Tag: Rwanda

  • Kagame set to win presidential election in Rwanda with 99% votes

    Kagame set to win presidential election in Rwanda with 99% votes

    Incumbent Paul Kagame is set to win a fourth term in office in the presidential election in Rwanda.

    With nearly 79 per cent of all votes counted, Kagame has garnered more than 99per cent of the vote, according to the electoral commission.

    His two opponents, the chairman of the Green Party, Frank Habineza, and the independent candidate Philippe Mpayimana, have both received well under 1per cent, the electoral commission said.

    More than nine million people were eligible to vote on Monday, including two million first-time voters.

    Kagame has been president of the country since 2000, but has, in practice, been leading Rwanda since 1994.

    Back then, as leader of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), he marched into Rwanda from exile in Uganda and ended the genocide of the Hutu militias against the Tutsi.

    He was then defence minister and vice president.

    Kagame’s party, RPF, is also likely to emerge as the strongest party in the parliamentary elections.

    There are  670 candidates vying for the 80 seats in parliament.

    A special feature is that female lawmakers make up a majority in parliament

    Human rights organizations have criticized the persecution of opposition figures in the East African country with a population of over 14 million.

    The official election results are to be announced by July 27.

  • 2026 WCQ: South Africa, Rwanda go top of group C, Nigeria remain 5th

    2026 WCQ: South Africa, Rwanda go top of group C, Nigeria remain 5th

    South Africa  on Tuesday night rallied back to joint top of group C after inflicting a 3-1 victory against Zimbabwe in the ongoing FIFA 2025 qualifying series.

    Another group C member country, Rwanda also won its matchday 4 game against Lesotho  to go joint top with South Africa.

    Recall that Benin defeated Super Eagles 2-1 in Abidjan.

    South Africa  posted a 3-1 win at home against Zimbabwe just as Rwanda also won 1-0 away at Lesotho.

    Hosts Bafana Bafana opened scoring in the first minute through Iqraam Rayners but the visitors responded a minute later from Tawanda Chirewa  and held on till halftime.

    It was substitute Thapelo Morena with a brace in the 55th and 76th minute  gave the Rainbow Nation their second win in the series and put them at seven points on the log.

    In the last match of the group, visiting Rwanda shocked host, Lesotho with a lone goal scored on the dot of halftime by Jojea Kwizera.

    Zimbabwe now occupy the last position on the log while the Super Eagles of Nigeria are presently second from behind.

    Rwanda top the group with 7 points, South Africa on second but only trailing on goal difference, Republique Du Benin occupy the third position also with 7 points.

     

    The FIFA qualifiers in Africa will not hold this year but will resume in March 2025 as Rwanda hosts the Super Eagles while South Africa will play host to Lesotho in Durban.

    The whopping boys Zimbabwe will play Benin in Abidjan.

  • 2026 WCQ; Benin Republic jump to second,  overtake Nigeria, South Africa in group C

    2026 WCQ; Benin Republic jump to second, overtake Nigeria, South Africa in group C

    One of the group C members the squirrels  of Benin on Thursday overtook Nigeria and South Africa on the table after beating table toppers Rwanda 1-0 in the matchday 3 of the 2026 World Cup qualifiers in Abidjan.

    The Squirrels were initially occupying the 4th position but yesterday’s result ensured that they dragged South Africa and Nigeria to the third and fourth positions respectively.

    Douko Dodo put the hosts ahead in the 37th minute and it proved to be the decider in Abidjan.

    Both Rwanda and Benin Republic have four points, but Rwanda have a better goal difference and still maintains its first position.

    The Super Eagles can capitalize to jump to first on the table  if they win today against the Bafana Bafana of South Africa.

    Nigeria’s  Super Eagles face South Africa today at the Godswill Akpabio stadium in Uyo by 8pm Nigerian time.

    The winner of this tie will top the group C

  • Thirty years after, recreating the Rwanda Genocide in Gaza – By Owei Lakemfa

    Thirty years after, recreating the Rwanda Genocide in Gaza – By Owei Lakemfa

    VICTIMS who narrate stories of genocide, do so because they survived. Millions perish, whose voices we may never hear again. There are even victims who did not have the chance of being born. Their lives were simply terminated as they grew in the womb.

    Humanity witnessed this nightmare, 30 years ago in Rwanda. Genocide, as defined by the United Nations, UN, “is a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part”.

    In 100 days from April 6 to July 15, 1994, over 850,000 persons were massacred in Rwanda. On that occasion, humanity rose in unison: “Never again!” Only to sit back and watch the on-going genocide in Gaza.

