Honourable Uzoma Nkem Abonta is a member of the Federal House on Representatives, representing Ukwa East/West in Abia State. In this interview with our reporter, speaks on several issues, ranging from the ongoing constitution review and various government policies, to corruption. Excerpts:
Ongoing Constitution Review
The problems confronting the constitution review are the usual legislative problems. The constitution is made in such a way that it is very rigid and difficult to amend. With the way we are going, I will give the National Assembly credit for what has been done so far. But I also have my fears being a Nigerian, a constitutional lawyer; being a student of political history and given the way Nigeria is structured.
If you follow the history of Nigeria and all our efforts at constitution making, you will see that it is going to be a herculean task. We have 36 states and we have diverse interests. You know the composition of the National Assembly as well as I do and how some people view issues from sectional perspectives rather than from the standpoint of national interests.
Therefore, do not expect that the ongoing amendment will be easy. In the last dispensation, the National Assembly, in its wisdom, granted financial autonomy to the State Houses of Assembly but the same legislators in the states voted against it.
Now we are talking about granting a similar autonomy to the local government councils. In the course of the public sessions, most of the local governments voted for this autonomy but today the argument seems not to be in favour of that decision. The issue is that the powers that be seem to be working against that proposal.
The postponement of the public presentation of the report of our nationwide public sessions is not a problem because the position of the 360 constituencies were taken publicly and therefore already public documents. The major challenge will come when an issue such as the Land Use Act comes up. You know some people might not want it removed from the constitution. If it comes to a matter of voting, you know the composition of the House. Numerically, Kano, Kebbi and Jigawa are bigger than the five states of the South East geopolitical zone. So if some people do not want certain amendments and it is one man one vote, there is no way it can go. However, I do not want to be a prophet of doom. I have the hope that we will get there. If we do not succeed in amending all the sections we want to now, there will at least be substantial amendment. We should not lose hope. In amending the constitution, we must create awareness about the issues at stake.
We must also have the political will to go all out because it will hurt the powers that be in the system. It will not easy to retrieve from the mighty. It must be something that must be contested vehemently. The task of constitutional amendment is not just for the legislators; the media and the civil society groups must play their own roles of sensitising and mobilising the people.
Local Government Autonomy
I will give you the answer from two perspectives: as a Nigerian and as one who has been a councillor. In 1991, I was a councillor and leader of the Legislative Council in Ukwa-East Local Government Area of Abia State. If you don't grant autonomy to local government councils, they will still remain an appendage of the state governors.
Today, a local government chairman does not have a say in what goes on at the council. Although he is the head of the third tier of government, he cannot say no to the governor of the state.
In 1991-1993 when we were there, the situation was better than it is today. I cannot hold the chairman of my local government accountable now because he is only there at the mercy of the state governor. Until the two tiers are separated and each is given specific roles, the problem will remain.
Most importantly, there should be financial autonomy for the local government councils and that means the State/Local Government Joint Account should be abolished. Let this account be separated so that councils can get their funds directly and be free to pursue development according to the needs of their people and not according to the dictates of the state governors. Councillors should be able to vet the budget of the councils just like the National Assembly does to the federal budget.
Today, a lot of things happening at the local government level come from the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, an appointee of the state governor. This is why the governors wouldn't want to let go until Nigerians put up a fight. As a lawyer, I also know that if you give the councils full autonomy without checks, we will also whittle down the essence of federalism. True federalism recognises two components: the centre and the component states. It does not recognise the local government as a tier. Therefore, in giving autonomy to the local government, we must be very careful and define the extent of the autonomy. It is desirable and proper to grant them autonomy because it will foster development and stabilise our democracy.
Revenue Allocation Formula
The revenue formula in use today is more political than economical. In my own view, we should and we must revisit that revenue allocation formula.
We are running a federal system that harbours a lot of unitary principles where too much power is left at the centre and so little is granted to the states and local government councils. A situation where the federal government keeps over 50 per cent of the revenue to itself speaks volumes that federalism is not working in Nigeria.
If you look at Nigeria, the Federal Government should be concerned with administering Abuja from where it can be issuing authority to the larger part of the country, the component states. Between these two tiers of government, who should be getting more? Is it the small secluded centre or the states?
I think that the allocation to the states and local councils should be increased while the Federal Government should keep less revenue for its administrative purposes. The current formula has made many states dormant; they’re always only waiting for the federal allocation. They have ignored their internal revenue sources. The non-economic structure based solely on oil has not helped matters and I think the issue of derivation should be revisited.
