₦airaland Forum

Morizo:
Story story story

You are the one trying to be clever by half and not Baba Ahmed

Top legal luminaries have condemned it and insisted that such welfare should be backed by the NJC thru a method designed by them

It's a bribe ..you know that but just pretending to be asleep

You know who also know that? The 10 year old child in your street

"Story story story"?

Interesting. The irony is that after accusing me of story-telling, you proceeded to tell one yourself.

You say "top legal luminaries" have condemned it.

Excellent.

Which ones?

You then say "it's a bribe" and that I know it.

That is not an argument. It is mind-reading.


And thank you for invoking the "10-year-old child in my street."

Indeed, a 10-year-old may know many things, but thankfully constitutional law is not decided by primary school pupils.

As for your "clever by half" line, I must return the compliment.

There is something worse than being clever by half.

It is being emotional by whole.

Poverty has never been an anti-corruption strategy.

And if an official residence can buy a judge's conscience, then the problem is not the house.

The problem is the judge.

And that is a much more frightening proposition.

Bobloco:
https://dailypost.ng/2026/06/17/i-wouldve-removed-fuel-subsidy-in-organized-manner-didnt-criticize-tinubu-peter-obi/

Leadership Requires Details, Not Slogans

Subsidy removal was never going to be painless. Nigeria was borrowing heavily to fund consumption, while subsidy fraud enriched a few.

Tinubu took the political risk and removed it.

Obi now says he would have done the same thing, only “better.”

But better how?

A man who says he knows the road must also know the bends.

Until Obi provides the timeline, numbers, funding and implementation plan, this remains another case of criticism without architecture.

Bobloco:
https://dailypost.ng/2026/06/17/i-wouldve-removed-fuel-subsidy-in-organized-manner-didnt-criticize-tinubu-peter-obi/

“Organized Manner” Is Not a Policy "

What timeline would Obi have used?

What palliatives?

What exchange-rate strategy?

What anti-corruption mechanism?

What transport alternative?

What subsidy audit model?

What funding source?

What exact protection for the poor?

These are the questions serious leaders answer.

But Obi gives us adjectives, not architecture.

“I would have done it better” is not a policy.

It is hindsight without a blueprint.

Bobloco:
https://dailypost.ng/2026/06/17/i-wouldve-removed-fuel-subsidy-in-organized-manner-didnt-criticize-tinubu-peter-obi/

Obi Agrees With Tinubu, Then Pretends Not To

Peter Obi says he did not oppose subsidy removal. He says he would also have removed it.

Good.

So the disagreement is not about subsidy removal. The disagreement is about style and sequencing.

But once you ask him the obvious question — “What exactly would you have done differently?” — the details disappear.

We hear “organized manner,” “sit down with operators,” and “fight corruption.”

Fine words.

But where is the actual plan?

Alphafeezay:
Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior, Adams Oshiomhole, APC, Edo North has recanted saying no Senator complained to him that his or her signature was forged during the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, PDP, Kogi Central.

He maintained that he never alleged that signatures were forged during the process.

Oshiomole had been quoted as saying in one of the interviews that some senators, including Senator Ireti Kingibe, informed him that they did not sign the committee report even though their names appeared on the document.

“If he said that, yes. Because there are even people who claimed that their signatures were forged under the suspension document, people like Senator Ireti Kingibe.

She told me, ‘But I didn’t sign that report. But my name was published,’” Oshiomhole said.

“To set the records straight, I wish to make the following clarifications.

‘The insinuation that I said signatures of Senators were forged is a complete misrepresentation of what I actually said.
“I agree absolutely with the spokesperson of the Senate, Distinguished Senator Yemi Adaramodu, that no signature of Senators was forged in Natasha Akpoti’s suspension.
“This is because, no Senator complained to me that his or her signature was forged. “The only comment I made is that one Senator, who is a member of the Committee claimed that the signatures of attendance of some Senators were attached to the final report.

“Any suggestion to the effect that I alleged that any Senator’s signature was forged is completely untrue and should be disregarded.

“As far as I am concerned, the issue of suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has been put to rest and the Senate has since moved on.

“The context in which I made a comment on the Senator Natasha Akpoti’s issue was the AIT interviewer’s claim that Senate Leader Distinguished Senator Bamidele Opeyemi referred to the matter as the ‘lowest point of the 3 years of the 10th Senate’ to which I replied that ‘if indeed the Senate Leader said so, yes it should be taken seriously, because he is not given to frivolities.’

“Once again, I emphasise that no Senator told me that his or her signature was forged.

“Finally, I regret if my comments may have caused embarrassment to any Senator or the 10th Senate as an institution.”

Source: https://thesourceng.com/no-senator-complained-to-me-about-forged-signature-oshiomhole-makes-u-turn-on-natashas-suspension-apologises/#google_vignette

Oshiomhole Must Choose: Senate Elder or Aluta Commentator by CharlesCNG

Adams Oshiomhole’s clarification on the Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan suspension controversy is necessary, but it also raises a serious question about judgment.

According to reports, Oshiomhole initially suggested that some senators’ signatures were improperly attached to the suspension report, including Senator Ireti Kingibe. The Senate pushed back, insisting no signature was forged. Oshiomhole has now clarified that no senator complained to him that his or her signature was forged, and he regrets any embarrassment caused to the Senate.

That is not a small correction. In a sensitive institutional matter, words matter.

