Connect with us

Opinion

President Trump’s Transformation of the Democratic System

Published

on

By Magnus Onyibe

President Donald J. Trump is actively reshaping the global political landscape, navigating the tension between globalization and fragmentation to establish a new order in the United States and, by extension, the world.

Before delving further into this discussion, I must disclose that I am an unapologetic supporter of the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. My support stems from my belief that he is undeniably a catalyst for change.

Many, including Democratic presidential candidates in the 2024 elections,ex president Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, have accused Trump of seeking to dismantle democracy. However, a more accurate assessment is that he is challenging the status quo in Washington through radical policy shifts. While Democrats frame his actions as a threat to democracy, I see this as a misleading narrative,because changing the dynamics of democracy does not equate killing it.

Despite the alarm raised by his opponents, American voters prioritized economic concerns—rising inflation, the high cost of living, soaring housing prices, and the influx of undocumented immigrants—over the warnings about imminent death of democracy. It was these pressing issues that motivated voters to support Trump’s return to the White House.

The more than 77 million Americans who voted for him did so because they believe he was on a mission to address what they see as a “woke” and financially struggling America. According to the Oxford Dictionary, “woke” refers to those who are socially aware but is often used pejoratively to describe individuals perceived as self-righteous or overly dogmatic in their advocacy.

True to his promises, Trump wasted no time in implementing his agenda. During his inauguration, he took a strong stance against “woke” ideology by affirming that the U.S. Constitution recognizes only two genders—male and female—a direct challenge to the LGBTQ+ community. He has since followed through on his pledges by signing a series of executive orders aimed at radically reshaping America.

So, from my perspective, Trump is simply fulfilling the commitments he made during his campaign. The backlash from those negatively affected by his policies is therefore unsurprising, yet it should not overshadow the fact that he is delivering the change that millions of Americans willingly voted for, believing it will restore the country’s greatness.

As someone who embraces change, I am excited to see a leader who challenges the status quo in public leadership finally take charge. That leader is Donald J. Trump, who has now assumed office in the White House, the seat of U.S. political power.
Given President Tinubu’s huge appettite for change which has wrought on Nigeria in the past 2O months,he may be said to be cut from the same cloth with Trump, literally speaking.

Mr. Trump as the leader of the free world- U.S, exerts enormous influence on global affairs, reinforcing the popular saying: when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. This is evident in Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on key trading partners—25% on Mexico, 25% on general goods plus 10% on Canadian oil, and 10% on China—primarily to curb illegal immigration and combat the flow of fentanyl, a deadly drug ravaging American communities.

Before Trump even took office, his threats of tariff hikes caused global concern. However, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, urged caution: “I am concerned, but my approach is to stay calm. Let’s wait to see what policies are actually enacted before overreacting.”

Despite this advice, some countries affected by the new tariffs —especially Mexico and Canada—have already announced retaliatory tariffs, raising fears of an all-out trade war. Meanwhile, China has opted for a legal approach, filing complaints against the U.S. through the WTO.

As the head of the WTO, Dr. Okonjo-Iweala will play a crucial role in resolving this looming global trade conflict. Given her extensive experience—including her tenure at the World Bank and her ongoing second term as WTO chief—there is hope that she can help de-escalate tensions.

Anticipating the economic impact of the trade war, President Trump has urged Americans to brace for temporary hardships, acknowledging that tariffs might contribute to inflation. However, he remains confident that the outcome will ultimately benefit the country, declaring: “This will be the golden age of America. Will there be some pain? Yes. But we will make America great again, and it will be worth the price.”

This sentiment is reminiscent of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu’s remarks when he removed the long-standing fuel subsidy and floated the naira, leading to economic hardship for Nigerians. He reassured the nation, saying: “I understand that our people are suffering, but there can be no childbirth without pain. The joy of childbirth is the baby. Relief comes after the pain. Nigeria is being reborn.”

Remarkably,Trump’s policies signal a fundamental shift away from globalization—a concept introduced between 1870 and 1914 and later popularized in 1983 by economist Theodore Levitt in his essay titled “The Globalization of Markets.” The current global order, shaped by decades of economic integration, now faces disruption under Trump’s America First doctrine, which prioritizes national interests over international cooperation.

Interestingly, Trump’s long-held stance on tariffs is not new. In a resurfaced 1978 interview with Oprah Winfrey, he expressed similar views, making it clear that his current trade policies have been decades in the making.

