₦airaland Forum

Painkillers or Chemotherapy? The Real Question Behind Tinubu's Reforms

For decades, Nigeria's economy was treated like a cancer patient who was repeatedly given painkillers instead of chemotherapy.

Each time the pain subsided, there was applause. Politicians celebrated. Citizens breathed a temporary sigh of relief.

But beneath that fleeting comfort, the disease continued to spread.

Fuel subsidies grew into a fiscal monster. Multiple exchange rates distorted the economy. Public finances weakened. Investors lost confidence. We became experts at postponing difficult decisions.

President Bola Tinubu has chosen a different approach.

His reforms resemble chemotherapy. They are painful. They are disruptive. No honest person denies that many Nigerians are carrying a heavy burden today.

But chemotherapy is not administered to make a patient comfortable this afternoon.

It is administered to give the patient a chance to live tomorrow.

That is the difference between treating symptoms and curing disease.

History will ultimately judge whether these reforms succeed. They deserve scrutiny, adjustment where necessary, and compassion for those bearing the costs.

Yet we should not confuse the pain of treatment with the illness itself.

The real debate is not whether the reforms hurt. They do.

The real debate is whether Nigeria should have continued swallowing political painkillers while the economic cancer quietly consumed the nation.

Painkillers comfort.

Chemotherapy cures.

The choice before Nigeria was never between pain and no pain.

It was between temporary comfort and lasting recovery.

First, on behalf of Senator Remi Tinubu, I wish to offer an unreserved apology to the intellectual elite, policy analysts, social media economists and the ever-vigilant Obidient think tank.

It was terribly insensitive of her to think that a widow selling akara or a young man roasting yam by the roadside might benefit from a little capital of just fifty thousand naira..

Clearly, she should have known better.

Instead of helping them expand a petty business, she ought to have enrolled them in Data Science, Quantum Computing and Artificial Intelligence. The woman frying akara should first master Python, C++, Java and Blockchain before qualifying for assistance.

The roasted-yam seller? Surely he should first complete a certification in Cybersecurity, publish a paper on machine learning and defend a thesis on aeronautical engineering before receiving support.

What an embarrassing oversight.

The truth is that some critics have confused empowerment with academic aspiration.

Not every intervention is designed to produce software engineers.

Sometimes the objective is far simpler: to help a vulnerable family earn an honest living.

A ₦50,000 grant may not transform someone into the next tech billionaire. But it could help a market woman buy another cooler, a roadside trader increase her stock, or a widow pay school fees without borrowing.

The irony is that many who mock such initiatives have never had to survive on daily trade.

Policy debates are important. Long-term economic reform is essential.

But compassion has never been disqualified because it comes in small denominations.

Sometimes the shortest distance between poverty and dignity is not a PhD.

It is a tray of akara, a basket of roasted yam, and the chance to build a livelihood.

And perhaps that was the point all along.

Flangelo12:
I suggest we teach them how to code in C++ & Java, then progress to cybersecurity.

Or teach them how to synthesise hydrocarbons to medicine.

He get one guy wey be aeronautical expert for here (so he says), he fit teach them the application of Bernoulli's principle.

I honestly agree with you.

Why stop at akara and kuli-kuli?

Let's immediately enroll every widow and roadside hawker in Data Science, Machine Learning, Quantum Computing and Blockchain Architecture.

After that, they can proceed to Artificial Intelligence, write smart contracts in Solidity, and defend a PhD thesis on Computational Fluid Dynamics before collecting their first meal.

The elderly woman selling roasted corn should first master Python, C++, Java, and Rust.
Poverty can surely wait until she finishes her software engineering bootcamp.

The young man pushing a wheelbarrow? Please don't insult him with petty grants. He should first derive the Schrödinger Equation, explain General Relativity, and optimize neural networks before anyone dares offer him capital.

And don't forget the widow struggling to feed three children. She should first obtain an MBA from Harvard, complete a certification in Cybersecurity, and publish a peer-reviewed paper on renewable energy economics.

After all, practical help for vulnerable people is apparently beneath our intellectual standards.

Sometimes, social media forgets that the purpose of empowerment is not to produce professors.

It is to help people stand on their feet.

Not every intervention is designed to create software engineers.

Sometimes, it is simply designed to ensure that a mother can feed her children today while building a better tomorrow.

There is a world of difference between empowerment and elitist performance art.

Some critics seem unable—or unwilling—to tell the difference.

One of the biggest mistakes in Nigerian politics is assuming that everyone lives in the same economic reality.

They don't.

The debate over Senator Oluremi Tinubu's comments about akara and kuli-kuli exposed something deeper than politics. It exposed a disconnect between many middle-class commentators and the daily realities of millions of Nigerians.

To someone earning a salary every month, ₦50,000 may look insignificant.

To a widow selling akara, roasted yam, boiled corn, kuli-kuli or cashew nuts, ₦50,000 can be working capital. It is the difference between buying today's stock with borrowed money and buying it outright. It is the difference between surviving and expanding.

Years ago, I personally experienced this.

I gave five widows ₦30,000 each to buy cashew nuts. They repackaged them into smaller bottles and sachets for resale. Within three months, every one of them had repaid the money. We then revolved the same capital to another five women.

That small intervention did not create software engineers. It created sustainable micro-businesses.

That is the point many critics miss.

Not every Nigerian needs a laptop before they can be economically productive. Nigeria's economy is layered. A graduate may benefit from digital skills and technology. A market woman may benefit more from affordable working capital. A roadside food vendor may simply need enough money to increase inventory.

