There has been an outpouring of varied reactions since yesterday’s announcement of a state of emergency in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states by President Goodluck Jonathan.
Opposition Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) described it as lacking in original thinking and therefore asked the National Assembly to reject it. It argued that while the president was right in expressing outrage over the mindless killings and wanton destruction by the insurgents, he was wrong in proposing more of the same measures that have failed to yield results.
”If the medicine given to a patient has not cured his or her illness, is it not futile to prescribe more of the same medicine for the patient? If the declaration of a state of emergency in 15 local government areas in four states in 2011 has not curbed the activities of the insurgents, why extend such measure to other areas? If the use of force in the affected states has failed to curtail the activities of the insurgents, why send in more troops?” ACN’s National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed queried in a statement issued in Abuja on Wednesday.
”There is nothing new in the president’s action. It is more of the same: deployment of more troops to the affected states and the use of tougher, scorched-earth tactics against the insurgents. In the first instance, this stepped-up militarization of the states amounts to an asymmetric use of force in an environment where the insurgents operate within a civilian population, hence it will ultimately be counterproductive as the death toll will continue to mount while the civilian population — who will be caught in the cross fire — will be alienated.
”Secondly, the president should go ahead and disband the committee he recently inaugurated and saddled with reaching out to the insurgents, because by opting to flood the states with more troops under an ill-advised emergency rule, he has succeeded in pulling the carpet from under the committee’s feet. Who negotiates genuinely with a gun to his head? The committee’s job is over; the members can as well pack up and go home.
”Thirdly, one hopes the president’s action is not linked to the politics of 2015. With the three states militarized, there can neither be electioneering campaign nor voting there. We had warned earlier that as 2015 approaches, the Jonathan Administration will increasingly take measures that will make it impossible to hold election in many states The over militarization of some states in the north, the plan to destabilise the South-west using slush funds from the so-called oil pipeline protection contract and the infantile threats from some Niger Delta militants seem to be part of this plan.
”Fourthly, what happens if and when the declaration of emergency rule fails to stem the violence, now that the president has gone for broke and played his last card? In view of the reasons stated above, we hereby reject the declaration of emergency rule in the three states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe, and we call on the National Assembly to also reject it and not allow itself to be used to rubber stamp a declaration that is largely cosmetic.
ACN reiterated earlier statements that the Boko Haram crisis has its roots in years of bad governance that have produced an army of unemployed,
unemployable, disenchanted and demoralized youths who are now ready hands and willing tools for those seeking to perpetrate violence.“The unprecedented corruption across the land, as well as injustice and extra-judicial killings are also fuelling this crisis,” it added.
“While the short-term solution to the Boko Haram crisis should be a combination of dialogue and a minimal use of force, the long-term measure to deny Boko Haram of willing recruits and make the sect unattractive to anyone is to ensure that the State can adequately meet the yearnings and aspirations of its citizens.
“And the only way to do this is through good governance that delivers the dividends of democracy to the citizens; stamps out corruption and ensures a just and equitable society. Boko Haram is like a bad tree. To kill it, it must be uprooted, instead of trimming its branches. The measures announced by President Jonathan on Tuesday will not deliver the killer punch to this reprehensible sect. There is need to think out of the box.”
Responding, the Peoples Democratic Party described the reaction of the Action Congress of Nigeria to the declaration of state of emergency in three states of the North East as that of a political party speaking from either a diseased and confused state of mind: a blackmailer who doesn’t mind doing the trifle to remain relevant, or a political party actively conniving at this mindless war on Nigeria.
Chief Olisa Metuh in a press statement, said,“Yesterday, the ACN, the sole repository of Solomonic wisdom, who was against Amnesty to insurgents, who indeed described the Federal Government in unprintables has today turned a proselyte of amnesty and dialogue.”
“Few things are possible. The ACN and their cohorts in the opposition are behind insurgents and therefore must subvert every measure taken by government to tackle escalating insurgency. We recall that the opposition boasted recently that they would end the Boko Haram scourge within two months of their presidency. There is no smoke without fire.”
“The other is that the opposition sees the escalating terror as short-cut to power. Recall also that the statements of the leaders of the opposition at the eve 2011 presidential election gave birth to violence which has snowballed today into terrorism.”
“We therefore call on the leaders of the opposition to remove the mask on their faces and publicly declare their stand,” a statement from the National Publicity Secretary of the PDP, Chief Olisa Metuh, said.
“But we must educate the ACN,” the statement continued. “The state of emergency does not run contra to the spirit and the assignment of the presidential committee on amnesty. The committee will take the job to its logical, fruitful end while the deployment of more troops under the emergency is an irreducible necessity to stem a determined war on the nation.”
” May we also educate the ACN that a just and equitable society cannot be achieved over night in the same manner, good governance is not an already- made commodity waiting on the counter. We wish to emphasize that in over a decade, the PDP has not only rebuilt the decayed fabrics of the nation but has taken recognizable and commendable steps in the direction of good governance. We shall remain committed to that despite distractions.”
