Opinion

Opinion: Placing “Place Holders” Placeless

Published

4 years ago

June 28, 2022

Eric

By Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN, OFR, FCIArb, Ph.D, LL.D

INTRODUCTION

The APC political contraption never ceases to amaze and confound me. It intrigues me to no end. This is a party ( is it really one, going by the text book definition of a political in political Science ?) that rose from its often predicted imminent disintegration into smithereens, like a phoenix from its ashes, in a groggy, fumbling, wobbling, dawdling and near crumbling manner, to holding its first ever National Convention in March, 2022. At this swordy Convention, daggers were drawn and former two time PDP Governor and Senator, Abdullahi Adamu, was virtually crudely shoved down the already parched throats of majority of the APC members who had preferred former Nasarawa State Governor, Umaru Tanko Al-Makura as National Chairman. It was simply a triumph of a powerful minority cabal over a silent helpless majority. I had predicted this when I vigorously kicked against consensus as a substitute for direct primaries in the new Electoral Act of 2022.

THE TINUBU ABRACADABRA

The APC unsurprisingly harvested a turbulent National Primaries Convention on 9th June, 2022, where Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu valiantly shrugged off sustained attempts to muzzle him out of the presidential race through unorthodox means by a cabal believed to be working for President Muhammadu Buhari. Indeed, the “palace coup” executed by this faceless cabal headed by newly selected Adamu (they called it “election by consensus”), had told the whole world that the Senate President, Ahmed Lawan, had been anointed as the “consensus candidate”.

Tinubu, a political maestro, reached for his talismanic bag of “politricks”, fished out an abracadabra magical charm in a deft political move that led to some presidential aspirants stepping down for him right at the very venue of the Convention.

This was after the Northern APC Governors had unanimously and roundly rejected Adamu’s flown kite of “consensus” for Lawan. The NWC of the APC later completed the rejection of the Lawan farce. Tinubu later trounced Ahmed Lawan who garnered a miserable 152 votes (coming 4th position) with 1,271 winning votes. Tinubu also dusted Rotimi Amaechi (316 votes) to second position; while cerebral lawyer, Prof Yemi Osibanjo (whom many had thought taciturn and inscrutinable president Buhari would naturally hand over to, having served him with total loyalty and fidelity for 7 years), came sprawling on his belly to the third position, with a miserly 235 votes. In Nigeria, politics is politricks. It defies logic and sense.

“PLACE HOLDER” ZOOMS IN

So, APC continues to taunt us. From high-falutin and unfulfilled promises of 2015 and 2019 (robust economy; defeating boko haram and insecurity; killing corruption), the APC has now drawn us into a new era where it has introduced a new political terminology into our political lexicon and vocabulary. It is called “place holder”. Editor of Thisday Lawyer pages, daringly courageous, fecund, cerebral and intellectually-grounded writer, social critic and upscale layer, Onikepo Braithwaite (her mother is chief (Mrs) Priscilia Kuye, former NBA President; a fruit does not fall far away from the mother tree), provided us with a most apt title: “RUNNING MATE; DUMMY MATE!! This is one of the best titles I have ever seen as a journalist and writer myself. Thank you, Onikepo, for standing firm and nationalistic.

WHAT IS PLACE HOLDER?

The Free Dictionary defines “placeholder” as “One who holds an office or place, especially as a deputy, proxy, or appointed government official”.
Princeton’s Word Net sees placeholder “As a proxy, procurator; a person authorized to act for another.
Dictionary.com defines it as “something that makes or temporarily fills a place”.

A “Dummy candidate”, says Wikipedia, on the other hand (another terminology for placeholder), is a candidate who stands for election, usually with no intention or realistic chance of winning. Wikipedia is more exhaustive. It says
“a dummy candidate can serve any of the following purposes:

“In instant-runoff voting, a dummy candidate may direct preferences to other candidates in order to increase the serious candidate’s share of the vote.
“A dummy candidate may be used by a serious candidate to overcome limits on advertising or campaign financing. In India, for example there have been cases of serious candidates fielding multiple dummy candidates to distribute their poll expenses. The expenses are directed towards the campaign of the serious candidate, but shown to the election commission under the dummy candidates’ names.