As food prices have risen, another trend has emerged. Demand for lower-cost prepared foods such as roasted yam, akara, bread-and-akara ("akara burger"wink, boiled maize and similar street foods has increased in many communities because they remain relatively affordable. That, in turn, has created opportunities for thousands of small traders operating with modest capital.

This is not an argument against technology or digital empowerment.

It is an argument against one-size-fits-all thinking.

Successful social policy recognises that poverty is not uniform. The needs of a graduate seeking employment are different from those of a widow selling vegetables, or a hawker financing her daily stock on credit.

Politics is ultimately about understanding people where they are, not where we wish they were.

If the opposition wants to become electorally competitive, it must spend more time listening in markets than arguing on social media.

The grassroots are not asking politicians to solve every problem overnight. Many are asking for something much simpler: enough capital to take the next step.

Sometimes, the journey out of poverty does not begin with millions of naira.

Sometimes, it begins with one basin of akara.

BATified2023:
Good evening everyone

I have been seeing many outburst on Remi Tinubu statement as regards the akara and kuli kuli issue and I see a big difference in the way apc people reason and the way opposition reason.

Like seriously, with every follow up reaction since yesterday I can tell you apc will always win election and it's not because they are 100% perfect but because they understand governance and the meaning of grassroot support.

I do logistics and I base in a very big market in the south west, I met people from every financial circus always both the rich, the average and the poor and what I can tell you for real is that there are many vulnerable people out there than the first 2 categories.

For example, those selling drinks in hold up, those hawking cold drinks in the market majority of them don't even have start up capital. What they do is pally with a chiller owner, collect goods on credit and after sales they come back and pay for goods collected and that's how they repeat the cycle every blessed day, imagine everything the road side hawker collects on credit everyday isn't even up to 20k, come to think about it Remi Tinubu start a grant and those vulnerable people will be given 50k and they will start buying themselves and funny enough they will invite their friends too.... naturally apc have won a vote whereas obidient and opposition are thinking the only way to empower is giving out laptop and make them do tech....will everyone do tech?

How can u empower a widow who have 3 kids to take care of?

Will you give her laptop?

The reality is that we have the poor among us and they have been around since the time of Jesus Christ and will always be around, we even have poor and homeless people in the almighty USA.

The reality is that if opposition wants to win they should get down from their high horse and think of vulnerable people in the grassroots, same method worked for buhari when osinbajo introduced tradermoni

The reality the opposition will never want to accept is that Remi Tinubu was right, there are people who see 50k as 5 million, in that same market we have people who sell okro and all their stock is not up to 20k, if u as a political canvasser gives that kind of person 50, u have automatically won a vote but noisemaking opposition believes everything is millions.


Before u come here to attack me, go to an average market near u and do a market survey, u will realize that 50k u think it's too small n u see as flexing money is what some people need to stock up.

The truth is that, if opposition keeps getting disconnected from the grassroots APC will keep winning.

Those vulnerable people will collect that 50k u see as chicken change and they will vote the person that empowered them

The Akara Economy: Why the Elite Often Misunderstand Grassroots Empowerment.

One of the biggest mistakes in Nigerian politics is assuming that everyone lives in the same economic reality.

They don't.

The debate over Senator Oluremi Tinubu's comments about akara and kuli-kuli exposed something deeper than politics. It exposed a disconnect between many middle-class commentators and the daily realities of millions of Nigerians.

To someone earning a salary every month, ₦50,000 may look insignificant.

To a widow selling akara, roasted yam, boiled corn, kuli-kuli or cashew nuts, ₦50,000 can be working capital. It is the difference between buying today's stock with borrowed money and buying it outright. It is the difference between surviving and expanding.

Years ago, I personally experienced this.

I gave five widows ₦30,000 each to buy cashew nuts. They repackaged them into smaller bottles and sachets for resale. Within three months, every one of them had repaid the money. We then revolved the same capital to another five women.

That small intervention did not create software engineers. It created sustainable micro-businesses.

That is the point many critics miss.

Not every Nigerian needs a laptop before they can be economically productive. Nigeria's economy is layered. A graduate may benefit from digital skills and technology. A market woman may benefit more from affordable working capital. A roadside food vendor may simply need enough money to increase inventory.

As food prices have risen, another trend has emerged. Demand for lower-cost prepared foods such as roasted yam, akara, bread-and-akara ("akara burger", boiled maize and similar street foods has increased in many communities because they remain relatively affordable. That, in turn, has created opportunities for thousands of small traders operating with modest capital.

This is not an argument against technology or digital empowerment.

It is an argument against one-size-fits-all thinking.

Successful social policy recognises that poverty is not uniform. The needs of a graduate seeking employment are different from those of a widow selling vegetables, or a hawker financing her daily stock on credit.

Politics is ultimately about understanding people where they are, not where we wish they were.

If the opposition wants to become electorally competitive, it must spend more time listening in markets than arguing on social media.

The grassroots are not asking politicians to solve every problem overnight. Many are asking for something much simpler: enough capital to take the next step.

Sometimes, the journey out of poverty does not begin with millions of naira.

Sometimes, it begins with one basin of akara.

**"They Don't Want Me on the Ballot" – The Politics of Perpetual Victimhood**

One would expect a man aspiring to lead over 200 million Nigerians to reassure his supporters that he is prepared for the contest. Instead, Peter Obi increasingly sounds like a man preparing excuses before the race has even begun.

"They don't want me on the ballot."

Who are "they"? On what evidence? Through what legal process?