    As in Rwanda, there are debates whether the Palestinian genocide going on before our very eyes, is genocide or a mere conflict by two sides. Powerful countries, especially those who supply arms or occupy permanent seats in the UN Security Council, racists and deluded ‘Men of God’ rule that what we are witnessing is a mere conflict in which one nation is teaching the other unforgettable lessons.

    It took South Africa the wisdom, courage, humanism and sense of history to call genocide by its true name by getting the International Court of Justice to rule there is genocide in Palestine.

    One of the witnesses to the Rwanda massacres, and the man who actually led the forces that put a stop to that genocide, is Paul Kagame. This Sunday which was exactly 30 years that the genocide began, he declared before an international audience, the basic truth: “…It was the international community which failed all of us, whether from contempt or cowardice.”

    Indeed, when the Rwanda genocide was being planned, the UN which had its peacekeeping force, the United Nations Assistance Mission For Rwanda, UNAMIR, on ground, was aware. Its Commander, General Romeo on January 11, 1994 sent his “Genocide Fax” to the UN Headquarters reporting the genocide plans. He followed up with five more warnings and sought permission to intervene, but was ignored.

    So, when the genocide began, UNAMIR was an indifferent force. Interventions came down to individual soldiers like Captain Mbaye Diagne, the Senegalese soldier who gave his life rescuing victims. I titled my October 3, 2020 tribute to this internationalist: “Saluting Captain Mbaye Diagne, the Soldier Who Covered UN’s Shame.”

    I was not surprised by the revelations of Kagame this Sunday, that as he and people under his command raced through Rwanda to stop the genocide, France threatened to annihilate them militarily unless they stopped, and allowed the genocide to go on.

    The Kagame story: “One night, in the latter days of the genocide, I received a surprise visit past midnight from General Dallaire. He brought a written message, of which I still have a copy, from the French General Commanding the force that France had just deployed in the western part of our country, Operation Turquoise.

    “The message said that we would pay a heavy price if our forces dared to try to capture the town of Butare, in the southern part of our country… he warned me that the French had attack helicopters, and every kind of heavy weapon you can imagine, and therefore were prepared to use them against us if we did not comply.

    “I asked Dallaire whether French soldiers bleed the same way ours do; whether we have blood in our bodies. Then I thanked him, and told him he should just go and get some rest and sleep, after informing the French that our response would follow. And it did…We took Butare at dawn. Within weeks, the entire country had been secured, and we began rebuilding.”

    But not all countries were bystanders as the Rwanda genocide was carried out. Kagame acknowledged the positive roles of countries like Uganda, Eritrea, Kenya, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Ethiopia and of course, South Africa which emerged a democratic country as the genocide was going on.

    The Rwandan President, this Sunday, added an historical gratitude: “At the United Nations Security Council in 1994, moral clarity came from Nigeria, the Czech Republic, and even as far away as New Zealand. Their ambassadors had the courage to call the genocide by its rightful name, and resist political pressure from more powerful countries to hide the truth. Ambassador Ibrahim Gambari of Nigeria and Czech Ambassador Karel Kovanda are here with us today, and we applaud you.”

    There are countries like Canada, which regretted their inaction. The Clinton administration in the United States long before the genocide, knew of a “final solution to eliminate all Tutsis”, but did not act decisively even when the genocide was on.

    President Bill Clinton admitted that had his administration taken some action, at least 300,000 lives could have been saved: “If we’d gone in sooner, I believe we could have saved at least a third of the lives that were lost…it had an enduring impact on me.”

    Six days into the genocide, Belgium, which had one of the largest contingents in the UNAMIR, announced it was withdrawing its troops. Other nations also did.

    Following widespread condemnation of the role of France, the French Parliament enquired into the role of the country in the genocide. After several months, the president of the parliamentary mission, former Defence Minister Paul Quiles, declared in 1998 that France was “not guilty”.

    However, an independent Rwandan Commission Report of August 5, 2008, concluded that France was not only aware of the preparations for the genocide, but also helped train the ethnic militias that carried out the genocide. It accused 33 senior French military and political officials of complicity in the genocide. It also reported that: “French soldiers themselves directly were involved in assassinations of Tutsis and Hutus accused of hiding Tutsis.”

    The genocide in the Palestine is taking a similar shape. First, the perpetrators in order to have a rationale to slaughter their victims, classify them as non-human beings. In Rwanda, the victims were labelled “cockroaches”, while in Gaza, Israel refers to the Palestinians as “human animals”. Secondly, the UN Security Council, as in Rwanda, held long debates whether the on-going genocide is really a genocide. It is also unable to agree on a permanent ceasefire.