We had a regional arrangement before Nigeria gained independence and each region was made to develop its own economy based on cash crops, such as cocoa, oil palm and groundnut. So I am of the view that the National Assembly should strive to review the revenue allocation formula so that the component states of the federation will emerge stronger.
NITEL Privatisation is fraud. The essence of privatisation is to make public corporations work better to the benefit of the people. But in our own case, almost all the public corporations that were privatised have become worse than they were before they were sold. The corruption that has bedevilled Nigeria is also trailing privatisation. The money set aside to pay the disengaged NITEL workers is not enough to pay them.
The problem is that the Federal Government wants to auction NITEL for peanuts. How much was the licence granted the GSM companies? It was about $280 million and yet government wants to sell the entire NITEL with MTEL and its other components for less the cost of the license given to the new companies.
NITEL has the largest optic fibre network across Nigeria. It is everywhere and no country abandons such an investment in preference for the GSM companies especially when you consider the national security implications of selling off such a strategic firm.
My position is that government should revive NITEL rather than sell it. If the Central Bank of Nigeria could stake more than N1 billion to support failing banks belonging to private individuals, why can't we do the same to revive NITEL as a national carrier?
Corruption
I make bold to say that corruption is the problem of Nigeria. Peter Tosh once said that everybody is talking about the criminal; who then is the criminal?
Nigeria is a very corrupt society and we are not fighting corruption. We are romancing with corruption; we are sleeping with corruption; we are celebrating our Valentine’s Day with corruption and doing everything with corruption. Corruption is fast becoming a norm in Nigeria. President Goodluck Jonathan must sit up and fight corruption; the war must start from the Villa. We need a very radical leader who will fight corruption.
The Asian countries of China, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia were more corrupt than Nigeria until one day when their leaders rose to the challenge and introduced capital punishment as penalty for corruption.
As soon as the law came into force, anyone caught stealing public funds or engaging in any form of corruption was either hanged of shot dead. Today we talk about the Asian Tigers because their leaders decided to have zero tolerance for corruption.
But here, our laws are loose and some of us would not mind going to jail and coming back to inherit N10bn. We know that you can even steal billions and just pay a paltry fine and go home to enjoy your loot. I make bold to say that civil servants are the worst problem of Nigeria. I call them “evil servants” because they are not civil in any way.
Once you are appointed a minister, they send you one big memo; they tell you how you can buy a house where you will live. Once you sign that memo you are finished. Look at our annual budgets; the amount of money spent in the month of December is greater that all the money spent in the remaining part of the year. Why is it that under personal and overhead costs, all the funds must be finished at the end of the year?
They told us they discovered 45,000 ghost workers in the Civil Service. How many are the civil servants if 45,000 are ghosts? In all these, no one has been punished and we have directors and permanent secretaries in those ministries. I think that something drastic has to be done.
Corruption has become endemic here and it is not found only among civil servants. Even other members of the society like market women are involved. Go to the market to buy garri and they will sell to you with falsified measurements. It is corruption at that level. It is not only among people in government that you find corruption. We have had several investigations but nobody has been jailed.
It is so bad that people now think that the best way to be rich and popular is to engage in corruption. When you are arrested and taken to court you enjoy free publicity and. After that, nothing happens; and you go home to enjoy your loot. The few that even went to jail came back and are now eminent persons deciding the fate of Nigerians instead of burying their heads in shame. In other countries, they would have been hanged for their crimes.
I am not saying that we must apply capital punishment but we must try to do something that will show that we have zero tolerance to corruption. We need ethical revolution, starting from the market women, school children, civil servants and even to the politicians. The greatest number of empty houses in Abuja is in Asokoro and Maitama districts. Nobody is occupying them because they are not affordable and their owners are not bothered about it. Who owns them? Civil servants. If they pay you your salary 20 years up front you cannot afford those houses. So, how were these civil servants able to acquire them? This is why mass housing or low-cost housing schemes have not worked.
When government designs low cost housing projects, the high-cost people will acquire them all and then rent them to the low-cost people. Why won't there be corruption when on the average a two bedroom apartment in Abuja goes for N1.5m? With your salary, can you live there? You must go to the suburbs of Nyanya and Mararaba where you also pay as much as N700,000 for a two-bedroom apartment. This is also expensive and if you want to live in such a place, you must also find a way to make ends meet.
