₦airaland Forum

H.E Peter Obi and his campaign team should go to the DSS offices in Lagos and Abuja and stage a peaceful sit-in, demanding the immediate release of Olawole.

This overzealousness on the part of security operatives is sickening. They must understand that their allegiance is to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, not to any political party, individual, or political interest.

Enough of this political intimidation and harassment of citizens simply because they support a particular political movement or candidate. In a democracy, political affiliation should never be a reason for persecution.

Security agencies must serve the Constitution and the Nigerian people, not the interests of those in power.

ravensckar:
Don't fall for the OP's propaganda, he's being mischievous and economical with the truth.

Firstly, he was issued an LOR not because he installed any solar generator. He probably refused to replace his old meter or he did a bypass and was caught. It has to be one of the two.

NEPA people are corrupt no doubt, but they ain't that stupid as to deliberately target him in that manner. People wey dey always fear to lose their job?

A friend of mine did something exactly like this; he was using Solar and still did bypass. He'll now be using that bypass to use electric cooker, AC and other heavy gadgets. He even advised me to do same but I refused. Around 3 months ago, NEPA hand touch am. Dude was fined around 250K for LOR. He nearly fainted.


When he was narrating the story to me, I couldn't hold back my laughter. He'll be like; "na serious matter you take dey laugh so o". It's that time the laughter will now increase.

You see this country, people too like awoof. How can somebody install Solar and still do bypass? The only fear of God that most Nigerians have is to begin God's name with a capital letter.

If one of your relatives is caught stealing, should I automatically assume that you are also a thief simply because you are related to that person? Or should I conclude that anyone accused of theft must be guilty because someone I know was caught committing the same offence?

Your friend's experience is not evidence that the person in question committed meter bypass or electricity theft. You are taking an incident involving someone you know and using it to speculate about the circumstances of another person's case without presenting any evidence.

If he bypassed his meter or was caught engaging in electricity theft, let the relevant authorities establish that fact. But you cannot simply assume guilt and then present that assumption as the truth.

We must learn to distinguish between personal experience, speculation, and verifiable facts. The fact that something happened to your friend does not prove that the same thing happened to someone else. That is not a sound argument; it is a prejudgment of the person involved.

qtx:
APC supporter in disguise, we hear you. Anyhow dem do am make all man come out do him own so long as its not violent.

I was expecting you to engage with my argument and counter it with facts, reasoning, or a different perspective. Instead, you chose to dismiss it with one of the most baseless accusations imaginable.

Even if, for the sake of argument, I were an APC supporter, does that automatically make my criticism of what I consider politically wrong invalid? Must we abandon our sense of right and wrong simply because of party affiliation?

I expect better from you as a fellow Nigerian. We cannot build a healthy democracy if we resort to labelling and dismissing people instead of engaging with the substance of their arguments. If you disagree with my position, tell me why. Show me where my reasoning is flawed. But please, do not substitute partisan assumptions for a reasoned response.

The primary responsibility of any government is the protection of lives and property, and on this fundamental duty, the present government has failed woefully. We must be honest with ourselves about this reality, regardless of our political affiliations. The Federal Government must rise to the occasion and take decisive, effective measures to reverse this disturbing trend of killings across the country.

A government must not create an environment in which criminality thrives because perpetrators believe they can act with impunity. When criminals are not apprehended, prosecuted, and made to face the full weight of the law, it creates the impression that there are no consequences for their actions. Whether intentional or not, such a failure emboldens criminals and undermines public confidence in the government's capacity to protect its citizens.

One death is one too many, let alone 177 reported deaths arising from criminal incidents in a single month. These are not just statistics on a chart; they represent human lives cut short and families thrown into grief.

We are talking about someone's father, mother, husband, wife, brother, sister, son, or daughter. Losing a loved one to natural causes is painful enough, but losing someone to preventable violence, especially when the government has a constitutional responsibility to protect citizens, makes the tragedy even more agonising.

The government must move beyond condemnations and expressions of sympathy after every incident. It must strengthen intelligence gathering, improve the operational capacity of security agencies, ensure the timely arrest and prosecution of perpetrators, and take proactive measures to prevent attacks before they occur.

Nigerians deserve to live without the constant fear of being killed in their homes, on the highways, or in their communities. The protection of lives cannot be treated as a political talking point or a privilege granted at the government's discretion. It is a fundamental responsibility of the state.

The Federal Government must act decisively. Every Nigerian life matters, and the continued loss of innocent lives demands urgent action, accountability, and results.

Segun Showunmi comes across as a politician without any discernible principles, jumping from one political camp to another in search of relevance and political patronage. To me, he represents many of the things that are fundamentally wrong with Nigerian politics.

Is he a scientist conducting a rigorous statistical analysis to conclude that it is virtually impossible for Peter Obi to secure 93% of the votes in the Southeast? On what empirical evidence is that conclusion based? Even the television anchor appeared to recognise the weakness of his argument.

I am increasingly frustrated by some Southwest politicians who seem unashamed of their ethnic bigotry and skewed political analysis simply because their kinsman, President Bola Tinubu, is the beneficiary. Political analysis should be guided by facts, evidence, and intellectual honesty, not ethnic loyalty.

Have we so quickly forgotten that, in 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011, and 2015, the Southeast consistently demonstrated its willingness to support presidential candidates from other parts of Nigeria? The region has, at different times, voted massively for candidates who were not Igbo. Does this history count for nothing? Or are some people deliberately ignoring it because it does not suit their present political narrative?

We must learn to be honest and intellectually responsible in our political discourse. Give every region its due recognition and acknowledge its political choices without resorting to stereotypes, dismissive rhetoric, or conveniently distorted analysis.

