Connect with us

Headline

Opinion: Nigeria and Chinese Loans -By Reuben Abati

Published

on

By Reuben Abati 

The relationship between Nigeria and China with regard to loans obtained from the latter to fund Nigeria’s infrastructural projects suddenly became a matter of legislative intervention and public scrutiny last week when the House of Representatives summoned the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning and the Minister of Communications and Digital Economy to appear before it on August 17. The Ministers are expected to explain certain clauses in the Agreement signed between Nigeria and the Export-Import Bank of China with regard to a loan of $400 million for the country’s National Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Infrastructure Backbone Phase II Project. The agreement was signed in September 2018 by the Federal Ministry of Finance on behalf of Nigeria (the borrower).  Nigeria’s lawmakers have raised eyebrows about a clause therein which waives Nigeria’s sovereign immunity if it defaults in its repayment plan. 

 

The contentious clause is Article 8(1) which provides inter alia that “the borrower hereby irrevocably waives any immunity on the grounds of sovereign or otherwise for itself or its property in connection with any arbitration proceedings pursuant to Article 8(5) thereof with the enforcement of any arbitral award pursuant thereto, except for the military assets and diplomatic assets.” This has been interpreted to mean that Nigeria is in danger of losing its sovereignty to China. The opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has seized upon it to proclaim that it has been vindicated because it has always argued that the mission of the ruling party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) has always been to mortgage the future of Nigeria. PDP Presidential candidate in the 2019 General elections, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, quickly added that Nigeria faces the risk of embracing the fate of Zambia with regard to Chinese loans. Groups and stakeholders in civil society, including lawyers and the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Group (SERAP) have asked that all agreements ever signed between Nigeria and China should be brought forward and subjected to close scrutiny, just in case any government official either out of ignorance or incompetence has committed Nigeria to a debt-trap, to the disadvantage of future generations. 

 

From the government’s side, the only man who has spoken up is Rotimi Amaechi, the Minister of Transportation, but his explanations do not seem to address the issue. He says for example, that the waiver of immunity in the agreement is merely “a contract term”, a sovereign guarantee. Nobody is convinced. Amaechi and his colleagues who have been summoned by the House of Representatives would have to do much better than that. Nigerians no longer trust their government when it comes to international agreements. The quoted Article 5(1) in the said agreement with the Export and Import Bank of China rings too familiar and too topical in the light of recent revelations about the handling of Nigeria’s agreement with a certain Process & Industrial Development (P&ID). In that case, still on-going, a sum of $9.6 billion is still pending against Nigeria, just because some Nigerian officials signed an agreement that put the country into trouble. 

 

Now, again, in the case of China, the aforementioned Article 8(1) refers to such words as “arbitration”, “property”, “enforcement of arbitral award”. These are the same key words in the P&ID case. Hence, additional questions need to be raised about the Chinese agreement: who signed the agreement? Was due diligence carried out? Was Nigeria thrown under the bus by the negotiators as has been alleged in the P&ID case?  Ordinarily, a waiver of sovereign immunity does not mean that China will take over the running of Nigeria. Sovereign immunity is a principle in customary international law which simply means that a state cannot be pushed around by another state without its own consent to be so treated, in a foreign court. Hence, in every agreement that may go to arbitration, there is usually an agreement as to the place of arbitration and other details. What exactly did Nigeria sign up to on September 5, 2018 with the China EXIM bank? To the extent that the Nigerian people have a right to know, I am convinced that the House of Representatives is in order to raise the questions before us.     

