Opinion
The Oracle: The NASS Cannot Amend the Constitution Through the Back Door
Published
4 years agoon
By
Eric
By Mike Ozekhome
In these trying times of our beleaguered Nation, the NASS should concentrate more on creatively making laws for the peace, order and good government of Nigeria. The recent amendment to the Electoral Act has caused too much needless national hoopla and ruckus. It ought not have been at the centre stage in a sane society. Is barring certain classes of persons from contesting elections simply because they are government appointees Nigeria’s bane at the moment? I think not.
Earlier, the NASS had, by its earlier proposed section 52(3) the amendment bill, sought to strip INEC of its control over elections and subject INEC to the control and supervision of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) on the critical but sore issue of electronic voting and transmission of results.
This fatal step was later reluctantly reversed after Nigerians rose against it. I had spilled buckets of ink and made several television appearances, advocating to get it extirpated, root and branch, from the amendment bill. The NASS had ignored the fact that under section 158 of the 1999 Constitution, INEC “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person”. They comfortably forgot that it is INEC and INEC alone that is responsible for organizing and supervising all elections to political offices; registering, monitoring of political parties; and conducting voter and civic education, including promotion of sound democratic processes. See also section 153 (f).
THE ALBATROS IN SECTION 84(12), (13) OF THE AMENDED ELECTORAL ACT
The NASS while amending the Electoral Act inserted subsections 12 and 13 into section 84 which, unlawfully, illegally and unconstitutionally disenfranchised serving political office holders from voting or being voted for at conventions or congresses of political parties. The offensive section 84(12) had provided thus:
“No political appointee at any level shall be voting delegate or to be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election”.
Section 84 (13) drives this home, more pungently, thus:
“Where a political party fails to comply with the provisions of this Act in the conduct of its primaries, its candidate for the election shall not be included in the election for the particular position in issue”.
THE ALARMING OUSTER CLAUSE IN THE AMENDED ELECTORAL ACT
I am surprised that all the critics of the Federal High Court judgement in Umuahia delivered by the Honourable Justice Evelyn Anyadike have not adverted their minds to the more worrisome provision in section 84 (15), which, after granting the Federal High Court jurisdiction in section 84 (14), to entertain cases from “an aspirant who complains that the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress”, went on to oust the jurisdiction of all courts on matters concerning primaries, thus:
“Nothing in this section shall empower the courts to stop the holding of primaries or general elections under this Act pending the determination of a suit”.
Interpreted in another way, section 84(15) is saying:
“Courts, please, allow political parties to first do maximum damage during their primaries and general elections, and subsequently entertain emerging suits thereafter after the wrong candidates would have emerged and after resources, time and energy would have been wasted by individuals, political parties, INEC and the electorate to conduct sham elections”. I am worried by this obnoxious ouster clause.
I believe that the above subsections are totally unconstitutional. They are ultra vires the powers of the NASS. What the NASS intended to do by subsections 12 and 13 of section 84 is to amend the Constitution through the backdoor, without going through the tortuous process prescribed in section 9 thereof; which deals with the mode of altering the provisions of the Constitution.
PRESIDENT BUHARI’S EARLIER OBJECTION
President Muhammadu Buhari had initially kicked and refused to assent to the Electoral Bill as initially amended by the NASS, which contained the above sub section. To escape from the avalanche of criticisms that trailed his initial withholding of assent, Buhari later reluctantly signed the Bill into Law; but with a caveat vide a letter to the NASS, to consider amending section 84(12) subsequently. He believed that subsection 84(12) imported into the Constitution extraneous matters such as blanket restriction and disqualification of political appointees who ought to be accorded protection. His argument is that a public officer could resign his office, withdraw or retire from service 30 days before the date of election in accordance with section 66(1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution. I think his handlers should have simply done an Executive amendment bill to the NASS; not a mere letter. But, I agree with his serious reservations about section 84(12).
WHY SECTION 84(12) AND (13) ARE OFFENSIVE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
QUALIFICATION AND DISQUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION
Sections 66 and 107 of the 1999 Constitution provide for circumstances under which certain public officers are qualified or disqualified from contesting for election.
QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION
Let us start with sections 65 (1) and (2) and 106 of the Constitution which deal with qualification for election, as a member of Senate and House of Representatives; and House of Assembly respectively. See also sections 137(1) (g) and 182(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution.