Oshiomhole is not a street agitator anymore. He is a senator, a former governor, a former party chairman, and chairman of a Senate committee. At that level, careless public commentary can damage institutions, colleagues and his own credibility.

His recent style increasingly looks like old aluta reflexes struggling to adjust to legislative responsibility.

There is nothing wrong with courage. There is everything wrong with undisciplined speech.

If Oshiomhole wants to be taken seriously as a Senate leader, he must stop sounding like a man still addressing a protest ground.

Leadership requires restraint.

The Senate is not a labour rally.

And institutional authority is not built by making claims today and walking them back tomorrow.

naptu2:
Previous threads

Obi issues Kenneth Okonkwo 7-Day ultimatum to retract publication, apologise
https://www.nairaland.com/8687851/obi-issues-kenneth-okonkwo-7-day

Kenneth Okonkwo Mocks Peter Obi Over The 7 Day Ultimatum Letter
https://www.nairaland.com/8688010/kenneth-okonkwo-mocks-peter-obi


You Are As Foolish As your Peter Obi - Kenneth Okonkwo Blasts An Obidient
https://www.nairaland.com/8688616/foolish-peter-obi-kenneth-okonkwo


Peter Obi Defends Lawsuit Against Kenneth Okonkwo
https://www.nairaland.com/8692344/peter-obi-defends-lawsuit-against



Peter Obi Sues Peoples Gazette Over Doctored Audio Call
https://www.nairaland.com/7642185/peter-obi-sues-peoples-gazette

Peter Obi Sued Me For Serving His Little Errand Girl A Retraction Letter - Deji
https://www.nairaland.com/8507383/peter-obi-sued-me-serving

Kenneth has forced the issue from social media noise into evidence. If Obi wants court, then the court should test the claims, the documents, the payments, the primaries, and the role of every actor involved.

swaggerific:
Nice attempt at gaslighting, but you completely missed the point.

My arguments are passionate because I actually want Nigeria to work. Nobody is asking for the judiciary to be impoverished. We, the unbiased Nigerians, are asking for Separation of Powers.

In a proper democracy, the Executive branch doesn't directly manage and hand out luxury real estate to the Judiciary as welfare packages. The judiciary's funds should be statutory and independent so they can build or buy whatever they need themselves. They won’t need Tinubu to approve and build them houses.

Let me break it down to you so you understand why giving houses to judiciary is bad. Who knows if those houses were bugged so the executive branch can completely listen into everything the judiciary does? Who knows if the executive put secret cameras in those homes to track the judges and their families? These are some of the things we Nigerians worry about when we say we want judiciary independence.

When Nyesom Wike and the Presidency act as the direct real estate agents by distributing mansions to judges, it creates a toxic culture of dependence. I heard that the judges get the CofO so that means the houses belong to them even at retirement.

A judge who owes their retirement luxury to the goodwill of the Executive cannot be trusted to be fully impartial when that same Executive is a party or litigant in the same courts the judges preside over. So my friend, its about institutional integrity, not poverty.

My brother, please stop abusing the word "gaslighting." Disagreeing with you is not gaslighting. The word has become the intellectual equivalent of a smoke bomb: throw it when the arguments become inconvenient.

Now to your points.

First, separation of powers does not mean separation of funding. If it did, the judiciary would collect taxes, issue bonds and generate revenue independently. That is not how constitutional democracies work. The three arms are separate in function, not in the source of public finance.

Second, you say the judiciary should "build or buy whatever they need themselves." With what? The judiciary does not print money. It receives appropriations from the same public treasury that funds the Executive and Legislature.

Third, your argument about bugged houses and secret cameras is astonishing. We have now left constitutional law and entered the realm of spy movies. By that logic, judges should not use official cars, official phones or official offices because microphones might be hidden there too.

Fourth, if the houses are tied to office and acquired through lawful public processes, they are institutional provisions, not personal gifts from Bola Tinubu or Nyesom Wike. The President does not withdraw money from his personal account to buy judges mansions.

Fifth, your argument proves too much. If official residences compromise judges, then salaries compromise judges. Pensions compromise judges. Security details compromise judges. At some point, your theory collapses into absurdity.

Finally, separation of powers was never intended to mean hostility between the branches of government. It means checks and balances, not economic isolation.

As the proverb says:

"A man who fears rain should not suspect every cloud of conspiracy."

Institutional integrity is important.

But institutional paranoia is not constitutionalism.

And no, disagreeing with you is not gaslighting.

It is simply disagreeing with you.

swaggerific:
There’s NJC. If judges want cars they can get it through them. Imagine if frequent litigants start buying houses and cars and flights and expensive gifts for judges, how would you feel? Please don’t defend this nonsense.

If they paid you to defend them please go give it back to them because it’s not worth the destruction of the country you love.

I am sorry but you are confidently wrong.

The NJC is not a construction company. It does not build judges’ houses, procure official quarters, award housing estates or manufacture vehicles.

The NJC’s core constitutional functions are appointment recommendations, discipline, removal processes, control and disbursement of judiciary funds. It is also involved in pensions/gratuities for retired federal judicial officers. Its powers are set out under Paragraph 21 of Part I of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

So saying “let them get houses through NJC” sounds neat, but it misunderstands how government infrastructure works.

Also, comparing official judicial residences to “frequent litigants buying judges gifts” is a false equivalence. A litigant secretly buying a judge a car is bribery. Government providing institutional accommodation tied to judicial office is welfare.

One is private inducement.