While trade wars typically harm weaker economies (when elephants fight, the grass suffers), Africa might stand to benefit from this geopolitical shift. As tensions escalate among major trading partners—U.S., Canada, Mexico, and China—Africa, historically seen as merely a source of raw materials, could emerge as an alternative manufacturing hub.

For instance, Nigeria’s oil exports to the U.S. declined significantly under President Barack Obama, with Canada and Mexico becoming America’s top crude suppliers. However, if the trade war leads to disruptions in North American oil exports, Trump may turn back to Nigeria, currently the 8th largest supplier, to fill the gap.

So, rather than viewing Trump’s policies as purely negative, it may be worth considering the potential opportunities they create for Africa. As a matter of fact , instead of getting caught up in narratives of doom and gloom, could this be a moment for the continent to reposition itself as a key player in the evolving global trade landscape?

I would argue that it is time for the world to recognize that Africa is not a problem to be solved but a vital part of the global solution. Thats owed to the fact that the continent holds vast reserves of critical minerals essential for the energy transition that the world desperately seeks. Rather than being viewed merely as a supplier of raw materials, Africa should be seen as a prime destination for investment and industrial partnerships.

There is a well-known economic principle that a rising tide lifts all boats and yachts. In that spirit, industrialized nations like the U.S. and China must acknowledge that Africa—home to 54 countries and a population of approximately 1.5 billion, larger than China’s 1.3 billion and rivaling India’s 1.4 billion—is not a charity case but an investment opportunity.

As a long-time advocate for Africa’s economic resurgence, I have consistently argued that the continent needs trade, not aid. So, it is imperative that major global economies shift their perception of Africa from a passive recipient of aid to an active economic partner. Historically, Africa has been exploited—most notably through the partitioning of the continent at the 1884–1885 Berlin Conference, where European powers divided African territories for their own benefit. As a result, Africa has remained marginalized in global trade, accounting for less than 3% of total global trade, despite having 18% of the world’s population.

To secure a greater share of global trade, Africa must be integrated into the evolving international economic order. Without disruptions to the existing system—such as those triggered by President Trump’s policies—meaningful change is unlikely. Given the resistance Africa has faced in its bid to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, a fundamental shift in global power structures, like the one Trump is advocating, may be necessary for Africa to be taken seriously as a key player in international trade.

At this moment in history, the world may actually benefit from the tensions between defenders of the entrenched old order and leaders like Trump, who are determined to shake up the system. Since assuming office on January 20, 2025, Trump has been implementing the bold changes he promised during his campaign. In my assessment, the mandate given to him by American voters provides a unique opportunity to push for a rebalancing of global trade and governance.

Throughout history, transformative change has always required bold action. If astronauts had not pushed boundaries, Neil Armstrong would never have walked on the moon in 1969, a breakthrough that reshaped human understanding of the universe. Similarly, astronomer Galileo’s discoveries challenged the belief that the Earth was flat, while it is actually cylindrical paving the way for modern scientific thought. It is this same drive for progress that appears to be fueling Trump’s disruptive approach to governance.

Keyu Jin, a professor of economics and author of The New China Playbook, recently highlighted a growing shift in global trade patterns, noting that China and other nations have been diversifying their markets away from the U.S. even before the current tariff wars. Therefore,Trump’s policies are merely accelerating this trend. In Europe, for instance, we are seeing a rise in nationalist-leaning leaders, particularly in France and Germany, who are also prioritizing domestic interests over globalism.

This geopolitical realignment is further evident in the expansion of BRICS—a coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—which has recently welcomed new members like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt. As more countries join BRICS in an effort to counterbalance U.S. influence, and attempts to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar in global trade may intensify. The general belief is that if America continues using tariffs as a tool to pressure its trading partners, it risks pushing them further toward alternative alliances, potentially diminishing its own economic influence. But would that really be the case?

For Africa, this shifting landscape presents an opportunity. If trade flows are redirected away from the U.S., Africa could gain a larger share of global commerce—but only if the continent positions itself strategically. With the establishment of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), headquartered in Ghana, Africa is already laying the groundwork to take advantage of this new world order.

While Trump’s critics have valid concerns about the potential risks of his sweeping policy changes—particularly the hardship caused by the deportation of undocumented immigrants and disruptions in U.S. aid to Africa( which was later restored) it is also worth considering the potential long-term benefits of a restructured global economy.

The changes unfolding in global trade could open up unprecedented opportunities for Africa. If the continent plays its cards right, it could emerge as a major beneficiary of the ongoing shake-up. So, instead of viewing Trump’s policies solely through the lens of crisis, perhaps it is time to explore how Africa can leverage this moment to secure a more equitable role in the global economy.

