Thursday’s suspension of Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) by President Goodluck Jonathan is patently illegal, poorly thought-out, in bad taste and will definitely have negative consequences for the nation’s economy, the All Progressives Congress (APC) has said.
In a statement issued in Lagos on Thursday by its Interim National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the party described the action as the clearest indication yet that President Jonathan, whose body language does not abhor corruption, is willing to silence any whistle-blower, no matter his or her status.
“As the country wallows in unprecedented corruption under the rudderless and corruption-hugging Jonathan Administration, the president may have finally decided to send a strong signal to all Nigerians that it will not tolerate any exposure of corruption under any circumstance. What better way to do this than to silence the man who has exposed the alleged missing $20 billion in the NNPC accounts?” it queried.
“Sanusi’s suspension has also shown clearly that President Jonathan, as a leader, does not care if he destroys national institutions on the altar of personal ego and political expediency.
“First, it was the Judiciary which came under his sledge hammer, when he suspended then President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami, just to satisfy the hawks in his party. Then, it is the turn of the National Assembly, the Police and now the financial sector. President Jonathan should not destroy our institutions before he bows out of office next year. These institutions are older than him and will definitely outlive him”.
The party said that while Section 11 (f) of the CBN Act 2007 empowers the president to remove the CBN governor, the section is clear that he can only do so if he has the support of two-thirds majority of the Senate.
“Nowhere in the Act is it said that the resident can suspend the CBN governor, as he has done in another of his serial rape of the country’s laws. The reasons given by the Presidency for Sanusi’s suspension are as puerile as they are unprecedented, and amount to calling the dog a bad name just to hang it”.
The party said the questions that arise, based on those ridiculous reasons, are why it has taken almost five years of Sanusi’s tenure for the president to realize the irregularities of CBN under Sanusi, Why the president is acting on questionable allegations against Sanusi at a time the CBN governor has opened the can of worms in the NNPC, why a president who has always treated glaring corruption allegations against his political appointees with so much levity is now so quick to move against a CBN governor who has never been accused, let alone indicted of corruption.
APC expressed serious concerns at the implication of Sanusi’s suspension for the nation’s economy, especially on the value of the Naira, local and international investments, the stock market, inflation and the overall health of the economy.
“Coming at a time when the economy was already under pressure due to internal and external factors and is in need of significant investments in several sectors, such as power and manufacturing to maintain its economic growth rates, the uncertainty caused by the suspension will leave both local and international investors questioning the economic direction of the country and therefore their investment approach to Nigeria.
“At best, new investments will be delayed until investors consider that economic and political stability has been restored, and at worst, which is more likely, both new and existing investors will pull back.
“The Nigerian Stock Exchange that was already witnessing a withdrawal of portfolio investors, due to the US tapering exercise, is likely to be exacerbated as more investors, local and international, exit the market, further putting downward pressure on the country’s exchange rate at a time the CBN is already having difficulty defending the currency. In fact, the devaluation of the national currency looms.
“All these factors will also drive higher inflation rates with its attendant economic, social and political costs. No one can say for certain exactly how costly this action will be for the nation but there are no doubts it will be high,” the party said.
It called on Nigerians to stay strong in their determination to fight the canker worm of corruption, even as the government of the day makes clear it will not hesitate to punish whistle-blowers and reward corrupt persons.
“If anyone in this country is still doubting that the Jonathan administration lacks the wherewithal to fight corruption, operate under the rule of law and take Nigeria to greater heights, that person should now clear the doubt. This administration has clearly reached the end of its tethers and should be voted out next year to pave theway for a party that is willing and able to rescue Nigeria,” APC said.
Also analysing the suspension, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) called it a distraction that can only contribute to shifting the focus of the Government from the real issue, which is finding the missing $20 billion oil money.
“The Government should not politicise the fight against corruption. Our concern remains the urgent, thorough, transparent and effective investigation into allegations that $20 billion oil money is missing from the account of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC)”, SERAP said in a statement issued on Thursday by its executive director, Adetokunbo Mumuni.
“If it is true that the suspension is linked with Sanusi’s public disclosure of the missing funds, SERAP believes that this will be clearly wrong and contrary to the Government’s obligations under the UN Convention against Corruption to target a whistle-blower simply for putting the information in the public domain. No one should be victimized for contributing to the fight against corruption, which is the moral and legal responsibility of any serious, open and people oriented government.
