₦airaland Forum

lamentor78:
God bless you my brother, exactly my point , majority of Nigerians dont read, dont listen to global economic news , 99% of Nigerians dont even know the crude oil price in market. Just because of little hardship they want Atiku to return subsidy , the have quickly forgetten days of sleeping in filling station due to fuel scacity, Look at the Stock Market how ASI has improved ......Opposition will badmouth Lagos-Calabar coastal road because they dont give them contract .....people failed to see how those infracstucture will assist trade when completed.

Honestly Am tired of stupid Nigerians that cant think

And you think you are any better than those Nigerians who “can’t think”?

So because you saw another person that shares the same brain bandwidth with yours, then everyone that criticizes that thinking patterns suddenly doesn’t know how to think, seriously?

Well, not every Nigerian’s reasoning is clouded with religion and ethnic bigotry.

If you truly believe that fuel subsidy is completely gone, then you need to explain something very important: why has NNPCL recorded trillions of naira under “Energy Security Expense” since the supposed removal of the subsidy?

NNPCL’s audited accounts recorded approximately ₦4.84 trillion in 2023, ₦7.13 trillion in 2024 and ₦8.67 trillion in 2025 under energy security-related obligations, about ₦20.64 trillion in three years.

So the question is simple:

If subsidy is truly gone, what exactly are we paying trillions of naira for under “Energy Security Expense”?

And more importantly, why should Nigerians simply accept the disappearance of the word “subsidy” from the books as proof that the underlying economic burden has disappeared?

You cannot change the name of an expenditure and expect Nigerians not to ask questions about what the money is actually being used for.

The real issue is not the label. The real issue is who is ultimately paying the difference between the cost of supplying petrol and what Nigerians pay at the pump.

That is not refusing to think.

That is thinking critically.

zoghys:
Pls stop politicizing every topic, it's just wrong. The subsidy is been shared to every state irrespective of the political affiliation and that's why some state today can conveniently pay salary, pension, gratuity and still facilitate some projects in there state. One of my grievance with this administration is that the government should have least make wait, study and fashion out a way to cushion the effect of the long overdue subsidy removal, rather than doing that one the first day without minding it adverse effect on the lives of the populace.

I don’t just like it when the so called educated people are not analytical enough. You don’t have to believe everything you heard without doing your own research.

What they are sharing is not simply the money “saved” from the removal of the fuel subsidy. A significant part of the increase in naira-denominated government revenue came from the devaluation of the naira and the resulting exchange-rate gains.

This is the part of the argument that needs to be understood. Before the FX reforms, the dollar was around ₦460. As the naira was allowed to depreciate, the exchange rate eventually moved to around ₦1,500/$, an increase of roughly 226% in the naira cost of the dollar.

At the same time, government allocations increased. In 2023, total FAAC distributions increased by about 23.6%, while the states’ share increased by about 30%. By 2024, the amount distributed to state governments increased by about 62% compared with 2023.

So when we hear that “state allocations have increased,” we also need to ask: increased in naira terms or increased in real purchasing power?

Let me put it another way: if the dollar suddenly went back to ₦500/$, do you honestly think the Federal Government would still be able to maintain these same nominal state allocations?

That is the question Nigerians should be asking.

Because if a government devalues the currency by hundreds of percentage points and then points to the larger number of naira being shared as evidence of increased revenue, we must also account for how much the value of that naira has fallen.

The bigger question is not simply, “How much more money are the states receiving?”

It is: “How much is that money actually worth?”

I disagree with Atiku on this, he got it wrong this time. The main issue is not the subsidy removal but the floating of naira. If the subsidy was removed but the naira was still maintained at N300 to N500, I don’t think fuel would have exceeded N300 per liter. I will write more comprehensive analysis on this later.

motymop:
The truth is that many people don't understand that inflation is the rate at which prices are increasing, not the present price of things

Based on the screenshot, the prices of these goods increased by roughly 563% on average between 2016 and 2026

If you calculate how much the minimum wage increased from 2016 to 2026, you'll realize it only increased by 289%. So, literally, wages have not kept up with the increase in prices

Imagine you bought 1k worth of something in 2016. If that same thing increased by roughly 563%, it would cost about 6.6k today

The government increased the minimum wage by almost 4 times, but the prices of these goods increased by more than 6 times, that's why higher wages don't necessarily mean people are better off.

