There has been an outpouring of varied reactions since yesterday’s announcement of a state of emergency in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states by President Goodluck Jonathan.
Opposition Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) described it as lacking in original thinking and therefore asked the National Assembly to reject it. It argued that while the president was right in expressing outrage over the mindless killings and wanton destruction by the insurgents, he was wrong in proposing more of the same measures that have failed to yield results.
”If the medicine given to a patient has not cured his or her illness, is it not futile to prescribe more of the same medicine for the patient? If the declaration of a state of emergency in 15 local government areas in four states in 2011 has not curbed the activities of the insurgents, why extend such measure to other areas? If the use of force in the affected states has failed to curtail the activities of the insurgents, why send in more troops?” ACN’s National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed queried in a statement issued in Abuja on Wednesday.
”There is nothing new in the president’s action. It is more of the same: deployment of more troops to the affected states and the use of tougher, scorched-earth tactics against the insurgents. In the first instance, this stepped-up militarization of the states amounts to an asymmetric use of force in an environment where the insurgents operate within a civilian population, hence it will ultimately be counterproductive as the death toll will continue to mount while the civilian population — who will be caught in the cross fire — will be alienated.
”Secondly, the president should go ahead and disband the committee he recently inaugurated and saddled with reaching out to the insurgents, because by opting to flood the states with more troops under an ill-advised emergency rule, he has succeeded in pulling the carpet from under the committee’s feet. Who negotiates genuinely with a gun to his head? The committee’s job is over; the members can as well pack up and go home.
”Thirdly, one hopes the president’s action is not linked to the politics of 2015. With the three states militarized, there can neither be electioneering campaign nor voting there. We had warned earlier that as 2015 approaches, the Jonathan Administration will increasingly take measures that will make it impossible to hold election in many states The over militarization of some states in the north, the plan to destabilise the South-west using slush funds from the so-called oil pipeline protection contract and the infantile threats from some Niger Delta militants seem to be part of this plan.
”Fourthly, what happens if and when the declaration of emergency rule fails to stem the violence, now that the president has gone for broke and played his last card? In view of the reasons stated above, we hereby reject the declaration of emergency rule in the three states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe, and we call on the National Assembly to also reject it and not allow itself to be used to rubber stamp a declaration that is largely cosmetic.
ACN reiterated earlier statements that the Boko Haram crisis has its roots in years of bad governance that have produced an army of unemployed,
unemployable, disenchanted and demoralized youths who are now ready hands and willing tools for those seeking to perpetrate violence.“The unprecedented corruption across the land, as well as injustice and extra-judicial killings are also fuelling this crisis,” it added.
“While the short-term solution to the Boko Haram crisis should be a combination of dialogue and a minimal use of force, the long-term measure to deny Boko Haram of willing recruits and make the sect unattractive to anyone is to ensure that the State can adequately meet the yearnings and aspirations of its citizens.
“And the only way to do this is through good governance that delivers the dividends of democracy to the citizens; stamps out corruption and ensures a just and equitable society. Boko Haram is like a bad tree. To kill it, it must be uprooted, instead of trimming its branches. The measures announced by President Jonathan on Tuesday will not deliver the killer punch to this reprehensible sect. There is need to think out of the box.”
Responding, the Peoples Democratic Party described the reaction of the Action Congress of Nigeria to the declaration of state of emergency in three states of the North East as that of a political party speaking from either a diseased and confused state of mind: a blackmailer who doesn’t mind doing the trifle to remain relevant, or a political party actively conniving at this mindless war on Nigeria.
Chief Olisa Metuh in a press statement, said,“Yesterday, the ACN, the sole repository of Solomonic wisdom, who was against Amnesty to insurgents, who indeed described the Federal Government in unprintables has today turned a proselyte of amnesty and dialogue.”
“Few things are possible. The ACN and their cohorts in the opposition are behind insurgents and therefore must subvert every measure taken by government to tackle escalating insurgency. We recall that the opposition boasted recently that they would end the Boko Haram scourge within two months of their presidency. There is no smoke without fire.”
“The other is that the opposition sees the escalating terror as short-cut to power. Recall also that the statements of the leaders of the opposition at the eve 2011 presidential election gave birth to violence which has snowballed today into terrorism.”