There is nothing intellectually sophisticated about dressing up ethnic prejudice as political analysis. If we genuinely want a better Nigeria, we must learn to separate facts from partisan sentiment and give people and regions their deserved credit, even when their choices do not align with our political interests.

seunmsg:
Fasoranti was the national leader of Afenifere before his death. He lived and died a Yoruba champion and we shall remember him as such. We don't need to make any pretense about it.

If you're angry about bigotry, send your anger to Peter Obi who has chosen to campaign only in Alaba market in Lagos, Sabon gari in Kano and southern Kaduna in Kaduna state. No divisive message can be more powerful than that.

Nobody is disputing Fasoranti’s Yoruba identity or his commitment to the Yoruba cause. The issue is whether his legacy as a statesman should be reduced to ethnic championing and used as an opportunity to score political points. There is a difference between acknowledging a person's ethnic identity and making ethnicity the principal lens through which we evaluate his life and legacy.

As for Peter Obi, if you believe his campaign strategy is divisive, make that argument on its own merits. How does that justify turning the death of an elder statesman into an occasion for political triumphalism? Two wrongs do not make a right.

Besides, campaigning in markets or communities predominantly occupied by people from a particular ethnic background does not, in itself, prove that a candidate is promoting division.

My concern is that political actors and their supporters, across all regions, are increasingly exploiting ethnic and religious sentiments to mobilise ordinary Nigerians against one another. You may see it as harmless political banter, but the cumulative effect of such rhetoric can deepen mistrust and hostility among citizens who have far more in common than they realise.

We can celebrate Fasoranti as a Yoruba leader while also recognising his place in Nigeria’s broader political history. Surely, an elder statesman’s passing deserves more than an attempt to score points against a political opponent.

In my opinion, this type of political protest is counterproductive and does little to advance our democracy. We must be careful not to normalise a political culture in which the removal of an elected president becomes a recurring demand outside the established constitutional process simply because people are dissatisfied with his performance.

In a democracy, citizens have every right to express their grievances, criticise the government, and organise peaceful protests. However, we must also recognise that the most effective and constructive way to hold elected leaders accountable is through the ballot box, sustained civic engagement, and the mobilisation of support for alternative candidates who offer better policies and a more convincing vision for the country.

Our politics should be about persuading voters, presenting credible alternatives, and strengthening democratic institutions, rather than encouraging a culture of perpetual agitation for the removal of elected leaders. We should be working to elevate our political discourse, not reduce it to endless protests and slogans.

Nigerians are understandably frustrated by the country's challenges, but our response should help strengthen democracy, not undermine public confidence in the electoral process. We can express our dissatisfaction firmly without losing sight of the constitutional and democratic principles that ought to guide us.

seunmsg:
He lived a good and fulfilling life. In his lifetime, he saw two Yoruba men elected president and one vice president after the unfortunate June 12 i justice. I'm particularly happy he lived longer to see Bola Tinubu become president after the betrayal of Ayo Adebanjo, the man he handed Afenifere to. It is now time to rest. May baba's soul rest in peace.

Instead of speaking to the legacy of the statesman and the contributions he made to the country, you have chosen to reduce his passing to an occasion for political bigotry. That is quite unfortunate.

Sadly, people like you, across the Southwest, Southeast, and Northern Nigeria, are contributing to the growing animosity among ordinary Nigerians, many of whom are poor and lack access to the education and information needed to see through this divisive rhetoric. You may think you are merely catching cruise or scoring political points, but your words, like those of many others, are helping to deepen ethnic and political divisions.

We must not underestimate the consequences of this kind of rhetoric. Rwanda's tragic history should remind us of how dangerous it is when public discourse becomes a tool for fuelling hatred and hostility. Nigeria is already grappling with enough challenges; we should not make matters worse by normalising divisive narratives.

We can disagree politically without turning every national event into an opportunity to promote ethnic rivalry. Please, let us be more responsible with our words. The innocent Nigerians who may ultimately bear the consequences of this growing hostility deserve better.

They have started this vexatious style of campaigning again. The APC should be addressing the real issues confronting Nigerians: poverty, insecurity, lack of economic opportunities, and the many other challenges bedevilling the country. Instead, they have resorted to personal attacks and frivolous nitpicking, particularly by the Vice President, Kashim Shettima.

This was his approach during the 2022 political season, when he resorted to insulting other presidential candidates. What did it achieve? Today, Nigerians are still grappling with poor governance and its consequences. Yet, he and his party appear determined to repeat the same foolish style of political campaigning.

The APC must speak to the issues, not engage in personal attacks. The character of those seeking public office should reflect self-discipline, restraint, and respect for others. I believe the the Quran conveys a similar message like the one in the Bible in 1 Peter 2:17: “Honour all men” (KJV).

Even more sickening is the enthusiasm with which some Nigerians applaud and encourage these flawed character traits. It reflects a disturbing decline in our standards of decency, respect, and kindness. This must stop.

Nigerians must hold those who aspire to lead to a high standard of conduct. Political leaders do not merely govern; they also shape the values, attitudes, and consciousness of society. We must therefore demand better from those who seek the privilege of leading us.

i am waiting for something

Osgilliat:
You think everything is gra gra and force. For years we’ve not been able to meet our OPEC quota until recently. Whatever method they are using is working. Yielding results.
I hope state police will replicate this success.

Government is supposed to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force precisely because it is responsible for protecting lives and property. So, because Nigeria wants to meet its OPEC quota, should the government surrender part of its security responsibilities to non-state actors?

