The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on Wednesday described the blueprint presented by the All Progressives Congress (APC) to the British House of Commons by leader of the opposition group, Bola Tinubu as a basket of empty shells.
It also described the event itself as an attempt to deodorize the stench of inadequacies that have dogged the yet to be registered party.
“It was a letdown yesterday as the leader of the ACN, Bola Tinubu stunned an international audience with the emptiness he unveiled as the emancipation package of the APC,” National Publicity Secretary of PDP, Chief Olisa Metuh wrote in a statement.
“It is an agenda grossly lacking in essentials, in fundamentals; deep in cosmetics, devoid of originality, laced with half-truths and outright lies and grittily divorced from the substance and incidentals that ginger national growth. It is a basket of promise filled with shells. Nothing exposed the un-seriousness of Tinubu’s presentation than his loud silence on corruption and the alternative roadmap to the extant security challenges, which the opposition coalition has made so much noise about.
“Members of the British parliament must have giggled and waited in vain for Mr. Tinubu to unveil the much vaunted opposition agenda on anti- terrorism and corruption. Is it that the APC has no answers to these or that Tinubu deliberately skipped them?
“Here, curious minds reflect on two things. The PDP led Federal Government has applied the master strategy that is already yielding results; thus leaving the opposition bereft of fresh, better dimension as an alternative or that the man who appeared in the British House of Commons is the least qualified to speak on corruption and terrorism before such a self respecting and well meaning assembly with an in-depth grip on happenings in Nigeria.”
According to the ruling party, the ACN leader has unsettled issues of corruption and questionable credentials while it is obvious to all Nigerians that the leaders of the opposition are the chief promoters of insurgency in the country. It added that Tinubu’s voyage of ridicule turned full circle as in his entourage was also the speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly — a man currently standing trial for acts of corruption. It wondered how the delegation could have made a presentation on corruption?
Writing further, the PDP official stated: “On the issue of national social security, the ruling party wondered why the states under the opposition have not been implementing it if it is such a laudable programme; knowing that under Nigeria’s federalism, the states suffer no restriction over such matters.
“Why is the opposition waiting to get to the centre before implementing this? Why did Tinubu not implement this as Lagos State Governor for eight years? Why are the six ACN states over which Tinubu is the overlord not implementing this? Promises are easily made.
“If Tinubu as Lagos Governor denied workers wage increment and denied pensioners the benefits of decades of service, how could the APC government which he canvasses take care of the aged and the vulnerable under the social security programme? Nigerians need eggs no doubt but not their empty shells!
“Similarly, the school feeding programme which the APC paraded as one of its cardinal agenda is in fact a programme under various stages of implementation since it was launched in September 2005 by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. In fact, some of the PDP states have gone beyond meal-a-day to other accompaniments that make learning easy for the Nigerian child.”
According to the PDP, “While Tinubu was in the UK unfolding the opposition agenda on education, teachers in Ogun, an opposition state, locked the classrooms and chased school children home in strike over lingering issues of service. In Ekiti and Osun states also under the ACN, strikes have been the order of school curriculum for over a year now. Who then takes the opposition serious?”
PDP reminded Tinubu that the same international community before which he tried to demonize Nigerian electoral process had adjudged the 2011 general elections as the most credible in the history of the country. It recalled that Jonathan was in Edo State prior to the election won by Tinubu’s party to assure the people of credible poll and delivered same.
“Tinubu’s sermon on credible election and the state of democracy in Nigeria flies in the face of consistent knockings of the shenanigans that play out in the opposition states as local government elections.
“What then is credible election? Who listens to the hyperactive lies of the Nigerian opposition than those of their hue who already know they don’t have the structures and the unity (already seen in wide division APC leadership slots) to win the 2015 general elections and are therefore fashioning out reasons well ahead of time.
“We once more challenge the opposition to a debate on the alternative roadmap to what the PDP led Federal Government is doing at present. With an empirical comparison of the pace of development at the centre and the states under the opposition on one hand and these states against those under the PDP on the other, Nigerians are no doubt a better judge of who enjoys their mandate in 2015.”