“We therefore call on the leaders of the opposition to remove the mask on their faces and publicly declare their stand,” a statement from the National Publicity Secretary of the PDP, Chief Olisa Metuh, said.
“But we must educate the ACN,” the statement continued. “The state of emergency does not run contra to the spirit and the assignment of the presidential committee on amnesty. The committee will take the job to its logical, fruitful end while the deployment of more troops under the emergency is an irreducible necessity to stem a determined war on the nation.”
” May we also educate the ACN that a just and equitable society cannot be achieved over night in the same manner, good governance is not an already- made commodity waiting on the counter. We wish to emphasize that in over a decade, the PDP has not only rebuilt the decayed fabrics of the nation but has taken recognizable and commendable steps in the direction of good governance. We shall remain committed to that despite distractions.”
“What is new in what the President has done if we must again tell the ACN, is that President Jonathan is a core democrat, who appreciates the core values of democracy and who believes firmly that democracy must be practiced in Nigeria in its undiluted form. (Perhaps the ACN had waited for the dissolution of political structures so as to stretch further it’s blackmail) What is new is that the President by offering amnesty has opened the window for insurgents with genuine agitations to access redress while stopping intransigent criminality from consuming the nation.”
In his own reaction, President of the Christian Association Nigeria (CAN), Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor has described the declaration as a justified action and a vindication of CAN’s position that negotiation with terrorists will always end up a futile exercise.
“We are being vindicated that no reasonable agreement can be reached with terrorists,” he said in a statement release by Kenny Ashaka, his spokesperson.
According to Oritsejafor, not dissolving the political structures coupled with the retention of the office of the governors are signposts that President Goodluck Jonathan is a democrat and that the action of the president is also an indication that he is primarily concerned with the issue of human rights abuses and the need to secure the territorial integrity of Nigeria.
While saying that the state of emergency declared in the three states is not unexpected, he called on the three governors to reciprocate the kind gesture by cooperating with those charged with the responsibility of bringing down the insurgency, just as he called on all Nigerians of goodwill, in and outside the three states, to join hands with the Federal Government in dealing with the Boko Haram issue.
Also reacting, Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu argued that the president's declaration was a necessary step to curtail the excesses of the Boko Haram insurgents.
He commended President Jonathan for following the constitutional prescriptions that provided that all elected structures should remain in cases of emergency. He said the Jonathan example would correct previous misinformation concerning state of emergency as it was implemented unconstitutionally before now.
“Importantly, I commend the president for abiding strictly with constitutional provisions on State of Emergency by taking only the requisite extraordinary measures to contain the insurgence and insecurity in the States without dismantling the elected democratic structures,” he said.
“While a State of Emergency is welcome as a first aid in tackling the security challenges, my stand has always been that we have to reappraise how we organize our national security as a federal entity, especially our policing system to guarantee the security of lives and property in every part of the country.”
Human rights lawyer, Barrister Festus kenyamo, who was one of the first to react to the president’s declaration, described it as a step that has long been overdue.
“The bloodletting in these states left the president with no other option but to take this extraordinary step. This step must be appreciated in the light of the refusal of the insurgents to even dialogue with the Federal Government,” Kenyamo wrote in a statement to Huhuonline.com.
“The primary duty of any government is to protect lives and properties and it is only right that government should dig deep to find a lasting solution to this ceaseless carnage.”
However, he argued that there are strong caveats that must be issued to government in respect of the extraordinary action:
“That government must not in any way politicize this action. It is constitutionally correct that the President did not attempt to suspend the Governors from office as nothing in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) gives him such a power.
“What Obasanjo did in the past in suspending governors through a declaration of a State of Emergency was illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. Unfortunately, none of the governors had the mettle to challenge him in court.”
He urged the Military to be careful at all times not to trample on the fundamental rights of innocent citizens in these states, so that they do not become the scourge rather than solution.
“The president must follow all the steps required in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution as amended to legitimize his action,” he added.
“That the moment calm is restored, the troops must return to the barracks so as not to give the Military unholy ideas about their role in our democracy. We all owe it a duty to assist government to restore law and order in the country. It is for our overall benefit.”