Nigeria is a constitutional democracy. Candidates emerge through party primaries, satisfy statutory requirements, and if disputes arise, they are determined by the courts. That is the process every politician—including President Tinubu—has had to navigate.

Repeatedly suggesting shadowy forces are plotting to stop him does two things.

First, it conditions his supporters to reject any outcome they dislike as proof of conspiracy rather than asking whether legal or political factors were responsible.

Second, it diminishes confidence in democratic institutions without presenting verifiable evidence. A statesman strengthens institutions; he does not casually undermine them whenever they appear inconvenient.

If Peter Obi truly believes someone is unlawfully attempting to stop him, the proper place is the courtroom with evidence—not the campaign podium with insinuations.

Leadership requires resilience, not a permanent persecution complex. Nigerians deserve a candidate who is eager to compete, not one who appears to be rehearsing reasons why he may not.

aswani:
He didn't care because he feels no one would dare pronounce against NDC once he is there.

What he and his Obidients don't know is that the judiciary are not scared of them and the rule of law must be followed whether or not Obidients feelings will be hurt.

A politician who is perpetually searching for the next platform projects the image of a weather vane, not a compass. He follows the political wind instead of providing direction.

Nigeria needs leaders who inspire confidence by standing their ground, not serial platform-hoppers who seem to be in a permanent search for their next political address.

helinues:
I actually learned a new word this morning and it fits the description of the Obidients

The Obidients are Bullshittual

😂😂 "Bullshittual?"

That's a new one.

Do you mean Obidients are habitually committed to bullsh*t—so consistently attached to exaggeration, speculation and conspiracy theories that it has become their default mode of reasoning?

If that's the intended joke, it's actually a clever blend of "bullsh*t" and the suffix "-ua[/b]l" (as in "habitual", implying someone who makes a habit of peddling or believing nonsense.

Of course, "bullshittual" isn't a standard English word—it's a humorous, made-up expression. But the intended meaning is fairly obvious: [b]habitually full of or attracted to nonsense.

One could say:

"Bullshittual: A person who instinctively replaces evidence with speculation, facts with feelings, and every inconvenient reality with a brand-new conspiracy theory."

😂 That's certainly one way to coin a new political adjective.

Owoino:
Good,this will teach Gringory to keep his smelly but in one political party.

I can see the point you are making.

Perhaps this will finally teach Peter obi that political parties are not bus stops where you hop on and off whenever the next ride looks more attractive.

Leadership demands conviction, consistency and the courage to build institutions—not the habit of treating parties as disposable vehicles of convenience.

A politician who is perpetually searching for the next platform projects the image of a weather vane, not a compass. He follows the political wind instead of providing direction.

Nigeria needs leaders who inspire confidence by standing their ground, [b]not serial platform-hoppers [/b]who seem to be in a permanent search for their next political address.

helinues:
Why can't you people respond coherently to what you are what you are replying.

check my comments, check your response.

My brother, it seems you dont know this people.

It's difficult to have a coherent debate because every criticism is automatically reframed as hatred, every disagreement becomes oppression, and every legal setback is treated as proof of a conspiracy.

I've called this the Emotional Substitution Method—where emotion replaces evidence. Rather than answering the substance of an argument, the response becomes, "You hate Obi," "They're after us," or "The system is against us."

That creates a perpetual persecution narrative in which criticism is never examined on its merits because it is first reclassified as victimisation.
To the obidients i have said this before and i will say again.....
If you want a serious debate, respond to the argument. Show where the facts or legal reasoning are wrong. If you cannot rebut the point, changing the subject or attacking the messenger doesn't make the argument disappear.

FSBoperator:
Nah to rush go join that undertaker political party that has shovel as it's logo.

Let's be legally accurate.

The court did[b] not[/b] make a final finding that NDC "stole" or "copied" PMP's logo.

What the court accepted, at this stage, was PMP's argument that it had a claimed interest in the disputed logo and that, because of that claimed interest, it ought to have been joined as a necessary party before the earlier judgment directing INEC to register NDC was delivered.

On that basis, the court set aside its previous judgment and ordered that the matter be heard afresh with all necessary parties before it.

Whether PMP actually has a superior legal claim to the logo is a question that still has to be determined through the judicial process.

That is precisely why NDC has announced it will appeal.

Let's argue the law, not invent findings the court never made.

FSBoperator:
Nah to rush go join that undertaker political party that has shovel as it's logo.

What does the Electoral Act say about party symbols?

The Electoral Act gives INEC responsibility for maintaining the register of party names and symbols.

INEC may register a symbol only if:

no identical or substantially similar registered symbol already exists;
the symbol is distinctive;
it is not offensive or prohibited by law.

The Act also prohibits allocating a symbol that remains registered to another political party.

But notice something important:

The statute refers to registered symbols.
It does not expressly state that merely filing an application years earlier automatically creates a proprietary right against every future applicant.

That could become one of the central issues before the appellate courts.

fergie001:
First things first, the judgement is defective.

Whilst Judges can set aside their judgements...the Supreme Court outlined cases where it can happen: lack of jurisdiction, obtained by deceit, denial of fair hearing or suppressed facts.

However, the PMP was not a Party to the suit. Once that judgement has been delivered, the right thing was obtain a leave of Court to challenge same at the appellate. The PMP sat down for months before deciding to institute an action, they have slept on their supposed rights. As at today, they ate unregistered.

In the recent suit between Access Party vs INEC, the FHC held that INEC powers to logo contention, should be with a registered party. The last I checked the PMP is not a registered Political Party.

