₦airaland Forum

AMINDA:
Tinubu himself is weaponising religion by running on muslim-muslim ticket in order to get Hausa-Fulani Muslim votes. He doesn't care how polarising the ticket will be as long as he gets those juicy Fulani votes. Ironically, his lackeys are celebrating the muslim-christian combo in Kaduna, a conservative Northwestern state without seeing the hypocrisy. They want to eat from two pots at the same time but may end up with none.

You're mixing up electoral strategy with religious weaponisation.

A Muslim-Muslim ticket is a political choice that voters are free to accept or reject at the ballot box. It is not, by itself, evidence that religion is being weaponised. If it were, then every Muslim-Christian or Christian-Christian ticket would also automatically amount to religious manipulation.
The next point is one you have raised severally before- as recent as last week if my memory serves me right.

The irony is that you keep criticising APC for fielding a Muslim-Muslim ticket while simultaneously criticising it for supporting a Muslim-Christian ticket in Kaduna. Which one exactly is the offence?

Politics is about assembling the ticket a party believes gives it the best chance of winning.

APC made its calculation in 2023, put it before Nigerians and won the election. Those who disagreed voted against it. That is democracy.


By the way, if religion was the only factor, how do you explain Tinubu winning millions of Christian votes across different parts of Nigeria, or losing Lagos—a state with a large Christian population? Elections are influenced by many factors: party structure, incumbency, personalities, local issues and campaign organisation—not religion alone.

Calling every electoral calculation "weaponising religion" only empties the phrase of meaning.

reddingtonblack:
I am very disappointed in you, Just say you did not understand the Question instead of descending to concortion lies

Labour asked for 62k 🤣🤣🤣 i was even telling my woman labour is just being unrealistic, govt cant afford it

2nd you said student loan, now student loans applies to less than 4% of Nigeria population, i find it inadequate for the convo.
The ammendment of the student loans may appear to be becos of criticism buh for deep thinkers .. It is becos it is demmed unimplementable. It is not like they have a choice, it is unimplementable they just have to re write then it appear like we listened to the people.

tax reform , electoral reform that applies to greater % of Nigerians why dem no listen,

You began by accusing me of “concocting lies,” yet your first claim is itself wrong: Labour did not ask for ₦62,000. The Federal Government and private sector offered ₦62,000, while Labour reduced its demand from ₦494,000 to ₦250,000.

On the student-loan law, nobody denies that the original Act contained implementation problems. But rewriting an unworkable law after criticism is precisely what listening and responsive governance look like.

You cannot say, “They amended it because it was defective,” and then insist the amendment does not count because they had “no choice.” Governments always have a choice: correct mistakes or stubbornly preserve them. The 2024 law removed obstacles that had delayed implementation.

Your claim that government ignored Nigerians on tax reform is also false. After public opposition and legislative consultation, lawmakers retained VAT at 7.5% instead of the proposed 12.5%, exempted minimum-wage earners from personal income tax and substantially altered the proposed VAT-sharing formula. Those are not cosmetic changes; they affect millions of Nigerians.

Even on electoral reform, public pressure produced movement: the Senate reversed its earlier position and supported real-time electronic transmission of results.

So the honest argument is not that government listens to every demand or always responds adequately. It plainly does not.
The defensible argument is that it has listened and adjusted on several major issues.

You cannot redefine every concession as “they had no choice” and then declare that nobody listened. That is not deep thinking; it is constructing a conclusion that no amount of contrary evidence is allowed to disturb.

zoedew:
While your observations are valid it is also important to contextualize the Press Release in the light of proven Christian Genocide in Nigeria especially the North of the country. Vigilance is the first law of safety!!

Please go back and read the press release again.

No one disputes that Christians in parts of Nigeria have suffered horrific attacks or that church leaders have every right—even a duty—to remain vigilant. But vigilance is not a licence to abandon fairness, due diligence or truth.

CAN and the PFN are not Donald Trump. Their standard should not be outrage first, investigate later." Before issuing such a strongly worded statement, they owed the President—and indeed the Nigerian public—the courtesy of getting the facts right.

The language of the press release was disappointing.
It repeatedly portrayed the proposal as "Tinubu's law," even though the preaching provision was not a new law. That clause had already existed in the FRSC legal framework for years; what the National Assembly principally changed was the penalty.

More importantly, President Tinubu has not even assented to the bill. Until he does, it remains a bill passed by the legislature.

Instead of immediately escalating the matter into a national religious controversy, why didn't CAN and the PFN first seek an audience with the President, present their constitutional concerns and urge him to withhold assent or return the bill for amendment?

That would have been responsible leadership. What they did is NOT responsible leadership at all.

The press release, unfortunately, gave the impression that confrontation was preferred to engagement and that a pending legislative process was being presented as a settled anti-Christian policy. That is neither fair to the President nor helpful to national cohesion.

Church leaders should always speak truth to power. But they must also speak truth ABOUT power.
Facts should precede outrage.

The pulpit is too sacred to become another political campaign platform. Our Lord Jesus Christ declared, "My house shall be called a house of prayer" (Matthew 21:13), as He drove out those who had turned the temple into something else.

The Church's greatest moral authority comes from proclaiming truth with integrity, not from allowing the altar to become another political rostrum in the run-up to an election.

The Church must never surrender its prophetic voice. But neither should it allow that voice to be weakened by avoidable factual errors or rhetoric that unnecessarily deepens political and religious divisions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJDhSsV8RKg

Mention infrastructure in Nigeria today and many people immediately think of just one project—the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway.

That, perhaps, is the greatest success of the opposition's propaganda: reducing one of the country's biggest infrastructure drives in decades to a single road.

The reality is far bigger.

While political arguments rage on social media, bulldozers, cranes and concrete mixers are quietly rewriting Nigeria's transport landscape from Lagos to Sokoto.

