TheNewsGuru

Tag: Dakuku Peterside

  • Choices, not chance: Why China is rich, and Nigeria is poor – By Dakuku Peterside 

    Choices, not chance: Why China is rich, and Nigeria is poor – By Dakuku Peterside 

    China and Nigeria, two continental giants that entered the late 1970s with similar per capita incomes, have since taken opposite economic trajectories. In China, the decisive moment was Deng Xiaoping’s 1978 decision to “open the windows” and let the world’s capital know-how to blow in. In Nigeria, the same decade ushered in the oil boom that encouraged governments to depend on volatile export rents rather than the hard grind of production. Nearly half a century later, the contrast is stark: China ships $3.58 trillion a year worth of merchandise each year to the US, runs the world’s biggest high-speed rail and electricity networks, and has reduced extreme poverty to the low single digits, whereas Nigeria still relies on diesel generators to power most factories and holds the unfortunate record of hosting the planet’s largest pool of people living on less than $3 a day.

    I was recently in China as part of a Nigerian business delegation that wanted to revolutionise rail freight. We toured Chinese rail manufacturing factories and saw the cumulative effect firsthand. At Yiwu, a market city once famous only for cheap toys, outbound trains roll directly into the customs yard, clear export formalities in hours and join a trans-Eurasian schedule that reaches Madrid in eighteen days. We counted five layers of the process—terminal handling, port queue, ocean leg, inland haulage, and warehouse sorting—that would each add days and dollars back home. We also noticed that the Chinese yard foreman carried a tablet tracking real-time wagon diagnostics; the Nigerian equivalent would be on a clipboard waiting on a generator to restart the Wi-Fi.

    The macro numbers simply crystallise what we observed on the ground. Manufacturing generates roughly twenty-seven per cent of the Chinese GDP and employs more than one hundred million people. In Nigeria, the share by 2024 has slid below ten per cent and continues to fall. Chinese logistics costs average seven to nine per cent of a retail item’s final price; Nigerian goods often surrender a quarter to a third of their value to the road, the checkpoint and the generator. The pertinent question is, what made China succeed and Nigeria fail?

    Policy consistency is the first, and perhaps most underrated, source of that divergence. Beijing’s five-year plans differed in detail but never in direction: everyone sought deeper industrialisation, more export capacity, and a higher rung on the technology ladder. By contrast, Lagos, Abuja and the thirty-six state capitals have veered from import substitution to outright deregulation to state-owned “transformation agendas,” each abandoned as soon as the next political cycle arrives or the oil price slumps. For investors deciding where to put a steel mill or a chip assembly plant, the difference between a twenty-year horizon and a four-year horizon is the difference between “build” and “walk away.”

    Infrastructure magnified that gap. Beginning in the early 1990s, China poured roughly eight per cent of its GDP every year into roads, ports, airports and—most outstandingly—rail. A lattice of 45,000 kilometres of 250 to 350 km/h track now links almost every provincial capital; freight versions of those lines move 10,000-tonne trains from Chongqing to Shenzhen in a single day. One academic study finds that high-speed rail access lifts a connected city’s GDP by more than fourteen per cent within five years, mostly by slashing logistics times and widening labour catchment areas for firms. Nigeria, meanwhile, rehabilitated a few colonial-era lines and launched several standard gauge projects, but even its showcase Abuja–Kaduna and Lagos- Ibadan routes move fewer passengers in a week than China’s busiest corridor handles before breakfast. Most cargo still crawls along cratered highways where police checkpoints and kidnappers impose an unofficial “fear tax” on every bag of cement or basket of tomatoes.

    China achieved rapid growth by heavily investing in manufacturing. This is unlike Nigeria, where manufacturing contributes less than 12.68% in Q2 2024 and more than 8.21% in Q3 2024. China’s investment in High-Speed Rail (HSR) has led to a significant drop in the cost of goods. Recent initiatives like “Made in China 2025” focus on advanced manufacturing sectors such as robotics, aerospace, new-energy vehicles, and biotechnology to increase the value chain and reduce reliance on foreign technology.

    Reliable energy is the next Faultline. Guangdong province alone generates more electricity than the entire Nigerian grid, and it does so continuously; Chinese aluminium smelters, textile mills and data centres are designed around the assumption that the power will stay on. Nigerian manufacturers assume the opposite. They buy diesel gensets, pay triple the Asian price for each kilowatt hour they consume, and pass that cost on to consumers—who already face some of the steepest logistics markups in the world. When energy constitutes thirty per cent of a product’s ex-factory price, no patriotic marketing can keep that product competitive abroad.

    China’s factories also had people who could keep the machines running. A high school graduate in Jilin can programme a PC and interpret a process control chart because technical and vocational colleges occupy a place of prestige that academic-heavy universities once monopolised. As a result, Chinese employers can field 3,000-strong shifts of technicians able to retool a smartphone assembly line on the weekend. Nigeria’s educational culture remains firmly certificate-oriented; private surveys suggest that more than four-fifths of recent university graduates lack basic spreadsheet or coding competence. The mismatch forces multinationals to fly expatriate engineers into Lagos or—more often—to put the factory in Ethiopia, Vietnam or Guangdong instead.

    Automation sharpened the divide still further. In 2024 alone, Chinese firms installed nearly 300,000 industrial robots—more than Europe and the Americas combined. Robots weld car bodies and ship parts, insert smartphone cameras and package frozen dumplings; the technicians who maintain them earn multiples of the average urban wage. Nigeria ordered only a few hundred units that same year, primarily for soft drink bottling plants in Lagos and Ogun. Without automation, productivity plateaus; without productivity, wages stagnate; without rising wages, the domestic market stays too shallow to justify mass production. The cycle feeds on itself.

    Oil dependence made everything worse. Crude accounts for well over half of Nigeria’s government revenue but employs fewer than one per cent of its labour force. When Brent prices soar, ministries hire, contractors splurge, and imports surge; when prices crash, capital projects halt, debts pile up, and Naira devaluations wipe out household purchasing power. Chinese planners did court commodity cycles—the country still consumes half the world’s copper and iron ore—but their fiscal lifeline was value-added, not raw rents. Tax receipts rose in tandem with factory output, giving Beijing a steadily expanding pool of local currency resources to finance the next port or rail line.

    Insecurity compounds Nigeria’s structural costs. Hundreds of lives and thousands of work hours vanish each year due to armed robbery, terrorist attacks or kidnaping along the Lagos–Kano highway. Firms pay for private guards, convoy fees and kidnap insurance; those outlays translate directly into higher shelf prices and lower margins. China indeed grapples with crime and corruption, but industrial zones in Shenzhen or Suzhou are patrolled, litigated and powered in ways that let a container leave the factory gate and reach the port with minimal friction or added cost. Logistics is the key enabler of manufacturing.

    Yet none of these gaps is destiny. Nigeria’s poverty is a product of a mix of bad leadership and bad choices. Nigeria’s heavy reliance on oil causes economic vulnerability. Nigeria’s education system emphasises certificates over practical skills, creating a gap between what is taught in schools and what employers need. Over 85% of Nigerian graduates lack digital skills, making them less competitive in the job market. The SMART schools championed by the Enugu State government aim to start closing the IT gaps, and other states in Nigeria are expected to create more of these schools.

    Nigeria still has an unreliable electricity supply, inconsistent fiscal policies, shifting regulations, and excessive bureaucracy. Years of focus on ease of doing business have improved things, but we are far from average. Nigeria’s service-led growth has benefited the educated middle class and corrupt government officials and is less employment-intensive. Despite having a young population, massive arable land and growth potential, Nigeria has remained a country of poor people.

    Nigeria still possesses assets China would envy: a median age under twenty, vast swathes of uncultivated arable land, abundant sunshine for solar power and a coastline perched between the Atlantic trade lanes and Africa’s interior. What it lacks is the deliberate sequencing that China pursued. Reliable baseload power and a north-south freight rail spine must precede, not follow, any talk of mega parks or local content mandates. Technical colleges must receive the same prestige and funding as universities. We applaud the efforts of the Minister of Education in creating and masterminding the technical and vocational school strategy. Special Economic Zones must specialise in textiles in Kano, agro-processing in Benue, and light engineering in Aba so suppliers and toolmakers can cluster rather than scatter. Nigeria must adopt Industrial clusters as a potential strategy. Industrialisation breeds employment, alleviates poverty, and creates high income and GDP growth, which creates wealth and a better quality of life for citizens.

    If those choices are made and sustained, the virtuous cycle that lifted China is also ready to spin in Nigeria: hard infrastructure lowers cost, factories sprout, wages rise, domestic demand deepens, tax receipts multiply, and the next round of infrastructure becomes easier to finance. History shows that such cycles do not begin with genius inventions or windfall resources; they start when governments decide that electricity at midnight and freight trains at dawn are more important than oil rents at noon. China made that decision decades ago and grew rich. Nigeria still can. President Widodo of Indonesia grew their economy within ten years by furthering an export-oriented strategy with in-country value addition, embarking on expansive infrastructure development, reducing poverty to 1%, and almost doubling per capita income. Can we do this in Nigeria? Yes, we can! Today’s dismal rankings will look like a brief preface to a more prosperous chapter

  • Rivers: A ticking time bomb – By Dakuku Peterside

    Rivers: A ticking time bomb – By Dakuku Peterside

    Rivers State is currently facing a pressing and time-sensitive threat. The oil-rich state has come under intense political scrutiny following President Bola Tinubu’s state of emergency proclamation on March 18, 2025. Despite official assurances that this step was necessary to tackle a supposed breakdown of law and order, many observers argue that the constitutional criteria for such a declaration were never met. No credible reports indicated imminent danger to lives or property, and even preliminary police statistics showed no unusual surge in violence across the state. Nevertheless, the federal government acted swiftly: in a single directive, it removed the authority of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and dissolved the legislative apparatus, handing over day-to-day governance to Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired military officer appointed as ‘Administrator’. This has sparked concerns about potential ‘long-term democratic erosion.’