“What is new in what the President has done if we must again tell the ACN, is that President Jonathan is a core democrat, who appreciates the core values of democracy and who believes firmly that democracy must be practiced in Nigeria in its undiluted form. (Perhaps the ACN had waited for the dissolution of political structures so as to stretch further it’s blackmail) What is new is that the President by offering amnesty has opened the window for insurgents with genuine agitations to access redress while stopping intransigent criminality from consuming the nation.”
In his own reaction, President of the Christian Association Nigeria (CAN), Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor has described the declaration as a justified action and a vindication of CAN’s position that negotiation with terrorists will always end up a futile exercise.
“We are being vindicated that no reasonable agreement can be reached with terrorists,” he said in a statement release by Kenny Ashaka, his spokesperson.
According to Oritsejafor, not dissolving the political structures coupled with the retention of the office of the governors are signposts that President Goodluck Jonathan is a democrat and that the action of the president is also an indication that he is primarily concerned with the issue of human rights abuses and the need to secure the territorial integrity of Nigeria.
While saying that the state of emergency declared in the three states is not unexpected, he called on the three governors to reciprocate the kind gesture by cooperating with those charged with the responsibility of bringing down the insurgency, just as he called on all Nigerians of goodwill, in and outside the three states, to join hands with the Federal Government in dealing with the Boko Haram issue.
Also reacting, Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu argued that the president's declaration was a necessary step to curtail the excesses of the Boko Haram insurgents.
He commended President Jonathan for following the constitutional prescriptions that provided that all elected structures should remain in cases of emergency. He said the Jonathan example would correct previous misinformation concerning state of emergency as it was implemented unconstitutionally before now.
“Importantly, I commend the president for abiding strictly with constitutional provisions on State of Emergency by taking only the requisite extraordinary measures to contain the insurgence and insecurity in the States without dismantling the elected democratic structures,” he said.
“While a State of Emergency is welcome as a first aid in tackling the security challenges, my stand has always been that we have to reappraise how we organize our national security as a federal entity, especially our policing system to guarantee the security of lives and property in every part of the country.”
Human rights lawyer, Barrister Festus kenyamo, who was one of the first to react to the president’s declaration, described it as a step that has long been overdue.
“The bloodletting in these states left the president with no other option but to take this extraordinary step. This step must be appreciated in the light of the refusal of the insurgents to even dialogue with the Federal Government,” Kenyamo wrote in a statement to Huhuonline.com.
“The primary duty of any government is to protect lives and properties and it is only right that government should dig deep to find a lasting solution to this ceaseless carnage.”
However, he argued that there are strong caveats that must be issued to government in respect of the extraordinary action:
“That government must not in any way politicize this action. It is constitutionally correct that the President did not attempt to suspend the Governors from office as nothing in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) gives him such a power.
“What Obasanjo did in the past in suspending governors through a declaration of a State of Emergency was illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. Unfortunately, none of the governors had the mettle to challenge him in court.”
He urged the Military to be careful at all times not to trample on the fundamental rights of innocent citizens in these states, so that they do not become the scourge rather than solution.
“The president must follow all the steps required in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution as amended to legitimize his action,” he added.
“That the moment calm is restored, the troops must return to the barracks so as not to give the Military unholy ideas about their role in our democracy. We all owe it a duty to assist government to restore law and order in the country. It is for our overall benefit.”
Also, the public Interest Lawyers League described the move as a welcome idea. In a statement by its president, Abdul Mahmud, the group argued that although the declaration has come on the heels of the declaration of state of emergency in 15 local government areas across the North-East almost two years now, it came almost too late considering the insecurity challenges ordinary citizens contend with.
“The declaration of state of emergency by the president, which in the purview of Section 305 (2), (3) (c), (d) and (f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) guarantees the president the powers to so declare, will allow our soldiers to gain footholds on those parts of our sovereign territory that have been seized by insurgents in Borno and Yobe states, for instance,” he said.
“We would however be disturbed if in discharging their combat remits, soldiers abuse the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens of states affected by the declaration as we have seen in Baga and Bama.”
However, National Leader of ACN and former Governor of Lagos State, Chief Bola Ahmed TinubuIt disagreed, saying it is now abundantly clear that President Goodluck Jonathan has finally bared his fangs confirming what was widely speculated.
“By declaring a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa, he has intimidated and emasculated the governors of these states. We are witnessing a dangerous trend in the art of governance and a deliberate ploy to subvert constitutional democracy,” he said.
“The body language of the Jonathan administration leads any keen watcher of events with unmistakable conclusion of the existence of a surreptitious but barely disguised intention to muzzle the elected governments of these states for what is clearly a display of unpardonable mediocrity and diabolic partisanship geared towards 2015.
“Borno and Yobe states have been literally under armies of occupation with the attendant excruciating hardship experienced daily by the indigenes and residents of these areas. This government now wants to use the excuse of the security challenges faced by the Governors to remove them from the states considered hostile to the 2015 PDP/Jonathan project.”