Take the Murtala Muhammed International Airport. Nigeria's busiest gateway is undergoing another phase of modernization, with upgraded passenger terminals, improved processing facilities and expanded infrastructure aimed at increasing capacity and reducing congestion.

Then there is the Lagos Blue Rail Line.

Phase One is no longer a promise; it is carrying millions of passengers and has transformed daily commuting across Africa's largest city.
Even more significant, construction has already moved to **Phase Two**, extending the line from Mile 2 towards Okokomaiko and bringing modern electric rail closer to thousands of additional residents.

Meanwhile, work continues on the Sokoto-Badagry Super Highway, one of Nigeria's most ambitious road corridors. Across multiple sections, engineers are constructing bridges, installing drainage systems and laying pavement that will eventually connect major commercial centres from the North-West to the South-West, reducing travel time and strengthening interstate trade.

And then comes the project everyone knows—the[b] Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway.[/b]

Yet even here, the story has evolved. The first completed section has already been commissioned while construction continues across additional stretches. When completed, the highway is expected to connect nine coastal states, opening new opportunities for commerce, tourism, logistics and investment.

Viewed individually, each project is impressive.

Viewed together, they tell a much bigger story.

Nigeria is no longer investing in isolated roads.

It is building an integrated transport network—modern airports, urban rail, interstate expressways and coastal economic corridors—designed to move people, goods and capital more efficiently than ever before.

No country develops by debating infrastructure alone.

It develops by building it.

And while critics remain busy counting press conferences and hashtags, excavators are busy counting kilometres.

zoedew:
Am not, in this matter, focused on Tinubu or any individual for that matter. While I know he won't sign it and that it is one of the ploys to gain electoral advantage no lover of fundamental human rights will stand idly by in the face of such enactment.

What I find most worrying is that the PFN and CAN appear not to have carried out basic due diligence before rushing out such an irresponsible and politically loaded Press release.

Their position rested on several false assumptions. First, this is not a newly invented anti-Christian law:
The clause on preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles has existed in the FRSC legal framework for years. What the National Assembly principally did was reorganise the provision and increase the penalty.

The preaching clause is not a separate piece of legislation aimed specifically at Christians; it is only one provision in a broader road-safety amendment covering numerous traffic offences.

None of this means the clause should be supported. I believe it is overbroad, unnecessary and open to abuse. But opposing a bad provision does not justify misrepresenting its origin, presenting it as Tinubu’s personal law, or manufacturing a religious emergency before the President has even acted.

The language is inciting and so irresponsible.

When major Christian bodies abandon verification, ignore the legislative history and immediately frame the matter as an attack on Christianity, and start raining curses then something is wrong.

it inevitably raises questions about motive. One can only hope this is not the beginning of another election-season strategy in which religion is weaponised to create fear, deepen division and target President Tinubu ahead of 2027.

anonimi:
Ẹniti o gbà odò gbà mark, yàtọ̀ sí àwọn tí wọ́n kó yọjú rárá.

Tinubu said nothing about the death unlike Atiku who did.

If Tinubu’s policies are not designed to worsen APC extreme poverty and insecurity shege then why has he failed to crash petrol price below N185 and why has he failed to deliver his N300/$1 short term goal despite borrowing $3.3 billion SPV Afreximbank loans, secured by future oil sales to specifically defend the Naira? Any idea why his wife advised people to fry akara because her husband is clueless about creating 50 million jobs promised?

Tinubu’s serial betrayal of everyone is established fact. He may have been Abacha’s double agent inside NADECO. That’s how wicked the balablu bulaba master strategist of propaganda politics is.

This is economic illiteracy dressed as outrage.

Petrol cannot simply be “crashed” to[b] ₦185 per litre[/b] by presidential command in a deregulated market.
Dangote buys crude at prices linked to the international market, incurs refining, financing, storage and distribution costs, and cannot order Brent crude or the exchange rate to obey Nigerian social media. In July 2026, Dangote’s quoted ex-depot petrol price was $0.779 per litre. At the CBN rate of about ₦1,368/$, that alone converts to roughly ₦1,066 per litre before transport and retail margins.

Forcing that product down to ₦185 means government must pay the difference as subsidy. Using April consumption of about 51.1 million litres daily, the subsidy gap would approach ₦45 billion every day—roughly ₦1.35 trillion monthly. That is not “crashing the price”; it is hiding the price inside public debt and diverting money from roads, security, education and healthcare.

The $3.3 billion Afreximbank facility was a crude-backed prepayment loan meant to provide dollar liquidity, meet obligations and support exchange-rate stability—not a magical cheque capable of permanently fixing the naira at ₦300.

Total disbursement eventually reached about $3.175 billion, a tiny amount compared with Nigeria’s continuing demand for dollars for imports, debt service, fuel, machinery and profit repatriation.

And the First Lady’s akara remark was made in the context of grants and small-business self-reliance. Encouraging microenterprise does not replace the government’s wider employment responsibility, but twisting it into proof that the President has no job policy is merely social-media comedy.

You cannot demand market-determined exchange rates and petrol prices, then complain that the President has not imposed fantasy prices by decree. That is not economics; it is subsidy nostalgia with a calculator missing.

Qadaffi2idiamin:
That Akwa armed robber get work?

He's just there to loot and laugh. These guys are taking Christians for a ride, if we talk you'd see their script writers and essayists on every platform doing arithmetic.

When did preaching on a bus become a problem?

Please get your facts right. The preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles were already listed as offences under the 2007 FRSC Act and the 2012 National Road Traffic Regulations.

The law already existed since 2007 and 2012. Tinubu was not president then. infact, the President then is a christian.
The current amendment largely reorganises the provision and increases penalties. That does not make the clause sensible,.

Tinubu did not suddenly create an anti-Christian law in 2026.
IT IS A SPONSORED LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!

fortunez1:
Akpabio is fool to accept th at a supposedly xtian . Despite killings na preaching concern una

Please do Not Manufacture a Religious Conspiracy where there is none.

