Following the adjustment of the dates for the 2015 general elections by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from 14th February to 28th March and 11th April President Goodluck Jonathan has reassured the nation of his commitment to the sanctity of 29th May 2015 as the terminal date of his first term in office.
He strongly reaffirmed that 29th May is, has been, and will remain sacrosanct.
He appealed to all stakeholders to accept the adjustment of the election dates by INEC in good faith, saying the electoral body has a responsibility to conduct credible elections in which every Nigerian of voting age is afforded the opportunity to exercise their civic right without any form of hindrance.
"President Jonathan believes that this is not a time to trade blames or make statements that may overheat the polity, but a time to show understanding and support the electoral commission to conduct the elections successfully," a statement signed by the president's spokesman Reuben Abati said.
He maintained in the statement that it is the President’s understanding that INEC’s decision ought not to generate acrimony since it acted within its powers under the law and in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.
He called on the international community, civil society and the electorate to continue to support the administration’s commitment to a free, fair, credible, and non-violent electoral process.
Election Postponement Is Coup Against Nigeria-Falana
At a public lecture delivered at the Chartham House in London last month, the National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki disclosed that he had “advised” the Independent National Electoral Commission to postpone the election. The reason adduced then for the unsolicited advice was that the INEC needed time to distribute permanent voters’ cards to all registered voters. As an adviser to the President on national security the NSA has no powers whatsoever to give directives or advice to the INEC. Indeed, there is no statutory nexus between the INEC and the NSA to warrant the purported demand for the postponement of the General Election. To that extent, the NSA acted illegally. The INEC rightly rejected the unwarranted interference from the NSA.
But as soon as the INEC announced that all arrangements had been put in place for the distribution of the remaining permanent voters cards in readiness for the February 14 election the NSA began to sing a different tune.
At that juncture, President Goodluck Jonathan convened a meeting of the Council of State. The NSA and the security chiefs were curiously invited to the meeting with a view to convincing the Council members to endorse the postponement of the election. To their utter dismay, they failed to achieve the illegal objective as the Council declined to support the postponement of the election. The Presidency had wanted the advisory body to usurp the constitutional duty of INEC by taking a “decision” on the postponement of the election.
In a desperate bid to blackmail the INEC to postpone the election the NSA wrote a letter to the INEC to the effect that the armed forces could not provide security for the election because of the operations in the north east region. By writing directly to the INEC on the security situation in the north east region the NSA usurped the functions of the National Security Council. That is the only body that has the constitutional duty to “advise the President on matters relating to public security including matters relating to any organization or agency established by law for ensuring the security of the Federation.”
The Council which is established under section 153 of the Constitution is comprised of the President, Vice-President, the a Defence Minister, Chief of defence staff, minister of interior, minister of foreign affairs, inspector-General of police and national security adviser.
It is pertinent to point out that the security chiefs are not members of the National Security Council. Neither are they members of the Nigeria Police Council. Therefore, they lack the constitutional power to make any authoritative pronouncement on the security of the nation. Even though the NSA is a member of the National Security Council he cannot usurp the constitutional responsibilities of the body with the connivance of the service chiefs. Since the NSA and the service chiefs acted illegally and mala fide the INEC ought to have rejected their politically motivated request for the postponement of the Election. The reliance on section 25 of the Electoral Act by Professor Attahiru Jega, the INEC chairman is totally misleading. The provision does not support the postponement of a general election in the entire country but “in the area or areas” where there is violence or actual threat of a breakdown of law and order.
Since the reason for the postponement of any election must be “cogent and verifiable” it is crystal clear from the press conference addressed by Professor Jega last night that the INEC did not verify the bogus claim of the NSA and the security chiefs as required by the law. By saying that they would not provide security in aid of civil authorities pursuant to section 217 of the Constitution the security chiefs have committed the offence of mutiny contrary to section 52 of the armed Forces Act. Contrary to the mistaken belief of the INEC leadership the armed forces have no role to play in the electoral process.
Since it is the exclusive constitutional responsibility of the Nigeria Police Force to maintain law and order during elections the INEC should have called off the bluff of the security chiefs. More so, that the Inspector-General of Police had confirmed the readiness of the Police to provide security for the election. Just last week, the federal high court sitting in Sokoto declared illegal and unconstitutional the involvement of soldiers in election duties. That judgment is binding on all authorities and persons in Nigeria.
