 hours ago

Osun Decides: Stakeholders Set for Citizens’ Town Hall to Promote Credible Poll*

By David Owei As the August 15, 2026 Osun State Governorship Election enters its final 21 days, the Civil Society...

Business & Economy12 hours ago

i Tinubu, from Mama Akara to Mama Akwete

By Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a lucky man. He is a lucky husband and a lucky...

Law & Crime12 hours ago

Withdraw Your Shoot-on-Sight Order, It’s Unconstitutional-HURIWA tells IGP

By George Mgbeleke Prominent pro-democracy and civil rights advocacy group HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA (HURIWA) has asked the...

Politics24 hours ago

Stop “Ghosting” And Fix Pension Crisis, Build On Reforms We Started-Atiku tells Tinubu

By Our Correspondent Presidential flag bearer of the African Democratic Congress,( ADC), and former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, has faulted...

Politics1 day ago

Enugu Air: Gov. Mbah Reacts to Runway Incident, Says Safety Non-negotiable

By Our Correspondent Following recent Enugu Air crash in Benin, Enugu State,governor, Dr. Peter Mbah, has reacted to Thursday’s runway...

Trending