Let's be truthful, 2016 wasn't necessarily a good year economically,iInflation was already high, the economy was in recession, and Nigeria had plenty of problems

10k was around 53% of the average monthly salary at the time and the minimum wage was 18k, while the average monthly salary was around 18.9k. So 10k was not a small amount of money in 2016

Today, 10k is just 14.3% of the 70k minimum wage but the key difference is that 18k in 2016 could buy substantially more than 70k can buy today

The real issue right now is that prices have risen much faster than wages. We need to review salaries so they keep up with the increases in the cost of living.

the biggest fear is if minimum wages increases, the prices of goods and services will also increase, leading to more inflation, the truth is govt need to lower business costs and also put price control for food, transportation, housing, fuel and electricity

I have said this before, until we pegged minimum wage to $100, dollar would continue to rise arbitrarily.

fasho01:
This ishow they kill confidence in people in this country all because of unnecessary formalities. Isn't his name Tony

We now go abroad and find it hard to fit in. Same reason we don't have good relationships across age gaps because of this issue.

There is nothing there. We need to stop being narrow minded and move beyond this primitive way of thinking.

My 2 cents ✌🏽

To put this argument to rest, let me ask you a simple question: If your father worked in the same organisation as you, would you address him by his first name? Your answer would say a lot about your understanding of respect, culture, and, quite frankly, how you were raised.

SHIVA001:
Na only Americana fit call am Tony. But naija trainee girl No get level na why. Compare to The Americana interviewer. There are levels to this things., even the rich will bend rules for you if they see say u get levels.

Putting Mr for person name in a cooperate setting is not a bad idea. Even whites will mostly Add Mr or Mrs or Miss.

What exactly is your point?

It was completely wrong and uncultured for her to address him by his first name. The other lady is a journalist, and journalists may sometimes address people by their first names in interviews. But beyond journalism, there is also culture, respect, and proper home training.

The younger generation seems to be losing that sense of respect, and I honestly do not expect anyone who was properly raised to support what she did. People like you who try to justify such behaviour are part of the reason it continues. From the way you are defending it, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if you did the same thing yourself if given the opportunity.

Having the privilege of sharing a stage or being in the same space with someone who is clearly ahead of you in age, experience, or achievement does not give you the right to disrespect them.

I am a Yoruba man, and respect is deeply rooted in my culture. You can be confident, bold, and professional without being disrespectful. There is a difference between being familiar and being disrespectful, and we should not pretend that the difference does not exist.

At this point and henceforth, I can never take this infidel seriously.

they will soon call you obidient

seunmsg:
Onaiyekan has the right to speak whatever he sees as truth no matter how ridiculous it may be. Mr. President also has the right to respond with his own truth. For responsible and honest people, it ends in that room. But not Onaiyekan. That irresponsible man went on National Television that same day to divulge their discussion and make very disparaging remarks about the president and even the electoral process.

Pray tell, what does Onaiyekan knows about the economy? Apart from fleecing his church members through the sales of false hope, what else does he know?


The president should learn from this and stop opening his doors to all these irresponsible opposition elements. Onaiyekan’s anti-Tinubu rhetorics are very well documented. So, why grant such a character a listening ear?

You’re right

HIGHESTPOPORI:
The Bishop spoke the mind of most Nigerians

I decided to ignore him because engaging with him doesn’t worth my time.

AMINDA:
You go cry tire. The president is taken aback that someone will openly choose to oppose him because he's so used to seeing people singing the mandate song at every corner he turns in the villa.

"Catholics are not Christians" - Presidency

Under this administration, Nigeria has witnessed unprecedented levels of tribal division and ethnic hostility. As if that were not enough, the same administration now appears to be steering the country toward another dangerous fault line, a religious one.

But this time, it is not a conflict between Christians and Muslims. Instead, it is an attempt to pit Christians against Christians, or, more accurately, Christians against Catholics.

According to Daniel Bwala’s reasoning, Catholics are somehow not Christians. Such a claim is not only historically and theologically false, but also deeply divisive and irresponsible.

What a shame that, at a time when Nigeria desperately needs unity, some public figures are promoting narratives that only deepen our divisions.

seunmsg:
Onaiyekan has the right to speak whatever he sees as truth no matter how ridiculous it may be. Mr. President also has the right to respond with his own truth. For responsible and honest people, it ends in that room. But not Onaiyekan. That irresponsible man went on National Television that same day to divulge their discussion and make very disparaging remarks about the president and even the electoral process.

