Mr President, Nigerians have walked with you through a season of fire. They have endured subsidy removal, foreign exchange shocks, inflation that eats wages before payday, and reforms that have stretched household budgets to their breaking point. They did so because you asked for time — time to rebuild, to reform, to restore.
Now, after this difficult year of sacrifice, the government has confirmed that it will introduce a 15 per cent import duty on petrol and diesel. Mr President, this decision risks turning faith into fatigue. It is not reform, it is relapse — and it could undo the fragile trust Nigerians have placed in your leadership.
A Policy Born of Misdirection According to the leaked memorandum from the State House dated October 10, 2025, the new tariff is framed as a “market-responsive import framework” meant to “safeguard local refining capacity and stabilise the downstream market.” But Nigerians are not fooled by the language of protection when its result is punishment.
This tariff, applied to the Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) value of imported fuel, will raise the landing cost of petrol by roughly ₦150–₦175 per litre. That means the average pump price could surge toward ₦970 or more per litre, a direct hit to every household, every transport operator, every food vendor, every generator owner.
This policy claims to “protect local refineries,” but the reality is different: it protects one refinery, the Dangote Refinery, at the expense of an entire nation. The refinery, which currently supplies only about 22 million litres daily, cannot meet Nigeria’s 50 million-litre daily consumption. So the rest will still come from imports — but now, imports that must bear a punitive 15 per cent tax, ensuring Dangote’s petrol looks cheaper, even when it isn’t.
That is not protectionism; it is manipulation dressed as policy.
Inside that closed circle lies the new “fuel cabal,” a collection of powerful businessmen who have aligned themselves with the refinery to dictate who lifts petrol, who gets access, and at what price. The market, which deregulation was meant to free, is now being redesigned for control.
We are told this tariff will “stabilise the market.” But, as history teaches us, monopolies do not stabilise; they suffocate. In cement, sugar, and now fuel, the pattern remains the same: establish dominance, then block rivals through state-backed regulations. What we are witnessing is not industrial policy — it is industrial capture.
Every naira added to fuel prices ripples across the economy. Transport fares rise by 20–30%. Food prices follow. Inflation deepens. The middle class shrinks further. The poor lose what little dignity inflation has not already taken. And all this, in the name of protecting an investor who built a “state-of-the-art” refinery but cannot yet supply half the country’s needs.
Economic policy is not a courtroom for the powerful to plead for privilege. It is a covenant between the government and the people. And that covenant is broken when policy tilts toward a single enterprise.
Why Protection Does Not Build Efficiency When global oil markets faced deregulation, from the United States to South Korea, competition — not tariffs — built resilience. Local refiners had to innovate, not lobby for protection. In the 1980s, American refiners survived the global glut not because of tariffs, but because the market forced them to be efficient, invest, and adapt. South Korea’s chaebols, initially sheltered, became efficient only after the state opened competition and removed protectionist crutches.
If a refinery built with global expertise and billions in investment cannot compete without government shields, then what is it offering Nigerians? The same Nigerians who have already indirectly funded infrastructure through public concessions, waivers, and policy privileges now face a second tax — at the pump.
The psychological compact between citizens and the state depends on fairness. When people believe that one man or one company is being favoured at their expense, they stop seeing reform as progress. They see it as betrayal.
Economics of Everyday Suffering Mr President, economic theory often hides its human cost. But behind every fuel price increase lies a family’s rationed meal, a trader’s collapsed margin, a farmer’s unaffordable transport. The sociology of hardship is cumulative — people can absorb one reform, perhaps two, but a third breaks faith.
Nigerians are patient, but patience is not infinite. Inflation, currency devaluation, and insecurity already weigh heavily. A 15 per cent tariff on fuel is not a correction — it is cruelty wearing the mask of economic reform.
Those who drafted this proposal insist the tariff is “not revenue-driven” but “corrective.” Yet every indicator shows that the correction benefits one player. The refinery’s own petrol, as of October 20, lands at ₦929.72 per litre — more expensive than the ₦802.44 landing cost of imported petrol.
If local refining is truly efficient, why must it be shielded from competition? Why must the public pay a premium to protect inefficiency? The promise of local refining was cheaper fuel, not controlled pricing.
Even more troubling, reports confirm that the Dangote Refinery itself has imported cargoes of gasoline in recent weeks, claiming they were “blending components.” If the nation’s premier refinery must import finished products, how then can it claim protection from import competition? Is it a refinery, a blender, or both?
The contradictions are too loud to ignore.
An Appeal to Conscience and Common Sense Mr President, Nigerians are not asking for perfection. They are asking for fairness. They are asking that your reform legacy not be hijacked by those who trade influence for policy.