These sections provide that such a person for Senate or House of Representatives or member House of Assembly of a state shall be qualified to contest election if he is a citizen of Nigeria and has attained the age of 35 years (30 years for a House of Representatives members; and 25 years for a House of Assembly member); is educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent; and he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party.
DISQUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION
By virtue of sections 66 (1) and 107 (1) respectively any of the above the Constitution, persons also is disqualified if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a country other than Nigeria; adjudged to be a lunatic or a person of unsound mind; is under a sentence of death, imposed on him by a court of competent jurisdiction; or a sentence of imprisonment or fine involving dishonesty or fraud. Such a person is also not qualified if he is an undischarged bankrupt; is a member of any secret society; or he has presented a forged certificate to INEC.
The most critical subsection for our discussion here, is section 66(1) (f) which provides that if such a person is employed in the “Public service of the Federation” or “Public service of a state” and has not resigned, withdrawn or retired from such employment THIRTY DAYS before the date of election for a State, he shall be disqualified from contesting or being voted for.
Sections 107 (1), 147 (4) and 192(3) deal with offices of ministers of the Government of the Federation and Commissioners in a state, respectively. A minister or Commissioner shall be deemed to have “resigned” his membership of the National Assembly or a state House of Assembly upon taking the Oath of office as a minister or Commissioner.
THE EXTANT LAWS
It is therefore clear, per adventure, that aside the circumscribing and inhibiting factors restricting a public appointee from contesting offices as described above, section 84 (12) and 13 are unconstitutional, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever in so far as they import other extraneous disqualifying factors not provided for or envisaged by the Constitution. The NASS cannot import into the Constitution other additional disqualifying factors.
SECTION 84(12) & (13) ALSO CONTRAVENE SECTIONS 40 AND 42 OF THE CONSTITUTION
Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution grants every Nigerian the right to assemble and associate freely with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests. See Motorcycle Transport Union of Nigeria & ors vs. Delta state Motorcyclist Assoc & ors (2010) LPELR 4503 (CA); Lafia LG vs. Executive Governor Nassarawa state & Ors (2012) LPELR 20602 (SC).
In addition to the above, section 42 accords every Nigerian the right to freedom from discrimination. See Okafor & ors vs Ntoka (2017) LPELR – 42794 (CA); NMCN vs Adesina (2016) LPELR – 40610 (CA) The question is, why will any Nigerian be prevented or barred from being “a voting delegate or to be voted for at the convention or Congress of any political party for the nomination of candidates for any election” when the Constitution (the supreme law) has exhaustively outlined factors barring a person from contesting?
SECTIONS 84 AND 318 OF THE CONSTITUTION CONSIDERED
Section 66(1) (8) only provides for “public service” of the federation or the “public service of a state”. Do political appointees such as ministers, commissioners and personal aids qualify to be protected by these sections. I believe so.
Some people have argued that it is only public servants envisaged in section 84 and as defined in section 318 of the Constitution that are covered by the 30 days resignation notice. Political Appointees who hold offices at the pleasure of their appointor are not public servants within the meaning and intendment of sections 84 and 318 of the Constitution, they pontificate.
Specifically, the Court of Appeal in ONI v. FAYEMI & ORS (2019) LPELR-46622(CA) held that:
“A Minister, being a mere political appointee, cannot be regarded as an employee in the Public Service of the Federation and is consequently not constitutionally caught by the 30 days resignation rule imposed on employees in the Public Service”.
See also the following apposite cases:
Wilson v. Ag, Bendel state & Ors. (1985) LPELR-3496 (SC); PPA v. PDP & ORS (2009) LPELR-4865(CA); Shitta-Bey v. AG Federation & Anor (1995) LPELR-3055 (SC); Abubakar v. The Executive Governor, Gombe state & Ors (2002) LPELR-1124 (CA); MILITARY GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE V. ADEWUNMI (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 82) 280; Ojukwu v. Yar’ Adua (2008) 4NWLR (Pt. 1078/435; AG BENDEL STATE V. AIDEYAN (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 118) 646; ADAMU V. TAKORI (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt 540) 1387 (CA).
I earnestly believe the attention of these courts was NEVER specifically drawn to the definition of “Public Service of the Federation” and “Public Service of a State”. The definition of “Public Service” of the Federation means the service of the Federation in any capacity in respect of the Government of the Federation and includes…….”. The definition of “Public Service of the State” means the service of the State “in any capacity in respect of the Government of the state and includes service as …..”.
