Connect with us

Opinion

Tinubu’s Ministers and Nigeria’s Dilemma

Published

on

By Reuben Abati

Yesterday, 45 Ministers took the oath of office as Ministers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria pursuant to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu exercising executive powers as granted under Section 5 of the 1999 Constitution, and in line with Section 147(3). These Ministers of the “Restored Hope Agenda”, we are told have a mandate to deliver Tinubu’s eight-point agenda as stated in his election manifesto to wit: national security, economy, agriculture, power, oil and gas, transportation, education, and healthcare, with special emphasis on economy and security.

What immediately stands out about this cabinet is that it is the largest since Nigeria’s return to civilian rule in 1999, and given Nigeria’s current economic situation, this is somewhat disappointing as it signals a resort to “big government” with heavy cost implications. President Olusegun Obasanjo began in 1999 with a cabinet of 42 Ministers (1999 – 2003), which he later reduced to 27, and had increased to 30 by the time he was leaving office in 2007. In 2007, President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua had a 39-member cabinet. President Goodluck Jonathan appointed a cabinet of 33 Ministers (2011-2014), and later 37 just before the 2015 general elections. In 2015, President Buhari appointed 36 Ministers, later increased to 42 in 2019. Although 45 Ministers were sworn in yesterday, it must be noted that President Tinubu actually nominated a total of 48 Ministers – three of whom were told to await further screening – Stella Okotete (Delta) Senator Abubakar Danladi (Taraba) and Nasir el-Rufai (Kaduna). El-Rufai has since announced that he is no longer interested with a cryptic Marley-an “Who The Cap Fits” declaration that “man to man is so unjust…your best friend could be your worst enemy”. That is another interesting matter worthy of full commentary. But if you were to add a list of 45 ministers, which may possibly increase to 48 later, to the 20 slots for Special Advisers earlier approved by the Senate for the President, and the accompanying appointment of Senior Special Assistants and Special Assistants, President Tinubu is set to run the most bloated government since 1999. This is curious in the light of the fact that many Nigerians had expected a lean government, to save costs and increase efficiency.

The current state of Nigeria’s economy is frightening, with over 113 million Nigerians living in multidimensional poverty; headline inflation at 24.08%; food inflation – 26.98%, Nigeria’s unemployment rate is about 41%, debt service to revenue ratio is calculated at about 90%, total debt is over N81 trillion, the available band for more borrowings is extremely narrow. Under such a scenario, the basic expectation would be for government to trim its size at all levels and tighten its belt. The only thing we have heard is the Federal Government asking the people to make sacrifice: fuel subsidy has been removed, resulting in increase in the pump price of fuel, the fuel exchange rate has been harmonized resulting in over 16% depreciation of the Naira, and a rampaging epidemic of empty pockets among the people, with the people trooping to the streets in Yola, Port Harcourt, Ibadan and elsewhere pleading with the government “to please allow them to “breathe”.

On top of it all, the Federal Government has announced plans to achieve an 18% tax to GDP ratio by 2024, and even if Taiwo Oyedele, the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy Reforms says this would not mean higher taxation, the simple logic is that the people would be required to make more sacrifices to help government generate much-needed revenue. What is shocking is that whereas government is imposing a regime of austerity, the Nigerian government at all levels is not showing a similar commitment in the governance process, and this much was confirmed again yesterday by the sheer size of the Federal Government. Many would recall that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abass upon assumption of office recently announced the recruitment of 33 aides! The Senate President also has a similar number of 33 aides, and in total, the 10th National Assembly members have since June appointed about 3, 000 legislative aides! It is worse at the state level. The Governor of Adamawa State, Ahmadu Fintiri recently appointed 47 media aides; the Governor of Kano State Abba Yusuf has appointed 97 persons as special advisers and assistants. In Niger state, Governor Mohammed Umaru Bago has 131 aides, all of them women. Whereas the President may claim that he is exercising his powers under the Constitution, he has in actual fact created more Ministries. Obasanjo at a time had 27 Ministers, and still fulfilled Constitutional provisions. Jonathan had 33, and still did not violate the Constitution. It is to be expected that Tinubu’s Ministers would soon announce their own aides, further bloating the size of government. Under Tinubu’s government, the cost of governance would shoot through the roof, with the expansion of size, staff and bureaucracy.

The Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI), the media and other informed groups in society had urged before now, that one of the main priorities of President Tinubu’s “Restored Hope” agenda should be the implementation of the famous Oronsaye Report – an 800-page 2012 Report on the Restructuring and Rationalization of Federal Government Parastatals, Commissions and Agencies which stated that the Federal Government alone has 541 parastatals, 929 MDAs, and that there should be mergers, complete abolitions, and rationalizations to block wastages and duplications and ensure efficiency. It is obvious that President Tinubu has no intention to take a look at the Oronsaye Report. In its June 2023 Nigeria Development Update (NDU), the World Bank had also recommended that for Nigeria, it was now “time for business unusual”. It seems so obvious that well, business will remain as usual in the governance arena, and our fear is that a day may well come when Nigerians will begin to praise President Buhari as things currently stand! And that will be a completion of our worst nightmare.

The process of appointing these Ministers was not impressive enough. Those who know Tinubu and his antecedents were convinced that he would hit the ground running and that he would have no difficulties identifying strong talents, a team of the best and the brightest that would help him deliver on his mandate. But it has been one big anti-climax. It took close to the 60-day deadline, and additional days for the President to come up with a list of party loyalists, former Governors, close advisers from his days in Lagos, and a few technocrats. Nine former Governors, with one of them grudgingly withdrawing conveys a veil of staleness, no matter the experience that the former Governors may bring to the table. The kind of unsureness that governed the list is also embarrassing. During the screening process, the President had to substitute the name of the Kano nominee, Maryam Shetty. Nobody even had the decency to inform her. She only got to know when she got to the Senate for her screening. Nobody deserves to be treated so shabbily.

To worsen matters, it only occurred to the President on the. eve of the inauguration of the Ministers to make last minute changes. He reassigned the 66-year-old Abubakar Momoh whom he had named as Minister of Youth to the Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs. Young Nigerians had complained that a 66-year-old politician as Minister of Youth was an odd choice. The Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) had also raised an alarm about the non-inclusion of the Niger Delta in the list of Ministries. Then the Ministers-designate for Transportation, Interior, and Marine and Blue Economy were reshuffled. The Ministry of Environment and Ecological Management was renamed as the Federal Ministry of Environment. This back and forth looks untidy. It shows lack of preparedness, someone certainly was not paying attention to details about credentials, nomenclature and vested interests. If the President’s excuse is that the last-minute reshuffling is to ensure that the right persons are in the right places, then his attempt does not go far enough. It is one of the reasons why we argue that portfolios should be attached to Ministerial nominations to provide enough room for adjustments before the nominees are eventually confirmed. Further, there are fewer women than expected on the Ministerial list, and there are persons who think that the women have been given decorative positions. This is feedback that the President should pay attention to and address as he makes other appointments into the MDAs. And why is there no person living with disability on the list?

For the most part, the Ministerial list looks like an attempt by the President to settle political IOUs. Every President in appointing their first cabinets feel obliged to settle those who worked for their victory. But even at that, there are many aggrieved APC members and foot-soldiers who must genuinely feel left out, because they believe they deserve to share the spoils of victory. However, Nigerians are not interested in “jobs for the boys”. They want a quality team. This is why the present cabinet must be rejigged within a year or 18 months at best. President Tinubu must constantly move people around and recruit only the best. Ministerial positions must not be treated as chieftaincy titles. The kind of sit-tight, “Kabiyesi syndrome” that we witnessed under President Buhari, with some Ministers staying in office for eight years and remaining anonymous and ineffectual throughout – must not be allowed to happen this time around. Nigerians want Ministers who are ready to serve, not traditional chiefs of Aso Villa.