Pray tell, what does Onaiyekan knows about the economy? Apart from fleecing his church members through the sales of false hope, what else does he know?


The president should learn from this and stop opening his doors to all these irresponsible opposition elements. Onaiyekan’s anti-Tinubu rhetorics are very well documented. So, why grant such a character a listening ear?

Secrecy! Shey won fi se yin ni?

The only issue you could find with Cardinal Onaiyekan was that he spoke publicly about the meeting? Seriously?

This wasn’t a private family matter or a personal conversation about himself. It was a discussion concerning the state of the nation, governance, and the welfare of millions of Nigerians. Why should such matters be kept secret from the very citizens whose lives are affected by government policies?

So, because he chose transparency over secrecy, that makes him “irresponsible”? Is that really your standard?

The Catholic Church has never been known for keeping silent in the face of injustice or poor governance. Speaking truth to those in authority is part of its moral responsibility. That has been the tradition of the Church, and it will continue to be. I cannot speak for other denominations, but Catholics are taught that when the common good is at stake, silence is not a virtue.

I’m honestly disappointed by this line of reasoning. At times, I genuinely wonder how some people think. Instead of engaging with the substance of what was said about the nation’s challenges, the focus becomes attacking the messenger simply because he refused to keep the public in the dark.

AMINDA:
You go cry tire. The president is taken aback that someone will openly choose to oppose him because he's so used to seeing people singing the mandate song at every corner he turns in the villa.

"Catholics are not Christians" - Presidency

The only thing they are good at is division. They have successfully divided the country, now the christiandom. For the record, I’m proud to be a catholic.

Just so you know: Yes, I’m a Catholic, a proud one at that.

We are not fanatics, nor are we irrational. We are taught to be objective, to seek the truth wherever it may be found, and to examine issues through the lenses of faith, reason, and evidence.

The Catholic intellectual tradition encourages critical thinking, informed judgment, and the courage to speak the truth with charity. We are not expected to defend every government or oppose every government. Rather, we are called to stand firmly on the side of truth, justice, human dignity, and the common good.

In fact, this is reflected in our Prayer for Nigeria. We constantly pray that God will grant our leaders wisdom, integrity, justice, and the fear of God, so they may govern with compassion and place the welfare of the people above personal or political interests. Our prayers are not for political parties or personalities; they are for righteous leadership and a nation where peace, justice, and equity prevail.

So when the Catholic Church, through the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN), speaks on the state of the nation, it is not acting out of political bias or religious fanaticism. It is fulfilling its moral and pastoral responsibility to proclaim the truth, defend the dignity of every human person, and remind those in authority of their duty to serve the common good.

That is the Catholic faith I belong to, and I am proud of it.

Brendaniel:
But somehow he has dragged the Yoruba tribe into what he is doing...

…and that’s very unfortunate

Lithiumite:
Its for the bishops to tender their views and its their right to be heard and the president availed them that privilege in their highly esteemed capacities, its also the prerogative of the president to respond to their posits which he also did with utmost courtesy by doing that in person,it then behoves on the Cardinal to reciprocate the gesture and uphold cerebral tenets of such privileged access to simply know that their job is done and its left for govt to dobits job of governing not to attempt to take over the narrative or direction of that govt.

As the Cardinal took it unto himself to interpret the presidents response in their own prism and made emphatic statements on the comments of the president to establish a finite position of the church........it then behoves on the president to issue rebuttals as appropriate and make its own stand.

The bishops met with the President and presented their concerns, just as they have done with previous administrations over the years. That is part of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria’s longstanding tradition of engaging those in authority and speaking on issues affecting the nation.

From the accounts that have emerged, the President defended his administration and its policies. However, it is evident that he did not persuade the bishops to change the assessment they had reached after their own deliberations. If he had, there would have been little reason for Cardinal John Onaiyekan to later explain publicly that the bishops stood by the concerns they presented.

It is worth remembering what it takes to become a bishop in the Catholic Church. Bishops are not appointed casually. They are men who have undergone years of rigorous intellectual, theological and pastoral formation. They are widely read, experienced and entrusted with the responsibility of guiding millions of faithful while engaging complex social, moral and national issues.

When these bishops gather as the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria to review the state of the nation, they do not simply express personal opinions. They deliberate collectively, drawing from reports across the country, their pastoral experience and careful reflection before issuing a communiqué.

