Prof Soji Adejumo

As Nigeria continues to battle insecurity from all fronts, an alarming trend has surfaced. The strategic kidnapping of school children and teachers portend grave dangers for the progress and development of Nigeria. By making schools and religious worship sites lethal targets, the foundation of educational development and habitat of faith based ethical codes and moral instructions for societal development are under existential threats. What is more alarming is the apparent inability of state and national security forces to dislodge the terrorists from their strongholds. No nation can survive in an environment of insecurity, fear and wanton destruction of lives without any hope of a robust response by government forces.

A situation where terrorists and bandits dictate bizarre and humiliating terms of negotiations to Government and state actors will ultimately force government to go on its knees to appease these _bestiae in carne humana_ or animals in human skins.

The recent abduction of school pupils and teachers in Oriire Local Government of Oyo State and brutal killing of some teachers has shown how seriously weakened the national security architecture is. The most relevant question now is: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (who Guards the guards?). When the national security apparatus is headed and commanded by elements from the same tribes and ethnicity as the tormentors, a clear approach to security salvation is very dim and becomes a mental puzzle.

Insecurity in this 21st century cannot be solved by field permutations alone but by a combination of force and cutting edge technologies. We have watched the USA and Iran war and seen at first hand how both sides have deployed highest technologies to counter and demolish enemy strongholds.

We have seen how America extracted downed pilots from deep enemy territories using technologies with pinpoint accuracy just to save three precious American lives. Security is all about surveillance, threat detection and prevention. High level surveillance requires dedicated live satelite and internet communication. America leads the world with over 10,000 satelites in low and deep space with about 250 satelites dedicated to defence. Iran operates about 31 satelites in low orbit and has cross links with satelites of some allied countries. Nigeria struggles with 3 or 4 non dedicated satelites. How then do we monitor terrorists right from their bases to when they are in motion? Satelites that can track and report suspicious movements are totally out of Nigeria’s direct influence. Nigerian security probably depends on the same satelite communication that the terrorists and bandits bandits also use and deploy perhaps with better coordination. Nigerians conservatively, spend about 2 to 3 million Dollars on Elon Musk’s SpaceX every month and the terrorists and bandits are also active subscribers of the same Satelites via SpaceX STARLINK.

A query sent to an AI chatbot on the use of Elon Musk satellites to identify bandits in Nigeria brought startling responses. I will quote portions here: “Satellites from Elon Musk’s companies can be used to track bandits, but in practice, it is difficult and complex. One of the early customers of Elon Musk’s Starlink internet are terrorists and criminal elements involved in kidnapping. Nigerian military and government face a frustrating paradox: while the technology exists to track these devices, bandits are actively exploiting Musk’s Starlink for secure communication, making them harder to find. Starlink provides high-speed, portable internet to deep forests and remote areas where traditional cell towers don’t exist. This has unfortunately become a tool for non-state actors to coordinate and communicate with encrypted signals without detection.Tracking Difficulties:

The Nigerian Presidency has cited that security agencies cannot easily trace or block internet activities from bandits using Starlink because the terminals operate directly from space, complicating standard IP-address tracking used for local networks. Tracing a bandit’s connection often requires SpaceX’s direct assistance to pinpoint the exact locations.

Aside from internet hardware, private commercial imaging satellites (like SpaceX’s partner imagery networks or services such as Planet Labs and Maxar) can capture high-resolution imagery of bandit camps and movements. However, because they are constantly orbiting, they only provide periodic snapshots rather than real-time tracking, requiring coordination with on-the-ground intelligence to be truly actionable”.

Nigeria does not have to be at a digital Cross roads here. All Internet devices have unique and real time IP Addresses to function and be maintained. These devices are on regular subscriptions and have to be maintained by renewal of their subscriptions. The bandits have hundreds of these devices and the Nigerian military have captured and confiscated more than 500 of these from terrorists camps. Thats a good way of tracing the pattern of purchase, registration and physical location and movements of these devices.

The Federal Government cannot allow foreign satelite operators to run business in the country without active regulation. Recently Elon Musk expressed worries about the ise of its satelites by the Trump Administration for defence but thats all he can do. The American Government has powers to determine how much of SpaceX can be used by American enemies. Bandits can easily afford satelite technologies access as it is less than N1,500 a day per device and they make far more than that from ransom payments. Nigerian security forces should lace up their boots and force satelite access providers to locations identified as terrorists bases to suspend or shut down such service at least temporarily to allow federal forces have full intelligence coordination of such locations. It does not require rocket science to do this. I know certain European countries that have a central headquarters monitoring ALL GSM communications in the country through specialised Algorithms and codes silently scanning and digitally listening to all audio calls and chats and flagging off suspicious communication trails for further processing monitoring and investigation. These are very complex and time consuming security architectures and networks but the results improve national security tremendously. All the huge monies paid out as ransom could have been better utilised to build this architecture. However it is doubtful if this can ever be done as long as the same ethnicity responsible for kidnapping and associated crimes are allowed to manage the national security architecture.

This is again where the failure of our national educational system is very glaring. Universities are centres of national development through cerebral and intellectual research and pursuits. I am not aware of any university in Nigeria running programmes or research aimed at developing appropriate software and hardware designs that can be used for National Security. I am not aware of any direct or indirect link, synergy or partnership between our universities and national security installations.

Most of the critical intellectual components are probably still outsourced outside the country from Universities with less imposing physical infrastructure compared to our Universities but far more superior intellectual content. There are 12 National Universities Commission (NUC) approved universities in Oyo state and not a single can make any intellectual contribution to the fight against insecurity and terrorism by way intellectual support in Internet and Communication Technologies. Our Universities curriculum should be totally overhauled for International relevance and not just be national monuments of white washed sepulchres.