A US based Nigerian Professor Ndubuisi Ekekwe describes Trump’s leadership as a “tsunami-earthquake-storm” approach, highlighting the unprecedented nature of shutting down USAID. According to him, this move signals a clear message to the world—that America has no obligation to fund or influence other nations through soft power. However, he suggests that this could actually be a positive development if African leaders step up and take responsibility.

He further explains how foreign aid often distorts markets and hinders sustainable development. For instance, an entrepreneur might develop a viable product in healthcare, education, or agriculture, only for an aid agency to introduce a similar product for free. This forces local businesses to shut down, and once the aid funds disappear after a few years, communities are left worse off, having lost both the external support and the local solutions that were once in place.

Rather than panicking over these funding cuts, Professor Ekekwe urges African governments to seize the opportunity by creating systems to identify and assist citizens in need. He argues that without external interference, local businesses can step in to fill market gaps, and governments can provide targeted support to those who truly require it. He points out that Africa has a long history of self-reliance and should return to indigenous solutions rather than depending on unpredictable foreign aid.

This perspective aligns with the arguments earlier made by economist Dr. Dambisa Moyo in her ground breaking book “Dead Aid”, where she contends that Western aid has done more harm than good in Africa.

Considering Trump’s repeated assertion that his second term marks a “golden age” for America, it is possibly a golden age for Africa too as the continent could benefit—if it strategically positions itself to take advantage of the shifting global order being shaped by Trump’s policies.

Magnus Onyibe, a public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, (2003-2007) sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

When Men in Power Feel Threatened: Obiageli Ezekwesili vs Senator Nwebonyi

Published

on

By

By Oyinkan Andu

Nigerian politics has never been a bastion of decorum, but even by our standards, the recent Senate committee hearing was a spectacle. What was supposed to be a forum for governance quickly devolved into a verbal brawl, with Senator Nwebonyi launching into a tirade against former Minister of Education, Obiageli Ezekwesili The exchange—filled with name-calling and personal insults—was as telling as it was embarrassing.

If there’s one thing that rattles the political establishment in Nigeria, it’s an outspoken woman who knows what she’s talking about. And that’s exactly what Ezekwesili represents.

Power and Gender
This was not just a disagreement over policy. If it were, we would have seen a spirited debate backed by facts and counterarguments. Instead, we witnessed what has become a predictable pattern: a powerful woman challenging the system and being met not with logic but with derision.

Ezekwesili has built a career on holding power to account. From her time in government to her role in the Bring Back Our Girls movement, she has consistently pushed for transparency and justice. She is not known for being timid. But in Nigeria, confidence and competence in women are often seen as provocation rather than virtue.

Senator Nwebonyi’s outburst was not just about a disagreement—it was a performance. A warning. A reminder that no matter how qualified or respected a woman is, the political boys’ club will not hesitate to put her “in her place.”

A System Built to Humiliate Women in Power
We’ve seen this before. The Nigerian political arena is no stranger to public humiliations aimed at female leaders.

Dora Akunyili faced relentless attacks for daring to reform NAFDAC.

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala was branded a “foreign agent” when she pushed for economic reforms.

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended after speaking out against the Senate President.

It is the same old playbook: when women hold power to account, the response is not to engage—it is to attack.

The Spectacle Over Substance Problem
What makes this clash even more concerning is how quickly our political discourse is degenerating into theatre. Instead of focusing on policy, lawmakers are turning committee hearings into reality TV auditions, complete with shouting matches and insults. This is more than just bad optics—it’s dangerous.

One would expect that a senator, tasked with shaping the laws of a country, would at least have the intellectual stamina to engage in a meaningful debate. But apparently, that’s asking for too much.

Instead of challenging Ezekwesili on substance, Senator Nwebonyi opted for personal attacks—an age-old trick used by those who have run out of ideas. It’s almost as if logic took one look at the Senate chamber that day and quietly excused itself.

How does a man get elected to the highest lawmaking body in the country, only to behave like a schoolyard bully? Shouldn’t there be an entrance exam for basic reasoning before handing out Senate seats? Or at the very least, a crash course in How to Argue Without Embarrassing Yourself 101?

Perhaps the real problem is that Senator Nwebonyi was simply outmatched. In a battle of wits, he brought a dull spoon to a sword fight. And when words failed him, he defaulted to insults—because nothing exposes intellectual bankruptcy faster than resorting to name-calling.