The controversial Federal Road Safety Commission Amendment Bill did not originate from President Tinubu or the Presidency. It began in the House of Representatives as two bills—HB 1401, sponsored by Olaide Lateef Muhammed, and HB 1604, sponsored by Abiodun Derin Adesida.

The bills were consolidated, passed by the WHOLE House, reconsidered after a technical review and subsequently transmitted to the Senate for concurrence. Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele presented it because that is part of his institutional responsibility for concurrence bills, not because he personally invented the offending clause.

Secondly , this is a road-safety amendment containing dozens of offences, including reckless driving, intoxicated driving, traffic-light violations, speeding and refusal to cooperate with breath testing.
The preaching clause is controversial, but it is not the bill’s only purpose.

Is the Provision Defensible?

The road-safety argument is not entirely ridiculous. Loud preaching, aggressive trading or movement inside a crowded bus can distract a driver, disturb passengers and create conflict. Passengers who paid for transportation did not necessarily consent to becoming a captive congregation or marketplace.

But a blanket criminal offence is a blunt instrument.

Why should a quiet, consensual prayer attract the same sanction as someone obstructing the aisle, shouting beside the driver or physically harassing passengers? Why not regulate actual distraction, obstruction, intimidation and refusal to stop after passengers object?
This are valid points. introducing religion is nothing but desperation by the pulpit politicians towards 2027. Period.

SixSeven:
I think the APC should be careful about religious sensitivity especially now that things don't look like what they may mean. It's election period, choose your battles.

You've got it backwards.

This is not APC playing religious politics; it's some PULPIT politicians and commentators trying to weaponise religion over a bill President Tinubu neither initiated nor has yet signed.

There are Christians and Muslims in the National Assembly. The bill WAS INITIATED AND PASSED through both chambers as legislation—not as a religious decree from the Presidency.

Here's the question nobody seems eager to answer: Where were CAN and the PFN while this bill was going through PUBLIC HEARING in the House and Senate?

If the provision was such an existential threat to religious freedom, why wasn't there sustained engagement during the legislative process?

Instead, some people waited until the bill reached the President's desk before trying to frame it as "Tinubu versus Christians."

If CAN and the PFN genuinely believe the clause is unconstitutional, the mature response is simple: seek an audience with the President, present their objections and urge him to[b] withhold assent [/b]or return the bill for amendment.

That is constitutional engagement.

Trying to manufacture another 2023-style religious controversy before the President has even acted is politics—not principle.

zoedew:
Good talk! Very good talk. Civil disobedience will follow!

Civil disobedience over what exactly? Have you even bothered to get the facts right?

Tinubu did not initiate the bill, has not signed it, and has not yet decided whether to assent or return it. The provision on preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles already existed under earlier road-traffic laws; the current amendment mainly reorganises it and increases the penalties.

There are valid concerns about religious freedom, overbroad wording and possible abuse, but the proper response is to engage the National Assembly and urge the President to withhold assent—not threaten civil disobedience over a law that is not yet in force and falsely present it as Tinubu’s personal decree.

Get the facts first. Protest second.

BigYash:
I been think say them no go talk..

Blike say na now them understand the bill

The head slamers can't disturb people with their speakers in the morning. If you talk they will kill you,and the leaders will clap for them.

It is disgusting that you people want to weaponise religion in your desperation for 2027 campaign for blueprintless peter.
So What are the facts.
The controversial Federal Road Safety Commission Amendment Bill did not originate from President Tinubu or the Presidency. It began in the House of Representatives as two bills—HB 1401, sponsored by Olaide Lateef Muhammed, and HB 1604, sponsored by Abiodun Derin Adesida. The bills were consolidated, passed by the House, reconsidered after a technical review and subsequently transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.
Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele presented it because that is part of his institutional responsibility for concurrence bills, not because he personally invented the offending clause.

Tinubu has neither signed nor rejected it. Until presidential assent, it is a bill passed by the legislature—not “Tinubu’s law.”
The Law is not new.The Senate says preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles were already offences under the 2007 FRSC Act and the 2012 Road Traffic Regulations, with the current bill mainly reorganising the provision and increasing the penalties rather than creating a new offence.

This is a road-safety amendment containing dozens of offences, including reckless driving, intoxicated driving, traffic-light violations, speeding and refusal to cooperate with breath testing. The preaching clause is controversial, but it is not the bill’s only purpose.

Bus Preaching Bill: How Religion Is Being Weaponised to Attack Tinubu Over a Law He Did Not Write.

Bishop Wale Oke is right to question any law that threatens peaceful preaching in commercial buses with a ₦50,000 fine. The provision raises legitimate concerns about religious freedom, proportionality, selective enforcement and possible abuse by security officials.

But his anger is being directed at the wrong person.

The controversial Federal Road Safety Commission Amendment Bill did not originate from President Tinubu or the Presidency.

It began in the House of Representatives as two bills—HB 1401, sponsored by Olaide Lateef Muhammed, and HB 1604, sponsored by Abiodun Derin Adesida. They were consolidated, passed by the House and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

Tinubu has neither signed nor rejected the bill. Until presidential assent, it remains a National Assembly bill—not “Tinubu’s law.”

The Senate has also clarified that preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles were already listed as offences under the 2007 FRSC Act and the 2012 National Road Traffic Regulations.

The current amendment largely reorganises the provision and increases penalties. That does not make the clause sensible, but it destroys the narrative that Tinubu suddenly created an anti-Christian law in 2026.

Christian organisations are entitled to demand that the President withhold assent. That is the proper democratic response. However,

Incidentally , PFN, CAN or Bishop Wale Oke formally challenged this clause while the bill moved through the legislature.

But there is no evidence that the bill is a Muslim conspiracy against Christians. The provision applies broadly, and the religious affiliations of the sponsors are not established in the legislative record.