Thus, in both cases, the clause “any capacity” is used for both the Federal and State governments. Can anyone plausably argue that ministers, commissioners and other appointees of Mr president or a Governor of a State who draw their salaries, allowances and other perquisites of office from the Federal or State treasury are not engaged in “any capacity” in “respect of the Government of the Federation and State Government”? The other offices lined up in this interpretation section of 318 are merely in addition to, as the section specifically states that the specie of public officers outlined therein is merely in addition to those employed in “any capacity” in both the Federal and state Governments. (To be continued next week)
THE WORLD WE LIVE IN
“If you want to achieve something, you have to forget the boundaries that people create. No one knows your capabilities more than you” – (Anonymous).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” (Henry Kissinger).
Related
You may like
Opinion
Open Letter to British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer by Gold Emmanuel
Published
4 days agoon
March 23, 2026By
Eric
I. THE LETTER
To: The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP
10 Downing Street
London
Sir Keir,
I hope this letter finds you in jubilant spirit. My name is Gold Emmanuel, and although we have never met, your recent conduct has made this correspondence unavoidable. I will cut straight to the chase without further ado.
History will likely remember you as the first British Prime Minister in the modern era to master the art of flogging a dead horse. During President Tinubu’s March 2026 state visit, the first by a West African leader in thirty‑seven years, you revived a brand of colonial‑era mercantilism that even your predecessors had the sense to leave in the archives. From the moment the Nigerian delegation was ushered from Heathrow with choreographed warmth, to the meticulously staged Windsor banquet with its polished silver, curated smiles and diplomatic theatre, you created the illusion of mutual respect. Yet beneath the chandeliers and velvet tablecloths, you were quietly engineering a £746 million export finance deal designed not to uplift Nigeria, but to resuscitate Britain’s faltering industrial strategy.
The “dead horse” here is the illusion of a partnership of equals. A clinical examination of the Lagos and Tin Can Island port refurbishment contract exposes the gaping loopholes your government has exploited:
– The British Steel Loophole: By ring‑fencing £236 million of the credit for British firms, including a record £70 million lifeline for Scunthorpe‑based British Steel, you ensured that the “loan” never actually leaves the UK. You are flogging the dead horse of Nigeria’s already “red” coffers to resurrect British manufacturing, forcing Nigeria to pay interest on a domestic subsidy disguised as “international development.”
– The Sovereign Risk Vacuum: Instead of genuine private‑sector investment, your administration deployed a Buyer Credit Facility via Citibank, guaranteed by UK Export Finance (UKEF). This ensures the UK is made whole by the Nigerian taxpayer regardless of project success, an extractive model that makes even the most rigid conditionalities of the 1980s appear benevolent.
– The Port‑for‑People Trade: In a move that marks a moral nadir, you tied infrastructure credit to an expedited migration pact. By compelling Nigeria to recognise “UK Letters” for swift deportations, you effectively traded 120,000 tonnes of steel billets for the right to return vulnerable people to a conflict zone.
This migration pact is not merely “sleeky”; it is a calculated circumvention of the 1951 Refugee Convention. By institutionalising “UK Letters,” identification documents issued solely by your Home Office, you have bypassed Article 33, which prohibits refoulement: The forcible return of individuals to territories where they face threats to life or freedom. Your “Expedited Return Protocols” further violate the Convention’s requirement for individualised, non‑discriminatory assessment. You have created a legal loophole that enables mass removals before claims can be judicially reviewed, in direct defiance of the UNHCR’s global mandate.
To understand the true cost of your “success,” one must look beyond the silver service of Windsor to the scorched earth of Kwara State. In February 2026, the Woro and Nuku massacres, the deadliest jihadist attacks outside the North East in a decade, left more than 200 dead and 38 kidnapped. While you discussed “port efficiencies,” Nigerian children were being abducted by the JAS terror group. Your migration pact ignores UNHCR guidance, which expressly forbids the forced return of civilians to regions where they face a real risk of serious harm. You demand “order at the border” while Nigeria faces its deadliest insurgency in years.
The predatory nature of your policy is now unmistakable. You have designed a system to take their money, to make them permanent debtors, and then to deport their citizens into a void of nothingness. You have ensured that the Nigerian treasury is bled dry to support Scunthorpe’s furnaces, while the human beings who sought refuge in Britain are discarded back into the very “virtual vice” of terror, where 1,258 people were slaughtered in the first six weeks of 2026 that they sacrificed everything to escape.