That is like saying that because the US has a drug crisis, its government should recruit drug traffickers to police its borders simply because they understand the criminal networks.

I have already highlighted the potential consequences of this approach. The fact that a method produces immediate results does not automatically make it sustainable or free of long-term dangers.

The real question is not whether the approach is working today, but what happens when these non-state actors become powerful enough to challenge the authority of the very government that empowered them.

I have identified the risks. Rather than dismissing my argument as gra gra and force, please read my response again and address those consequences directly. Can you disprove them?

Nigeria is increasingly looking like a failed state. How can a sovereign nation engage private individuals or non-state actors to protect government infrastructure when it has the Police, Army, Navy and Civil Defence Corps?

What exactly are these security institutions established and funded to do if the government cannot rely on them to protect critical national assets?

This approach risks weakening state authority and creating parallel security structures outside established accountability mechanisms. Worse still, it could send a dangerous message that individuals can gain government recognition by becoming alternative centres of power rather than submitting to the authority of the state.

A government must not reward the failure of its security institutions by empowering structures that could eventually undermine its own authority.

Private security may complement state security, but it must never become a substitute for the state's fundamental responsibility to protect lives and property.

When a government can no longer secure its own infrastructure through its legitimate institutions, the question is no longer just about insecurity; it is about the capacity of the state itself.

A sovereign nation must command authority, not outsource its sovereignty.

Life itself is binary. The same technology that has turned relationships into a game of deception has also made relationships better and more convenient. Ultimately, how technology is used depends on individual choices, which are, to a large extent, a reflection of our collective moral standing.

Personally, the moment someone sends me a timed message, I ask the person to disable the feature. If they refuse, I immediately stop chatting with them because my perception of that person changes negatively. To me, a responsible person should be willing to stand by their words and take ownership of what they say. If you cannot stand by your own words, why say them in the first place?

Technology does not create character; it often exposes it. The problem is not necessarily the tool itself, but the intention behind its use. While some people use disappearing messages to protect their privacy, others may use them to evade accountability. For me, communication should come with a sense of responsibility. I believe that if you are confident enough to make a statement, you should also be courageous enough to own it.

The government has failed economically.

If a father, who is the breadwinner of his family, experiences a reduction in salary, common sense demands that he either find additional sources of income to complement his earnings or reduce the family's expenses to reflect the new financial reality. What he must not do is resort to borrowing simply to sustain a lifestyle his current income can no longer support. Borrowing to survive without addressing the underlying problem only postpones the crisis and makes the eventual consequences more painful.

This is precisely how a responsible government ought to approach an economic crisis. When revenue declines and the cost of governance becomes unsustainable, the sensible response is to cut unnecessary expenditure, eliminate waste, improve productivity, expand the revenue base and create an environment where the economy can generate more wealth. Instead, our government has chosen to embark on a borrowing spree to sustain the expensive lifestyle of an unproductive political establishment, leaving future generations to inherit the burden of debts they did not incur.

You cannot borrow your way to prosperity while refusing to confront the cost of waste and inefficiency. A government that borrows to invest in productive infrastructure, stimulate economic growth and create opportunities may have a compelling justification. But borrowing to sustain an extravagant government while citizens struggle to afford food, transportation, healthcare and education is nothing short of economic irresponsibility.

The fundamental question is this: if an ordinary father is expected to adjust his lifestyle when his income falls, why should a government that manages the resources of millions of citizens be exempt from the same discipline?

A responsible father does not mortgage his children's future to maintain an unsustainable lifestyle, and a responsible government should not mortgage the future of an entire nation to sustain an oversized and unproductive political class.

Debt is not prosperity. It is an obligation to be repaid. And when borrowed money fails to translate into productive capacity, better living conditions and sustainable economic growth, the people are left paying for the government's failures long after those responsible have left office.

The real test of leadership is not how much a government can borrow to keep itself comfortable, but how wisely it can manage limited resources to make life better for its citizens.

Segun Showunmi confuses policy intentions with proven results. Removing fuel subsidy may be fiscally justified, but what matters is how the savings are utilised and whether Nigerians are better off. Increased allocations to states do not automatically translate into development, just as roads under construction are not roads completed. State police may be desirable, but its success depends on safeguards against political abuse.

More importantly, agreeing with some of Tinubu’s policies does not automatically justify his re-election. Policies must be judged by their implementation, measurable outcomes and impact on citizens, not merely by their intentions. Showunmi is entitled to change his mind, but a politician’s conversion is not evidence of a government’s success. The real question is not what Tinubu is attempting to do, but what he has demonstrably achieved and at what cost to Nigerians.

Gotocourt:
Snatch, grab and run is what .

When they go low, you don't have to go low with them. Doing so only gives them the leverage to justify their actions and create an even more hostile environment. We must rise above provocation and uphold the civility we expect from others.

We should not tolerate actions like this. Disliking the president is not enough reason to endorse or encourage political hostility. We cannot, on the one hand, complain about the hostile environment in which opposition parties are forced to campaign and, on the other hand, applaud the very actions that contribute to such an atmosphere.

This is unacceptable. Our politics should never degenerate to this level. We must learn to conduct ourselves with civility and restraint, even when we disagree. The proper place to express our anger and dissatisfaction with a government is at the polls, not through hostility, intimidation, or the promotion of hatred.

We should all have the best interests of the country at heart. In the long run, a more civil and tolerant political culture will serve us all better, regardless of which party or candidate we support.

helinues:
So you people want to be throwing stones at Abike and expect what in return.. Hahaha

Na dirty slap una go receive in return

Btw, this well spended Dalung don't even know which issue to react to

You are never reasonable in this forum. You always view issues through a political or ethnic prism rather than looking at the bigger picture. Even if, for the sake of argument, some people from the South-East insulted Abike, does that justify a public official, whose salary and entitlements are paid by taxpayers from every part of Nigeria, amplifying ethnic hatred?