Thank you. This is one of the more thoughtful legal responses I've seen on the issue.

You may well be right that the judgment is vulnerable on appeal. Indeed, the points you raised—the doctrine of functus officio, whether PMP ought to have sought leave to appeal rather than institute fresh proceedings, whether an unregistered association has sufficient standing in a logo dispute, and the implications of the recent Access Party decision—are all legitimate legal questions that deserve appellate consideration.

On the other hand, the court appears to have proceeded on a different legal premise. PMP argued that it was a necessary party whose alleged interest in the disputed logo was affected without being heard, thereby raising a fair hearing issue. Whether that premise ultimately justifies setting aside the earlier judgment is precisely what the appellate courts are now expected to determine.

That, however, is my point.

My concern has never been whether Justice Dashen was infallible. Trial courts are reversed every day. Judges disagree. That is why our judicial hierarchy exists.

My concern is the immediate leap from an unfavourable ruling to allegations that "they don't want Peter Obi on the ballot" and the instant portrayal of the judiciary as an instrument of political persecution before the appellate process has even begun.

A constitutional democracy expects disappointed litigants to challenge judgments through appeals, not through public campaigns to delegitimise institutions.

If the judgment is defective, as you argue, then NDC should—and has every right to—test it before the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal agrees, the judgment will be reversed. That is the rule of law at work.

A leader aspiring to govern Nigeria has a responsibility to strengthen public confidence in constitutional institutions, not encourage millions of supporters to conclude, without evidence, that every adverse judicial decision is the product of executive manipulation.

We should argue the law vigorously. We should criticise judgments where appropriate. But we should also[b] resist turning every legal setback into a political conspiracy before the appellate courts have had the opportunity to speak.[/b]

That distinction is the essence of constitutional democracy.

fergie001:
National Democratic Congress



https://tribuneonlineng.com/ndc-court-ruling-temporary-setback-peter-obs-camp/

Let us try to look at the legal issues objectively.


1. Did PMP have the legal right (locus standi) to challenge the judgment?

Probably yes, if its claim is true.

The court accepted PMP's argument that it was a necessary party because it claimed an interest in the logo/symbol that NDC relied upon in obtaining registration. Nigerian courts generally hold that a person whose legal rights may be directly affected by a judgment should be joined to the proceedings. If such a person was omitted, the court may set aside the judgment and order a fresh hearing.

This appears to be exactly what Justice Dashen did:

He found PMP was a necessary party.
He held that the earlier judgment was reached without hearing a party claiming an affected interest.
He restored the parties to their pre-judgment position and ordered a fresh hearing with PMP joined.

2. Does merely claiming an identical logo automatically defeat NDC?

No.

PMP must still prove several things, including:

that it had an earlier, legally recognizable claim to the logo;
that the logo is sufficiently similar to create a legal conflict;
that the claim was properly before INEC or otherwise gives rise to an enforceable legal interest.

Simply alleging ownership is not enough. Those issues are for the substantive hearing.

3. Is NDC's argument legally arguable?

Yes.

NDC says:

the trial court had already delivered a final judgment;
after doing so, it became functus officio (meaning it generally could not revisit the merits of that final judgment);
there was no express order deregistering NDC; and
any complaint should have been pursued through the appellate process rather than by reopening the original case.

Those are recognized legal arguments, and they will likely be tested on appeal.

4. Could the judge nevertheless set aside his own judgment?

Sometimes, yes.

Although courts generally become functus officio after a final judgment, Nigerian law recognizes limited exceptions. A court may set aside its own judgment where, for example:

a necessary party was not joined and the omission affected fairness;
the judgment is alleged to be a nullity;
there was a fundamental procedural defect or denial of fair hearing.

That appears to be the legal basis relied upon here. Whether the appellate courts agree remains an open question.

If NDC believes the judge exceeded his jurisdiction or wrongly treated PMP as a necessary party, the proper remedy is exactly what NDC has announced—an appeal.
That is how the rule of law works. Whether PMP ultimately succeeds will depend on the evidence and the appellate courts' interpretation of the law, not on political rhetoric or allegations of conspiracy.

Skullminers1:
Yeah we know you and cohorts are so scared of him that's why any party he joined your party APC and Ebola Tinupoo will go after that party but guess what,you people are not God who make leaders and rules and unmake them.

Did PMP have the right to institute the action?

Yes, probably.

Under Nigerian law, a person or association that claims its legal rights will be affected by a court's decision has standing (locus standi) to ask the court to be heard.

PMP's complaint was not simply, "We don't like NDC."

Its complaint was:

"We applied to INEC years ago."
"We claimed the same or substantially similar symbol."
"The court granted relief affecting our claimed interest without hearing us."

If those assertions are even arguably true, a court can hold that PMP was a necessary party and should have been joined before making orders that could affect its claimed rights. That appears to be the basis on which the Federal High Court set aside the earlier judgment and ordered a rehearing.

So instead of behaving like rain-beaten chickens—flapping wildly from one conspiracy theory to another—Obidients and Peter obi should focus on the actual legal questions before the court, the judicial process, and the constitutional remedy already available to NDC: an appeal.

maasoap:
You want judiciary to protect the stealers of another party's logo, right?

Does merely claiming an identical logo automatically defeat NDC?

No.

PMP must still prove several things, including:

that it had an earlier, legally recognizable claim to the logo;
that the logo is sufficiently similar to create a legal conflict;
that the claim was properly before INEC or otherwise gives rise to an enforceable legal interest.