The President has talked about giving the Ministers a Performance Index. This is also known as Key Performance Indicators (KPI), very important but it must not be couched in general terms such as the emphasis on the eight-point agenda. It must be Ministry and sector-specific, and if any Minister does not show enough promise or capacity within the next 18 months, he or she must be turned adrift without fear or favour. Nigerians are impatient. The Federal Executive Council must be seen to work truly in the best interest of the people. It is standard practice to organize seminars and retreats for newly appointed Ministers. Whatever syllabus may have been chosen for the class of 2023 certain specific subjects must be addressed. It is not enough to pack documents inside conference bags – a copy of the Constitution, Public Service Rules and Regulations, the Procurement Act or some other briefing notes – NO. There must be a proper breakdown of expectations Ministry by Ministry and robust discussions. Nigerians don’t like to read except when there is an examination to be passed; putting documents together and hoping that the Ministers would read on their own would be presumptuous. Many of them probably don’t know what their Ministry is all about. They have to be taught and guided.

As is often the case, they are probably thinking of the contracts that they will award through their Ministries and what would be in it for them. They need to be given a crash course in the details of the Procurement Act and Public Service Rules. Out of ignorance, many past Ministers depend on civil servants who lead them by the nose and astray. Having sound knowledge of procurement is part of the process. It is tied to budget performance and defined regulations.

These Ministers also need to be told that they are Ministers of the Federal Republic with responsibility to all the people and parts of Nigeria, regardless of religion, political affiliation, class or gender and the President was right in stressing this yesterday. Cronyism, nepotism, prejudice are the major afflictions in Nigeria’s governance process. New Ministers would come under severe pressure, both external and self-imposed, to use their positions to settle their own incurred political costs. The party in their wards, local governments and states would call on them to remind them that it is their slot they are using and that they owe them an obligation to fund the party in the state, employ children from the state, award contracts to contractors from within the party and ensure major projects are brought to the community that produced them because “it is their turn”. Nigerians are very good at blaming leadership but the followers themselves are mean. A Minister would be asked to come and help pay hospital bills for newly delivered babies, even when he had no knowledge of the pregnancy: “Honourable Minister, we thank God oh, your wife has just put to bed”. The Minister is likely to be confused because his wife probably gave birth to his last child 15 years ago! But every woman in his state would suddenly become his wife, every pregnancy his own, every wedding must receive his blessing. Some other pressures are self-imposed. To keep the job, for example, some Ministers think that they are obliged to build goodwill among the informal circle around the President – very dangerous people – who exploit their proximity to the President to amass unmerited wealth. They promise appointments and access, and bear tales by moonlight. Many Ministers make the mistake of focusing more on this informal ring of vipers, but others commit the crime of thinking that they must take every project to the President’s home-town or state, to gain favour as a result. Tinubu must discourage such sycophancy.

Pastor Tunde Bakare has already warned about an emerging pattern of “imperial Presidency” in his recent State of the Nation Address. The term as described in a book of the same title by Arthur M. Schlesinger (Houghton Mifflin, 1973, 2004) refers to the abuse of power, its reckless use, and a President getting carried away with his own importance. No government can break the law without the President’s consent, because the buck stops at his desk. Nigerians have a way of misleading their Presidents with excessive sycophancy and Aso Rock is the headquarters of sycophancy. Even the best of men can be tempted like Samson, the Israelite. There are those men who in the President’s presence would immediately go down on their knees and start crawling towards him from a distance, bowing and scraping the floor and intoning “rankadede sir”. Others would prostrate. Oftentimes, such persons are clutching a file under their arms. They want the President’s signature. Whoever acts in that manner should be asked to stand up immediately and stop scraping the floor! Tinubu must make it clear that such flattery would not work with him. Work has begun for the Ministers. It won’t be long before the misfits among them will be exposed.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

The Stockholm Syndrome in the Delta

Published

on

By

By Boma Lilian Braide Esq.

The water remembers. It remembers when we were queens and kings of the creeks, when our voices carried across the rivers like thunder, and when no external force could dictate the terms of our existence.

