Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Attahiru Jega, expressed gratitude to all observers accredited in the forthcoming general elections, describing them as partners in progress with the country.
Jega gave the commendation making a speech at the briefing of accredited observers for the elections on Thursday.
He described the work of the observers as a means of providing INEC with dispassionate and rich assessments of the electoral process, which he said, adds value to the Commission's work.
Jega mentioned four factors that define the relationship between the observers and INEC as either conflictive or cooperative.
He said the factors are history or relationship, the perception of the country's commitment to the electoral process, the level of consolidation of the electoral process in a country and the specific individual attitudes of the leadership of both the Election Management Body and observer groups.
Read the full speech below:
« I would like to commence by thanking all of you for accepting to participate in this briefing of accredited election observers for the 2015 general elections. My gratitude is particularly founded considering that the elections had to be rescheduled when many of you, particularly the international observers, had started deployment in February. As a Commission, we deeply regret the inconvenience that may have caused you. However, we believe that in the circumstances that decision was necessary. Still, I hope that in spite of the problems you may have encountered, the rescheduling afforded you the opportunity to better contextualize the elections, improve your understanding of the environment and properly study INEC’s level of preparedness.
I must say that as a Commission, we greatly value our partnership with election stakeholders, particularly election observers. Your participation in elections often provides us with dispassionate and rich assessments of the electoral process, which add value to our work as a Commission. In fact, Observers’ reports on the 2011 general elections, many of which were produced by some of you in this room, have been like guidebooks for our preparations for the 2015 general elections. Often, relations between the EMBs like INEC and election observers in a fledgling democracy like ours oscillates between cooperation and conflict. A number of factors shape whether these relations are conflictive or cooperative. The first factor is the history of relations between election observers and the specific EMB. If that history has been one of suspicion, pressure and misunderstanding, observation of elections is likely to be repeatedly conflictive. Usually, there is a defining moment in these relations that entrenches this conflict dynamic. This is most likely to be an event in which observers and the EMB disagree fundamentally, which is not subsequently resolved. Once this threshold of conflict is crossed, it is always difficult to reverse the conflict dynamic. The irony is that the specific event that creates this conflict dynamic may only be related to one observer group. Yet, it could define the manner in which observers and EMB perceive each other for a long time.
The second factor is the broad image of the country and perceptions about whether the country and the EMB are truly committed to the democratic and electoral processes. Where a country is perceived not to be committed to conducting free, fair and credible elections, election observers are likely to be more aggressive, assertive or inquisitive, while the EMB would tend to deny access and cooperation.
The third factor is the level of consolidation of the electoral process in a country. Observers are likely to adopt more aggressive attitudes to a country’s election and its managers in early post-authoritarian elections. Subsequently, especially if election management keeps improving, the relations are likely to improve and become more cordial. Finally, the specific individual attitudes of the leadership of both the EMB and observer groups are important in defining their relations. Leaders on both sides must be willing to talk to each other, not talk at each other. Openness is central in forging cordial relations.
Luckily, at INEC we have enjoyed very cordial relations with both domestic and international observers since the 2011 general elections. This has been partly shaped by three things. In the first place, we established a transparent procedure for selecting observer groups. Calls for applications and/or the selection criteria are usually published in newspapers and our websites. The criteria are strictly applied and groups are ranked before selection is made.
Secondly, we developed comprehensive guidelines for election observation. The INEC Guidelines For Election Observation, which is available in both print and on our website, is based on global norms, standards and sources. Among these are the ECOWAS Principles of Democratic Elections, which is established by the ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance of 2001, the African Union Declaration on the Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa of 2002 and the Cotonou Agreement signed between the European Union and the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States in 2000.
The guidelines cover such things as processes of selection and accreditation of observers, code of conduct, responsibilities of both observers and INEC, as well as detailed description of the political and electoral processes in Nigeria. These guidelines are the normative basis for INEC’s engagement with foreign and local observers. The existence of these guidelines ensures that all parties recognize that election observation is a cooperative exercise in which all sides have rights and duties, which collectively ensure that the highest democratic standards apply.