It is pertinent to point out that the postponement of a General Election throughout the country is provided for under section 135(3) of the Constitution where it is stated that “If the Federation is at war in which the territory of Nigeria is physically involved and the President considers that it is not practicable to hold elections, the National Assembly may by resolution extend the period of four years mentioned in subsection (2) of this section from time to time, but no such extension shall exceed a period of six months at any one time.” Since the President could not persuade the National Assembly to pass a resolution for tenure elongation on spurious grounds the service chiefs allowed themselves to be manipulated to subvert the democratic process. Thus, by causing the election to be postponed, the NSA and the security chiefs have staged a coup against the Constitution. They are liable to be prosecuted for the grave offence of treason at the appropriate time.
If the satanic Boko Haram sect is not defeated by the armed forces of the republics of Chad, Cameroon and Niger in the next six weeks, the security chiefs are likely to ask for another postponement of the General Election on the ground that the operations in the north east region have not been successfully concluded. As such extension cannot be accommodated under the Electoral Act and the Constitution, the democratic process may be terminated by the security chiefs to pave way for the much touted INTERIM NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. Since some of the Colonels who played a dominant role in the criminal annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election have taken over the security of the country, the democratic forces in Nigeria should be prepared for a long drawn battle for the restoration of civil rule. In the circumstance, I am compelled to urge Nigerians to beware of the “Ides of March”.
Femi Falana SAN
The Danger in Poll Shift
Though the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has exercised its constitutional powers in shifting the February polls, the Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG) considers the reason given for the postponement as untenable.
Nigeria's defence and security institutions have not convinced Nigerians that they have the capability to curb the Boko Haram insurgency and it remains to be seen that they now possess new tactics and intelligence on how to curb it. Therefore, it is difficult to see how a six-year menace will disappear in six weeks.
Indeed, the events of the past few weeks lend credence to a pervasive public opinion that INEC was coerced into its adopted position. Nigerians were not particularly surprised at the postponement and many actually saw it coming. There is no doubt an "executive coercion" whose design and intent can only be to subjugate Nigeria's premier democratic institution, and until the security chiefs are able to advance believable reasons and demonstrate renewed commitment to their constitutional duty, Nigerians will remain suspicious of a premeditated plan to subvert democratic process.
The public perception that the defence institutions are being used to forcefully gain partisan ambition is widening and the current federal administration, as usual, appears not to give a damn. In fact, security chiefs are helping to reinforce this perception, in the light of recent revelation on Ekiti gubernatorial election, and it can only lead to truncation of democracy.
To worsen an already bad case, so much sacrifice is being demanded from Nigerians without commensurate sacrifice from the leadership cadre as if Nigerians signed a master-slave contract with their leaders.
Because patriotism should beget patriotism, if Nigerians are being asked to be patriotic enough to suffer the attendant cost of poll shift in order to fight insurgency - a man-made problem - then, is it not normal for an administration that has shown unprecedented lethargy in prosecuting war against insurgency to be equally patriotic enough to admit its failure and step aside?
To continue on the path of impunity and blatant abuse of the democratic right of Nigerians as the handlers of Nigerian state are doing is the foundation for injustice. Yoruba people loathe such insensitivity and will always reject such leadership because you can delay the burial of a corpse, but the delay can never resurrect the corpse.
Yoruba Nation is not blind to the grave implications posed by the current pursuit of invidious personal agenda to the detriment of collective goodwill. Toying with issues that should be sacrosanct in a democratic process is a shove that will soon turn to push and the Yoruba Nation will carefully consider its options for a desired peaceful and prosperous state.
We wish to warn those hell bent on scuttling our democracy to learn from history because, like they did in 2010 against the infamy known as "the cabal", Nigerians will continue to resist dictatorial agenda of a few who seek to hold the nation hostage.
Signed: Kunle Famoriyo
Publicity Secretary
We Welcome Poll Shift -- PDPPCO
Peoples Democratic Party Presidential Campaign Organisation (PDPPCO) said it concurred with the decision by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to shift the scheduled February general elections since it is in the best interest of deepening democracy and in the national interest.
Director of Media and Publicity of the PDPPCO, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode stated in a swift response to the poll shift announcement that INEC must be commended for showing the courage to shift the elections after acknowledging the fact that its state of preparedness was not 100 per cent.