If we must curb this kind of corruption, then the EFCC must do its work by ascertaining who owns which house, how was it acquired and what revenue it is yielding to the government.
In other countries such as South Africa when you drive a very flashy car you could be flagged down by tax officers who would want to know your identity, what you do for a living and whether you have been paying your tax to the government. In Nigeria, I can just buy my jet and start flying it. Nobody will ask: how did you get it? The Federal Government must take a holistic approach in tackling corruption.
President Jonathan must take a deeper look at the issue and ensure he tackles corruption with all sincerity not minding whose ox is gored. He should get some radical young men who are sincere and understand the magnitude of the problem to sanitise the system.
Capital Market
The issue of the capital market has remained very topical. During the controversy, the leadership of the House, in its wisdom, asked the Capital Market Committee to step aside for an interim committee to investigate the collapse of the capital market. This was to allow fair hearing on the issues. The Ad-hoc Committee concluded the investigation and also laid the report before the House.
The capital market and its institutions are still functioning, but because of the prolonged problem between the House, Arunma Oteh and the Presidency, we declared the DG persona non grata. We still do our oversight over the capital market institutions but the House said we will have nothing to do with SEC as long as Oteh remains there. The House has forwarded its resolution to Mr. President for implementation.
Though he is yet to take action, I assure you that the House will not toy with the capital market because it is also one of the indices of monitoring our economy. It is one way to attract investors and grow our economy. It is not in our interest as a country to allow the capital market crash. Right now we are talking with the Abuja Commodity Exchange Market which is one of the institutions in the sector. They have some challenges and we are trying to see how we can fix the problems.
Legislative matters
Most of my bills have been passed by the House and sent to the Senate for concurrence. You know how slow lawmaking is: first, second reading, committee stage and then to the whole House before passage. It takes an average of two years to have a bill turned into an Act but we will not relent in our efforts to make laws for good governance of the country.
My interest has been on alternative source of revenue outside oil. So my bills revolve around agriculture and the capital market. Quite a number of my bills have been concluded in the House and sent to the Senate for concurrence but I am aware that none has been sent to the president for assent.
 |
|
Shettima at UNGA: Africa Demands a Seat at the Global Table
Nigeria has taken its campaign for a bigger African voice in global affairs to the heart of the United Nations, with Vice President Kashim Shettima demanding sweeping reform of the UN Security Council and permanent representation for Africa.
Delivering President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s address at the **81st United Nations General Assembly** in New York on Thursday, Shettima said the international system created after World War II could no longer adequately reflect the realities of the modern world.
Nigeria called for **at least two permanent seats for Africa**, with the full rights and responsibilities of permanent membership, including veto rights for as long as the veto remains part of the Security Council, alongside **five non-permanent African seats**.
The demand puts Africa's long-standing campaign for greater representation at the centre of Nigeria's message to world leaders.
1945 cannot define 2026’
The Nigerian delegation argued that the distribution of power established in 1945 has left Africa under-represented in the institution responsible for some of the world's most consequential decisions on peace and security.
For Abuja, the issue is not simply about seats at the UN. It is about giving African countries a greater role in decisions that directly affect the continent.
Nigeria anchored its position on the **Ezulwini Consensus**, the African Union's common position on Security Council reform.
CONFLICTS: NIGERIA CALLS FOR DIPLOMACY
Shettima's address also turned to the conflicts confronting the international community.
Nigeria called for stronger diplomacy, respect for international law and protection of civilians, while urging greater international efforts to resolve conflicts, including the crisis in Sudan.
The Nigerian position was that lasting peace cannot be secured solely through military action and that diplomacy, dialogue and negotiated settlements remain essential tools for resolving conflicts.
TERRORISM: ‘NO COUNTRY CAN FIGHT ALONE’
With Nigeria continuing to confront terrorism and other forms of transnational crime, the address placed international security cooperation high on the agenda.
Nigeria called for stronger intelligence-sharing, action against terrorist financing and greater cooperation to prevent illicit weapons from crossing borders.
But Abuja also linked security to development, pointing to education, economic opportunity, accountable governance and protection of citizens** as important elements of long-term stability.
AFRICA’S WEALTH: FROM RAW MATERIALS TO INDUSTRIAL POWER
The Nigerian message went beyond politics and security.Tinubu's address, delivered by Shettima, called for Africa to transform its vast natural resources into industrial and economic opportunities by expanding **local processing, manufacturing, technology and value-added production**.