Through its guidelines on election observation INEC seeks to frame three essential normative principles namely, rights, responsibilities and conduct of observers. Rights generally signify the entitlements of observers, responsibilities are the duties they bear, while conduct refers to behaviour and actions expected of them. Among the rights of observers are adequate security and protection, adequate information; free access to voting facilities, free movement and civil treatment. On the other hand, the responsibilities of observers include respecting the sovereignty and laws of Nigeria, abiding by guidelines and regulations of INEC, attendance at briefings, careful, dedicated observation and to issue honest report on the election. In their conduct, observers are also expected to declare any conflict of interest, be impartial and unobtrusive, ensure that their reports and conclusions are evidence-based, eschew prejudgment of the process, always carry proper identification, be careful about comments in the media, be prudent in receiving gifts and favours and avoid involvement in disputes. I implore you be conversant with the provisions of the Guidelines as you deploy to the field in the days that follow.
The third factor that has improved relations between observers and the Commission since 2011 is the establishment of the INEC Situation Room. This has made it possible for the Commission to respond rapidly to certain urgent observations made by observers. In other words, unlike in the past, the Commission does not have to wait for months after elections to receive reports, when it could intervene during elections to solve problems. The real-time report of events in the field to the Situation Room and the rapid intervention of the Commission when necessary have improved the quality of the electoral process and improved confidence between observers and the Commission.
I would like to draw your attention to one cardinal distinction that INEC makes through its guidelines for election observation. That is the distinction between election observation and election monitoring. According to the INEC Guidelines for Election Observation, there is a fundamental difference between the two. An election monitor is an integral part of the election management structure and has a role in the administration of the election. In Nigeria, only the Independent National Election Commission (INEC) and its duly authorized personnel are empowered to monitor elections. An Observer on the other hand does not have any role in the administration of the election nor any control or oversight functions. To further simplify these points:
An election monitor exercises some level of lawful authority over the conduct of elections as well as over officials involved; an Observer has no such powers.
· In Nigeria, a monitor must be a duly authorised personnel of the INEC; an Observer is independent and reports only to his or her organisation
· A monitor can issue instructions and take decisions on behalf of INEC and to that extent would ordinarily possess a greater technical knowledge of the election process than an Observer.
· To enable them fulfil their functions effectively, INEC is responsible for training election monitors on election administration. The training of election Observers is the responsibility of the organisations that deploy them.
· The roles, powers and functions of monitors are created and regulated and the authority so exercised is clearly spelt out.
It is important to clarify these because observers in the past sometimes overreach the limits of our conception of observation, which often results in tension and disagreements. Indeed, the Nigerian legal system expressly states that a cardinal function of INEC is to monitor the electoral process.
I would like to end this address by giving you a brief update on our preparedness for the elections in order to assure you that we are on course. I am aware that there are still lingering concerns on whether the elections would hold or not. Let me say that I do not see any indication from any quarters of any wish to further postpone the elections. After the rescheduling of the elections, the Commission met, reviewed the situation and decided on how best to utilize the six-week extension to add value to operational and logistical preparations for the elections. We believe that effective utilization of the period of extension would enable INEC to a vastly improved 2015 general elections. The highlights of the decisions, which are already being implemented, are as follows:
1. Field Evaluations: National Commissioners to visit all the State offices between February 11 and 19, 2015, they conducted evaluations and comprehensively determined levels of preparations in the field.
2. Headquarters Evaluations: Following the field visits, on February 20th and 21st, the Commission, together with heads of Departments, Directorates and Units, met and reviewed the field assessment and determined what specific additional things need to be done before March 28th.
3. On February 24th, a meeting of the Inter-agency Consultative Committee on Elections Security (ICCES), was held to discuss security arrangements for the rescheduled elections.
4. On March 7, field demonstration of the Card Reader were held in all Polling Units in sampled Wards in 12 states, 2 from each of the 6 geopolitical zones.