We must be mindful of the kind of rhetoric we promote and amplify. The fact that we are not the victims today does not mean we will not suffer the consequences tomorrow. Ethnic hatred does not become acceptable simply because it targets people we disagree with politically. We should condemn it regardless of who promotes it or who the victims are.

My heart goes out to the family of the deceased and the surviving victim of this tragic incident. No words can adequately express the pain and sorrow that such a devastating loss brings. I pray that the grieving family finds the strength to bear this painful loss and that the surviving victim finds healing and comfort during this difficult time.

The war against insurgency is difficult to win for several reasons, chief among them being corruption within the military, the lack of government presence in remote parts of Northern Nigeria, limited opportunities, and the uncertainty surrounding the future of many young Nigerians.

First, I must acknowledge that our military is doing its best under difficult circumstances. We can only hope that they continue to receive the moral support and encouragement they need to sustain their sacrifices.

However, the government and Nigerians must complement the military's efforts with concrete action. This includes genuinely tackling corruption within the military, implementing people-oriented policies that reduce poverty, and investing in education. Education must never be overlooked; it is one of our most powerful tools for dispelling ignorance, combating gullibility, and building a society that is less vulnerable to manipulation and extremism.

As Nigerians, we must continue to give our military the moral support they deserve as they make enormous sacrifices to protect our lives and preserve our nation's security. At the same time, the government must address the underlying problems that continue to fuel insecurity.

Winning this war requires not only military action but also good governance, accountability, education, and economic opportunities for our people.

One of the chief reasons Nigeria continues to enjoy democratic governance today is the statesmanship demonstrated by former President Goodluck Jonathan during the 2015 general elections. His conduct at that critical moment in our national history remains an important lesson in leadership, patriotism, and the need to place the unity and stability of the nation above personal political ambition.

It was not merely the fact that President Jonathan congratulated Muhammadu Buhari on his electoral victory that demonstrated his statesmanship. More importantly, it was the atmosphere he helped create before the election, the reassuring statements he made to Nigerians, and his willingness to allow the democratic process to unfold without placing his personal ambition above the lives and security of the people.

Jonathan repeatedly communicated a message that resonated with Nigerians: no presidential ambition was worth the blood of any Nigerian. His commitment to a peaceful electoral process helped calm political tensions at a time when the country was deeply divided and many feared the consequences of a disputed election. By accepting the outcome of the election and facilitating a peaceful transfer of power, he demonstrated that the survival of Nigeria was more important than remaining in office.

I make bold to say that President Jonathan made a significant personal political sacrifice for the unity and stability of Nigeria. He understood that the office of the President is temporary, but the Nigerian nation must endure. He recognised that political power is not an entitlement to be defended at all costs, but a responsibility to be exercised in the interest of the people.

Indeed, if Jonathan had placed his personal ambition above the lives of Nigerians, the consequences could have been disastrous. The history of our democracy might have taken a very different direction. His conduct contributed to the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic transition and strengthened the principle that electoral defeat must not become a national catastrophe.

Sadly, I am not seeing the same level of statesmanship being demonstrated by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the current political atmosphere. This is particularly troubling because Tinubu himself is widely recognised for his role in the struggle for democracy in Nigeria. A man whose political history is associated with the fight for democratic governance should be among those most committed to protecting the democratic space, especially when political competition becomes intense.

President Tinubu is the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, not merely the leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC) or any other political party. His responsibility extends beyond the interests of his party, his supporters, or his personal political future. He occupies an office that demands impartiality, restraint, courage, and a deep commitment to the welfare of every Nigerian, regardless of political affiliation.

His ambition, or the ambition of any political party, must never take precedence over the constitutional responsibilities of his office. The President must be prepared to demonstrate, through both words and actions, that every Nigerian has an equal right to participate in the democratic process without fear, intimidation, or violence.

Nigerians have lost their lives to political violence and thuggery, and the reported use of intimidation by political actors raises serious concerns about the safety and credibility of our electoral process. In such an atmosphere, Nigerians need reassurance from the highest office in the land. They need to hear a clear and unequivocal message that political violence will not be tolerated, that the lives of citizens are more important than electoral victories, and that every political party must be allowed to compete on a fair and peaceful playing field.

What is particularly disappointing is the absence, in the face of these concerns, of the kind of strong, unambiguous presidential intervention that could reassure the nation. Rather than statements that could be interpreted as suggesting that anything is acceptable in politics, Nigerians deserve leadership that establishes clear moral and constitutional boundaries. Politics cannot be an excuse for violence, intimidation, or the destruction of democratic values. Not everything is permissible in the pursuit of power, and no electoral victory is worth the life of a single Nigerian.

President Tinubu must therefore rise above partisan considerations and address the nation on the need for peaceful political participation. He must call on political parties, candidates, supporters, security agencies, and electoral institutions to uphold the rule of law. He must make it clear that anyone who sponsors, organises, or participates in political violence will be held accountable, irrespective of party affiliation or political influence.

More importantly, the President must not only make these declarations; he must be seen to be acting on them. Statesmanship is measured not simply by speeches but by the willingness to ensure that institutions operate fairly, security agencies remain professional, political opponents are protected, and citizens can exercise their democratic rights without fear. The credibility of the democratic process depends not only on whether elections are held, but also on whether Nigerians are free to make their choices without coercion.