 

To go further, the various stakeholders who have asked for a proper audit of all agreements with China are definitely aware of how the $6.6 Billion judgment against Nigeria which became $9.6 billion (because of accrued interest) in the P&ID case poses a serious risk to the country’s economic survival. They are also probably aware that there are similar cases relating to lack of due diligence in the signing of agreements that Nigeria is also grappling with. This includes the international arbitration in Paris with Sunrise Power and Transmission Company over the Mambilla Hydro Power Plant. Sunrise went to arbitration accusing the Nigerian government of breaching a 2003 agreement when it granted a separate contract to Chinese companies. The same Export-Import Bank of China was on the sidelines of that agreement. I understand the matter has been resolved but 17 years after the initial agreement, the country is yet to make any significant progress with the Mambilla Hydro which if things had progressed as scheduled would have emerged as the second largest hydro power plant in the whole of Africa. In this case, as in others, Nigeria remains behind because some characters failed to do the right thing. Similarly, the Ajaokuta Steel Company Limited which was meant to be a game-changer for Nigeria’s industrial growth process, was also held down for years by disagreements over agreements and a prolonged legal tussle between the Federal Government and a company called Global Infrastructure Nigeria Limited (GINL). Ajaokuta Steel is a living archetype of how all good intentions in Nigeria fail. In one word, legal tussles and arbitral disputes over contracts, obligations and commercial agreements have over the years, exposed the failure of public policy and the incompetence of state officials in Nigeria. Minister Amaechi is concerned that if the same controversy is brought to the door-step of the Chinese, they may simply refuse to provide necessary loans for the Ibadan-Kano rail line. Amaechi appeals to the patriotic instincts of Nigerian lawmakers: he wants them to suspend all further enquiries until Nigeria gets an additional $5.3 billion from the Chinese. He means well no doubt, he wants Nigeria to get that Chinese money that Nigeria needs, but in his appeal lies the bigger question about Sino-Africa relations, and the place and conduct of African leaders within that matrix. 

 

Amaechi is certainly an admirer of China’s romance with Africa. He begs his own country’s parliament to “mechionu” as Igbos would say, so Nigeria can get more Chinese money and sign more agreements. Someone needs to tell Rotimi Amaechi that Nigeria’s engagement with China cannot and should not be reduced to an Abiriba, Aba, or Alaba market transaction business model: “my brother, bring money make we do business, chop together.” But he is not alone. Many African leaders are like that and as they engage China, they fail to look at the sub-text.

Amaechi is certainly an admirer of China’s romance with Africa. He begs his own country’s parliament to “mechionu” as Igbos would say, so Nigeria can get more Chinese money and sign more agreements. Someone needs to tell Rotimi Amaechi that Nigeria’s engagement with China cannot and should not be reduced to an Abiriba, Aba, or Alaba market transaction business model: “my brother, bring money make we do business, chop together.” But he is not alone. Many African leaders are like that and as they engage China, they fail to look at the sub-text.

 In the 70s, China was far behind many African countries. I grew up in a country where any product that was made in China or Taiwan was derisively dismissed. China and Taiwan were the standard euphemisms for fakery, inferiority and cheapness. In those days, Nigerians talked about the British Standard (BS). Nigeria’s economy was doing well. The Naira was at par with the pounds sterling.  Nigerians travelling to London on Fridays aboard Nigeria Airways, stopped by at Liverpool market and the Main street and spent money as if it was going out of business as a legal tender. This was the age of the oil boom. No Nigerian would touch anything Chinese. I grew up being told that anything Chinese or Taiwan does not last. Even when this COVID-19 break-out began, I heard some older Nigerians insisting that if indeed the virus originated from China, it would not last, because nothing that comes from China can be relied upon. Unfortunately, China pulled itself up by the boot-straps. China re-invented itself while other countries either went to sleep or became complacent. It is ironic that today, Nigeria adores China. In our class at the University of Maryland, College Park, 1996 -97, in an American Foreign Policy Process class taught by Hodding Carter III, in the Department of Government and Politics, we read a book titled “The Coming Conflict with China”. That conflict then was at best hypothetical. Today, it is a reality. China is one country that has leap-frogged into the future in an unimaginable manner. The emergent conflict between China and the Western world will be the most definitive factor of this century and the next to come. Africa and the developing world are both at the centre of that conflict. 