5. On March 11, a meeting of the Commission with Resident Electoral Commissioners (RECs) will hold to review progress of additional things done and to finalize arrangements for the March 28 and April 11 elections.
Prioritized areas of focus for the six-week period of extension are as follows:
a. Collection of PVCs: the period for the collection was first extended by 4 weeks to March 8, and subsequently further extended to March 22. We have been making every effort to ensure that the maximum numbers of voters possible collect their PVCs before the elections. We have also been providing regular updates to the public on various aspects of the collection, particularly the rate and distribution of collection. We are glad that these efforts have yielded fruits, with PVC collection increasing to a national average of over 81% in the last four weeks.
b. More public demonstration of the Card Readers in each geo-political zone was conducted on March 7. The demonstration entailed the full process of accreditation such as would take place during the elections proper. Twelve States, two from each of the six geopolitical zones, were used for the demonstration namely, Delta, Rivers, Nasarawa, Niger, Anambra, Ebonyi, Kebbi, Kano, Lagos, Ekiti, Bauchi and Taraba States. One Ward (Registration Area) was randomly selected in each State and all the Polling Units in the Ward were then used for the demonstration. For a mock demonstration, the turnout was satisfactory, with close 17,000 voters nationwide. The demonstration was also largely satisfactory with close to 100% verification and 60% authentication. The result of biometric authentication for Ebonyi was unusually low and we have not only been thoroughly investigating this, we also repeated the demonstration on March 14 with better results. Measures are being taken to address the challenges observed, which seem to be responsible for the observed low level of authentication.
c. Additional training for ad hoc staff, especially for those who are going to handle the Card Readers is currently going on. All SPOs have had one day additional refresher training while POs and APOs handling Card Readers are undergoing a 2-day additional hands-on training. Innovative training materials, including downloadable videos and phone apps have been developed to make for easier and effective learning.
d. Intensify voter education and public enlightenment on Election Day procedures. We acknowledge and appreciate the intervention of the EU through JDBF, DGD II Programme.
e. Arrangements for Election Day logistics to be intensified by RECs, especially transportation in consultation with the NURTW, in the context of the MOU already signed with the Union.
f. Wide consultations and interactions with stakeholders have also been held. Apart from the meeting with ICCES, the Commission has also held several interactions with civil society organizations, development partners and the diplomatic community. In addition, it has met with political parties and briefed the National Assembly on diverse aspects of the elections. Finally, the Commission has established a weekly press briefing by the National Commissioner in-charge of publicity. This provides an opportunity to share information and answer various concerns of members of the public. On Tuesday March 24, a National Stakeholders Summit is scheduled for ‘last minute’ Briefing preceding the elections.
In addition to the above areas, the Commission has made arrangements to enable IDPs to vote. This will apply to IDPs from areas that are worst hit by the insurgency, specifically in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States. The plan is to create voting Centres in safe areas.
In conclusion, INEC deeply appreciates the positive roles of both domestic and foreign observers in Nigeria’s electoral process. We welcome you to freely observe the 2015 general elections in accordance with existing guidelines and the laws of the land. The Commission looks forward to your reports as it continues to work to improve the electoral process and democratic practice in Nigeria. I wish you the very best as you deploy across the country.
Thank you.
 |
|
Gunmen believed to be kidnappers attacked a commercial vehicle belonging to Benue Links, the state-owned transport company.
About 17 candidates travelling to Otukpo for their examination centres in the ongoing Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) are feared to have been abducted, although the exact number of victims remains unclear.
Information available to our correspondent says that the incident took place between 7–8 p.m. on Wednesday, April 15, along the Benue Burnt Bricks in Otukpo, Otukpo Local Government Area (LGA) of Benue State.
According to sources, the assailants waylaid the bus and robbed the occupants of their belongings before whisking them away into the bush.
An eyewitness, who spoke to journalists on the condition of anonymity, said the Benue Links bus, which was conveying about 18 passengers, ran into the kidnappers at about 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday night.
