Set Militia Leaders Against Opposition . I applied for the job in 2010 but received approval on March 4 - Dr Fasehun . ‘Previous contracts didn’t halt oil theft’
“Most of the security agencies that are saddled with the responsibility to protect the pipelines have failed,” Otunba Gani Adams, the national coordinator of the Odua People’s Congress (OPC), said last week Monday, in reaction to questions being raised about the propriety of Federal Government’s award of multi-million naira contracts for pipelines and waterways protection to militant groups in the South-West. Adams, whose militant group, a faction of the OPC had, two days earlier, won the security contract was even more forceful in defence of what many Nigerians labelled as a largesse for vote. “People are dying every day. Nigeria is losing more than N3 billion everyday [to] illegal vandals,” he said, trying frantically to pin justifications to the job. “The agitation for that contract was started by Dr Frderick Fasehun, four and a half years ago and you know the bureaucracy of the Nigerian ministry,” he said to the approval of his face-cap-wearing supporters, accompanying him on a protest to press for the removal of the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Attahiru Jega. Coming at a time when tongues were wagging in consternation over the project, Adams’ explanation, instead of clearing the air, further choked it and elicited more questions. Why did the government suddenly realize the need to approve a contract proposal that had been left to gather dust, just two weeks to an election? The move was largely seen as the president’s trump card to sway predicted victory in the region from his opponent, Muhammadu Buhari, to his own side. President Goodluck Jonathan, afraid of losing the presidential contest to his main challenger in the battleground South-West, had temporarily relocated from the seat of power in Abuja to Lagos, a state with over six million registered voters, the largest in the country. While there, it was rumoured that the president had presented cash gifts to various groups, including traditional rulers, across the entire region. The security contract was interpreted as part of the last ditch struggle to save Jonathan from defeat. The OPC, last week, under Adams, Monday staged a protest in Lagos, demanding the sack of Jega as INEC chairman, accusing him of bias. That the group had never criticized the electoral umpire’s handling of the polls prior to the approval of the contract, sparked allegations linking the Federal Government to the protest, with the main opposition All Progressives Congress (OPC) threatening to report President Jonathan to the International Criminal Court (ICC). OPC’s founder, Fasehun, does not see any wrong getting the contract as a payback for supporting Jonathan’s political ambition “Does anybody grant favour to his or her enemy? We don’t even need to answer that. It is the law of nature,” he quipped, unapologetically.
The controversial contract Pipelines and waterways monitoring jobs are not new to militants in the Niger Delta, where companies owned by former warlords like Government Ekpemupolo (aka Tompolo) and Mujaheed Asari Dokubo were awarded millions of dollar contracts to ensure the safety of the oil infrastructure and waterways. In 2012, for instance, a company Global West Vessel Specialist Limited, belonging to Tompolo, was given a security contract to the tune of $103 million. The American Wall Street Journal once reported that Tompolo is actually being paid $22.0 million for a contract to guard pipelines of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). Niger Delta People’s Volunteer Force leader, Asari-Dokubo was also mentioned as getting $9 million for a similar contract, while two others, Boyloaf and Ateko Tom are receiving $3.8 million each, also for similar contracts. What is new, however, is the expansion of the beneficiaries of such lucrative contracts to many other ex-militant leaders in states South-South and, for the first time, OPC leaders in the South-West, about two weeks to the general elections. Media report listed companies like Egbe Security River One in Bayelsa, Gallery Security, Mosinmi-Ore; Close Body Protection, Edo State; Adex Energy Security, Rivers and Age Global Security, Mosinmi, Ibadan as the beneficiaries of the contracts which would come into effect from March 16, 2015. Government has always defended its policy of awarding contracts to militants with the prevalence of rampant oil theft, especially in the Niger Delta. In 2013, Minister of Finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, put the amount Nigeria was losing to oil thieves at N155 billion monthly. Earlier this month, the Chief of Naval Staff, Rera Admiral Usman Jibril, said the country was still losing N1.18 billon daily to oil theft.
