Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: each year we come together to reaffirm the founding vision of this institution. For most of recorded history, individual aspirations were subject to the whims of tyrants and empires. Divisions of race, religion and tribe were settled through the sword and the clash of armies. The idea that nations and peoples could come together in peace to solve their disputes and advance a common prosperity seemed unimaginable.
It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking. The leaders who built the United Nations were not naïve; they did not think this body could eradicate all wars. But in the wake of millions dead and continents in rubble; and with the development of nuclear weapons that could annihilate a planet; they understood that humanity could not survive the course it was on. So they gave us this institution, believing that it could allow us to resolve conflicts, enforce rules of behavior, and build habits of cooperation that would grow stronger over time.
For decades, the U.N. has in fact made a real difference – from helping to eradicate disease, to educating children, to brokering peace. But like every generation of leaders, we face new and profound challenges, and this body continues to be tested. The question is whether we possess the wisdom and the courage, as nation-states and members of an international community, to squarely meet those challenges; whether the United Nations can meet the tests of our time.
For much of my time as President, some of our most urgent challenges have revolved around an increasingly integrated global economy, and our efforts to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetime. Now, five years after the global economy collapsed, thanks to coordinated efforts by the countries here today, jobs are being created, global financial systems have stabilized, and people are being lifted out of poverty. But this progress is fragile and unequal, and we still have work to do together to assure that our citizens can access the opportunity they need to thrive in the 21st century.
Together, we have also worked to end a decade of war. Five years ago, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in harm’s way, and the war in Iraq was the dominant issue in our relationship with the rest of the world. Today, all of our troops have left Iraq. Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.
For the United States, these new circumstances have also meant shifting away from a perpetual war-footing. Beyond bringing our troops home, we have limited the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible, and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties. We are transferring detainees to other countries and trying terrorists in courts of law, while working diligently to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share.
As a result of this work, and cooperation with allies and partners, the world is more stable than it was five years ago. But even a glance at today’s headlines indicates the dangers that remain. In Kenya, we’ve seen terrorists target innocent civilians in a crowded shopping mall. In Pakistan, nearly 100 people were recently killed by suicide bombers outside a church. In Iraq, killings and car bombs continue to be a horrific part of life. Meanwhile, al Qaeda has splintered into regional networks and militias, which has not carried out an attack like 9/11, but does pose serious threats to governments, diplomats, businesses and civilians across the globe.
Just as significantly, the convulsions in the Middle East and North Africa have laid bare deep divisions within societies, as an old order is upended, and people grapple with what comes next. Peaceful movements have been answered by violence – from those resisting change, and from extremists trying to hijack change. Sectarian conflict has reemerged. And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction casts a shadow over the pursuit of peace.
Nowhere have we seen these trends converge more powerfully than in Syria. There, peaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter. In the face of carnage, many retreated to their sectarian identity – Alawite and Sunni; Christian and Kurd – and the situation spiraled into civil war. The international community recognized the stakes early on, but our response has not matched the scale of the challenge. Aid cannot keep pace with the suffering of the wounded and displaced. A peace process is still-born. America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition, but extremist groups have still taken root to exploit the crisis. Assad’s traditional allies have propped him up, citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime. And on August 21st, the regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.
The crisis in Syria, and the destabilization of the region, goes to the heart of broader challenges that the international community must now confront. How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa – conflicts between countries, but also conflicts within them? How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, or embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war? What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct? What is the role of the United Nations, and international law, in meeting cries for justice?
Today, I want to outline where the United States of America stands on these issues. With respect to Syria, we believe that as a starting point, the international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons. When I stated my willingness to order a limited strike against the Assad regime in response to the brazen use of chemical weapons, I did not do so lightly. I did so because I believe it is in the security interest of the United States and the world to meaningfully enforce a prohibition whose origins are older than the U.N. itself. The ban against the use of chemical weapons, even in war, has been agreed to by 98 percent of humanity. It is strengthened by the searing memories of soldiers suffocated in the trenches; Jews slaughtered in gas chambers; and Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood, and landed in opposition neighborhoods. It is an insult to human reason – and to the legitimacy of this institution – to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.
I know that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, there were those who questioned the legitimacy of even a limited strike in the absence of a clear mandate from the Security Council. But without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all. However, as I’ve discussed with President Putin for over a year, most recently in St. Petersburg, my preference has always been a diplomatic resolution to this issue, and in the past several weeks, the United States, Russia and our allies have reached an agreement to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, and then to destroy them.
The Syrian government took a first step by giving an accounting of its stockpiles. Now, there must be a strong Security Council Resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so. If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the U.N. is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws. On the other hand, if we succeed, it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st century, and that this body means what it says.
Agreement on chemical weapons should energize a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political settlement within Syria. I do not believe that military action – by those within Syria, or by external powers – can achieve a lasting peace. Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria – that is for the Syrian people to decide. Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country. The notion that Syria can return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy. It’s time for Russia and Iran to realize that insisting on Assad’s rule will lead directly to the outcome they fear: an increasingly violent space for extremists to operate. In turn, those of us who continue to support the moderate opposition must persuade them that the Syrian people cannot afford a collapse of state institutions, and that a political settlement cannot be reached without addressing the legitimate fears of Alawites and other minorities.