 

With China thus on the ascendancy, its leaders defined for that country, broad geo-political ambitions. With the West in retreat and increasingly navel-gazing, protectionist and isolationist, China launched a muscular approach to foreign policy with its Belt and Road Way Initiative through which it sought to engage developing economies by way of financial support through loans and grants. The focus has been so far, infrastructural development but there is a lot more in there. Strategically, therefore, long before COVID-19, China tried to fill a vacuum that Western nations created. As Western creditors prescribed more and more stringent conditions for bilateral and multilateral loans, China offered cheap, easy and accessible alternative financing arrangements: interest-free government to government credits, and preferential loans from China EXIM and the China Development Bank. The latter, that is preferential loans, represents the bulk of China’s overseas lending. Developing countries were over-excited. They swooped on China’s offers like bees after nectar. Today, China is the world’s largest creditor to the developing world. Since 2008, China has been Africa’s main trading partner. There is even now in place, a Forum on China-Africa Co-operation. 

 

Nobody saw the catch, and countries were caught flat-footed. China has been accused of debt-trap diplomacy. Many countries embraced that diplomacy with their hands tied behind their backs and today, their countries are in the throes of debt servitude. China gives but it takes! China helped Sri Lanka to build the port of Hambantota. Both countries signed an agreement, similar to the one Nigeria signed with the Export-Import Bank of China. Today, China runs that port with Chinese personnel. In Djibouti, the Chinese are in charge of the ports too, just because Djibouti borrowed money it could not pay back. In Zambia, for similar reasons, China is now controlling the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (in other words, China is in charge of mind control in Zambia). China is also planning to take over the Zambia National Electricity Company. Djibouti took loans from China to build a new port and two new airports, Unable to repay its loans, China has also taken over a part of Djibouti’s sovereign rights and possession of its new port, and has since set up in that country, its first military overseas base. There have been issues as well, with China’s relations with Kenya, Democratic Republic of Congo and other African countries.  

 

But should we blame China? Whatever travails developing countries may have gone through in the hands of China, in the form of damages to their sovereignty, we must all agree on certain basic points. One, “there is no free lunch”. China is not offering anyone a free lunch. Its cheap loans are tied to its own strategic interests in the world.  African nations are the ones submitting themselves as pawns to China’s global strategic agenda. African leaders are most certainly complicit.  Two, “when you borrow, you pay”.  Chinese negotiators are often focused. If you don’t pay in cash, you will pay in kind. The Chinese only give out their loans even under the Belt and Road Initiative to countries that have something to offer in return. Many developing countries are so economically narrow and badly managed, they end up giving up national resources for borrowed funds that translate into debt servitude. Three, and this is the worst part, is that Chinese loans are often opaque. This is one of the reasons China is not a member of the Paris Club. It may have committed to the G-20 process on the moratorium for debt service re-payments for example, but China has stubbornly refused to participate in data calls. It is the biggest player in Africa’s infrastructure boom but it may never disclose the full details. China’s influence in Africa even runs far deeper. In Nigeria, that influence has gone beyond loan agreements that touch on sovereign rights to an increasing ubiquity of Chinese presence in Nigerian lives. It is so real that the Chinese have now taken over a rather complicated business chain in the country from manufacturing to retail, including internet services, hospitality, car sales and ride hailing services. One of these days, we may wake up to see a Chinese roasting corn by the road-side in Nigeria, properly licensed to do so!

 

Nigerian lawmakers have a responsibility to shout out about Nigeria’s sovereignty, and the integrity of agreements with China or others.  We certainly don’t want to hear that a certain Amaechi has signed off Nigeria’s Presidential Villa to the Chinese to get cheap loans to build a rail line to Port Harcourt!. If that were to be the case, the Chinese will take over that Villa and like P&ID, look at us all in the face, talk about the sanctity of agreements, and dare Nigeria to go to the court of international arbitration. The onus is on Amaechi and co to tell us what we need to know. The Chinese knee is on our necks today, simply because our leaders have failed to lead us aright.  

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Headline

Appeal Court Upholds Judgment Ordering INEC to Derecognise Mark-led EXCO

Published

on

By

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Monday affirmed the judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The appellate court decision was a split of two-to-one.