He further stated that this administration will be setting in motion a chain of events the end of which nobody can predict, adding that experience has shown clearly that actions, such as this one under consideration, often give root to radical ideologies and extremist tendencies, a direct opposite of the intended outcome of unwarranted and unintelligent meddlesomeness.
“The present scenario playing out in the country reminds one of the classical case of a mediocre craftsman who continually blames the tools of his trade for his serial failure but refuses to look at his pitiable state with a view to adjusting,” he added.
“It has become crystal clear, even to the most incurable optimist, that the country is adrift. That the ship of the Nigerian state is rudderless is clearly evident in the consistent and continual attacks ferociously executed by elements often referred to as the insurgents in some northern states of the federation, particularly Borno and Yobe states respectively. Indeed, no part of the country is immune from the virulent but easy attacks, veritable indices of a failing state.
“Unfortunately, the tenuous and uncoordinated approach adopted by this government betrays a grossly incompetent disposition which stands at variance with current realities in the country, nay the international community where acts of terrorism are engaged and contained. No Governor of a state in Nigeria is indeed the Chief Security Officer. Putting the blame on the Governors, who have been effectively emasculated, for the abysmal performance of the government at the centre which controls all these security agencies, smacks of ignorance and mischief.
“Terrorist acts are perpetrated routinely and the government at the centre appears incapable of stemming the tide of the horrendous crimes unleashed on the hapless populace. The considerable ease, with which lives and property are destroyed on a daily basis, should excite deep introspection on the part of a government truly desirous of finding a lasting solution. The Constitution provides that the safety and welfare of citizens shall be the primary purpose of having that structure of any political leadership in the first instance. This Government, through acts of omission and commission, has fallen far short of expectation. It actively encourages schisms and all manner of divisive tendencies for parochial expediency. Ethnicity and religion become handy weapons of domination. Things have never been this bad.”
Tinubu described the response to the pervasive chaos in the Northern region of the country as characterised by militarisation, mass arrests and extra judicial killings by the Joint Task Force (JTF), a convenient euphemism for an army of occupation seemingly set loose on the people of the localities concerned. He added that the tenor of the State of Emergency declared by the Federal Government portends danger for the polity.
“The full militarisation of security operations in these states will compound the already tense situation. Both local and international media are awash with news of reckless attitudes of the invading forces. The fact that security operatives are killed cheaply and reprisals from the state find expressions in organised pogroms in the immediate communities is sure evidence of a government, which lacks basic understanding to appreciate the enormity of the current security challenges. If development is about the people, all measures put in place for the sustenance and maintenance of the super-structure of the society must take into cognisance local contents.
“It is evident from the grim experiences in recent times that this government has failed, or does not know that it is necessary for it to avail itself of the benefits accruable from exchange of ideas and notes on the latest in terms of technology and human resources among nations of the modern world, especially those which have been fighting terrorist organisations over the years, on the most effective mode of combating this menace.
“Technologically advanced countries of the world will never discard the idea on the need for the establishment of an effective local intelligence outfit. Our suggestions along this path have always been met with suspicion and acerbic criticisms from both the informed and the ignorant alike. A government which stoutly defends its opposition to the decentralisation of the police force from its present over-centralised command structure is already experimenting with all manner of means patently extra-legal.
“The massacres of local communities attendant upon the attacks on security agents by unknown elements will further alienate the people who should, ordinarily, partner with the government in securing their immediate environments. An army which invades a community maiming, raping and killing defenceless civilians will end up radicalising the youths whose parents and young ones have been wiped out most cowardly and recklessly.
“This government should concentrate more on encouraging the development of local intelligence which will, inexorably, lead to the practice of true federalism. Adopting the use of excessive force against those perceived as harbouring terrorists does not portray this government as possessing the wherewithal to find abiding solutions to the lingering security challenges.”
He went on to brand the president’s pronouncement as seeking to abridge or having the potential of totally scuttling the constitutional functions of governors and other elected representatives of the people, which will be counterproductive in the long run.
“A State of Emergency already exists in the states where JTF operates. Residents of these communities live in constant fear. Their rights are violated with impunity under the guise of searching for terrorists in their respective domains. Hiding under some nebulous claims which border on the intractability of the security challenges posed by Boko Haram or some acclaimed traditionalists who have killed some policemen to render ineffective the constitutional powers vested in elected Governors and other representatives of the people, perceived as not amenable to manipulation for the 2015 project amounts to reducing serious issues bordering on the survival of the country to partisan politics.,” he added.
“Let all those who love this country genuinely advise the federal government not to tinker with the mandates of these Governors under any guise. It is a potentially destructive path to take. If security of a society is about the protection of lives and property of the citizenry, the involvement of the people is a sine qua non to effective intelligence gathering. Any measures put in place which alienate the people, in particular their elected representatives, should be considered as fundamentally defective by every right thinking person in the country.”
 |
|
INEC Removes 1.6m Invalid Voter Records, Fingers 54 Officials in Registration Scandal
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has removed 1,608,660 invalid voter registrations from Nigeria’s preliminary voters’ register following a nationwide verification exercise ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The commission also disclosed that 1,749 records belonging to deceased persons had been identified and removed, while 54 individuals across ten states were implicated in alleged violations of established voter registration procedures.
INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan (SAN), announced the development on Monday during a briefing with journalists on the outcome of the review of the preliminary register generated from the 2025/2026 Continuous Voter Registration (CVR) exercise.
Amupitan said the commission received 11,088,238 registration records from the three phases of the exercise but subsequently uncovered millions of questionable entries during its verification process.
He explained that the commission’s Automated Biometric Identification System initially flagged 1,545,052 records for further investigation, stressing that the automated flagging did not automatically invalidate the registrations.
According to him, 1,277,052 registrations were confirmed invalid and excluded before the preliminary register was published.
The commission subsequently reviewed additional cases following complaints, claims and objections submitted by Nigerians during the seven-day public display of the register between October 9 and 15.
Amupitan said 268,000 cases were subjected to adjudication, resulting in 217,722 registrations being declared invalid and removed, while 50,278 were cleared and retained.
He added that further screening identified another 113,886 invalid registrations, bringing the additional removals to 331,608 and the overall number of invalid records removed to 1,608,660.
The chairman said the exercise also uncovered serious irregularities involving duplicate registrations, suspicious photographs, unusual names and entries belonging to deceased persons.
He disclosed that INEC’s technical assessment revealed deliberate attempts to circumvent established registration procedures, including the misuse of provisions designed for exceptional registration circumstances, particularly those relating to persons with disabilities.
“Fifty-four persons across ten states have been identified as complicit, and necessary disciplinary action will be taken against them, including possible prosecution,” he said.
Amupitan said the affected records had been identified and subjected to verification and remediation, while personnel allegedly connected with the infractions had been marked for further administrative investigation.
He, however, warned that the latest clean-up had not completely resolved the integrity concerns surrounding the national voters’ register, noting that several irregularities predated the latest registration exercise.
According to him, many of the complaints involving multiple registrations and suspicious photographs circulating on social media relate to historical records captured between 2011 and 2023.
He explained that the national register had evolved through successive registration and continuous voter registration exercises since 2011, with biometric and demographic information captured using different technologies, operational arrangements and quality standards.
Although the register had undergone previous cleansing and biometric comparisons, he said significant historical integrity concerns remained and required a systematic response.
The INEC chairman also clarified that the commission’s decision to postpone its proposed nationwide voter revalidation exercise until after the 2027 elections did not suspend its existing mechanisms for identifying and removing invalid registrations.
He said the commission had resolved to address outstanding duplications in the historical register, directing that records flagged through public complaints and obvious cases identified internally should be removed after proper verification.
The clean-up followed public outrage over alleged irregularities in the preliminary register, with some Nigerians and civil society organisations questioning the credibility of entries containing suspected artificial intelligence-generated photographs, duplicate identities and records of deceased persons.
Citing Section 19(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, Amupitan said INEC was required to receive and consider objections, claims and complaints submitted by members of the public following the display of the preliminary register.
The commission is expected to publish the cleaned-up National Register of Voters in December ahead of the 2027 general elections.
News
Elumelu: Africa’s Next Growth Story Must Be Owned by Africans – and Women
Africa’s next economic transformation must be financed by Africans, driven by private enterprise and powered by women, Tony Elumelu, Chairman of Heirs Holdings, has declared.
Delivering the keynote address at the 25th Annual Conference of the Women in Management, Business and Public Service (WIMBIZ), Elumelu challenged African business leaders, investors and policymakers to move beyond conversations about the continent’s potential and take ownership of its economic future.
“The world needs what Africa has,” he told delegates, insisting that the continent’s greatest asset is not its oil, lithium, agricultural land or mineral wealth, but its people.
And women, he argued, represent one of Africa’s most underutilised economic assets.
Speaking on the conference theme, _“Rooted, Rising, Ready: Born in Africa, Built for the World,”_ Elumelu identified African capital formation, reliable electricity, industrialisation, regional trade and strong institutions as critical pillars for unlocking the continent’s economic opportunities.
He also delivered a pointed message to corporate leaders: Africa cannot compete globally while systematically underutilising half its talent.
Africa’s opportunity – and the ownership question
Elumelu described Africa’s demographic advantage, mineral resources and expanding consumer market as one of the greatest commercial opportunities of the century.
By 2050, the continent’s working-age population will have expanded significantly, positioning Africa as a major source of global labour, consumption and economic growth.
But he warned that natural resources and demographic advantages alone would not deliver prosperity.
Drawing comparisons with Singapore and South Korea, he argued that economic transformation comes from building institutions, developing human capital and converting resources into productive industries.
He identified three major constraints holding Africa back: inadequate electricity, limited domestic value addition and insufficient investment capital.