Naturally, if anyone hopes to persuade such a body to reconsider its conclusions, it requires more than assurances or optimistic rhetoric. It requires convincing evidence, credible data and demonstrable results that address the concerns they have raised.

Cardinal Onaiyekan’s subsequent remarks should therefore be understood in that context. He was not introducing a new position; he was explaining the position already adopted by the bishops after their meeting with the President. Nor was it the first time he had spoken candidly on national issues, regardless of which political party was in power.

What transformed an ordinary exchange between the Church and the government into a national controversy was not the meeting itself, but the reactions that followed. Rather than engage the substance of the bishops’ concerns, some political commentators and government supporters, including presidential spokesman Daniel Bwala who turned their attention to questioning the bishops and Cardinal Onaiyekan personally. That shift from debating the message to attacking the messenger is what escalated the conversation and diverted attention from the important national issues the bishops had raised.

Ofunaofu:
The Catholic Bishops have been speaking truth to power for years, it didn't start under Tinubu. The difference is that the Tinubu regime hates hearing the truth. It sees accountability and transparency as threats, not democratic virtues.

That is one of the things I love about the CBCN. They don’t care who occupies the office, they speak the truth when necessary.

I have never felt as insulted to be a Yoruba man as I have in recent times. Reading some of the comments and arguments from those bending over backwards to defend this government has left me deeply disappointed.

The descendants of Odùduwà, are renowned for the Omolúàbí ethos: truth, integrity, wisdom, fairness, courage, objectivity, respect, accountability, and the ability to speak truth to power, regardless of who is in authority. We are taught to judge issues on their merits, not through the lens of blind loyalty or partisan sentiment.

Sadly, some have abandoned these timeless values. They defend every action, excuse every failure, and attack anyone who dares to ask legitimate questions. That is not the Omolúàbí way.

I remain immensely proud of my heritage, but I am deeply ashamed of those who have traded objectivity and integrity for political convenience. I cannot identify with such people or with those sophisticated morons who mistake blind loyalty for intelligence and propaganda for patriotism.

An Omolúàbí does not defend a leader at all costs. An Omolúàbí defends the truth, even when the truth is uncomfortable.

Judemarco31:
The reason Nigeria is still where it is now is because we refused to accept the truth, if we see people that boldly tell truth to power, some sycophants will start criticizing them.

Every office you find yourself, you are not meant to examine yourself, definitely you must give yourself pass mark, you can't just be judge in your own case. The work you have done will speak for you if you are doing well. Tinubu/APC and their supporters/Sycophants kept judging themselves and giving themselves pass marks. If things are moving well definitely citizens will feel it but life is terrible currently, people are dying on daily basis from insecurity and Tinubu is telling us that things are moving well. Seriously we don't have to blame him because he lacks nothing, he is swimming in the pool of public money, he doesn't know what we called "Hardship"

You are absolutely correct. I’ve come to realize that the issue may not be Tinubu alone, but also the people around him. If those closest to a leader are unwilling to speak honestly, or if they believe he is not receptive to uncomfortable truths, then meaningful feedback becomes impossible.

The recent visit of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) reinforced that concern for me. It appeared to highlight a leadership environment where criticism is too easily dismissed rather than carefully considered.

Unfortunately, many of those surrounding the President seem more interested in defending every government action than in offering sincere advice. Whether out of loyalty, fear of losing their positions, or the desire to preserve their privileges, they often choose praise over honesty.

Equally concerning are citizens who defend every policy solely on the basis of tribe or religion, regardless of its impact. When political support becomes unconditional, accountability suffers, and it is ordinary Nigerians who ultimately bear the consequences.

Everyone is entitled to support a political leader, but that support should never come at the expense of truth, constructive criticism, or the national interest.

“The duty of the Church is not to govern the State. The duty of the Church is to remind those who govern that power is a sacred trust and that leadership must always serve the common good.”

The recent visit of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the Presidential Villa has generated more controversy than many expected. During the meeting, the bishops presented their concerns about Nigeria’s worsening socio-economic conditions, insecurity, political climate and national direction. President Tinubu defended his administration’s policies, insisting that his reforms were yielding results despite the hardships many Nigerians continue to face.