Compared with your predecessors, the cynicism of your approach is staggering. Even under the rhetoric of Empire, there was at least a pretence of building institutions. Under your leadership, the relationship has been reduced to a transaction i.e. Nigeria takes the debt, the UK takes the steel orders and the Nigerian diaspora takes the fall. You have managed to be more extractive than the Conservatives and more indifferent to human rights than the pragmatists of the 1990s.
The “sleeky lender” has indeed found its “clumsy borrower,” but the reverse burden lies at your doorstep. It is not for the Nigerian villager to prove they are in danger; it is for your government to explain how a £70 million steel contract justifies the refoulement of human beings into a war zone. You are not building a bridge between nations; you are constructing a one‑way track for British capital, paved with the discarded dignity of the Nigerian people.
And so, Sir Keir, let us dispense with the pretence. A banquet does not make a partnership. A warm reception does not make a fair deal. And no amount of silverware can disguise a policy architecture built on extraction, dispossession and political convenience. You have chosen the short‑term profit of a loan shark over the long‑term integrity expected of a global leader. History will record it accordingly.
I attach a petition for your perusal before its public release.
II. THE PETITION
PETITION TO THE PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
Subject: Urgent Inquiry into the Ethical and Legal Viability of the UK–Nigeria Export Finance and Migration Partnership
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, concerned observers and citizens, petition the Government to immediately suspend the migration provisions attached to the £746 million UKEF port refurbishment deal with Nigeria.
PETITION GROUNDS
– Violation of International Law: The use of “UK Letters” to bypass sovereign passport verification directly contravenes Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention and undermines the principle of non‑refoulement.
– Unfair Contractual Terms: The “British Steel” ring‑fencing clause constitutes an unethical use of export finance, forcing a developing nation to assume high‑interest debt to subsidise UK domestic industry.
– Security Risk Misalignment: Enforcing deportations while Nigeria remains in a state of high‑intensity insurgency, evidenced by the 2026 Woro and Nuku massacres, is a breach of the UK’s duty of care and human rights obligations.
– Detrimental Financial Implication: The commission and interest structures represent predatory lending. The “sleeky lender” (UK) bears zero project risk while the “clumsy borrower” (Nigeria) mortgages its primary maritime assets, on terms your own Government condemns in loan‑sharking legislation.
ACTION REQUESTED
We call for a full Parliamentary Select Committee inquiry into the “Port‑for‑People” trade‑off and the immediate cessation of forced removals to Nigeria until a full, independent security assessment is completed.
III. PRESS‑READY PUBLIC STATEMENT
For media, civil society and public circulation.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
UK–Nigeria Deal Condemned as “Port‑for‑People Trade‑Off” in Explosive Open Letter to Prime Minister
Gold Emmanuel has issued a blistering open letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, accusing his government of reviving colonial‑era mercantilism under the guise of a £746 million export finance deal with Nigeria. The letter alleges that:
– Britain ring‑fenced £236 million for UK firms, including £70 million for British Steel
– The deal forces Nigeria to assume debt for what is effectively a UK domestic subsidy
– The migration pact attached to the deal violates the 1951 Refugee Convention
– Deportations are being accelerated despite escalating jihadist violence in Nigeria
A petition has been submitted to Parliament calling for:
– Suspension of all deportations to Nigeria
– A Select Committee inquiry
– A full review of the UK’s use of “UK Letters” for forced removals
“This is not partnership,” Emmanuel writes. “It is extraction dressed as diplomacy.”
IV. PARLIAMENTARY BRIEFING NOTE
For MPs, Lords, Select Committees.
BRIEFING: UK–Nigeria Export Finance & Migration Partnership
Key Issues:
– Legal: Potential breach of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention
– Financial: UKEF structure shifts all risk to Nigeria
– Industrial: £236m ring‑fenced for UK suppliers
– Security: Deportations to active conflict zones
– Ethical: Migration conditionality tied to infrastructure credit
Recommendation: Immediate Select Committee inquiry and suspension of removals pending security assessment.
V. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS SUBMISSION VERSION
For UNHCR, OHCHR, Amnesty, HRW.
SUBMISSION: UK–Nigeria Migration Protocol and Risk of Refoulement
The UK’s use of “UK Letters” for expedited removals to Nigeria constitutes:
– A circumvention of Article 33 (non‑refoulement)
– A violation of the requirement for individualised risk assessment
– A breach of UNHCR guidance on returns to conflict zones
The situation in Kwara State and the Middle Belt demonstrates a real risk of serious harm, making forced returns unlawful under international human rights standards.