“Factories cannot run without electricity. Hospitals and schools cannot function without it. And the AI economy everyone is talking about has two basic ingredients: power and connectivity,” he said.
On industrialisation, he challenged African countries to stop exporting raw commodities and importing finished products.
“Why ship raw lithium, raw cocoa, raw crude out of this continent? Refine it. Process it. Brand it. Then sell it to the world.”
He said Africa must transition from being a supplier of raw materials to becoming an active participant in global value chains.
African capital must finance African businesses
A central message of Elumelu’s address was the urgent need to mobilise domestic savings and institutional investment to finance African enterprises.
He argued that aid, while historically important in supporting vulnerable populations, cannot substitute for investment capable of creating businesses, jobs and ownership.
“The future is investment and trade, not aid,” he declared.
He called on African pension funds, insurance companies, banks and family offices to increase their investment in businesses across the continent.
However, he stressed that capital formation requires a supportive business environment, consistent economic policies, trusted financial institutions and growing domestic savings.
“Africa will not just offer solutions, but finance those solutions,” he said.
Citing Heirs Holdings’ investment in Seplat Energy, the London- and Nigerian-listed energy company, Elumelu highlighted the potential of African investment to create value for African investors.
He noted that Seplat’s share price had risen from approximately £3 to £9 since his investment, with its market capitalisation reaching about $7 billion at the time of his address.
He also referenced Aliko Dangote’s efforts to mobilise African retail investors around the proposed Dangote Refinery public offering as evidence of growing domestic participation in major African businesses.
For Elumelu, the objective is clear: African capital must increasingly finance African ambition.
The $120m investment in African entrepreneurs
Making a strong case for inclusive economic growth, Elumelu presented the results of the Tony Elumelu Foundation, which he co-founded with his wife, Dr Awele Elumelu.
Over 15 years, the Foundation has deployed more than $120 million in seed capital to 24,633 entrepreneurs across all 54 African countries.
Women account for 48 per cent of beneficiaries.
According to Elumelu, these entrepreneurs have collectively created more than 1.5 million jobs and generated over $4.2 billion in revenue.
He emphasised that the Foundation's selection process is merit-based, with entrepreneurs assessed on the quality of their business proposals rather than gender quotas.
He highlighted three women whose businesses demonstrate the commercial impact of relatively modest seed investments.
Princess Adeyinka Tekenah received $5,000 in 2015 and built Happy Coffee, an integrated coffee business sourcing beans from women farmers in Taraba State. Her enterprise has created more than 1,000 jobs and is positioning itself as a potential publicly listed Nigerian coffee brand.
Olamide Ayeni-Babajide, another $5,000 beneficiary in 2016, built a recycling enterprise focused on converting tyre waste into commercial value. Her business has recorded more than twenty-fold revenue growth and trained 15,000 people, most of them women and girls.
Nkem Okocha used her $5,000 seed funding to build Mama Moni, a financial technology social enterprise providing access to finance for low-income female entrepreneurs in rural and urban communities.
For Elumelu, their achievements reinforce a fundamental economic argument: women are not merely beneficiaries of development; they are drivers of enterprise, employment and wealth creation.
He disclosed that 265,529 young Africans applied to the Foundation's entrepreneurship programme this year, but only 3,200 could be funded.
That means just one in every 83 applicants received support.
The scale of unmet demand, he argued, exposes Africa's real problem.
“It is not a shortage of entrepreneurial talent; it is a shortage of capital.”
Women must move from participation to ownership
Elumelu also challenged corporate Nigeria to accelerate women's representation in executive leadership and boardrooms.
Using his own business group as evidence, he highlighted the leadership roles occupied by women across Heirs Holdings and its portfolio companies.
His wife, Dr Awele Elumelu, co-founded Heirs Holdings and chairs several businesses, including Avon HMO, Avon Medical, Heirs Insurance Brokers, Transcorp Hotels and Heirs Energies.
He also cited Owen Omogiafo, whom he supported for appointment as President and Group Chief Executive of Transcorp Group in 2020, making her the first woman to lead the conglomerate.
Under her leadership, he said, Transcorp strengthened its presence in power, hospitality and energy.
Following her elevation, Uzo Oshogwe became Managing Director and Chief Executive of Transcorp Hotels, while Awele Elumelu serves as chairperson.
He further highlighted the leadership of Somachi Chris-Asoluka at the Tony Elumelu Foundation, alongside other female executives across the Heirs Holdings portfolio.
At UBA Group, he pointed to women leading subsidiaries and regional operations across several African markets.
His message to business leaders was direct: appointing women to leadership positions should be driven by competence and commercial performance, not public relations.
“Women’s economic leadership is not a concession to fairness. It is a requirement for competitiveness,” he said.
“No serious economy can afford to systematically underutilise half its talent.”
Intra-African trade: The next frontier
Beyond investment and women's economic participation, Elumelu identified regional integration as another critical driver of Africa's growth.
He lamented that moving goods from Lagos to Liverpool can be easier than moving them from Lagos to Luanda, reflecting the persistent infrastructure and regulatory barriers limiting intra-African commerce.