Days later, Cardinal John Onaiyekan explained publicly that the bishops had simply conveyed the realities they encounter among ordinary Nigerians. According to him, the bishops told the President that the economy was becoming increasingly difficult for millions of citizens, while the President maintained that his economic reforms were beginning to produce positive results.

Ordinarily, such an exchange should have sparked a healthy national conversation about governance. Instead, much of the public discourse shifted away from the substance of the bishops’ concerns and toward the bishops themselves. Some government supporters accused them of partisanship. Others alleged that they were sympathetic to Peter Obi or the Obidient Movement. A few even suggested that Cardinal Onaiyekan should be disciplined by the Church.

These reactions are neither new nor surprising. What is surprising is how quickly many Nigerians forget history.

This controversy raises an important question:

Has the Catholic Bishops’ Conference suddenly become political, or has it always spoken whenever governments failed in their responsibilities to the Nigerian people?

History provides a clear answer.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria has never functioned as an opposition political party. Neither has it acted as a department of government.

Its mission has always been much simpler and much more difficult.

To speak the truth.

Whether that truth is welcomed or rejected.

Whether those in power wear military uniforms or agbada.

Whether the President belongs to the PDP, APC or any other political party.

Whether criticism attracts applause or insults.

For decades, the bishops have regarded it as part of their pastoral responsibility to speak whenever governance threatens human dignity, justice, peace, democracy or the common good.

Their communiqués have criticized military dictatorships, condemned corruption, challenged electoral malpractice, spoken against religious violence, defended democratic institutions and consistently called governments to account regardless of who occupied Aso Rock.

The names of presidents have changed.
The principles have not.

It evaluates public policy through the enduring principles of Catholic Social Teaching: respect for human dignity, justice, the common good, solidarity, accountability and a preferential concern for the poor.

Whenever government policies undermine these principles, the bishops believe they have both a constitutional right and a moral obligation to speak.

That obligation did not begin with President Tinubu.

Nor did it begin with President Jonathan.

It has existed throughout Nigeria’s post-independence history.

This commitment to independence also helps explain why, in January 2013, the Catholic bishops suspended participation in the national meetings of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN). The Catholic Secretariat made it clear that this was not a permanent withdrawal but a suspension while longstanding concerns were addressed.

Among those concerns were reports that CAN was becoming increasingly associated with partisan politics, a development many Catholic leaders believed could weaken its moral authority.

The bishops consistently maintained that the Church must remain “the conscience of the nation” and “the voice of the voiceless.” An institution perceived to be aligned with any political interest risks losing its ability to challenge every government with equal credibility.

The CBCN has worked deliberately to preserve that independence.

Those accusing the bishops today of suddenly becoming political would do well to revisit the record of the Jonathan years.

2011: Support Accompanied by Responsibility

Following the election of President Goodluck Jonathan, the bishops congratulated the new administration while reminding it that electoral victory carried a moral obligation to confront corruption, insecurity, unemployment and poverty.

It was encouragement, but never a blank cheque.

2012: Rising Insecurity

As Boko Haram attacks intensified across northern Nigeria, the bishops repeatedly condemned the inability of government to protect innocent citizens.

They also warned that corruption was steadily weakening the nation’s institutions and eroding public confidence.

2013: Governance Under Scrutiny

As national challenges deepened, CBCN communiqués increasingly highlighted:

* worsening insecurity;
* youth unemployment;
* corruption;
* weak governance;
* declining public confidence in public institutions.

These were not attacks on democracy.

They were calls for government to fulfil its constitutional responsibilities.

September 2014: The Warri Communiqué

One of the strongest CBCN interventions before the 2015 general election came during the bishops’ plenary in Warri.

The bishops declared that government was not doing enough to contain Boko Haram and lamented the continued killings, displacement of communities and insecurity affecting millions of Nigerians.

They also condemned corruption, poverty and the abuse of public office, warning that Nigeria could not achieve peace without justice and accountable leadership.

February 2015: “Good Families Make Good Nations”

Only weeks before the presidential election, the bishops issued another landmark communiqué titled “Good Families Make Good Nations.”

They called for:

* free and fair elections;
* impartial security agencies;
* rejection of vote buying;
* political leaders to avoid violence;
* protection of human life;
* stronger action against corruption.

Perhaps the most memorable line from that communiqué remains:

“No ambition is worth the blood of any Nigerian.”

President Jonathan attended the opening ceremony.

Yet the bishops did not soften their message.