“Dummy candidates with names similar to that of a more established candidate may be fielded by political parties to confuse the voters, and cut that candidate’s vote share. The dummy candidate’s name also may be deceptively similar to that of a retiring incumbent”.

THE PRESIDENT AND VP AS SIAMESE TWINS

The office of the President is an office that demands two good heads, having regard to the premium placed on the office. The Vice-President is not a substitute for the president: he is an ever-present partner, help and associate. While a person cannot occupy the office of the President in perpetuity, the office of the president remains perpetual. Every President must have a Vice-Present. The relation is like that of Siamese twins, tied together by the same umbilical cord. This is why some people have erroneously regarded a VP as a “spare tyre”. No, he is not! Can a “place holder” substitute for this?

The relationship between the President and the VP actually starts before the conduct of any election. As a matter of fact, Section 142 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (1999 Constitution) provides that:

“… a candidate for an election to the office of President shall not be deemed to be validly nominated unless he nominates another candidate as his associate from the same political party for his running for the office of President, who is to occupy the office of Vice-President and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Vice-President if the candidate for election to the office of President who nominated him as such associate is duly elected as president…”

There are at least five principles embedded in the provision above. First, every President must have a VP. Second, the validity of the nomination of a candidate for the office of the President is predicated solely on him nominating another candidate who shall serve as the VP. Third, if the nomination of a candidate to the office of the VP is provisional, the nomination of a candidate for the office of the President is provisional as well. Fourth, anything that invalidates the nomination of a candidate to the office of the VP, equally affects the candidate for the office of the President. Fifth, the candidate for the office of the President nominates the candidate for the office of the VP and is deemed to have acquiesced and agreed to be bound by any danger inherent his nominee. Sixth, the nominee and the nominator must belong to the same political party.
The nomination of a candidate for the office of the President and that of the VP is therefore joint. If the nomination of the candidate for the office of the VP is provisional, that of the President is equally provisional. It is inchoate. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. This is the first legal implication of taking a dangerous step such as this.
The intermediate court dilated on this relationship in quite an extensive manner in Atiku Abubakar v. Attorney-General, Fed. (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt 1022) 601 at 642. The Court held, Per Abdullahi, PCA, as follows:

“The President and the Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are jointly elected at a general election and the relationship between them is not that of a master and servant. In other words, the vice president is not an employee of the President or of the political party on whose platform they are both elected. In the instant case, the plaintiff not being an employee of the President or the political party on whose platform he was elected, he cannot be impliedly or constructively removed by either of them. “The Vice president, not being an employee cannot be impliedly or constructively removed. Assuming he qualifies as an employee, without, for a moment so deciding, his employer would most manifestly be the people of Nigeria, who elected him to the office, acting through their representatives in the national assembly but certainly not the President of the Federal republic of Nigeria nor the sponsoring political party. This assumption is based on the cliche that the power to hire is the power to fire embedded in Section 11 of the Interpretation Act. See Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 260) 65. In other words, this matter is a matter that falls squarely within the contemplation of Section 143 of the Constitution which expressly provides for the removal of the President and Vice President from office.”

THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF PLACING A PLACE HOLDER

At this stage, it is important, I clarify that a “candidate” for an election is different from the holder of the office of a VP. Section 152 of the Electoral Act, 2022, defines a candidate as a person who has secured the nomination of a political party to contest an election for any elective office. It is only the winning of an election that changes or translates a candidate to a VP. However, one need not be a candidate for an election before he can become a VP. This is because a VP is automatically selected as a running mate by a presidential candidate.

A political party bears the consequences of not submitting at all, or submitting an invalid candidate for an election. This is because by section 131(c) of the Constitution, a candidate for an election to the office of President must be sponsored by a political party. Section 84 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, states that a political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections shall organise primaries for the aspirants under the supervision of the Independent National Electoral Commission. Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act mandates every political party to submit to INEC, not later than 180 days before the date appointed for the general election, the candidates it is sponsoring in that general election. The submission of candidate to INEC constitutes a definite and unambiguous statement of the intent of the political party to have that candidate only as its representatives in the election. The nomination of a candidate and submission of his name by that political party to INEC therefore seals the sponsorship of a candidate for an election. Once the window of nomination closes, all parties become functus officio.