“The passengers were mainly young persons heading to Otukpo to sit for the JAMB examination scheduled for Thursday.
“Two people, the driver and one passenger, managed to escape. Incidentally, the passengers were mainly young men and women who travelled to sit for the JAMB examination scheduled for today (Thursday),” he said.
When contacted, the General Manager of Benue Links, Mr Alexander Fanafa, confirmed the incident, noting that the driver of the bus is presently undergoing interrogation at the police station in Otukpo for violating the company’s safety policy not to travel beyond 6:00 p.m.
He said, “As I speak with you, the driver has been arrested and is under investigation for traveling against company directive. I have warned all drivers to stop night journeys, as they would be held as first suspects if anything unfortunate happens.”
The General Manager further stated that the driver took his vehicle and loaded the passengers who were heading to Otukpo after official hours when the park manager, Mr Amedu, had closed, and ran into trouble, so he has been arrested.
The Executive Chairman of Otukpo Local Government Council, Prince Maxwell Ogiri, confirmed the incident, saying that it occurred between 7 and 8 p.m. on Wednesday.
He added that security agents have been mobilized to rescue the victims, stating that the victims are all young people coming to Otukpo to write JAMB examinations.
“It is true, I’m just coming out from a security meeting, and security operatives have been moved into the forest to help rescue the kidnapped victims.
“The victims are mainly young boys and girls coming to Otukpo to write JAMB,” Ogiri said.
However, when contacted, the Benue State Commissioner of Police, Ifeanyi Emenari, confirmed the situation, but said 14 passengers were kidnapped, while one passenger escaped.
The commissioner disclosed that he had already arrived in Otukpo and is conducting the rescue operation.
“I am in Otukpo now with all my team and DPOs who are here in the bush, and I am heading the operation.
“What happened was that one Benue Links bus carrying passengers coming to Otukpo was stopped and attacked by hoodlums, and 14 passengers were kidnapped, but one was able to escape,” he said.
According to him, the command had commenced an investigation into the incident, particularly the circumstances surrounding the journey.
He maintained that Benue Links management has a policy against night travel, but the driver allegedly picked up passengers after official hours.
“We know that Benue Links has a policy and don’t usually drive at night. So from what I got, they have already closed, but the driver, for reasons best known to him which we are still trying to find out, picked passengers along the road, and when he came here, the story you have is what we are having.
“But as we are investigating, we are on the ground to make sure that the victims are rescued,” Emenari said.
News
There are governments that save for the rainy day, governments that prepare for the storm, and governments that, when the heavens open and money falls like tropical rain, rush outside with buckets full of holes. Nigeria, under President Bola Tinubu, has perfected a fourth category: the government that borrows during a windfall. It is a feat of fiscal acrobatics so astonishing that even the most cynical observers of Abuja’s budgetary theatre must pause in admiration. For decades, Nigeria has squandered oil booms with the reliability of a metronome. But this administration has achieved something more ambitious: it has managed to squander a boom before it even finishes arriving.
The US–Iran war has sent oil prices soaring to $115 per barA Government Addicted to Debtrel, nearly double the government’s benchmark of $64.85. Nigeria is earning an extra $92 million every single day; a torrent of unbudgeted cash that would make even the most jaded petro state accountant blush. In barely a month, Abuja has pocketed almost $3 billion in windfall revenue. If the conflict drags on, the country could rake in $30–$36 billion this year alone. And what has the Tinubu administration done with this unexpected bounty? Why, it has gone on a borrowing binge, of course.
In the past week alone, the National Assembly approved: a $5 billion loan from First Abu Dhabi Bank; a $1 billion UKEF backed loan for Lagos ports; a $6 billion external borrowing package, rubber stamped in under four hours, and a N68.323 trillion budget; the largest in Nigeria’s history. This is not fiscal policy. This is a national credit card with no spending limit. Nigeria’s public debt now hovers around $115 billion, and debt servicing will gulp N20.5 trillion in 2026; more than the budgets of health, education, and infrastructure combined. Yet the government borrows as though it were a teenager discovering online shopping for the first time. One might have expected that a historic oil windfall would inspire restraint. Instead, Abuja behaves like a gambler who wins the lottery and immediately takes out a loan to buy more lottery tickets.