Tension among ex-militant groups Last week, ex- militants under the aegis of Ex-Freedom Fighters in the Niger Delta, staged a protest in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State capital, over the alleged plan by the state governor, Seriake Dickson, to hijack the multi-million dollar Oil Pipeline Surveillance Contract given to the oil producing communities in the state by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC. No fewer than nine persons were seriously injured in the protest which degenerated into a fierce confrontation between the ex-militants and the police. One of the leaders of the protest, Eris Paul, popularly known as General Ogunboss, said the protest was against an alleged plot by Governor Dickson to hijack multi million dollar NNPC pipeline surveillance contracts to communities in the state. “Most of the south southern states have signed the allocation of the surveillance contract, but Dickson is insisting that the job be awarded to a self-styled company known as Izon Ibe, a security outfit that we don’t know. Dickson should concentrate on the use of state allocation and internally generated revenue to advance the good of the state rather than hijack jobs coming to communities,” alleged. However, in its reaction, the Bayelsa State government said the rationale behind the establishment of the state-owned Izon-Ibe Security Company was part of efforts to address the challenges of youth unemployment. The position, which was made known in a government statement, said the security outfit was basically set up to provide special training for youths and engage them for the purposes of security services. According to the statement, “the Izon-Ibe Security firm is a limited liability company that is a community-based security and empowerment scheme for Bayelsa youths across the communities with the active involvement of the chiefs and leaders to train youths in the surveillance of pipeline and guard duties.” It stated that the government’s attention has been drawn to some ex-militant leaders, whose activities constitute a breach of the existing peace, noting that, hitherto, they were beneficiaries of pipeline contracts which they failed to execute. The statement expressed displeasure that such ex-militants were being used by those it described as misguided politicians to embark on “senseless public demonstrations” within and outside the state capital. “The position of the government is that pipeline surveillance contracts are not for ex-militant leaders alone, most of whom hail from a particular local government area. The state-owned security company is for all persons in the state and will ensure that they are made to carry out their duties effectively. There are youths from other local government areas that must benefit from these contracts and not just Bajeros, whose promoters are only from Southern Ijaw Local Government area”, the statement noted. But reinforcing the position of the ex-militants, another group implored the governor to stop creating problems in Ijaw land. In a statement signed by the head of the group, General Aso Tambo, the ex-militants urged the governor to concentrate on the task of providing leadership to the people of Bayelsa, instead of cornering contracts they had genuinely fought for. The group also accused the governor of conniving with the outgoing president of the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC), Udengs Eradiri, who is a director in the state-owned security company to corner 50 percent of the jobs for their private interest. But countering their position, another militant under the aegis of the Mangrove Boys of Bayelsa (MBB), issued a warning to ex-militant leaders, particularly Victor Ebikabowei (alias Boyloaf), Eris Paul (Ogunboss) and Pastor Reuben against causing trouble in the state. The group said it would no longer fold its hands and watch a few individuals from the Southern Ijaw Local Government area continue to hijack and selfishly enrich themselves with what they called the commonwealth of the people “The pipeline surveillance job is not their birthright. All the militant leaders disturbing the peace of Bayelsa and trying to hijack the contract through their company, BAJERO, are just from one local government area, which is Southern Ijaw. “They do not represent the interests of all of us in the entire state. As formidable freedom fighters, we will not allow these leaders to cheat us again because the contract is meant for our rural communities,” they contended. The statement, signed by the secretary of the group, Mr. Victor Adere, said the group would resist further violent demonstrations in the state by ex-militants and their leaders. Adere added that the group is fully in support of the governor, Mr. Dickson in his efforts to ensure that the state-owned Izon Ibe Security Company executes the contract for the benefit of everybody in the state. Meanwhile, the president, Ijaw Youth Council Worldwide, Mr. Eradiri, has raised the alarm that some ex-militant leaders were plotting to kill him. He claimed that the ex-militants wanted him dead because of his position on the NNPC surveillance contract.
Anti-Jega rally causes disaffection in OPC Following last week’s rally by the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) in Lagos where the Gani Adams-led faction of the body called for the resignation of INEC Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega, some members of his group have called on the National Coordinator to resign his position for joining partisan politics. The aggrieved members of the body yesterday (Saturday) described the OPC rally against Prof. Jega as a shame, not only to the Yoruba people, but the oppressed in the country that look forward to liberation through a free and fair elections. Speaking on the controversial rally, the National Welfare Officer of the body, Monsuru Akannde, said that the OPC factional leader had derailed from the aims and objectives of the organisation by becoming partisan and using the organisation as a political tool for President Goodluck Jonathan’s re-election. He alleged that the anti-Jega rally staged by OPC last week Monday in Lagos was organised by Gani Adams in his individual capacity and not supported by OPC as a body, to justify the recent contract worth several millions of naira awarded to him by the President Jonathan’s government. Akande said the majority of OPC members of Gani Adams-led faction were not in support of the use of OPC for personal motives and condemned his romance with politicians. He therefore asked Adams to disassociate himself from partisan politics or resign as OPC National Coordinator. “We are not in support of Gani Adams using OPC as political tools to campaign for any political party or politician. We advice him to put a stop to this or leave OPC and go into partisan politics. We abhor his romance with any political party, he should not kill the dreams of millions of OPC members. He should save us from being labelled Jonathan’s bulldog,” he said. Akande argued that his group’s stand against Gani Adams rally against Jega was not to create another faction of OPC saying, “All what we are saying is that he should separate OPC from politics. For organising a political rally in support of a political party or a candidate in a political election has shown the entire world that he is interested in politics. He shouldn’t continue to fool Yoruba that he is keeping their culture alive through OPC activities only for him to purse political agenda. It’s obvious he cannot protect the interest of OPC again,” Akande said. However, in a swift reaction to Akande’s group demand, APC National Publicity Secretary, Hakeem Ologunro described the new group as ‘the hawks’ that are beginning to display their desperation as the general elections draws nearer. He recalled that Akande has been suspended as the Welfare Chairman of the OPC since 2007 for shaddy deals. “As far as we’re are concern, the likes of Akande are not a reliable individual. He was expelled from the Congress for anti - party activities since 2007.