The sad reality is that few will be surprised by what happened between Senator Nwebonyi and Obi Ezekwesili. Many will even justify it. But the question is: will we ever demand better?

Will we insist on a political culture where disagreements are debated, not reduced to playground insults?

Will we support women who dare to challenge the status quo instead of letting them be shouted down?

Will we hold those in power accountable for their actions instead of treating these moments as entertainment?

If we do not demand better, we will continue to see our political institutions degrade into arenas of ego and pettiness rather than governance. And if that happens, we can not act shocked when the country remains in a perpetual state of dysfunction.

The real scandal is not that a senator insulted Ezekwesili—it’s that this is what governance in Nigeria has become.

Continue Reading

Opinion

President Tinubu’s Silence on Wike: A Calculated Gambit or Political Oversight?

Published

on

By

By Oyinkan Andu

Hours after the March 18 explosion on the Trans Niger Pipeline – which threatened to upend the transportation of 245,000 barrels of crude oil daily – President Bola Ahmed Tinubu took decisive action by declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State. The move was undeniably bold, but also deeply ironic.
Flashback to 2013, when Tinubu, then opposition leader, furiously condemned former President Goodluck Jonathan’s declaration of a state of emergency in parts of Northern Nigeria. He decried it as a “ploy to subvert constitutional democracy” and warned of its destructive consequences. While the 2013 emergency was aimed at addressing a genuine humanitarian crisis in the face of Boko Haram insurgency, the context now is starkly different – politically motivated turmoil in Rivers State, driven by the power struggle between President Tinubu’s allies.

The Dangers of a State of Emergency in the Niger Delta

Looking back at Nigeria’s history, it’s hard to ignore the dark shadows of military rule, where states of emergency were routinely invoked as political tools. Under military regimes from the 1960s to the 1990s, emergency powers were used to quell dissent and assert control, often at the cost of democratic freedoms. From General Yakubu Gowon’s administration, which invoked emergency rule during the Civil War, to Ibrahim Babangida’s deployment of the same tactic to suppress electoral uprisings, Nigeria has seen firsthand the dangers of turning to emergency rule in times of political unrest.

These authoritarian precedents have often led to deeper divisions and instability, fostering environments ripe for corruption and manipulation. President Tinubu’s potential misuse of the state of emergency in Rivers State echoes this troubling past, underscoring how history could repeat itself if Nigeria’s political elites continue to prioritise personal alliances over democratic principles.

History teaches that such measures often spark unintended consequences: renewed piracy, cultism, and an uptick in kidnappings. It threatens to undermine the peace painstakingly fostered by the Niger Delta Amnesty Program since 2009. The real danger? A resurgence of inter-militant warfare, as the Wike and Fubara factions, already drawing lines in the sand, could plunge the region into a new cycle of chaos and vendettas.

The real irony? Tinubu’s deafening silence on Nyesom Wike’s role in this mess. The man at the heart of the Rivers crisis, Wike, remains untouched by the political fallout, and yet his actions remain a looming shadow over the state’s governance. Why?

The Rivers State Crisis

To get a sense of the stakes, one must understand the underlying political drama that’s been unfolding in Rivers State. It all began with Wike’s choice of Siminalayi Fubara as his successor in 2023. What seemed like a smooth transition turned into an intense clash of egos and ambitions. Fubara, instead of toeing Wike’s line, started flexing his independence, particularly by resisting Wike’s influence from Abuja.

What followed? Political warfare.

Wike’s loyalists in the Rivers State House of Assembly attempted an impeachment of Fubara. In response, Fubara dissolved the assembly, triggering a constitutional crisis. Then, the Rivers House of Assembly complex mysteriously caught fire, sparking accusations of foul play. Fubara, in a rash display of misguided impunity, demolished the complex, citing safety concerns, but fuelling allegations of erasing evidence.
The more this drama unfolded, the more one figure remained untouchable: Wike.

Tinubu’s Selective Accountability

President Tinubu, however, has opted for a peculiar kind of selective accountability. He swiftly reprimanded Fubara, yet remained silent on Wike’s clear interference in the affairs of Rivers State. His silence is deafening, especially when PDP Governors openly criticised Wike’s destabilising influence. Why? Is Wike above reproach?
The silence, coupled with the fact that civil society groups and opposition figures have questioned President Tinubu’s inaction, has raised critical questions about whether Tinubu is playing favorites.