Bishop Oke has identified a legitimate constitutional concern. But threatening curses and portraying President Tinubu as the author of a bill he has neither signed nor initiated risks turning a serious legal debate into political theatre through the weaponisation of religion.

One can only hope this is not the beginning of another election-season strategy of framing every contentious issue as evidence of an anti-Christian agenda, as many argued happened during the 2023 campaign.

If the concern is genuinely about protecting religious freedom rather than scoring political points, then the obvious question is: why don't CAN and the PFN simply seek an audience with President Tinubu, present their constitutional objections and urge him to withhold assent or return the bill to the National Assembly for amendment?

That is how constitutional democracy works.
Weaponising religion before the President has even acted only creates unnecessary division where constructive engagement could still resolve the issue.

For now, the bishop is cursing the wrong office.
As the Bible reminds us in[b] Proverbs 26:2[/b], "A curse without cause shall not alight."
If President Tinubu has neither initiated nor signed the bill, then directing curses at him is both misplaced and premature.

And to those who may be tempted to turn the pulpit of the Lord into another political rostrum for the 2027 elections, they should remember that the Church's greatest moral authority lies in proclaiming truth without partisanship.
The pulpit was established to preach Christ and righteousness—not to become an extension of the campaign platform of any politician or political party.

Breaker001:
The President of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria PFN, Bishop Wale Oke, has slammed members of the Nigerian Senate for passing a law penalizing anyone who preaches in commercial buses

Recall that two weeks ago, the Senate passed the redrafted Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) Act (Amendment) Bill, 2026, introducing heavy penalties for various road and transit-related infractions. Among the newly established rules is a N50,000 penalty targeting individuals who trade, hawk, or preach to passengers inside commercial buses.

The bill currently awaits the assent of President Tinubu.

While preaching in his church, the cleric said the Federal government should be ready to convert Stadiums into prisons because he and many Christians will readily break the law.

‘’Make all the stadiums in Nigeria to become a prison; if you want to enforce that law, we are coming. We will break that law. Our master told us to go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature. You sit somewhere there, and you are saying we shouldn't preach in buses.

We will preach in buses! We will preach everywhere! Because you are ev!l, making ev!l decrees. We will rather obey God than man
"You don't go after k!llers, you are not going after those behe@ding, you are not going after r@pist, you are not going after k!dnappers. You are not going after bandits who are unlawfully carrying arms. You are not going after them. You are going after us who are preaching the message of peace that changes the lives of people. We wouldn't listen to you!' You are not God! Who are you? You are there for a tenure, and God will wipe all of you out!
Those promoting that law, God will cut them off. We will rain curses upon you and your family unless you repent''

Bus Preaching Bill: How Religion Is Being Weaponised to Attack Tinubu Over a Law He Did Not Write. by CharlesCNG.

Bishop Wale Oke is right to question any law that threatens peaceful preaching in commercial buses with a ₦50,000 fine. The provision raises legitimate concerns about religious freedom, proportionality, selective enforcement and possible abuse by security officials.

But his anger is being directed at the wrong person.

The controversial Federal Road Safety Commission Amendment Bill did not originate from President Tinubu or the Presidency.

It began in the House of Representatives as two bills—HB 1401, sponsored by Olaide Lateef Muhammed, and HB 1604, sponsored by Abiodun Derin Adesida. They were consolidated, passed by the House and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

Tinubu has neither signed nor rejected the bill. Until presidential assent, it remains a National Assembly bill—not “Tinubu’s law.”

The Senate has also clarified that preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles were already listed as offences under the 2007 FRSC Act and the 2012 National Road Traffic Regulations.

The current amendment largely reorganises the provision and increases penalties. That does not make the clause sensible, but it destroys the narrative that Tinubu suddenly created an anti-Christian law in 2026.

Christian organisations are entitled to demand that the President withhold assent. That is the proper democratic response. However,

Incidentally , PFN, CAN or Bishop Wale Oke formally challenged this clause while the bill moved through the legislature.

The National Assembly must still explain why such a controversial restriction was retained without broader consultation involving churches, mosques, transport unions, passengers and civil-liberty groups.

A blanket ban is excessive. The law should target actual distraction, obstruction, harassment and unsafe trading—not every form of preaching or prayer. Its present wording could encourage extortion and arbitrary arrests.

But there is no evidence that the bill is a Muslim conspiracy against Christians. The provision applies broadly, and the religious affiliations of the sponsors are not established in the legislative record.

Bishop Oke has identified a legitimate constitutional concern. But threatening curses and portraying President Tinubu as the author of a bill he has neither signed nor initiated risks turning a serious legal debate into political theatre through the weaponisation of religion.

One can only hope this is not the beginning of another election-season strategy of framing every contentious issue as evidence of an anti-Christian agenda, as many argued happened during the 2023 campaign.

If the concern is genuinely about protecting religious freedom rather than scoring political points, then the obvious question is: why don't CAN and the PFN simply seek an audience with President Tinubu, present their constitutional objections and urge him to withhold assent or return the bill to the National Assembly for amendment?

That is how constitutional democracy works.
Weaponising religion before the President has even acted only creates unnecessary division where constructive engagement could still resolve the issue.

For now, the bishop is cursing the wrong office.
As the Bible reminds us in[b] Proverbs 26:2[/b], "A curse without cause shall not alight."
If President Tinubu has neither initiated nor signed the bill, then directing curses at him is both misplaced and premature.

And to those who may be tempted to turn the pulpit of the Lord into another political rostrum for the 2027 elections, they should remember that the Church's greatest moral authority lies in proclaiming truth without partisanship.
The pulpit was established to preach Christ and righteousness—not to become an extension of the campaign platform of any politician or political party.

[quote author=jchioma post=140225877]They have directed attention to Atiku now for his relentless criticism of Tinubu. How I wish all these energies were spent to address the myriad of problems you are being criticized for!