They spoke honestly because that is what they have always done.

The Same Pattern Under Other Governments

The record did not begin with Jonathan, nor did it end with him.

Long before the emergence of today’s political parties, the bishops criticized military governments for human rights abuses, authoritarian rule and economic hardship.

During General Sani Abacha’s regime, several Catholic bishops openly challenged dictatorship despite the personal risks involved.

Under President Olusegun Obasanjo, they questioned corruption, governance and social injustice.

Under President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, they continued issuing communiqués on electoral reforms, justice, national unity and responsible leadership.

Under President Muhammadu Buhari, they repeatedly criticized worsening insecurity, kidnappings, killings, economic hardship and what they considered the government’s inability to adequately protect lives and property.

Now, under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, they have once again expressed concern about insecurity, hunger, economic hardship, political pluralism, electoral integrity and the suffering of ordinary Nigerians.

The pattern has not changed. Only the government has.

It is easy to applaud religious leaders when they criticize governments we oppose.

The true test of democratic maturity is whether we still defend their right and indeed their responsibility to speak when the criticism is directed at leaders we support.

Independent institutions do not exist to comfort those in power.

They exist to remind those in power that public office is a trust, not an entitlement.

If Nigerians applauded the bishops when they challenged previous administrations but condemn them today simply because the government has changed, then perhaps the issue is no longer the bishops.

Perhaps the issue is consistency.

Democracy requires more than periodic elections. It requires courageous institutions willing to speak truth to power, even when that truth is unpopular.

That has been the role of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria for decades.

Presidents come and go.

Military rulers rise and fall.

Political parties win and lose elections.

But the Church’s moral responsibility to comfort the afflicted, challenge injustice and remind those in authority that leadership is ultimately a sacred trust remains unchanged.

That responsibility is older than Tinubu.

Older than Buhari.

Older than Jonathan.

And, if history is any guide, it will remain long after today’s political arguments have faded into memory.

@PigTormentor @Seunmsg @Flokii @Lithiumite

This is man is a disgrace to fatherhood. Your daughter died in a man’s house and you said you are not interested in the autopsy to find out the course of her death? You are a disgrace and not worthy to be called a father.

LegendHero:
So you mean they are good at constituting nuisance?

Coz why must you preach to me in the bus by fire by force? Would you like it if someone start reciting Arabic in the bus where you’ll be stuck with them for over 1hr?

I have no issues with the bill, but when are they going to pass the bill to stop this menace of blocking the road to pray? I believe this is more dangerous and shouldn’t be encouraged by any right thinking person.

garykoeman:
Those two region destroyed the country with greediness, lack of foresight and corruption.

Abeg who cursed the Yoruba people? Today, you’re at odds with the North, the same you also are against the East. Chai!

All because of the greed and selfish ambitions of one man?

If this continues, by the time the Yoruba people wake up to the consequences, there may be no tribe left that genuinely wants to associate with them. No group can keep fighting every other group and expect to remain in a position of leadership or influence.

Zayttoven:
Is the government intentionally bringing all these policies to gauge the reaction of the masses?

First it was NYSC adire, now this. There are countless others I can't remember.

From my observation, expect all these policies to be fully implemented if the President wins again.

He is only testing waters now.

Going by past experience, don’t be surprised if the dollar climbs to ₦1,800–₦2,000 or even higher, and fuel rises to around ₦1,500 per litre.

The current restraint may not necessarily be because they want to ease people’s suffering, but because another election is ahead. If a second term is secured, Nigerians should be prepared for the possibility of even tougher policies.

I remember my days at LASU. When the school fees were increased, students protested and the management assured us they would review the decision. We thought we had succeeded. But immediately after they secured a second term, they announced there was “no going back”, the fee increase would remain. Many students were forced to drop out because they could no longer afford it.

This was a public university. It remains one of the clearest examples, to me, of how policy decisions can profoundly affect ordinary people.

timilehin007:
Were you expecting to senior everyone or have everyone as your set? 😀😀

I was just hailing my senior. Did I commit any crime? 😄. By the way, what set are you? I need to know whether I should be hailing you, or if you're the one who owes me a proper hail.

ajebuter:
The same WAEC l did for N520 in 1992

With this, so many drop out because of inability of parents to pay the fees

I have never seen a more wicked government like Nigerian government especially under APC

The same education that is basic and free in most western countries!