Earlier ACN Leader, Bola Ahmed Tinubu in his presentation before the British House of Commons, revealed how the APC would sacrifice personal political ambition to deepen democracy instead of the current administration’s disregard for votes, evidenced by the controversies that have followed the recent election of the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF).
He promised that APC would combat poverty, saying it would pursue an aggressive plan to lift at least 20 per cent of Nigerians living in poverty out of that level in its first four years. He also expressed assurance that APC would oust President Gooodluck Jonathan from the Presidency in the 2015 general elections.
“I do not support the Jonathan government but I oppose anyone seeking its premature, illegal end. Let this government end at the appointed time. But let it end through the ballot box. Then I shall say good riddance,” he said.
“The central focus of our efforts in the coming years must be the implementation of the most extensive and aggressive plan to lift as many Nigerians out of poverty as possible. Our desire is to be able to move at least 20% of our people out of poverty (defined as earning less than a dollar a day) in the first four years of our administration.
“Besides fast-tracking the construction of Independent Power Plants, IPPs, in designated industrial zones, the APC government would also initiate the construction of trans-state highways, such as the speed train that will connect the nation’s zones and move people, fuel, farm produce and goods, cost-efficiently across the country.”
On APC’s propose national social security scheme, he said: “First, we intend to establish a partly contributory National Social Security Scheme. Some categories of the poor and vulnerable will benefit with or without contribution. We believe that every Nigerian above the age of 60 who is not under a pension scheme and also qualifies as poor by a ‘Means Test’ must be given a monthly stipend. Widows and the disabled proved by a ‘Means Test’ to be poor must also be provided a monthly stipend whenever they are unemployed. They become disentitled when they are employed.
“An important component of state intervention to redress poverty is the one meal a day programme for primary and secondary school pupils. The Federal government through supplemental funding will support States in providing Primary and Secondary school pupils with at least one meal a day. The immediate twin derivatives of this programme is the design to confront the extremely high incidence of malnutrition and other hunger-induced medical conditions amongst poor children as well as eliminating the recruiting grounds for illegal activities.
“Also, the programme will stimulate demand thereby boosting local businesses in poultry, bakery and juice and packing industries. This will employ millions of graduates and non-graduates. Then, we can start to talk truly about the dividends of not just democracy but of impactful leadership.”
“In Nigeria, the tenets of basic arithmetic have little application concerning elections. Votes do not count, they are concocted. Elections are not necessarily won by the candidate with the highest votes. Elections are won by the candidate of the powerful and mighty. Consequently, a group comprising all the nations’ governors could not even conduct a simple 35-person election without a disputed outcome.
“This little episode would be laughable if it were an isolated incident. However, it is emblematic of a larger, more troubling pattern that portends calamity if not arrested. With this recent experience, I fear the length of those in power would go and the means they would employ to manipulate results when the battleground is the entire nation and the stakes are the general elections in 2015. The NGF debacle symbolizes a disdain for democracy and the popular will. If we are to save Nigeria, we must rescue the electoral process from its abusers.”
Tinubu promised that APC would introduce electronic voting, which has been well-accepted and practised in many African countries; and as well halt the current government’s culture of corruption.
“This current Nigerian government is a retrogressive one. Much of what they claim as growth is but the harsh redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. The bottom gets squeezed while the top expands. They are serving us the salad of corruption. They consume our today and squander the nation’s tomorrow. For 14 years, the PDP-led government cannot turn anything around. A new leadership is required to put a stop to this,” he went on.
“Our people live in dire straits. But this government would rather waste the money than spend it on the public benefit. They do not believe the people are worth it.
The money is more important. They claim to be hoarding it for that mythical rainy day, when most Nigerians are drowning in poverty. If that is not troubled waters, I don’t know what new calamity will make this government ever recognize the need to build the new bridges needed for the people to cross over into prosperity.