As we pursue a settlement, let us remember that this is not a zero-sum endeavor. We are no longer in a Cold War. There’s no Great Game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists. I welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring about a peaceful resolution of Syria’s civil war. And as we move the Geneva process forward, I urge all nations here to step up to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and surrounding countries. America has committed over a billion dollars to this effort, and today, I can announce that we will be providing an additional $340 million. No aid can take the place of a political resolution that gives the Syrian people the chance to begin rebuilding their country – but it can help desperate people survive.
What broader conclusions can be drawn from America’s policy toward Syria? I know there are those who have been frustrated by our unwillingness to use our military might to depose Assad, and believe that a failure to do so indicates a weakening of America’s resolve in the region. Others have suggested that my willingness to direct even limited military strikes to deter the further use of chemical weapons shows that we have learned nothing from Iraq, and that America continues to seek control over the Middle East for our own purposes. In this way, the situation in Syria mirrors a contradiction that has persisted in the region for decades: the United States is chastised for meddling in the region, and accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy; at the same time, the United States is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region’s problems, and for showing indifference toward suffering Muslim populations.
I realize some of this is inevitable, given America’s role in the world. But these attitudes have a practical impact on the American peoples’ support for our involvement in the region, and allow leaders in the region – and the international community – to avoid addressing difficult problems. So let me take this opportunity to outline what has been U.S. policy towards the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency.
The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure these core interests in the region.
We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.
We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends upon the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.
We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. Wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations, and work to address the root causes of terror. But when its necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct action.
And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security, we reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global non-proliferation regime.
Now, to say these are America’s core interests is not to say these are our only interests. We deeply believe it is in our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous; and will continue to promote democracy, human rights, and open markets, because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity. But I also believe that we can rarely achieve these objectives through unilateral American action – particularly with military action. Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force. Rather, these objectives are best achieved when we partner with the international community, and with the countries and people of the region.
What does this mean going forward? In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. While these issues are not the cause of all the region’s problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too long, and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace.
The United States and Iran have been isolated from one another since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs, and America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War. On the other hand, Americans see an Iranian government that has declared the United States an enemy, and directly – or through proxies – taken Americans hostage, killed U.S. troops and civilians, and threatened our ally Israel with destruction.
I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight – the suspicion runs too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship – one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.
Since I took office, I have made it clear – in letters to the Supreme Leader in Iran and more recently to President Rouhani – that America prefers to resolve our concerns over Iran’s nuclear program peacefully, but that we are determined to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon. We are not seeking regime change, and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy. Instead, we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.
These statements made by our respective governments should offer the basis for a meaningful agreement. We should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the Iranian people, while giving the world confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful. To succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. After all, it is the Iranian government’s choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place. This isn’t simply an issue between America and Iran – the world has seen Iran evade its responsibilities in the past, and has an abiding interest in making sure that Iran meets its obligations in the future.
We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course. Given President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directing John Kerry to pursue this effort with the Iranian government, in close coordination with the European Union, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China. The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested. For while the status quo will only deepen Iran’s isolation, Iran’s genuine commitment to go down a different path will be good for the region and the world, and will help the Iranian people meet their extraordinary potential – in commerce and culture; in science and education.
We are also determined to resolve a conflict that goes back even further than our differences with Iran: the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. I have made clear that the United States will never compromise our commitment to Israel’s security, nor our support for its existence as a Jewish state. Earlier this year, in Jerusalem, I was inspired by young Israelis who stood up for the belief that peace was necessary, just, and possible, and I believe there is a growing recognition within Israel that the occupation of the West Bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the Jewish state. But the children of Israel have the right to live in a world where the nations assembled in this body fully recognize their country, and unequivocally reject those who fire rockets at their homes or incite others to hate them.
Likewise, the United States remains committed to the belief that the Palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own sovereign state. On the same trip, I had the opportunity to meet with young Palestinians in Ramallah whose ambition and potential are matched by the pain they feel in having no firm place in the community of nations. They are understandably cynical that real progress will ever be made, and frustrated by their families enduring the daily indignity of occupation. But they recognize that two states is the only real path to peace: because just as the Palestinian people must not be displaced, the state of Israel is here to stay.
The time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace. Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks. President Abbas has put aside efforts to short-cut the pursuit of peace and come to the negotiating table. Prime Minister Netanyahu has released Palestinian prisoners, and reaffirmed his commitment to a Palestinian state. Current talks are focused on final status issues of borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem.
Now the rest of us must also be willing to take risks. Friends of Israel, including the United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depends upon the realization of a Palestinian state. Arab states – and those who have supported the Palestinians – must recognize that stability will only be served through a two-state solution with a secure Israel. All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists, and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future. Moreover, ties of trade and commerce between Israelis and Arabs could be an engine of growth and opportunity at a time when too many young people in the region are languishing without work. So let us emerge from the familiar corners of blame and prejudice, and support Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace.