Oil theft persists What is, however, worrisome to stakeholders is that even with the security contract in the hands of the ex-militant leaders, vandals are still breaking the pipelines and stealing crude oil in the communities, most especially in Southern Ijaw local government area. This development apparently led to the establishment of the Southern Ijaw Oil and Gas Task Force by the local government chairman, Chief Remember Ogbe. The task force is made up of community members and security agents, who patrol the area to check activities of pipeline vandals and oil thieves. Even so, security sources in the state say the worst cases of illegal crude oil refining and oil theft are recorded in Gbaramatoru in Southern Ijaw. Again, with the frequent arrests of suspected oil thieves and pipeline vandals by the Joint Task Force Operation Pulo Shield, the Central Naval Command and the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in the state, observers say the ex-militants are only pocketing millions of dollars on pipeline security without achieving any result.
How to protect pipelines better The issue of contracting ex-militants to protect oil pipelines cannot be entirely dismissed as an unholy practice because of their knowledge of the terrain and the difficulty in deploying government forces to effectively perform the task, a security expert, Col Aminu Isa Kontagora, has argued. The retired military officer explained that neither the police nor the Navy can singlehandedly guarantee security to the networks of hundreds of kilometers of pipelines that run the entire length and breadth of the Niger Delta creeks. “Imagine even Delta State alone. How many pipes criss-cross the state? The same as places like Rivers, Akwa -Ibom and Bayelsa states. There are so many of them. I don’t think the police can protect every inch of those pipes and that was why it has been extremely difficult. Even the Navy cannot. How many creeks are in the Niger Delta region? Many of the oil theft are done with wooden canoe barges. There are limitations to some of the Naval ships getting into the creeks,” he said. According to him, the need to protect the assets, more than ever before, was underscored by people’s exposure to easy money that oil stealing can provide. “The issue of oil theft will keep coming up because once they have seen that it is lucrative and with little efforts to protect the pipelines, those engaging in pipe breaking will always want to continue with it,” he said. If Tompolo, for instance, would be patriotic and honest in guaranteeing sustained oil flow in the creeks, it would be to Nigeria’s advantage to hire him, he said, pointing, however, that internal competition among the ex-militants may cripple such an arrangement in the long run. “He (Tompolo) must have participated in the vandalization at one time or the other. He cannot deny that. He knows the tactics, he knows his boys in the illegal business and if he can pay them well, maybe the pipelines will be safe. But I know that with the criminality in the oil industry, at one stage his boys will betray him and continue with the stealing of the crude,” he added. “In the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia where pipes are in the deserts, there are observation posts manned with cameras and satellite facilities to monitor the pipelines. Here, ours are in the creeks, in the mangroves and you know they grow very fast, so we have to clear the ways and this is another task. That is why our pipelines are more vulnerable to vandals’ activities and theft than most of the countries. But I know that there is nowhere in the world where this problem does not exist,” he said. The retired colonel advocated three strategies that could permanently address the challenges of oil pipeline management in the Niger Delta. “Who owns the pipes? Can we sell the pipelines to Tompolo, instead of telling him to man them, so that he gets royalty from anybody that pumps in oil? This will reduce the theft because he will now take it as his own personal business. But if they are seen as government property, because of our mentality, the theft will continue. Secondly, government can employ the locals along the routes to protect the pipelines. Thirdly, the business of the theft of crude can be made unattractive. That means we must destroy the barges that are used for stealing crude and impound the vessels that are found with stolen crude. We must as well destroy illegal refineries so that we can reduce the incentives to steal the crude. Crude oil is wanted all over the world, as such the criminality in the oil industry is so high that we can only reduce it; we can hardly eliminate it,” Kontagora said. A maritime consultant, Rear Admiral Godwill Ortom (rtd), also toed the line of applying force to discourage oil thieves. “To reduce pipeline vandalism, you have to blow up any ship involved in this sabotage and no other ship will come near Nigeria to buy stolen and cheap oil. Whenever oil is stolen, a mother ship is positioned on the high-sea to ferry the oil, so if you blow it up no ship would come to still your oil again,” he pointed.