Simply alleging ownership is not enough. Those issues are for the substantive hearing.

Instead of Peter obi and the Obidients prancing around like rain-beaten chickens, shouting "conspiracy" at every turn, they should devote that energy to understanding the legal issues, the court proceedings, and the appeal process available to NDC.

otrasane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL-_BSXIWGs?si=-ZBSEAZCp6VyM-bG




"They Are Desperate to Stop Me. They Won't Win!"— Peter Obi Reacts to Court's NDC Verdict

Peter Obi has reacted strongly to the recent court ruling nullifying the registration of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), alleging that the move is part of a broader effort to prevent him from participating in the forthcoming election. Speaking after the judgment, Obi claimed that the Federal Government is doing everything within its power to stop his political ambition but expressed confidence that such efforts would ultimately fail.

“They are desperate to stop me. Today, the Federal Government of Nigeria is doing everything possible to ensure that I am not a candidate in this election. But I can tell you—they won't win,” Obi declared.

His remarks have since generated widespread reactions across the political landscape, with supporters describing them as a show of resilience, while critics have questioned the basis of his allegations. The development has further heightened political tension as the country moves closer to another crucial electoral season.

The NDC Judgment: Separating Law from Political Theatre by CharlesCNG

The controversy surrounding the Federal High Court's decision in Lokoja has generated far more heat than light. Unfortunately, many political commentators have chosen conspiracy over careful legal analysis.

Here are the facts.

In December 2025, the Federal High Court ordered INEC to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party after finding that the party was entitled to registration. INEC complied with that judgment. The NDC thereafter organised nationwide congresses, conducted primaries, participated in by-elections and prepared candidates for the 2027 elections.

The latest proceedings did not arise because the Federal Government suddenly decided to stop Peter Obi or any opposition candidate.

Rather, another body—the Peace Movement Party (PMP)—approached the same court claiming that it was a necessary party whose interests had been affected because of issues relating to the logo and symbol relied upon in the earlier proceedings. The court agreed that the earlier judgment had been delivered without hearing a party whose rights could be affected. On that basis, Justice Isah Dashen set aside the December 2025 judgment, restored the parties to the position they occupied before that judgment, and ordered that the substantive suit begin afresh with all necessary parties joined.

That is where the legal disagreement begins.

Counsel for the applicant argues that once the judgment compelling registration has been set aside and the status quo restored, every action taken by INEC pursuant to that judgment—including NDC's registration—must also fall away until the fresh hearing is concluded.

The NDC disagrees completely. It insists there was no express order directing its deregistration, argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revisit its earlier final judgment, and has already announced that it is proceeding to the Court of Appeal. The party maintains that it remains registered while the appellate process continues.

That is exactly how constitutional democracy works.

When parties disagree over the legal effect of a judgment, they do not settle the matter through television interviews, social media hashtags or conspiracy theories. They settle it in the appellate courts.

This is why the political narrative being pushed by some supporters of Peter Obi deserves careful scrutiny.

Long before today's legal dispute had run its course, Nigerians were already being told that unnamed forces "did not want Peter Obi on the ballot."

At the time those allegations were made, there had been no judicial pronouncement excluding Peter Obi from contesting any election. Even today, the legal argument is about the effect of a court ruling on the registration status of the NDC—not about any judicial order specifically barring Peter Obi from participating in the 2027 election.

That distinction matters.

A responsible political leader strengthens confidence in constitutional institutions. He does not encourage millions of supporters to assume that every adverse legal development must be the product of a hidden political conspiracy.

The danger of that approach is obvious. Once citizens are conditioned to believe that every court decision they dislike is evidence of executive manipulation, public confidence in the judiciary begins to collapse. Every judgment becomes suspect. Every election becomes illegitimate. Every legal disagreement becomes a political persecution narrative.

Democracy cannot function on that basis.

If today's judgment is wrong, the remedy already exists: the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the Supreme Court.

That is the rule of law.

Replacing evidence with perpetual victimhood and legal argument with conspiracy theories may be good politics for energising supporters, but it is profoundly unhealthy for Nigeria's democratic institutions.

helinues:
Even if the registration of the party wasn't in order, INEC or whatever could have ignored because the party presenting a presidential candidate wouldn't make any difference with the 2027 election

They have given room for the opposition to be thinking they are deliberately being targeted even though they won't admit they are also wrong with the registration of NDC

The NDC Judgment: Separating Law from Political Theatre. by CharlesCNG

The controversy surrounding the Federal High Court's decision in Lokoja has generated far more heat than light.
Unfortunately, many political commentators have chosen conspiracy over careful legal analysis.

Here are the facts.

In December 2025, the Federal High Court ordered INEC to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party after finding that the party was entitled to registration. INEC complied with that judgment. The NDC thereafter organised nationwide congresses, conducted primaries, participated in by-elections and prepared candidates for the 2027 elections.

The latest proceedings did not arise because the Federal Government suddenly decided to stop Peter Obi or any opposition candidate.

Rather, another body—the Peace Movement Party (PMP)—approached the same court claiming that it was a necessary party whose interests had been affected because of issues relating to the logo and symbol relied upon in the earlier proceedings. The court agreed that the earlier judgment had been delivered without hearing a party whose rights could be affected. On that basis, Justice Isah Dashen set aside the December 2025 judgment, restored the parties to the position they occupied before that judgment, and ordered that the substantive suit begin afresh with all necessary parties joined.

That is where the legal disagreement begins.