“I have said this before and I shall say it again. These leaders would rather save the money and spend the people. We progressives would rather spend the money to save the people.
“It is for this reason- to save the nation from the stranglehold of permanent poverty and poor governance – that the members of the progressive opposition political parties have decided to put aside personal ambition (including my own ambition) to form a new party, the All Progressives Congress, APC. We do this because Nigeria has entered a critical state of economic depression.”
 |
|
Shettima at UNGA: Africa Demands a Seat at the Global Table
Nigeria has taken its campaign for a bigger African voice in global affairs to the heart of the United Nations, with Vice President Kashim Shettima demanding sweeping reform of the UN Security Council and permanent representation for Africa.
Delivering President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s address at the **81st United Nations General Assembly** in New York on Thursday, Shettima said the international system created after World War II could no longer adequately reflect the realities of the modern world.
Nigeria called for **at least two permanent seats for Africa**, with the full rights and responsibilities of permanent membership, including veto rights for as long as the veto remains part of the Security Council, alongside **five non-permanent African seats**.
The demand puts Africa's long-standing campaign for greater representation at the centre of Nigeria's message to world leaders.
1945 cannot define 2026’
The Nigerian delegation argued that the distribution of power established in 1945 has left Africa under-represented in the institution responsible for some of the world's most consequential decisions on peace and security.
For Abuja, the issue is not simply about seats at the UN. It is about giving African countries a greater role in decisions that directly affect the continent.
Nigeria anchored its position on the **Ezulwini Consensus**, the African Union's common position on Security Council reform.
CONFLICTS: NIGERIA CALLS FOR DIPLOMACY
Shettima's address also turned to the conflicts confronting the international community.
Nigeria called for stronger diplomacy, respect for international law and protection of civilians, while urging greater international efforts to resolve conflicts, including the crisis in Sudan.
The Nigerian position was that lasting peace cannot be secured solely through military action and that diplomacy, dialogue and negotiated settlements remain essential tools for resolving conflicts.
TERRORISM: ‘NO COUNTRY CAN FIGHT ALONE’
With Nigeria continuing to confront terrorism and other forms of transnational crime, the address placed international security cooperation high on the agenda.
Nigeria called for stronger intelligence-sharing, action against terrorist financing and greater cooperation to prevent illicit weapons from crossing borders.
But Abuja also linked security to development, pointing to education, economic opportunity, accountable governance and protection of citizens** as important elements of long-term stability.
AFRICA’S WEALTH: FROM RAW MATERIALS TO INDUSTRIAL POWER
The Nigerian message went beyond politics and security.Tinubu's address, delivered by Shettima, called for Africa to transform its vast natural resources into industrial and economic opportunities by expanding **local processing, manufacturing, technology and value-added production**.
Nigeria also highlighted the African Continental Free Trade Area as an opportunity to expand intra-African trade and build stronger regional supply chains.
The message was clear: Africa's resources should generate greater value, jobs and investment within the continent rather than being exported largely in raw form.
CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT
Nigeria also reaffirmed its commitment to climate action, including its 2060 net-zero target, while stressing the need for financing, technology transfer and international support for developing countries.
Abuja argued that climate action and economic development should be pursued together, particularly in countries still struggling to provide reliable energy and economic opportunities for rapidly growing populations.
THE NIGERIAN MESSAGE
From the UN podium in New York, Shettima delivered a message that combined Nigeria's foreign-policy priorities with its wider vision for Africa: **greater representation, stronger security cooperation, economic transformation and a more inclusive international system.**
For Nigeria, the Security Council reform campaign remains a central part of that agenda.
The demand from Abuja is straightforward: **Africa should have a permanent voice in the room when decisions affecting international peace, security and global governance are made. And Nigeria says it intends to keep making that case.
News
CBN Slashes Interest Rate to 23% in Major Policy Adjustment
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has reduced its benchmark interest rate from 26.5 per cent to 23 per cent, marking a significant shift in its monetary policy direction.