Requested Action:
Urgent review and public statement from relevant bodies.
Copied
Related
Opinion
Why Investing in People Outperforms Every Resource on Earth
Published
6 days agoon
March 21, 2026By
Eric
By Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD
“The truest measure of a nation’s riches lies not in the depths of its mines or the breadth of its fields, but in the minds, hearts, and hands of its people—created in divine image, called to steward creation, and destined to multiply possibilities through faithful cultivation and wise leadership.” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD
In an era defined by finite natural resources, rapid technological change, and global interdependence, a profound truth resonates across philosophy, faith, economics, and management: the greatest wealth is not buried beneath the earth in minerals, oil, or soil, but stands upon it in the form of human beings. This perspective challenges the traditional fixation on extractive riches and redirects attention to the living, creative, and relational capacity of people. Far from a poetic sentiment, it represents a divinely ordained reality, empirically validated across nations, and strategically indispensable for unlocking possibilities at every level of human endeavor—among individuals and communities (peoples), within corporations, and across entire nations.
This comprehensive examination draws upon timeless biblical revelation, rigorous empirical data from global institutions such as the World Bank and the Institute for Economics and Peace, and established principles from strategic management theory to demonstrate that humans constitute the ultimate resource. As stewards created in the image of God, people possess inherent dignity, creativity, and dominion that no mineral deposit or fossil fuel can replicate. Investing in human potential—through education, health, skills, and ethical empowerment—yields exponential returns that transcend material extraction and deliver sustainable prosperity, innovation, and resilience.
Biblical Foundations: Humans as God’s Image-Bearers and Vicegerents
The scriptural narrative establishes human beings as the pinnacle of creation and the greatest earthly asset long before modern economics articulated the concept. In Genesis 1:26–28, God declares, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” This declaration is not incidental; it links the imago Dei—the image of God—with the mandate of dominion. Humans are entrusted with responsible stewardship over creation precisely because they reflect divine attributes: rationality, creativity, relationality, moral agency, and purposeful productivity.
This truth is echoed in Psalm 8:4–6, where the psalmist marvels, “What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands.” Humanity’s crowning with glory underscores intrinsic worth that far surpasses any natural resource. Unlike oil reserves that deplete or mineral veins that exhaust, human potential compounds through generations when nurtured.
The New Testament reinforces this dignity. Jesus’ teachings, such as the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14–30, portray God as entrusting resources to servants for multiplication through faithful stewardship—symbolizing the investment in human capacity rather than hoarding material wealth. The apostle Paul further affirms in Colossians 3:10 that believers are renewed “in knowledge after the image of its creator,” emphasizing ongoing development of the mind and spirit. These passages collectively reveal that God ordained humans—not the ground beneath them—as the primary vehicle for realizing creation’s possibilities. Dominion is exercised not through exploitation but through creative cultivation, innovation, and relational justice, making every person a living repository of divine potential.
Empirical Evidence: Human Capital as the Driver of Productivity and National Prosperity
Contemporary data unequivocally validate this ancient insight. The World Bank’s Human Capital Index Plus (HCI+) 2026 report provides compelling global evidence that human development accounts for up to two-thirds of cross-country income differences. The index measures the expected productivity of a child born today based on health, education, and employment outcomes extending to age 65. Striking disparities emerge: GDP per hour worked in the world’s ten most productive countries exceeds that of the ten least productive nations by more than thirty times. These gaps stem not primarily from natural resource endowments but from deficits in nutrition, learning, and workforce skills.
The report reveals sobering realities: 86 out of 129 low- and middle-income countries experienced stagnation or regression in key human capital components between 2010 and 2025. Deficits in these areas are projected to cost children born today approximately half of their potential future earnings. Conversely, countries that prioritize human investment outperform expectations relative to their GDP per capita. High relative performers include Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Jamaica, Kenya, and the Kyrgyz Republic—nations that have leveraged education, health, and skills to drive growth despite modest natural resources.
This pattern refutes the “resource curse” documented in seminal studies, such as Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner’s 1997 analysis, which found that economies heavily dependent on natural resource exports in 1970 grew more slowly over subsequent decades. In contrast, resource-scarce yet human-rich nations have achieved remarkable transformations. South Korea’s economic miracle from 1960 to 1979 was propelled by massive investments in education and productivity rather than physical capital alone. Human capital and total factor productivity explained growth per worker comparably to physical investments, enabling the country to rise from post-war poverty to global industrial leadership without significant mineral wealth.