Real breakthroughs on these two issues – Iran’s nuclear program, and Israeli-Palestinian peace – would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa. But the current convulsions arising out of the Arab Spring remind us that a just and lasting peace cannot be measured only by agreements between nations. It must also be measured by our ability to resolve conflict and promote justice within nations. And by that measure, it is clear to all of us that there is much more work to be done.
When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt, the entire world was filled with hope. And although the United States – like others – was struck by the speed of transition, and did not – in fact could not – dictate events, we chose to support those who called for change. We did so based on the belief that while these transitions will be hard, and take time, societies based upon democracy and openness and the dignity of the individual will ultimately be more stable, more prosperous, and more peaceful.
Over the last few years, particularly in Egypt, we’ve seen just how hard this transition will be. Mohammed Morsi was democratically elected, but proved unwilling or unable to govern in a way that was fully inclusive. The interim government that replaced him responded to the desires of millions of Egyptians who believed the revolution had taken a wrong turn, but it too has made decisions inconsistent with inclusive democracy – through an emergency law, and restrictions on the press, civil society, and opposition parties.
Of course, America has been attacked by all sides of this internal conflict, simultaneously accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and engineering their removal from power. In fact, the United States has purposely avoided choosing sides. Our over-riding interest throughout these past few years has been to encourage a government that legitimately reflects the will of the Egyptian people, and recognizes true democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society.
That remains our interest today. And so, going forward, the United States will maintain a constructive relationship with the interim government that promotes core interests like the Camp David Accords and counter-terrorism. We will continue support in areas like education that benefit the Egyptian people. But we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military systems, and our support will depend upon Egypt’s progress in pursuing a democratic path.
Our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point: the United States will at times work with governments that do not meet the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests. But we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent, or supporting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We will reject the notion that these principles are simply Western exports, incompatible with Islam or the Arab World - they are the birthright of every person. And while we recognize that our influence will at times be limited; although we will be wary of efforts to impose democracy through military force, and will at times be accused of hypocrisy or inconsistency – we will be engaged in the region for the long haul. For the hard work of forging freedom and democracy is the task of a generation.
This includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain. Ultimately, such long-standing issues cannot be solved by outsiders; they must be addressed by Muslim communities themselves. But we have seen grinding conflicts come to an end before – most recently in Northern Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants finally recognized that an endless cycle of conflict was causing both communities to fall behind a fast-moving world.
In sum, the United States has a hard-earned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries. The notion of American empire may be useful propaganda, but it isn’t borne out by America’s current policy or public opinion. Indeed, as the recent debate within the United States over Syria clearly showed, the danger for the world is not an America that is eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries, or take on every problem in the region as its own. The danger for the world is that the United States, after a decade of war; rightly concerned about issues back home; and aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim World, may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.
I believe that would be a mistake. I believe America must remain engaged for our own security. I believe the world is better for it. Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional – in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all. I must be honest, though: we are far more likely to invest our energy in those countries that want to work with us; that invest in their people, instead of a corrupt few; that embrace a vision of society where everyone can contribute – men and women, Shia or Sunni, Muslim, Christian or Jew. Because from Europe to Asia; from Africa to the Americas, nations that persevered on a democratic path have emerged more prosperous, more peaceful, and more invested in upholding our common security and our common humanity. And I believe that the same will hold true for the Arab World.
This leads me to a final point: there will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, and the violence against civilians so substantial, that the international community will be called upon to act. This will require new thinking and some very tough choices. While the U.N. was designed to prevent wars between states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states. And these challenges will grow more pronounced as we are confronted with states that are fragile or failing – places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk, with no hope of protection from national institutions.
I have made it clear that even when America’s core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect human rights. Yet we cannot and should not bear that burden alone. In Mali, we supported both the French intervention that successfully pushed back al Qaeda, and the African forces who are keeping the peace. In Africa, we are working with partners to bring the Lord’s Resistance Army to an end. And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.
I know that some now criticize the action in Libya as an object lesson. They point to problems that the country now confronts – a democratically-elected government struggling to provide security; armed groups, in some places extremists, ruling parts of a fractured land – and argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. No one is more mindful of these problems than I am, for they resulted in the death of four outstanding U.S. citizens who were committed to the Libyan people, including Ambassador Chris Stevens – a man whose courageous efforts helped save the city of Benghazi. But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya would be better if Qadhafi had been allowed to kill, imprison, or brutalize his people into submission? It is far more likely that without international action, Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.
We live in a world of imperfect choices. Different nations will not agree on the need for action in every instance, and the principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order. But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye to slaughter. While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, and we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda or Srebrenica? If that’s the world that people want to live in, then they should say so, and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.