    This arrangement immediately raised red flags for those who initially opposed the measure. Critics argue that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution—cited by the Presidency as justification—does not grant the power to remove or suspend an elected Governor and legislature. Equally concerning is that instead of simply approving or rejecting the state-of-emergency proclamation, the National Assembly reportedly modified its contents, thereby exceeding the boundaries that the Constitution sets for such an intervention. Opponents hold that neither the President nor federal legislators have the authority to replace elected officials at the state level. The jury is out on the legality or illegality of the state of emergency. Hon. Linus Okorie, a former legislator, described it this way: “The entire emergency process is riddled with constitutional breaches, political motivations, and authoritarian overreach”.

    However, since taking office, Admiral Ibas has waded deep into areas typically reserved for elected officials. Among his first actions was to replace civil servants overseeing local government administration and appoint politically aligned persons to key positions across local government areas. As a result, the constitutionally mandated practice of running councils via democratically elected officials has been set aside.

    While the original proclamation from President Tinubu allegedly stressed that the Administrator should formulate only “regulations” limited to security concerns, what has taken place on the ground looks far more like lawmaking. Admiral Ibas began preparing the state’s 2025 budget without legislative oversight, triggered the dismissal of Governor Fubara’s political appointees, especially those who were nominated and cleared by the then “United” House of Assembly — and most conspicuously the changing of the leadership of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission and the Local Government Service Commission. According to local reports, many new appointees are known loyalists of Minister Nyesom Wike, fuelling suspicion that the entire emergency rule is a ploy to reshape Rivers politics in Wike’s favour.

    There is a trend of alleged unconstitutional acts. Critics list the illegal nature of the emergency declaration itself, the contravention of Supreme Court orders regarding the disbursement of state funds, and the public misrepresentation of reconstruction efforts at the House of Assembly complex—among many others. The removal of statutory political appointees is high on that list, especially since no effort was made to show how such dismissals advance public safety or quell any threat. Community leaders, particularly the Rivers Rescue Organisers, point out that neither the restive areas of the riverine communities nor the capital city, Port Harcourt, have witnessed any large-scale disruptions.

    Under these circumstances, questions continue to swirl around President Tinubu’s motives. Why plan to replace municipal civil servants with new politically aligned local government heads if the priority is truly stabilising the state? Why reconstitute the state electoral commission under emergency rule, especially if elections are not immediately at stake? How can an appointed Administrator validly prepare a budget, an act of lawmaking, without any form of legislative debate or approval? And does the National Assembly’s role in modifying the state-of-emergency order amount to an overreach that effectively sanctioned the removal of an elected governor and state assembly? Detractors note that emergency powers are supposed to be short-term, narrowly tailored, and strictly limited to restoring order. However, what they see in Rivers is a sweeping overhaul of political power that extends to every layer of governance. The reality is that Admiral Ibas is acting more like a governor-legislator hybrid than a temporary peacekeeping official. Hon. CID Maduabum, a lawyer and former federal legislator, warns, ” The administrator’s unconstitutional actions could exacerbate tensions in the state and plunge the state into total chaos”.

    These moves have led many commentators to label what is happening in Rivers as a ‘coup in civilian clothing,’ an accusation arising from the wholesale transfer of authority from constitutionally elected officials to a single federal government appointee. The shift to Wike-aligned figures in strategic positions has heightened suspicions that the state of emergency is an avenue for orchestrating a prearranged political outcome. Much of the controversy also hinges on allegations of political engineering. Local journalists report that of the 15 newly appointed officials to key institutional boards—such as the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission and the Local Government Service Commission—11 are loyal to Minister Nyesom Wike, a former Governor who is a central figure in the crisis.

    Some have dismissed these claims as ‘partisan conspiracy theories,’ insisting that ‘all appointments are based on proven track records, not political patronage.’ Still, the public’s scepticism runs high, with online forums and call-in radio shows flooded by residents who question why the emergency rule appears far more focused on dismantling existing political structures than addressing any tangible threats to public safety. Community organisers note that hardly any newly appointed officials have prior experience in crisis management or security coordination, raising further doubts about the purported rationale behind their placement. Some worry that Rivers is a test case for 2027, with potential ramifications for other states that may not align with presidential or ministerial interests. In Rivers State, some described this situation as a ” democratic time bomb” where political actors hide under emergency rule to subvert democracy and core norms of constitutionalism. This trend could set a dangerous precedent for the 2027 elections, potentially influencing the political landscape of Nigeria.

    The broader implications of the Rivers situation are hard to ignore. With state-level institutions effectively suspended, Governor Fubara sidelined, and the plan for local government councils to be replaced by appointed administrators, many believe constitutional order in the state has been covertly, if not overtly, suspended. Civic organisations warn that disenfranchised populations may react with widespread protests, especially if the promised swift return to normal governance does not materialise. The potential for widespread protests is a cause for concern, as should this standoff persist, it could create a dangerous template for federal interference in states nationwide.

    For the people of Rivers State, the immediate concern is the return to constitutional order and preserving their franchise in a system that seems precariously close to unravelling. On the streets of Port Harcourt, protestors have been seen carrying placards reading “Democracy, Not Decrees” and “Our Votes Still Matter,” while religious leaders convened a meeting in different parts of the state to pray for what they described as “the restoration of the people’s will.” Some youth groups have launched social media campaigns using hashtags like #RestoreRiversDemocracy and #LetFubaraGovern, urging the international community to pay attention to “an unfolding civilian coup.” With calls for the Supreme Court to reassert its authority and for civil society groups to mobilise nonviolent demonstrations, tension remains high. If the political impasse continues, Rivers could see a spike in civil disobedience or sporadic unrest, especially given that many young adults in the South-South region believe that political justice, or the lack thereof, is a key driver of local violence.

    At the heart of this entire debate lies whether Nigeria’s constitutional framework still holds firm under the weight of executive discretion. Emergency powers, after all, are meant to be invoked only when a true crisis emerges—and even then, only in ways that address the immediate security concerns while respecting democratic principles. The repeated references to Sections 305 and 11 have not alleviated suspicions that the fundamental objective is political control. Local watchers note that the last time an emergency was declared in a state—albeit under different circumstances—the Governor remained in office, and the National Assembly did not assume powers to alter the structure of local councils or reconstitute electoral commissions.

    Ultimately, Rivers has become a crucible for Nigeria’s democracy, forcing citizens and the judiciary to consider whether checks and balances can withstand what some describe as an “unconstitutional assault.” Calls for reinstating elected structures have grown louder, particularly as the administrator delves into lawmaking and politics. The Constitution was never meant to be a smokescreen for personal or political ambition. Stripping away entire layers of governance under the pretence of emergency is not what the framers envisioned. Grassroots organisations are gathering signatures, staging peaceful demonstrations, and submitting petitions to the courts to restore what they see as Rivers State’s rightful democratic order. For now, no matter how this chapter ends in the state, constitutional democracy has been fatally damaged, and normalcy and order may be far away.

    If there is a silver lining, it is that many Rivers residents—despite feeling sidelined—remain vocal in asserting their rights. Though limited in scope, public opinion polls suggest that a significant percentage of the populace demands a return to constitutional rule. The task of democratic forces in the state now is to use the six-month period to expose the fraud of the emergency administration and undermine its original intentions.

    While the political actions of the citizenry and how the courts will ultimately rule remain to be seen, the state of emergency in Rivers has transcended its initial justification and transformed into a high-stakes test of Nigeria’s federal and democratic systems. The outcome may decide whether democratic norms can remain intact when confronted by executive power cloaked under security.

  • NNPCL Leadership: Agenda for faltering oil giant – By Dakuku Peterside

    NNPCL Leadership: Agenda for faltering oil giant – By Dakuku Peterside

    The appointment of a new leadership team at the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd.) has sparked fresh hope. However, history teaches us that leadership changes in Nigeria’s public institutions is often not a guarantee for remarkable positive changes . Each transition is seen as a potential turning point, yet the cycle of inefficiency, corruption  and mismanagement persists. This time, however, there is a distinguishing factor—NNPC Ltd. is now led by a technocratic board predominantly composed of industry professionals. This shift signals the possibility of meaningful change, but only if these experts can resist personal and corporate interests and genuinely serve national priorities. Will this be a turning point or another wasted opportunity? The answer will profoundly affect Nigeria’s economic stability and long-term economic health .

    As Nigeria’s national oil company, NNPC Ltd. wields significant influence, managing the country’s vast oil and gas resources. Its efficiency, or lack thereof, has far-reaching implications for government funding, economic stability, foreign exchange reserves, currency valuation, job creation, and investor confidence. A well-managed NNPC Ltd. could serve as the backbone of economic revival, while inefficiency could lead to a domino effect of economic crises. The Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) reports that the country lost over $46 billion to oil theft and operational inefficiencies between 2009 and 2020, underscoring the potential impact of a well-managed NNPC Ltd.

    An ineffective NNPC Ltd. is not just a national disservice —it is an economic crisis in itself. The company’s mismanagement directly impacts the economy and national development projects.