The other is public institutional provision.

If you cannot distinguish between the two, then the problem is not the house; it is the reasoning.

Judges should not collect gifts from litigants. Agreed.

But judges should also not be left economically vulnerable in the name of fake purity.

Judicial independence is protected by transparent welfare, not by poverty.

Ezmans:
A government that destroyed naira, kill citizens purchasing power, strangulating opposition parties through conflicting courts judgement, high inflation, shielding of corrupt government officials from court trial, eg humanitarian minister, reintegration of terrorist, if not trump tweet that wake them up you could have been in cameroon republic by now

My brother, thank you for beautifully demonstrating my point.

I made a specific argument about power sector reforms.

Your response?

Naira.

Opposition parties.

Court judgments.

Corruption.

Humanitarian minister.

Terrorists.

Trump.

Cameroon.

In logic, this is called the Gish Gallop — throwing everything into the pot and hoping nobody notices that you have abandoned the original subject.

Let's stay with electricity.

Did Nigeria record a peak generation of about 5,801MW? Yes.

Has Tinubu moved to clear trillions of naira in GenCo debt? Yes.

Has the government launched the Presidential Metering Initiative? Yes.

Has electricity market revenue improved? Yes.

You may dislike Tinubu all you want. That is your democratic right.

But hatred is not a substitute for analysis.

The topic was power.

You responded with Cameroon.

The topic was reforms.

You replied with Trump.

The topic was electricity.

You brought in terrorists.


Nobody said Tinubu's government is perfect.

Nobody said inflation is not painful.

Nobody said criticism is forbidden.

But if every discussion about electricity must end with "Tinubu bad," then you are no longer debating policy.

You are conducting therapy.

And therapy, unlike electricity, is not transmitted through the national grid. 😁

Jamesclooney:
ChatGPT man strikes again 😂 Oga please use your brain. You’re embarrassing yourself

Interesting.

You have contributed exactly zero facts, zero arguments and zero rebuttals.

But somehow, I am the one embarrassing myself.

Apparently, intellectual bankruptcy now comes with a sense of humour. 😂

Kalulu44:
I have been reading all your epistles and all what I can say is that you're trying to be clever by half.
Who says the judiciary shouldn't be taking care of by the executive, but when the taking care of becomes extraordinary than normal. Then meaning must be read into it.
You expect a Judge who the executives rewarded hansomely more than he deserves to go against that executives in anything that they have interest in.
.
My brother, all these your talks are just bobo juice and doesn't hold waters. You're paying and rewarding judges extravagantly, what happens to Doctors, Soldiers, Police Teachers and other government workers. Are they not deserving of same extravagant upgrade of lives. Make una dey deceive una sef by trying to defend this us*less government

My brother, thank you for reading my "epistles." At least unlike some comments, they contain arguments.

Now to your points.

First, an official residence for judges is not "extravagance." By your logic, military barracks are extravagant. Legislative quarters are extravagant. Presidential villas are extravagant. In every serious country, certain offices come with institutional accommodation.

Second, you say judges are being rewarded "more than they deserve." According to who? A Court of Appeal judge handles election petitions, constitutional disputes and multi-billion-naira cases. You want such a person worrying about rent and landlords?

Third, if a judge's conscience can be bought by an official residence, then your problem is not with the house but with the judge. By the same logic, legislators and ministers should be incapable of scrutinizing the executive because they too enjoy official perks.

Fourth, your "what about doctors, soldiers, police and teachers?" argument is a classic case of false choice. Improving judges' welfare does not require worsening that of others. In fact, I support better welfare for doctors, soldiers, police and teachers too. One good policy is not invalidated because another group also deserves attention.

Finally, I find it amusing that you describe official quarters as "extravagant." Apparently, in your ideal democracy, judicial independence is best protected with leaking roofs and overdue rent notices.


A judiciary weakened by financial vulnerability is far more dangerous than one strengthened by institutional dignity.

And please, if my "epistles" do not hold water, kindly stop drinking from them. 😁

Kushites:
Fantastic logic and truth by AI ChatGPT.

Thank you. It is comforting to know that even AI can distinguish between welfare and bribery.

Unfortunately, some natural intelligence still appears to be buffering. 😁

Indeed. When facts become inconvenient, some people attack the keyboard instead of the argument.

Apparently, logic becomes "ChatGPT" when it refuses to cooperate with feelings. 😁

swaggerific:
Welfare package for Appeal Court judges? Who are they trying to deceive? Average Nigerians are struggling to eat, buy fuel, or afford basic rent, but the executive arm has billions to gift luxury mansions to the judiciary. No true democracy allows judges to accept massive financial favors from the very government whose policies and elections they are supposed to scrutinize. Dr. Baba-Ahmed is 100% right, this is likely a systemic inducement disguised as charity. You cannot expect a judge to be blind to justice when they are looking at the executive with gratitude for a free mansion.

Your argument sounds emotionally appealing, but it collapses under scrutiny.

First, you have quietly moved from "bribery" to "average Nigerians are suffering." These are two different arguments. The existence of poverty does not mean institutions should be weakened. By that logic, we should abolish legislators' salaries, military barracks and presidential security because many Nigerians are poor.

Second, you speak as though judges are receiving secret gifts from Bola Tinubu's personal account. They are not. These are institutional provisions funded through public resources, just like the salaries, vehicles and official residences provided to the Executive and Legislature.