I believe we can embrace a different future. If we don’t want to choose between inaction and war, we must get better – all of us – at the policies that prevent the breakdown of basic order. Through respect for the responsibilities of nations and the rights of individuals. Through meaningful sanctions for those who break the rules. Through dogged diplomacy that resolves the root causes of conflict, and not merely its aftermath. Through development assistance that brings hope to the marginalized. And yes, sometimes, all this will not be enough – and in such moments, the international community will need to acknowledge that the multilateral use of military force may be required to prevent the very worst from occuring.
Ultimately, this is the international community that America seeks – one where nations do not covet the land or resources of other nations, but one in which we carry out the founding purpose of this institution. A world in which the rules established out of the horrors of war can help us resolve conflicts peacefully, and prevent the kind of wars that our forefathers fought. A world where human beings can live with dignity and meet their basic needs, whether they live in New York or Nairobi; in Peshawar or Damascus.
These are extraordinary times, with extraordinary opportunities. Thanks to human progress, a child born anywhere on Earth can do things today that 60 years ago would have been out of reach for the mass of humanity. I saw this in Africa, where nations moving beyond conflict are now poised to take off. America is with them: partnering to feed the hungry, care for the sick, and to bring power to places off the grid.
I see it across the Pacific, where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in a single generation. I see it in the faces of young people everywhere who can access the entire world with the click of a button, and who are eager to join the cause of eradicating extreme poverty, combating climate change, starting businesses, expanding freedom, and leaving behind the old ideological battles of the past. That’s what’s happening in Asia and Africa; in Europe and the Americas. That’s the future that the people of the Middle East and North Africa deserve – one where they can focus on opportunity, instead of whether they’ll be killed or repressed because of who they are or what they believe.
Time and again, nations and people have shown our capacity to change – to live up to humanity’s highest ideals, to choose our better history. Last month, I stood where fifty years ago Martin Luther King Jr. told America about his dream, at a time when many people of my race could not even vote for President. Earlier this year, I stood in the small cell where Nelson Mandela endured decades cut off from his own people and the world. Who are we to believe that today’s challenges cannot be overcome, when we have seen what changes the human spirit can bring? Who in this hall can argue that the future belongs to those who seek to repress that spirit, rather than those who seek to liberate it?
I know what side of history I want to the United States of America to be on. We are ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges with you – firm in the belief that all men and women are in fact created equal, each individual possessed with a dignity that cannot be denied. That is why we look to the future not with fear, but with hope. That’s why we remain convinced that this community of nations can deliver a more peaceful, prosperous, and just world to the next gene
 |
|
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Lagos Zonal Directorate 2, on Wednesday, arraigned self-styled relationship therapist Okoro Blessing Nkiruka, popularly known as Blessing CEO, before the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, over an alleged fresh ₦13 million fraud.
ADVERTISEMENT
Blessing CEO was arraigned before Justice Yelim Bogoro on a six-count charge bordering on obtaining money by false pretence and retaining the proceeds of an alleged unlawful act amounting to N13 million.
The latest case brings to three the number of criminal charges currently pending against the defendant before different courts in Lagos.
According to the anti-graft agency, the charges arose from multiple petitions submitted by individuals and organisations, including the Nigeria Cancer Society. The petitioners alleged that the defendant solicited donations from members of the public through social media after claiming she was battling Stage 4 breast cancer and required financial assistance for treatment.
The EFCC alleged that several donors made contributions based on the representation, only for investigations to later reveal that the medical document she presented to support her claims was allegedly falsified.
The Commission further alleged that the donations, totalling ₦13 million, were obtained under false pretences and subsequently retained by the defendant.
The arraignment marks the latest legal challenge for Blessing CEO, who is already facing two separate criminal prosecutions before courts in Lagos.
On Tuesday, June 9, 2026, she was arraigned before Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, over an alleged ₦69.15 million fraud. She was charged with obtaining money by false pretence and stealing.
The EFCC alleged that she falsely represented herself as the owner of a property located at No. 1 Tunbosun Osobu Street, Lekki, and induced Hope Chiropractic Health Clinic Limited to pay ₦69.15 million for a five-year lease. The Commission further alleged that she converted the money to her personal use.
She pleaded not guilty to the two-count charge. Following submissions by counsel, Justice Oshodi ordered that the arraignment proceed and remanded her in EFCC custody pending further proceedings.
The case was adjourned until July 16, 2026, for the hearing of her bail application and commencement of trial.
Earlier on Tuesday, Justice Deinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, granted Blessing CEO bail in the sum of ₦10 million with two sureties in connection with a separate alleged ₦36 million property fraud case.
The defendant, who appeared in court wearing a long black gown over black trousers, is standing trial over allegations relating to the property transaction.
EFCC counsel Suleiman Suleiman opposed her request to remain in the Commission’s custody, informing the court that the agency’s detention facilities were already overcrowded.
In his ruling, Justice Dipeolu ordered that the defendant be remanded in a correctional facility pending the fulfilment of her bail conditions.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter until June 22, 2026, for the continuation of trial.