    So, as the world marks 30 years of the Rwanda genocide, we have 1,410 Israelis slain, 33,098 Palestinians killed with over 70 per cent of them being women and children and 90 per cent of the victims being civilians. So, rather than the world shout “Never again!” it is witnessing genocide: “Yet again!” Some years down the line, the powerful who have rationalised the on-going genocide may be seeking justification, or making excuses for the role they are playing in refusing to recognise genocide.

  • Rwanda beat South Africa 2-0, lead Nigeria’s 2026 World Cup qualifiers group

    Rwanda beat South Africa 2-0, lead Nigeria’s 2026 World Cup qualifiers group

    Hosts Rwanda on Tuesday in Butare beat visiting South Africa 2-0 to shoot to the top of Group C table in the 2026 FIFA World Cup African Qualifiers.

    The result meant that Rwanda now have four points from two matches to stop South Africa from widening their lead.

    It was also a result that would help Nigeria and the rest of the group, as a win would have given South Africa a four-point lead after two matches.

    In the Match Day 2 fixture, Innocent Nshuti gave Rwanda a 12th minute lead, before  Gilbert Mugisha extended their lead in the 28th minute.

    Rwanda who had drawn their Match Day 1 fixture 0-0 against Zimbabwe last week and will visit Benin Republic on June 5 now lead with one point.

    South Africa who will visit Nigeria in June are in second place with three points from two games, having beaten Benin Republic 2-1 on Match Day.

    Nigeria have now moved into third place, with two points from two matches, tied with Lesotho (fourth) and Zimbabwe (fifth) on goals difference but ahead of both on goals scored.

    Benin Republic bring up the rear in the group with one point from two matches, ahead of Match Days 3 and 4 fixtures in June.

    NAN

  • 2026 World Cup Race: Super Eagles’ opponents, Zimbabwe, Rwanda draw goalless in Kigali

    2026 World Cup Race: Super Eagles’ opponents, Zimbabwe, Rwanda draw goalless in Kigali

    Two of Super Eagles of Nigeria’s group C opponent in the 2026 World Cup qualifier, Zimbabwe and Rwanda on Wednesday drew goalless in Kigali.

    Nigeria are in Group C of the World Cup qualifiers alongside Rwanda, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Lesotho, and the Benin Republic.

    Super Eagles will begin their campaign against Lesotho on Thursday, (today) at the Godswill Akpabio stadium in Uyo.

    The Super Eagles will be favourites not only to get the better of the Crocodiles but also to pick the ticket to the Mundial ahead of South Africa, the Benin Republic, Rwanda, and Lesotho.

    Nigeria has dominated the matches between these two countries, having won all four games with Lesotho, scoring ten goals and allowing two, while holding three clean sheets.

    Victor Osimhen, Oghenekaro Etebo, and Paul Onuachu scored goals in Nigeria’s decisive 3-0 victory in their final match of the 2021 AFCON qualifiers in the Teslim Balogun Stadium in Lagos.

    Nigeria has scored three goals or more in each of the last two encounters between the two teams, and Nigerians won’t be expecting any less this time around against a team ranked 153rd in the world and are one of a few nations that have never qualified for the AFCON.

  • UK’s Sunak suffers major blow as Rwanda migrant scheme declared unlawful

    UK’s Sunak suffers major blow as Rwanda migrant scheme declared unlawful

    Britain’s Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the government’s scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, dealing a crushing blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak before an election expected next year.

    Under the plan, Britain intended to send tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrived on its shores without permission to the East African country in a bid to deter migrants crossing the Channel from Europe in small boats.

    But the top court on Wednesday unanimously rejected the government’s appeal against an earlier ruling that migrants could not be sent to Rwanda because it could not be considered a safe third country.

    President Robert Reed said the five judges involved agreed there were “substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement”, meaning being sent back to their country of origin where they could be at risk of ill-treatment.

    The Rwanda scheme was the central plank of Sunak’s immigration policy as he prepares to face an election next year, amid concern among some voters about the number of asylum seekers arriving in small boats.

    Sunak, whose Conservatives are trailing by about 20 points in opinion polls, had made a promise to “stop the boats”, one of the five key pledges of his premiership.

    This year more than 27,000 people have arrived on the southern English coast without permission after a record 45,755 were detected in 2022.