CAN THERE BE A SURROGATE RUNNING MATE?

Who then is a placeholder in relation to a candidate? A placeholder is not a candidate for an election. He is an unknown person who has the seal of a political party to occupy the position of an unknown person; a mere faceless surrogate. His position creates uncertainty in a political party as his presence can mar or invalidate the nomination of his principal. This person is clearly unknown to law and the political party that submits such an unknown person to INEC is deemed to be aware of its wrongdoing and must ready to face the consequences of its gamble.
The APC Presidential candidate, Bola Tinubu, had nominated Ibrahim Masari, a Katsina politician, as the party’s place holder or dummy candidate, for his yet to be named running mate, so as to beat the INEC deadline.

Masari had served the APC as its National Welfare Secretary under the Adams Oshiomhole – led, National Working Committee (NWC). It is believed that the issue of Tinubu having a Muslim-Muslim ticket (Prof Babangida Zulum of Borno State is said to be the preferred one) is tearing the party apart. Can they repeat the Abiola-Babagana “Hope 93” successful Muslim-Muslim joint ticket with the present state of the nation where religion is tearing apart? Only time will tell.

Similarly, the Labour party’s Presidential candidate, Peter Obi, is reported to have also opted to submit the name of his campaign Director General, Doyin Okupe, as his dummy/ place holding running mate.

Whereas section 29(1) of the 2022 Electoral Act, as amended, provides that political parties shall submit names of their candidates, not later than 180 days before the date appointed for the general election, Section 31 of the Act also gives the political parties an opportunity to withdraw and substitute their candidates, not later than 90 days before the election
Section 31 states that “A candidate may withdraw his candidature by notice in writing signed by the candidate to the political party that nominated him for such election and the political party shall covey such withdrawal to the Commission not later than 90 days to the election”.

The Commission had as part of its administrative arrangements given up till 6pm of Friday June 17, 2022, as deadline for the submission of names of candidates for the Presidential and National Assembly election; and 15th July, 2022, for the Governors and State Assembly candidates.

In fulfillment of Section 31 of the Electoral Act, the Commission gave July 15, 2022, as last day for withdrawal by candidates and replacement of withdrawn candidates by the political parties.

Similarly, the Commission also gave the parties up to August 12 for the withdrawal and replacement of withdrawn candidates by the political parties.

This means that the parties who are still facing crises over the choice of running mates still have until the July 15, 2022, to substitute the names being forwarded at the moment, with respect to the Presidential candidates.

Section 31 of the Electoral Act provides that a candidate may withdraw his or her candidature by notice in writing signed by him and delivered personally by that candidate to the political party that nominated him for the election and the Political party shall convey the withdrawal to INEC not later than 90 days before the election. “Candidate” under the Electoral Act, 2022, has a fixed meaning. The law did not say a candidate “includes”. It says it means. The question that calls for dispassionate determination is whether a placeholder qualifies as a candidate who has secured the nomination of his political party to contest an election? The answer can only be answered in the negative. Its identity speaks for itself. If a placeholder is not a candidate, then he is not a person known to law and envisaged by the law. Its nomination and the subsequent submission of this non-existent being to INEC is not a misnomer that can be remedied by replacement or withdrawal under Section 31. Its nomination and submission to INEC seals the fate of the political party that submitted its name.

ANY ESCAPE ROUTE?

The political parties have already submitted names of candidates. Section 142(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) clearly provides that the a Presidential candidate must nominate his running mate from the same political party. While Chapter VIII of the PDP Constitution provides for the nomination of candidates for election into public office; Article 20 of the APC Constitution provides for elections into elective positions and appointments. These are clear enough.