They have come for Peter Obi, Archbishop Onaiyekan and the Catholic bishops. They will soon come for Bishop Oyedepo and Pastor Tunde Bakare. How insensitive can you be?

I have not heard any statement from government quarters against the killings. - Bishop Oyedepo slams Tinubu, tells him to stop 'pretending' to be ignorant and helpless.

.#macdanielsblog Tinubu Oyedepo Nigeria pic.twitter.com/7zUGdEAS2R

— Mac Daniel's Blog (@MacDanielsBlog) August 3, 2026

is another attempt to turn ordinary political scrutiny into persecution.

What exactly are the “myriad problems”? The two biggest are obvious: insecurity and economic hardship.

Nobody serious denies them. Nigerians are still being killed and kidnapped, while food prices, poverty and the cost of living remain painfully high. But saying government has done “nothing” is simply false.

On security, Tinubu declared a nationwide security emergency, authorised additional military recruitment, approved 50,000 police recruits, ordered the deployment and expansion of forest guards, and committed ₦5.41 trillion to defence and security in the 2026 budget.

The government has also launched new military operations and repeatedly condemned major attacks. Whether these measures are sufficient is open to debate; pretending they do not exist is not.

On the economy, the hardship is real, but so are the interventions: subsidy and foreign-exchange reforms, expanded cash transfers, student loans, MSME support, higher allocations to states and local governments, and new World Bank-backed programmes for farmers, displaced people, healthcare and education.

The World Bank says the reforms have improved macroeconomic stability and growth, while also warning that poverty remains severe and the gains have not reached enough households. That is the honest picture—not the childish claim that nothing is being done.

As for the attached Oyedepo video, the bishop said he had not heard any government statement against the killings.
With respect, he probably had not been listening.
Tinubu has repeatedly condemned attacks, ordered investigations, deployments and new recruitment. One may fairly argue that statements and deployments have not yet produced enough safety—but “I have not heard” is not evidence that government never spoke.

And criticism of Atiku, Obi or any cleric is not “coming for them.”
They spoke publicly; others answered publicly.
Criticism is not persecution, rebuttal is not intimidation, and a cassock does not convert a political opinion into unquestionable scripture.

AMINDA:
Let us see Tinubu's comments when Olu Falae's daughter was killed. Didn't he declare that "where are the cows?" Are you now affirming that he did that because he wanted the Fulani votes?

First, get the basic fact right: Funke Olakunrin was Pa Reuben Fasoranti’s daughter, not Olu Falae’s daughter.

Yes, Tinubu asked, “Where are the cows?” But the full context was that he was cautioning against immediately branding the unidentified killers as herdsmen before the police investigation had established who they were.
He compared the incident with other kidnapping gangs, questioned the ethnic profiling of crime and also acknowledged that Nigeria’s security crisis had to be confronted.

You are free to argue that his wording was insensitive or poorly chosen. What you cannot honestly do is convert a call for evidential caution into proof that he was seeking Fulani votes.

Years later, an Ondo State High Court convicted three men for Funke Olakunrin’s murder, kidnapping and armed robbery, while acquitting a fourth accused person.
That court outcome established the guilt of the convicted attackers—not the invented claim that Tinubu’s 2019 question proved an electoral bargain with Fulani voters.

More importantly,your response is nothing but a desperate exercise in whataboutism.

My article concerns Atiku’s own conduct: he publicly condemned Deborah Samuel’s murder and then deleted the statement when the political backlash arrived. Pointing to something Tinubu said in an entirely different case does not explain Atiku’s retreat, excuse it or erase it.

Even if Tinubu had made the worst statement imaginable, how would that defend Atiku deleting his own condemnation?

It would not.

Atiku commented, encountered pressure and deleted.

That remains the issue you are running away from.

anonimi:
How is Atiku the same as Tinubu who did not say anything about Deborah Samuel’s killing? The man who got his turn to worsen APC extreme poverty and insecurity shege, on a Muslim-Muslim ticket.

What kind of equivalence is that?

Jagaban of Borgu cares about nothing and cares about nobody else but his own selfish interests for greedy acquisition to ruin the country after fighting for power and grabbing it.

The serial betrayer of Yorubas, southerners and the entire country is only for himself!!!

That comparison actually exposes Atiku more than it protects him.

On Deborah Samuel, the accurate distinction is this: I found no clear public statement from Tinubu personally condemning the killing at the time. That silence was legitimately criticised.
But Atiku did something politically more revealing—he publicly condemned the killing, then deleted the condemnation after backlash. Reuters documented the deletion, while Atiku later admitted ordering it removed, claiming the post had not received his approval.

So it is silence versus comment-and-retreat. Neither deserves applause, but deleting a principled statement when it becomes electorally inconvenient is hardly evidence of superior courage.

The rest of your response is mostly emotional abuse and senseless rantings presented as analysis.
Yes, Tinubu ran on a Muslim-Muslim ticket; that is a fact. But a ticket’s religious composition does not, by itself, prove that the president “cares about nobody” or deliberately wants to ruin Nigeria.

On poverty, criticism is justified: the World Bank says household welfare remains severely strained and poverty increased despite improving macroeconomic indicators. But the same institution also reports easing inflation, stronger fiscal and external positions, and continuing economic growth.
The honest conclusion is that stabilisation gains have not yet translated sufficiently into household relief—not that every policy was designed to “worsen poverty.”

“Serial betrayer,” “greedy acquisition” and “cares about nobody” are opinions, not established facts.

You cannot defend Atiku’s deleted Deborah statement by shouting insults at Tinubu.
Atiku spoke, faced pressure and withdrew the statement. That remains the uncomfortable fact.

Streetinvestor2:
He just created another useless post on Atiku because Atiku is asking questions about the drug baron academic records. Who will waste time reading rubbish

😂 You're still flattering yourself by thinking I write for Obidients.