    Sunak said the government had been planning for all eventualities and would do whatever it took to stop illegal migration.

    The ruling had taken on even greater political significance in recent days after Sunak sacked Interior Minister Suella Braverman, a popular figure on his party’s right-wing whose remit included dealing with immigration.

    She launched a scathing attack on Sunak on Tuesday, saying he had broken promises on tackling immigration and betrayed the British people.

    Critics, ranging from opposition lawmakers as well as some in his own Conservative Party to church leaders and the United Nations refugee agency, had argued the policy was flawed, immoral, and simply would not work.

    “The Supreme Court’s judgment is a victory for humanity,” Steve Smith, chief executive of refugee charity Care4Calais, said.

    “This grubby, cash-for-people deal was always cruel and immoral but, most importantly, it is unlawful,” he added.

    The Rwanda policy was originally drawn up by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in an initial 140 million-pound ($180 million) deal.

    Whilst the court said it was now unlawful, Reed left open the chance the scheme could be resurrected, saying “the changes needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement may be delivered in the future, but they have not been shown to be in place now”.

    With many lawmakers in Sunak’s Conservative Party saying Britain should consider leaving the European Convention on Human Rights over the issue, Reed said their decision was based on a number of laws and treaties, and not the convention alone.

    After the ruling, a Rwandan government spokesperson said it took issue with the conclusion that Rwanda was not a safe third country.

  • Migrate to UK, go to jail in Rwanda – By Owei Lakemfa

    Migrate to UK, go to jail in Rwanda – By Owei Lakemfa

    THE United Kingdom, UK, and Rwanda who conspired to have hapless migrants flown from London to open prison in Kigali, are trying hard to keep their unholy alliance on track.

    Ironically, the main driver of this criminal anti-immigration conspiracy, 43-year-old British Attorney General Suella Braverman, is of Indian origin whose parents, Uma and Christie Fernandes, migrated from Mauritius and Kenya.

    Her boss, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s grandparents were Indians born in Pakistan, while his parents migrated from East Africa. The amiable King Charles III is a descendant of William the Conqueror who migrated from Normandy in France and whose forebears were Scandinavian Vikings. On the other hand, the Rwandan President Paul Kagame, knows what it is to be a migrant as his parents fled the country when he was two, and he was raised in refugee camps in Uganda.

    It would have been expected that these leaders, given their backgrounds would be sympathetic to migrants, but the anti-migration conspiracies of the countries they lead, suggest otherwise. In order to carry out the inhuman act of rounding up illegal migrants, half of who are Indians and Africans, and sending them to an uncertain but difficult future in Rwanda, both countries tried to convince the world that what they are doing is compassionate work in the service of humanity. The argument presented by Braverman is that: “Many countries around the world are grappling with unprecedented numbers of illegal migrants and I sincerely believe that this world-leading partnership … is both humanitarian and compassionate and also fair and balanced.”

    On the other hand, the claim of Rwanda as presented by its Foreign Minister, Vincent Biruta is that the UK-Rwanda proposals “offer better opportunities for migrants and Rwandans alike and would help with the British government’s goal of disrupting people-trafficking networks.” Behind these claims are cold financial statistics and calculations in which the migrants are mere figures, not human beings. The British establishment is uncomfortable that the migrants, in comparison with the indigenes, have high birth rates which has implications for the country’s future, and that the country spends over two billion pounds a year to accommodate migrants. So it seeks a cheap way out: offer a $95 million contract to countries willing to take in so-called illegal immigrants and ensure they never come back to the UK.

    Rwanda, whose primary interests are financial gains, agreed in 2022 to receive thousands of illegally deported migrants for a fee of $146 million. Specifically on who is to be deported to Rwanda, under the April 14, 2022 “asylum partnership agreement” the British Interior Ministry says they would be: “Anyone who comes to the UK illegally – who cannot be returned to their home country – will be in scope to be relocated to Rwanda.”

    Despite their agreement on how to treat migrants by virtually holding them in open prison, both countries still have differences. The Rwandan High Commissioner to Britain, Johnston Busingye, in a video aired on Saturday September 30, 2023, fired a missile at his host, saying although his country has a binding agreement with the UK on the migrants, the latter should stop posing as a compassionate country that has the interests of refugees at heart. He said this is “immoral” and that Britain should address the root causes of migration rather than treat its symptoms.