You have often spoken of restoring Nigeria’s credibility in the eyes of investors, citizens, and the global community. That credibility depends not on who we protect, but on what we protect — fairness, transparency, and competition.
You fought cabals before; Nigerians remember. They trusted that you would never allow another to rise under your watch, this time cloaked in refinery smoke. The test is here again.
There are viable alternatives that can safeguard both the refinery and the community: Foster competition rather than imposing protection—allow multiple refiners, importers, and marketers to operate alongside one another. Enhance transparency—make the cost structure and production capacity of local refiners publicly available. Implement a gradual transition—introduce tariffs only when domestic supply surpasses reliance on imports. Conduct independent reviews—empower the FCCPC and NMDPRA to evaluate whether the refinery's pricing aligns with global standards.
Mr President, every leader is tested by the counsel he keeps. Those urging this tariff are not protecting your legacy; they are protecting their leverage. They are not serving Nigeria; they are serving themselves.
If this tariff goes forward, it will not only raise prices but also fuel resentment. It will feed the belief that government exists to protect the powerful, not the people.
You still have the chance to prove otherwise. The Nigeria you promised, open, competitive, compassionate, begins not with the policies we announce, but with the ones we refuse to endorse when they betray the people’s trust.
Respectfully submitted Rotimi Matthew Policy and Governance Analyst, Abuja
The recent government memo proposes a 15% tariff on fuel imports, claiming it will deliver "national energy security" and "market stabilisation."
Let's examine these generous fictions.
"This Will Reinforce Energy Security" Apparently, energy security now means making fuel scarce and expensive. The Dangote Refinery produces far below Nigeria's 66-million-litre daily demand, yet the solution is to tax the imports that actually keep vehicles running? Brilliant. Nothing says "security" like eliminating your backup supply before your primary source works.
"Imports Undercut Local Production" Translation: our $20 billion refinery can't compete with imported fuel, so instead of asking why, let's just ban the competition. Global refineries face import competition daily without requiring their governments to kneecap rivals. But Nigerian consumers should pay premium prices to protect a facility that promised efficiency but delivered excuses.
"The Tariff Will Improve Affordability" This might be the memo's boldest lie. A 15% duty adds ₦95–₦100 per litre, which becomes ₦140–₦165 after transport, storage, and margins. Food costs rise. Transport fares jump. Businesses close. But sure, let's call economic strangulation "affordability." Nigerians have already survived subsidy removal and currency collapse; why not add extortion to the list?
"This Serves Public Interest" Twenty marketers sell Dangote fuel ₦100–₦120 above import prices—no competition, no consequence. The same refinery demanding protection from imports quietly imports its own blending components. The hypocrisy is remarkable: imports are dangerous unless we're doing the importing. This isn't public interest. It's a protection racket with legislative approval.
The Bottom Line Nigeria is being asked to accept monopoly pricing, supply uncertainty, and economic hardship, all to protect a refinery that can't deliver on its promises. True reform would allow competition to expose inefficiency, not reward it with tariffs.
If this passes, remember: it wasn't policy. It was a heist, and the government held the door open.
Rotimi Matthew, a public policy analyst, wrote in from Abuja.
It is crucial to start this by acknowledging the importance of Dangote Refinery as a turning point in Nigeria’s oil and gas downstream sector. For nearly 40 years, the country has relied on imports to meet its energy needs, even though Nigeria is a major crude oil producer and the government has built three refineries.
This situation has caused a lot of contention for the country, including the introduction of fuel subsidies to provide a cushion for impoverished citizens in the country at the mercy of international markets.
The completion of the $20 billion Dangote Refinery is a monumental achievement. With a projected capacity of 650,000 barrels per day, it is the largest single-train refinery in the world and a symbol of industrial ambition with the potential to change the lives of Nigerians for the better or worse.
The Dangote Refinery can become a catalyst for healthy competition, accelerating the development of the downstream sector, or a monopolistic force that stifles competition, dictates prices, and undermines the broader goals of economic inclusion. The direction the refinery takes will be decided by the actions of Nigeria’s regulatory agencies.
The Promise and the Peril The Dangote Refinery promises to transform Nigeria’s energy landscape. We can already see the added benefits of local production in the stabilisation of the naira against the dollar as the country saves billions in foreign exchange and reduces its reliance on imported refined petroleum products. But, there have also been concerns about how the Dangote Refinery, which, despite its scale, intends to achieve vertical integration, will stay profitable without artificial market dominance.