Having established that the existence of a placeholder is unknown to law, can this non-existent entity be replaced or substituted by a candidate? Some principles of law might be of help to us here. In the case of ANEGE & ORS v. ALANEME & ORS (2020) LPELR-50445(CA), Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, JCA, considered at pages 19 – 22 whether the court can grant an amendment for the substitution of a non juristic person with a juristic person. He held thus:

“… I have right from the onset stated that after filing the notice of preliminary objection by the defendant at the lower Court, the claimants thereafter filed a motion on notice to substitute the unregistered “Ideato Welfare Association” with “The Registered Trustees of Ideato Cultural and Welfare Association, Calabar” or to amend the status of the 1st and 3rd defendants to show that they are principal officers of the Registered Trustees of Ideato Cultural and Welfare Association, Calabar. A misnomer when associated with issues of juristic personality and mis-description of names of parties simply means the “wrong use of a name or a mistake in naming a person, place or thing, especially in a legal instrument which should ordinarily not lead to a nullification of the proceedings. In other word, a misnomer in the context of litigation occurs where the entity suing or intended to be sued exists, but a wrong name is used to describe that entity. The Supreme Court had recently restated the legal position in APGA Vs Ubah & Ors (2019) LPELR – 48132 (SC) held that if the entity intended to be sued exist but a wrong name is used to describe it, that is a misnomer. The Supreme Court has inter alia held that naming a non-juristic person as a party is not a misnomer and amending same to substitute a juristic person is out of it. This is so because there cannot be a valid amendment of the title of a suit since there never was a legal person who was brought before the Court by the action. And since to be competent a suit must be instituted between legally juristic persons, failing which it is incompetent and a juristic party cannot subsequently be amended to take the place of a non-juristic party originally sued. The correction made by the lower Court by replacing a non-juristic person with one with legal capacity was done without jurisdiction….”

Was a shadowing, ghost and non recognized “placeholder” or “dummy mate” ever contemplated by the Electoral Act of 2022, as a juristic person? I think not. Mr Sheriff Machina has already introduced this dangerous step through his “Deus ex Machina”, by bluntly refusing to step down for Senate President, Ahmed Lawan. Supposing Kabiru Masari, Ahmed Tinubu’s “dummy mate” proves stubborn and refuses to kowtow? What happens? Assuming Dr Doyin Okupe, Peter Obi’s D-G and place holder refuses to yield? What is INEC’s position on these? I see some legal fireworks in the offing in the next few days and weeks ahead. Politrics and Politricians!!!

Opinion

Tragic Lagos–Ibadan Expressway Accident: A National Indictment of Governance, Emergency Response, and Healthcare Failures

Published

4 hours ago

December 30, 2025

Eric

By Sen. Tolu Odebiyi

Today, during what should have been a season of reflection and goodwill, Nigeria was once again confronted with a preventable tragedy. A fatal road accident involving a globally celebrated boxer and members of his entourage during a visit to Nigeria has resulted in the loss of two lives. These individuals were visitors to our country, possibly experiencing Nigeria for the first time, and their deaths are both heartbreaking and deeply troubling.

While investigations into the circumstances surrounding the accident are ongoing, this incident exposes long-standing systemic failures in governance, emergency response preparedness, and healthcare infrastructure—particularly along the Lagos–Ibadan Expressway.

For far too long, critical governance attention has been diverted toward optics rather than outcomes. Successive administrations in Lagos and Ogun States have failed to prioritize the development of a first-class general hospital in the highly populated Mowe–Ibafo corridor, despite its strategic importance and persistent accident history. Equally concerning is the absence of ambulance points, trauma response units, and coordinated emergency medical services along one of the busiest and most dangerous highways in the country.

Repeated accidents along the Abeokuta–Sagamu and Lagos–Ibadan corridors have been extensively documented, yet no comprehensive or sustainable emergency response framework has been implemented. While the efforts of the Ogun State Traffic Compliance and Enforcement Agency (TRACE) and the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) during this incident are acknowledged and commendable within their operational limitations, these agencies cannot substitute for a properly resourced emergency healthcare system.

This tragedy raises urgent and legitimate questions that demand answers:
•   How long had the stationary truck involved in the accident been stranded on the highway?
•   What emergency warning systems or precautionary signals were in place to alert oncoming motorists?
•   Who is responsible for continuous highway monitoring and enforcement of speed regulations?
•   Why does a major international corridor still lack a dedicated, joint emergency medical response structure?