News
In the impatient age of quarterly capitalism, where executives are judged by immediate returns and investors demand instant gratification, patience has become one of the rarest commodities in business. Yet patience, more than brilliance or bravado, has always distinguished the true institution-builder from the mere opportunist. Few contemporary African businessmen embody this distinction more convincingly than Tony Elumelu.
As Heirs Insurance Group marks its fifth anniversary in June 2026, the milestone is significant not merely because of the company’s rapid ascent within Nigeria’s notoriously underpenetrated insurance sector, but because its story is, fundamentally, a meditation on endurance. Behind the celebratory speeches, growth metrics and corporate accolades lies a less glamorous but more revealing reality: the operational licenses that birthed Heirs Insurance took eight years to secure. Yes, you read it correctly. Eight years.
In most corporate boardrooms, eight years of regulatory limbo would have been sufficient to extinguish enthusiasm, redirect capital elsewhere and bury the idea quietly beneath the sediment of abandoned ambitions. Yet Tony Elumelu persisted. That persistence now appears less like stubbornness and more like strategic foresight.
The launch of Heirs Insurance in 2021 alongside the commissioning of Heirs Towers was never merely the unveiling of another financial-services company. It was the extension of a wider philosophical project that has animated Elumelu’s business career for decades: the conviction that African-owned institutions can achieve scale, sophistication and competitiveness comparable to any global peer.
Today, barely five years later, Heirs Insurance serves nearly two million customers across Nigeria. The Financial Times recently ranked Heirs Life Assurance seventh and Heirs General Insurance forty-first among Africa’s fastest-growing companies, a remarkable feat in a sector that has historically struggled for relevance in Nigeria’s economic life.
The statistics become even more impressive when placed against the broader context of the Nigerian insurance industry itself. Insurance penetration in Nigeria remains below one per cent of GDP, one of the lowest rates globally. In practical terms, this means millions of Nigerians continue to rely on informal family structures, religious solidarity and personal improvisation as substitutes for formal risk protection. Insurance, for many, remains distant, misunderstood or distrusted. It is precisely this structural weakness that Heirs Insurance identified as an opportunity.
Rather than replicate the orthodox models of legacy insurers—many of which remain trapped in bureaucratic inertia and elite urban markets—the company pursued a strategy built around accessibility, technology and scale. Digital onboarding replaced cumbersome paperwork. Mobile-first products lowered entry barriers. Microinsurance products targeted demographics long ignored by traditional operators. Insurance was repositioned not as an elite financial abstraction, but as an everyday instrument of economic dignity.
This was not accidental innovation. It reflected a broader understanding of Africa’s evolving economic realities. Across the continent, formal banking, telecommunications and digital commerce have expanded most successfully where firms adapted products to local realities rather than imported rigid Western templates. Heirs Insurance belongs firmly within this new generation of African institutions that understand scale emerges not from exclusivity, but from inclusion.
Equally significant has been the ecosystem advantage engineered through Heirs Holdings itself. Cross-selling synergies involving UBA, Transcorp and Heirs Energies have accelerated customer acquisition and institutional visibility in ways standalone insurers would struggle to replicate. It is an illustration of strategic integration rarely executed successfully within African conglomerates, where diversification often degenerates into incoherence. Under Elumelu, however, the architecture appears deliberate: finance, energy, hospitality and insurance reinforcing one another within a broader continental vision.
Yet perhaps the most important aspect of the Heirs Insurance story lies not in balance sheets or rankings, but in what it reveals about Tony Elumelu’s peculiar temperament as a builder of institutions. Modern business culture frequently glorifies disruption, aggression and velocity. Elumelu’s approach has often been more measured, almost old-fashioned in its emphasis on staying power. He has long understood that enduring institutions are not constructed through viral moments, but through sustained discipline, strategic patience and reputational consistency.
This philosophy has become increasingly rare in contemporary Africa, where political instability, policy unpredictability and weak institutions often encourage short-term extraction over long-term investment. The temptation for many investors is to maximize immediate returns while minimizing exposure to systemic uncertainty. Elumelu, by contrast, has repeatedly chosen the more difficult route of institutional permanence.
The eight-year wait for licensing is therefore not a footnote to the Heirs Insurance story. It is the story. For what distinguished the venture was not merely the availability of capital, but the willingness to remain committed during prolonged uncertainty. Capital, after all, is abundant globally. Conviction is scarcer. Operational leadership from senior Heirs executives such as Niyi Onifade and Wole Fayemi has undoubtedly translated vision into execution. But execution alone does not create institutions. Institutions emerge when leadership combines operational competence with philosophical clarity about purpose and time horizon.
Elumelu’s broader advocacy for raising Nigeria’s insurance penetration to three per cent of GDP similarly reflects a strategic understanding that no company can thrive sustainably within a weak ecosystem. The ambition is not merely corporate expansion, but sectoral transformation itself. If achieved, such growth would deepen financial inclusion, expand long-term domestic capital pools and strengthen economic resilience across households and businesses alike.