Nyesom Wike – The Untouchable

A plausible explanation for President Tinubu’s reluctance to confront Wike may lie in the realm of political debt. In the 2023 elections, Wike defied his own party, the PDP, and backed Tinubu’s presidential bid. This defection was pivotal in securing Rivers State for Tinubu. In return, Wike secured the cushy post of Minister for the Federal Capital Territory, further entrenching his influence.

The question now is whether President Tinubu is unable to hold Wike accountable due to this political debt. President Tinubu may view Wike’s support as indispensable for his broader 2027 political ambitions, particularly in neutralising the PDP and bolstering his hold in the South-South. But this kind of political manoeuvring is a dangerous gamble. By selectively punishing Fubara while allowing Wike to go unchallenged, Tinubu risks institutionalising a culture of impunity which directly challenges his Hope Renewed agenda.

Wike’s Troubling Track Record

Wike is no stranger to accusations of overreach and intimidation. During his tenure as Governor of Rivers State, his administration was plagued by Allegations of using security forces to silence opposition and undue influence over judicial matters to maintain his grip on power.

This history of excess, combined with President Tinubu’s blind eye, raises serious concerns about the future trajectory of governance in Rivers State—and Nigeria at large.

From Lagos to Rivers, powerful figures who control the strings of political fortunes in their states have often used this leverage to demand loyalty from political protégés. Wike’s unchecked influence could very well be a continuation of this political tradition, where the state apparatus bends to the will of the godfather, rather than the people.

The Broader Implications for Nigerian Democracy

The turbulence of Nigeria’s post-1999 civilian government era remains a cautionary tale. Though Nigeria made strides in its return to democracy, its political stability remains fragile. Many of the challenges faced in the post-1999 era — rigged elections, systemic violence, and political manipulation still persist and appear to be directly incompatible with the promised “Renewal” we voted for in the 2023 election, so why maintain the status quo? The failure to hold Wike accountable continues this troubling tradition of weak governance and selective justice. When Nigerian leaders are continuously carte blanche to act without consequence, it escalates a negative trajectory in an environment where impunity already flourishes. It also sets a dangerous precedent for other politicians, who might see the president’s inaction as an endorsement of their own ambitions, no matter how disruptive.

If President Tinubu continues to shield Wike from accountability, it could further erode the public’s trust in the rule of law and democratic institutions and the “hope” that’s already on life support might flatline entirely.

The longer he withholds action, the greater the cost—both for his credibility and for the future of Nigeria’s democracy.
As Nigeria watches, one thing is clear: silence in this case is not neutrality—it is complicity.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Akpoti-Uduaghan vs The System: A Battle for the Soul of Nigeria

Published

on

By

...Examining the Court’s Ruling on Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Recall

By Oyinkan Andu

The Federal High Court’s decision to vacate the order restraining INEC from receiving recall petitions against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan might seem like another legal technicality. But in Nigeria, where democracy often functions like a high-stakes chess game, it’s far more than that.

Yes, the ruling reaffirms the constitutional right of constituents to recall elected officials. But it also raises a pressing question: is this a legitimate expression of voter dissatisfaction or just another political tool wielded to neutralise opponents?

In a political landscape as ruthless as Nigeria’s, recall mechanisms can be easily weaponised. Imagine a system where every ambitious politician, backed by well-oiled interests, could trigger a recall simply to distract, destabilise, or discredit an opponent. That’s not democracy—that’s guerrilla warfare.

The courts, therefore, carry the weighty responsibility of ensuring that recalls serve the people, not political vendettas. While this ruling allows the petition process to proceed, INEC must still verify whether it meets legal standards. The real challenge? Ensuring the recall process remains a tool of accountability, not an instrument of sabotage.

A Battle Beyond the Courts

There’s an unspoken rule in Nigerian politics: women must play by different rules or risk being destroyed. Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is learning this the hard way.

When she accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexual harassment, the expected reaction should have been outrage, an investigation, something. Instead, she was swiftly suspended for six months—punished for daring to speak out in a system meticulously designed to silence women like her.

The backlash followed a familiar script. Yet, something unprecedented happened: many Nigerians rallied behind her.

For a country where high-profile accusations of sexual misconduct have historically met women with more backlash than justice, this shift was remarkable.

Consider Busola Dakolo’s case against Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo—the backlash was so severe that she eventually fled the country briefly. The playbook is always the same: discredit, dismiss, destroy.

Yet, despite the growing support Akpoti-Uduaghan has received, scepticism remains.