The responsibility to protect democracy does not rest on the President alone. Political parties, electoral bodies, security agencies, civil society organisations, the media, and ordinary citizens all have important roles to play. However, the President occupies a unique position from which he can set the tone for national conduct. His words carry enormous weight, and his actions—or silence—can influence public confidence in the democratic process.

This is why President Tinubu must understand that his greatest legacy will not necessarily be whether the APC remains in power or whether he secures another electoral victory. His legacy will also be judged by whether Nigeria’s democracy becomes stronger under his leadership, whether political opponents can compete freely, whether citizens can vote without fear, and whether the country remains united despite political disagreements.

President Jonathan demonstrated that a leader could lose an election without losing his place in history. He showed that relinquishing power peacefully can be a greater act of leadership than winning an election. He reminded us that the presidency is an institution of national responsibility, not a personal possession.

President Tinubu now has an opportunity to demonstrate that same understanding of leadership. He must prove that his commitment to democracy is greater than his commitment to any party, and that his love for Nigeria is greater than any personal or political ambition. The true test of a democratic leader is not how fiercely he fights to retain power, but how faithfully he protects the rights of those who may vote against him. Nigeria belongs to all of us. Its democracy must serve all Nigerians, not just those who belong to the ruling party. No political ambition is worth the blood of our citizens, and no party victory is worth the destruction of our national unity.

President Tinubu must rise to the occasion. He must demonstrate the statesmanship expected of the occupant of Nigeria’s highest office and live up to the democratic ideals for which he and many others fought. History will remember not only how he came to power, but also how he used that power to protect the country’s democracy.
The time has come for President Tinubu to put Nigeria first, democracy above partisan politics, and the lives of Nigerians above every political ambition.

This person sounds greedy and entitled. Did he have an agreement with Speed Darlington that he would receive a percentage of the money earned from the fight, and did Speed subsequently renege on that agreement? If they had an agreement that was deliberately breached, then he has every right to complain. But if they had already agreed on how he would be paid for the services he rendered, why should he automatically expect a percentage of every deal.

If Speed gave him ₦250,000 outside their normal payment arrangement, then he should appreciate the gesture rather than act as though he was automatically entitled to a share of the ₦30 million. However, if the ₦250,000 was his agreed commission for securing the deal, that is an entirely different matter.

The point is that we must learn to distinguish between what we are entitled to and what we merely expect to receive. Working closely with someone, being loyal to them, or helping them secure opportunities does not automatically entitle us to a share of all their earnings. Compensation should be based on clearly established terms, mutual understanding, and the value of the services rendered.

At the same time, anyone who benefits from another person's hard work should be fair, honour their promises, and never exploit someone simply because there is no written contract. If Goski was genuinely promised 6% of every deal, then Speed should honour that promise, regardless of whether it was written down. But if no such agreement existed, it is unfair to make demands based solely on personal expectations.

Unfortunately, greed and a sense of entitlement have become serious problems in our society. People sometimes feel that because they helped someone rise, they deserve to enjoy the fruits of that person's success indefinitely, even when no such arrangement exists. This mentality can destroy relationships, friendships, business partnerships, and opportunities that could otherwise have lasted for years.

Let us learn to agree on terms before doing business, honour our agreements, appreciate what we receive, and avoid allowing greed to destroy our relationships. Not everything we feel we deserve is something we are actually entitled to, and that is a lesson many of us need to learn. In the long run, an unchecked sense of entitlement can cost us far more than the money we are fighting over.

Is it the same company president tinubu worked?

What you should be concerned about is not merely looking for red flags, but looking for virtues.

If you approach every woman asking, “What is her red flag?”, you may eventually find one in everybody. Human beings are imperfect. Everyone has weaknesses, habits, insecurities, past experiences, and areas where they still need to grow. If the standard is a completely flawless person with no red flags whatsoever, you may never find one.

The more important question is: What virtues does this woman possess?

Does she have integrity?
Is she respectful?
Is she teachable?
Does she know how to communicate?
Is she compassionate?
Is she responsible?
Can she admit when she is wrong?
Does she value commitment?
How does she treat people who cannot benefit her?
Does she have self-control?
Does she respect boundaries?
Can she forgive?
Does she genuinely desire to build a home, rather than merely enjoy the benefits of marriage?

These qualities matter because marriage is not sustained by the absence of weaknesses; it is sustained by the presence of good character and the willingness to grow.

A person may have shortcomings and still possess the virtues necessary to make a good spouse. Likewise, someone may appear attractive, successful, intelligent, or impressive while lacking the character necessary for a healthy marriage.

This does not mean red flags should be ignored. Some red flags are serious and should be taken very seriously—especially patterns involving dishonesty, abuse, manipulation, addiction, uncontrolled anger, or a refusal to take responsibility. But there is a danger in making red-flag hunting the entire framework for choosing a spouse.

If all you do is search for what is wrong with someone, you may become so focused on eliminating imperfections that you fail to recognize the qualities that make a person worth building a life with.

Don't just ask, “What is wrong with her?” Ask, “What is right with her, and does what is right have the strength to sustain a marriage?”
Because ultimately, you are not marrying a list of red flags or green flags. You are marrying a person. And the question is whether that person possesses the character, values, maturity, and virtues that can help both of you build a peaceful, faithful, and meaningful marriage.

It is sad that, far too often, the worst among us are the ones who end up leading the best of us.

This is good!

I welcome the Court of Appeal judgment and commend the Justices for protecting the right of a political party to participate in Nigeria’s democratic process.

But this episode should not simply be forgotten. The attempt to deregister a political party through a controversial judicial process raises serious questions about the state of our democracy and the environment in which opposition parties operate under the present political order.