Let me explain it one more time: you, obidients and opposition are not my target audience.

I don't write for those whose minds are already made up. I write for independent-minded Nigerians who are willing to examine facts, weigh evidence and arrive at their own conclusions.

My audience already knows me. They follow my threads, like them, share them and keep them on the front page.
The engagement speaks for itself.

The problem is YOU OBIDIENTS is that whenever you throw out a political narrative, I respond with facts, documents and verifiable records. That's why the preferred strategy has never been to rebut my points—it's to try to bully me into silence. Unfortunately for you, that strategy has failed and will continue to fail.

Show me one major post of mine that you've successfully disproved with evidence.

Just one. Never. except to abuse me of which i do not give a damn!

As for Atiku, since when did scrutinising a presidential candidate become "useless"?

Isn't that exactly what Atiku himself is doing with Tinubu's academic records?
If it's legitimate when Atiku scrutinises Tinubu, why does it suddenly become "rubbish" when Atiku's own record is subjected to the same scrutiny?

Or is scrutiny only acceptable when it's directed at your opponents?

If my post is truly "rubbish," then it should be very easy to dismantle it point by point.

Yet, once again, you attacked the author instead of answering the substance.

That tells its own story.

SeeWahala:
All these APC RoNu agbad0id robots seff Mtchewww 🙄

😂😂 This is the typical Obidient response.

Presented with a detailed post containing facts, figures and careful qualifications, yet the only rebuttal you could manufacture was "APC robot."

No attempt to dispute the $14 million transfers discussed in the Senate transcript.

No attempt to challenge Jennifer Douglas's role.

No attempt to fault a single factual point.

Just abuse.

Thanks for advertising the original post even more. People can now read it and judge the evidence for themselves.

CharlesCNG:
Nice try.

But this thread is about Atiku Abubakar, not about diverting the discussion to President Tinubu.

You are attempting the oldest debate trick in the book: when the facts become uncomfortable, change the subject.

The article is very specific. It discusses the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, the documented Siemens wire transfers into Jennifer Douglas Abubakar's accounts, and the questions those records continue to raise.

If you believe any of those facts are inaccurate, point out the specific error and provide evidence.

Instead, you have introduced an entirely different topic.

No, you won't derail this thread.

If you want to discuss President Tinubu, open a separate thread and let's examine that on its own merits.

This thread asks a simple question:

How does Atiku explain the documented financial transfers identified in the U.S. Senate investigation and why should Nigerians simply ignore those questions?

That is the issue.

Changing the subject does not answer it.

And if the strongest response available is to abandon Atiku's record and immediately pivot to another politician, it suggests there is very little substantive defence of the issues raised in the original article.
Let's stay with the facts under discussion on this thread.

ATIKU’S “BLIND TRUST”: How Atiku hides his money, by CharlesCNG.

One of the most intriguing parts of the transcript concerns the blind trust Atiku Abubakar reportedly created after becoming Vice-President in 1999.

A blind trust is ordinarily designed to prevent conflicts of interest. A public official transfers control of private assets to an independent trustee and is then kept away from the management, transactions and investment decisions involving those assets.

In principle, the official becomes “blind” to the trust.

But the transcript argues that Atiku’s arrangement raised questions because the trustees were not presented as completely independent strangers to his business interests.

It states that the only major asset initially placed in the trust was his reported 16 per cent interest in Intels and that the first trustee was Olean Invest Holdings, a Panamanian company closely associated with Intels and Gabriel Volpi, Atiku’s longtime business partner.

The transcript further alleges that, in 2003, the trust exchanged its Intels shares for shares in Olean itself. In effect, the trust reportedly became part-owner of the same company serving as its trustee.

Olean later resigned and was replaced by Guernsey Trust Company Nigeria Limited, which the transcript describes as a company formed shortly before its appointment. Gabriel Volpi was again identified as one of its trustees.

That is the central political question.

If a blind trust is meant to create distance between a public official and his private business interests, how much distance exists when the trustees are closely connected to the original business and to the official’s longtime associates?

The transcript also says Guernsey Trust transferred millions of dollars into United States accounts linked to Jennifer Douglas, the American University of Nigeria and related entities.

That distinction matters.

Still, elections are not decided solely by whether a court has convicted a candidate. They are also about trust, transparency and judgment.

A blind trust should resemble a wall between public duty and private wealth.

The structure described in the transcript looks less like a wall and more like a curtain—technically present, but thin enough for familiar business relationships to remain visible behind it.

Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso has made many bold political moves throughout his career.
But accepting the vice-presidential slot under Peter Obi may prove to be the biggest gamble—and perhaps the biggest mistake—of them all.

Ironically, this is the very arrangement Kwankwaso rejected in 2022.
He argued then that it would be difficult for Peter Obi to attract sufficient support in the core North and insisted that if there was to be a joint ticket, Obi should play second fiddle. Four years later, Kwankwaso has accepted the very role he once declined.

What changed?

If his calculation is victory in 2027, the arithmetic looks increasingly difficult.

The looming departure of Senator Rufa'i Hanga should not be dismissed as just another defection. Hanga is a seasoned Kano politician with a deep understanding of the state's political terrain. Before leaving the NDC, he openly questioned the electoral viability of the Obi–Kwankwaso ticket and argued that Kwankwaso's dominance in Kano had weakened considerably.

Feedback from Kano largely supports that assessment. Over the past month, Kwankwaso has had to do a great deal of public explanation and political damage control, with little apparent effect. He appears to be losing ground rapidly even in Kano, let alone across the core North, where in 2023 he failed to secure up to 25% of the vote in any North-Western state outside Kano.

Also , experienced politicians like Hangar rarely abandon ship unless they believe the tide has turned.
His exit is therefore significant not merely because one senator left, but because it suggests that insiders are beginning to read the political weather differently.

The APC has also strengthened its grip on Kano through a series of defections and now enjoys the advantages of both federal and state political structures.