He called for greater investment in roads, railways, ports, payment systems and efficient customs procedures to make the African Continental Free Trade Area commercially meaningful.
African businesses, he argued, must begin to see the continent as their natural home market rather than remain confined by national boundaries.
He cited UBA's expansion into 20 African countries as evidence that cross-border African business is achievable.
“We cannot build a continental market merely by signing documents,” he said.
He called for African banks to finance regional expansion, manufacturers to develop cross-border supply chains and technology companies to build solutions that serve the entire continent.
Strong institutions, stronger economies
On governance and institutional development, Elumelu said investors consistently assess markets based on the reliability of contracts, predictability of regulation, effectiveness of the courts and availability of infrastructure.
“Capital goes where it is safe, and it stays where it is respected,” he said.
He urged African governments to focus less on international investment roadshows and more on creating the conditions that attract and retain capital.
But he also challenged the private sector to accept responsibility for building strong institutions.
Businesses, he said, cannot demand accountability from governments while tolerating poor governance within their own organisations.
Paying taxes, publishing accurate accounts, promoting employees on merit and maintaining effective corporate boards are all part of institution-building.
'Do not wait'
Concluding his address, Elumelu returned to the central message of the WIMBIZ conference: the geography of opportunity is changing, and Africans must take ownership of that transformation.
He urged women entrepreneurs and professionals to pursue leadership, deploy capital, build businesses and create opportunities for the next generation.
“No one but us will develop Africa. Not the donors. Not the multilaterals. Not the partners, however welcome they are. Us.”
Addressing younger women in the audience, he challenged them to see themselves as the next generation of corporate leaders and business owners.
He also called on WIMBIZ to make its next 25 years even more ambitious, arguing that while advocacy had helped women gain access to decision-making spaces, capital was now essential to moving them into positions of ownership and influence.
“Advocacy got women into the room. Capital will get them to the head of the table,” he said.
His closing message captured the central argument of his address:
“Born in Africa. Built for the world. The world needs what Africa has. And what Africa has, more than oil, more than lithium, more than land, is you.”
Editorial note: Before publication, I recommend verifying the Seplat share-price and market-cap figures, the Foundation's cumulative funding and impact statistics, the 2026 application figures, and the executive titles and production figures. These are material business claims and should be independently substantiated.
Business
In The Spotlight
2027: Is Tinubu Fit to Run? The APC's Evasive Response to Nigerians' Questions
When the health of a sitting president becomes a national political controversy, party propaganda cannot replace public confidence. Nigeria deserves more than political declarations, campaign theatrics and dancing on stage._
There are questions that politics cannot silence. There are concerns that party loyalty cannot bury. And there are national conversations that no amount of political gymnastics can make disappear.
One of them is now staring Nigeria in the face: **Is President Bola Ahmed Tinubu fit to seek another four years in Aso Rock in 2027?**
The question has become so politically uncomfortable that the All Progressives Congress (APC) appears determined to answer it before Nigerians even finish asking it.
Enter Professor Nentawe Yilwatda, the party's national chairman, with a categorical declaration that Tinubu is fit to go. His argument? The President is capable, and his appearance dancing at an APC rally in Akwa Ibom is apparently enough to silence those questioning his health.
But hold on!
Is Nigeria's presidency now a dancing competition? Has the threshold for presidential fitness been reduced to the ability to shake one's shoulders before an enthusiastic crowd? Is the capacity to dance at a political rally the new qualification for governing a country of over 200 million people?
If that is the APC's standard, Nigerians have every reason to be worried.
A dancing president is not necessarily a working president. A smiling president is not necessarily a healthy president. And a president who can mount a campaign stage must still demonstrate the capacity to discharge the enormous responsibilities of his office.
Let us not pretend that the question emerged from nowhere. Tinubu's health and physical capacity have been subjects of public discussion, particularly in the context of his foreign medical trips, public appearances and occasional absence from important political engagements. Such developments have generated questions, speculation and competing political narratives.
But rather than confront the issue with maturity, some voices within the ruling party seem more interested in dismissing the questioners than addressing the underlying concern.
That is a political mistake.
Nigeria is not a private estate belonging to the APC. The presidency is not a party trophy. And the health of the man occupying the highest political office in the country is not an inconsequential subject that can be brushed aside with a wave of the hand.
Of course, Tinubu is entitled to dignity, privacy and the presumption that he is capable of performing his duties. No responsible person should turn unverified rumours into established medical facts. But the public also has a legitimate interest in knowing whether its president can sustain the demands of the office.
There is a difference between invading someone's privacy and demanding accountability from someone entrusted with the destiny of a nation.
The APC chairman should understand that difference.
THE DANCE THAT RAISED MORE QUESTIONS
Yilwatda's reference to Tinubu dancing at the Akwa Ibom rally may have been intended to project confidence and political strength. But it also exposes the weakness of an argument that attempts to answer a serious question with a theatrical demonstration.