A three-member panel of the appellate court, in a lead verdict delivered by Justice Okon Abang, said it found no reason to set aside the restraining order the Federal High Court in Abuja had issued against the Mark-led ADC on April 29.

It further upheld the order of trial Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executives.

The appellate court concurred that responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees, not with the national leadership.

While Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo gave the majority verdict barring the electoral body from acknowledging the outcome of congresses held by the Mark-led leadership of the ADC, the head of the appellate court’s panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, gave a dissenting judgment.

In his minority decision, Justice Mohammed held that the case that precipitated the restraining order bordered on a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party.

He held that the trial court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal judgment may jeopardise the presidential candidacies of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other candidates who emerged through the national congress organised by the Mark-led faction of the ADC, ahead of the 2027 general elections.

It will be recalled that the High Court had, in its judgment, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.

The judgment followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, lodged before the court by aggrieved members of the ADC.

Those behind the suit are Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, who told the court that they sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Listed as defendants in the matter are the ADC; Sen. David Mark; Sen. Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; and Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee); and INEC.

The plaintiffs had, among other things, challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

They challenged the validity of appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee, arguing that planned state congresses slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.

It was further the position of the plaintiffs that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.

While agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Senator Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

The court held that the claims brought before it by the plaintiffs were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing an alleged breach of constitutional and statutory provisions.

It held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, adding that Article 23 of the ADC Constitution also provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.

Justice Abdulmalik stressed that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they nonetheless intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Political commentary articles

She held that evidence before the court established that the tenure of the state executive committees of the ADC remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.

The court stressed that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, and it accordingly nullified any process initiated by the Senator Mark-led caretaker leadership.

Earlier, the court dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction to entertain it.

It held that the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertained to the affairs of INEC and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The court also waved aside the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before instituting the action.

It held that the plaintiffs had the requisite locus standi (legal right) to file the suit.

The appellate court, while upholding the restraining order, said it had a duty to intervene so as to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

It cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in the leadership crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to hold that the ADC case could not be classified as a domestic affair of a political party.

“Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention,” Justice Abang added in the majority judgment.

Consequently, the panel dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, which the ADC lodged in order to set aside the high court judgment.

It held that congresses and the national convention conducted by the Mark-led ADC amounted to a nullity as they were held in disobedience to a subsisting order that the High Court made on April 14.

Having resolved the case against the ADC, the appellate court awarded a cost of N10million against the party.

Shortly after the judgment, the ADC, which was represented by its National Welfare Secretary, Mr Nkem Ukandu, said the party would take the case before the Supreme Court.

Continue Reading

Headline

Oyo 44: ‘RESCUED’ OR ‘RELEASED’ – How Intelligence Network Weakened Terrorism Cells

Published

on

By

By Eric Elezuo

Since the triumphant return of the 44 kidnapped pupils and teachers of Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State, questions from many quarters have flooded the media space as to the actual mechanism employed by the Federal Government, Oyo State government and the security agencies to secure their freedom.

To the average victim of the kidnap, and the families, the measures or method are inconsequential as the return of their loved ones to safety is all that matters. But to the average Nigerian, analysts, observers as well as stakeholders, it is imperative that the wherewithal of the operation that led to the safe return of the victims unhurt, is presented in the public for the consumption of the generality of Nigerians.

Nigerians recall that in recent times, no known police or military operation has led to the return ofa any kidnapped victim as many governments have been known to part with alleged huge sums of money to secure releases of abductees. It is therefore, not out of place for the nation to question the whys and hows of the supposed rescue as contained in the Federal Government’s statement early Friday evening, after 57 days in captivity.

Recall that a statement by presidential spokesperson, Bayo Onanuga, stated that the victims were freed through the efforts of security agencies.

“Finally, all the kidnapped pupils and teachers in Oriire, Oyo State, have been rescued by our security agencies,” Onanuga wrote.

He further disclosed that eight members of the kidnapping gang were arrested during the rescue operation and are presently in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS).

Onanuga said the rescue operation did not involve any exchange or concession to the kidnappers, noting that a notorious gang leader whose release had been demanded by the abductors remains in custody, and is being prosecuted for his alleged crimes.