    Busingye said: “They should have a long-term policy of making it a choice for people not to risk their lives coming to the UK. Because right now, many people are not coming here because of war in their country. No, they’re coming here because they are hopeless. They’re coming here because they have no future.” He added: “It is immoral for this country to still see themselves as the refugee country, the solace country, the protection country, the compassion country. They enslaved millions of people for 400 years. They destroyed India, they destroyed China, they destroyed Africa.”

    A red-faced British establishment is yet to make a coherent response. It is likely it would ask the High Commissioner to be withdrawn. Finding the chicken feed offered by UK appetising, Rwanda, five months later, turned to Denmark for a similar deal to dump unwanted asylum seekers from that country in Rwanda for a fee. Denmark, a socially conscious country may with this agreement find itself in strange company. It is a country that has a full Minister in charge of foreigners and integration. Its Integration Act is to ensure that “newly arrived foreign nationals get an opportunity to use their abilities and resources to become active citizens on equal terms with other citizens in the Danish society”.

    So, how does a country with such a model law, embark on a mission to deport migrants for a fee into an uncertain future? It is also not certain if Europeans from Poland, Ukraine, Romania and Germany who form the bulk of the migrants would be sent to the African country or it would be the comparatively small number of non-European migrants from Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and India that would be sent.

    The fate of the asylum seekers in Rwanda is not certain. But what is clear is that the 6,400-kilometre journey from UK to Rwanda is a “One way ticket”, so the victims cannot return. In Rwanda, the asylum seekers may be granted refugee status to remain in the country or seek asylum in another “safe third country”. Were they to remain in Rwanda, the possibility of eventually being expelled and forcibly returned to their countries of origin, is high.

    There is the experience of Australia in 2012 seizing asylum seekers and seconding them to Papua New Guinea and Republic of Naru. There were long delays in determining their refugee status; they were virtually abandoned with little food and virtually no medical care even when a number of them developed mental illness. In some cases, 112 of them were cramped into a single dormitory. Some times when they ventured out of the detention centre, they were attacked, raped or beaten by the locals.

    Four years later, it was discovered that at least 83 per cent of them were suffering from psychological disorder. The asylum seekers were so badly treated that some begged to be allowed to return to their home countries. Eventually, Australia was forced by international pressure to close the centres. In spite of this experience and the illegality of the UK-Rwanda agreement, most of the world is silent. This is worse in Africa whose ancestral land is to be desecrated. I am not aware of any African country that has called out Rwanda. The message out there is simple: migrate illegally to UK and go to jail in Rwanda.

  • Subnational, beyond the Rwanda blues – By Dave Baro-Thomas

    Subnational, beyond the Rwanda blues – By Dave Baro-Thomas

    By Dave Baro-Thomas

    The United Nations Development Programme, UNDP – special retreat held in Kigali, Rwanda, for Nigerian state governors is novel and laudable. The objectives, contents, resources, facilitators, experts attracted, and its overall implications on the socio-economic growth and development of the country are far-reaching and valuable.

    The retreat did not question the capabilities or competencies of the chief executives because some have the best education from prestigious schools around the world, such refresher courses and focused masterclasses, deepen strategies against realities and intently mirror tailor-made development tactics to drive the much-expected growth exigent to exit the nation from the woods. Undoubtedly profound, impactful and creative offering from the UNDP.

    While celebrating such a resoundingly successful retreat held in one of Africa’s models of development, our governors are back to all the realities the retreat painstakingly dealt with, so what next?

    Paradoxically, Nigeria, the largest economy on the continent and touted giant of Africa -with every state endowed with mineral resources, yet plagued with an estimated 130million people chronically and multi-dimensionally poor, and with the badge of dishonour as the poverty capital of the world, leave one perplexed, because the thriving of such extremities in a single country is both worrisome and ludicrous.

    While some blame the constitution for the many woes, others argue that the leadership recruitment processes that threw up persons without sound characters in the last 63 years are the bane of underdevelopment and abject poverty in the country. The constitution powers the federal system of government, and it remains the only source from which the federating units derive their legitimacy and approximate their boundaries and operational latitudes.

    So, for a poverty-stricken country with worsening consequences, it is imperative to eyeball the naked truths holistically, dispassionately interrogate and fearlessly locate the multifaceted dimensions of what drives poverty in the country both at the federal and state levels – because while the fixation on the failings of the federal government must not stop by an inch, however, the continuous rendezvous and the pillage at the states is inimical to national redemption.

    People of good conscience beyond party lines and ethnic or religious affinities must pick up the gauntlet and give the federal government nightmares until there is a visible development. But what happens to the street corners, hamlets, villages, communities and city centres so we must ask the right questions.