The broader concern is the disturbing normalization of avoidable loss of life in Nigeria. We are witnessing a gradual erosion of human dignity, where victims are left exposed in public view, and tragedy is reduced to fleeting online content. This reflects a deeper governance failure and a misplaced prioritization of social engagements over public safety.

At a time when Nigeria continues to seek foreign confidence, tourism, and global goodwill, such incidents place the country in an unflattering international spotlight. It is unacceptable that while preventable deaths occur daily on our highways, leadership attention appears more focused on ceremonial and social functions outside the country.

This moment must not be reduced to another reactive cycle of condolences, procurement announcements, and press briefings. What is required—urgently—is the development and execution of a holistic emergency response and healthcare master plan for the Lagos–Ibadan Expressway, jointly driven by Lagos and Ogun States in partnership with federal agencies.

Nigeria cannot continue to operate a governance model that reacts to tragedy instead of preventing it.

We extend our deepest condolences to the families of the deceased. May their souls rest in peace, and may those injured receive full recovery, dignity, and care.

Tolu Odebiyi, CON was a former Senator representing Ogun West

Opinion

In Defence of Dele Momodu by JJ Omojuwa

Published

2 days ago

December 27, 2025

Eric

If you are wise, you won’t disrespect Bobdee in my mentions. I can respect someone as much as I respect him, but it is impossible for me to respect anyone more than I respect Chief Dele Momodu. If he became President today, I couldn’t respect him more.

Hate him or love him, everyone should learn from him. I’ll tell why. The real story is in the last half of what I sense could become a long post, so you can just skip and go there, if you aren’t a reader. This is intended for readers though. It’s for reflection.

I have known him for longer, like all of us who grew up in the world of Ovation magazine, but we only connected physically at an event in Lagos in 2012. He offered access from the go. But people offer me access all the time. That was great but it is not what stands him out.

Since then, he has gone out of his way to look out for me. He once told a billionaire (billionaire who treats money as money loves to be, not the honorary media title) that I was the only one he could recommend. He didn’t have to. There is nothing I can do that no one else can’t. And this isn’t just about me, this is who he is. But whilst this is rare in a world where people only care for what you can do for them, this isn’t also why he stands out.

He stands out because, for a few years now our politics haven’t aligned. If he passes left, I go right. Not intentionally. We just happened to not be on the same side. However, he has done more for me since that misalignment than even when we were. It just has never been an issue. Ever. Sounds normal, but it isn’t.

I have lost a mentor because I disagreed with them on Twitter. Especially on an issue said person would have been vocal about if it wasn’t their ally taking deserved shots for corruption at the time. Lol. One for which said person was later removed from office during the last administration.

At a time when some powerful friends and allies were deemed to be my source of wealth and opportunities- despite contributing less than zero opportunities but 1000 vibes as politicians often do- he was dropping my name in big rooms (Bobdee has direct access to every billionaire in Africa and everyone else that matters). He did all these whilst we publicly disagreed on politics, 2019, 2023 and as of today, 2027 too lol.

I’d keep stuff like this between me and him. But I decided not to at this time. Not just because of the unwise people taking shots at him in my mentions whilst expecting my roses. Because upon reflection, knowing what I now know, Chief Dele Momodu is rare.

We live in a world where people expect you to agree with everything they agree with, disagree with everything they disagree with and any signal that you aren’t aligned means they’d either disengage with you or stop supporting you. On account of that, we have become a country with more than one country’s fair share of zombies per capita.

Bobdee thrives socially as he has over the last 4 decades because he holds nothing against anyone for disagreeing with him. In a world where people are only comfortable with keeping robots as aburos, friends and allies, he’d rather you are a person of yourself. That may not mean much to some, but to some of us, that is everything.

Everything. Because I know people who can’t even support another football club just because their ‘oga’ supports one. Football. Soccer. A meaningless subject that holds meaning only as an important thing amidst the unimportant things. Lol. People be laughing like fools and the joke isn’t even funny. I get it. Trust me, I do. Thank God for people like Dele Momodu. I don’t have to laugh if the joke isn’t funny.

Opinion

Prof. John Mearsheimer: America’s Strike in Nigeria is a Fatal Trap – Strategic Suicide Has Begun

Published

3 days ago

December 27, 2025

Eric

Hello to all the independent thinkers out there, and welcome back.