“Unless the Government comes clean about what exactly has happened to the $20 billion missing oil money, the NNPC will remain unaccountable to Nigerians for its action. This will not be consistent with the attitude of a government establishment funded with tax payers’ money.
“The Government’s action in finding the missing money and punishing suspected perpetrators is critical if it is to enjoy the trust and confidence of Nigerians in the fight against corruption.”
Human rights lawyer, Bamidele Aturu described Sanusi’s removal as the most egregious desecration of the rule of law and the principle of legality in Nigeria to date.
“It is unsurpassed in its blatant illegality and immorality. The decision is symptomatic of the desperation that has gripped the Presidency and its allies in the wake of the troubling allegations made by the governor of the bank that public officials in NNPC are looting the country blind in the name of subsidy payments. To the best of my knowledge, the allegation has not been coherently answered by the Corporation or by the Government”, Aturu said
“As far as the law goes, the purported suspension of the governor is unwarranted. Section 11 of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 clearly lists the instances when the governor or any of his deputies can cease to remain in office. For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, none of such instances include suspension by the president. The only mention of the word ‘suspension’ is in section 11 (1) (d) and that relates to the removal of the governor when he or she is disqualified or suspended from practising his or her profession in Nigeria. Of course, the illegal suspension of the governor is not from a professional body and is not at all contemplated by the law.
“It should be pointed out that the only occasion the president can recommend the removal of the governor or exercise any disciplinary control over him is under section 11 (1) (f) and that recommendation must be supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate before he can be removed. Now, the law is indubitably clear that the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of the other. In other words, if the law had intended that the president exercises the power of suspension over the governor of the Central Bank it would have expressly stated so, particularly as the same law provides for the removal of the governor based on his suspension from professional practice”.
Aturu listed the entire provision of Section 11 of the CBN Act goes thus:
CESSATION OF CBN GOV OFFICE
11. Disqualification and cessation of appointment.
(1) A person shall not remain a Governor, Deputy Governor or Director of the Bank if he is-
(a) a member of any Federal or State legislative house; or
(b) a Director, officer or employee of any bank licensed under the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act.
(2) The Governor, Deputy Governor or Director shall cease to hold office in the Bank if he-
(a) becomes of unsound mind or, owing to ill-health, is incapable of carrying out his duties;
(b) is convicted of any criminal offence by a court of competent jurisdiction except for traffic offences or contempt proceedings arising in connection with the execution or intended execution of any power or duty conferred under this Act or the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act;
(c) is guilty of a serious misconduct in relation to his duties under this Act ;
(d) is disqualified or suspended from practising his profession in Nigeria by order of a competent authority made in respect of him personally;
(e) becomes bankrupt;
f) is removed by the President:
Provided that the removal of the Governor shall be supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate praying that he be so removed.
(3) The Governor or any Deputy Governor may resign his Office by giving at least three months’ notice in writing to the President of his intention to do so and any Director may similarly resign by giving at least one months’ notice in writing to the President of his intention to do so.
(4) If the Governor, any Deputy Governor or Director of the Bank dies, resigns or otherwise vacates his Office before the expiry of the term for which he has been appointed, there shall be appointed a fit and proper person to take his place on the Board for the unexpired period of the term of appointment in the first instance if the vacancy is that of-
(a) The Governor or a Deputy Governor, the appointment shall be made in the manner prescribed by section 8 (1) and (2) of this Act; and
(b) Any Director, the appointment shall be made in the manner prescribed by section 10 (1) and (2) of this Act.
“The purported removal of the governor of the Central Bank is a continuation of the atrocious illegalities perpetrated by the present administration. From Salami to the serial acts of infamy imposed on the people of Rivers State and now to Sanusi, one can say without any fear of equivocation that the cup of illegalities of this administration is full”, Aturu continued.
“If we don’t act now, we don’t know whose turn it would be next. We must challenge the desecration of the laws of our country by its chief custodian. The Senate must view the so-called suspension of the governor for what it is: a naked usurpation of its powers and privileges. There is no room for illegal removal of the governor through the back door.
“The Nigeria Bar Association now has an opportunity to redeem whatever is left of its image by demanding that the Attorney General of the Federation, who is deemed to be privy to this embarrassing decision, step aside or is declared persona non grata. The people and in particular the civil society must ensure that this latest rape of our laws does not stand”.