Moves made in the company’s first year of operations suggest the Dangote Refinery is looking to replicate its attempts at a forced monopoly in other sectors in the downstream oil and gas sector. The refinery has already sought to disrupt the complex logistical network that ensures petroleum reaches final consumers by introducing a ‘free’ delivery service targeting major retailers, in a bid to incentivise them to ditch their long-term relationships with importers and depots and to buy products exclusively from the refinery. Industry stakeholders have condemned this move as predatory.
The Dangote Refinery has also been accused of abruptly lowering ex-depot petroleum prices and bearing the cost differential to undercut importers who cannot bear the losses incurred by this tactic. Already, many major importers and depots have been forced to shutter their businesses or risk bankruptcy. When challenged on the integrity of its tactics, the Dangote Refinery has defended its actions as healthy market competition.
A monopoly, even one born from private investment and innovation, can distort markets. It can lead to price manipulation, limit consumer choice, and create barriers for new entrants. In the absence of robust regulatory oversight, the very infrastructure meant to empower the economy could end up concentrating power in the hands of a few.
The Mandate of Regulators Nigeria’s regulatory bodies, particularly the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA), the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), have a constitutional and moral obligation to safeguard the principles of fair competition.
It is their responsibility to ensure transparency in all business practices, monitor market behaviour and intervene when predatory actions are taken against competitors or consumers, even when they are ‘legal’. They must also enforce anti-trust laws and deter larger corporations from engaging in anti-competitive practices that marginalise smaller marketers. But most importantly, it is their responsibility to provide a favourable environment for new entrants into the downstream sector, and by doing so, ensure the energy sector remains resilient and dynamic.
The Dangote Group is only as big and successful as it is today because regulatory agencies ensured indigenous entrepreneurs were protected from monopolistic manoeuvres from international competitors. The same consideration must now be extended to other players in the energy sector to balance industrial ambition and market fairness. The Dangote Refinery represents a significant advancement towards self-sufficiency, but that doesn’t exempt it from the same standards of accountability that any other market participant must adhere to.
A Delicate Balance Nigeria stands at a crossroads. The emergence of the Dangote Refinery offers a rare opportunity to redefine the country’s energy future. The refinery may be privately owned, but the market it operates in belongs to the people.
The future of the energy sector is the responsibility of the agencies tasked with ensuring that Nigerians reap the benefits of deregulation and that companies maximise the opportunities a free market offers Nigerian entrepreneurs. If local regulators rise to the occasion, they can ensure that this refinery becomes a cornerstone of shared prosperity, not a symbol of concentrated power.
Olatunde Adebanjo, lawyer and real estate advisor based in Lagos, writes on the intersection of law, real estate, and public policy.
During a recent meeting at the seat of power, key government officials and energy leaders were locked in a consequential conversation. This gathering brought together a select group of influential government representatives and business figures close to the seat of power, including several associates operating in the shadows of a private petroleum refining bigwig.
For these cronies of Africa’s richest, their aim was simple: to manipulate policy in order to secure a monopoly over the downstream oil market. The pitch sounded patriotic enough: impose a 15% tariff on imported petrol to strengthen local refining, boost the naira, and make Nigeria self-sufficient.
But behind the presentation lies a familiar story. Obviously, these were not reformers. Although they got a listening ear, there were no commitments. “They came to hoodwink and mislead,” one senior aide said. “They said tariff would bring in money for the government, which makes it important for some officials. In reality, it will only enrich monopoly and punish Nigerians.”
The proposed tariff, if signed, would automatically raise the pump price of petrol by about ₦150 to ₦175 per litre, pushing fuel costs far beyond what many households can afford. Nigeria’s average daily consumption is around 50 million litres, but local refining capacity currently supplies only about 22 million litres. The rest still comes from imports. This means the tariff will not reduce import dependence; it will simply make imported petrol unaffordable and force all marketers to buy from a single source on its terms and timetable.
For a government that has promised reform, this means regression.
When Tariffs Become Tools of Control
Tariffs are not inherently bad. They can protect emerging industries from being swallowed by foreign competitors. But in this case, the “infant” industry is anything but helpless. The new refinery, valued at over $20 billion, is backed by decades of state incentives, preferential access to crude, and heavy political patronage. It does not need protection; it already has privilege.
The levy would increase landing costs for imported petrol by ₦150–₦175 per litre, automatically shifting the comparative advantage, regardless of its cost efficiency. Given the local supply of roughly 22 million litres of the estimated 50 million litres consumed daily, the tariff would force marketers to source primarily from a monopoly, sometimes unwillingly. At the said meeting, these men with ties to the local refining sub-sector and the industrial class, presented what they called a roadmap: the tariff would “seal the market” in favour of local refining, and within months, price stability would follow.