    Globally, state-owned oil companies have been instrumental in their nations’ economic development. Saudi Aramco is the most profitable company in the world, surpassing tech giants like Apple and Microsoft, with a net income of $161.1 billion in 2022. Petrobras in Brazil has driven economic expansion through strategic investments and governance reforms, generating $35.7 billion in net profits in the same year. Equinor in Norway used oil revenues to establish a sovereign wealth fund valued at over $1.4 trillion, ensuring long-term economic stability. While these national oil companies fuel economic prosperity in their respective countries, NNPC Ltd. has struggled with inefficiency, corruption, and chronic underperformance. NNPC Ltd. has the potential to match these achievements, but only if it undergoes serious structural and operational reforms.

    A technocratic board raises expectations of professionalism and efficiency but also presents risks.  Many board members have vested interests in private oil and gas companies, creating a high risk of conflict of interest and policy decisions that serve personal gains over national development. Transparency International has consistently ranked Nigeria’s oil sector among the opaquest in the world, with corruption and vested interests undermining effective governance. To dispel these concerns, the new leadership must demonstrate an unwavering commitment to transparency, accountability, and ethical governance. Key questions must be addressed: Will their private interests precede national interests? Can they implement policies that might negatively impact their business associates? How will transparency and accountability be maintained in the decision-making process? The ability of this leadership team to separate personal gain from national duty will be a defining factor in its success or failure.

    Nigeria’s oil production costs, from 2023 data, are among the highest in the world. Saudi Arabia and Iraq produce oil at $10 per barrel, Russia and Norway at $20-$21 per barrel, while Nigeria produces at  between $40 and $48 per barrel. Security costs ,burdensome  logistics and infrastructure, inflated contracts and fraudulent procurement, and other corrupt practices contribute to these high production costs. The Cable, a Nigerian online publication quoting the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, says that the country loses around 400,000 barrels of crude oil daily to theft and sabotage. By improving operational efficiency, adopting cutting edge technology and eliminating corruption, the new leadership could reduce the cost of production to $25-$30 per barrel—leading to a potential 75% increase in oil revenue.

    Nigeria has consistently failed to meet its OPEC production quotas due to large-scale oil theft, pipeline vandalism, community conflicts, and inefficiencies in NNPC Ltd.’s operations and management. Strengthening security measures in oil-producing regions, establishing clear community engagement frameworks, and improving operational efficiency through technology and management reforms are critical to addressing these issues. In 2024,the country struggled to produce a daily average of 1.4 million barrels per day , according to data from NUPRC, which is the industry regulator, due to these challenges. A key priority for the new leadership must be to secure and ramp up oil production. Addressing the complicity of some NNPC Ltd. and Nigeria Navy personnel in oil theft will be crucial.

    NNPC Ltd. is notorious for delays in making Final Investment Decisions (FID) due to bureaucratic red tape, layers of embedded interests and political interference, and over-reliance on joint venture models where NNPC Ltd. expects international oil companies to finance projects. A prime example is the stalled Brass LNG and Olokola LNG projects. One stakeholder attributed it to the nature of the joint venture model operated by NNPC. He likened it to a woman going to the market with her friend and banking on her friend to pay for both purchases. Here, the NNPC, which is the landlord, plans to be funded by the tenant, the field operator. The challenge is their refusal to comply with section 65  of Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) that has suggested that they migrate from unincorporated joint venture (uJV) to incorporated joint venture ( IJVCL) that will require joint upfront financing of projects at the beginning without the need of structure for ‘carry’ or cash calls”. The new leadership of NNPC must address this inefficiency and recklessness so that Nigeria and Nigerians can benefit from oil and gas resources. The former Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Timipre Sylva, once described Nigeria’s investment delays as “crippling to sectoral growth.”

    Despite spending trillions of Naira on refinery maintenance, Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain non-functional.

    Between 2000 and 2020, according to House of Representatives  investigation committee reports, NNPC spent over $25 billion on refinery repairs without tangible results.  By today’s estimate, that money can be used to build 2 new refineries with a capacity of 225,000 bpd. NNNPC has the most inefficient refinery operations and expensive turnaround maintenance costs. The new leadership of NNPC has both a moral obligation and a national duty to make appropriate decisions on what to do with the refineries. Some national oil companies have sold off their refineries to focus on crude oil production and renewables , while others operate their refineries efficiently and generate profits. The key questions are: Should NNPC Ltd sell the refineries to private investors? Or should it reform its operational structures for greater efficiency and adopt a new refinery management model?

    For decades, corruption and mismanagement have plagued NNPC Ltd. Political actors have used the company as a cash cow, opaque procurement processes, and delayed and unreliable financial disclosures. It is estimated that one-third of NNPC’s revenue is used to service political commitments that have nothing to do with the national economy. NNPC has attempted publishing its financial report in the past three years since PIB. Stakeholders say it is more of a ceremonial ritual than any serious attempt to be transparent. Unlike its peers, NNPCL does not accompany its audited financial statements with comprehensive operational reports. Being more transparent and professional in NNPC’s management should be a topmost priority of the new leadership. To restore credibility, NNPC Ltd. must publish independently audited financial reports with full operational details, implement transparent procurement policies, establish zero-tolerance measures against corruption, and resist political interference in financial decisions.

    Nigeria has 203 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, yet these remain largely untapped due to a lack of critical infrastructure and poor pricing policies that deter investment. How did other nations do it to earn optimally from gas resources? Qatar became the world’s largest LNG exporter, generating over $100 billion annually from gas sales. Trinidad & Tobago built a robust petrochemical industry using gas resources . Norway used gas revenues to develop a $1.4b sovereign wealth fund. These success stories demonstrate the transformative potential of natural gas when it is strategically managed and leveraged for comprehensive national development. Nigeria can draw valuable insights from these experiences to unlock the full potential of gas resources.  Investing in gas infrastructure development, reforming pricing policies to attract investors, and developing a clear gas commercialization strategy are essential steps toward unlocking Nigeria’s gas potential. As the International Energy Agency (IEA) points out, “Natural gas can be a bridge to sustainable energy security if managed efficiently.”

    To ensure long-term sustainability, NNPC Ltd. must optimize asset utilization, especially in crude oil exploration and  refinery operations, prioritize profit-driven decision-making over political interference, and streamline bureaucratic processes to boost efficiency. The company has attempted an Initial Public Offering (IPO) three times between 2018 and 2023, failing each time due to a lack of political will and transparency issues . Listing NNPC Ltd. on a foreign stock exchange such as New York or London could attract investors and strengthen corporate governance, following the examples of Saudi Aramco, Petronas, and Petrobras. Fast-tracking the promised Initial Public Offering (IPO) on major stock exchanges is essential.

    NNPC stands at a critical crossroads. With exemplary leadership and reforms, Nigeria’s economy can be transformed, global investment can be attracted, and the potential of its vast oil and gas resources can be maximized. However, if these necessary reforms are not implemented, history will repeat itself, and Nigeria will continue to suffer from inefficiencies and corruption. “Nigeria’s oil sector has the potential to be the backbone of our economy,” admitted  Mele Kyari, immediate past   Group CEO of NNPC Ltd., “but only if we make the hard decisions now.” The responsibility now lies with the new leadership: Will they seize this opportunity or squander it like their predecessors? Will this new leadership deliver, or will history repeat itself? That NNPC needs a serious course correction is no brainer. The coming on board of a new leadership is the right time to do a reset. The choices made today will define Nigeria’s economic trajectory for decades.

  • Governors, federalism, and constitutional tension – By Dakuku Peterside

    Governors, federalism, and constitutional tension – By Dakuku Peterside

    Tensions between Nigeria’s central and state governments have long been the fault lines of its federal system; it is like a simmering struggle between authority and autonomy. The 1999 Constitution, though intended as a compass for governance, is riddled with ambiguities—grey areas that have, time and again, become battlegrounds for political and legal duels. Among the most contentious debates is the reach of Section 305(1), which grants the president the power to declare a state of emergency. But does this mandate extend to the unilateral removal of democratically elected state officials?

    For years, this question has lingered like an unspoken riddle in the corridors of power, whispered in legal chambers and political gatherings alike. Now, it erupts into the open, thrust into the unforgiving glare of the Supreme Court by seven opposition governors of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Their challenge is more than a legal contest; it is a reckoning—one that may redraw the contours of Nigeria’s federalism, recalibrate executive authority, and probe the very essence of democracy in the nation.

    The Supreme Court, under Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution, has original jurisdiction in disputes between the Federal Government and state governments. This means it can directly adjudicate conflicts concerning constitutional interpretation. The ongoing case will test the limits of this jurisdiction, mainly whether the Supreme Court can provide clarification in the absence of a specific dispute between a state and the Federal Government. If the Court rules that interpretation alone is insufficient to activate its jurisdiction, it could set a precedent discouraging proactive legal resolutions, potentially allowing constitutional ambiguities to persist until conflicts escalate. However, if the Court determines that a general ambiguity affecting multiple states warrants judicial intervention, it will pave the way for a more dynamic constitutional review process that ensures legal clarity before crises arise.

    This kind of legal battle is not unique to Nigeria. In advanced liberal democracies, governors often act as checks on presidential power. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. state governors resisted federal directives from President Donald Trump, asserting their constitutional authority over public health measures. Similarly, governors challenged President Jair Bolsonaro’s handling of the pandemic in Brazil, leading to significant legal battles that strengthened jurisprudence. Argentina has also seen multiple instances where state-level leaders acted against federal overreach, reinforcing the principle of decentralized governance. Nigeria’s case aligns with this broader global trend, underscoring how federalism functions as a check on executive authority.