Singapore offers an equally compelling case. With virtually no natural resources, it achieved a 2023 Human Development Index of 0.946 (ranking among the world’s highest) through deliberate policies in education, healthcare, and skills development. Its transformation from a trading port to a knowledge-based economy illustrates how human ingenuity creates value where raw materials cannot. Japan and Israel similarly demonstrate resilience: Japan rebuilt after World War II through human capital intensity, while Israel—often called the “Start-Up Nation”—thrives on innovation ecosystems fueled by educated citizens despite arid land and limited conventional resources.
Longitudinal cross-country analyses, including Robert Barro’s 1991 study on economic growth, consistently show that higher human capital (measured by schooling and health) correlates with elevated investment rates, lower fertility (enabling demographic dividends), and sustained GDP growth. These empirical patterns confirm that humans are not merely consumers of resources but creators who multiply value exponentially.
Professional Management and Strategic Evidence: Humans as the VRIO Source of Competitive Advantage
Strategic management theory elevates this empirical reality into actionable frameworks. Gary Becker’s pioneering Human Capital (1964, expanded 1975 and 1993) treated education, training, and health as investments analogous to physical capital. Becker demonstrated that such investments yield measurable returns in earnings, productivity, and national growth—explaining the “residual” in economic models that physical capital and labor alone could not account for. Organizations and societies that systematically enhance human capabilities realize compounding advantages.
Peter Drucker, the father of modern management, famously observed in the late 20th century that “the most valuable assets of a 20th-century company were its production equipment. The most valuable asset of a 21st-century institution… will be its knowledge workers and their productivity.” Drucker foresaw the shift to a knowledge economy where human intellect, creativity, and adaptability become the decisive factors. In today’s context of artificial intelligence and digital transformation, this insight has only intensified: technology amplifies human potential but cannot replace the judgment, innovation, and relational intelligence that define knowledge work.
The Resource-Based View (RBV) of the firm, formalized by Jay Barney in his 1991 seminal paper “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” provides the strategic capstone. According to RBV, resources deliver sustained advantage when they are Valuable, Rare, Inimitable, and Organized (VRIO). Human capital frequently satisfies all four criteria: it is valuable for generating economic rents; rare in its unique combinations of skills and experience; difficult to imitate due to path-dependent development and tacit knowledge; and organizable through culture, leadership, and systems. Empirical assessments of RBV confirm that firms prioritizing talent development outperform peers reliant on tangible assets. Companies such as Microsoft under Satya Nadella or Google (Alphabet) have achieved market dominance not through superior physical infrastructure but through relentless investment in attracting, developing, and retaining exceptional human talent.
Indispensable Roles: Delivering Possibilities Across Peoples, Corporations, and Nations
At the level of peoples (individuals and communities), humans as the greatest resource translate divine image-bearing into personal agency and collective uplift. Education and health investments empower individuals to exercise dominion creatively—innovating solutions, building families, and fostering communities. Empirical returns are clear: each additional year of schooling can increase individual earnings by 8–10 percent globally, while healthy populations contribute to demographic dividends that accelerate societal progress.
In corporations, strategic human capital management drives innovation, adaptability, and stakeholder value. Talent-centric organizations cultivate cultures of continuous learning, psychological safety, and ethical purpose. They outperform asset-heavy competitors by leveraging knowledge workers to navigate disruption, as evidenced in Deloitte’s 2026 Global Human Capital Trends, which highlight that competitive advantage increasingly depends on human-edge scaling amid AI proliferation. Corporations that treat employees as investments rather than costs achieve higher engagement, retention, and long-term profitability.
For nations, human resource development constitutes the foundation of sovereignty, resilience, and inclusive growth. Policies that prioritize universal health, quality education, and lifelong skills—aligned with the World Bank’s HCI+ recommendations—reduce inequality, mitigate shocks (from pandemics to climate events), and position countries for participation in the global knowledge economy. Nations ignoring this reality risk stagnation, while those embracing it, as Singapore and South Korea have, convert human potential into geopolitical influence and shared prosperity.
Relevance to All-Round Leadership and Global/National Security: Empirical Foundations and Strategic Imperatives
The recognition of humans as the greatest wealth extends profoundly into the realm of all-round leadership and security, where human capital emerges as the indispensable foundation for holistic governance, resilience, and sustainable peace. All-round leadership—integrating self-mastery, visionary foresight, relational wisdom, strategic execution, team alignment, and ethical integrity—cannot flourish in isolation from a well-nurtured populace. Biblical leadership models, such as Nehemiah’s reconstruction of Jerusalem’s walls (Nehemiah 4–6), illustrate this synergy: wise, prayerful, and inclusive leadership combined with empowered citizens to restore both physical and spiritual security. Proverbs 29:18 reinforces the principle: “Where there is no vision, the people perish,” underscoring that visionary leaders depend on developed human potential to translate ideals into enduring stability.