According to Fani-Kayode, since the decision has been taken in the interest of deepening democracy and in national interest, his organisation accepts it in good faith.
“With this decision, INEC has allayed the fears of many of our citizens that they may not have had the opportunity to vote for the candidates and parties of their choice on Election Day," he said.
“INEC has, by the decision, ensured that no one will be disenfranchised and has helped to guarantee the safety and security of every single one of our citizens during the course of the elections.
“We are constrained to take this opportunity to wholeheartedly condemn the opposition APC for its paranoid delusions and its far-fetched and childish conspiracy theories when it comes to the issue of poll shift."
He added that by insisting that the elections should be conducted on February 14th the opposition was not only dangerously flirting with chaos but was also putting the country firmly on the path of confrontation, division, injustice, disaster and destruction.
“This is especially so, given the fact that no less than 34 percent of eligible voters have not been able to access their Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs) up till today- just seven days before the original date of the election. A situation where such a large percentage of our people would have been disenfranchised is unacceptable and the fact that the APC was insensitive to that fact speaks volumes," Fani-Kayode said.
“We are aware that INEC is having numerous logistical problems and numerous internal challenges and we believe that the poll shift will afford them the badly-needed time to tackle and resolve those problems and challenges before we arrive at the new dates that have been fixed for the elections.
“We believe that INEC must have drawn a useful guide from available security reports from the North-eastern zone where, despite the very serious challenges that our people are facing there from Boko Haram, we believe that elections must hold. We must insist on this in order to ensure that no parts of the country lose their right to freely, safely and peacefully participate in the coming elections and to vote for the candidates of their choice."
He held that it was against the backdrop of those developments that the campaign organisation commend INEC for finding the courage to do the right thing.
"In the same breath, we condemn the opposition APC leaders and members who are set to unleash confusion, mendacity and despondency everywhere and who are blaming everyone except themselves for the situation in which we have found ourselves," he added.
“It is a glaring testimony to their irresponsible and reckless disposition that they continue to insist on having an election on a date that the institution that is constitutionally charged to conduct that election has said that it would be impossible to go ahead under the present circumstances.
“The shift of date is a welcome development. It is solely the decision of INEC. The decision is not ours but we commend them (INEC) for showing courage by owning up to the fact that they are not ready to go ahead on February 14th. The shift will help INEC to organise themselves properly, to put their house in order and to put in place all the necessary arrangements for the polls. The shift will also enable the nation’s security agencies to do what they have to in order to secure the north-eastern zone and ensure that elections can hold there.
“In conclusion, we wish to encourage our supporters and we urge them to remain calm and to be patient. Our party is strong; our candidate is confident; our cause is just; our God is mighty and our victory is assured. No matter what happens and no matter how long it takes, we shall prevail. God bless Nigeria.”
 |
|
Bamanga Tukur to Be Buried Sunday in Yola
Former Governor of the old Gongola State and former National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, will be buried in Yola, Adamawa State, on Sunday, September 13, 2026.
Tukur, a prominent elder statesman and businessman, died in Abuja on Saturday, according to a statement issued by his family.
His son, Awwal Tukur, the Secretary to the Adamawa State Government, announced the burial arrangements in a statement released in Yola on Saturday.
According to the statement, the remains of the deceased will be brought to Yola on Saturday ahead of the funeral.
The funeral prayers are scheduled to take place at the Lamido’s Palace in Yola at 10:00 a.m. on Sunday, after which the late politician will be laid to rest.
Tukur died just three days before his 91st birthday.
He was a prominent figure in Nigeria’s political and economic history, having served in several key public positions during a career spanning more than six decades.
Among other positions, he served as Chief Executive of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Governor of the former Gongola State and Minister of Industries. He also served as National Chairman of the PDP between 2012 and 2014.
Beyond Nigeria, Tukur played a role in promoting African economic development through organisations including the Africa Business Roundtable and the NEPAD Business Group.
The late elder statesman is survived by two wives and 18 children, including Awwal Tukur, the Secretary to the Adamawa State Government.
Northern Governors Mourn
The Northern Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NNGF) has expressed grief over the death of Tukur, describing his passing as a significant loss to the North and Nigeria as a whole.
In a condolence message issued on behalf of the forum, its Chairman and Governor of Gombe State, Muhammadu Inuwa Yahaya, described Tukur as an experienced public servant, political leader and advocate of economic development.
Yahaya said Tukur’s contributions to public administration, politics and business had left a lasting mark on the country.