Also, the public Interest Lawyers League described the move as a welcome idea. In a statement by its president, Abdul Mahmud, the group argued that although the declaration has come on the heels of the declaration of state of emergency in 15 local government areas across the North-East almost two years now, it came almost too late considering the insecurity challenges ordinary citizens contend with.
“The declaration of state of emergency by the president, which in the purview of Section 305 (2), (3) (c), (d) and (f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) guarantees the president the powers to so declare, will allow our soldiers to gain footholds on those parts of our sovereign territory that have been seized by insurgents in Borno and Yobe states, for instance,” he said.
“We would however be disturbed if in discharging their combat remits, soldiers abuse the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens of states affected by the declaration as we have seen in Baga and Bama.”
However, National Leader of ACN and former Governor of Lagos State, Chief Bola Ahmed TinubuIt disagreed, saying it is now abundantly clear that President Goodluck Jonathan has finally bared his fangs confirming what was widely speculated.
“By declaring a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa, he has intimidated and emasculated the governors of these states. We are witnessing a dangerous trend in the art of governance and a deliberate ploy to subvert constitutional democracy,” he said.
“The body language of the Jonathan administration leads any keen watcher of events with unmistakable conclusion of the existence of a surreptitious but barely disguised intention to muzzle the elected governments of these states for what is clearly a display of unpardonable mediocrity and diabolic partisanship geared towards 2015.
“Borno and Yobe states have been literally under armies of occupation with the attendant excruciating hardship experienced daily by the indigenes and residents of these areas. This government now wants to use the excuse of the security challenges faced by the Governors to remove them from the states considered hostile to the 2015 PDP/Jonathan project.”
He further stated that this administration will be setting in motion a chain of events the end of which nobody can predict, adding that experience has shown clearly that actions, such as this one under consideration, often give root to radical ideologies and extremist tendencies, a direct opposite of the intended outcome of unwarranted and unintelligent meddlesomeness.
“The present scenario playing out in the country reminds one of the classical case of a mediocre craftsman who continually blames the tools of his trade for his serial failure but refuses to look at his pitiable state with a view to adjusting,” he added.
“It has become crystal clear, even to the most incurable optimist, that the country is adrift. That the ship of the Nigerian state is rudderless is clearly evident in the consistent and continual attacks ferociously executed by elements often referred to as the insurgents in some northern states of the federation, particularly Borno and Yobe states respectively. Indeed, no part of the country is immune from the virulent but easy attacks, veritable indices of a failing state.
“Unfortunately, the tenuous and uncoordinated approach adopted by this government betrays a grossly incompetent disposition which stands at variance with current realities in the country, nay the international community where acts of terrorism are engaged and contained. No Governor of a state in Nigeria is indeed the Chief Security Officer. Putting the blame on the Governors, who have been effectively emasculated, for the abysmal performance of the government at the centre which controls all these security agencies, smacks of ignorance and mischief.
“Terrorist acts are perpetrated routinely and the government at the centre appears incapable of stemming the tide of the horrendous crimes unleashed on the hapless populace. The considerable ease, with which lives and property are destroyed on a daily basis, should excite deep introspection on the part of a government truly desirous of finding a lasting solution. The Constitution provides that the safety and welfare of citizens shall be the primary purpose of having that structure of any political leadership in the first instance. This Government, through acts of omission and commission, has fallen far short of expectation. It actively encourages schisms and all manner of divisive tendencies for parochial expediency. Ethnicity and religion become handy weapons of domination. Things have never been this bad.”
Tinubu described the response to the pervasive chaos in the Northern region of the country as characterised by militarisation, mass arrests and extra judicial killings by the Joint Task Force (JTF), a convenient euphemism for an army of occupation seemingly set loose on the people of the localities concerned. He added that the tenor of the State of Emergency declared by the Federal Government portends danger for the polity.
“The full militarisation of security operations in these states will compound the already tense situation. Both local and international media are awash with news of reckless attitudes of the invading forces. The fact that security operatives are killed cheaply and reprisals from the state find expressions in organised pogroms in the immediate communities is sure evidence of a government, which lacks basic understanding to appreciate the enormity of the current security challenges. If development is about the people, all measures put in place for the sustenance and maintenance of the super-structure of the society must take into cognisance local contents.