The APC should understand that democracy is not strengthened by shrinking the political space or by allowing institutions to become instruments of political convenience. Parties should be defeated at the ballot box—not weakened through questionable institutional processes.

I also look forward to the Certified True Copy of the Court of Appeal judgment. Nigerians deserve to see the legal reasoning behind the decision and understand exactly why the Federal High Court judgment was set aside.

If the earlier proceedings involved any judicial or procedural misconduct, the appropriate authorities must investigate and, where wrongdoing is established, apply the necessary sanctions. Nobody should be above accountability.

The lesson from this episode should be clear: Nigeria belongs to Nigerians, not to any political party. Democracy means allowing political parties to compete freely and allowing citizens to decide their government at the polls.

The APC should prepare for political competition, not institutional shortcuts. Let the people decide.

Keyamo says Nigerians are now ready to fact-check Peter Obi "per second." Fine. Then let us actually fact-check everybody. If the Minister is genuinely interested in evidence, I would expect him, as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, to ask Governor Soludo a very simple question: Where are the certified documents supporting the figures being attributed to Peter Obi?

Not press statements.
Not political narratives.
Not social-media arguments.

The documents!

Show Nigerians the certified bank statements. Show the loan agreements. Show the disbursement schedules. Show the repayment schedules. Show the DMO records. Then let Nigerians examine the evidence and draw their conclusions. Because there is now a particularly important issue concerning the claim that Peter Obi left $123.77 million in external debt.

The Debt Management Office's own historical records provide a very different starting point. According to the DMO's Federal and States External Debt Stock as at 31 December 2006, Anambra's external debt stock was $16,869,393.14. Then look at the DMO's States and Federal Governments' External Debt Stock as at 30 June 2014. Anambra's external debt stock was $41,459,335.44. That means that between December 2006 and June 2014, Anambra's recorded external debt stock increased by approximately: $41.46 million − $16.87 million = $24.59 million. These are not figures from Peter Obi's supporters. They are figures appearing in Debt Management Office records. And that raises a legitimate question: How does the Anambra government's $123.77 million figure relate to the DMO's $41.46 million external-debt stock recorded in June 2014? The answer cannot simply be that $123.77 million was the value of loans associated with projects during Obi's tenure. The government needs to explain the distinction between:

the original value/commitment of a loan facility;
the amount actually drawn down;
the amount outstanding at a particular date; and
the state's total external debt stock at the point of handover.

Those are not necessarily the same thing. Indeed, the Anambra government's latest statement itself describes the $123.77 million as the original value of eight external borrowings and separately says that about $92.35 million remained outstanding as of June 30, 2026. So why should Nigerians simply accept $123.77 million as the amount Peter Obi "left behind" without seeing the reconciliation between that figure and the DMO's contemporaneous June 2014 debt-stock figure of $41.459 million? That reconciliation is precisely what should be published. And this is why Keyamo's "fact-check every claim" argument should cut both ways. If Peter Obi is wrong, establish it with documents. If Soludo's figures are correct, reconcile them with the DMO's historical debt-stock records. If the $123.77 million represents loan commitments rather than actual outstanding liabilities at handover, say so clearly. If the difference is explained by subsequent disbursements, undrawn commitments, restructuring, exchange-rate treatment, or accounting methodology, provide the documentation. That is how you settle a financial dispute. Not by repeating a number until it becomes a political slogan.

There is another important point. The DMO's June 2014 table shows Anambra's external debt at $41.46 million, while several other Nigerian states had considerably larger external debt stocks at the same point: Lagos was about $1.02 billion, Kaduna about $245.5 million, Cross River about $120.2 million, Ogun about $116.7 million, and Bauchi about $111.6 million. That does not by itself prove that every borrowing decision by the Obi administration was necessarily good or bad. But it provides important context when discussing the state's debt position in 2014. And this is where Nigerians must learn to separate the noise from the music, allegations from evidence, and political narrative from verifiable fact.

Peter Obi should be scrutinised.
Every politician should be scrutinised.
But scrutiny must not become a political weapon applied selectively. It is perfectly legitimate to examine Peter Obi's financial record as governor. But then Nigerians should also be permitted to examine the economic record, borrowing, expenditure, debt accumulation and fiscal management of the administrations that came after him—including the current federal administration. Accountability cannot be selective. If Keyamo believes Nigerians should fact-check Peter Obi "per second," then I agree with the underlying principle: Let's fact-check everybody.

But when the subject is public finance, the standard should be higher than political accusation.

Show us the documents.
Show us the CTCs.
Show us the bank statements.
Show us the DMO records.
Show us the loan agreements and actual disbursements.
Show us the reconciliation.

Then Nigerians can decide what the evidence actually says. Because in a democracy, the reputation of a public servant should not be destroyed by the sheer repetition of an allegation. Evidence should establish the allegation—not the other way around. And if the DMO's historical records appear to contradict the political narrative being presented today, Nigerians have every right to ask: Where exactly did the $123.77 million figure come from, and how does it reconcile with the $41.46 million debt stock recorded by the DMO when Peter Obi left office? That is not propaganda. That is a question that deserves an answer.

A state government is an institution. A governor is merely the temporary occupant of an office within that institution. That distinction is fundamental to constitutional democracy. When a governor takes the oath of office, he does not swear allegiance to his political party, his political associates, his supporters, or his personal ambitions. He assumes an obligation to serve the entire state and to protect the public interest. The resources, institutions and machinery of government therefore belong to the people—not to the governor. Unfortunately, this principle appears increasingly endangered in Nigeria.