Dancing for a few minutes is not the same as presiding over marathon cabinet meetings, confronting national emergencies, managing complex international relations and making consequential decisions under enormous pressure.
The presidency is not a weekend recreational activity. It is a 24-hour national responsibility.
Nigeria needs more than occasional appearances. It needs sustained leadership.
And this is where the APC must stop playing politics with a subject that deserves seriousness.
If the President is fit, the party should have the confidence to address legitimate questions without turning every inquiry into an opposition conspiracy. If the President is capable of another term, Nigerians should be able to evaluate that claim through credible information and his record in office.
Political declarations cannot manufacture public confidence.
BUT IS THE APC RUNNING AWAY FROM THE BIGGER QUESTION?
Perhaps the more important issue is not simply whether Tinubu can contest in 2027. It is what Nigerians are being asked to endorse if he does.
What has the President achieved since May 2023? What has happened to the purchasing power of ordinary Nigerians? Have the economic reforms delivered the relief citizens were promised? Has insecurity been brought under control? Are millions of struggling families better off today?
These are not opposition talking points. They are questions arising from the everyday experiences of Nigerians.
For many households, the cost of living is not a political debate. It is a daily battle. For communities threatened by banditry, terrorism and kidnapping, security is not a campaign slogan. It is a matter of survival.
For unemployed young people, the future cannot be measured by the number of political rallies attended by the President.
The APC must therefore resist the temptation to turn 2027 into a referendum on Tinubu's ability to withstand political criticism. The real referendum should concern his performance, policies, leadership and the future he offers the country.
A second term is not an entitlement. It is a request for another mandate.
And no incumbent, however powerful, should expect Nigerians to surrender their right to question that request.
THE OPPOSITION MUST ALSO BE HONEST
Yet, the opposition should not celebrate this controversy as though raising questions about Tinubu's health automatically disqualifies him from seeking another term.
That would be equally irresponsible.
Political opponents must distinguish between documented facts and speculation. They must resist the temptation to weaponise personal health issues or exploit unverified claims for electoral advantage.
If there are credible concerns, they should be raised responsibly. If there is evidence, it should be presented. Nigeria's political discourse is already drowning in propaganda; it does not need another flood of conjecture.
The country deserves an honest debate, not a political wrestling match over the President's body.
2027 MUST BE ABOUT NIGERIA, NOT JUST TINUBU
There is something profoundly troubling about a political establishment that appears more preoccupied with defending its leader than explaining its record to the people.
The APC chairman can declare Tinubu fit to go. Party loyalists can sing his praises. Supporters can celebrate his dancing, his speeches and his political survival.
But none of these things answers the most fundamental question: What does another four years of Tinubu mean for Nigeria?
That is the question that should dominate the political conversation.
Nigerians must not be distracted by the theatre of political declarations. They must demand a serious account of the administration's performance, its failures, its achievements and its plans for the future.
The President, too, must recognise that public confidence is not secured by the volume of applause at party rallies. It is earned through transparency, performance and the ability to inspire confidence in the country's future.
The APC cannot turn a national question into a party chant. It cannot dance away public concerns. And it cannot expect Nigerians to confuse political loyalty with evidence.
So, is Tinubu fit to go in 2027?
Yilwatda says yes. The opposition has its doubts. Nigerians must assess the available facts without surrendering to propaganda or speculation.
But perhaps the most important question is this: Is Nigeria getting the leadership it deserves?
Because, at the end of the day, the country does not need a president who can merely dance through campaign rallies. It needs one who can confront its problems, shoulder its responsibilities and deliver a better future for its citizens.
Aso Rock is not a dance floor. The presidency is not a talent show. And the future of more than 200 million Nigerians is too important to be decided by political choreography.
In 2027, the real test must be leadership, not theatrics; performance, not propaganda; and accountability, not applause.
The APC should remember one thing: Nigerians are watching. And this time, they want answers, not another dance.
By Emmanuel Emeke Asiwe(EEA), Publisher/Editor-in-Chief
In The Spotlight
US election fallout: Democrats may impede; will they impeach?
For millions of Americans, life under President Donald Trump has become an arduous struggle against the relentless pressures of economic survival. Despite the great promises made by the American president at the advent of his second term cycle, from the cost of groceries to the price of gasoline, from hospital bills to housing payments, the American household is confronting a financial squeeze that political rhetoric cannot wish away.
For these Americans, economic prosperity is not measured by the bullish exuberance of Wall Street but by the ability to put food on the family table without breaking the bank. The ordinary citizen is less concerned about the thunderous declarations emanating from Washington than about the dwindling purchasing power of the dollar in his pocket. No one pays mortgages with presidential proclamations or settles hospital bills with partisan propaganda. Ordinary Americans cannot eat political promises on the dinner table. It was in anger and frustration that the people went to the polls last Tuesday to demand a change in the disturbing dynamics of government as Trump faced significant dissatisfaction over his handling of the economy, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy and presidential power. The midterm election was effectively a referendum on Trump’s second term as president. The American President became the central issue.