“In the course of the rescue operation, eight of the kidnappers were arrested and are now in DSS custody, while some of them were neutralised. There was no quid pro quo in the rescue, as one of the terrorists, a kingpin whose release was demanded by the kidnappers, is being prosecuted for his atrocities. The security agencies will give full account soon,” he noted in the statement.

In a video shared alongside the statement, a woman believed to be one of the rescued teachers was seen thanking President Bola Tinubu for securing their release. The schoolchildren were also seen eating biscuits and joining the teacher in chanting, “Thank you, sir,” at the end of her remarks.

“Hello sir, our father, we are grateful. Mr President, sir, we are grateful. We understand your commitment to our safety and we appreciate all you did for us. We could see your hand in this. Thank you very much. Every security operative tried so much, and that is why we are still alive today. We are very grateful to you. Thank you very much,” the teacher said.

In a separate statement on his X handle, Nigeria’s President, Bola Tinubu, also announced that the abducted children and teachers were freed alive and unharmed, stressing that “no ransom was paid” and “no concession was made.”

He also directed emergency response agencies to work with the Oyo State Government to provide medical care and other relief support for the rescued pupils and teachers.

 

But responding via his verified X account, lawyer and human rights activist, Dele Farotimi, expressed doubt at the government’s narrative questioning the whereabouts of the the kidnappers if it was an actual rescue operation. Farotimi believes that money has once again changed hands in form of ransom before the kidnappers could let the victims go.

In the post, Farotimi asked about the number of terrorists that were captured or killed during the rescue operation, and how many people will be charged with the killing of Mr Adesiyan and Mr Michael yedokun, who were shot during the kidnap operation, and beheaded while in captivity respectively.

“If they were truly rescued and not ransomed or returned pursuant to phone calls between the terrorists and the government, how many terrorists were captured or killed?” Farotimi statement read.

Providing more information however, a former operative of the Department of State Services, Seyi Adetayo, gave an insight into how the security operatives secured the release of the abducted pupils and teachers without paying ransom or exchanging prisoners.

Adetayo, who spoke during an interview on TVC News said that intelligence gathering played a crucial role in locating and mounting pressure on the kidnappers.

He disclosed that security agents identified the kidnappers’ mothers, wives, children and other close associates as part of the intelligence-led operation to secure the victims’ release.

He added that the operatives arrested the relatives, recorded videos of them, and sent the footage to the abductors as part of the strategy that ultimately led to the victims’ freedom.

“They identified the kidnappers’ mothers, wives, children, and close associates. They arrested them, recorded videos, and sent them to the abductors,” he said.

According to him, security forces relied on intelligence to dismantle the kidnappers’ support network.

He buttressed that the operatives cut off the abductors’ supply lines and escape routes, while combining coercive measures with negotiations to secure the victims’ freedom.

Adetayo said the strategy ultimately led to the safe rescue of the pupils and teachers after 56 days in captivity, without the payment of a ransom or a prisoner exchange.

But in a shocking rebuttal, Media Personality Kemi Olunloyo, who is known to source controversial facts, stirred more controversy while questioning the official account surrounding the release of the schoolchildren and their teachers.

In a post shared on X, Olunloyo alleged that there was no rescue operation, though she could not back her allegations with evidence. She maintained that the victims were simply returned after being taken to northern Nigeria. She also alleged that pressure from the United Nations and an investigation reportedly linked to U.S. President Donald Trump influenced their release.

“I just blasted the Nigerian army on X. Many of you are equally daft. There was no rescue. They simply brought back those kids from the north the same way they took them,” she wrote.

Olunloyo further alleged that the victims and their families had been instructed by the Presidency not to grant interviews to bloggers, podcasters or journalists, asking, “What are they hiding?”

She also claimed the victims were moved to the North and hidden before being released, adding that attempts to change the narrative would not succeed.

Also buttressing the payment of ransom angle, a retired military officer, Colonel Leo Abara, while speaking during  an interview with AIT, said he was disappointed that it took the government more than 50 days to rescue the victims. He said he has not seen any kidnapper killed or captured during the rescue operation.