Empirically, the Institute for Economics and Peace’s Global Peace Index 2025 and its Positive Peace framework provide robust international-standard evidence. Positive Peace comprises eight interconnected pillars that build resilience and prevent conflict, one of which is explicitly “High Levels of Human Capital.” This pillar—centered on education, skills, and health—shows one of the strongest positive correlations with overall peacefulness, well-functioning government, low corruption, and equitable resource distribution. Countries ranking high on the Human Capital Index consistently occupy the top positions in the Global Peace Index: Iceland, New Zealand, and the Nordic nations demonstrate how sustained investment in people generates not only economic vitality but also societal cohesion and institutional trust that underpin national security.
In contrast, nations trapped in the resource curse—rich in minerals yet deficient in human capital—exhibit heightened insecurity, including internal conflict, governance fragility, and vulnerability to external shocks. The IEP data reveal that improvements in human capital are among the most powerful predictors of sustained Positive Peace, enabling societies to absorb geopolitical, cyber, or environmental disruptions without descending into violence. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026 and Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 further corroborate this: human talent gaps exacerbate cyber vulnerabilities, supply-chain fragility, and leadership deficits in crisis response. Organizations and nations with robust human capital pipelines, by contrast, exhibit superior resilience through adaptive leadership and collective intelligence.
Strategically, all-round leadership thrives when human resources are cultivated as the primary asset. Harvard Business Impact’s 2025 Global Leadership Development Study highlights that organizations prioritizing human capital development produce leaders who excel in navigating volatility, fostering innovation, and upholding ethical standards—precisely the qualities required for 21st-century security challenges. At the national level, this translates into comprehensive security: not merely military defense but human security encompassing economic stability, food sovereignty, cyber defense, and social harmony. Singapore’s transformation and Israel’s innovation-driven defense ecosystem exemplify how human-centered strategies convert potential vulnerability into strategic strength. Investing in people thus becomes both a divine mandate and a pragmatic security imperative, creating resilient leaders and societies capable of stewarding peace amid uncertainty.
Conclusion: A Divine and Strategic Imperative for Investment
The greatest wealth is indeed not in the ground but on the ground—embodied in every human life created in God’s image. Biblical revelation affirms this dignity and dominion; empirical data from the World Bank’s HCI+ 2026, the Institute for Economics and Peace’s Global Peace Index 2025, and decades of econometric research demonstrate its productivity, leadership, and security dividends; and strategic frameworks from Becker, Drucker, and Barney prove its competitive necessity. Across individuals, corporations, nations, leadership, and security architectures, humans deliver possibilities that no extractive industry can match: innovation that solves intractable problems, relationships that build trust and cohesion, visionary governance that prevents conflict, and stewardship that sustains creation for future generations.
The call to action is both spiritual and pragmatic: invest sacrificially in people through education, healthcare, ethical leadership development, inclusive opportunity, and Positive Peace-building initiatives. In doing so, societies honor their Creator, unlock exponential value, fulfill the dominion mandate responsibly, and fortify all-round leadership and security in an interdependent world. In a world tempted by short-term extraction, the timeless truth endures—true riches walk upon the ground, bearing the image of God and the potential to transform everything they touch. Nations, organizations, and communities that recognize and cultivate this reality will not merely survive but flourish, leaving legacies of abundance, wise leadership, and enduring peace for generations yet to come.
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, and resilient nation-building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.com, globalstageimpacts@gmail.com
Related
Opinion
My Dear Brother, Dele Momodu by Segun Adeyemi
Published
6 days agoon
March 21, 2026By
Eric
Permit me to go straight to the heart of this message.
I can no longer pretend that I have not been following the deeply troubling and increasingly vile exchanges involving you and others in recent times.
What has now become a public brawl is unfolding on social media, an arena without boundaries, without gatekeepers and, it would seem, without red lines.
Social media is a most unforgiving theatre. Whatever is said there acquires a troubling permanence.
Long after we are gone, generations yet unborn need only type a name, and every word, spoken or hurled, rises again, fresh and unrelenting.
Should that not give us pause?