The Senate: From Upper Chamber to Upper Cashier
The Senate’s role in this farce deserves special mention. Once conceived as a check on executive excess, it now functions as a conveyor belt for presidential loan requests. The $6 billion borrowing package was approved with the speed of a fast food order; no debate, no scrutiny, no hesitation. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, hardly a stranger to Nigeria’s fiscal melodramas, described the approval as “reckless urgency.” He is being polite. The Senate has not merely abdicated oversight; it has embraced its new role as a ceremonial stamp of approval, a kind of legislative rubber chicken waved over every loan document. One wonders whether senators even bother to read the fine print anymore, or whether they simply check the exchange rate, sigh, and sign.
The Oil Windfall That Will Not Be Saved
Other countries treat oil windfalls as blessings. Norway built a sovereign wealth fund so large it could buy entire countries. Saudi Arabia uses its surpluses to diversify its economy. Even Angola; long mocked for its corruption, has learned to stash away a portion of its oil riches. Nigeria, by contrast, treats windfalls as invitations to spend more, borrow more, and plan less. The Excess Crude Account, once envisioned as a rainy day fund, is now emptier than a politician’s promise after election day. The Sovereign Wealth Fund is a polite fiction. And fiscal discipline is a rumor whispered in the corridors of the Ministry of Finance. The tragedy is not that Nigeria is poor. The tragedy is that Nigeria is mismanaged.
The revised N68.323 trillion budget is a monument to fiscal optimism. It allocates N15.8 trillion to debt servicing; N15.4 trillion to recurrent expenditure, and N32.2 trillion to capital projects, many of them rolled over from previous years because the government failed to implement them. This is not a budget. It is a wish list. The government insists that the spending spree will “stimulate growth,” “unlock infrastructure,” and “stabilize the economy.” These are the same phrases Nigerian governments have used since the 1970s, usually moments before the economy collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
Borrowing to Service Borrowing
The most farcical element of the Tinubu administration’s fiscal strategy is its reliance on borrowing to service existing borrowing. Nigeria now borrows to pay interest on previous loans, borrows to refinance old debts, borrows to fund recurrent expenditure, and borrows to cover budget gaps. This is not fiscal management. It is a Ponzi scheme with national colors. The administration insists that the debt is “sustainable.” So did Greece in 2008. So did Argentina in 2001. So did Nigeria in the 1980s; right before the IMF arrived with structural adjustment programs (SAP) that Nigerians still curse today.
Nigeria’s economy is a house built on sand: the naira remains fragile, inflation is suffocating households, foreign investors are fleeing, debt service consumes most of national revenue, oil production is unstable and non oil revenue is anemic. And yet, in the middle of this storm, the government has chosen to borrow more; at a moment when it should be saving aggressively. The oil windfall is a gift. But gifts require stewardship. And stewardship requires discipline. Neither is in abundant supply in Abuja.
Conclusion: A Nation at the Edge of a Fiscal Cliff
The expanded budget includes lavish allocations to the judiciary ahead of the 2027 elections, feasibility studies for politically convenient infrastructure, and capital projects that conveniently align with electoral maps. This is not economic planning. It is election year choreography. Nigeria is not being prepared for the future. It is being prepared for the polls.
The Tinubu administration inherited a difficult economy. But it has chosen to make it worse. Instead of using the oil windfall to rebuild reserves, strengthen the currency, reduce borrowing, and stabilize the economy, it has embarked on a reckless spending spree financed by loans that future generations will be forced to repay. Nigeria is earning billions, and saving nothing. And it is borrowing everything. History will not be kind to this moment. Nor will the bond markets. In the end, Nigeria’s tragedy is not that it lacks resources. It is that it lacks restraint. And in Abuja today, restraint is as scarce as electricity.