If Kwankwaso's real calculation is 2031, the gamble is even greater. Nigerian politics offers no enforceable guarantees of succession.
Alliances change, interests shift and today's gentleman's agreement can become tomorrow's forgotten conversation.
Betting an entire presidential ambition on events four years away is a remarkably risky strategy.

The greatest irony is that Kwankwaso may have sacrificed the independence that made him a national force. Instead of leading his own movement, he now carries the burden of selling a ticket headed by a candidate who continues to face significant electoral resistance across much of the core North.

Politics rewards timing and leverage. By moving from the top of the ticket to the second slot, Kwankwaso may have exchanged the status of a presidential contender for that of a supporting actor.
If that calculation fails in 2027, history may remember it not as a masterstroke, but as the moment the "King of Kano" gambled away his political future.

[quote author=reddingtonblack post=140231875][/quote]Media interviews and commentary are useful for understanding a politician's views, but they are not substitutes for specific evidence.

If a factual claim is being made, it's more helpful to point to the particular interview, speech, policy document, or official statement that supports it rather than referring generally to TV or radio programmes.

That makes the discussion clearer and allows others to verify the claim directly.

Finally, Thank you for the civility of your arguments. This is what democracy is all about.

There can never be unanimity of opinion in a free society, and there shouldn't be.

People with diffrent political leaning will analyse the same facts differently and arrive at different conclusions.

What matters is that we continue to engage with one another through facts, logic and mutual respect rather than insults or intimidation.

We may never agree on every issue, but we can certainly agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

That, ultimately, is the hallmark of a mature democracy.

[quote author=reddingtonblack post=140231875][/quote]The bishops’ visit is not evidence that Tinubu rejects criticism. They presented their concerns; the President answered them.
Disagreement is not censorship.

You asked for one example: after labour rejected the government’s ₦62,000 minimum-wage offer, Tinubu raised it to ₦70,000 and shortened the review cycle from five years to three.

The student-loan law was also rewritten in 2024 after concerns about restrictive access and implementation. You asked for one, i gave you two. there are many , many instances.

So “Tinubu has never considered criticism” is demonstrably false.
Listening does not mean accepting every demand exactly as presented.

[quote author=reddingtonblack post=140231875][/quote]You are confusing citizens with opposition candidates.

Ordinary Nigerians do not owe Tinubu a policy blueprint. But Atiku is not an ordinary observer; he is asking to replace the President. The moment he applies for the mechanic’s job, he must explain what is wrong, what he will repair differently, how much it will cost and why Nigerians should trust him with the car.

An open letter listing problems is not automatically a workable alternative.

Criticism is free. Candidacy comes with a burden of proof.

[quote author=reddingtonblack post=140231875][/quote]You have mixed a fair criticism with a false conclusion.

Yes, politicians must reduce waste and live by the sacrifice they demand from citizens. Lavish spending weakens public trust and deserves criticism.

But saying Tinubu completely ignored the Oronsaye Report is simply untrue. In February 2024, the Federal Executive Council approved the merger, relocation, subsuming or abolition of dozens of overlapping agencies, although implementation has admittedly been slower than promised. So the accurate criticism is “implement it faster,” not “it was ignored.”

Nor is the economy being built only on taxes, levies and loans. Tax reform is meant to raise Nigeria’s extremely weak public revenue and simplify overlapping taxes—not replace production. Meanwhile, official data show manufacturing grew 3.29% in real terms in the first quarter of 2026, trade grew 2.08%, construction’s contribution increased, and the non-oil economy accounted for over 96% of GDP.

Local refining is expanding, petroleum-import dependence is falling, and investments are being directed into agriculture, energy, manufacturing, mining, technology and transportation.

A productive economy and an effective tax system are not enemies. Every serious country produces wealth AND collects revenue to fund roads, schools, security and healthcare.

Your argument is like accusing a farmer of abandoning farming because he finally repaired the leaking basket used to collect his harvest.

Nigeria needs more production—absolutely. It also needs to stop losing revenue through subsidies, tax loopholes, multiple levies and inefficient agencies.

Criticise government extravagance. Demand faster Oronsaye implementation. But don’t pretend fiscal reform means production has been abandoned.

You cannot industrialise a country with an empty treasury—and you cannot tax your way to prosperity without production. A serious reform programme must do both.

[quote author=reddingtonblack post=140231875][/quote]Your mechanic analogy leaves out an important variable: the condition of the car.

If a mechanic tells you the shock absorber is bad, but inspection also reveals a cracked chassis, worn suspension arms, damaged steering components and neglected maintenance accumulated over many years, replacing only the shock absorber does not instantly make the car drive like new.

In that situation, the owner may still experience a rough ride for some time, not because the new shock absorber was unnecessary, but because multiple underlying faults remain to be repaired.

The analogy illustrates a broader point: judging a repair requires considering both the condition of the vehicle at the start and the nature of the work being undertaken. A difficult repair may involve short-term disruption before its longer-term effects can be assessed.

That does not mean the mechanic should be immune from criticism. It means the evaluation should distinguish between problems inherited with the vehicle, the quality of the repairs performed, and the results achieved over time.

immortalcrown:
Gargantuan gaga!

The evil that men do live with and after them.

Atiku and Obasanjo’s devastating assessment by CharlesCNG.

Few political judgments have followed Atiku as persistently as those delivered by his former principal.

Obasanjo has repeatedly said that choosing Atiku as his running mate was a serious mistake. He has accused his former deputy of corruption and argued that Atiku had unresolved matters outside Nigeria. The transcript recalls Obasanjo’s 2018 declaration that supporting Atiku would be morally difficult because of the allegations surrounding him—although Obasanjo later endorsed him during the 2019 election.

More recently, Obasanjo alleged that Atiku provided money to the late House Speaker Ghali Umar Na’Abba to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Atiku strongly denied the accusation, describing it as fabricated, reckless and politically motivated.