Today, as a daughter of the Ijaw nation, I look at our political landscape and my heart breaks into a thousand pieces. The recent withdrawal of Pastor Tonye Cole from the political race reopened a wound that never properly healed. I immediately texted him a single, urgent question: “Why?” His response was a resigned, familiar phrase; “It is well.” At that exact moment, my thoughts were screaming so loudly inside my head, “Not again!” It felt like a brutal repetition of an old script. Every single time, without fail, they treat the Ijaw man badly, pushing him out of the room where decisions are made.

This leadership class continually trades our birthright for political crumbs, leaving me with a profound sadness I cannot shake. Every four years, we are forced to watch the same exhausting, predictable cycle play out. We have become the laughing stock of the Nigerian politics. We roar like lions in the morning, only to allow ourselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter house by nightfall. This pattern is not merely a string of tactical errors. It is a structural and psychological condition that has calcified into our political culture. We begin every election season with unparalleled bravery, massive energy, clarity, and a list of demands. We mobilise, we protest, we declare our rights. Yet at the decisive moment we fold. We trade collective power for personal gain. We accept crumbs while the harvest is taken from our lands allowing our leaders to be used as mere pawns, chess pieces, and foot soldiers on a board completely controlled by outsiders.

Call it what it is, a political Stockholm syndrome. When a people are held hostage by extractive systems for generations, they can begin to see the captor as a provider. When political actors poison our rivers, burn our gas, and extract our wealth, then return during elections with token gifts, the damaged political imagination can mistake those gifts for benevolence. A motorcycle, a solar lamp, a bag of rice, or a ten thousand naira note becomes a substitute for structural justice. We applaud the giver and forget the theft.

This is not a partisan indictment. The major parties have all participated in this system. From the coastal edges of Ondo and Edo, through Rivers and Bayelsa, to the riverine communities of Delta and Akwa Ibom, the script is the same. Political machines arrive with cash and spectacle. They leave with votes. They do not stay to build roads, to clean oil spills, to fund health care, or to restore fisheries. They do not invest in education or in the infrastructure that would make our communities resilient. They know they do not have to. They know that the combination of poverty, fragmentation, and short-term survival instincts will deliver the votes they need.

The spectacle in Rivers State is instructive. The conflict between an incumbent and a predecessor is not only a personal rivalry. It is a mirror of a deeper structural problem. An Ijaw son may occupy the governor’s office, but the expectation of loyalty to an external power broker remains. When disagreements arise, the Ijaw polity does not close ranks. Instead, it fractures. Elders, youth groups, and political actors align with different external centres of power. We tear ourselves apart while the larger system remains intact.

Delta State offers another painful example. The region produces a disproportionate share of the oil wealth that sustains the state and the nation. Yet Ijaw communities are routinely relegated to secondary roles in governance. The highest offices are often out of reach. When an Ijaw candidate shows real ambition, the pressure to step down, to accept a consolation prize, or to be bought off intensifies at the last minute. The result is a steady stream of symbolic representation and token appointments that do not translate into structural change.

Even Bayelsa State, our most homogenous political home, has not been immune. The state has been turned into a dependent outpost. Political life there is often conducted under the shadow of Abuja. During elections, communities are militarized. Young people are paid paltry sums to snatch ballot boxes and intimidate their neighbours. The leaders who emerge from such processes rarely prioritize environmental remediation, health care, or education. They prioritize survival within the national political economy.

Why do we accept this? Part of the answer lies in a minority complex that has been cultivated over generations. We have been taught to believe that because we are numerically small and geographically dispersed across several states, we cannot set national terms. That belief is false. Our geographic position along the southern maritime border gives us leverage. Nigeria’s economy cannot function without the peace of our creeks. Yet we negotiate from a position of weakness because we lack a unified, non-partisan political command structure.

Other major ethnic blocs in Nigeria have developed cultural mechanisms that protect collective interests across party lines. They maintain consensus on key strategic questions and punish those who betray the collective. The Ijaw political house, by contrast, is fragmented. We are divided into Western, Central, and Eastern blocs. Internal jealousy and rivalry consume us. When an Ijaw son or daughter rises to prominence, it is sometimes their own people who are recruited to pull them down. This internal sabotage is a major reason we are treated as expendable by national political machines.