At a deeper level, Heirs Insurance also represents something symbolic within the African corporate imagination. For decades, African financial sectors were dominated either by foreign multinationals or by indigenous firms constrained by insufficient scale, technological weakness or governance deficiencies. The emergence of globally competitive African-owned institutions capable of combining technological sophistication with continental ambition marks an important psychological transition.
It is this larger symbolism that makes the Heirs Insurance anniversary noteworthy beyond corporate ceremony. Five years may appear brief in the lifespan of institutions. But within those five years lies evidence of something increasingly consequential in African capitalism: the emergence of patient capital guided not merely by opportunism, but by vision. Tony Elumelu’s enduring lesson is therefore deceptively simple. Institutions are not miracles. They are acts of sustained belief.
In an era intoxicated by immediacy, Heirs Insurance stands as a reminder that the most important revolutions are often quiet ones; built patiently, painstakingly and almost stubbornly over time until what once seemed improbable becomes inevitable.
In The Spotlight
Nearly three weeks have passed since 39 schoolchildren and eight of their teachers were abducted in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State. Three weeks of rain, hunger, fear, and unimaginable trauma. Three weeks of parents living in a purgatory of hope and despair. Three weeks of children sleeping on wet forest floors while their governor behaves as though time is an infinite luxury. This is not merely a failure of security. It is a failure of leadership.
Governor Seyi Makinde has responded to this crisis with a detachment so baffling, so cavalier, that it borders on dereliction of duty. At a moment when every second counts, when every drop of rain falling on those children is an indictment of the state, Makinde has chosen bureaucratic caution over moral urgency. The children are still in captivity. The governor is still dithering. And the people of Oyo are left wondering: What exactly is he waiting for?
For two weeks, hunters, traditionalists, OPC, Agbekoya, and Sunday Igboho’s network; people who know the forests, who understand the terrain, who have rescued victims before, have offered their help. They have asked for nothing but the governor’s permission so they are not later branded as “non state actors” or “bandits.” Makinde has not only refused them; he has refused to even acknowledge them. Not a meeting. Not a briefing. Not even the courtesy of a public statement.
This is the same governor who once distanced himself from Igangan’s rescue operation, only to watch as non state actors succeeded where the state failed. One would think that experience would have taught him humility. Instead, he has doubled down on a strategy of paralysis disguised as prudence. The hunters say they are ready. The OPC says it is ready. Agbekoya says it is ready. Igboho’s men say they are ready. But the governor; the one man with the constitutional authority to greenlight action is not.
Let us speak plainly. These children are not in a safe house. They are not in a guarded compound. They are in the forest, exposed to the elements, sleeping on mud, drinking whatever water they can find, and living under the psychological torture of armed captors. Every day that passes is a day of dehydration, hunger, illness, trauma and the risk of death. What is the governor’s plan? What is the strategy? Where is the urgency? The silence from Agodi is deafening.
Yes, Nigeria’s security architecture is federally controlled. Yes, state governors are constrained. But constraints are not an excuse for complacency. A responsible leader does not shrug helplessly while children are held hostage within his own state. A responsible leader does not reject help from those who know the terrain better than any police unit dispatched from Abuja. A responsible leader does not pretend that “everything is under control” when the evidence of collapse is everywhere.
In the last few days alone, there have been more kidnappings in Ibadan, more killings across the country and more evidence that criminals now operate with impunity. The truth is simple: the government has been overwhelmed. And Oyo State is not an exception; it is a symptom, but Makinde’s failure is not just tactical; it is moral. Leadership is not measured by press statements or security meetings. It is measured by the willingness to act decisively when lives hang in the balance. Makinde’s refusal to mobilize every available resource, including local actors with proven track records is not caution. It is criminal negligence. It is a betrayal of the children, their parents, and the people of Oyo State.
Nigeria’s insecurity crisis has become a political football. Ethnic blame games. Religious narratives. Partisan point scoring. Meanwhile, criminals do not ask for your tribe before abducting you. They do not check your religion before shooting. They do not care who you voted for. This is not a Fulani problem. This is not a Christian or Muslim problem. This is not a PDP or APC problem. This is a national emergency. And in Oyo State, it is a humanitarian emergency, and the Governor must act now!
Governor Makinde must authorize vetted local hunters, OPC, Agbekoya, and other community groups to join the search. He should create a joint command structure that separates genuine volunteers from charlatans, and provide logistical support to all rescue teams. Makinde should stop pretending that the current strategy is working; and demand federal reinforcement with urgency. He should prioritize the safe return of the children above all else. Nothing else matters until those children are home. The parents of Oriire do not need speeches. They do not need condolences. They do not need promises. They need their children. And the governor who swore an oath to protect them must stop hiding behind bureaucracy and start acting like the chief security officer he claims to be. History will not remember the excuses. It will remember the children, and what he did, or failed to do, to save them.
Opinions
In The Spotlight
“Thank God it is over”
“Yes oh. Now, Arsenal players and their fans can now allow all of us to rest. They have their Premier League trophy. PSG have taken the Champions League. History made on both sides. Heroes made.”