    It is a pastime for the average Nigerian to haul unprintable vituperations at the occupiers of Aso Rock, understandably so, because the contents in the Exclusive List of this constitutional federalism put the big envelope and buck on its table. The federal government superintends issues ranging from security to power/energy, defence, currency, citizenship, creation of states and local governments, immigration, customs, maritime, national economy, etc. and from the monthly FAAC sharing, gets a huge chunk to address these critical budget heads. But from a failing National Grid to a weak GDP showing, increasing inflationary trends, poor forex governance, broken down refineries, increasing activities of nonstate actors, unbridled insurgency, kidnapping, and violent crime, put the nation in the comity of failed States.

    However, the present federal government deserves a chance, and with the ministers in place, we crave fewer summersaults and wild goose chases. Peradventure, we may see some marginal improvement in no distant future. But wait a minute, can the level of development anticipated for this nation come from the federal government alone?

    Why are there no screaming newspaper headlines about the goings-on at the subnational? Do civil society groups play in that space? Are those federating units manned by elected governors or driven by medieval monarchs? Before getting depressed by the sad narratives echoing from the states, does it fall back to the constitutional crisis bedevilling the nation?

    To say the 1999 constitution as amended has outlived its relevance and is inadequate for the constraints of 21st-century Nigeria is stating the obvious. The constitutional defects are almost suspected to be deliberate and reflective of the throes of military misadventures and serving the purposes of a few in the polity today.

    Before letting loose the sledgehammer on the sub-national, a closer look at the constitution provides almost an alibi for the state to act irresponsibly. Terrorists ravish the nation and deal deadly blows to our communities, and this quasi-central government holds that card close to its chest. The governors pride themselves as chief security officers for themselves, their families and a few cronies. The rest can go and die. Then the question again is, who is afraid of community policing in this country?

    So, Kigali has come and gone, UNDP has done its bit, you can take a horse to the river, etc., but the facts remain that the greatest bane of underdevelopment happens at the subnational. Since the fourth republic, what we have had at this level are absolute monarchs, garbed as democratic agents. Yes, we have seen few sparks like in Rivers under Wike, the uncommon development in Akwa Ibom state by the now Senate President, the incontrovertible development in Lagos, the Oshiomholes, the Zulums of this dispensation, etc., of course, we must exclude the present first-time governors otherwise, the records in the public space are a total shame if we must speak truth to power.

    Almost all governors since 1999 have prided themselves in legacy projects that didn’t last four years after their exits – some of their famed projects started collapsing in their very eyes – from bad roads to broken down infrastructures that have gulped billions of Naira, the country is replete with countless failed and worthless projects commissioned with so much fanfare, as some of the fovernors cruise unaccountably with reckless abandon. The subnational atrocities thrive on patronage and threats to lives and livelihoods by most state governments’ machineries.

    A visit to the website of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs inundates the world that every state of the Nigerian federation has commercial deposits of mineral resources begging for explorations and investments, but what we see every month are the states cap in hand, going to Abuja for FAAC hand-outs.

    It is on record from the available statistics that some states cannot general IGR that gross 5% of what they collect as a monthly statutory collectable from the federation account, and you wonder at their excuses of payment of civil servants’ salaries as reasons for non-performance, because that takes a sizeable chunk from their tills. To avoid the risk of shaming and naming some states, people should make independent inquiries about what their state generates and what it collects from FAAC monthly vis-à-vis level of development, and you wonder how some past governors become billionaires after they leave  office.

    Why do we see less advocacy on good governance and accountability at the subnational? Yes, there are shameful federal roads, but what about the eye sour we live with around our neighborhoods? Are we not alarmed that what we see in most of our so-called state capitals are superficial and cosmetic developments that would not stand the test of time? See the road networks between our towns and the ravishing floods around us for years. Some communities cannot boast about primary or secondary schools, but some are objects for almost yearly repairs as jobs or the boys.

    The export potentials of some of these states are incredible, and strategic routes to harness these potentials are begging for attention. See the sheer criminalities happening with solid minerals in some states today.

    The picture is lucid when the annual FAAC allocations of each state are published side by side with their annual IGR and the expenditures incurred for the same period under review. We may have a rethink that development will never happen wholesale until the subnational is held accountable for good governance.

    After carefully evaluating the Kigali retreat and its offers for concerted and deep-rooted development, one hopes it was not another talk-shop because the next four years will be revealing, especially for the new governors.

    Again, with every sense of responsibility, after the UNDP’s retreat for the governors- what next for the subnationals?