Col Abara said he did not see any sign that there was physical confrontation between the security operatives and the kidnappers. He said this could mean a ransom was paid for the victims’ release.

But the Nigerian Army, who led the rescue operation through the General Officer Commanding (GOC) 2 Division, Major General Chinedu Ralph Nnebeife has volunteered detailed narrative as to how the rescue operation was conducted, saying the operation was in collaboration with other security agencies.

According to a statement issued hours after the rescue on Friday by the Acting Deputy Director, 2 Division Army Public Relations, Lt. Col. Danjuma Danjuma, the victims who were rescued after 56 days in captivity, regained their freedom following an intelligence-led operation that lasted for more than a month and targeted the kidnappers’ network and hideouts in the Old Oyo National Park and other parts of the country.

The victims were kidnapped on May 15, 2026, when armed assailants attacked their school in Oriire Local Government, triggering widespread concern and prompting a coordinated rescue mission involving multiple security agencies.

Danjuma said the successful rescue was achieved on July 10 through a carefully planned and executed operation led by the General Officer Commanding (GOC) 2 Division, Major General C.R. Nnebeife.

According to the statement, the operation brought together personnel from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), particularly the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), the Defence Headquarters, Special Forces of the Nigerian Army, Nigerian Navy and Nigerian Air Force, the Nigeria Police Force, Department of State Services (DSS), National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), as well as local vigilantes, hunters and members of the Amotekun Corps.

The military said the operation was intelligence-led and focused on identifying and dismantling the terrorist network responsible for the abduction, including its kingpins, logistics channels, informants, and hideouts located within the Old Oyo National Park forest and other locations.

It disclosed that several suspects were arrested in Oyo State and other parts of the country during the operation, adding that the sustained pressure mounted on the criminal network disrupted its activities and ultimately compelled the abductors to release the victims unconditionally.

“The operations, which lasted for more than a month, focused on identifying the terrorists’ kingpins that masterminded the kidnapping, bursting and dismantling their networks and logistics links, including their informants and hideouts located within the Old Oyo National Park Forest.

“Multiple arrests were made within Oyo State and other locations across the country. These arrests completely disorganised the group, exerted overwhelming pressure on them and ultimately led the terrorist group to unconditionally release the pupils and teachers,” the statement said.

The Army noted that the rescue mission was meticulously planned to prevent collateral damage and ensure the safe recovery of all the abducted pupils and teachers.

It, however, disclosed that some security personnel sustained casualties during the operation, without providing further details.

The rescued victims are currently receiving medical attention at an undisclosed hospital and will subsequently be handed over to the Oyo State Government for reunification with their families.

APPRECIATION

Nnebeife, on behalf of all participating security agencies, expressed appreciation to President Bola Tinubu for providing strategic direction, support, and resources that contributed to the operation’s success.

He also commended Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde and the state’s residents for their continued support and cooperation with security agencies throughout the rescue efforts.

Major General Nnebeife further acknowledged the contributions of the National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, the Minister of Defence, the Chief of Defence Staff, the Chief of Army Staff, other Service Chiefs, the Inspector-General of Police, the Directors-General of the DSS and NIA, as well as heads of other participating security agencies for ensuring seamless coordination during the operation.

The military also appreciated media organisations and Nigerians for their patience, understanding, and confidence in the country’s security architecture, while urging citizens to remain vigilant and continue providing timely and credible intelligence to security agencies in the fight against terrorism and other criminal activities.

It added that follow-up operations are ongoing to completely dismantle the remaining elements of the terrorist network responsible for the abduction.

Confirming the rescue in a statement on Friday evening, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said all the victims were rescued.

“Finally, all the kidnapped pupils and teachers in Oriire, Oyo, have been rescued by our security agencies,” he wrote.
He disclosed that eight suspected kidnappers were arrested during the operation and are currently in the custody of the Department of State Services.

He added that several other members of the gang were neutralised by security operatives during the operation.