“It is evident from the grim experiences in recent times that this government has failed, or does not know that it is necessary for it to avail itself of the benefits accruable from exchange of ideas and notes on the latest in terms of technology and human resources among nations of the modern world, especially those which have been fighting terrorist organisations over the years, on the most effective mode of combating this menace.
“Technologically advanced countries of the world will never discard the idea on the need for the establishment of an effective local intelligence outfit. Our suggestions along this path have always been met with suspicion and acerbic criticisms from both the informed and the ignorant alike. A government which stoutly defends its opposition to the decentralisation of the police force from its present over-centralised command structure is already experimenting with all manner of means patently extra-legal.
“The massacres of local communities attendant upon the attacks on security agents by unknown elements will further alienate the people who should, ordinarily, partner with the government in securing their immediate environments. An army which invades a community maiming, raping and killing defenceless civilians will end up radicalising the youths whose parents and young ones have been wiped out most cowardly and recklessly.
“This government should concentrate more on encouraging the development of local intelligence which will, inexorably, lead to the practice of true federalism. Adopting the use of excessive force against those perceived as harbouring terrorists does not portray this government as possessing the wherewithal to find abiding solutions to the lingering security challenges.”
He went on to brand the president’s pronouncement as seeking to abridge or having the potential of totally scuttling the constitutional functions of governors and other elected representatives of the people, which will be counterproductive in the long run.
“A State of Emergency already exists in the states where JTF operates. Residents of these communities live in constant fear. Their rights are violated with impunity under the guise of searching for terrorists in their respective domains. Hiding under some nebulous claims which border on the intractability of the security challenges posed by Boko Haram or some acclaimed traditionalists who have killed some policemen to render ineffective the constitutional powers vested in elected Governors and other representatives of the people, perceived as not amenable to manipulation for the 2015 project amounts to reducing serious issues bordering on the survival of the country to partisan politics.,” he added.
“Let all those who love this country genuinely advise the federal government not to tinker with the mandates of these Governors under any guise. It is a potentially destructive path to take. If security of a society is about the protection of lives and property of the citizenry, the involvement of the people is a sine qua non to effective intelligence gathering. Any measures put in place which alienate the people, in particular their elected representatives, should be considered as fundamentally defective by every right thinking person in the country.”
 |
|
Bamanga Tukur to Be Buried Sunday in Yola
Former Governor of the old Gongola State and former National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, will be buried in Yola, Adamawa State, on Sunday, September 13, 2026.
Tukur, a prominent elder statesman and businessman, died in Abuja on Saturday, according to a statement issued by his family.
His son, Awwal Tukur, the Secretary to the Adamawa State Government, announced the burial arrangements in a statement released in Yola on Saturday.
According to the statement, the remains of the deceased will be brought to Yola on Saturday ahead of the funeral.
The funeral prayers are scheduled to take place at the Lamido’s Palace in Yola at 10:00 a.m. on Sunday, after which the late politician will be laid to rest.
Tukur died just three days before his 91st birthday.
He was a prominent figure in Nigeria’s political and economic history, having served in several key public positions during a career spanning more than six decades.
Among other positions, he served as Chief Executive of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Governor of the former Gongola State and Minister of Industries. He also served as National Chairman of the PDP between 2012 and 2014.
Beyond Nigeria, Tukur played a role in promoting African economic development through organisations including the Africa Business Roundtable and the NEPAD Business Group.
The late elder statesman is survived by two wives and 18 children, including Awwal Tukur, the Secretary to the Adamawa State Government.
Northern Governors Mourn
The Northern Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NNGF) has expressed grief over the death of Tukur, describing his passing as a significant loss to the North and Nigeria as a whole.
In a condolence message issued on behalf of the forum, its Chairman and Governor of Gombe State, Muhammadu Inuwa Yahaya, described Tukur as an experienced public servant, political leader and advocate of economic development.
Yahaya said Tukur’s contributions to public administration, politics and business had left a lasting mark on the country.
He highlighted the deceased’s extensive public service record, including his tenure at the Nigerian Ports Authority, his leadership of the old Gongola State and his service as Minister of Industries.
The NNGF chairman also recognised Tukur’s involvement in continental economic initiatives and his leadership of the PDP between 2012 and 2014.
“Alhaji Bamanga Tukur lived a long and impactful life, serving Nigeria in several critical capacities and contributing significantly to the growth of our economy, institutions and political development,” Yahaya said.