Our representatives in national assemblies and federal boards are often the most silent and compliant. They vote for policies that harm our region because they want to protect their personal seats and committee positions. We have forgotten the intellectual foundation of our struggle. Our fathers did not rely on muscle alone. They fought with logic and strategy.

Harold Dappa Biriye used constitutional arguments to demand minority rights during the pre-independence conferences. Isaac Adaka Boro presented a detailed economic manifesto during the twelve-day revolution, exposing the systematic underdevelopment of the Delta. The Kaiama Declaration of 1998 linked environmental justice with true federalism in a way that remains a model for strategic political thinking. Today, that intellectual tradition has been eroded by a culture of thuggery, praise singing, and the pursuit of quick money.

The social and economic costs of our political submission are visible everywhere. Schools sink into the mud. Primary health centres lack basic medicines. Women die in childbirth because there are no functional boats to transport them to urban hospitals. Rivers that once sustained us are coated with crude oil. Gas flares burn day and night, releasing toxins that cause cancers and respiratory diseases. In any functioning democracy, such environmental devastation would provoke electoral punishment. But our people accept ten-thousand naira, wear party uniforms, and return the same leaders to office.

This pattern is not only morally wrong. It is strategically suicidal. The global energy transition is underway. The world is moving away from fossil fuels. In a few decades, crude oil will no longer be the primary driver of the global economy. When that happens, the Nigerian state’s willingness to distribute minor rents, amnesty stipends, and pipeline contracts will evaporate. If we remain politically domesticated and economically dependent, we will be discarded once our resources lose value. We will be left with a ruined environment and a population unprepared for the modern economy.

Breaking this cycle requires a radical transformation of our political behaviour. It requires both immediate reforms and long-term institution building.
First, we must refuse to sell our votes for temporary relief. If politicians bring money during elections, take it because it is a fraction of your stolen wealth, but enter the voting booth and vote fiercely against them if they have not delivered real, systemic progress. The act of taking money and voting against the giver is not a moral ideal. It is a pragmatic tactic that recognizes the reality of survival while asserting political agency.

Second, we must create a culture of community accountability. Any Ijaw politician, elder, or youth leader who sells out the collective interest for personal gain must face social consequences. They should be stripped of traditional honours, excluded from community gatherings, and greeted with public disapproval rather than celebration. The cost of betrayal must be made higher than the reward offered by external actors.

We must also institutionalize our collective strength. The Ijaw nation needs a permanent, non-partisan political and economic council composed of our finest minds. This council should include intellectuals, legal experts, economists, and community builders from across the globe. Its mandate would be to define a multi decade Ijaw National Agenda that transcends party lines. Any Ijaw person entering politics should be bound by that agenda. Any external political force seeking our cooperation should be required to commit to its verifiable execution.

Again, we must build strategic alliances with other coastal minority groups. From Calabar to Badagry, the coastal communities share common interests in environmental protection, maritime economies, and regional development. A unified coastal voting bloc would create a political force that no national party can ignore. Such an alliance would also strengthen bargaining power for federal resource allocation and environmental remediation.

Fifth, we must shift our economic focus from pipelines to the blue marine economy. Our future lies in the ocean. We must invest in community owned industrial fishing fleets, deep sea shipping logistics, local shipbuilding yards, and aquaculture networks. We must develop port infrastructure and maritime training centres. Economic independence is the foundation of political courage. When our communities can fund their own schools, hospitals, and water systems through independent marine enterprises, we will no longer beg for crumbs.

Sixth, we must invest in education and leadership training. Political courage is not loud rhetoric. It is disciplined strategy. We must train a new generation of leaders who understand constitutional law, public finance, environmental science, and international trade. We must teach negotiation skills, coalition building, and institutional design. The Ijaw struggle must be intellectualized and professionalized.

Seventh, we must reclaim our narrative. For too long our story has been told by others. We must document our history, our legal claims, and our environmental evidence. We must use the courts, the media, and international forums to hold polluters and complicit officials accountable. We must turn our lived experience into verifiable claims that can be litigated and publicized.