He highlighted the deceased’s extensive public service record, including his tenure at the Nigerian Ports Authority, his leadership of the old Gongola State and his service as Minister of Industries.
The NNGF chairman also recognised Tukur’s involvement in continental economic initiatives and his leadership of the PDP between 2012 and 2014.
“Alhaji Bamanga Tukur lived a long and impactful life, serving Nigeria in several critical capacities and contributing significantly to the growth of our economy, institutions and political development,” Yahaya said.
He added that Tukur’s experience, wisdom and dedication to public service would be greatly missed.
Yahaya extended his condolences to the Adamawa State Government, the Tukur family, friends and associates of the deceased.
He prayed that Allah would forgive Tukur’s shortcomings, reward his contributions to humanity and grant him Aljannatul Firdaus.
News
Where & How to Buy Dangote Refinery IPO Shares
The Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE is set to offer shares to the Nigerian public, giving individuals an opportunity to become shareholders in one of Africa’s largest refineries.
The public offer is expected to open on Monday, September 14, 2026, and close on October 13, 2026, subject to the final offer documents.
The offer comprises 4.1 billion ordinary shares at ₦525 per share, with a minimum subscription of 10 shares, costing ₦5,250.
Who Can Buy Dangote Refinery Shares?
The IPO is designed to give ordinary Nigerians an opportunity to invest in the refinery. Investors can subscribe through approved banks, fintech platforms, mobile operators, and NGX Invest.
However, investors should only use channels officially approved for the offer and should avoid sending money to individuals, agents, or platforms that are not listed in the official offer documents.
Approved Channels for the Dangote Refinery IPO
Banks
Access Bank
Ecobank
FCMB
Fidelity Bank
FirstBank
Globus Bank
GTCO
Jaiz Bank
Keystone Bank
Lotus Bank
PremiumTrust Bank
Providus Bank
Stanbic IBTC
Sterling Bank
TAJ Bank
UBA
Union Bank
Wema Bank
Zenith Bank
Fintech Platforms
Bamboo
Flutterwave
InvestNaija
Ladder
Moniepoint
Paga
Payaza
PiggyVest
Vetiva Invest
we.yan
Mobile Operators
Airtel SmartCash
MTN MoMo
Nigerian Exchange
NGX Invest
How to Buy Dangote Refinery IPO Shares
Step 1: Choose an Approved Platform
Select one of the banks, fintech platforms, mobile operators, or investment platforms officially approved to process subscriptions.
If you already use one of the approved platforms, check whether the IPO application option is available through your existing account.
Step 2: Open or Activate Your Investment Account
Investors generally need an investment or brokerage account to participate in the offer.
Depending on the platform, you may be required to provide identification, your BVN and other Know-Your-Customer information.
Step 3: Set Up Your CSCS Details
Shares listed on the Nigerian Exchange are held electronically through the Central Securities Clearing System (CSCS).
Your broker or participating investment platform should guide you through the process of opening or linking the necessary CSCS account.
Step 4: Fund Your Account
At ₦525 per share, the minimum subscription is:
10 shares × ₦525 = ₦5,250
If you want to purchase more shares, calculate the total amount based on the number of shares you intend to request and check the final prospectus for the applicable subscription rules and fees.
Step 5: Apply When the Offer Opens
The public offer is expected to open on September 14, 2026.
Log into your approved platform, select the Dangote Refinery public offer, enter the number of shares you want to subscribe for, review your information and submit your application.
Step 6: Keep Your Confirmation
After submitting your application, keep your application reference, receipt or confirmation for your records.
Step 7: Wait for Allotment
Applying for shares does not necessarily mean you will receive every share requested.
If the offer is oversubscribed, investors could receive fewer shares than they applied for. Any applicable excess funds should be handled according to the terms of the final offer documents.
Step 8: Monitor Your Shares After Listing
Once the shares are listed on the Nigerian Exchange, successful investors can monitor their holdings through their broker or investment platform.
The market price may rise or fall after listing, depending on the company’s performance, investor demand, market conditions and other factors.
Important Warning for Investors
Do not pay anyone personally to “secure” Dangote Refinery shares for you.
Before sending money or providing your financial information, verify that the platform you are using appears on the official approved list and that the application process matches the final prospectus and offer documents.
Investors should also review the official prospectus carefully, particularly the offer terms, fees, allotment rules, deadlines and risk factors.