According to him, the victims were rescued without the Federal Government acceding to the kidnappers’ demand for the release of a Boko Haram kingpin standing trial for terrorism.

Though pockets of doubts still exist in different quarters as a result precedents, many Nigerians have come to believe that the security operatives played a winning card in this very operation, leading to the rescue of the victims, arrest of the assailants and killing of some of them.

It’s still not yet uhuru as scores of those kidnapped in Borno on same May 15, and another 35 secondary school students abducted while writing NECO examinations, are all still in the kidnappers’ den among many other undocumented abductions many days after. The victory from the Oyo 44 notwithstanding, the fight against insurgency is far from over.

Continue Reading

Headline

Atiku Condemns FG’s Hike in WAEC, NECO Fees As Cruel, Warns of Swell in Number of Out-of-school Children

Published

on

By

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has condemned the Federal Government’s continued escalation of the cost of public education, describing the recent increase in fees for Federal Unity Colleges and the reported approval of a uniform ₦50,000 examination fee for West African Examinations Council WAEC and National Examinations Council NECO candidates from 2027 as cruel.

Noting that the policy is economically insensitive and fundamentally incompatible with government’s constitutional responsibility to make education accessible to every Nigerian child, the Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress ADC said it is unconscionable that at a time when Nigerian families are battling record inflation, soaring food prices, rising transportation costs, crippling electricity tariffs, stagnant incomes and widespread unemployment, the President Bola Tinubu-administration has chosen to make education even more expensive.

In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, on Sunday, Atiku noted that education remains the greatest instrument of social mobility and the surest pathway out of poverty for millions of children from humble backgrounds, adding that every additional financial burden imposed on parents translates into another child being denied the opportunity to learn, dream and contribute meaningfully to society.

“Nigeria already bears the painful distinction of having one of the largest populations of out-of-school children in the world. Depending on the methodology and age group measured, between 10.5 million and about 15 million Nigerian children and young people are already outside the classroom. Any government confronted with such a national emergency should be investing aggressively to bring these children back into school. Instead, this administration is choosing policies that will inevitably swell those numbers,” he said.

He warned that increasing fees in Federal Unity Colleges while imposing significantly higher costs on WAEC and NECO examinations would disproportionately affect children from poor and middle-income families, whose parents are already making impossible choices between food, healthcare, transportation, and education.

“The same administration whose policies are progressively narrowing access to public tertiary education continues to project the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) as one of its flagship achievements. Yet a university loan offers little comfort to a child who has already been priced out of secondary education or cannot afford the qualifying examination required for admission. A government cannot credibly claim to be expanding access to higher education while simultaneously erecting financial barriers that prevent millions of young Nigerians from ever reaching the university gates.

“Genuine educational reform begins by making education affordable from the primary and secondary levels, expanding the carrying capacity of our tertiary institutions, and ensuring that poverty never becomes the reason a child is denied the opportunity to learn. A government that truly believes in education invests in classrooms before it invests in loans.

“No nation has ever taxed its way into educational excellence. Countries that aspire to economic greatness invest more—not less—in education during difficult times because they understand that human capital is the engine of sustainable development. Nigeria cannot build a globally competitive economy while systematically pricing millions of its children out of classrooms”, he added.

Atiku therefore called on President Tinubu to immediately reverse the increase in Unity School fees and the proposed ₦50,000 WAEC and NECO examination fee, and convene an urgent stakeholders’ dialogue on sustainable financing for public education.

“By the grace of Almighty God, I remain confident that Nigerians will reject policies that punish their children and make education the exclusive preserve of those who can afford it. The African Democratic Congress is committed to restoring education as a public good, not a privilege.

“An ADC-led government will not permit this unjust and punitive increase in examination fees. Instead, we shall reverse policies that place education beyond the reach of ordinary families, expand access to quality education at every level, increase the carrying capacity of our tertiary institutions, and ensure that every Nigerian child, regardless of background, has a fair opportunity to learn, excel and fulfil his or her God-given potential,” he added.

The Vanguard

Continue Reading

Trending