Business
In The Spotlight
On Friday, Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters confirmed the death of the Commander of the 29 Task Force Brigade in Benisheikh, Borno State, Brigadier General Oseni Braimah, and three other soldiers, following a ruthless attack on the military formation. Though this confirmation calmed initial reports that more than 17 soldiers were killed in the April 9, 2026 attack, it, however, ignited a deeper cause for concern among Nigerians, considering the fact that just about five months earlier, another brigadier general, Musa Uba, was murdered in cruel but avoidable circumstances near Wajiroko, in the same Borno State.
The attack on the military formation was not the only terrorist strike that week. That same Thursday, the devastating news of the soldiers who paid the supreme price had not been fully digested when another report filtered in, at night, that no fewer than eight persons had been killed by gunmen, in Mbwelle village, Bokkos Local Government Area of Plateau State. This was besides the bloodshed recorded in Shanga Local Government Area of Kebbi State on Easter Sunday, where 24 people were killed, according to the Kontagora Catholic Diocese, and in Kebbi and Kwara states, where 49 villagers were reportedly killed on Friday.
Despite the confusion, mourning and grief that followed the killing of these helpless civilians in various communities, described by authorities as some of the deadliest incidents recorded in recent months, the report of the military formation invasion and the killing of soldiers specifically caused panic attacks among citizens and gave a “hopeless situation” slant to the worsening security crisis. And this has become a trend since the beginning of the Boko Haram insurgency in 2009.
It is true that Nigeria’s security forces under the current administration have been dismantling bandit networks and killing scores of terrorists. But the relentless attacks on innocent citizens, which have led to the death of over 10,000 people in two years, and the kidnapping of more than 1,100 people in northern Nigeria, in just four months, appear to have enveloped security agencies’ efforts and boxed the current All Progressives Congress administration into a more precarious corner than previous opposition governments.
A few analysts have tried to compare the security situation under the late former President Muhammadu Buhari with the situation now. While some scored the President Bola Tinubu administration above his predecessor’s, others like Olu Fasan, in his article: “Recurring bloodbath: Nigeria is too fragile, too fractured to be safe”, said, “It has taken Tinubu less than three years in office to achieve a worse security situation than Buhari did in (his) eight years in power.”
I may not directly agree with this notion, but I know that the prevailing economic hardship or widespread poverty in the country, despite significant, growth-targeted policy reforms like exchange rate unification, subsidy removal, and fiscal coordination, can be justifiably linked to rising insecurity.
The Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, in a 2024 study brief, titled: “Insecurity takes the lead as the key driver of poverty in Nigeria”, said, “Once a country experiences conflict and insecurity, it faces a reversal of economic development, which in turn increases the likelihood of further conflict, resulting in a cycle economists refer to as doom-loop. By undermining household livelihood activities on massive scales in Nigeria, increasing insecurity in the last five years has not only intensified poverty in the country, but has also opened up new frontiers of multidimensional poverty across Nigeria.”
Insecurity, according to NISER, drives poverty by disrupting and destroying livelihood activities and by reducing access to basic needs, thereby stifling meaningful improvement in the quality of life in Nigeria. This argument can be better appreciated if one considers how many Nigerians have abandoned leisure or commercial farming, especially in rural areas, owing to rising insecurity.
It would be unfair to pin the blame for this lingering crisis on the current administration; past governments were not also able to do much to stem the tide. But the fact that political IOUs seemed to have trumped competence during the initial formation of President Tinubu’s cabinet inadvertently gave room for unpalatable political treatment of delicate security matters across the states.
The Ministry of Defence, according to analysts, was the worst hit until recently, as analysts found it difficult to decode the consideration behind the choice of the two ministers who were initially saddled with such a priority responsibility. Perhaps, if the issue of security had been given the kind of attention it is being given now, from the beginning of the current administration, the terrorists might not have been this emboldened amid international focus.