Finally, we must practice disciplined solidarity. Political unity does not mean uniformity of opinion. It means a shared commitment to core strategic objectives. It means agreeing on red lines that cannot be crossed. It means supporting candidates who commit to the Ijaw National Agenda and sanctioning those who betray it.

The hour is late. The cost of our political naivety is visible in every polluted river, every jobless youth, and every broken promise. We cannot enter another election cycle with the same broken playbook. We must reject transactional politics and demand structural change. We must hold our leaders accountable and refuse to celebrate personal appointments that bring no collective benefit.

We must heal ourselves of this political Stockholm syndrome. We must stop loving the systems that destroy us and begin the difficult work of building lasting political infrastructure. The future of the Ijaw nation depends on our ability to transform our pain into strategic power. The water is watching. The spirits of our ancestors who resisted colonial domination are watching. We must rise, cleanse our minds of dependency, and stand with dignity. The era of last minute surrender must end. The time for strategic, sovereign Ijaw political courage has arrived.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Leadership in Africa: Forging a New Era of Self-Reliance, Unity and Global Relevance (Pt. 3)

Published

on

By

By Tolulope A. Adegoke

“True leadership in Africa is not the pursuit of power, but the courage to serve — to turn the pain of yesterday into the promise of tomorrow, to bind broken hearts into one destiny, and to raise a continent where every son and daughter can stand tall, not by pulling others down, but by lifting one another higher.” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

Building upon the foundational principles and practical pathways discussed in Parts 1 and 2, this continuation explores the deeper implementation strategies, institutional reforms, cultural shifts, and long-term vision required to translate African leadership into tangible, sustainable transformation. It addresses the realities on the ground while offering forward-looking, actionable recommendations that can help Africa move from potential to performance on both regional and global stages.

Institutional Reforms as the Backbone of Transformative Leadership

Visionary leadership without strong institutions is like a beautiful dream without a foundation. Africa’s progress depends on building institutions that are resilient, transparent, and people-centred.

Leaders must prioritise civil service reform, judicial independence, and anti-corruption mechanisms that are not only punitive but preventive. For example, Rwanda’s use of performance contracts (imihigo) for public officials has created a culture of accountability and results. Similarly, Ghana’s strong electoral commission and relatively independent judiciary have helped sustain democratic stability. These models show that when institutions are strengthened, leadership becomes less about individual charisma and more about systemic effectiveness.

Regional institutions such as the African Union, ECOWAS, SADC, and the East African Community must also be reformed. They need greater financial autonomy, faster decision-making processes, and clearer enforcement mechanisms. The African Union’s current efforts to reform its Peace and Security Council and operationalise the African Standby Force are steps in the right direction, but they require consistent political will and adequate funding from member states.

Cultural and Mindset Transformation

Leadership that builds Africa must also transform mindsets. Many of the continent’s challenges are rooted in colonial-era thinking, dependency syndromes, and a culture of short-termism.

Progressive leaders should invest in cultural renewal programmes that celebrate African excellence, innovation, and resilience. This includes supporting the creative industries — Nollywood in Nigeria, Afrobeats music, and contemporary African literature — which are already projecting positive African narratives globally. Educational systems must move beyond rote learning to foster critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and entrepreneurial spirit.

Youth leadership development is particularly crucial. With over 60% of Africa’s population under the age of 25, the continent’s future depends on preparing young people not just for jobs, but for leadership. Initiatives like the African Union’s Youth Agenda and national youth service programmes should be expanded and made more impactful.

Economic Transformation and Self-Reliance in Practice

True self-reliance requires deliberate economic restructuring. Leaders must champion value addition in agriculture, mining, and natural resources. Instead of exporting raw cocoa, cotton, or crude oil, African countries should invest in processing facilities that create jobs and capture more value domestically.

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offers a historic opportunity. When fully implemented, it can boost intra-African trade, reduce dependence on external markets, and create new industries. Leaders who actively remove non-tariff barriers, harmonise standards, and invest in cross-border infrastructure will be remembered as the architects of Africa’s economic renaissance.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) should be strengthened, with clear frameworks that protect national interests while attracting responsible investment. Countries like Morocco and Ethiopia have shown how strategic industrial policies can attract foreign direct investment while building local capacity.