Across the country, we have witnessed situations where the enormous powers attached to the office of governor are deployed in ways that blur the distinction between the interest of the state and the political interests of the person occupying the Government House. Government statements begin to sound like campaign statements. Public institutions become instruments for political confrontation. Official platforms are used to attack political opponents. State resources and government machinery are deployed in political battles. And the boundary between the state and the governor gradually disappears. That is a dangerous development for democracy. The issue is therefore not simply about Governor Soludo, Peter Obi, or any other individual politician. Soludo is simply a particularly relevant example of a much larger institutional problem confronting Nigeria.

A governor will eventually leave office, the state will remain, the civil service will remain. The institutions of government will remain. The public treasury will remain. The laws will remain. And another person, possibly from an entirely different political party, will eventually occupy the same office. That is why a governor must never behave as though criticism of him is criticism of the state, or as though political opposition to him constitutes opposition to the government of the state. The governor is not the state. The Government House is not the governor's personal political headquarters. The state treasury is not a political war chest. And government communication should not become a mechanism for settling political scores. Once those distinctions become blurred, the independence of the institution begins to erode.

This is why the ongoing controversy between the Anambra State Government and Peter Obi deserves to be examined beyond the immediate political personalities involved. The government has raised questions concerning the financial management of previous administrations, including issues surrounding loans and outstanding obligations. Peter Obi has disputed aspects of those claims and challenged the government to substantiate them. There is nothing wrong with an incoming administration examining the financial records of its predecessor. In fact, that is precisely what accountability requires. But accountability must be institutional, not personal. If the state government has evidence that a former administration mismanaged public resources, then the institution of government should present the evidence in a manner that allows Nigerians to independently examine it. Publish the audited accounts. Publish the certified bank statements where appropriate. Publish the loan agreements. Publish the disbursement records. Publish the repayment schedules. Publish the assets and liabilities inherited. Publish the official handover documents. Publish the relevant audit reports. Then allow Nigerians to examine the evidence. That is how an institution behaves. What should concern us is when the machinery of government appears to become intertwined with the political interests of the incumbent.

The situation becomes even more sensitive when the incumbent governor and the person being subjected to intense political scrutiny occupy opposing positions within the national political contest. Governor Soludo has publicly expressed support for President Bola Tinubu, while Peter Obi is a presidential aspirant. That fact does not, by itself, establish that any action taken by the Anambra State Government is politically motivated. But it does create a legitimate reason for citizens to demand an even higher standard of institutional transparency. Why? Because public institutions must not merely be independent; they must also be seen to be independent. When the same state government that controls the machinery of the state becomes deeply involved in political disputes with an individual who is also a national political opponent, the appropriate response should be greater transparency—not greater political rhetoric. The institution must demonstrate that it is acting in the interest of the state rather than the political interest of the incumbent.

This is not exclusively an Anambra problem. We have seen similar concerns emerge in different states and under different administrations. A governor leaves office and the successor immediately begins a political campaign against the predecessor. A former governor becomes a political opponent and suddenly the machinery of the state is mobilised around allegations against him. Government officials become political attack surrogates. Public resources are used to amplify partisan narratives. And citizens are expected to choose which politician they believe rather than being given the underlying documentary evidence from which they can reach their own conclusions. This is how institutions become personalised. And once government becomes personalised, the independence of government begins to disappear.

There is a fundamental principle that Nigerian politics desperately needs to recover: The governor is a custodian of public power, not the owner of public power. He temporarily occupies an office created by law. He controls resources that belong to the people. He commands institutions that existed before him and will continue after him. His responsibility is therefore not to use those institutions to strengthen his personal political position but to preserve their credibility for whoever comes after him. The same standard must apply to every governor, regardless of party. It should apply to APC governors. It should apply to PDP governors. It should apply to APGA governors. It should apply to NDC governors. And it should apply to every political party that may eventually control a state. Because if we defend institutional independence only when our preferred politician is in opposition, then we are not defending institutions. We are defending politicians.

If a government accuses its predecessor of financial misconduct, let the evidence speak. If the predecessor insists that the allegations are false, let the records speak. Neither side should expect Nigerians to rely solely on political declarations. There is an old principle: he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. If the objective is genuinely to protect the public interest, then there should be no reason to fear transparency. Put the records before the people. Let independent journalists examine them. Let auditors examine them. Let financial experts examine them. Let citizens examine them. And let the facts determine the historical record. That approach protects everyone—including the government making the allegations. Because the real question is not whether Peter Obi should be defended or condemned. The real question is: Can the institution of Anambra State Government remain sufficiently independent from the political interests of the person occupying the office of governor? That is the question Nigerians should be asking. Because once we allow a governor to transform the institutions of the state into instruments of personal political warfare, we create a precedent that will eventually be used against everyone—including the people currently benefiting from it. Today's political weapon can become tomorrow's political weapon against you, Elrufia comes to mind.

We should therefore stop thinking of government as belonging to whoever currently occupies Government House. The government belongs to the people. The governor is temporary. The institution is permanent. Political parties come and go. Governors come and go. Presidents come and go. But the state remains. The duty of every governor should therefore be to strengthen the independence, credibility and neutrality of the institutions he temporarily controls—not to bend those institutions toward his personal political interests. When that principle is violated, it does not matter whether the governor is our political ally or our political opponent. We should be concerned. Because democracy is not ultimately protected by the personalities occupying public offices. It is protected by institutions strong enough to resist the personal ambitions of the people who occupy them.

The Anambra State Government has every right to respond to Peter Obi's claims, and the public deserves clarity on the state's finances. But a government statement this detailed should be held to the same standard of accuracy and evidence that it demands from the former governor.

There are several issues with this response.