Some immediately doubted her claims—not just out of political distrust, but because the truth can be too unsettling to confront. What if she’s pulling back the curtain on something too ugly to acknowledge? What if this is just the tip of the iceberg—a world where male politicians have long wielded power with unchecked impunity, protected by silence, complicity, and fear? Or worse still, what if some female politicians, past and present, have been coerced into submission, while others—women who could have reshaped Nigeria’s political landscape for the better—were cast aside and destroyed simply for refusing to play along?

Others dismissed her as yet another ambitious politician playing the game. They scrutinised everything—her privileged background, her past as a single mother, even her audacity to be politically ambitious.

But did they stop to ask: what if she’s telling the truth?

Her allegations don’t exist in a vacuum. Investigative reports from The Guardian and Al Jazeera have hinted at murmurings—and even documented claims—about Akpabio’s conduct. Former aides and political insiders have whispered about inappropriate behavior for years. But like so many before, these allegations were swept under the rug.

The same forces that fuel scepticism today—patriarchy, political self-interest, and distrust of authority—are the ones that have allowed such claims to be ignored in the past.

If history teaches us anything, it’s that impunity thrives in silence. And yet, silence is precisely what is expected of women in Nigerian politics.

Speaking Out Isn’t Just Hard—It’s Dangerous
Calling out powerful men in Nigeria doesn’t just lead to public humiliation—it’s a battle for survival. If Akpoti-Uduaghan is telling the truth, she isn’t just fighting for justice; she’s fighting for her future.

Women across Africa who challenge power rarely escape unscathed:

Fatou Jagne Senghore (Gambia) was persecuted for pushing gender rights.
Stella Nyanzi (Uganda) was jailed for calling out misogyny.
Joyce Banda (former President of Malawi) endured relentless smear campaigns simply for daring to lead.
Nigeria is no different. The system is designed to make women regret speaking up.

Why Is It So Hard to Believe Women?

Scepticism toward Akpoti-Uduaghan follows predictable lines. She’s a politician. In a system riddled with corruption, people assume any claim is a power move.

She’s privileged. Many believe wealth should shield a woman from harassment. In reality, privilege just makes her easier to discredit.
She’s a single mother. Nigerian society weaponises a woman’s personal life. Being unmarried or divorced is treated as a flaw, making her an easy target.
She’s up against a powerful man. This isn’t just any politician—Akpabio is the Senate President. This is a battle between an insider and an inconvenient woman.
In a system that prioritises the status quo, it’s always easier to believe a woman is lying than to confront the reality that a powerful man might be guilty.

A Nigerian #MeToo Moment?
Nigeria has dodged its #MeToo reckoning for years.

In 2017, the U.S. saw powerful men fall as women spoke out. In Nigeria, women who speak up are ridiculed, threatened, or erased.

Now, with Natasha’s case, we stand at a crossroads:

If she is lying, let the evidence prove it.
If she is telling the truth and is destroyed for it, what does that say about us as a society?Let’s us also give her the benefit of the doubt that she may not have planned to reveal this issue if her hand was not forced by the Senate presidents petty actions against her while undergoing her duties.
This isn’t just about Natasha. This is about every Nigerian woman who has been afraid to speak.

It’s why women’s groups chant “We Are All Natasha.” It’s not just a slogan—it’s a demand for change. If a senator can be silenced, what hope do ordinary women have?

Beyond Politics: This Is About Justice
Forget party lines. Forget personal opinions about Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. This is about justice.

What allegedly happened to her could happen to any woman—any woman who dares to say, “Enough.”

So will Nigeria listen? Or will we continue silencing women until they stop speaking altogether?

A Shifting Demographic Tide—And A Hopeful Future
There’s something the system isn’t ready for: women are becoming the majority.

Demographic studies show that across Africa, female populations are growing faster than male populations due to socio-economic factors. This shift could fundamentally change power dynamics.

A growing female electorate will demand better representation.
As women gain economic power, traditional gender roles will evolve.
A society that values female leadership is more likely to embrace justice, collaboration, and reform.

But change is never welcomed by those who benefit from the status quo. The very trend that could lead to a more equitable Nigeria is already provoking backlash.

The Real Battle: Will Nigeria Listen?
At its core, this is a battle over Nigeria’s future.

Will we continue a culture where speaking up comes at a cost too high to bear? Or will we seize this moment to redefine the standards of justice and power?

The courage of women who speak out must be celebrated, not condemned. Because if a senator, armed with privilege and power, can be silenced—what chance do the millions of silenced women stand?

And so, the question remains: Will Nigeria listen?

Continue Reading

Trending