Nigeria also highlighted the African Continental Free Trade Area as an opportunity to expand intra-African trade and build stronger regional supply chains.
The message was clear: Africa's resources should generate greater value, jobs and investment within the continent rather than being exported largely in raw form.
CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT
Nigeria also reaffirmed its commitment to climate action, including its 2060 net-zero target, while stressing the need for financing, technology transfer and international support for developing countries.
Abuja argued that climate action and economic development should be pursued together, particularly in countries still struggling to provide reliable energy and economic opportunities for rapidly growing populations.
THE NIGERIAN MESSAGE
From the UN podium in New York, Shettima delivered a message that combined Nigeria's foreign-policy priorities with its wider vision for Africa: **greater representation, stronger security cooperation, economic transformation and a more inclusive international system.**
For Nigeria, the Security Council reform campaign remains a central part of that agenda.
The demand from Abuja is straightforward: **Africa should have a permanent voice in the room when decisions affecting international peace, security and global governance are made. And Nigeria says it intends to keep making that case.
News
CBN Slashes Interest Rate to 23% in Major Policy Adjustment
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has reduced its benchmark interest rate from 26.5 per cent to 23 per cent, marking a significant shift in its monetary policy direction.
CBN Governor, Olayemi Cardoso, announced the decision on Tuesday following the conclusion of the Monetary Policy Committee’s (MPC) 307th meeting in Abuja.
According to Cardoso, the committee reviewed developments in both the global and domestic economies, assessed emerging risks and considered their potential implications for monetary policy before reaching its decision.
“The Committee decided as follows: reset the monetary policy rate at 23 per cent,” the governor said.
The latest move represents a 350-basis-point reduction in the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR). It follows two consecutive MPC meetings at which the rate was left unchanged, after the committee lowered it by 50 basis points in February 2026.
In addition to cutting the MPR, the committee adjusted the standing facility corridor to +50 and -300 basis points around the new benchmark rate.
However, the CBN retained existing Cash Reserve Requirement (CRR) levels at 45 per cent for deposit money banks, 16 per cent for merchant banks and 75 per cent for non-TSA public-sector deposits.
Cardoso explained that the changes were designed to improve the effectiveness of monetary policy by strengthening the transmission of policy decisions through the financial system.
He said the adjustment was also part of efforts to restore the MPR as the primary signal of the CBN’s monetary policy and improve the operation of the monetary policy framework.
According to the governor, the MPC viewed the recalibration as an operational adjustment rather than a fundamental shift in the bank’s monetary policy stance.
“The Committee emphasized that the duration of the corridor does not constitute a change in the current monetary policy stance, but rather an operational reset to enhance the effectiveness of monetary policy and support the transition to an inflation targeting framework,” he said.
The committee also noted ongoing efforts by the CBN to strengthen its monetary policy implementation framework. Cardoso said transaction-based operational benchmarks had improved the transparency of money-market operations.
The MPC consequently concluded that resetting the MPR and adjusting the policy corridor would bring the monetary policy framework more closely in line with prevailing market conditions.
The committee said the changes are expected to improve policy transmission and reinforce the MPR’s role as the central benchmark for monetary policy.
Members further maintained that the latest adjustments should be viewed primarily as an operational realignment of the framework and not, in themselves, as a change in the underlying monetary policy stance.
Business
In The Spotlight
Editorial:Trump @ UNGA: Power Is Not a Substitute for Strategy
President Donald Trump came before the United Nations this week with a message that has defined much of his second presidency: The United States is powerful, it intends to use that power, and it will not permit international institutions to place limits on American sovereignty.
There was little ambiguity in the message. Trump celebrated military strength, demanded greater control over America’s borders, challenged international institutions and portrayed American technological leadership as a strategic necessity. On Iran, Gaza, immigration, the International Criminal Court and artificial intelligence, the president returned repeatedly to the same principle: Nations must defend their own interests, and the United States must remain free to act.
That is a coherent philosophy. But coherence is not the same as effectiveness.
The question raised by this speech is not whether America should be strong. No serious foreign policy can begin from the premise that American power is irrelevant. The question is what that power is for — and whether it is being used in ways that make the United States more secure over the long term.
Trump's remarks on Iran illustrated the dilemma.
He reaffirmed that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and paired the possibility of diplomacy with warnings of devastating military consequences.