First, the statement says Peter Obi "contracted US$123.77 Billion" in external debt. Yet the government's own table puts the total at US$123,771,179.30 — about US$123.77 million, not US$123.77 billion. That is a thousand-fold difference in a statement specifically intended to establish financial facts.

Second, the government needs to distinguish between a loan being contracted, a loan being disbursed, and money actually being spent. The fact that eight loans were signed during Obi's tenure does not, by itself, establish that the entire face value of those loans was drawn down or spent by his administration. The government should publish the disbursement records and expenditure records if it wants to make that case.

Third, nobody is arguing that a government cannot have debt. In fact, the government's own table shows that the loans were for malaria control, healthcare, education, erosion control, community development and agricultural development. The relevant questions are: How much was actually drawn? What was it spent on? What was the repayment structure? What remained outstanding at handover? And what assets or projects resulted from the borrowing?

Those are questions that can be answered with documents, not rhetoric.

The most interesting issue is the ₦2.13 billion ecological fund.

The government says it obtained a certified statement for First Bank account 2018779464 and that the account was an IGR Consolidated Revenue Account which never contained ₦2.13 billion. Peter Obi, on the other hand, says the account held more than ₦2.13 billion in ecological funds when he left office.

This is precisely where politics should end and accounting should begin.

If the government has the certified bank statement, publish the relevant pages.

Show the transactions around March 2014.

Show whether there was an inflow from the Federal Government.

Show the balance on March 17, 2014.

Show the subsequent transactions.

Show the handover documents.

Then Nigerians can independently determine what happened.

Simply saying, "the account never contained the money," while Peter Obi says it did, leaves the public with two competing assertions. The documentary evidence should settle the matter.

There is another important logical problem. Even if the government establishes that the ₦2.13 billion was not in that particular account, that does not automatically prove that the money was "missing" or that Peter Obi misappropriated it. It establishes a discrepancy that requires further investigation: where was the money received, into which account was it paid, when was it transferred, and who authorised the transaction?

Likewise, on salaries, pensions and gratuities, the government should publish a proper reconciliation. Tell us exactly what was owed as at March 17, 2014, when each liability originated, what Obi's administration verified, what it paid, and what remained outstanding.

The same principle applies to the alleged ₦75 billion savings. Rather than dismissing it as "creative accounting," publish the bank balances, investment certificates, treasury instruments and other financial assets that constituted the claimed savings at handover, together with the liabilities against them.

And yes, it is campaign season. We will inevitably see people defending their preferred political parties and candidates. Already, you will see APC supporters coming here to repeat whatever narrative suits their political allegiance, just as supporters of other parties do. But we should be careful not to allow partisan loyalty to replace critical thinking.

This politics of hatred, character assassination and deliberate image-tarnishing will not help our democracy. We should do better.

Governor Soludo is entitled to support whoever he chooses politically. It is already clear from his political alignment that he supports President Tinubu, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Every politician has the constitutional and democratic right to make political choices.

But government should not be turned into a vehicle for settling political scores or damaging the reputation of a former governor simply because he has become a political opponent.

Peter Obi is a former governor of Anambra State. His record should be examined objectively—just as the records of every other administration should be examined. If there are financial discrepancies, investigate them. If there are debts, publish the figures. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, present it. If there are claims that are false, disprove them with documents.

But let us move away from the politics of my party must be right and your person must be wrong."

Politics should be about accountability, evidence and ideas—not hatred.

The debate should not be:

"Peter Obi said this, Soludo's government said that."

It should be:

"Here are the audited accounts. Here are the bank statements. Here are the loan agreements. Here are the disbursement records. Here are the handover documents. Here is the reconciliation. Now let Nigerians examine the evidence."

That is the standard every government, every politician and every political supporter should be willing to meet.

Political arguments will come and go, but public money belongs to the people. The citizens of Anambra deserve the documents, the numbers and a transparent reconciliation—not competing political narratives.

It is true that some people would not do it because of ego or pride. But as the saying goes, pride goes before a fall.

No matter how successful you become, your father is still your father. If you offend him and genuinely seek forgiveness and restoration of fellowship, you will most likely humble yourself before him, kneel, and plead for forgiveness. There is nothing inherently shameful about that; sometimes, humility is simply the price of reconciliation.

The same principle can apply to relationships outside the family. If Desmond Elliot chose to kneel before his political mentor, Gbajabiamila, as a gesture of apology, respect, or a desire to restore their relationship, I do not see why the act itself should become a subject of ridicule.

Most of us have found ourselves in situations where we had to put aside our ego and humble ourselves before someone. The circumstances may differ, but the underlying human experience is the same.

What I find troubling is that some of us are criticising Desmond for doing something we ourselves have done in one form or another. If the only difference is that we like or dislike the person involved, then perhaps the issue is not the act itself, but our bias.

We should learn to judge actions by the same standard, regardless of who is involved.

I see nothing wrong with Desmond Elliot kneeling to apologise. Most Nigerians would probably do the same if placed in a similar situation.

Everybody has an “oga,” and in Nigerian politics, loyalty is often the currency of exchange. No matter how much you have grown or how far you have come, your boss is still your boss.

What is sad, however, is how quickly we criticise people’s actions through the prism of hatred or political bias. We often judge the same action differently depending on who is involved.

You may disagree with Desmond Elliot’s political choices, but kneeling before someone he regards as his political mentor or superior is, in itself, a personal expression of respect, loyalty, or apology. It does not necessarily deserve the outrage being directed at it.

We should learn to separate our political disagreements from our assessment of people’s personal actions. Not everything must be viewed through the lens of hatred or partisan politics.