We need to cut through the noise immediately. If you open your newspapers today or scroll through your feeds, you are being bombarded with a very specific, very seductive narrative. You are reading about American power on display. You are reading that President Trump has ordered a powerful and deadly strike against Islamic militants in Nigeria to protect Christians.

You are hearing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declare that the killing of innocents must end and that the Department of War is always ready.

The media paints this as a righteous thunderbolt, a demonstration of resolve, a reassertion of American strength. Let me be blunt: this is not strength. This is a strategic hallucination.

What we are witnessing in West Africa is not the reawakening of a superpower. It is the strategic convulsion of a hegemon that has lost its mind. We are watching the United States once again fall into the trap of liberal hegemony, or in this case, a strange hybrid of moralistic crusading where we believe we have the right, the duty, and the capacity to socially engineer outcomes in a region that is of zero strategic importance to the vital national interests of the United States.

Let’s look at the mechanism of what actually happened. Stripped of the emotional rhetoric, the United States Navy fired more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Gulf of Guinea. These are premier, high-end assets. Each one of those missiles costs roughly $2 million.

And what did we hit? We hit two camps in Sokoto State in northwestern Nigeria. We hit insurgents who drive pickup trucks and hide in the bush.

Think about the cost-exchange ratio here. It is clinically insane. We are using multi-million-dollar munitions to destroy targets that are worth, at best, a few thousand in material assets.

But the financial cost is the least of our worries. The real cost is the strategic opportunity cost. I have been arguing for decades that the world is anarchic. There is no night watchman. States must prioritize their survival above all else.

And in the 21st century, the United States faces one and only one true existential threat. That threat is a rising China. China is a peer competitor. It has the population, the wealth, and the technological sophistication to dominate Asia and push the United States out of the Western Pacific. That is where the history of this century will be written.
Every hour that U.S. Africa Command, AFRICOM, spends planning strikes in Nigeria, every Tomahawk missile we fire into the Sahel, and every ounce of political capital we spend coordinating with the Nigerian military is a resource that is not being focused on the Indo-Pacific. It is a distraction.

And in the ruthless world of great power politics, distraction is death.

Beijing is watching this. They are looking at us firing cruise missiles into the Nigerian scrubland to avenge sectarian violence, and they are laughing. They see a superpower that is easily baited, easily distracted, and incapable of ruthless prioritization.
Now, let’s dissect the justification. The president stated explicitly that this was to protect Christians from Islamic slaughter. While the sentiment may be humanely understandable, relying on it for foreign policy is a recipe for disaster.

This is the logic of the Crusades, not the logic of realpolitik.

When the United States explicitly frames a military intervention in Africa as a defense of one religious group against another, we are not putting out a fire. We are pouring gasoline on it. We are validating the very propaganda of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, who claim the West is at war with Islam, by stepping into this sectarian quagmire where the conflict is driven by deep-seated ethnic divisions, competition for land, and economic banditry in the Northwest.

We are Americanizing the conflict. We are turning a local insurgency into a global target. Those Tomahawk missiles did not solve the problem. They just ensured that the next bomb that goes off might be aimed at an American embassy or an American business.

We are manufacturing enemies in a region where we should have no enemies because we should have no presence.

Furthermore, consider the moral hazard we are creating with the Nigerian government. We are told this was done in coordination with the Nigerian military. The Nigerian government, of course, loves this.

Why?

Because it allows them to buck-pass. In the offense of realism, buck-passing is when a state tries to get another state to fight its battles for it.

Nigeria is the most populous nation in Africa. It has immense oil wealth. It should be the regional hegemon of West Africa. It should be capable of policing its own borders and dealing with internal bandits. But for over a decade, their military has struggled against Boko Haram and ISWAP. Corruption is endemic. Incompetence is rife.

When Uncle Sam steps in with cruise missiles to do the job for them, what incentive does the Nigerian military have to reform? None. What incentive do they have to fix their own broken command structures? Zero.

We are effectively telling them, “Do not worry about your failure to govern. The United States Navy will act as your air force.” We are fostering dependency. We are underwriting a dysfunctional state. And just like in Afghanistan, just like in Vietnam, we will eventually realize that no amount of American firepower can substitute for a functioning local government.