Deterrence has always depended partly on credibility. But credibility is not measured only by the willingness to threaten force. It is also measured by the ability to achieve a political outcome once force has been used.
Wars can begin with clear objectives and end with consequences no government anticipated. The history of American foreign policy offers ample evidence that military superiority does not automatically translate into political control.
That is why diplomacy cannot simply be regarded as the alternative to strength. At its best, diplomacy is one of the instruments through which strength is converted into durable agreements.
The same distinction matters in Trump's approach to the United Nations.
The president has argued that international institutions have become too costly, too bureaucratic and too willing to intrude upon national sovereignty. His administration has pursued reductions in America's financial and institutional commitments to the United Nations.
There is nothing inherently wrong with demanding accountability from an international organization. The United Nations deserves scrutiny. Its bureaucracy can be inefficient, its member states often disagree and its institutions can fail to prevent the very conflicts they were created to address.
But the choice is not simply between an ineffective United Nations and an unconstrained America.
International institutions exist in part because some problems cannot be solved effectively by individual nations acting alone. Nuclear proliferation is one. Global pandemics are another. Artificial intelligence increasingly belongs on that list.
Trump's comments about AI therefore deserve particular attention. He emphasized American technological leadership and warned against international regulation that could restrain innovation.
The United States has obvious reasons to remain at the forefront of AI development. But technological leadership and international coordination are not necessarily opposing objectives. The challenge is to develop rules that protect security without freezing innovation.
That requires American leadership, not American isolation.
The president's immigration argument followed the same pattern. He presented control of the border as an essential expression of national sovereignty and rejected the notion that international norms should prevent governments from determining who may enter their territory.
A sovereign nation plainly has an interest in controlling its borders. But sovereignty also carries responsibilities. The United States, like other countries, must reconcile border enforcement with its legal and humanitarian obligations.
The difficult work of governing begins where slogans end.
That is ultimately what was missing from the most sweeping parts of Trump's speech: not conviction, but attention to the institutional machinery required to turn conviction into lasting results.
America can impose costs on adversaries. It can withdraw from agreements. It can reduce contributions to international organizations. It can threaten overwhelming force. It can use its enormous economic and technological advantages.
But power has a second dimension that is easier to overlook: the ability to persuade allies, maintain coalitions, preserve diplomatic channels and build institutions capable of surviving changes in leadership.
The United States did not become the world's leading power merely because it possessed the world's strongest military. It built alliances. It established institutions. It cultivated economic relationships. It persuaded other countries that American leadership could serve interests beyond America's own.
Trump's speech represents a different emphasis.
It places sovereignty before institutions, pressure before accommodation and national interest before international consensus.
There is a legitimate debate to be had over whether the postwar international system has become too cumbersome, too expensive or insufficiently accountable. But reforming that system and weakening it are not the same thing.
The distinction will matter greatly in the years ahead.
A stronger America is not necessarily an America that stands alone. Nor is international cooperation synonymous with surrendering sovereignty.
The enduring challenge of American foreign policy is to combine power with restraint, independence with alliances and national interest with the recognition that American security is inseparable from the wider world.
Trump's speech made clear which side of that debate he occupies.The more consequential question is what happens next.
History will not ultimately judge the speech by its applause lines, its threats or its declarations of American strength. It will judge the policy that follows — and whether that policy produces a world in which the United States is not merely more powerful, but more secure.
Power matters. But power, by itself, is not a strategy.
In The Spotlight
Who Is in Charge? Tinubu Is in Paris, Shettima Is in New York
By now, Nigerians deserve more than explanations. They deserve clarity. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is in Paris. Vice President Kashim Shettima is in New York.
And Nigeria is in Abuja, Lagos, Kano, Port Harcourt, Maiduguri and everywhere else Nigerians are dealing with the daily business of surviving, working and waiting for government to deliver. So, a simple question is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid:Who is in charge?
Before anyone dismisses that question as opposition politics, let us establish the facts. Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for what the Presidency described as a working vacation. He subsequently moved from London to Paris and, on September 21, the Presidency announced that he had extended his stay by a few days and would return at the weekend.
Shettima left Nigeria on September 20 for New York, where he is representing the President and leading Nigeria's delegation to the 81st United Nations General Assembly.
The government says there is no vacuum. It says Tinubu remains in contact with officials at home and continues to direct the affairs of government. It also says Shettima has been given the President's mandate to represent Nigeria at the UN.