The result is that, unlike when Nigeria was ranked the Number One Destination for Investment in Africa for two consecutive years (2012 and 2013), other African countries have, since then, continued to displace the nation, owing to a combination of factors, including accessibility and innovation, economic stability and investment climate, among others.
Of the 31 countries that were tracked in the 2024 edition of the “Where to Invest in Africa” report, published by Rand Merchant Bank and the Gordon Institute of Business Science, Nigeria was ranked as the ninth most viable destination for investment in Africa, behind South Africa, in fourth position; and Ghana, sixth. The 2025 report sadly reflected a further decline for Nigeria, by nine places, to the 18th position.
It doesn’t take an economist to understand that banditry, kidnapping, killings, among other forms of security crisis being witnessed on a large scale in Nigeria, can seriously damage the investment climate and trigger capital flight. Any government that picks the socio-economic well-being of its citizens as Number One on its priority chart must, therefore, go all out to first ensure the security of lives and property, against all odds.
That the Federal Government has published a list of 48 individuals linked to terrorism financing is a step in the right direction. That it has also secured 386 convictions, out of 508 cases in a mass terrorists’ trial, is another feat that can deter others and stem the tide, but politicians must, in the interest of the masses and the well-being of the nation, stop playing politics with this sensitive issue of insecurity.
Rather than mock or blame the APC administration for the current predicament, opposition figures and Nigerians as a whole must converge on the need to be united against this monster. However, the Tinubu administration must also avoid actions or statements that could trigger a revolt at this period. With the economic challenges from almost every angle, Nigerians seem to be constantly on edge.
In March 2014, the APC, then the main opposition party, lambasted the former President Goodluck Jonathan administration for trying to cover up its “incompetence and cluelessness” in tackling the Boko Haram insurgency.
The APC, in a statement signed by Lai Mohammed, its interim National Publicity Secretary at the time, said, “A country that has no discernible counter-terrorism strategy that will clearly identify the multiple means for preventing, responding and defeating terrorist groups, including the alignment of political, military, social and economic instruments and objectives, cannot expect to successfully battle any insurgency.”
Now that the APC is the ruling party, and Nigeria is still not out of the woods, should citizens still agree with the party’s assertion? How the authorities handle the situation will determine the answer. What goes around comes around!
In The Spotlight
Nearly 40 years ago in London, I was invited to dinner by a Nigerian woman I knew in Lagos.
She had described the place in general terms, but I arrived at an upscale home with some serious luxury. She was kind enough to show me around, and following a stylish dinner, she described how she had acquired the place, mentioning headline Nigerian names.
I had no reason to doubt her: some of them called during the evening. I declined her offer to share her conversations with them.
It was my personal introduction to the scale of Nigerian property in the English capital, as she described who owned what or lived where.
While my visits to England at the time were work-related and I had little time to socialise, I did meet several teenage Nigerian students whose parents were glad to send them abroad for education.
They patrolled the streets of London in exotic cars, and I thought it was ironic that, in isolation away from Nigeria, the young ladies were often being manipulated by their fathers’ friends.
In the decades that followed, I read stories of politically exposed Nigerians, particularly state governors, for whom the UK was the first address in money laundering.
On a few occasions, I have alluded to that phenomenon in this column. They acquired expensive homes, cars and even gold phones. One, Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, fled London disguised as a woman. Another, James Ibori, was tried and jailed.
Keep in mind that there have been about 185 governors since May 1999, and that London is nearly always their first port of call.
It is humbling to reflect on what percentage of this number has, in the past 26 years, sunk Nigerian wealth into the soil of England, with considerable swathes lost to middlemen and smooth women.
Remember: in 2006, the then-Minister of State for Finance, Nenadi Usman, criticised governors, saying that they disappeared abroad just days after receiving state allocations and after visiting Bureau De Change operators.
In 2007, a famous Human Rights Watch report, “Chop Fine,” described the case of Rivers State in grim detail.