Many Americans believe their cost of living has not improved under his leadership. In his second coming as president, Trump had promised economic improvement, but many voters feel that the benefits have not reached their homes.
And then came the war with Iran. Many nations around the world largely agree that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. But as millions of Americans grappled with the excruciating pressures of economic survival, the war with Iran became the isolating icing on an already crumbling economic cake. It was a military adventure that threatened to estrange America from its international partners while deepening disaffection among citizens at home. At a time when ordinary Americans were demanding economic succor, Washington appeared more preoccupied with flexing military muscles abroad than alleviating financial misery at home. Voters questioned the human, financial and strategic costs of the war with Iran. Others worry about continued military involvement abroad. Many believe that the war was not worth its cost.
Although border security remains popular, critics argue that Trump’s immigration enforcement has become excessively aggressive. Americans were increasingly repulsed by the implementation of Trump’s hardline immigration policies. Armed to the teeth and operating under the banner of national security, the sight of gun-toting immigration enforcement agents stirred outrage and apprehension across communities. They became symbols of fear as fatal encounters raised haunting questions about whose lives were being protected and whose were being imperiled. Reports of eerie encounters involving federal immigration personnel intensified public anger, raising disturbing questions about excessive force, constitutional protections, and the sanctity of human life. What was ostensibly designed to secure America’s borders became a troubling spectacle of fear, intimidation, and government overreach in the eyes of many critics.
Many Americans believe Trump has exercised presidential authority too aggressively and worry about democratic institutions, accountability and checks and balances. Trump’s frequent confrontational rhetoric and political approach were seen as divisive, and his leadership perceived as provoking national polarization and divisiveness.
On Tuesday, Democrats tore through the seemingly impregnable, ironclad strongholds of the Republican Party. From Maine to Mississippi, from Texas to Kansas, the electoral landscape trembled under the weight of an extraordinary inevitable political revolt. An unmistakable message was sent that affordability matters, putting food on the family table matters, keeping businesses afloat matters, and economic survival matters more than partisan grandstanding and presidential garrulousness. The election produced astonishing upsets, shattered longstanding political barriers, and rewrote chapters of American electoral history. In Georgia, Keisha Lance Bottoms became the first Black woman ever elected governor of an American state. In my backyard of Wisconsin, David Crowley made history as the state’s first Black governor. In the Republican bastion of Texas, Gina Hinojosa shattered another political glass ceiling, becoming the first Latina elected governor of the Lone Star State.
And the political earthquake did not stop there. In Texas, James Talarico demolished a Republican stranglehold on a US Senate seat that Democrats had not won in nearly four decades. The young Democrat garnered more than five million votes, delivering a stunning rebuke to a political establishment that had long considered Texas an impregnable Republican fortress.
These were not ordinary electoral victories. They were political thunderbolts reverberating across America’s political landscape and rattling the foundations of Republican dominance. Americans may tolerate political theatrics for a season, but when economic hardship begins to threaten their survival, even the strongest partisan loyalties can buckle under the weight of daring discontent and strangulating disenchantment.
The ballot box became the battleground where economic anguish overwhelmed political allegiance, and the once-impregnable Republican fortresses crumbled under the weight of metastatic malcontent.
Will Democrats use their newly acquired congressional power to impeach Trump, impede his agenda, or improve the lives of struggling Americans? Under the US Constitution, the House needs only a simple majority to impeach a president. The Senate requires a two-thirds majority of senators present to convict. Why would Democrats bother impeaching President Trump when they know they are unlikely to secure the 67 Senate votes necessary to convict and remove him? Why embark on an impeachment voyage when the destination is already known? If the Senate cannot muster the votes to convict, is impeachment a constitutional necessity, a political spectacle, or merely an exercise in legislative futility? Perhaps the opposition would accomplish more by checking presidential excesses than by chasing an impeachment conviction it cannot secure. Democrats must decide whether their priority is to punish Trump’s alleged misconduct through constitutional proceedings or to constrain his policies through congressional oversight and legislative power. The power of the purse is one of Congress’s most formidable weapons. Under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, federal money generally cannot be withdrawn from the Treasury without appropriations authorised by law. A Democratic-controlled House could refuse to approve funding for certain Trump administration initiatives, demand spending restrictions, or negotiate changes to federal programs. Democrats could refuse to pass Trump’s proposed legislation on taxation, immigration, energy, healthcare, and other domestic policies.
A president can win the White House and still lose the legislative cooperation necessary to implement his agenda. A Democratic House could investigate alleged misconduct, conflicts of interest, misuse of public funds, or questionable administrative decisions. Such investigations could expose problems, generate public pressure, and force the administration to defend its actions. Congressional Oversight does not require impeachment. Committees could examine the activities of federal agencies, investigate implementation of executive orders, and question cabinet officials about their policies. Will democrats choose only to impede Trump’s agenda but not impeach the president? We keep our fingers crossed.
By Fola Ojo