Fine. But that does not make the question disappear.It makes the question more important.
A country cannot run on “trust us”
Government is not supposed to operate on whispers, assumptions or political reassurance.It operates through institutions.
It operates through constitutional authority. It operates through clearly defined responsibilities. And when the President is abroad for an extended period while the Vice President is also outside the country, Nigerians have every right to ask where executive authority is located and who is exercising it.
This is particularly relevant because Nigeria's Constitution provides a specific mechanism for a President who is proceeding on vacation or otherwise unable to discharge the functions of office.
That mechanism exists for a reason.It is designed to prevent uncertainty.It is designed to prevent a vacuum.It is designed toensure that, at every moment, Nigerians know who is constitutionally responsible for the presidency.
So why should Nigerians have to debate the issue?
The Presidency says everything is fine
The government insists that there is no disruption to governance.The Presidency says Tinubu has remained engaged from abroad. It points to decisions taken by the President while away and says the Vice President's trip to New York is an official assignment.
There is nothing inherently unusual about a Nigerian president travelling abroad.There is nothing unusual about a vice president representing the country at the United Nations.
The problem is the combination.The President is away. The Vice President is away. And the country is being told that everything is perfectly normal.
Perhaps it is.But if it is, then proving it should be easy.Tell Nigerians clearly who is exercising presidential authority.
Tell Nigerians whether the constitutional procedure has been followed.Tell Nigerians who is accountable for presidential decisions while both men are outside the country.This should not be difficult.
Leadership is also about presence
There is a difference between saying government is functioning and demonstrating that leadership is present.Nigeria is not short of challenges.
The cost of living remains a major concern. Security remains a national issue. Unemployment and economic hardship continue to affect households. Nigerians are demanding better public services and greater accountability.
At such a moment, leadership cannot be reduced to whether instructions can be transmitted from one continent to another.
Leadership is also about visibility. It is about being present when the country needs reassurance. It is about being accessible when difficult questions arise. It is about giving citizens confidence that somebody is firmly in control. A president does not have to sit permanently in Aso Rock to govern Nigeria. But Nigerians should never be left wondering whether anyone is sitting firmly at the controls.
Paris is not Abuja
There is another uncomfortable truth.Nigeria's political class has become remarkably comfortable governing from airports, hotel suites, foreign capitals and conference rooms.The rest of the country does not have that luxury.
The Nigerian worker cannot take a working vacation from inflation.The small business owner cannot take annual leave from electricity costs.The parent struggling with school fees cannot postpone the bills until the President returns. The young graduate without a job cannot simply wait for the government to reconnect with reality.
For ordinary Nigerians, the country does not go on vacation.That is why the optics matter.While the President is in Paris and the Vice President is in New York, millions of Nigerians remain at home confronting the consequences of government policy every day.
This is bigger than Tinubu
The danger is that this debate becomes another partisan shouting match. Supporters will say the President is working.
Opponents will say the government has abandoned its responsibilities. Both sides can shout themselves hoarse.
But the Constitution does not work by volume. The question is not whether Tinubu's supporters are satisfied.The question is not whether his opponents are outraged.The question is whether the constitutional chain of executive authority is clear. That is an institutional question, not a party question. And the National Assembly has a role to play in ensuring that Nigerians are not left guessing.
Nigeria deserves an answer
There is something deeply unhealthy about a democracy in which citizens have to ask social media, political parties and television commentators who is exercising presidential power.
The answer should be official.It should be constitutional.It should be unambiguous.If Tinubu is fully exercising the powers of President from Paris, say so.If Shettima is exercising presidential functions under the constitutional provisions governing presidential absence, say so.If there is no constitutional problem, explain precisely why.
But please, stop treating a legitimate question as an attack on the government.A government confident in its constitutional position should welcome clarity.
Who is in charge?
This is ultimately not about Paris.It is not about New York.It is not even primarily about Tinubu or Shettima. It is about the Nigerian presidency. A republic of more than 200 million people should not have an invisible question mark hanging over its executive authority.
Tinubu can travel.Shettima can travel.Government can continue. But constitutional responsibility must remain visible.
Because when both the President and Vice President are outside the country, Nigerians should not have to look at a map to figure out where their government is.
They should be able to look at the Constitution.And the answer should be unmistakable.Who is in charge? Nigeria deserves to know.
By Emmanuel Emeke Asiwe, Publisher/Editor-in-Chief