Third, your phrase "free mansion" betrays a misunderstanding. A judge does not become compromised because he occupies an official residence any more than a senator becomes compromised because he lives in legislative quarters.

Fourth, no serious democracy relies on impoverishing judges to guarantee impartiality. Quite the contrary. Mature democracies understand that adequate remuneration and welfare are anti-corruption measures. A desperate judge is easier to intimidate, easier to induce and easier to compromise.

Fifth, gratitude is not the basis of judicial ethics. If judges cannot distinguish between constitutional duty and official welfare, then we have a problem much deeper than housing.

And finally, I find it amusing that some people trust judges with election petitions involving trillions of naira, but suddenly believe an official residence is enough to buy their conscience.

That says more about their view of judges than it does about the houses.

As the proverb says:

"You do not strengthen the roof of a house by removing its pillars."

A vulnerable judiciary is not an independent judiciary.

Poverty is not judicial reform.

And welfare is not bribery.

[quote author=donself9 post=139755002][/quote]My response to the second point you raised

Again, you have succeeded in answering a question nobody asked.

My statement was simple:

**"Emotion is not exempt from scrutiny."**

Your response?

Davido.

Trump.

American embassies.

Foreign support.

Tinubu supporters.

International image.

My brother, what has any of that got to do with the proposition under discussion?

You are proving my point beautifully.

The fact that people are emotional about children does not mean their methods, rhetoric or motives are beyond criticism.

Emotion explains behaviour.

It does not sanctify it.

In fact, history is full of emotional movements that made terrible decisions.

And please spare me the "if you are not political, why does it bother you?" line.

That is perhaps the weakest argument of all.

By that logic, only politicians can criticize politics, only doctors can criticize medicine, and only musicians can review music.

Citizens have every right to scrutinize methods employed in the name of activism.

As for foreign support, who said otherwise?

I never argued against international attention.

I argued against turning a national tragedy into a circus of influencers, partisan score-settling and performative outrage.

Those are two completely different things.

And by the way, calling people "Tinubu zombies" is not an argument.

It is merely abuse masquerading as analysis.

Again:

Emotion is necessary.

Compassion is necessary.

Accountability is necessary.

But none of them are above scrutiny.

Not even yours.

As the proverb says:

"The fact that a child is crying does not mean every hand stretched towards him is trying to help him."

And the fact that people are emotional does not mean their methods are wise.

[quote author=donself9 post=139755002][/quote]My response to the first point you raised.

My brother, you have once again argued against things I never said.

First, I never said the protest was ingenuine because it did not match my "template." That is a strawman.

Second, I never said the protesters were violent.

Third, I never said Makinde should not engage the youths. In fact, I explicitly said that governments must be held accountable.

So please stop debating the imaginary version of me that lives in your head.

My point is much narrower and much simpler:

**When does activism stop being about the victims and start becoming about the activists?**

That is a perfectly legitimate question.

You keep invoking Chibok and ENDSARS as though mentioning them magically settles the matter.

It doesn't.

Not every protest is identical.

Not every personality is identical.

Not every circumstance is identical.

And not every camera is innocent.

Incidentally, your inability to discuss my actual point without dragging Tinubu and his wife into the matter is quite revealing.

We are discussing kidnapped children, VDM and methods of activism.

Yet somehow, "Daddy Tinubu" and the First Lady have entered the conversation.

Which proves my original point: some people cannot discuss a tragedy without turning it into a partisan football match.

Again, I repeat:

The issue is not whether citizens should protest.

The issue is whether the victims remain the focus.

Because once the influencers become bigger than the issue, activism has begun to mutate into performance.

And yes, criticism of methods is not indifference to victims.

Doctors save lives every day, yet we still critique their methods.

Soldiers fight wars, yet we still debate tactics.

Activists are not above scrutiny.

Only cults believe otherwise.

SecurityNgr:
Let's Discuss About This.
Cc;  Nlfpmod, Mynd44, Seun, HumbledbYGrace, osystein

Judicial Welfare Is Not Bribery: Poverty Is No Safeguard Against Corruption by CharlesCNG.

Dr. Hakeem Baba-Ahmed's claim that the provision of official residences for Appeal Court judges amounts to a "bribe" may make for sensational headlines, but it reflects a profound misunderstanding of how institutions are strengthened.

Judicial independence is not sustained by slogans or moral sermons. It is sustained by security of tenure, adequate remuneration and decent welfare.

A judge entrusted with determining multi-billion-naira disputes, election petitions and matters affecting the liberty and property of citizens should not be left vulnerable to economic anxieties. Poverty is not an anti-corruption strategy.

If providing official accommodation for judges is bribery, then by the same logic, salaries, official vehicles, pensions, security details and medical benefits must also be regarded as bribes. Such reasoning quickly collapses under its own absurdity.

More importantly, these are not private gifts handed out secretly by politicians to favoured judges. They are institutional provisions designed to enhance the welfare and independence of the judiciary.

Indeed, many advanced democracies understand that improving judges' welfare is itself an anti-corruption measure. A vulnerable judiciary is easier to intimidate, manipulate and compromise.

Perception matters, but perception cannot replace reason.

The real threat to judicial independence is not official accommodation. It is a judiciary weakened by poor welfare, insecurity and financial vulnerability.

Justice does not become blind because judges are properly housed.

On the contrary, justice sees more clearly when judges are protected from desperation.

A weak judiciary threatens democracy.

A dignified judiciary protects it.