    Section 305 of the Constitution grants the president the power to declare a state of emergency, but the criteria remain broad and open to interpretation. Key questions include: What constitutes a “clear and present danger” to justify an emergency declaration? Should there be legislative oversight beyond the National Assembly’s approval? How does Nigeria’s standard compare to international best practices? The governors argue that the Supreme Court should establish precise conditions under which emergency powers can be invoked. The governors want the Supreme Court to define what circumstances justify a state of emergency. In 2004, former President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State, leading to the removal of Governor Joshua Dariye. A similar scenario occurred in Ekiti State under President Goodluck Jonathan in 2014. These instances highlight the pressing need for judicial clarification to prevent arbitrary use of emergency powers, which, if unchecked, could be used as a political weapon against opposition-controlled states.

    A critical aspect of this case is whether the president’s emergency powers extend to suspending or removing elected state officials. The governors contend that the Constitution does not grant such authority. Their argument is grounded in Section 1(2), which establishes Nigeria as a democracy where sovereignty belongs to the people; Section 5(2), which limits executive powers by constitutional provisions; and Section 305, which does not explicitly provide for the removal of elected officials. The Supreme Court’s ruling will set a precedent for the extent of presidential authority during emergencies. It will either reaffirm state autonomy or expand federal executive powers, shaping the balance of power in Nigerian governance. Many legal scholars have argued that the power to remove a democratically elected governor lies with the electorate and, in extreme cases, the legislature—not the president.

    The Constitution mandates a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber of the National Assembly to approve a state of emergency. The governors question whether the voice vote method used in recent emergency approvals met this requirement. The Court’s decision will determine whether procedural irregularities can invalidate emergency rule declarations. If the Supreme Court rules that a voice vote is insufficient, it could impose stricter legislative oversight on emergency declarations, ensuring greater accountability and preventing unilateral executive actions from circumventing constitutional processes.

    Regardless of the outcome, this case highlights the importance of legal challenges in refining Nigeria’s constitutional framework. Nigeria’s judiciary is responsible for addressing constitutional ambiguities to prevent future conflicts. The Supreme Court had a previous opportunity to clarify constitutional provisions regarding local government elections in Rivers State and more specifically the place of the Electoral Act 2022. However, the ruling did not address critical ambiguities, leaving unresolved questions in electoral jurisprudence. The current case presents another chance for the Court to provide much-needed legal clarity. The judiciary plays a crucial role in resolving ambiguities that could otherwise lead to executive overreach or political instability.

    If the Court delivers a well-reasoned judgment, it could serve as a touchstone for future constitutional conflicts, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in shaping Nigeria’s democratic evolution. According to a 2022 survey by Afrobarometer, 73% of Nigerians believe that the judiciary should have more substantial independence to check executive excesses. This reinforces the importance of Supreme Court rulings in maintaining democratic integrity and ensuring that political expediency does not override constitutional safeguards.

    This case will establish whether the president’s emergency powers include suspending elected officials. A ruling in favor of the governors could reinforce state autonomy while limiting federal intervention in state affairs. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the president could expand executive powers, setting a precedent for future emergency rule declarations. If the Court upholds broad presidential discretion, state governments may need constitutional amendments to safeguard their authority.

    This decision will serve as a benchmark for defining the limits of emergency powers, shaping Nigeria’s governance structure for years to come. In India, the Supreme Court’s ruling in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) curtailed the central government’s power to dismiss state governments, establishing a critical precedent for federalism. Nigeria’s Supreme Court has a similar opportunity to develop safeguards against potential executive overreach.

    This case could prompt the National Assembly to reconsider the discretionary powers granted to the president through constitutional amendment . Potential reforms could include defining emergency conditions more precisely, requiring judicial review of emergency declarations, and strengthening legislative oversight to prevent executive overreach. Eminent lawyers have argued that the lack of clear constitutional guidelines on emergency powers leaves too much room for executive discretion, which is dangerous for democracy.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling will test its ability to separate partisanship from jurisprudence and focus on constitutional text, precedents, and democratic principles. If it prioritises technicalities over substantive legal interpretation, it risks weakening public trust in the judiciary. A 2022 report by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) on “Tackling Judicial Bribery and Procurement Fraud in Nigeria” found that about 61% of respondents believe that judges in Nigeria are likely to be politically influenced or accept bribes to influence their decisions, highlighting the need for impartial rulings.

    The Supreme Court’s decision will be a defining moment for Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. If it upholds the governors’ argument, it will set a strong precedent affirming the independence of state governments, ensuring that executive powers remain within constitutional limits. If it rules in favor of expansive presidential authority, it risks tilting the balance of power.

    Legal challenges like this one are essential for deepening Nigeria’s democratic institutions. Testing constitutional provisions ensures that governance is rooted in law rather than arbitrary power. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for federalism, democracy, and the balance of power in Nigeria. Whatever the outcome, this case has forced a crucial legal reckoning, compelling Nigeria to confront the ambiguities in its constitutional framework. The judiciary must rise above partisanship, deliver a judgment that reinforces the rule of law, and safeguard Nigeria’s democratic evolution. A well-reasoned ruling will not only settle the immediate dispute but will shape the nation’s legal and political trajectory for generations to come.

  • Enablers of authoritarianism in Nigeria – By Dakuku Peterside

    Enablers of authoritarianism in Nigeria – By Dakuku Peterside

    Democracy is often cast as the antithesis of authoritarian rule — a beacon of liberty standing firm against the shadows of oppression. Yet, history tells a more intricate tale. Authoritarian regimes rarely storm the gates; instead, they slip quietly through the corridors of power, emerging not as abrupt usurpers but as offspring of the very systems meant to guard against them. In our modern age, the fall of democracy is seldom marked by a single, violent coup. It is a slow, insidious unravelling — the steady decay of institutions, the quiet bending of norms. It is the gradual surrender of freedom, handed over piece by piece, often in the name of rule of law or security. Thus, the path to autocracy is not carved by force alone but paved with the very stones once laid to uphold democracy.

    Authoritarianism, unlike ancient times, does not emerge like a light switch. So, we can rightly say that the intersection of democracy and authoritarianism is gradual. This gradual shift from democracy to authoritarianism is often enabled. In Nigeria, there is growing concern among political analysts that the country is witnessing the rise of authoritarian tendencies within its democratic institutions. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has been accused of manipulating democratic processes to consolidate power. Therefore, the question is not whether authoritarianism is looming but how it is being enabled and perpetuated. Urgent action is needed to prevent further erosion of democratic norms.

    Political analysts have argued that a significant tool to rein in most political actors is economic instability and impoverishment, which causes them to switch to survival mode. Nigeria’s social and economic conditions have created an ecosystem that makes manipulating democratic institutions easier than before. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has been particularly instrumental in this erosion, using its enormous financial power to control the political class and, which is mainly in a survival mode and has no option but to become pliant to partake of the largesse of executive economic power.

    Besides, poverty has been weaponised, and many people are either busy fighting to earn a living or just nonchalant about confronting a democratic government that is gradually sliding into authoritarianism. This ecosystem is on full display today in Nigeria. It only takes a political leadership interested in the benefits of authoritarianism to activate these enablers. The ruling APC has so much power to manipulate the democratic systems unchecked and with impunity.

    Common enablers of authoritarianism are a rubber-stamp legislature, a compromised judiciary, and an impotent civil society, particularly a labour movement that has lost its virility. Other enablers include a media that prioritises propaganda and economic gains over national interest and, elite greed. A critical examination of how these enablers play out in our country today will help us appreciate the democratic backslide we are experiencing.

    A functional legislature serves as a critical check on executive power. However, Nigeria’s National Assembly has increasingly become subservient to the executive. A legislature can enable autocracy either by deliberate design or by default. By default, rampant corruption among lawmakers has compromised the integrity of legislative oversight. Legislators fail to challenge executive overreach due to personal financial interests. Deliberately, if a dominant political party has an authoritarian agenda, it can use the legislature to rubber-stamp executive decisions. A subservient legislature is a National Assembly that goes against the constitutional procedure in every respect to please the Sovereign.

    With its control of both legislative houses, the APC has weakened parliamentary independence. One of the most blatant examples of legislative subservience is the unconstitutional use of a voice vote in determining a two-thirds majority, as seen in critical decisions, such as approving President Tinubu’s emergency proclamations. The reasons are clear. Section 305(2) & (6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) states that at least two-thirds must approve an emergency proclamation of all members of each House (Senate and House of Representatives). A voice vote (where members say “Aye” or “Nay”) cannot accurately count the required two-thirds majority. Democracy in its pure form is about counting numbers.

    When a supermajority (such as two-thirds) is required, a recorded vote is necessary to ensure compliance with the constitutional requirement. The Senate and House Standing Orders typically require a roll call or electronic voting system to determine numerical compliance for such critical decisions. A voice vote is insufficient for determining a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly for an emergency proclamation. A formal recorded vote must be conducted to confirm the exact number of lawmakers in support.

    So, the procedure adopted by the House of Representatives and Senate in approving President Tinubu’s Proclamation is wrong. You cannot determine 2/3rds in a voice vote. It is both illegal and undemocratic. Hussaini Abdu aptly captures the state of the legislature: “The National Assembly has long abandoned its role as a representative body meant to hold the executive accountable. Instead, it has devolved into a transactional arena where self-enrichment and power negotiations take precedence over democratic responsibility.”