Counsel for the applicant argues that once the judgment compelling registration has been set aside and the status quo restored, every action taken by INEC pursuant to that judgment—including NDC's registration—must also fall away until the fresh hearing is concluded.

The NDC disagrees completely. It insists there was no express order directing its deregistration, argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revisit its earlier final judgment, and has already announced that it is proceeding to the Court of Appeal. The party maintains that it remains registered while the appellate process continues.

That is exactly how constitutional democracy works.

When parties disagree over the legal effect of a judgment, they do not settle the matter through television interviews, social media hashtags or conspiracy theories. They settle it in the appellate courts.

This is why the political narrative being pushed by some supporters of Peter Obi deserves careful scrutiny.

Long before today's legal dispute had run its course, Nigerians were already being told that unnamed forces "did not want Peter Obi on the ballot."

At the time those allegations were made, there had been no judicial pronouncement excluding Peter Obi from contesting any election. Even today, the legal argument is about the effect of a court ruling on the registration status of the NDC—not about any judicial order specifically barring Peter Obi from participating in the 2027 election.

That distinction matters.

A responsible political leader strengthens confidence in constitutional institutions. He does not encourage millions of supporters to assume that every adverse legal development must be the product of a hidden political conspiracy.

The danger of that approach is obvious. Once citizens are conditioned to believe that every court decision they dislike is evidence of executive manipulation, public confidence in the judiciary begins to collapse. Every judgment becomes suspect. Every election becomes illegitimate. Every legal disagreement becomes a political persecution narrative.

Democracy cannot function on that basis.

If today's judgment is wrong, the remedy already exists: the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the Supreme Court.

That is the rule of law.

Replacing evidence with perpetual victimhood and legal argument with conspiracy theories may be good politics for energising supporters, but it is profoundly unhealthy for Nigeria's democratic institutions.

fergie001:
National Democratic Congress



https://tribuneonlineng.com/ndc-court-ruling-temporary-setback-peter-obs-camp/

The NDC Judgment: Separating Law from Political Theatre. by CharlesCNG

The controversy surrounding the Federal High Court's decision in Lokoja has generated far more heat than light. Unfortunately, many political commentators have chosen conspiracy over careful legal analysis.

Here are the facts.

In December 2025, the Federal High Court ordered INEC to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party after finding that the party was entitled to registration. INEC complied with that judgment. The NDC thereafter organised nationwide congresses, conducted primaries, participated in by-elections and prepared candidates for the 2027 elections.

The latest proceedings did not arise because the Federal Government suddenly decided to stop Peter Obi or any opposition candidate.

Rather, another body—the Peace Movement Party (PMP)—approached the same court claiming that it was a necessary party whose interests had been affected because of issues relating to the logo and symbol relied upon in the earlier proceedings. The court agreed that the earlier judgment had been delivered without hearing a party whose rights could be affected. On that basis, Justice Isah Dashen set aside the December 2025 judgment, restored the parties to the position they occupied before that judgment, and ordered that the substantive suit begin afresh with all necessary parties joined.

That is where the legal disagreement begins.

Counsel for the applicant argues that once the judgment compelling registration has been set aside and the status quo restored, every action taken by INEC pursuant to that judgment—including NDC's registration—must also fall away until the fresh hearing is concluded.

The NDC disagrees completely. It insists there was no express order directing its deregistration, argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revisit its earlier final judgment, and has already announced that it is proceeding to the Court of Appeal. The party maintains that it remains registered while the appellate process continues.

That is exactly how constitutional democracy works.

When parties disagree over the legal effect of a judgment, they do not settle the matter through television interviews, social media hashtags or conspiracy theories. They settle it in the appellate courts.

This is why the political narrative being pushed by some supporters of Peter Obi deserves careful scrutiny.

Long before today's legal dispute had run its course, Nigerians were already being told that unnamed forces "did not want Peter Obi on the ballot."

At the time those allegations were made, there had been no judicial pronouncement excluding Peter Obi from contesting any election. Even today, the legal argument is about the effect of a court ruling on the registration status of the NDC—not about any judicial order specifically barring Peter Obi from participating in the 2027 election.

That distinction matters.

A responsible political leader strengthens confidence in constitutional institutions. He does not encourage millions of supporters to assume that every adverse legal development must be the product of a hidden political conspiracy.

The danger of that approach is obvious. Once citizens are conditioned to believe that every court decision they dislike is evidence of executive manipulation, public confidence in the judiciary begins to collapse. Every judgment becomes suspect. Every election becomes illegitimate. Every legal disagreement becomes a political persecution narrative.

Democracy cannot function on that basis.

If today's judgment is wrong, the remedy already exists: the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the Supreme Court.

That is the rule of law.

Replacing evidence with perpetual victimhood and legal argument with conspiracy theories may be good politics for energising supporters, but it is profoundly unhealthy for Nigeria's democratic institutions.

designking:
After going through the blueprint document of the propose state police, I discovered that the state policemen will not be allowed to carry AK-47.

How will state police fix the challenges of bandits, terrorism and kidnapping with pump actions and pepper sprays?

Breaking News!

A new test has been discovered for public policy.

Not whether it is constitutional.
Not whether it will reduce crime.
Not whether governors have demanded it for years.

Just one question:

"Will Tinubu benefit politically?"

If the answer is yes...

Reject. Suspend. Postpone. Demarket.

The policy is guilty until Tinubu leaves office.

That is not opposition. That is reflexive politics.

lawani:
It can't solve but it will reduce insecurity. There will no longer be the issue of arresting foreigners or non locals with AK-47 in the forests and the NSA telling the police they are vigilantes on government payroll guarding the community

Breaking News!