CBN Governor, Olayemi Cardoso, announced the decision on Tuesday following the conclusion of the Monetary Policy Committee’s (MPC) 307th meeting in Abuja.
According to Cardoso, the committee reviewed developments in both the global and domestic economies, assessed emerging risks and considered their potential implications for monetary policy before reaching its decision.
“The Committee decided as follows: reset the monetary policy rate at 23 per cent,” the governor said.
The latest move represents a 350-basis-point reduction in the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR). It follows two consecutive MPC meetings at which the rate was left unchanged, after the committee lowered it by 50 basis points in February 2026.
In addition to cutting the MPR, the committee adjusted the standing facility corridor to +50 and -300 basis points around the new benchmark rate.
However, the CBN retained existing Cash Reserve Requirement (CRR) levels at 45 per cent for deposit money banks, 16 per cent for merchant banks and 75 per cent for non-TSA public-sector deposits.
Cardoso explained that the changes were designed to improve the effectiveness of monetary policy by strengthening the transmission of policy decisions through the financial system.
He said the adjustment was also part of efforts to restore the MPR as the primary signal of the CBN’s monetary policy and improve the operation of the monetary policy framework.
According to the governor, the MPC viewed the recalibration as an operational adjustment rather than a fundamental shift in the bank’s monetary policy stance.
“The Committee emphasized that the duration of the corridor does not constitute a change in the current monetary policy stance, but rather an operational reset to enhance the effectiveness of monetary policy and support the transition to an inflation targeting framework,” he said.
The committee also noted ongoing efforts by the CBN to strengthen its monetary policy implementation framework. Cardoso said transaction-based operational benchmarks had improved the transparency of money-market operations.
The MPC consequently concluded that resetting the MPR and adjusting the policy corridor would bring the monetary policy framework more closely in line with prevailing market conditions.
The committee said the changes are expected to improve policy transmission and reinforce the MPR’s role as the central benchmark for monetary policy.
Members further maintained that the latest adjustments should be viewed primarily as an operational realignment of the framework and not, in themselves, as a change in the underlying monetary policy stance.
Business
In The Spotlight
Editorial:Trump @ UNGA: Power Is Not a Substitute for Strategy
President Donald Trump came before the United Nations this week with a message that has defined much of his second presidency: The United States is powerful, it intends to use that power, and it will not permit international institutions to place limits on American sovereignty.
There was little ambiguity in the message. Trump celebrated military strength, demanded greater control over America’s borders, challenged international institutions and portrayed American technological leadership as a strategic necessity. On Iran, Gaza, immigration, the International Criminal Court and artificial intelligence, the president returned repeatedly to the same principle: Nations must defend their own interests, and the United States must remain free to act.
That is a coherent philosophy. But coherence is not the same as effectiveness.
The question raised by this speech is not whether America should be strong. No serious foreign policy can begin from the premise that American power is irrelevant. The question is what that power is for — and whether it is being used in ways that make the United States more secure over the long term.
Trump's remarks on Iran illustrated the dilemma.
He reaffirmed that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and paired the possibility of diplomacy with warnings of devastating military consequences.
Deterrence has always depended partly on credibility. But credibility is not measured only by the willingness to threaten force. It is also measured by the ability to achieve a political outcome once force has been used.
Wars can begin with clear objectives and end with consequences no government anticipated. The history of American foreign policy offers ample evidence that military superiority does not automatically translate into political control.
That is why diplomacy cannot simply be regarded as the alternative to strength. At its best, diplomacy is one of the instruments through which strength is converted into durable agreements.
The same distinction matters in Trump's approach to the United Nations.
The president has argued that international institutions have become too costly, too bureaucratic and too willing to intrude upon national sovereignty. His administration has pursued reductions in America's financial and institutional commitments to the United Nations.
There is nothing inherently wrong with demanding accountability from an international organization. The United Nations deserves scrutiny. Its bureaucracy can be inefficient, its member states often disagree and its institutions can fail to prevent the very conflicts they were created to address.