Still, the appraisal of a president who worked closely with Atiku for eight years cannot simply be dismissed as the invention of distant enemies. Obasanjo observed Atiku from inside the presidency, entrusted him with major economic responsibilities and later became his fiercest accuser.

SeeWahala:
This op has asked government to subscribe all the AI LLMs for hik to be asking questions from morning till night about Peter Obi YET him AI no see anything 🙄

So he's attacking Obidients instead

I don't need AI to supply me with material on Peter Obi. Peter Obi supplies it in abundance every time he opens his mouth or grants an interview. His public statements, interviews and policy positions are already in the public domain for everyone to analyse and critique. AI simply helps organise publicly available information; it doesn't manufacture it.

As for some Obidient commenters on Nairaland, you've just demonstrated a pattern that has become all too familiar. Instead of engaging the argument, they often pivot to the person making it.

If you disagree with my argument, that's perfectly fine—point out the factual error and let's discuss it. But if your entire contribution is about me rather than the issues raised, you've only confirmed that you had no substantive rebuttal in the first place.

Ttalk:
Someone should tell me how a pure water company owner is able to live opulent lifestyle in Dubai even after he sold his logistics company that was initially a coverup for corruption.

Atiku should never be allowed to near the sit of power not in 2027 nor in 2031 as the consequences of National assets he sold to himself is still hurting Nigerians who lost their employment and pension to a fraudulent scheme supervised by a gluttonous man who stole Nigeria blind with reckless abandon

Atiku and Jennifer: The Divorce, the Dubai Villa and the Property Wars. Part 1 by CharlesCNG.

Politics may be rough, but family disputes can be even rougher. If campaign rallies have casualties, divorce battles usually leave emotional wreckage—and sometimes expensive real estate—in their wake.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar found himself in exactly such a situation when his marriage to Jennifer Douglas unraveled, eventually spilling into the public domain in what became less of a divorce story and more of a cross-border property drama involving mansions, mediation, text messages and a luxury villa in Dubai.

Like many political stories involving Atiku, this one came with enough twists to keep scriptwriters employed for months.

The Marriage Hits the Rocks

After more than two decades together, Jennifer publicly disclosed in February 2022 that she had asked Atiku to grant her a divorce on June 26, 2021.

Contrary to media speculation that Atiku's later marriage to another wife was the immediate trigger, Jennifer insisted that wasn't the real issue. According to her, the marriage had already suffered long-standing strains, particularly disagreements over her decision to continue living in the United Kingdom with their children after the death of her sister, who had been helping care for them.

In essence, Jennifer's position was simple:

"The marriage had broken down long before the headlines discovered it."

Enter the Peace Committee...

As is customary in Nigeria, divorce among prominent families rarely begins with lawyers. It usually begins with "elders."

Jennifer disclosed that respected personalities—including Senator Ben Obi, Tunde Ayeni, Captain Yahaya, Peter Okocha and Senator Ben Murray-Bruce—attempted to broker peace.

Unfortunately, not every political coalition survives negotiations.

This particular "unity government" reportedly collapsed before reaching any lasting settlement.

Then Came the Property Olympics.
Please stay tuned for part 2.

The transcript turns from the Siemens payments to the establishment and financing of the American University of Nigeria (AUN), describing how U.S. Senate investigators examined Jennifer Douglas Abubakar's role in the university's early operations.

According to the transcript, Jennifer Douglas approached American University in Washington, D.C., in 2002 to seek assistance in establishing what became the American University of Nigeria. It says she acted as the liaison between the U.S. university and Atiku Abubakar and, from the institution's inception, served as an unpaid trustee on AUN's Board of Trustees.

The transcript further states that Atiku asked her to help administer certain U.S.-based financial obligations of the university, particularly the payment of salaries to some professors who requested to be paid in U.S. dollars rather than in Nigeria.

It then describes the Senate investigation's examination of AUN's U.S. banking arrangements.

According to the transcript, investigators found that AUN operated through several bank accounts in the United States, including personal accounts opened by Jennifer Douglas at Citibank and Wachovia, as well as an account maintained through a U.S. law firm at SunTrust Bank.
The transcript says investigators reported that funding for these accounts came primarily from three offshore entities—Guernsey Trust Company, LetsGo Ltd and Sima Holding.

The transcript further states that, between 2003 and 2007, AUN reportedly received approximately [b]$14 million [/b]in multiple wire transfers from LetsGo Ltd and Guernsey Trust Company for work connected with the university.

The transcript presents these matters as part of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee's inquiry into financial transactions involving offshore corporations, Jennifer Douglas Abubakar and institutions connected to Atiku Abubakar.

It does not state that the American University of Nigeria itself was found guilty of wrongdoing, nor does it state that these findings resulted in criminal convictions of Atiku Abubakar or Jennifer Douglas.

[quote author=reddingtonblack post=140224773][/quote]Your argument raises several distinct issues that are worth separating.

First, saying that hardship is greater today than under previous administrations is a different claim from saying the current administration is solely responsible for it. To evaluate that fairly, it would be necessary to consider inherited economic conditions, policy choices, external factors, and a range of indicators such as inflation, exchange rates, public finances, employment, growth, and security—not a single measure in isolation.

Second, it is true that citizens ultimately judge governments. At the same time, public assessments are typically informed by both lived experience and measurable outcomes. During periods of major reform, those two may not always move in the same direction at the same time.

Third, the assertion that alternative ideas are rejected because of who proposes them is a factual claim that requires evidence. Demonstrating that would require documented examples where a proposal was dismissed because of its source rather than its merits.

Finally, asking for examples of criticism that influenced government decisions is an empirical question. The appropriate way to answer it is with specific, verifiable cases rather than general impressions. Likewise, claims that no criticism is ever considered would also require supporting evidence.

Keeping these questions separate helps make the discussion more precise and evidence-based.