Should it not compel restraint in what we say, and even in what we choose to dignify with a response?
Of all those caught in this fray, you are the one I know, and have known for a very long time.
Our friendship dates back to 1977, a year before we gained admission into UNIFE. We worked together then as clerical officers in the University Library under Mr. Dipeolu (I hope I got that right. If I didn’t, I can be forgiven. It’s almost half a century ago).
That was long before fame found you. You were grounded, witty, perceptive and street-smart, yet deeply studious. Innovative. Brilliant. We competed, not in vanity, but in intellect, over the books we had read, the ideas we had encountered.
And we read, voraciously. How could we not, with the rare privilege of unfettered access to a university’s intellectual treasury?
We also had fun, maximum fun. We drank palm wine. We drank beer. We partied. We chased babes.
I remember accompanying you, many times, to visit your dear mother, of blessed memory, at her shop near the palace. She feted us each time. Ever so kind. Ever so motherly.
I recall meeting your brother, Dr. Ajayi, newly returned then, whose sports car was the talk of the town.
I reach back into these memories not out of nostalgia alone, but to establish my bona fides to write you this note, to remind you that I knew you before the noise, before the crowd and before the many voices that now speak at you and about you.
You have always earned your place through hard work, discipline and intellect. Many don’t know this, sadly. They only see the fun-loving Publisher of a popular society magazine.
I am not concerned here with who is right or wrong, nor with what ignited this present _Ija’gboro_, this no-holds-barred street fight where everything becomes a weapon, including shared history and past goodwill.
My concern is you, my friend, my colleague, my brother.
For the sake of all you hold dear; for the memory of your mother, whose dignity and values you carry; and for the sake of God, I urge you: find an off-ramp from this vicious freeway. Step away from this corrosive spiral now.
You are not the sum of the insults hurled at you. You are not the distortion others attempt to project. No.
You will recall that in those Ife days, you held British Philosopher Bertrand Russell in high regard. Russell once observed:
_”The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”_
Wisdom, my brother, often lies in restraint, in knowing when to disengage from the theatre of noise.
And perhaps you also read the works of another Philosopher, German Friedrich Nietzsche, whose haunting warning feels especially apt at a time like this:
_”He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.”_
There is yet another truth, often echoed across ages: when one descends into the arena with a beast, the spectators, in time, cease to know the difference. I didn’t say this to insult your opponents in this shameful arena. They are not my concern here.
I say this with all the affection and sincerity of a brother: rise above this moment. Withdraw your dignity from the marketplace of insults. Let silence, where necessary, speak louder than rebuttal.
May God guide your thoughts, guard your words and steady your steps at this time.
Yours ever so sincerely,
Segun ADEYEMI, a veteran journalist
Related


ADC Unveils Approved Timetable for Congresses, Convention
AFCON 2025: CAS Overturns CAF Verdict
MoneyMaster Enhances Banking App, Gifts Customers Data, Airtime
Iran Has Given Up on Nuclear Weapons, Trump Claims
IGP Disu Redeploys Top Police Officers in Major Shake-up
FG Helpless over Power Outages, Minister Adelabu Admits, Apologises to Nigerians
Obi Condemns Arrest of Sheikh Ahmad Shortly after Meeting in Kaduna
AFCON 2025: George Weah Urges CAS to Overrule CAF’s Verdict
My Dear Brother, Dele Momodu by Segun Adeyemi
Why Investing in People Outperforms Every Resource on Earth
Trump Announces 5-Day Ceasefire on Strikes Against Iran, Opts for Talks
The Travails of Nasir El-Rufai
Open Letter to British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer by Gold Emmanuel
Voice of Emancipation: President Tinubu’s State Visit to the United Kingdom
Trending
-
Sports6 days agoAFCON 2025: George Weah Urges CAS to Overrule CAF’s Verdict
-
Opinion6 days agoMy Dear Brother, Dele Momodu by Segun Adeyemi
-
Opinion6 days agoWhy Investing in People Outperforms Every Resource on Earth
-
World4 days agoTrump Announces 5-Day Ceasefire on Strikes Against Iran, Opts for Talks
-
Headline4 days agoThe Travails of Nasir El-Rufai
-
Opinion4 days agoOpen Letter to British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer by Gold Emmanuel
-
Voice of Emancipation5 days agoVoice of Emancipation: President Tinubu’s State Visit to the United Kingdom
-
Adding Value6 days agoAdding Value: The Six Pillars of Success Pt. 2 by Henry Ukazu