The problem is that it is not always governors, as demonstrated by the story, “Abuja on Thames,” which appeared in the British monthly, Private Eye, in March 2019. That month, I commented on that story, which involved the astonishing wealth in that country of Paul Ogwuma, a former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria.
The full Nigerian picture of capital flight, elite consumption, and political patronage was on display when the Panama Papers in 2016 and the Pandora Papers in 2021, two massive international media investigations in which our Premium Times participated, uncovered how the world’s rich and powerful deploy offshore mechanisms to hide their possessions.
As always happens, no Nigerian lost a kobo, let alone a heartbeat, as a result of those investigations, because in Nigeria, crime and hypocrisy quite literally pay.
And then in 2024, a list appeared of 58 deceased Nigerians with unclaimed assets in the UK, as part of a daily-updated “Bona Vacantia” (BV) list, meaning that having remained unclaimed, they are now considered the property of the Crown.
Related News
Court faults weak evidence, acquits Oshodins of laundering case
Windstorm damages newly built Abuja bus terminal
US-based Nigerian faces five-year jail over $5m money laundering
The Nigerian government does not inform Nigerians about the BV list or the claims process, so those properties are probably lost forever.
Remember also, the case of Nigerian “government” property on the verge of forfeiture in the UK a few years ago. In New York and Maryland, in the US, Nigerian governors and diplomats have left behind a long trail of property issues. In 2012, Alamieyeseigha forfeited $401,931 in traceable assets to the US government when President Jonathan’s government failed to claim them.
And so, the rich continue to flourish, and in January 2026, Tax Policy Associates of the UK published the extensive investigation, ‘Who secretly owns Britain? The hidden offshore owners of £460bn of UK property.’
A report in The Londoner, based on that investigation, peeled back the layers to link the late Herbert Wigwe, the former chief executive of Access Holdings, to about 106 properties. That placed him at No. 7 on a list of “The overseas power players in London’s property market,” with each property registered under shell companies outside the country, leaving none of them directly traceable to him.
While some of these practices are legal, especially on the part of private businessmen, the problem is that Nigeria has, for decades, been burdened by an army of much smaller ants eating away at her. Most of them are pillars of society, either claiming sainthood or praying for it, while the people from whom they amassed their wealth starve to death.
But there is another side: in Nigeria, the Tax Policy Associates investigation, like the arrests of Dariye and Alamieyeseigha and the trial of Ibori, would have been impossible.
“Abuja on Thames” would never have been investigated or published. Not the Pandora Papers. Not the Panama Papers.
Because we are traders. We are either buying or selling. When the aroma of money or power is present, some would sell their very souls. It is why we are where we are.
The system, of course, is in many ways pre-rigged. On real estate matters, we operate a fragmented administrative system with multiple overlapping authorities, incomplete digitisation, and overwhelming opacity. The FCT and state capitals are stories of greed.
This is because the Land Use Act vests all land in each state in the governor (and the President for the FCT). This means that, technically, no one “owns” land outright; one only holds a Certificate of Occupancy. That creates enormous scope for discretionary allocation and corruption, since governors and the FCT minister can grant or revoke rights, and often do.
This is why an FCT minister is a king. He can allocate land to whomever he pleases:
Relatives of the First Lady were thrice removed.
His wife.
Fourth cousins.
Underage children.
Governors, again.
EFCC officials.
ICPC officials.
Code of Conduct Bureau officials.
Girlfriends and their friends.
Supreme Court judges.
Court of Appeal judges.
INEC officials.
Senators.
Top police officers.
Among others, remember the FCT land scam of 2004; the Ministerial allegations involving the current FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike; and the 57 multi-billion-naira properties linked to former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami.
Just imagine what a Tax Policy Associates-style investigation of real estate ownership in Nigeria’s big cities would reveal.
Because in Nigeria, power is deployed into service only when we pray in the mosque or the church. Outside that, power is for the self.
And if you can export that power abroad in funds that belong to the commonwealth, to deprive other Nigerians of it and make you live like a king forever, so much the better!
Sonala Olumhense