    The judiciary, as the last line of defence for democracy, is expected to uphold the rule of law. However, judicial decisions in Nigeria have increasingly been seen as influenced by personal and external interests rather than strict legal principles. Corrupt judges deliver judgments that favour those in power. Political infiltration of judicial institutions has eroded public trust in the judiciary. Judicial interpretations are frequently skewed to justify undemocratic actions. A notable case was the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Rivers State crisis that dumbfounded many legal experts and the public and exacerbated the political embroglio in the state that led to the president’s declaration of a state of emergency. When the judiciary ceases to be independent, democratic governance crumbles, leaving citizens with no recourse for justice. In Nigeria, there is a widespread belief that judicial rulings—especially in election disputes—are determined by political and financial considerations rather than legal merit.

    A robust civil society is essential for holding government accountable. However, Nigeria’s civil society has suffered from a severe decline in effectiveness due to various factors. There is a total breakdown of the structures that enable citizens to organise, advocate, and hold power accountable. The absence of nationalistic political consciousness has fragmented advocacy efforts. Many civil society groups have been co-opted by political elites, diluting their activism. The legacy of prominent activists like Gani Fawehinmi, Hajia Gambo Sawaba, Chima Ubani, and Pa E.K. Clark is fading, with few emerging leaders willing to take up the mantle of resistance. Prof Wole Soyinka has gone past his prime. Olisa Agbakoba

    and Femi- Falana have done their bit. Where is the successor generation of activists? Without an organised and vibrant civil society, authoritarian tendencies can flourish unchecked, as there is little resistance from the populace. The need for a strong civil society is more pressing than ever.

    Labour unions have historically played a crucial role in resisting authoritarian regimes. However, Nigeria’s Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) have become increasingly toothless. The government has effectively neutralised the power of labour unions through economic pressures and divide-and-rule tactics. The NLC’s repeated failure to execute nationwide strikes has eroded its credibility. In 2023, despite multiple announcements of planned nationwide strikes to protest fuel subsidy removal and inflation, the strikes were either suspended or ineffective due to government interference. Abiodun Oluwadare captures it this way: “The NLC’s inability to deliver on its threats and repeated backing down from strikes have led to a loss of public trust. This makes mass mobilisation difficult, allowing governments and businesses to ignore its demands.” Labour has not since 2023 successfully influenced the government to change its position on any matter of public interest.

    A free press is a fundamental pillar of democracy. However, Nigerian media has increasingly prioritised propaganda and financial interests over journalistic integrity. Many media houses align with political or ethnic factions, reducing objectivity. Journalists are often financially compromised into silence. Government-friendly narratives dominate mainstream media, limiting access to dissenting views. This erosion of media independence has led to a public that is either misinformed or deliberately kept in the dark about crucial national issues.

    Aso Rock is interested in controlling all “levers of power” often overshadowing other arms of government. This concentration of power has led to reduced institutional checks and balances, presidential interest overriding legislative decisions. Nigeria is seeing a resurgence of authoritarian tendencies in silencing dissenting voices. A full-fledged authoritarian regime is only a matter of time. Nigeria has become less liberal over the last two years, thanks to the manipulation of critical institutions of democracy. The judiciary frequently validates undemocratic actions under legal pretexts, and lawmakers serve executive interests rather than the electorate.

    The enablers of authoritarianism are well-entrenched in Nigeria’s political landscape. A weak legislature, a compromised judiciary, a fragmented civil society, an ineffective labour movement, and a politicised media have all contributed to the country’s democratic decline. The unchecked concentration of power in the presidency has further exacerbated this trend. Urgent action is needed to safeguard Nigeria’s democracy. Strengthening institutional independence to prevent executive overreach, reviving civil society, re-establishing activist movements to demand accountability, ensuring media objectivity and independence, and encouraging active citizen participation in governance.

    Democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires constant vigilance and commitment from both the leadership and the citizenry. Nigerians must recognise the warning signs of authoritarianism and take proactive steps to resist its encroachment before it becomes thoroughly entrenched. A Nigeria where democratic institutions are genuinely independent, and governance is driven by transparency and accountability is still possible. However, it requires a collective effort to push back against authoritarian enablers and restore the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded.

  • Rivers: Backlash of a supreme verdict – By Dakuku Peterside

    Rivers: Backlash of a supreme verdict – By Dakuku Peterside

    In his book “The Power of Regrets”, Daniel Pink explores how retrospection can be a powerful tool for growth and improvement. Reflecting on the Supreme Court judgment that has thrown Rivers State into chaos, I ask myself fundamental questions. If the Supreme Court justices were to reflect on their ruling, would they regret the consequences it has unleashed? What about the two primary political figures at the heart of the crisis—Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Minister Nyesom Wike? What could be their regrets when they reflect on what is going on? Most significantly, the people of Rivers State, bearing the brunt of the judgment’s repercussions, indeed have the deepest regrets, spanning social, economic, and political dimensions. Their sense of injustice is palpable. Regrets are a part of life.  Pink said clearly from his research that we all have something we wish we had done differently.

    Justice is the bedrock of any democratic society, providing stability, fairness, and order. However, when a Supreme Court ruling not only deepens an existing crisis but also fuels political strife, it calls into question the Judiciary’s integrity and role in governance. The recent Supreme Court judgment concerning Rivers State has ignited a political firestorm, raising fundamental questions about its implications for governance, democracy, and the rule of law.

    A meta-analysis of 134 expert legal commentaries in the media on the ruling reveals an overwhelming consensus—130 commentators argue that the verdict did more harm than good, failing to uphold legal standards and instead entrenching political instability. Those 130 commentators believe that the apex court did not dwell on the law but rather on extraneous issues. Only four legal experts expressed a differing opinion, highlighting the near-universal disapproval of the judgment within the legal community.

    Justice Mojeed Owoade (rtd) led 11-man Independent Judicial Accountability Panel delivered a scathing critique of the judgment. The panel noted that the Supreme Court failed to resolve the crucial issue of the alleged defection of 27 lawmakers, leaving a gap in legal interpretation. In their words, “the judgment of the Supreme Court in the consolidated appeals leaves a gap as to whether the issue of the alleged defection of 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is still alive or has been settled. This is because the court commented on the defection issue without actually addressing it.” This failure is significant given that a similar case in 2012 saw the Supreme Court uphold the removal of lawmakers who defected without due process.

    One of the most contentious aspects of the judgment was its handling of local government elections. The Supreme Court verdict  in annulling the elections did not follow any precedence known to law. To make matters more complicated, the Supreme Court nullified the elections without providing a timeline for fresh polls, leaving the fate of governance in limbo.  LGA chairmen have been elected and sworn in yet the Supreme Court without hearing the chairmen or their political parties annulled the election. The only justification given by the apex court is that   INEC had not updated the voter register. The fact that this is a hatchet job does not require a soothsayer.

    This judicial oversight has triggered widespread confusion. Over 10,000 local government workers remain uncertain about their employment status. Vital social services may be affected.

    Even more curious is the fact that 32 other states have conducted local government elections under similar conditions without interference. Why was Rivers State singled out? The Supreme Court ruling raises serious concerns about selective judicial intervention and inconsistency in legal precedents.

    In another troubling move, the Supreme Court ruling directing the withholding  of federal allocations to Rivers State, a constitutional entitlement without preconditions , has plunged the people of Rivers state into financial uncertainty. How could the Supreme Court expose the people of Rivers State to unprecedented suffering based on a disagreement between two politicians? The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the federal government lacks the authority to withhold statutory allocations due to constitutional infractions, as seen in the case of Lagos State vs. the Federal Government. This action contradicts the court’s precedent, particularly in the landmark Lagos State vs. Federal Government case, where the court ruled that federal allocations cannot be withheld due to constitutional infractions.

    The impact of this decision is profound. Thousands of civil servants face delayed salaries and economic hardship. Infrastructure projects and public services have ground to a halt. The ruling has exacerbated economic instability in a state critical to Nigeria’s oil revenue, which accounts for nearly 40% of the country’s crude oil production. Instead of resolving the crisis, the Supreme Court ruling has deepened the political turmoil in Rivers State, creating a perception of partisanship within the Judiciary. By failing to uphold impartial justice, the court has inadvertently set a dangerous precedent where judicial rulings can be weaponised for political ends. Future political conflicts may escalate as parties exploit judicial verdict gas.

    Fubara and Wike, who is  fighting through his proxies, must be full of regrets if they have a conscience. The thrill of defeat and the agony of victory cannot help them. For Wike, the Supreme Court ruling has given him an opportunity to assert his dominance over Rivers State’s political landscape- real or imagined. After the Supreme Court judgement, Wike  has invested time, media appearance and money to escalate the crisis and prove that he is the “political god of Rivers State “. If Wike has any regrets,they are likely overshadowed  by his sense of imperial entitlement .

    Fubara, on the other hand, has struggled to maintain stability while attempting to comply with the  apex court ruling. He has repeatedly attempted to present the budget to the Rivers State House of Assembly, highlighting his commitment to complying with legal processes. The intentional act of the Assembly making itself unavailable for the Governor to present the budget is not about Rivers State’s interest but about their ego and one man’s interest. They have prioritised their personal and political gains over the well-being of Rivers people. Added to that is the assembly’s  latest attempt to ambush the Chief Judge of the state and hound him out of office.