He added that Tukur’s experience, wisdom and dedication to public service would be greatly missed.
Yahaya extended his condolences to the Adamawa State Government, the Tukur family, friends and associates of the deceased.
He prayed that Allah would forgive Tukur’s shortcomings, reward his contributions to humanity and grant him Aljannatul Firdaus.
News
Where & How to Buy Dangote Refinery IPO Shares
The Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE is set to offer shares to the Nigerian public, giving individuals an opportunity to become shareholders in one of Africa’s largest refineries.
The public offer is expected to open on Monday, September 14, 2026, and close on October 13, 2026, subject to the final offer documents.
The offer comprises 4.1 billion ordinary shares at ₦525 per share, with a minimum subscription of 10 shares, costing ₦5,250.
Who Can Buy Dangote Refinery Shares?
The IPO is designed to give ordinary Nigerians an opportunity to invest in the refinery. Investors can subscribe through approved banks, fintech platforms, mobile operators, and NGX Invest.
However, investors should only use channels officially approved for the offer and should avoid sending money to individuals, agents, or platforms that are not listed in the official offer documents.
Approved Channels for the Dangote Refinery IPO
Banks
Access Bank
Ecobank
FCMB
Fidelity Bank
FirstBank
Globus Bank
GTCO
Jaiz Bank
Keystone Bank
Lotus Bank
PremiumTrust Bank
Providus Bank
Stanbic IBTC
Sterling Bank
TAJ Bank
UBA
Union Bank
Wema Bank
Zenith Bank
Fintech Platforms
Bamboo
Flutterwave
InvestNaija
Ladder
Moniepoint
Paga
Payaza
PiggyVest
Vetiva Invest
we.yan
Mobile Operators
Airtel SmartCash
MTN MoMo
Nigerian Exchange
NGX Invest
How to Buy Dangote Refinery IPO Shares
Step 1: Choose an Approved Platform
Select one of the banks, fintech platforms, mobile operators, or investment platforms officially approved to process subscriptions.
If you already use one of the approved platforms, check whether the IPO application option is available through your existing account.
Step 2: Open or Activate Your Investment Account
Investors generally need an investment or brokerage account to participate in the offer.
Depending on the platform, you may be required to provide identification, your BVN and other Know-Your-Customer information.
Step 3: Set Up Your CSCS Details
Shares listed on the Nigerian Exchange are held electronically through the Central Securities Clearing System (CSCS).
Your broker or participating investment platform should guide you through the process of opening or linking the necessary CSCS account.
Step 4: Fund Your Account
At ₦525 per share, the minimum subscription is:
10 shares × ₦525 = ₦5,250
If you want to purchase more shares, calculate the total amount based on the number of shares you intend to request and check the final prospectus for the applicable subscription rules and fees.
Step 5: Apply When the Offer Opens
The public offer is expected to open on September 14, 2026.
Log into your approved platform, select the Dangote Refinery public offer, enter the number of shares you want to subscribe for, review your information and submit your application.
Step 6: Keep Your Confirmation
After submitting your application, keep your application reference, receipt or confirmation for your records.
Step 7: Wait for Allotment
Applying for shares does not necessarily mean you will receive every share requested.
If the offer is oversubscribed, investors could receive fewer shares than they applied for. Any applicable excess funds should be handled according to the terms of the final offer documents.
Step 8: Monitor Your Shares After Listing
Once the shares are listed on the Nigerian Exchange, successful investors can monitor their holdings through their broker or investment platform.
The market price may rise or fall after listing, depending on the company’s performance, investor demand, market conditions and other factors.
Important Warning for Investors
Do not pay anyone personally to “secure” Dangote Refinery shares for you.
Before sending money or providing your financial information, verify that the platform you are using appears on the official approved list and that the application process matches the final prospectus and offer documents.
Investors should also review the official prospectus carefully, particularly the offer terms, fees, allotment rules, deadlines and risk factors.
Investment involves risk. The fact that an IPO is associated with a well-known company does not guarantee that the share price will rise after listing.
Business
In The Spotlight
Editorial: PFIPC: The Scandal Is Bigger Than Gbajabiamila (2)
The first question was: Who created PFIPC? Now Nigeria must ask a more frightening one:Who allowed it to look real? That is the question the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council scandal can no longer escape.