Investment involves risk. The fact that an IPO is associated with a well-known company does not guarantee that the share price will rise after listing.
Business
In The Spotlight
Editorial: PFIPC: The Scandal Is Bigger Than Gbajabiamila (2)
The first question was: Who created PFIPC? Now Nigeria must ask a more frightening one:Who allowed it to look real? That is the question the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council scandal can no longer escape.
The controversy has already produced denials, accusations, official disclaimers, investigations and criminal proceedings. The Presidency has maintained that PFIPC was fictitious and that its alleged promoter, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, was falsely presenting himself as a government appointee. The Office of the Chief of Staff says it alerted security agencies as far back as October 2025 over alleged forged appointment letters.
Fine.Let the courts determine the criminal allegations.Let investigators establish who forged what, who authorised what and who benefited from what. But there is now another problem that cannot be dismissed as the work of one alleged impostor. The paper trail.
Because this story became truly explosive when reports emerged that the name PFIPC, alongside the Presidential Economic Advisory Council, appeared in the 2026 federal budget with an allocation of about ₦1.3 billion. Other reports also said the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation had approved recruitment for hundreds of positions linked to the council.
If those records are authentic, then Nigerians are entitled to ask a brutally simple question:
How does a supposedly non-existent organisation get into government paperwork? That question is bigger than Gbajabiamila. Much bigger.And it is precisely why this matter must not become a convenient contest between political camps.
The easiest thing to do now is to make this a story about whether the Chief of Staff was framed, whether he was wrongly accused, or whether his denials should be believed.
Those questions matter. But they are not enough. Because even if Gbajabiamila is completely cleared, the country will still be left staring at the same institutional wreckage.Somebody, somewhere, appears to have been able to give a questionable entity the appearance of government legitimacy.That is not a small administrative mistake.That is a security problem.
It is a governance problem. It is a financial-control problem.And, potentially, it is a national credibility problem. Think about the implications. An organisation carrying the word “Presidential” can sound powerful enough to impress businessmen, foreign investors, civil servants and even government officials.
A letter carrying the right government language can appear authentic.A title can sound official. An office address can create confidence. A meeting can create legitimacy.A photograph can create legitimacy. A budget line can create legitimacy.
And once enough of these pieces come together, fiction can begin to acquire the appearance of fact.That is the frightening part.The Nigerian state cannot afford to be protected by appearances. It must be protected by verification.
If PFIPC was indeed fabricated, then the sophistication of the alleged deception deserves serious attention. The Presidency itself said the alleged organisation had been presented as a government agency and that purported appointment letters carried falsified signatures, reference numbers and seals.That is not merely somebody printing a fake business card.That is an alleged attempt to manufacture the appearance of state authority. And the state must answer accordingly.
Who checked the documents? Who checked the appointment? Who checked the organisation's legal foundation? Who checked its place in the public service structure? Who checked its bank accounts?Who checked its office?Who checked its recruitment?Who checked its budgetary status?Who checked the officials supposedly running it?And, above all:Who had the power to stop it?Those are not partisan questions.They are state questions.
They belong to every Nigerian.This is why the PFIPC affair should now be treated as an institutional stress test. The result is uncomfortable.
The Nigerian government has demonstrated that it can publicly declare an organisation non-existent while questions simultaneously arise over how that same name appeared in official-looking government records.
Whatever the eventual explanation, that contradiction demands daylight.Not spin.Not political warfare.Not another round of accusations on television.Daylight.
If the budget entry was an administrative error, explain it.If it was inserted improperly, explain how.If recruitment approval was improperly obtained, explain who authorised it.If documents were forged, prosecute those responsible after due process.
If legitimate government officials were deceived, identify where the verification system failed.If insiders assisted the operation, expose them.And if no government insider was involved at all, then demonstrate clearly how outsiders were able to penetrate the machinery of government so deeply.
Nigeria deserves that answer.Because there is a dangerous habit in public life: once a scandal becomes embarrassing, the instinct is to find one person to carry it away.
Blame the impostor.Blame the politician.Blame the civil servant.Blame the opposition.Blame the media.Then move on.
That will not do this time.A country does not become safer because one alleged fraudster is prosecuted.It becomes safer when the system that made the fraud possible is repaired.That is the real test.
The PFIPC controversy has exposed a vulnerability that cannot be buried beneath another headline.