Misterone:
We have 3 arms of government. The legislature and executive are given houses. The judiciary does not generate funds. It's the executive that does. Why will the judiciary be different.

Absolutely.

We have three arms of government, not three kingdoms.

The Executive is funded from public resources.

The Legislature is funded from public resources.

The Judiciary is funded from public resources.

None of them manufactures money.

The Executive does not "bribe" the Legislature by paying senators their salaries, providing official vehicles or building legislative quarters.

By the same token, the Executive does not "bribe" the Judiciary by funding its constitutionally approved welfare.

The real issue is whether the welfare is lawful, transparent and institutional—not whether judges should live in poverty to prove their independence.

Indeed, a weak and vulnerable judiciary is far more susceptible to corruption than one that is properly housed and adequately remunerated.

As the African proverb says:

**"You do not strengthen the walls of a house by removing the pillars."**

Or, in Yoruba wisdom:

**"A kìí fi ebi pa ọlọ́jọ́gbọ́n kí a retí ìdájọ́ òdodo."(One does not starve the wise and expect justice to flourish.)

Those who think judges become independent through hardship misunderstand human nature and institutional design.

Poverty is not a virtue.

Poverty is not an anti-corruption strategy.

And judicial independence is not built on leaking roofs and unpaid bills.

It is built on dignity, security and institutional strength.

SecurityNgr:
Let's Discuss About This.
Cc;  Nlfpmod, Mynd44, Seun, HumbledbYGrace, osystein

Calling judges’ official accommodation a “bribe” is cheap sensationalism.

First, welfare is not bribery. Proper housing for judicial officers is part of strengthening institutions. A judge handling multi-billion-naira disputes should not be living in uncertainty or begging landlords.

Second, judicial independence is not protected by poverty. A poorly housed, poorly paid and economically vulnerable judge is easier to compromise. Welfare is actually an anti-corruption tool.

Third, these are not private gifts secretly handed to judges in envelopes. They are official government-provided residences tied to office and institutional welfare. That distinction matters.

Fourth, if improving judges’ welfare is now bribery, then salaries, official cars, security, medical care and retirement benefits must also be called bribes. That is absurd.

Fifth, perception matters, yes. But perception cannot replace logic. The solution is transparency, not hysteria.

Baba-Ahmed’s argument sounds clever, but it collapses under scrutiny. You cannot demand an independent judiciary while opposing the material conditions that make independence possible.

Judges should be well paid, well housed and well protected — not because they are above citizens, but because justice itself must be insulated from desperation, intimidation and inducement.

Poverty is not judicial reform.

A vulnerable judge is a dangerous judge.

Julianashama:
So you guys were actually watching to buy ideas from his response, Obi dribbled una.

My brother, a presidential candidate is not a footballer.

He is not supposed to dribble Nigerians.

He is supposed to explain himself to Nigerians.

In fact, if your defence is that Peter Obi "dribbled" people by refusing to explain how he intends to deliver 10,000MW, then you have accidentally made my point.

Politics is not magic.

It is certainly not "I have a plan but I won't tell you."

Otherwise, what exactly are we voting for?

A mystery box?

The whole purpose of campaigns is to subject ideas to public scrutiny.

Where will the money come from?

What is the energy mix?

How much will transmission upgrades cost?

How will the DisCos be fixed?

How will gas supply constraints be solved?

Those are questions a serious candidate should welcome, not evade.

As for "dribbling," obtaining support by promising results while withholding the details sounds suspiciously close to political 419 — obtaining confidence under false pretences.

The truth is simpler.

You cannot interrogate a plan that does not exist.

And that is precisely the problem.

A man with a plan explains.

A man without a plan says, "Trust me."

And history teaches us that "trust me" is usually the last refuge of the unprepared.

donself9:
Bro ! You can't gaslight me with "its All emotion" ... We are talking about children here we are talking 2yrs, under age kids living & sleeping in an open forest .. The imagination alone triggers " Emotion" except you are a beeast

When you raised point to discredit the agitation and protest by saying people are doing theatre/content, we suppose question your mental state

i am struggling to see any valid point you raise to debate you on,
OYO is not chibok , thats an empirical fact,
you feel the protest is " content/theatrics becos it all over the internet or becos the Governor stood in the midst of protesters unarmed to address their worries and reassure them

Which one are you angry about exactly !

Was Endsars also content to you, we posted online, and in ibadan then Seyi makinde also came out to show solidarity with the youths on the street ... So nothing you see now that we have not seen before both on Seyi and VDM side

Why you think it is for content creation is what i can't fathom, how did we do chibok gurlz protest in ojota nd how this one take look political or fake

I am struggling to make sense of your accusations, its not just adding up

My brother, your problem is that you have mistaken criticism of methods for indifference to victims.

Nobody is asking anyone not to feel emotion. We are talking about kidnapped children for goodness' sake. Only a monster would not be moved.

But emotion is not exempt from scrutiny.

And nowhere did I say protests are wrong.

ENDSARS happened.

Bring Back Our Girls happened.

People have every right to protest.

My question is much simpler: must every tragedy become a stage for influencers, content creators and politicians seeking relevance?

You say you are struggling to understand my point. That is because you are arguing against things I never said.

I never said Oyo is Chibok.

I never said people should not protest.

I never said Makinde should hide.

I said children should be the centre of the story, not VDM.

I said families need results, not reels.

I said a rescue operation involving children used as human shields requires wisdom, not social media theatrics.