The controversy has already produced denials, accusations, official disclaimers, investigations and criminal proceedings. The Presidency has maintained that PFIPC was fictitious and that its alleged promoter, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, was falsely presenting himself as a government appointee. The Office of the Chief of Staff says it alerted security agencies as far back as October 2025 over alleged forged appointment letters.
Fine.Let the courts determine the criminal allegations.Let investigators establish who forged what, who authorised what and who benefited from what. But there is now another problem that cannot be dismissed as the work of one alleged impostor. The paper trail.
Because this story became truly explosive when reports emerged that the name PFIPC, alongside the Presidential Economic Advisory Council, appeared in the 2026 federal budget with an allocation of about ₦1.3 billion. Other reports also said the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation had approved recruitment for hundreds of positions linked to the council.
If those records are authentic, then Nigerians are entitled to ask a brutally simple question:
How does a supposedly non-existent organisation get into government paperwork? That question is bigger than Gbajabiamila. Much bigger.And it is precisely why this matter must not become a convenient contest between political camps.
The easiest thing to do now is to make this a story about whether the Chief of Staff was framed, whether he was wrongly accused, or whether his denials should be believed.
Those questions matter. But they are not enough. Because even if Gbajabiamila is completely cleared, the country will still be left staring at the same institutional wreckage.Somebody, somewhere, appears to have been able to give a questionable entity the appearance of government legitimacy.That is not a small administrative mistake.That is a security problem.
It is a governance problem. It is a financial-control problem.And, potentially, it is a national credibility problem. Think about the implications. An organisation carrying the word “Presidential” can sound powerful enough to impress businessmen, foreign investors, civil servants and even government officials.
A letter carrying the right government language can appear authentic.A title can sound official. An office address can create confidence. A meeting can create legitimacy.A photograph can create legitimacy. A budget line can create legitimacy.
And once enough of these pieces come together, fiction can begin to acquire the appearance of fact.That is the frightening part.The Nigerian state cannot afford to be protected by appearances. It must be protected by verification.
If PFIPC was indeed fabricated, then the sophistication of the alleged deception deserves serious attention. The Presidency itself said the alleged organisation had been presented as a government agency and that purported appointment letters carried falsified signatures, reference numbers and seals.That is not merely somebody printing a fake business card.That is an alleged attempt to manufacture the appearance of state authority. And the state must answer accordingly.
Who checked the documents? Who checked the appointment? Who checked the organisation's legal foundation? Who checked its place in the public service structure? Who checked its bank accounts?Who checked its office?Who checked its recruitment?Who checked its budgetary status?Who checked the officials supposedly running it?And, above all:Who had the power to stop it?Those are not partisan questions.They are state questions.
They belong to every Nigerian.This is why the PFIPC affair should now be treated as an institutional stress test. The result is uncomfortable.
The Nigerian government has demonstrated that it can publicly declare an organisation non-existent while questions simultaneously arise over how that same name appeared in official-looking government records.
Whatever the eventual explanation, that contradiction demands daylight.Not spin.Not political warfare.Not another round of accusations on television.Daylight.
If the budget entry was an administrative error, explain it.If it was inserted improperly, explain how.If recruitment approval was improperly obtained, explain who authorised it.If documents were forged, prosecute those responsible after due process.
If legitimate government officials were deceived, identify where the verification system failed.If insiders assisted the operation, expose them.And if no government insider was involved at all, then demonstrate clearly how outsiders were able to penetrate the machinery of government so deeply.
Nigeria deserves that answer.Because there is a dangerous habit in public life: once a scandal becomes embarrassing, the instinct is to find one person to carry it away.
Blame the impostor.Blame the politician.Blame the civil servant.Blame the opposition.Blame the media.Then move on.
That will not do this time.A country does not become safer because one alleged fraudster is prosecuted.It becomes safer when the system that made the fraud possible is repaired.That is the real test.
The PFIPC controversy has exposed a vulnerability that cannot be buried beneath another headline.
Government authority is an asset.It must be guarded.
The presidential name is an asset.It must be protected.Official documents are an asset.They must be secured.
The national budget is an asset.It must be beyond manipulation.And public confidence is perhaps the most valuable asset of all.