“Who is talking about Arsenal or PSG? Why is it that you, Nigerians are always so unpatriotic? Before you think of your own country, you are more concerned about what is happening in other parts of the world. When I say it is over, I am referring to the party primaries that have just been concluded in Nigeria’s political space. The INEC deadline expired on May 30.”
“Oh, I see. But it is not correct to say it is over. The correct thing to say is that Nigeria is now on a path to a new beginning, a return to high-wire politics that could have serious implications for the future. The end of the primaries is merely the commencement of warfare which Nigerian politics is.”
“Yes. Yes. I know that there will be fall-outs. After all, there have been very loud complaints about the mode of the primaries, consensus arrangements that marginalized many eligible participants and direct primaries that were openly rigged, shamelessly too. And I dare say, no party is innocent.”
“Well, well, well, I have not heard of any complaints from the African Action Congress which chose Omoyele Sowore by popular acclamation, Accord Party which announced Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim, the People’s Redemption Party (PRP) that selected former Governor Donald Duke, Governor Seyi Makinde’s Allied People’s Movement, Action Democratic Party where you have Aliyu Bin Abbas, and of course the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) which produced Peter Obi. In these parties, the choice of the flagbearers has been relatively peaceful. It is only in the APC, the PDP, and the ADC that we have had controversies.”
“Not true. There have been issues in all the parties. And this is the point that Minister Wike was making during his media chat on TV yesterday. He said those politicians in ADC and NDC who claim they know how to run Nigeria are all liars, because ordinary party primaries they could not even organize successfully.”
“Are you still taking that one serious?”
“But he has a point. No opposition party has been able to show that their party is better than the APC. We are faced with the same of the same. Wike is right to laugh at them.”
“Peter Obi, the ADC Presidential candidate has promised to generate 10, 000 MW of electricity in 4 years of the single term that he is proposing. He will also empower MSMEs and address youth unemployment. That is something different.”
‘I beg. Is power generation the problem? Electricity is a value chain. How about transmission and distribution? How about tariffs, liquidity? Leakages, wastages. And where were you when failed aspirants in the Democratic Leadership Alliance (DLA) and the Labour Party (LP) were asking for a refund of monies paid into the party’s coffers. In Imo State, one APC aspirant wept openly and on social media claiming that he had spent over N100 million to buy forms for the House of Representatives slot only for the party to impose a woman who never bought any form. He said it will never happen.”
“Did you say an APC aspirant?”
“Yes, from Owerri”
“If he knows what is good for him, he will keep quiet and sulk in silence. The ticket belongs to the party. Even the aspirant that challenged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for the APC Presidential ticket is now singing his praise. And what does your Imo friend want the 14 lawmakers in the Lagos State House of Assembly who have been sent away to do, and all the Ministers who resigned their positions to run for one elective office or the other. Maybe only one of them succeeded. The Godfather system that they run in the APC simply means you have to obey and accept whatever you are given by the powers-that-be.”
“But that is not democracy. That is tyranny.”
“Who told you there is a universal model of democracy?”
“There are principles.”
“I know. Take the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) founded by countryman Senator Seriake Dickson. The party is now the beautiful bride. That is why Peter Obi and Dr Kwankwaso left the ADC and ran there.”
“Wike says Peter Obi is a food-is-ready politician! He will run to any party that others have worked hard to build.”
“Don’t mind him. They are all the same. What I am saying is that for you to join the NDC, you have to go to Seriake Dickson’s house. To get an expression of interest form, you also have to go to his house. Major meetings are also held in his house, except may be the party’s convention and that must have been due to reasons of space. That too is democracy. And look at Wike. He gave a directive to events owners and hoteliers in Abuja not to allow any “illegal political groups” to use their premises, otherwise their licenses and land titles will be revoked. The David Mark faction of the ADC fought back but the Turaki faction of the PDP ended up holding their event at an open field. I guess that too is democracy.”
“No, that is against the principles of fair play and equal access. But what do you think will happen now?”
“To be honest, I see a lot of confusion. So much uncertainty. Out of 22 registered political parties, only 11 have announced their Presidential candidates. I doubt if anyone has made any submissions to INEC
by the deadline of May 30. The deadline for moving from one political party to the other was set at May 10. Long after that deadline, we have now seen politicians moving from one party to the other. Babachir Lawal for example has dumped the ADC. Senator Ovie Omo-Agege has moved out of the APC in protest to join the NDC.”
“I believe this is because of the two conflicting judgements in the Federal High Court. Abuja Division. Youth Party vs INEC by Justice Mohammed Umar and SDP vs INEC by Justice James Omotoso. INEC has since gone to the Court of Appeal and has applied for a stay of execution. Meanwhile, everything is in abeyance. Even the lawyers are taking one side or the other, offering conflicting interpretations.”
“Whether we like it or not, Nigeria’s 2027 general elections will be determined by the courts, not by the voters. Look at the confusion in the parties, especially the ADC which has three factions, three Presidential candidates – the Nafiu Bala Gombe faction with Chris Uba, the Kachikwu faction with Dumebi Kachikwu and the David Mark-led faction with Atiku Abubakar. Then the PDP with two factions, two Presidential candidates – the Wike faction with Senator Sandy Onor and the Kabiru Turaki faction with President Goodluck Jonathan.”