And I find it ironic that in your entire essay, you have spent more time defending VDM than discussing the children themselves.

Which, incidentally, was my point from the beginning.

As for questioning my mental state, that is the oldest refuge of people who cannot answer arguments.

Disagreement is not insanity.

And criticism of performative activism is not opposition to activism.

Not all protests are theatre.

But neither is every camera innocent.

And no, I do not think the suffering of children should become a political payback exercise for Chibok, ENDSARS or any other tragedy.

Children are not props.

Their captivity should unite us, not provide another opportunity for influencers and partisans to settle old scores.

The children need rescue.

Everything else is secondary.

WizardOfNG:
Absolutely. You have said it all. There are simple and consistent rules to life.

I won't go into details but even a cursory look into VDM's life, activities and controversies confirms what is obvious that folks who think critically can discern immediately.

Simply brilliant you mention performative activism. That is what VDM is about. Essentially glorified virtue signalling for financial and attention-seeking profit.

As sad as it is to admit, a lot of Nigerians, for want of a better word, are very 'simple' and easy to con. Many know this and cynically take advantage of that reality.

I agree with you completely.

VDM's pattern is not difficult to read. It is activism as spectacle: loud outrage, public drama, moral posturing and constant self-positioning at the centre of every issue.

What he practices is what political scientists and social commentators increasingly describe as performative activism — activism that derives its energy less from outcomes and more from visibility, applause and monetised outrage.

Real activism focuses on victims, solutions and pressure applied with discipline and strategic thinking.

Performative activism focuses on cameras, followers, emotional manipulation and the cultivation of a personal brand.

And yes, i agree with you again: many Nigerians are easily moved by noise because anger often masquerades as courage to the undiscerning.

That is why some mistake virality for virtue and emotional theatre for leadership.

The danger is that serious national tragedies become raw material for personal branding and political score-settling.

Which brings me to another disturbing aspect of this whole episode. There are people using the plight of these children as a form of political payback for Chibok and other tragedies of years gone by.

That is blood politics.

Children should not become instruments for settling partisan scores.

Their suffering should not be exploited to avenge yesterday's arguments.

That is why we must keep repeating the obvious:

The children need rescue, not reels.

They need safety, not spectacle.

They need compassion, not content.

And they certainly do not deserve to become props in a political revenge drama.

AWONEYAN:
This Dickson mean business.

You can't do what you did to Labor party here.

Iron caged and lock for their aspirants.

NDC’s anti-defection form is both smart and revealing.

Smart, because Nigeria’s politics has been damaged by politicians who win on one party’s platform and then carry the mandate to another party like personal luggage.

For lawmakers, the Constitution already frowns at this. Sections 68 and 109 say a legislator who defects loses the seat, except where there is genuine party division or merger.

So NDC is not inventing discipline. It is trying to enforce it.

But it is also revealing.

The fact that NDC must make candidates sign an affidavit shows the party understands the danger of political prostitution. It knows some politicians may see it as a temporary vehicle, win election, then run elsewhere.

That is why this policy will only work if NDC becomes more than a 2027 special-purpose vehicle.

Affidavits can restrain opportunists, but only ideology builds loyalty.

Still, the principle is sound: if you leave the party, leave the mandate.

Politics should not be “win here, eat there.”

damoobaba:
I just like the way Asiwaju is handling it. The minister of defence has provided men and equipments to ensure those bandits do not leave the forest while the Governor is expected to be in the forefront of getting the learners released. Everything internal security blame shouldn't go to the PRESIDENT. State Governors should secure their states.

Exactly my point.

People like VDM jumped straight into grandstanding without first asking the most basic question: what has government already done?

From what is being reported, the Minister of Defence has deployed men and equipment, the security forces are working to prevent the kidnappers from escaping the forest, and the Governor is expected to lead the local coordination for the pupils’ release.

This is not as simple as shouting “storm the forest.”

When abducted children are being used as human shields, the operation must be careful, controlled and intelligence-led. One reckless move can endanger the very children everyone claims to be fighting for.

That is why performative activism is dangerous. It turns a delicate rescue operation into a popularity contest.

Yes, government must be held accountable.

But accountability without understanding becomes noise.

The priority is rescue, not reels.

decasey:
no need to engage you or argue with you, I was waiting for you to come up with something he said that is wrong so that we can argue about it, but I can see that you don't have anything meaningful to say and you just want to mislead gullible readers here , anyway I will not waste my time with you

Interesting.

You say I have nothing meaningful to say, yet you are running away from the very points I raised.

Let's start with one.

Peter Obi says he will deliver 10,000MW of electricity but refuses to explain how.

Simple questions:

* How much will it cost?
* Gas, hydro, solar or nuclear?
* Who will fund it?
* How will transmission be upgraded?
* How will DisCos be fixed?
* How will sector debts be resolved?
* Why keep the plan secret?

Still waiting.

Or how about these:

* His claim about a USC faculty made up entirely of ex-convicts.
* His repeated "I won the election" narrative despite coming third and losing all the way to the Supreme Court.
* His tendency to dismiss every achievement of the current administration with "If I am there, things will change."
* His refusal to acknowledge facts that do not fit his narrative.
* His platform hopping.
* His inability to build a durable political structure.

These are not my inventions.

These are public statements and observable realities.

So spare me the "nothing meaningful" line.

As Shakespeare observed, "The empty vessel makes the loudest sound."