Once Nigerians begin to wonder whether an organisation can be invented, dressed in presidential language and somehow find its way into official channels, the damage extends beyond the immediate scandal.It reaches the credibility of the state.It reaches Nigeria's relationship with investors. It reaches the credibility of official correspondence.It reaches the confidence of foreign missions.It reaches the reputation of the civil service.And it reaches the fundamental question of whether government records mean what they say they mean.
That is why the authorities must resist the temptation to declare victory simply because an individual has been accused, investigated or prosecuted.
The deeper victory would be institutional.Find the loophole.Close it.Find the accomplices, if any.Expose them.Find the forged documents.Trace them. Find the money.Follow it. Find the approvals.Explain them.
Find the officials who failed in their duties.Hold them accountable, where evidence and due process establish responsibility.And then build a system in which the next PFIPC cannot happen.
Because there will always be fraudsters.There will always be con artists.There will always be people willing to manufacture influence. The real question is whether the Nigerian state makes their work easy.That is what Abuja must answer.
And this is where the story moves beyond Femi Gbajabiamila.If he is innocent of the allegations against him, then say so and let the evidence stand.But do not confuse the clearing of one man with the clearing of the system.One man can be innocent while a system is still guilty of negligence.That distinction matters.
Nigeria does not need another political scapegoat.It needs an audit of its gates.Who enters?Who leaves?Who signs?Who approves?Who verifies?Who pays?Who watches?And who answers when nobody watches?Those questions are now unavoidable.
The PFIPC scandal began as a dispute over an alleged organisation.It has become a test of something much larger:whether the Nigerian state can recognise itself when someone tries to impersonate it.That is not a scandal about one man.It is not even a scandal about one organisation.It is a warning about the machinery of government itself.And warnings ignored have a way of returning as disasters.
So let the investigation continue.Let the courts do their work.Let evidence—not political loyalty—determine responsibility.
But let nobody close this file merely because one powerful name has been cleared.The name may be cleared.The questions are not.
And until Nigerians know how an allegedly non-existent presidential body could acquire the appearance, paperwork and institutional oxygen of legitimacy, the PFIPC scandal remains unfinished. The mask may have been exposed. Now Nigeria must find out who opened the door.
In The Spotlight
Rethinking Policy From The Ground (II)
Last week, this column began with a simple proposition: Nigeria’s public policy conversation is often conducted at the wrong altitude. We examined why citizens encounter the state most directly through schools, primary health centres, rural roads, markets, transport systems, environmental services and local government offices. We also argued that a policy problem must first be understood before it is solved. Today, the column continues that argument. If knowing the problem is the beginning, the next question is what happens when a carefully diagnosed problem enters the political and administrative machinery of government. This is where incentives, institutions, competing values and frontline discretion determine whether a promising policy becomes a public good or another abandoned initiative.
From Problems Towards Choices
A government rarely chooses between a good option and a bad option. It usually chooses among imperfect alternatives, each benefiting some citizens, imposing costs on others and carrying uncertainties.
That reality should make policy analysis more rigorous. William K. Bellinger’s work on economics for policy analysis provides a useful discipline: the relevant question is not simply whether government can afford an intervention, but whether its social benefits justify the resources sacrificed elsewhere. Every new road competes with a school. Every government factory competes with health spending. For state policymakers, the essential question is therefore: what else could this money achieve? A N10 billion expenditure should be evaluated against the outcomes forgone by not spending that money elsewhere. That is the difference between accounting for expenditure and analysing public value.
How Incentives Change Behaviour
This reasoning becomes sharper when we consider how citizens respond to government decisions. Lee S. Friedman’s microeconomic approach to policy reminds us that people respond to prices, rules, risks, information and incentives.
Consider local taxation. A local government that increases market levies may expect higher revenue. But if the burden becomes excessive, traders may relocate, evade payment or operate outside formal markets. The government may collect less while economic activity becomes harder to monitor. Similarly, multiple charges on farmers, transporters or small manufacturers can make formal activity less attractive.
The same logic applies to environmental regulation. If government prohibits indiscriminate dumping without providing affordable waste collection, households may continue dumping illegally because the lawful alternative is inaccessible. Enforcement alone cannot solve an incentive problem created partly by inadequate service provision. Good regulation combines rules with feasible alternatives. The objective should be to make desirable behaviour easier, not merely punish undesirable behaviour.