Government authority is an asset.It must be guarded.
The presidential name is an asset.It must be protected.Official documents are an asset.They must be secured.
The national budget is an asset.It must be beyond manipulation.And public confidence is perhaps the most valuable asset of all.
Once Nigerians begin to wonder whether an organisation can be invented, dressed in presidential language and somehow find its way into official channels, the damage extends beyond the immediate scandal.It reaches the credibility of the state.It reaches Nigeria's relationship with investors. It reaches the credibility of official correspondence.It reaches the confidence of foreign missions.It reaches the reputation of the civil service.And it reaches the fundamental question of whether government records mean what they say they mean.
That is why the authorities must resist the temptation to declare victory simply because an individual has been accused, investigated or prosecuted.
The deeper victory would be institutional.Find the loophole.Close it.Find the accomplices, if any.Expose them.Find the forged documents.Trace them. Find the money.Follow it. Find the approvals.Explain them.
Find the officials who failed in their duties.Hold them accountable, where evidence and due process establish responsibility.And then build a system in which the next PFIPC cannot happen.
Because there will always be fraudsters.There will always be con artists.There will always be people willing to manufacture influence. The real question is whether the Nigerian state makes their work easy.That is what Abuja must answer.
And this is where the story moves beyond Femi Gbajabiamila.If he is innocent of the allegations against him, then say so and let the evidence stand.But do not confuse the clearing of one man with the clearing of the system.One man can be innocent while a system is still guilty of negligence.That distinction matters.
Nigeria does not need another political scapegoat.It needs an audit of its gates.Who enters?Who leaves?Who signs?Who approves?Who verifies?Who pays?Who watches?And who answers when nobody watches?Those questions are now unavoidable.
The PFIPC scandal began as a dispute over an alleged organisation.It has become a test of something much larger:whether the Nigerian state can recognise itself when someone tries to impersonate it.That is not a scandal about one man.It is not even a scandal about one organisation.It is a warning about the machinery of government itself.And warnings ignored have a way of returning as disasters.
So let the investigation continue.Let the courts do their work.Let evidence—not political loyalty—determine responsibility.
But let nobody close this file merely because one powerful name has been cleared.The name may be cleared.The questions are not.
And until Nigerians know how an allegedly non-existent presidential body could acquire the appearance, paperwork and institutional oxygen of legitimacy, the PFIPC scandal remains unfinished. The mask may have been exposed. Now Nigeria must find out who opened the door.
In The Spotlight
Rethinking Policy From The Ground (II)
Last week, this column began with a simple proposition: Nigeria’s public policy conversation is often conducted at the wrong altitude. We examined why citizens encounter the state most directly through schools, primary health centres, rural roads, markets, transport systems, environmental services and local government offices. We also argued that a policy problem must first be understood before it is solved. Today, the column continues that argument. If knowing the problem is the beginning, the next question is what happens when a carefully diagnosed problem enters the political and administrative machinery of government. This is where incentives, institutions, competing values and frontline discretion determine whether a promising policy becomes a public good or another abandoned initiative.
From Problems Towards Choices
A government rarely chooses between a good option and a bad option. It usually chooses among imperfect alternatives, each benefiting some citizens, imposing costs on others and carrying uncertainties.
That reality should make policy analysis more rigorous. William K. Bellinger’s work on economics for policy analysis provides a useful discipline: the relevant question is not simply whether government can afford an intervention, but whether its social benefits justify the resources sacrificed elsewhere. Every new road competes with a school. Every government factory competes with health spending. For state policymakers, the essential question is therefore: what else could this money achieve? A N10 billion expenditure should be evaluated against the outcomes forgone by not spending that money elsewhere. That is the difference between accounting for expenditure and analysing public value.
How Incentives Change Behaviour
This reasoning becomes sharper when we consider how citizens respond to government decisions. Lee S. Friedman’s microeconomic approach to policy reminds us that people respond to prices, rules, risks, information and incentives.
Consider local taxation. A local government that increases market levies may expect higher revenue. But if the burden becomes excessive, traders may relocate, evade payment or operate outside formal markets. The government may collect less while economic activity becomes harder to monitor. Similarly, multiple charges on farmers, transporters or small manufacturers can make formal activity less attractive.