    While politicians manoeuvre for power, the real victims of this crisis are the ordinary people of Rivers State. Rivers people will be exposed to unprecedented social dislocation, crimes and hardship. The judgment has led to economic hardship due to delayed salaries and disrupted services. Increased crime rates have been fuelled by political instability and financial strain. There has been an erosion of trust in the Judiciary and democratic institutions.

    Furthermore, the judgment risks disrupting Nigeria’s oil revenue. Niger Delta youths and militant groups witnessing the impoverishment of their families while their resources sustain the nation, may resist oil extraction, further threatening national economic stability.

    This is one judgement that, in all respect has led to the displacement of the confidence of the people in the Judiciary by the perceived manipulation of judicial processes and proceedings in the far-reaching decisions of the Supreme Court on issues of defection of the 27 former lawmakers that were not pleaded by the parties before it or tried by the Federal High Court. Rivers people and the rest of Nigerians cannot understand how the Judiciary in the 21st century Nigeria would allow a baleful manipulation of the processes to allow a clear violation of Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution by defectors to the point of the Supreme Court rewarding such travesty by punishing the Governor who at all material times has worked to protect and defend the Constitution by his Oath of office.

    The Supreme Court should have better handled the critical point of the status of the 27 decamping legislators. A more balanced approach would have sent a different signal .  In the past, the Judiciary has taken firmer stances on similar cases, such as in 2007 when lawmakers who defected in Anambra State were asked to vacate their seats by constitutional provisions. Instead, this particular  ruling has emboldened political actors seeking to privatise the state ,undermine governance, creating an atmosphere where impeachment and humiliation of the Governor appear viable strategies for political gain. The general perception in Rivers State is that the president has unleashed his minister against the people of Rivers State. None of these scenarios benefit the people of Rivers State.

    Thankfully , the Governor had not acted in disobedience to any court order since appeals were filed in all of the rulings on interlocutory applications in the courts below. Generally speaking, parties are bound by the judgment of Courts, which are or constitute a final determination of matters brought by litigants. Thus, it is wrong or unfair to unnecessarily accuse a party of disobedience to Orders subject to appellate jurisdiction on cases pending before the lower Courts.

    When we speak of justice, we reach for the foundation of human existence. Justice is the cornerstone of human togetherness. The rule of law should be a stabilising force, ensuring justice and accountability. However, in this case, it has been manipulated to aggravate the crisis rather than assuage it. The Supreme Court’s ruling has failed to uphold its fundamental duty—to serve justice impartially and safeguard democratic stability. Morally dubious decisions haunt us, and some justices of the Supreme Court involved in the Rivers State case must be dealing with their regrets. Restoring confidence in the Supreme Court requires addressing perceptions of bias and ensuring decisions are grounded in constitutional principles rather than political agendas.

    The Supreme Court ruling on Rivers State has left a trail of confusion, economic hardship, and political instability. It has raised serious questions about the Judiciary’s integrity and its mediatory role. There must be mechanisms for judicial accountability and reforms to prevent future rulings that exacerbate crises rather than resolve them to restore public confidence in the legal system. Justice  in a democracy should serve the people, not feudal lords or  political interests. It should provide stability, not chaos. The Supreme Court must rise above political influences and uphold the principles of fairness, integrity, and constitutionalism. Only then can democracy truly thrive in Rivers State and across Nigeria.

  • Saving the Senate – By Dakuku Peterside

    Saving the Senate – By Dakuku Peterside

    The Nigerian Senate, a crucial pillar of democracy, stands at a crossroads. Once a revered institution, the Senate finds itself at the centre of a crisis threatening its legitimacy and reputation. The ongoing crisis culminating in the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not just about her or Senate President Godswill Akpabio—it is about the integrity of the Senate itself. The Senate, which should serve as a beacon of democracy and a voice for the people, is increasingly being perceived as a self-serving institution that adds no value to the life of the average Nigerian. The arc of public opinion on the Senate has reached an all-time low. No matter the divide on this matter, the common ground is that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s saga is a dent on the reputation and stature of the Nigerian Senate.

    The consequences of this growing distrust are dire. A democracy without a credible legislature is a failing one. If this trend continues, the Senate will lose not only its authority but also its aura, clout, respect, and relevance in the Nigerian democratic system. This could lead to a vacuum in the governance structure, potentially paving the way for a constitutional crisis. It is imperative that lawmakers recognise the damage a reputational crisis could do and take immediate steps to restore the sanctity of this institution.

    As a former legislator, I understand the role of a presiding officer in allocating and reassigning seats based on legislative tradition. On this count, Senator Natasha Akpoti overreached herself and may have lessons in composure and understanding rules. On the issue of her suspension for six months, the Akpabio-led Senate danced to the wrong tune and ended up losing the deal. I concede to the Senate its right to use its duly constituted committees to ensure discipline. However, Natasha’s rights of fair hearing must be balanced against the entitlement of the Senate to order and discipline. There are many things wrong with both the suspension and the Senate’s approach to the issues that leave that institution vulnerable, and I will highlight a few.

    Due to legislative breaks, weekends, and recesses, she could be out of the chamber for almost a year, although suspended for 6 months, leaving the people of Kogi Central without representation. This not only undermines the democratic rights of the people but also hampers their ability to address local issues and concerns. According to the National Assembly website, each senator represents an average of 1.5 to 2 million Nigerians. This means that millions of citizens effectively have no representation. Another issue that the manner of her suspension has thrown up is the Senate’s increasing tendency to suppress dissent and operate without transparency. The Senate is both a public and a democratic institution.

    However, the way the Senate has handled the issue of sexual harassment allegations against its president raises serious concerns. Such allegations must be taken seriously and appropriately investigated, yet the Senate appears more focused on silencing the accuser than addressing the claims. A 2021 report by the National Bureau of Statistics indicates that 30% of Nigerian women have experienced sexual harassment in workplaces and institutions. Ignoring such an accusation at the highest level of governance sets a dangerous precedent.

    It is true that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had previously benefitted from Senate President Akpabio’s liberal disposition when she was appointed Chair of the Senate Committee on Local Content. Yet, the way the sexual harassment allegations have been handled suggests an institution that does not take its moral standing and reputation seriously. The institution’s approach to this issue shows a troubling disregard for fairness and transparency.

    Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended without a fair hearing. She did not appear before the ethics committee because of subsisting court order. This matter was already in court. The Senate should have respected the judicial process instead of preempting its outcome. Acknowledged, the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2018 outlaws the courts interfering in internal legislative processes; the Senate ought to approach the court and do the right thing. Whereas some argue that legislative matters are beyond judicial interference, precedent shows otherwise.

    The Supreme Court had previously halted legislative processes during a constitutional amendment, proving that the judiciary has a role in ensuring constitutional compliance. Past rulings have shown that the courts can intervene in legislative matters, yet the Senate proceeded without regard for judicial authority. According to a 2018 report by the Centre for Democracy and Development, Nigeria has a history of executive, legislative, and judicial overreach and rascality that has significantly weakened public trust in governance.

    This saga takes us back to the constitutional question, does any legislative house under our current constitution has the power to suspend an elected member for any duration without going against the spirit and letter of our constitution. It is evident that the Senate lacks the constitutional authority to suspend a senator for six months. As previous court rulings have reaffirmed, the Senate’s internal rules cannot override constitutional provisions.

    In 2017, the Federal High Court ruled that the suspension of Senator Ali Ndume for 90 days was unconstitutional. The court ordered his reinstatement and the payment of all outstanding salaries. In 2018, the Federal High Court also nullified the suspension of Senator Omo-Agege, ruling that the Senate could not suspend a member beyond 14 days. These precedents show that the Senate’s decision to suspend Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months is unconstitutional and will likely be overturned if challenged in court.

    It is unacceptable that Senate President Akpabio, who is accused of sexual harassment, presided over the suspension of his accuser. This is a fundamental violation of legal ethics—no one should be a judge in their own case. Senator Akpabio should have recused himself to ensure fairness. There is a precedent in this regard: Senator Bukola Saraki, during the 8th Senate, was accused of nonpayment of customs duty on a bulletproof official car he imported. SP Bukola Saraki stepped aside and allowed his deputy to preside over his investigation. Senator Akpabio was in the Senate at the time and should have taken a cue.

    The Senate, in this instance, has demonstrated an alarming lack of openness. The Ethics and Privileges Committee should have conducted its proceedings publicly to maintain credibility. Instead, the Senate moved forward with a suspension that appears politically motivated and legally unsound.

    The Senate’s refusal to properly investigate the allegations against its president sends a dangerous message: that sexual harassment claims can be dismissed with political manoeuvring. This is a grave injustice that damages the Senate’s reputation. One wonders how the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions suddenly becomes so efficient and fast in dispensing punishment to Senator Natasha in this case when it usually is sluggish in dealing with the many petitions and cases before it. This smack of a hatchet job and it does not help the public standing of the Senate.

    It is unfortunate that the Senate has conducted its affairs opaquely for a matter that has come to the public’s attention. The Senate’s lack of transparency in this matter is a clear indication of the need for openness and honesty in governance. For the Senate to ignore and sweep under the carpet the issue of sexual harassment is a disservice to the President of the Senate and the institution.

    Mr. Senate president can show he has power by suspending Senator Natasha, but it is not a cure for such a serious allegation. The best the Senate can do is to conduct a proper investigation on the issue and come out with a clean bill of health. The Senate must understand that the Nigerian public wants transparency and full disclosure of all the problems. It is not a private matter. Sexual harassment is a serious accusation and cannot be dismissed as trivial as the Senate did. It’s a dark spot on the reputation of the Senate. It is also not acceptable in a democracy.