You say you won't waste your time.

Translation: the questions have become uncomfortable.

And as usual, when Peter Obi's defenders run out of answers, they suddenly discover the value of silence.

Which, incidentally, is a virtue their candidate might do well to cultivate.

charlieLegend:
So what exactly have you done yourself on the activism stage to proclaim this epistle of yours to whom it may concern?

VDM has played and still playing his part as a concerned citizen.
Pray a greater misfortune of that magnitude never befall you or any of your loved ones.

Yeye dey smell

Interesting.

So according to your logic, unless one is a social media influencer or an activist, one forfeits the right to question methods and motives?

By that standard, citizens cannot criticize politicians unless they have first become governors.

What a strange theory.

I never said VDM should not play his part. I said the kidnapped children should remain the centre of the story, not the storyteller.

Apparently, that distinction escaped you.

As for your emotional blackmail about misfortune, thank you for the prayer. I sincerely hope no such tragedy befalls anyone.

But it says a lot that when confronted with an argument, you resort to abuse, curses and "yeye dey smell."

By the way, "yeye dey smell" is not a rebuttal. It is merely body odour masquerading as logic. 😁

The children are still in captivity.

And somehow, you have managed to make the debate about me and VDM.

Which, ironically, was exactly my point.

Families need results, not reels.

Victims need rescue, not fandom.

decasey:
what did he say thaat is embarrassing ?.

What did he say that is embarrassing?

At this point, the more difficult question is: what does he say these days that isn't?

Honestly, the surest way for him to avoid embarrassing himself nowadays may be to rediscover the virtue of silence.

These days, Peter Obi's safest policy may be a Ministry of Silence. 😁

JimD:
Oga get lost. You have nothing to contribute. Let those that have substance contribute.

And yet here you are, contributing insults because substance apparently took the day off!

gracias124:

obiiiii obiii I hope its not import and export of electricity that you will do

Exactly.

Peter Obi does not appear to have studied the power-sector problem deeply enough.

If he had, he would know that Nigeria’s electricity crisis is not solved by simply announcing “10,000MW.”

The real issues are generation availability, gas supply, transmission capacity, grid stability, DisCo liquidity, metering, tariffs, vandalism, market debt and investor confidence.

So when a presidential candidate says he will generate 10,000MW but will not disclose how, that is not strategy.

That is evasion.

A man with a plan explains the financing, fuel source, transmission route, distribution model and repayment structure.

A man without a plan says, “Trust me.”

Nigeria has heard enough “trust me” politics.

Power is not produced by confidence. It is produced by capital, engineering and execution.

Olofofo247ng:
I will not tell Nigerians how I will generate 10,000MW of electricity. It’s not for them to know. They just have to believe me and vote for me — Peter Obi


The Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate, Peter Obi, has insisted that Nigerians do not need to know how he plans to deliver 10,000 megawatts of electricity if elected president, saying they only need to trust him based on his track record.

Speaking during an interview with media personality Rufai Oseni, Obi was pressed to explain his promise to increase Nigeria’s power generation capacity to at least 10,000MW within four years.

When asked to provide a detailed roadmap, Obi declined, arguing that political leaders are often judged by their credibility rather than by publicly disclosing every aspect of their plans.

“No, no, no, I’m not going to tell you how. It is not for you to know how. It is for you to look at the man who is saying this,” Obi said.

The former Anambra governor maintained that he had a history of fulfilling promises while in office and reiterated his commitment to improving Nigeria’s electricity supply.

“I have said, and I repeat, that in four years we will generate, transmit, and distribute at least 10,000 megawatts of electricity,” he stated.

As Rufai Oseni, the host, continued to demand specifics, Obi stood his ground, insisting that voters should focus on whether they trust him to deliver.

“They don’t need to know. They need to believe in me,” he said.

Obi also criticized successive governments over Nigeria’s power sector, claiming that no new government-owned power plant had been commissioned since 2015. 

He contrasted Nigeria’s performance with countries such as Indonesia, India and Egypt, which he said significantly expanded their electricity generation capacity over the same period.

According to Obi, achieving higher power output is “not rocket science,” adding that he has studied successful models in other countries and understands what is required to replicate such progress in Nigeria.
“My commitment is that I will deliver it. I have my name on it,” he said.

Source

Let us test Peter Obi’s 10,000MW promise with simple arithmetic. by CharlesCNG

To add just 2,500MW of new gas-fired generation, using Lazard’s gas combined-cycle capital cost range of about **$650–$1,300 per kW**, the generation plant alone could cost roughly **$1.6bn–$3.25bn**.

And that is before gas pipelines, land, turbines, substations, financing costs, security, transmission lines, distribution upgrades and debt guarantees.

Transmission is another bill entirely. The World Bank just approved $486m just to improve Nigeria’s transmission network, while Nigeria’s grid still struggles with ageing infrastructure, vandalism, gas shortages and weak DisCos.

So the question is simple:

Where will Peter Obi get the money?

Public borrowing?

Private investors?

Sovereign guarantees?

Higher tariffs?

Gas-sector reform?

Or is the plan still “I will not disclose it”?



Nigeria does not need secret megawatts. It needs bankable power-sector mathematics.

Megawatts are not generated by microphones.

Ezmans:
fraud apc promised Nigeria 5,000 megawatts of power every four years during buhari but fail

Yes, APC under Buhari made big power promises and largely failed to deliver stable electricity. Nobody serious should deny that.