A new test has been discovered for public policy.

Not whether it is constitutional.
Not whether it will reduce crime.
Not whether governors have demanded it for years.

Just one question:

"Will Tinubu benefit politically?"

If the answer is yes...

Reject. Suspend. Postpone. Demarket.

The policy is guilty until Tinubu leaves office.

That is not opposition. That is reflexive politics.

2old4that:
With all what they have been doing, its pretty obvious that Peter Obi won the last election.

He is their nightmare.

Yes. The same man who came third, with less than half of the constitutionally required spread, suddenly wants to be presented as someone the system is terrified of.

Even when he went to court, he never claimed that he won the election.

On the court judgment, a mature democracy is built on evidence, due process and appeals — not on treating speculation as proof.

If you believe a judgment is wrong, challenge it in the next court. That is how constitutional democracies work.

Obi is not anyone’s nightmare. His real nightmare is perpetual victimhood and the endless conspiracy loop.

Sheuns:
Last I remember, only Tinubu has been championing state police.

Breaking News!

A new test has been discovered for public policy.

Not whether it is constitutional.
Not whether it will reduce crime.
Not whether governors have demanded it for years.

Just one question:

"Will Tinubu benefit politically?"

If the answer is yes...

Reject. Suspend. Postpone. Demarket.

The policy is guilty until Tinubu leaves office.

That is not opposition. That is reflexive politics.

ryloy:
State police is no longer a campaign promise.
I understand the tears from the opposition.

https://x.com/DanielWhalee/status/2070517536878108689

"I actually have no problem with State Police...

...I just have a problem with Tinubu getting the credit."

That seems to be the new position.

So instead of asking, "Will this make Nigeria safer?"

The question becomes, "Will it improve Tinubu's chances?"

If yes, postpone it.

Apparently, insecurity can wait—but politics cannot.

That is an interesting definition of putting Nigeria first.

Borrow2222:
Every right thinking Nigerian knows that the APC is doing everything possible to prevent you from contesting in the 2027 elections.

Even with all the governors under his control, they are still afraid of PO.

What they don't even realize is that the more they try to disenfranchise you, the more people see that they are all scared of you.

If the APC is confident that they have performed well, according to the propaganda they dish out, why don't they allow a level playing field?

My view is that they should not, in an attempt to retain power, push Nigeria into anarchy.

The country is already tense and charged.

They shouldn't try their luck any further.

The hallmark of conspiracy thinking is this: every outcome you dislike automatically becomes proof of a hidden plot.

A court judgment goes against you? "The President is afraid."

A legal process doesn't favour your party? "The instruments of state have been deployed."

No evidence. No facts. Just conclusions searching for proof.

Ironically, at the time Peter Obi claimed "they don't want me on the ballot," there was no court judgment nullifying NDC's registration. INEC's registration itself was carried out pursuant to a court order. Yet, before the judicial process had even run its course, the conspiracy narrative had already been manufactured.

That is not respect for institutions. That is respect for institutions only when they produce outcomes you like.

If today's judgment is wrong, the Constitution provides a remedy: appeal it.

File your notice, present your arguments, and let the appellate courts decide. That is how constitutional democracy works.

Instead, some have chosen the easier path—delegitimise the judiciary, accuse the President without evidence, and condition supporters to believe that every unfavourable ruling is political persecution.

A leader should calm public anxieties and strengthen confidence in democratic institutions. He should not encourage millions of supporters to view every court they lose in as an extension of the Presidency.

If every judicial defeat is blamed on Tinubu, then what is the point of appeals? Why have courts at all? Why bother with evidence if conspiracy is always the preferred verdict?

Democracy cannot function where legal arguments are abandoned in favour of permanent victimhood.

If you believe the judgment is legally defective, challenge it in court—not in the court of social media speculation.

budaatum:
I am not afraid of any curses really because they are like pisses in the wind as far as I am concerned. And no, I'm unfortunately not on ground and haven't been for a while. I've been threatened to be arrested and deported before some rogue family members kidnap me. As is said, kokoro ti o un jẹ ẹfọ wa lara ẹfọ, and I can't boldly claim there's no bandits in my family. But I do keep in touch with the ground as much as I can.

What I have heard is that state civil servants are behind the current governor whatever party he campaigns under, as he is paying wages that have not been paid in the past. And since the major employer in the state is government, they are strongly behind him. It's in no way a done deal though.

As for Tinubu, and despite my undying Obidience for now, I can not see how he could possibly lose the next presidential election, as Obi is not exactly organising us well enough to win, sadly. Besides, Tinubu has done some things (floating Naira, abolishing subsidy, increasing taxation, and being an accountant), that though have increased financial difficulty for many, are likely to move Nigeria forward, which I feel discerning Nigerians will appreciate in due time.

Now, if he were to abolish youth corpers or redesign it so it stops being a wage suppressor, I just might become disobedient, but I do not see that anywhere on the radar for now.

Thanks Bro. You have just proven that We should be able to support different candidates, debate their records vigorously, challenge one another's arguments with facts, and still remain civil.

Kukutente23:
If I may be permitted to ask, can you tell me why exactly you support Tinubu? Did you support him before he took office. If yes why? Do you still support him now? If yes why?
I find it amusing why your kind will expend so much energy on an opposition politician especially if you claim you're not a member of APC. If you are, it's all well and good. But if you're not, can you tell me exactly why you oppose Obi's candidacy?
If you can genuinely answer the above questions then I might begin to see something to be taken seriously in you

Since you asked respectfully, let me respond in the same spirit.