Why Politics Shapes Outcomes
But incentives alone do not explain policy outcomes. Deborah Stone’s work on policy paradox reminds us that public decisions are contests over values as much as calculations of efficiency. Nigerian policymakers operate where questions of distribution are inseparable from development. Who gets the road? Which community receives the hospital? Whose land is acquired? Which informal operators are displaced?
These are political questions with technical dimensions. A policy that is economically efficient may still fail if it is perceived as unfair. A reform that improves aggregate welfare may provoke resistance from groups bearing concentrated losses. Politically intelligent policy design must therefore anticipate winners, losers and the narratives through which both interpret reform.
Urban transportation illustrates the point. Formalising informal transport can improve safety and service standards, but simply removing existing operators can create hardship for drivers and passengers. Successful reform recognises the economic lives embedded in existing arrangements and provides credible transition pathways.
Institutions Carry Policy Forward
Michael Howlett, M. Ramesh and Anthony Perl of the Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy remind us that policy is not a single decision, but a process involving agenda setting, formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation. A brilliant policy document can therefore become a poor programme because institutions lack coordination, information, authority or capacity.
Nigeria’s federal structure makes this especially difficult. Responsibilities are distributed across federal, state and local institutions, while financing and administrative capacity are uneven. A primary school may depend on one level for teachers, another for infrastructure and another for complementary interventions. A primary health centre may receive medicines through one channel, personnel through another and capital investment through a third. When outcomes are poor, each institution can point elsewhere.
The answer is not simply to redraw constitutional boundaries. For policymakers, this means resisting the temptation to treat political urgency as evidence. Urgency can justify action, but it cannot substitute for diagnosis, comparison, measurement and institutional realism and learning. It is to make responsibility visible. Citizens should know which institution is responsible for which service, what standard it must meet and where complaints should go.
Frontline Officials Make Policy
Perhaps nowhere is this more important than where policy meets the citizen. Research on street-level bureaucracy shows that frontline officials possess discretion because formal rules cannot anticipate every circumstance. Teachers decide how struggling pupils are treated. Nurses prioritise patients. Extension workers decide which farmers receive information. Environmental officers determine which violations receive attention.
Where incentives are weak and supervision poor, discretion can become rent extraction. But discretion can also enable adaptation. A teacher may develop a practical method for reaching struggling pupils. A health worker may reorganise patient flow to reduce waiting. A local official may find a simpler way to process applications. The challenge is therefore not to eliminate discretion, which is impossible, but to create conditions under which it serves public purposes.
States should pay closer attention to the working environment of frontline officials. If a policy assumes that an extension agent will visit remote farms without transport, or that a teacher will improve learning without materials, or that a health worker will provide reliable services without medicines, the policy is not ambitious. It is institutionally unrealistic.
Governments Must Learn Systematically
Nigeria has no shortage of programmes, strategies and reforms. What it lacks is a sufficiently systematic process for deciding which interventions deserve to survive. Governments often scale programmes because they are politically attractive, not because they have demonstrated results. Others abandon useful initiatives when administrations change. This produces institutional amnesia, with each government behaving as though it is starting from zero.
States should identify what they believe will happen, establish measurable indicators, test interventions, compare results and revise assumptions. Local governments should become sources of operational knowledge rather than administrative endpoints. Successful innovations should be documented and adapted before scaling. Failures should be examined rather than concealed.
A state may discover that feeder roads produce larger gains in farm incomes than subsidised inputs in one agricultural zone, while another finds that irrigation, storage or market aggregation is the binding constraint. The goal should be a common commitment to evidence, with flexibility for different solutions.
Good public policy requires more than money, political will or impressive documents. It requires an accurate understanding of reality, careful choices among alternatives, attention to incentives, sensitivity to political values, institutions capable of implementation and systems that learn from results. States and local governments are where these conditions either converge or collapse.
Next week, the conclusion of this three-part series will move from diagnosis to action. The final column will set out practical policy recommendations and ways forward for state and local government policymakers, focusing on education, primary healthcare, rural livelihoods, rural industrialisation, transportation, and ease of doing business among several others.
By Abdulrauf Aliyu