    The suspension of a senator without due process creates a dangerous precedent. If allowed to stand, this decision could pave the way for further suppression of dissenting voices, weakening democracy in Nigeria. The Nigerian Senate is already struggling with negative public perception. This incident further erodes confidence in its ability to act as a “check and balance” on the other arms of government.

    The Senate must acknowledge its overreach on the Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan matter. The Nigerian public demands accountability. It is common sense to recognise that the Senate is at risk of permanent reputational damage.  A Senate with sullied reputation does no one or the country any good. If it continues to prioritise power plays over democratic principles, it will lose whatever legitimacy and respect it still holds and enjoys. To save itself, the Senate must return to the principles of integrity, fairness, openness and constitutional adherence. The Nigerian people deserve a legislative body that upholds justice, fairness, and transparency, not one that operates in secrecy and impunity. The future of Nigerian democracy depends on it.

  • Enugu Governor is pacesetter in education – Dakuku Peterside

    Enugu Governor is pacesetter in education – Dakuku Peterside

    Turnaround expert and former member of the House of Representatives, Dr Dakuku Peterside says the Governor of Enugu, Dr Peter Mbah deserves being honoured for his commitment and contributions to education  sector development.

    Peterside stated this against the backdrop of conferment of honorary doctorate degree (PhD-Honoris Causa) on the Enugu State  governor by Bamidele Olumilua University of Education, Science, and Technology, Ikere-Ekiti, Ekiti State.

    The former director general of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) stressed that the honorary doctorate degree is a testament to the remarkable contributions and achievements Governor Peter Mbah in the education sector.

    He disclosed that the governor has invested heavily in about 260 smart schools, in addition to massive interventions in Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET), the transformation of Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUST) and Institute of Management Technology (IMT), among others.

    According to him, Governor Mbah’s dedication, leadership, and impact have inspired several individuals.

    “Dr Peter Mbah’s commitment to excellence and tireless efforts have elevated Enugu State to the status of a model state. This honorary degree is a celebration of his legacy and a reflection of the profound respect and admiration he has earned from the academic community and beyond.

    “He introduced a paradigm shift by emphasizing experiential learning and constructing 260 Smart Green Schools across the state. These schools integrate modern technology and provide a seamless transition from primary to secondary education, aiming to enhance vocational and tertiary education.

    “Smart schools where  pupils and students are utilizing digital tools and resources, which enhances learning experiences and accommodates various learning styles.

    “Additionally, Enugu allocates a significant portion of its budget to education, further solidifying its commitment to educational excellence.

    “In a few short periods of less than two years, Governor Peter Mbah has effected a revolution in education, agriculture, road construction, local economy, and tourism in the state,” he stated.

  • EFCC and epidemic of organised crime – By Dakuku Peterside

    EFCC and epidemic of organised crime – By Dakuku Peterside

    Organised crime in Nigeria is like a tap root with its grip firm and difficult to detach, all thanks to systemic weaknesses and institutional failures. This crime epidemic is not just a statistic, but a harsh reality that affects Nigerians daily. Most citizens agree on three fundamental issues regarding crime in Nigeria: the high success rate of organised crime, the fact that socioeconomic conditions create a breeding ground, and the weakness of governmental structures and institutions.

    Criminal enterprises continue to grow with little resistance from law enforcement, and widespread poverty, hunger, and unemployment push many into criminal activities as a means of survival. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Nigeria’s unemployment rate stood above 34% in 2023, with youth unemployment exceeding 42%, creating a vast pool of potential recruits for organized crime.

    Corruption, inefficiency, and lack of accountability have allowed criminals to overpower the justice system. The inability of security agencies to curb the growing influence of organized crime has emboldened criminals, who operate with little fear of repercussions. This situation has created a vicious cycle where crime flourishes, law enforcement remains ineffective, and public confidence in governance continues to erode. The Global Organized Crime Index 2021 ranked Nigeria as the 6th most criminally entrenched country globally, highlighting the country’s struggle with illicit markets, criminal networks, and state-embedded actors. The absence of a strong judicial deterrent has led to an increasing number of young Nigerians being drawn into illegal activities.

    A recent warning by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) chairman highlighted how foreign criminal groups embed themselves within Nigerian cities. These syndicates recruit young Nigerians into sophisticated cybercrimes, particularly cryptocurrency fraud, with global financial implications. Adding to the concerns, the EFCC has alleged that foreign fraud syndicates are importing arms into Nigeria using cryptocurrency as a payment mode. This development raises serious national security concerns and underscores the critical need for stricter monitoring of digital financial transactions. International collaboration is not just beneficial, but necessary in our efforts to combat crime.

    High-profile cases of fraud, drug trafficking, and financial crimes fuel Nigeria’s reputation as a centre for organized crime. Failing to combat these crimes has led to travel restrictions, financial monitoring, and diplomatic strain between Nigeria and other nations. The reputational damage is enormous, and the implication is visible when you see how innocent Nigerians are searched and treated like criminals at airports and other gateways in countries around the world.

    Despite efforts by law enforcement agencies, organized crime thrives due to systemic weaknesses. Nigeria has become a global hotspot for internet fraud, ranging from phishing scams to Business Email Compromise (BEC) fraud. The rise of “Yahoo Yahoo” (online fraudsters) has normalized cybercrime among youths, many of whom view it as a lucrative alternative to legitimate employment. A Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) report estimated that cybercrime costs the Nigerian economy over $500 million annually.

    The infamous “419 scam” (named after Nigeria’s penal code section on fraud) remains a persistent issue, targeting individuals and businesses worldwide. Nigeria has become the butt of jokes around the world when comedians and the likes evoke the image of “a scam Nigerian rich prince looking for someone in the West to help him luander his family wealth”.

    Nigeria faces severe security challenges from Boko Haram, ISWAP, and other militant groups. However, the Nigerian government is not sitting idly by. Due to regulatory loopholes, the banking system has become an avenue for terrorist financing. In response, the Nigerian government implemented the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022 and the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022 to curb terrorist financing. However, enforcement remains weak, and more needs to be done to strengthen these measures.

    Kidnapping for ransom has become one of the most lucrative criminal activities in Nigeria. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS}, Nigerians paid approximately N2.23 trillion as ransom to kidnapers between May 223 and Aril 224. Victims range from schoolchildren to high-profile politicians and business executives. Many kidnappers operate with impunity due to compromised security forces.

    Fraudulent investment schemes prey on Nigerians’ economic desperation, often collapsing and leaving thousands financially devastated. High-profile Ponzi schemes such as MMM Nigeria defrauded millions of Nigerians, and most recently, investment scams such as MBA Forex and Chinmark have left investors with billions of naira in losses. The government’s failure to properly regulate investment platforms and prosecute perpetrators has contributed to the continued rise of Ponzi schemes.

    Nigeria is also a transit point for illegal arms trafficking, fueling conflicts and criminal enterprises. The porous borders allow weapons to flow freely into the country, exacerbating insecurity. Reports by the Small Arms Survey indicate that over 70% of the estimated 500 million illegal small arms circulating in West Africa are in Nigeria, aiding insurgents, bandits, and criminal syndicates. The unchecked smuggling of firearms contributes significantly to rising violence and organized crime activities, including armed robbery and terrorism.

    Nigerian drug syndicates operate both locally and internationally, with high-profile cases of cocaine and heroin trafficking. In 2022, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) seized over 3.6 million kilograms of illicit drugs, including heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, across various states. Despite these efforts, corruption within law enforcement agencies often compromises investigations, allowing drug barons to operate with impunity. The international reach of Nigerian drug cartels has been evident in cases such as the arrest of Nigerian nationals involved in heroin trafficking in Southeast Asia, where drug-related offences carry the death penalty.

    The theft and illegal crude oil refining have cost Nigeria billions in revenue. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) estimates that the country loses about 400,000 barrels of crude oil daily to theft, amounting to over $3 billion annually. Militants, local cartels, and corrupt government officials are deeply involved in this illicit trade. The environmental consequences of illegal oil bunkering are severe, with widespread pollution in the Niger Delta region leading to health crises and economic devastation for local communities.

    Additionally, illegal mining of valuable minerals like gold and lithium is widespread, often controlled by criminal groups that exploit weak regulations. Reports by the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) reveal that the country loses billions in revenue due to unregulated mining activities. In Zamfara and Osun states, illegal gold mining has been linked to armed banditry, with criminal gangs using proceeds to fund violent attacks. Foreign companies, often operating with local collaborators, smuggle precious minerals out of Nigeria, depriving the nation of much-needed economic gains.

    Several factors contribute to the high success rate of organized crime in Nigeria. The lack of a reliable national identification and address system makes tracking criminals difficult, as many citizens operate without proper documentation. Nigeria has created a NIN data base but still it has not been appropriately used to combat crime. Rapid urbanization has led to an unregulated population boom, overwhelming security agencies. Unemployment remains a key driver of crime, pushing many young people towards fraudulent activities. The societal pressure to attain wealth at any cost has normalized corruption and criminal behaviour.

    Many criminals evade justice due to bribery and judicial inefficiencies, further eroding trust in the legal system. Corruption at all levels of government enables organized crime to flourish, from law enforcement officials who accept bribes to policymakers who ignore illicit activities. Ineffective policies and weak political will prevent meaningful reforms, allowing criminal networks to strengthen.