Global Relevance: Africa as a Solution Provider

Africa must stop seeing itself solely as a recipient of global solutions and begin positioning itself as a contributor. The continent’s vast renewable energy potential, youthful population, and rich biodiversity give it unique advantages in addressing global challenges such as climate change, food security, and digital innovation.

Leaders who understand this will invest in research and development, patent African innovations, and engage confidently in global forums. The success of African pharmaceutical companies during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of African tech unicorns demonstrate that the continent can compete and lead when given the right environment.

 

A Balanced and Hopeful Conclusion

Africa stands at a historic crossroads. The challenges — poverty, inequality, climate vulnerability, and governance gaps — are real and significant. Yet the opportunities — a youthful population, abundant natural resources, cultural richness, and growing regional integration — are even greater.

Leadership remains the decisive variable. When leaders rise above narrow interests to serve the collective good, Africa does not just survive — it thrives and offers the world new models of resilience, innovation, and inclusive growth.

The path forward requires a new covenant: between leaders and citizens, between nations and regions, and between Africa and the global community. This covenant must be rooted in trust, mutual accountability, and shared vision. With the right leadership — courageous, ethical, inclusive, and strategic — Africa can forge a new era of self-reliance, unity, and global relevance.

The question is not whether Africa can rise. The question is whether its leaders, supported by an awakened citizenry, will summon the will, wisdom, and courage to make that rise unstoppable. The world is watching, and history is waiting to record the choices made in this decisive decade.

Africa’s story is still being written. With visionary leadership, it can become one of triumph, dignity, and global excellence.

Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke, AMBP-UN is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His mission is dedicated to advancing ethical governance, strategic human capital development, resilient nation building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.comglobalstageimpacts@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

A Familiar Kind of Tragedy by Adeoye Inioluwa

Published

on

By

The recent attacks on school communities in Oyo and Borno states have once again forced the country into a familiar emotional cycle — shock, grief, statements, and questions that briefly dominate public attention before gradually fading into silence.
What makes this cycle more unsettling each time is not only the incident itself, but the growing sense that it no longer feels entirely unexpected.
No society is completely free of insecurity. That much is understood. But what often defines public confidence is not the absence of incidents; it is the clarity, consistency, and visibility of response over time.
People do not only want to hear that action will be taken. They want to understand what has changed since the last time similar words were spoken.
Schools are supposed to represent safety at its most basic level. They are meant to be spaces where children are temporarily removed from the uncertainties of the outside world, not exposed to them. So when violence reaches those spaces, it does more than disrupt learning — it disrupts trust.
In the immediate aftermath, responses are often swift in tone. Condemnation is expressed. Sympathy is extended. Assurances are made. These reactions are necessary, but the challenge lies in what follows after the statements are made.
Because for those directly affected, the consequences do not end when public attention moves on.
There is also a broader national concern that emerges in moments like this: the increasing difficulty of distinguishing isolated incidents from a pattern. When similar events recur across different locations and times, they begin to reshape how communities perceive safety itself.
At that point, the issue is no longer only about response, but about prevention — and more importantly, about whether prevention is visibly evolving in a way that matches the scale of concern.
Citizens are not only listening for reassurance. They are watching for evidence that lessons from previous incidents have been fully translated into action. This includes how vulnerable spaces are secured, how intelligence is applied, and how quickly gaps are identified before they are exploited again.
Without that visible progression, reassurance risks becoming routine, and routine reassurance gradually weakens public confidence.
There is also a quiet emotional cost that is rarely acknowledged. Each new incident does not erase the memory of the previous one; it adds to it. Over time, this accumulation creates a national fatigue — a troubling adaptation to repeated distress.
In such a climate, the most important responsibility is not only to respond after events, but to reduce the conditions that allow them to repeat.
Because ultimately, the measure of any serious response is not how firmly it is stated in moments of crisis, but how clearly it reshapes what happens next.
And if that shift is not visible, then the unanswered questions will continue. Not out of impatience, but out of necessity.

Continue Reading

Trending