But the choice is not simply between an ineffective United Nations and an unconstrained America.
International institutions exist in part because some problems cannot be solved effectively by individual nations acting alone. Nuclear proliferation is one. Global pandemics are another. Artificial intelligence increasingly belongs on that list.
Trump's comments about AI therefore deserve particular attention. He emphasized American technological leadership and warned against international regulation that could restrain innovation.
The United States has obvious reasons to remain at the forefront of AI development. But technological leadership and international coordination are not necessarily opposing objectives. The challenge is to develop rules that protect security without freezing innovation.
That requires American leadership, not American isolation.
The president's immigration argument followed the same pattern. He presented control of the border as an essential expression of national sovereignty and rejected the notion that international norms should prevent governments from determining who may enter their territory.
A sovereign nation plainly has an interest in controlling its borders. But sovereignty also carries responsibilities. The United States, like other countries, must reconcile border enforcement with its legal and humanitarian obligations.
The difficult work of governing begins where slogans end.
That is ultimately what was missing from the most sweeping parts of Trump's speech: not conviction, but attention to the institutional machinery required to turn conviction into lasting results.
America can impose costs on adversaries. It can withdraw from agreements. It can reduce contributions to international organizations. It can threaten overwhelming force. It can use its enormous economic and technological advantages.
But power has a second dimension that is easier to overlook: the ability to persuade allies, maintain coalitions, preserve diplomatic channels and build institutions capable of surviving changes in leadership.
The United States did not become the world's leading power merely because it possessed the world's strongest military. It built alliances. It established institutions. It cultivated economic relationships. It persuaded other countries that American leadership could serve interests beyond America's own.
Trump's speech represents a different emphasis.
It places sovereignty before institutions, pressure before accommodation and national interest before international consensus.
There is a legitimate debate to be had over whether the postwar international system has become too cumbersome, too expensive or insufficiently accountable. But reforming that system and weakening it are not the same thing.
The distinction will matter greatly in the years ahead.
A stronger America is not necessarily an America that stands alone. Nor is international cooperation synonymous with surrendering sovereignty.
The enduring challenge of American foreign policy is to combine power with restraint, independence with alliances and national interest with the recognition that American security is inseparable from the wider world.
Trump's speech made clear which side of that debate he occupies.The more consequential question is what happens next.
History will not ultimately judge the speech by its applause lines, its threats or its declarations of American strength. It will judge the policy that follows — and whether that policy produces a world in which the United States is not merely more powerful, but more secure.
Power matters. But power, by itself, is not a strategy.
In The Spotlight
Who Is in Charge? Tinubu Is in Paris, Shettima Is in New York
By now, Nigerians deserve more than explanations. They deserve clarity. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is in Paris. Vice President Kashim Shettima is in New York.
And Nigeria is in Abuja, Lagos, Kano, Port Harcourt, Maiduguri and everywhere else Nigerians are dealing with the daily business of surviving, working and waiting for government to deliver. So, a simple question is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid:Who is in charge?
Before anyone dismisses that question as opposition politics, let us establish the facts. Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for what the Presidency described as a working vacation. He subsequently moved from London to Paris and, on September 21, the Presidency announced that he had extended his stay by a few days and would return at the weekend.
Shettima left Nigeria on September 20 for New York, where he is representing the President and leading Nigeria's delegation to the 81st United Nations General Assembly.
The government says there is no vacuum. It says Tinubu remains in contact with officials at home and continues to direct the affairs of government. It also says Shettima has been given the President's mandate to represent Nigeria at the UN.
Fine. But that does not make the question disappear.It makes the question more important.
A country cannot run on “trust us”
Government is not supposed to operate on whispers, assumptions or political reassurance.It operates through institutions.
It operates through constitutional authority. It operates through clearly defined responsibilities. And when the President is abroad for an extended period while the Vice President is also outside the country, Nigerians have every right to ask where executive authority is located and who is exercising it.