In his own reaction, Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar cautioned the Federal Government against abuse of power, maintaining that the president has no power to remove or suspend the CBN Governor in such manner.
According to Atiku, silence in the face of such abuse of power by the president of the country is capable of sending the wrong message and setting a dangerous precedent. He recalled that when he became a victim of such abuse of power in the past following his suspension as Vice President by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, he went to court to challenge the action and the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court ruled that a president cannot suspend a public officer he has no power to sack.
The former Vice President, who confessed that he has no details of the nature of Sanusi’s alleged offences neither was he in the position to defend them, said that whatever Sanusi’s offence is, President Jonathan should have followed constitutional process to suspend or remove the CBN governor instead of exceeding the boundary of his powers.
“This is not about Sanusi as a person, or the person nominated to succeed him, Godwin Emefiele who is a thoroughbred professional. It is about due process that should be upheld,” Atiku said.
Atiku therefore advised the suspended the CBN governor to go to court to challenge his suspension in the interest of constitutionalism and the rule of law.
In another reaction, members of the Federal House of Representatives condemned the suspension.
On resumption of plenary session at about 11.05am, Samson Osagie, the minority whip, raised a point of order under matters of national importance titled ‘Suspension of the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi’, which was unanimously supported for consideration by the majority.
In his lead debate, Osagie noted that “the president on Thursday 20th of February announced through his special adviser Media and Publicity, Dr Reuben Abati the suspension of the CBN Governor Sanusi Lamido Sanusi over the report made against him by the Financial Reporting Council and other investigative bodies.
Osagie, who kicked against the suspension quoted Section 11 (7) of the CBN Act, 2007, which gives the president powers to remove the governor subject to two-thirds majority approval of the Senate, did not contemplate suspension, adding that it was also doubtful if Sanusi was given fair hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
In a swift reaction, some PDP lawmakers, including Leo Ogor, deputy House Leader; Ralph Nnanna Igbokwe; and Henry Ofongo intermittently interrupted with point of orders to puncture Osagie’s position.
In his submission, Ogor defended the suspension as a beginning of a process, and not an end in itself. “For you to remove somebody, there has to be a process; and the suspension is the beginning of that”, the lawmaker stated amidst shouts of ‘No! ‘No!! No!!!’ from supporters of the motion.
On his part, Igbokwe also quoted the same section of the CBN Act earlier cited by Osagie, which gives the president powers to appoint and remove the CBN governor.
According to him, if CBN was a public institution operating under the public service rules with Sanusi as a public officer heading the institution, he can be removed under such rules if found wanting in the discharge of his duties. He urged the House to resist every temptation not to act on the side of the law.
In his view, Nkoyo Toyo, through another point of order on matters of privilege, warned that Sanusi, no doubt is an important personality and a great Nigerian whose case should not be reduced to politicking on the floor of the House, a position the speaker told members to note as they debate the issue.
In separate interviews with some lawmakers, Minority Leader, Femi Gbajabiamila condemned the president’s action, describing it as an attack on CBN autonomy and setback for the fight on corruption.
“I am concerned about its legality. Whilst it can be argued that an employer has the right to suspend an employee, the question here is whether this is a suspension or a removal in the guise of suspension”, he said.
“For good reason, the CBN Governor world over, is independent and autonomous. To remove him, you need confirmation and buy-in of the Senate. You cannot do it through the backdoor. If you read carefully the reasons advanced by the Presidency, then it becomes clear that this is a removal and not a suspension; and [it is] therefore illegal and unconstitutional.
“It becomes more worrisome when you consider the timing and the fact that the CBN governor has just blown the lid off a monumental scandal involving the disappearance of $20billion from our coffers. The message being sent out is not the best. There can be no worse attack on the autonomy of the apex financial institution as envisaged by the Constitution. For God’s sake, the man only has three months left!”
On his part, Pally Iriase challenged President Jonathan to disclose allegations of “various acts of financial recklessness and misconduct” in the bid to justify the suspension.
“We have been talking about impunity. This is yet another show of impunity by this administration. The suspension is personal and is not unconnected with the recent disclosure of missing money from the NNPC. It is a clear case of if you cannot shut him up, ship him out. It should be condemned in its totality”, he said.
“If the bidding of APC is to have a robust economy, a responsible government that is corruption-free, then Nigerians should be happy. Sanusi’s suspension is simply a case of the administration shooting itself on the foot”.
 |
|
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