Prof Soji Adejumo (Ajiroba of Ibadanland) writes from Ibadan, Nigeria.

By Adamu Garba

I have been on a month‑long vacation, taking time to work on some important issues, but upon reading Babachir David Lawal’s recent attack against the former Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, His Excellency Atiku Abubakar, I could not believe how racist, sour, and provoking it was, delivered with such a dastardly tone.

Many people may see this as political, but I see far beyond that. BD Lawal went against the entire Fulani race by tagging the Waziri of Adamawa with the condescending title of Kachalla, an appellation commonly associated with bandits operating in Nigeria today.

He went further to describe Atiku’s entire team, family, and people as “Fulani hegemonists” with the sole intention of dominating the country.

BD Lawal was not attacking Atiku Abubakar on political grounds; he was attacking him for the singular reason that he is a Fulani man. That is hugely unacceptable, provoking, inciting, and dangerous.

If there is anyone who owes the Fulani race his entire life journey throughout his 71 years, it is BD Lawal.

Since he chose to use Kachalla as a prefix to condemn—albeit clandestinely— all Fulanis as bandits, then let me remind him that:

1. It was Kachalla late President Muhammadu Buhari (may Allah have mercy upon him), a Fulani man, who gave him his first major breakthrough in the PTF, where he served as a consultant under Afri‑Project Consortium.
2. It was Kachalla late Ahmed Salihijo (may Allah have mercy on him) who supported him throughout his half‑baked ICT career in the same consortium.
3. It was also Kachalla Engr. Aishatu Dahiru Binani who further backed him in that consortium.
4. It was Kachalla Amina J. Mohammed (current UN Deputy Secretary‑General) who strengthened him further in the same consortium.

When life turned sour, he clung to the same Kachalla Buhari and his team for survival.

It was the same Kachalla Buhari who provided him the opportunity of a lifetime by appointing him Secretary to the Government of the Federation.

When he left the APC after being neglected and rejected by the party due to his intransigence, it was the same Kachalla Atiku who picked him up, whitewashed him, and offered him another opportunity to shine on a national party platform.

It was the same Kachalla Atiku who supported him throughout, even against the wishes of many others, just for peace to reign.

And now, due to his high tendency for betrayal, it is the same Atiku he has chosen to condemn as Kachalla.

To be clear, I do not belong to the same political party as the Waziri of Adamawa, but he is my father, my leader, and my elder statesman—someone I respect, value, and honour deeply.

The level of democratic principles Atiku demonstrates, combined with his patience, tolerance, and gentlemanliness, often results in those he supports turning against him—just as BD Lawal has done.

I cannot insult BD Lawal because he is an elder, old enough to be my father. It is not in our culture, as Kachallas, to insult grey‑haired men. But BD Lawal should be mindful of utterances that promote division and incite racial attacks capable of harming the peaceful society of Adamawa State and Nigeria at large.

The Fulani people, whom BD Lawal now condemns wholesale while hiding behind political differences with Waziri Atiku Abubakar, have done so much for him. And for the rest of his life, he cannot repay them.

May God continue to provide peaceful solutions to all the issues affecting the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Now I can go back to my work.

Yours sincerely,
Kachalla Adamu Garba II

By Adeoye Inioluwa

Ghana’s Parliament has moved one step closer to reshaping the country’s legal stance on LGBTQ+ issues after approving a bill that introduces some of the toughest proposed penalties on sexual minorities in West Africa. The legislation now awaits presidential assent, placing the final decision in the hands of President John Dramani Mahama.

At the heart of the debate is the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, a law that seeks to criminalise same-sex relationships and extend penalties beyond individuals directly involved, reaching into areas of public advocacy and support.

If signed into law, individuals convicted of engaging in same-sex relations could face prison terms of up to three years. The bill goes further by prescribing between three and five years’ imprisonment for those found guilty of promoting, funding, or intentionally supporting LGBTQ+ activities.

The approval by Parliament marks a significant escalation in a long-running national debate that has moved between courtrooms, legislative chambers, and public discourse over several years. A previous version of the bill passed Parliament in 2024 but failed to become law after it was not signed before the end of the parliamentary term, causing it to lapse automatically under Ghana’s constitutional process.

The current version, however, has successfully cleared Parliament once again and is now awaiting the president’s decision, a development that has placed renewed international attention on Ghana’s human rights direction.

President Mahama has previously stated his belief in a traditional definition of marriage and gender, comments that have been widely referenced in discussions around the bill. His final position on the legislation is now expected to determine whether the proposal becomes enforceable law or returns once again to legislative uncertainty.
Within Ghana, the bill reflects a society deeply divided between competing interpretations of morality, tradition, religion, and modern human rights discourse. Supporters of the legislation argue it reflects long-standing cultural values and the will of a largely religious population.

Opponents, including international human rights organisations, have warned that the law could institutionalise discrimination and further marginalise already vulnerable groups. Concerns have also been raised about the broader implications for freedom of expression and professional practice, particularly in media, healthcare, and legal fields where the bill introduces specific clauses of exemption but also heightened sensitivity.

Same-sex relationships remain illegal in Ghana under colonial-era laws, though prosecutions have historically been rare.

The new bill, however, is seen by analysts as a shift from passive illegality to more explicit and structured criminal penalties, signalling a potential tightening of enforcement and public regulation.

As the bill awaits presidential assent, Ghana finds itself once again at the centre of a broader continental and global conversation—one that sits at the intersection of law, identity, and the evolving definition of rights in modern African states.