“I don’t even understand why President Jonathan will allow anybody to drag him into this state of confusion. He is an international statesman. He is a man of stature, widely respected locally and internationally. He should stay above partisan politics.”
“Wike says nobody drags anybody into politics. It is only when you show interest that people will come and offer you what they think you want.”
“The way you keep quoting Wike this, Wike that, I hope there is nothing. You better don’t waste your time. Wike no send anybody oh. But I agree with you on President Jonathan. He is legally eligible, constitutionally and by all means as recently decided by the Federal High Court of Justice Peter Lifu. But it is not advisable for him to get involved in the PDP crisis. There are two Federal High Court cases in contention: the Court of Justice Uche Agomoh in the Ibadan Division, and the court of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik at the Abuja Division on the basis of which INEC recognized the Wike faction. Wike served President Jonathan as Minister of State over 10 years ago. No. No. No. He cannot be seen to be dragging anything with his own subordinates. He is too distinguished for that.”
“But in the United States, President Trump left office and he still came back and was re-elected. In Ghana, President Mahama left and returned.”
“The situations are not so similar. President Tinubu vs President Jonathan. It will look too messy. It will be too complicated. There is also the constraint of time. We are just about seven months to the elections. Not enough time to mobilize.”
“I think that there is even more than enough time. With the right momentum, 24 hours is a long time in politics. I imagine that with the seven months gap ahead, many politicians will even run out of cash. Many will sell their grandparents homes to keep up with the unrelenting pressure of campaigns and politicking. I even hear that it is Tinubu sponsoring Jonathan. But if I were President Jonathan, and I want to dare everything, I will choose a man like Nasir El-Rufai as my running mate.”
“Stop making suggestions that will not work and do not make sense. Why would President Jonathan want to dare everything? He is not that kind of person. He will not do anything to disorient the country because of personal ambition. He is a leader, not a food-is-ready politician.”
“Then let him issue a strongly worded statement to dissociate himself from partisan politics. No, thank you are three simple words in English. Let him come and say that he is not running for office in 2027.”
“Okay then, let us just sit down and look. But by the way, did you go to Ijebu Ode for the Ojude Oba after Sallah?”
“No. But I followed everything on social media. Very impressive as usual. The colour. The Equestrian displays, the pageantry and the paraphernalia, even in the absence of the Awujale. I like the fact that the festival is community-based and family-based as well and many families stood up to be counted: the Adesoyes, the Kukus, the Adeshiles, the Ashirus, and there was enough space for the traditional societies, the Regberegbes to promote Ijebu nationalism. The good thing is that other Ijebu communities are beginning to have similar celebrations: in Ososa, Ijebu Igbo, and Ago-Iwoye for example. Nigerians have a way of stealing laughter from the jaws of despair. Think of the Durbar in Ilorin and the Bariki Sallah celebration in Bida All good.”
“I also enjoyed the Ojude Oba, I liked seeing the King of Steeze, Farooq Oreagba and his son in action. But what I could not figure out was one woman who showed up this year, Toyin Olushile, whom they called the Queen of Steeze, all the way from New York City. She had a big tobacco pipe in her mouth and she was puffing smoke into the air like a locomotive train. I did not find that funny. The Ojude Oba should not be used to promote smoking of any type. There are children involved and they are watching.”
“Well, it was all part of the show. But talking about children, this past weekend was a sad one for me.”
“Me too. I watched the video of Mrs Alamu pleading for help, from captivity, and my heart sank. I saw her husband, a Professor, kneeling down and pleading with the Oyo State Government to do something to rescue all the 46 children and teachers in captivity, and I felt for him. In Borno state, Askira Uba Local Government, 45 students were also abducted. Same day, May 15, in the same coordinated fashion. Something sinister is happening.”
“Governor Seyi Makinde has tried. He went to the community to empathise with the people. The Federal Government has also sent a delegation. What I do not understand is why the state and the Federal Government had to respond separately. They could have co-ordinated their efforts. Nobody should play partisan politics with human lives. Governor Makinde went to the community on Saturday. The Federal Government delegation showed up on Sunday in a helicopter. The politics was too obvious.”
“Yes. Both the states and the Federal Government should always work together. Human lives are at stake in Oyo, in Borno and other parts of the country.”
“I really couldn’t enjoy the UCL Champions League final.”
“Forget about Champions League. The Super Eagles were playing in the Unity Cup finals against Jamaica at the Valley Stadium in London, the same day. They defeated Jamaica, 4 -0. You are here talking about Arsenal and PSG.”
“Congratulations to the Super Eagles. Gunners ForEver!”
“How about Enugu Rangers?”.
“Rangerrs. Who are they?”
“They won the Nigerian Football League.”
“Oh. Sorry. Never heard of them.”
“Of course”.