Useless government

'92? my senior, I hail oh.

Can someone remind me what the current minimum wage is again? It's becoming increasingly obvious that this government doesn't want poor people to have access to education. Every new policy seems to make life harder for ordinary Nigerians. It's a level of insensitivity that's difficult to ignore. What a heartless government.

BATified2023:
what are the principles of democracy tinubu isn't upholding?

Here are some of his actions and developments that undermine democratic governance, constitutional rights, and the rule of law.

1. Suppression of Free Speech
* Arrests and detention of individuals over social media posts and criticism of the government.
* Intimidation of journalists, activists, and government critics.
2. Unlawful Arrests and Detentions
* Allegations of arrests without due process.
* Prolonged detention of individuals despite court orders granting bail.
3. Abductions and Enforced Disappearances
* Reports by activists and civil society groups of critics allegedly being abducted by security operatives or unidentified persons.
* Allegations that some detainees were held incommunicado before being formally charged.
4. Disregard for Court Orders
* Allegations that government agencies have ignored or delayed compliance with judicial rulings.
* Continued detention of some individuals after courts ordered their release.
5. Abuse of State Security Agencies
* Claims that security agencies have been used to intimidate political opponents, protesters, and dissenting voices.
* Heavy-handed responses to peaceful demonstrations.
6. Restriction of Peaceful Protest
* Police actions preventing or dispersing peaceful protests.
* Arrests of protesters and organizers.
7. Judicial Interference
* Allegations that the judiciary has faced political pressure.
* Concerns over selective enforcement of court decisions and judicial independence.
8. Selective Application of Justice
* Claims that anti-corruption and law enforcement efforts disproportionately target opposition figures while allies are treated more leniently.
9. Misuse of Cybercrime Laws
* Allegations that the Cybercrimes Act has been used to prosecute or intimidate journalists, bloggers, and government critics.
10. Weakening Democratic Institutions
* Concerns about increasing executive influence over institutions expected to operate independently.
11. Political Intimidation
* Allegations of harassment and intimidation of opposition politicians and their supporters.
12. Election-Related Concerns
* Criticism regarding the conduct of elections, including allegations of voter intimidation, violence, and concerns about electoral transparency.
13. Executive Overreach
* Claims that executive power has expanded at the expense of legislative and judicial independence.
14. Use of State Resources for Political Advantage
* Allegations that government resources and institutions have been deployed in ways that favor the ruling party.
15. Erosion of Civil Liberties
* Concerns over shrinking civic space and increasing pressure on civil society organizations and activists.
16. Crackdown on Civil Society
* Reports of increased scrutiny, intimidation, or restrictions affecting advocacy groups critical of government policies.

BATified2023:
are u Yoruba?

Guy go n sit down n stop putting mouth into what u know nothing about, Tinubu was an astute politician who go into the protest through activism against military rule so he struggled to get there

It's like sowore who is struggling n doing activism, if he eventually gets there we all know no politician made him

It's common sense but u people will always want to argue unnecessary once it's tinubu n d annoying part is that u know nothing about the topic

But since it is tinubu u must contest it

When people like you speak, I can’t help but wonder whether you truly embody the values of Odua; the Omoluabi known for truth, integrity, honesty, and justice.

You mentioned Tinubu’s role in the struggle for democracy. If that is true, then shouldn’t those same democratic principles be upheld today? If a leader is perceived to be acting contrary to the ideals he once championed, why should people support him simply because he is Yoruba?

No, sir. A true son or daughter of Odua does not place ethnicity above principles. The name Odua commands honor, and no genuine Omoluabi would support or justify actions they believe bring dishonor to that legacy.

That is why you will never find a true Omoluabi defending injustice, impunity, or wrongdoing out of ethnic or religious loyalty. We are taught to stand for what is right, not merely for who is familiar

I may understand, and even forgive, those paid keyboard warriors who spend their time defending Tinubu’s failures. At least they’re doing it for a paycheck, to feed themselves and survive.

But what I can’t understand are the people who can barely afford a meal, who have to borrow money just to eat or pay their children’s school fees. Those struggling to afford basic necessities, searching for where to charge their phones because they can’t afford electricity, unable to pay medical bills, and simply trying to make it through each day, yet they come online to passionately defend the very system that keeps them in hardship, simply because the leader shares their tribe or religion.

That isn’t loyalty. It’s bewilderment.

Iree oo!