    Despite the challenges, Nigeria can still reverse the trend of organized crime with strategic interventions. The first necessary step is a comprehensive process of reform, involving de-criminalization of the relevant agencies. You cannot use officially licensed criminal cartels to fight casual criminals. Strengthening law enforcement and judicial systems is critical, but the role of the public is equally important. Citizens should be vigilant and report any suspicious activities to the authorities. Security agencies require better funding and training, and the public can support these efforts by providing information and cooperating with investigations.

    Judicial reforms should ensure speedy trials and strict sentencing for criminals. The judiciary must uphold strict interpretations of the law, and courts should deliver appropriate punishments for criminal offences. Judges must resist external influences, bribery, and political interference. Enforcing harsher penalties for criminal activities is essential. Laws against cybercrime, kidnapping, and fraud should be strictly enforced, and high-profile criminals should be prosecuted as deterrents.

    Enforcing stricter financial regulations will help disrupt criminal financing. Strengthening anti-money laundering measures and improving surveillance of cryptocurrency transactions are necessary steps. Implementing a national identification and address system will help track criminals and reduce identity fraud. Citizens should be required to register with verifiable addresses.

    Addressing unemployment and poverty through job creation programmes and entrepreneurship initiatives will discourage youth involvement in crime. Combating corruption and improving governance will require more assertive and independent anti-corruption agencies. Government officials found complicit in organized crime should be held accountable.

    Nigeria stands at a crossroads. The country can either continue on its current path, where crime syndicates dictate the rules or take bold and decisive action to reclaim national security and stability. The government must demonstrate an unwavering commitment to justice, ensuring crime is met with swift and appropriate punishment. Citizens must demand accountability from leaders and refuse to normalize corruption.

    A functioning society cannot exist where crime thrives unchecked. It is time for Nigeria to embrace the rule of law, restore public trust, and build a nation where security and justice prevail over criminal enterprise. The fight against organized crime is not just a fight for governance—it is a fight for the nation’s soul. Without urgent intervention, Nigeria risks deeper instability and economic decline. The future of Nigeria depends on a collective effort to restore law, order, and justice.

  • Edwin Clark: Chronicles of courage – By Dakuku Peterside

    Edwin Clark: Chronicles of courage – By Dakuku Peterside

    Do people follow titles, or do they follow courage? What role does integrity play in the essence of true leadership? And can the pursuit and defence of justice serve as a harbinger of outstanding leadership? These are timeless questions, their answers woven into the fabric of history.

    While titles may bestow authority, they do not define true leadership. History reminds us that it is not rank but resilience, not position but principle, that carves a leader’s place in people’s hearts. Integrity forms the bedrock of genuine leadership, ensuring power is wielded not for personal gain but for a higher cause. And justice—unyielding, unrelenting—is often the mark of those who lead not by words alone but by deeds that shape nations and inspire generations.

    Chief Edwin Clark stands as a testament to these ideals. A fearless advocate, a visionary strategist, and a patriot unwavering in his pursuit of justice, he led with courage and an unshakable moral compass. His passing marks the close of an era, but his legacy endures—a guiding light for those who seek to lead with honour, integrity, and an unbreakable commitment to justice.

    At the tender age of 24, while at Teachers Training College in Abraka, Edwin Clark’s leadership potential was already evident. He was not one to turn a blind eye to injustice. Even as a student, he was known for leading his peers in addressing issues that affected them and organising press conferences to discuss national matters. This early period laid the groundwork for his lifelong commitment to justice and fighting for the oppressed. His readiness to challenge the status quo and engage in meaningful dialogue set him apart from his peers and highlighted his natural leadership qualities.

    Not content with fighting from the sidelines, Clark ventured into active politics. In 1955, he ran as an independent candidate and won as a Councillor, a bold move considering the dominance of political parties. Interestingly, his father also contested and won under the NCNC platform from another ward. Clark’s presence as an independent candidate made him a thorn in the side of party-backed councillors, as he remained steadfast in holding them accountable. This early political experience demonstrated his commitment to challenging the status quo and fighting for what he believed was right. His ability to operate independently of party structures, a rare trait in Nigerian politics, showcased his political courage and deep-seated belief in true representation.

    Leadership and courage are often debated—are they inherent traits shaped by one’s environment? In Edwin Clark’s case, his leadership qualities were shaped by strong values, an unwavering belief in justice, and an environment riddled with societal failures. His ability to stand firm in the face of adversity and his relentless pursuit of justice established him as a formidable leader. His resilience and conviction became his defining traits, as he remained undeterred by political, social, or personal obstacles.

    Clark’s leadership extended beyond the borders of Nigeria. In 1961, upon his arrival in London to study law, he was elected President of Hans Crescent, a student body of over 200 students from different countries. His re-election for a second term was a testament to his exceptional leadership abilities. He fiercely defended students’ welfare, often taking significant personal risks to ensure their voices were heard. His leadership at Hans Crescent demonstrated his capacity to unite diverse groups, a skill that would prove invaluable throughout his political career.

    Clark’s activism was not confined to Nigerian affairs. Despite his admiration for him, he organised a protest against Ghana’s leader, Kwame Nkrumah. Clark believed in calling out injustice wherever it occurred. He had no personal stake in Ghana’s governance but was driven by a sense of shared humanity and justice. This act underscored his commitment to fearless advocacy beyond his national interests. His ability to separate admiration from accountability was rare, reflecting his unwavering commitment to principles over personal affiliations.

    As the Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (Warri branch), Clark took on the challenge of professional misconduct in the legal field. He called for the establishment of an ombudsman to oversee ethical practices. His intolerance for corruption led him to confront friends and colleagues in the legal profession, highlighting his unwavering principles. This period solidified his reputation as an anti-corruption activist. His pursuit of ethical standards in the legal profession reflected his broader mission to instil integrity in governance and society.

    Recognising the power of collective action, Clark initiated several organisations to address national issues. These platforms were crucial in mobilising people, amplifying voices, and influencing public discourse. Some of his notable initiatives include the South-South People’s Conference, the South-South People’s Assembly, the Southern Nigeria People’s Assembly, the Congress for Equality and Change, the Southern and Middle Belt Leaders Forum, and Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF). These organisations were strategically created to address specific challenges and ensure that justice and equity remained part of Nigeria’s political discourse. His ability to galvanise people around common causes demonstrated his visionary leadership and commitment to building coalitions for meaningful change.

    Though not the originator of the resource control movement, Clark became one of its most vocal champions. He saw it as a means of achieving economic justice, particularly for the Niger Delta region. Between 1998 and 2021, he held 25 press conferences on the issue, undeterred by opposition from political allies and adversaries. His steadfast advocacy ensured that resource control remained a prominent national conversation. He viewed the equitable distribution of resources as a fundamental issue of justice that could not be compromised.

    Clark never shied away from disagreeing with influential figures. Despite his close relationship with President Olusegun Obasanjo, he openly challenged his policies when they contradicted his values. Similarly, he became the leading critic of President Buhari’s administration over lopsided federal appointments. His willingness to speak truth to power, even when it meant losing friendships, underscored his dedication to justice. His ability to maintain friendships while holding firm to his principles was a testament to his diplomatic skills and deep loyalty to the truth.

    Beyond individuals, Clark confronted institutions that he believed threatened Nigeria’s stability. He was a vocal critic of the Nigeria Governors Forum, labelling it a danger to national peace. He also fought against corruption in the judiciary, demanding greater accountability in governance. These fearless confrontations positioned him as a moral compass in Nigerian politics. He was never intimidated by the entrenched interests that sought to maintain the status quo, constantly advocating for policies and reforms that would benefit the larger population.

    Like Abraham Lincoln, Clark was a leader of integrity, known for his courage in standing up for what was right. He also fought institutions and vices, including the Nigerian judiciary and corruption. Even those who opposed him respected his convictions. He was the kind of leader adversaries preferred as an ally rather than an opponent. His legacy is one of steadfastness, resilience, and an unyielding commitment to justice, values that continue to resonate beyond his lifetime.

    Clark’s legacy is one of dedication to Nigeria’s betterment. He remained a steadfast advocate for justice and equity until his final days. His life is a roadmap for aspiring leaders seeking courage and integrity to lead. His journey teaches us that leadership is not about titlenor comfort but the willingness to sacrifice for the greater good.

    E K Clark’s life answers the question of whether courage is a function of genetic makeup or the environmental context. It is self-evident that Chief Clark’s courageous leadership has been shaped by his genetic makeup, strong values, and an environment of self-perpetuating injustice and societal failures.

    His life challenges the next generation to continue the fight for justice. The lessons he left behind must inspire every Nigerian to work towards a better and more just nation. His contributions to national discourse and governance set a precedent that should be emulated by all who aspire to lead.

    Edwin Clark was more than a politician; he was a movement. His courage, integrity, and unwavering commitment to justice made him a beacon of hope in Nigeria’s political landscape. His legacy will inspire future generations to pursue justice, speak truth to power, and lead with unwavering integrity. His story reminds us that one individual’s determination can shape history, and his impact will be felt for generations.

    Pa E K Clark was a living example of courage, strategic thinking, patriotism, tenacity, and selflessness. His lifelong example of standing up for what is right and just, as well as the challenge he gave us never to stop working for a better and more just Nigeria, should inspire us every day. His story reminds us that one individual’s determination can shape the course of history, and his impact will be felt for generations to come. In remembering him, we are reminded of the responsibility to build a just and equitable society, standing firm in the face of adversity, just as he did.

     

    Dakuku Peterside, a public sector turnaround expert, public policy analyst and leadership coach, is the author of the forthcoming book, “Leading in a Storm”, a book on crisis leadership.