‘It’s wrong to reward rebellion’ However, the Chairman of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), Alhaji Ibrahim Coomassie, has a different opinion with regards to the propriety of awarding security contracts to ex-militants, saying the practice was wrong. Coomassie, a former police Inspector General, said it was inappropriate for government to award security contracts to people who rebelled against the country or people suspected of illegal behavior. “It is very wrong. How can you give a rebel - someone who took up arms against his country - “security contract?” He said there were qualified government agencies to handle maritime security matters, not individuals with questionable integrity. The former police boss advised the government to review the contracts in the interest of the nation, adding that such matters must be approved by the National Assembly. Also reacting, a civil society activist and executive director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CSLAC), Auwal Ibrahim Rafsanjani, faulted the contract on the grounds of its capacity to destroy public institutions. The legislative and anti-corruption campaigner further observed that the awards had not met basic due process requirements. “Unfortunately, it is Nigeria and Nigerians that are losing, because if he (Jonathan) bastardizes this institution by dashing out public money to militant leaders, it means he is encouraging them to do whatever they like and this is inviting violence to the country,” he said. Rafsanjani held that struggle for power and political gains must not promote illegality. “If Boko Haram is ready to support the president, does it mean it can also be given the money and the space to do what it is doing? If you look at what the sect is doing and what the militias are doing, there is little difference in them because it is about killing, disrupting public peace and terrorizing the people,” he asserted. He said the Nigerian security agencies had been undermined by Jonathan’s administration to the point that they were not being allowed to carry out their constitutional duties. “How can a government hire or award contracts to militias to protect its waterways and pipelines when the security agents are there? Despite this, the oil theft has not stopped, in fact, it is on the increase. The contract will only perpetuate the leakages, vandalization and theft in the oil industry,” he noted. He added that Nigeria records the highest rate of oil theft in the world despite the contracts awarded to the militia warlords to provide security for the oil installations. “These people do not have any track records to show that they are capable of providing the required security for our waterways and oil pipes. We have the naval personnel that are well trained, but were sidelined and replaced with militants in the name of politics. This is very unfortunate for the country because we will be encouraging militias to thrive in Nigeria. This is not a good approach to involve them in politics; it’s a way of encouraging them to carry arms against our country,” Rafsanjani cautioned.
‘Contracts will provide jobs’ However, both Fasehun and Adams, have defended the job, arguing that it would create a platform that can provide thousands of job opportunities to youths in the South-West. “This is a contract coming from a government agency, the NNPC, coming to a Nigerian company that will be making use of Nigerian people to do the job. And the company which has the award will also be making use of about 30,000 to 40,000 Nigerians, who will be executing the contract. If you consider the dent on the unemployment statistics in Nigeria, you will agree with me that the approval is worthwhile. Again if you consider the ripple effect, the number of ancillary people attached to these beneficiaries, many of whom have fathers, mothers, uncles, brothers, sisters and wives, you will agree it is worthwhile,” said Fasehun. When asked if the award was politically motivated, Fasehun retorted: “All that should concern Nigerians is that the contract was awarded, that unemployment will be reduced by over 40,000 people. It is not Dr Fasehun that will execute the contract. It is the youths of this country, many of whom are unemployed. So, if anyone is going to make a comment, it should be a positive comment…. And even if Jonathan was the one who thought of awarding the contract, God bless him. What was the cry of the Nigerian youth against him? Was it not that unemployment was going higher and higher?” Similarly, Adams said the contract would give him the opportunity to empower 15,000 youths. “We are not part of the amnesty the Niger Delta (militants) have been enjoying which runs into billions of naira. No dime was given to the OPC and we have paid our price and suffered casualties, more than the Niger Delta (militants) did. Why should it benefit only the Niger Delta and not the South-West too…. It will end hooliganism and empower youths,” he added.(Culled From Daily Trust)
 |
|
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