The same logic applies to environmental regulation. If government prohibits indiscriminate dumping without providing affordable waste collection, households may continue dumping illegally because the lawful alternative is inaccessible. Enforcement alone cannot solve an incentive problem created partly by inadequate service provision. Good regulation combines rules with feasible alternatives. The objective should be to make desirable behaviour easier, not merely punish undesirable behaviour.
Why Politics Shapes Outcomes
But incentives alone do not explain policy outcomes. Deborah Stone’s work on policy paradox reminds us that public decisions are contests over values as much as calculations of efficiency. Nigerian policymakers operate where questions of distribution are inseparable from development. Who gets the road? Which community receives the hospital? Whose land is acquired? Which informal operators are displaced?
These are political questions with technical dimensions. A policy that is economically efficient may still fail if it is perceived as unfair. A reform that improves aggregate welfare may provoke resistance from groups bearing concentrated losses. Politically intelligent policy design must therefore anticipate winners, losers and the narratives through which both interpret reform.
Urban transportation illustrates the point. Formalising informal transport can improve safety and service standards, but simply removing existing operators can create hardship for drivers and passengers. Successful reform recognises the economic lives embedded in existing arrangements and provides credible transition pathways.
Institutions Carry Policy Forward
Michael Howlett, M. Ramesh and Anthony Perl of the Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy remind us that policy is not a single decision, but a process involving agenda setting, formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation. A brilliant policy document can therefore become a poor programme because institutions lack coordination, information, authority or capacity.
Nigeria’s federal structure makes this especially difficult. Responsibilities are distributed across federal, state and local institutions, while financing and administrative capacity are uneven. A primary school may depend on one level for teachers, another for infrastructure and another for complementary interventions. A primary health centre may receive medicines through one channel, personnel through another and capital investment through a third. When outcomes are poor, each institution can point elsewhere.
The answer is not simply to redraw constitutional boundaries. For policymakers, this means resisting the temptation to treat political urgency as evidence. Urgency can justify action, but it cannot substitute for diagnosis, comparison, measurement and institutional realism and learning. It is to make responsibility visible. Citizens should know which institution is responsible for which service, what standard it must meet and where complaints should go.
Frontline Officials Make Policy
Perhaps nowhere is this more important than where policy meets the citizen. Research on street-level bureaucracy shows that frontline officials possess discretion because formal rules cannot anticipate every circumstance. Teachers decide how struggling pupils are treated. Nurses prioritise patients. Extension workers decide which farmers receive information. Environmental officers determine which violations receive attention.
Where incentives are weak and supervision poor, discretion can become rent extraction. But discretion can also enable adaptation. A teacher may develop a practical method for reaching struggling pupils. A health worker may reorganise patient flow to reduce waiting. A local official may find a simpler way to process applications. The challenge is therefore not to eliminate discretion, which is impossible, but to create conditions under which it serves public purposes.
States should pay closer attention to the working environment of frontline officials. If a policy assumes that an extension agent will visit remote farms without transport, or that a teacher will improve learning without materials, or that a health worker will provide reliable services without medicines, the policy is not ambitious. It is institutionally unrealistic.
Governments Must Learn Systematically
Nigeria has no shortage of programmes, strategies and reforms. What it lacks is a sufficiently systematic process for deciding which interventions deserve to survive. Governments often scale programmes because they are politically attractive, not because they have demonstrated results. Others abandon useful initiatives when administrations change. This produces institutional amnesia, with each government behaving as though it is starting from zero.
States should identify what they believe will happen, establish measurable indicators, test interventions, compare results and revise assumptions. Local governments should become sources of operational knowledge rather than administrative endpoints. Successful innovations should be documented and adapted before scaling. Failures should be examined rather than concealed.
A state may discover that feeder roads produce larger gains in farm incomes than subsidised inputs in one agricultural zone, while another finds that irrigation, storage or market aggregation is the binding constraint. The goal should be a common commitment to evidence, with flexibility for different solutions.
Good public policy requires more than money, political will or impressive documents. It requires an accurate understanding of reality, careful choices among alternatives, attention to incentives, sensitivity to political values, institutions capable of implementation and systems that learn from results. States and local governments are where these conditions either converge or collapse.
Next week, the conclusion of this three-part series will move from diagnosis to action. The final column will set out practical policy recommendations and ways forward for state and local government policymakers, focusing on education, primary healthcare, rural livelihoods, rural industrialisation, transportation, and ease of doing business among several others.
By Abdulrauf Aliyu