Yes, I have supported President Bola Ahmed Tinubu long before he became President. My support did not begin in 2023; it dates back to around 2007.

Why?

Because I have always regarded him as an audacious and visionary political leader. One example that impressed me was his long-term vision for Lagos. What many people simply call the Lekki Free Trade Zone today was once a bold idea. He supported the development of a largely undeveloped coastal corridor, transforming an area threatened by ocean surge into what has become one of Nigeria's most strategic economic zones. Whether one agrees with every policy or not, that kind of long-range thinking has always appealed to me.

No, I am not a card-carrying member of the APC. But I am unapologetically and unrepentantly a supporter of President Tinubu because I believe in his leadership style, particularly his willingness to take difficult decisions and pursue ambitious reforms. That is my democratic right.

On Peter Obi, I genuinely hold a different opinion. Based on my own assessment of his leadership, political approach and public conduct, I do not believe he is the right person to lead Nigeria. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with me, just as I am entitled to hold and express that opinion.

That, after all, is what democracy is about.

The problem is not that Obidients support Peter Obi. The problem is that some seem to believe that anyone who does not share their admiration must be malicious, sponsored or incapable of independent thought. That is an unfortunate approach to political engagement.

We should be able to support different candidates, debate their records vigorously, challenge one another's arguments with facts, and still remain civil.

In the end, democracy does not require uniformity of opinion. It requires mutual respect for the right of others to hold a different one.

Perhaps it is time we all learned to disagree without resorting to abuse or questioning one another's motives.

apelikirk:
then allow him to be on the ballot.

Nobody is stopping him but his own deluded, misguided and perpetual sense of victimhood.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that keeps some people trapped in a permanent conspiracy loop.

A court ruling doesn't go your way, and instead of filing an appeal or waiting for the judicial process to run its course, you immediately conclude that "the President is afraid."

Where is the evidence?

If every unfavourable development is automatically blamed on the President, then what is the purpose of the courts? Why have trial courts, Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court at all?


The surest sign of confidence is to compete under the law. The surest sign of weakness is to explain every legal setback with a conspiracy before the appellate courts have even spoken.

discusant:
A sitting president who has all the instruments of state, but is afraid of other candidates in an election, knows that he performed abysmally poor, and does not deserve reelection for 2nd term

This is exactly the kind of thinking that keeps some people trapped in a permanent conspiracy loop.

A court ruling doesn't go your way, and instead of filing an appeal or waiting for the judicial process to run its course, you immediately conclude that "the President is afraid."

Where is the evidence?

If every unfavourable development is automatically blamed on the President, then what is the purpose of the courts? Why have trial courts, Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court at all?

Ironically, the same people who preach "respect institutions" are often the first to delegitimise those institutions the moment a decision doesn't suit them.

At the time these allegations were being made, there had been no judicial finding that Peter Obi had been excluded from the ballot. Yet supporters were already constructing a grand conspiracy.

A mature democracy is built on evidence, due process and appeals—not on treating speculation as proof.

If you believe a judgment is wrong, challenge it in the next court. That is how constitutional democracies work.

If every setback becomes "Tinubu is afraid," then you've abandoned legal reasoning for political mythology.

Leaders inspire confidence in institutions. They don't encourage supporters to see every courtroom they lose in as an extension of Aso Rock.

The surest sign of confidence is to compete under the law. The surest sign of weakness is to explain every legal setback with a conspiracy before the appellate courts have even spoken.

Eriokanmi:
We already know. That's how far failure can go in fighting innocence. They've failed already. Nigerians are behind you sir

Obi says, "They don't want me on the ballot."

Supporters reply, "We already know."

Know from where? The Ministry of Assumptions?

When a court issues an order that aligns with his political objectives, it is celebrated as the triumph of the rule of law. But when developments become uncertain or unfavourable, institutions suddenly become suspects and conspiracies replace evidence.

Evidence should lead opinion—not the other way around.
Respect for institutions cannot be selective.. it is the height of political irresponsibility and unbecoming of one who wants to rule a country.

fergie001:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLsAxMJe4xY

Peter Obi @ Madonna University, Okija

He donated ₦15m to the institution after a likewise donation at the Holy Rosary hospital, Emekuku in Owerri when he visited this morning.

They Don't Want Me on the Ballot" – The Politics of Perpetual Victimhood.

One would expect a man aspiring to lead over 200 million Nigerians to reassure his supporters that he is prepared for the contest. Instead, Peter Obi increasingly sounds like a man preparing excuses before the race has even begun.

"They don't want me on the ballot."

Who are "they"? On what evidence? Through what legal process?

Nigeria is a constitutional democracy. Candidates emerge through party primaries, satisfy statutory requirements, and if disputes arise, they are determined by the courts. That is the process every politician—including President Tinubu—has had to navigate.

Repeatedly suggesting shadowy forces are plotting to stop him does two things.

First, it conditions his supporters to reject any outcome they dislike as proof of conspiracy rather than asking whether legal or political factors were responsible.

Second, it diminishes confidence in democratic institutions without presenting verifiable evidence. A statesman strengthens institutions; he does not casually undermine them whenever they appear inconvenient.

If Peter Obi truly believes someone is unlawfully attempting to stop him, the proper place is the courtroom with evidence—not the campaign podium with insinuations.

Leadership requires resilience, not a permanent persecution complex.

Nigerians deserve a candidate who is eager to compete, not one who appears to be rehearsing reasons why he may not.