We are building a castle on a foundation of quicksand.

Let’s go deeper into the structural forces at play here. The violence in Nigeria is not just about terrorist scum, as the president put it. It is a complex web. In the northeast, you have the jihadists like ISWAP. But in the northwest, where these strikes happened, the violence is largely driven by bandits and gangs kidnapping for ransom. These are criminal enterprises mixed with communal violence.

Does Washington really believe that a dozen cruise missiles can solve the socioeconomic collapse of northern Nigeria?

This is the hubris of the American elite. They believe there is a military solution to every political problem. They believe that if we just kill enough bad guys, peace will break out. It is a childish delusion. We killed thousands of Taliban. We killed thousands of insurgents in Iraq. And what happened? The structure of the conflict remained. The underlying political realities did not change.
The moment we leave—and we always leave—the void returns.

And look at the timing. Defense Secretary Hegseth mentions this happened on Christmas. It is theatrical. It is designed for domestic consumption. But foreign policy should never be a performance art.
When you launch missiles to send a message or to satisfy a domestic political constituency that is angry about the persecution of Christians, you are decoupling action from strategic interest.

The hard truth, the tragic truth that no one in Washington wants to admit, is that the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, while horrific, does not affect the balance of power in the international system. It does not threaten the territorial integrity of the United States. It does not threaten our prosperity. Therefore, purely from a survival standpoint, it is not our fight.
But we cannot help ourselves. We have this liberal impulse, even in a Republican administration, to be the savior. We see a monster and we want to slay it. But in the international arena, there are monsters everywhere. If we chase them all, we will exhaust ourselves.

We are currently overstretched in Europe, propping up Ukraine in a lost war. We are entangled in the Middle East, protecting Israel and fighting proxies in Syria. And now we are opening a new kinetic front in West Africa. This is imperial overstretch in real time.

Meanwhile, the Chinese are building islands. They are securing supply chains. They are not firing missiles into Nigeria.

They are building infrastructure there to extract resources. They are playing the long game of realpolitik while we are playing the short game of moralistic whack-a-mole.
We must understand the concept of limits. The United States is powerful, but it is not omnipotent. We cannot impose our will on every corner of the globe. The more we intervene in these peripheral theaters, the more we weaken our core. We are bleeding credibility. We are bleeding resources. And we are bleeding focus.

What will happen next? It is predictable. The strikes will be hailed as a success today, but next week or next month, the violence will return. The bandits will regroup. ISIS will recruit the survivors. The Nigerian government will ask for more help.
“We need drones,” they will say. “We need advisors.”

And slowly, imperceptibly, the mission will creep. We will get sucked in. Five years from now, we will be asking ourselves why American soldiers are dying in the Sahel.
We have seen this movie before. We saw it in Mogadishu. We saw it in the Niger ambush in 2017. We act shocked when it goes wrong. But the mechanism for failure is baked into the very decision to intervene.
If we were serious—truly serious—about American security, we would pack up AFRICOM’s kinetic ambitions and bring those resources home or send them to the Pacific. We would tell the Nigerian government, “This is your country. These are your borders. You fix it.”

That is what a ruthless, rational great power does. It passes the buck. It conserves its strength for the decisive battle.

But we are not acting like a rational great power. We are acting like a crusader state, drunk on its own righteousness, flailing blindly in the dark. And in the unforgiving structure of international politics, such behavior is not just a mistake. It is a tragedy waiting to happen.

The tragedy is not just that we will fail in Nigeria. The tragedy is that, in our obsession with the periphery, we are losing the center. We are losing the ability to distinguish between what feels good and what is necessary.

So as you listen to the cheers from the establishment about these air strikes, I want you to keep your eyes on the horizon. Do not look at the smoke rising from Sokoto. Look east. That is where the storm is gathering.
And we are woefully unprepared for it because we are too busy playing policemen in a neighborhood that we do not understand and cannot control.

Stay safe, stay skeptical, and never stop asking the hard questions about where your blood and treasure are actually going. The truth is usually uncomfortable, but it is the only thing that matters.

I will see you next