This is particularly relevant because Nigeria's Constitution provides a specific mechanism for a President who is proceeding on vacation or otherwise unable to discharge the functions of office.
That mechanism exists for a reason.It is designed to prevent uncertainty.It is designed to prevent a vacuum.It is designed toensure that, at every moment, Nigerians know who is constitutionally responsible for the presidency.
So why should Nigerians have to debate the issue?
The Presidency says everything is fine
The government insists that there is no disruption to governance.The Presidency says Tinubu has remained engaged from abroad. It points to decisions taken by the President while away and says the Vice President's trip to New York is an official assignment.
There is nothing inherently unusual about a Nigerian president travelling abroad.There is nothing unusual about a vice president representing the country at the United Nations.
The problem is the combination.The President is away. The Vice President is away. And the country is being told that everything is perfectly normal.
Perhaps it is.But if it is, then proving it should be easy.Tell Nigerians clearly who is exercising presidential authority.
Tell Nigerians whether the constitutional procedure has been followed.Tell Nigerians who is accountable for presidential decisions while both men are outside the country.This should not be difficult.
Leadership is also about presence
There is a difference between saying government is functioning and demonstrating that leadership is present.Nigeria is not short of challenges.
The cost of living remains a major concern. Security remains a national issue. Unemployment and economic hardship continue to affect households. Nigerians are demanding better public services and greater accountability.
At such a moment, leadership cannot be reduced to whether instructions can be transmitted from one continent to another.
Leadership is also about visibility. It is about being present when the country needs reassurance. It is about being accessible when difficult questions arise. It is about giving citizens confidence that somebody is firmly in control. A president does not have to sit permanently in Aso Rock to govern Nigeria. But Nigerians should never be left wondering whether anyone is sitting firmly at the controls.
Paris is not Abuja
There is another uncomfortable truth.Nigeria's political class has become remarkably comfortable governing from airports, hotel suites, foreign capitals and conference rooms.The rest of the country does not have that luxury.
The Nigerian worker cannot take a working vacation from inflation.The small business owner cannot take annual leave from electricity costs.The parent struggling with school fees cannot postpone the bills until the President returns. The young graduate without a job cannot simply wait for the government to reconnect with reality.
For ordinary Nigerians, the country does not go on vacation.That is why the optics matter.While the President is in Paris and the Vice President is in New York, millions of Nigerians remain at home confronting the consequences of government policy every day.
This is bigger than Tinubu
The danger is that this debate becomes another partisan shouting match. Supporters will say the President is working.
Opponents will say the government has abandoned its responsibilities. Both sides can shout themselves hoarse.
But the Constitution does not work by volume. The question is not whether Tinubu's supporters are satisfied.The question is not whether his opponents are outraged.The question is whether the constitutional chain of executive authority is clear. That is an institutional question, not a party question. And the National Assembly has a role to play in ensuring that Nigerians are not left guessing.
Nigeria deserves an answer
There is something deeply unhealthy about a democracy in which citizens have to ask social media, political parties and television commentators who is exercising presidential power.
The answer should be official.It should be constitutional.It should be unambiguous.If Tinubu is fully exercising the powers of President from Paris, say so.If Shettima is exercising presidential functions under the constitutional provisions governing presidential absence, say so.If there is no constitutional problem, explain precisely why.
But please, stop treating a legitimate question as an attack on the government.A government confident in its constitutional position should welcome clarity.
Who is in charge?
This is ultimately not about Paris.It is not about New York.It is not even primarily about Tinubu or Shettima. It is about the Nigerian presidency. A republic of more than 200 million people should not have an invisible question mark hanging over its executive authority.
Tinubu can travel.Shettima can travel.Government can continue. But constitutional responsibility must remain visible.
Because when both the President and Vice President are outside the country, Nigerians should not have to look at a map to figure out where their government is.
They should be able to look at the Constitution.And the answer should be unmistakable.Who is in charge? Nigeria deserves to know.
By Emmanuel Emeke Asiwe, Publisher/Editor-in-Chief