But Tinubu is not merely repeating slogans. He is tackling the structural mess Buhari left behind: sector debts, tariff shortfalls, weak metering, poor liquidity, and investor distrust.

Under Tinubu, Nigeria recorded a verified peak generation of about 5,801MW in March 2025. He approved a ₦3.3 trillion debt settlement plan, moved to clear GenCo debts, reduced electricity subsidies by 35%, increased market revenue by about ₦700 billion, launched the Presidential Metering Initiative for over 5 million meters, and secured a $200 million mini-grid programme for rural power access.

Is the power sector fixed? No.

But is Tinubu doing the hard reforms Buhari avoided? Yes.

So the lazy “APC failed before” argument does not answer the current facts.

Tinubu inherited a broken power market. He is not promising magic megawatts. He is repairing the economics behind electricity.

Olofofo247ng:
I will not tell Nigerians how I will generate 10,000MW of electricity. It’s not for them to know. They just have to believe me and vote for me — Peter Obi


The Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate, Peter Obi, has insisted that Nigerians do not need to know how he plans to deliver 10,000 megawatts of electricity if elected president, saying they only need to trust him based on his track record.

Speaking during an interview with media personality Rufai Oseni, Obi was pressed to explain his promise to increase Nigeria’s power generation capacity to at least 10,000MW within four years.

When asked to provide a detailed roadmap, Obi declined, arguing that political leaders are often judged by their credibility rather than by publicly disclosing every aspect of their plans.

“No, no, no, I’m not going to tell you how. It is not for you to know how. It is for you to look at the man who is saying this,” Obi said.

The former Anambra governor maintained that he had a history of fulfilling promises while in office and reiterated his commitment to improving Nigeria’s electricity supply.

“I have said, and I repeat, that in four years we will generate, transmit, and distribute at least 10,000 megawatts of electricity,” he stated.

As Rufai Oseni, the host, continued to demand specifics, Obi stood his ground, insisting that voters should focus on whether they trust him to deliver.

“They don’t need to know. They need to believe in me,” he said.

Obi also criticized successive governments over Nigeria’s power sector, claiming that no new government-owned power plant had been commissioned since 2015. 

He contrasted Nigeria’s performance with countries such as Indonesia, India and Egypt, which he said significantly expanded their electricity generation capacity over the same period.

According to Obi, achieving higher power output is “not rocket science,” adding that he has studied successful models in other countries and understands what is required to replicate such progress in Nigeria.
“My commitment is that I will deliver it. I have my name on it,” he said.

Source

Peter Obi saying he will not disclose how he plans to generate 10,000MW in four years is exactly the problem.

Power is not magic. It is engineering, finance, gas supply, transmission, distribution, tariffs and regulation.

Nigeria already has about 13,625MW installed grid capacity, yet only about 4,000–5,000MW is typically available or dispatched. So the problem is not merely announcing megawatts. The problem is making capacity available, transmitting it, distributing it and getting paid for it.

Gas supply alone is a major constraint. Thermal plants need fuel. DisCos are weak. The grid is fragile. Sector debt runs into trillions. Transmission needs huge investment.

So when a presidential candidate says, “I will generate 10,000MW but I won’t tell you how,” that is not strategy. That is political theatre.

A serious candidate should say: this is the energy mix, this is the financing, this is the timeline, this is the transmission plan, this is the tariff model, this is the gas plan, and this is how we deal with debts.

Anything less is claptrap.

Nigeria does not need secret electricity.

It needs a credible power-sector plan.

mrvitalis:
The issues with Yorubas and Igbos in Lagos is what we call indigenous settlers crisis , it’s same issues we have in Ghana and South Africa.once the average settler is more successful than average indigenous people it bring resentments.

Yes Nigeria as a nations have invested over 100 billion dollars into Lagos infrastructure over the past 100 years, but if Yorubas want to control Lagos completely because the only reason they think they have Control is really because Igbos are not politically active like Hausa/Fulani
If Hausa Fulani had Igbo population in Lagos lmao it would be a different case

As it stands today constitutionally if I move to Lagos today there is nothing Oba of Lagos can do that I can’t do , absolutely nothing

If you want to take control of Lagos tell Tinubu to amend the constitution.He can even make it a law only indigenous Yorubas can vote in elections


You people always tease igbos to tell their senators to present Biafra on the National Assembly now it’s your turn to tell your representatives to present your case

You people can not intimidate igbos into Submission lmao them never born Una well

All these Igbo this Igbo that in Lagos are just noise , do the right thing

You can’t want one Nigeria on paper then get angry when the consequences happens

Another point must be made: Igbos are not the only non-Yorubas in Lagos.

Hausa, Edo, Ijaw, Nupe, Tiv, Efik, Ibibio, Igala and many other Nigerians live, trade, marry, vote and prosper in Lagos without this constant political friction.

So the question is fair: why does this Lagos argument repeatedly become an Igbo-Yoruba confrontation?

The problem may not be residence. It may be attitude.

There is a difference between settling in a place and speaking as though the host community has no history, no identity and no right to cultural sensitivity.

Nobody serious is saying Igbos should not live or succeed in Lagos. But success in another people’s homeland should come with respect, not triumphalism.

Some commentators speak as though constitutional rights mean cultural conquest. That is where the conflict begins.

Lagos is open, but Lagos is not empty. It has owners, history, language, culture and memory.

Coexistence requires humility from hosts and settlers alike.