The presentation was a performance of persuasion rather than a policy debate. Economists and policy insiders who have reviewed the draft proposal warn that it could reignite inflation and cripple smaller players in logistics, retail, and manufacturing. “This is not a protective tariff; it is a political instrument,” said one senior energy analyst. “It will make monopoly drive up every cost that depends on petrol, from food transport to electricity.”
Yes, some in government are cautious. The narrative floating is that the president, given his people-centred reforms over the past year, is not yet ready to saddle the public with yet another levy. In private halls, officials express dismay at what they call overreach disguised as reform.
This tension is no minor leak; it signifies a policy crossroads. Will the state serve Nigerians or prioritise private interests? Any mistake in understanding this issue and making the right decision leaves the door wide open for the opposition to stroll through.
When Policy Becomes Private Strategy
For months, the monopoly advocates have framed the conversation as a patriotic duty to support local production. But their argument omits key details. First, the landing cost already surpasses imports: ₦929.72 per litre at the terminal compared to ₦802.44 for imported fuel. This means the “local advantage” does not exist. The tariff would not protect cheaper domestic output; it would simply punish cheaper alternatives.
Second, capacity constraints mean Nigeria cannot rely solely on local refiners yet. Even with full operations, distribution bottlenecks and limitations on product variety remain unresolved. To pretend that it can replace an entire import framework overnight is a dangerous illusion.
Third, such a policy hands a single company extraordinary leverage over national pricing. If importers disappear, there will be no benchmark, no competition, and no deterrent against price manipulation. Every adjustment at the refinery gate will echo through the economy like a tax.
The President’s reform agenda was built on sacrifice for long-term stability. Subsidy removal, foreign exchange unification, and fiscal tightening were all justified as painful but necessary steps. To now impose a new tariff that reverses those gains would betray both logic and the public’s patience.
Why Nigeria Must Demand Competition, Not Capture
Why must the state resist this tariff? Because energy is not a discretionary good. Sacrifice is not optional.
This is not academic. At its core, this is a choice between power and people. Should the pain of ordinary Nigerians be deepened to guarantee the dominance of a few? Should public policy be written in the language of protection but delivered as private enrichment?
If implemented, the 15% tariff would not only raise fuel costs but trigger a chain reaction; transport fares, food prices, manufacturing costs, and inflationary pressures would surge again. Every corner of the economy and homes connected to it will feel it.
The President is at a crossroads. He can side with those who whisper profit in the name of protection, or with the millions who believed his promise of people-centred governance. He can sign a tariff that rewards manipulation, or pause, review, and protect the public interest.’
History will remember which path he takes. For now, Nigerians can only hope that reason prevails.
Rotimi Matthew, a public policy analyst, wrote in from Abuja.
Accountant and social commentator Wale Adebayo through his X account "Mario9ja" has reacted to Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s latest confrontation in the Senate, accusing her of chasing clout instead of focusing on real governance.
During the Senate sitting on October 21, 2025, a mild drama unfolded involving Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, and Senator Adams Oshiomhole. The exchange erupted when Senator Natasha sought to make additional comments on the abortion clause in the Criminal Code Amendment Bill, 2025, even after the matter had already been referred to a committee.
According to parliamentary reports, the bill in question seeks to impose tougher penalties for sexual offenses, including life imprisonment for offenders convicted of defiling minors. However, lawmakers agreed to suspend further debate on sections related to abortion and pregnancy termination, citing concerns that unclear language could endanger women in medical emergencies or expose doctors to prosecution.
Following that decision, the controversial clauses were referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, and Legal Matters for deeper review, with a report expected in two weeks. Though this procedural step was not captured in the viral video, it formed the backdrop of the confrontation.
After the matter had been formally stepped down, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan attempted to revisit the abortion clause, insisting she should be allowed to speak since the issue directly affects women. Senator Adams Oshiomhole immediately raised a point of order, arguing that Senate rules forbid reopening discussion on a matter already concluded. He emphasised that permitting a single senator to speak would necessitate reopening the entire debate.
In his ruling, Senate President Akpabio upheld Oshiomhole’s objection, referencing Senate Rule 52(6), which bars further deliberation once a resolution has been made. Akpabio maintained that it would be “out of order” to revisit a matter already deferred to a committee.
The video of the exchange has since gone viral, with many Nigerians accusing her of attempting to create unnecessary drama for public sympathy, a sentiment echoed by Mario9ja in his post.
This constant theatrics is unbecoming of a lawmaker.
Yesterday again, Senator Natasha tried to stir needless drama on the Senate floor. You have to consider if she has ever opened the Senate rule book or if confusion is simply her comfort zone.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has formally withdrawn the 13-count charge filed before the Federal High Court in Lagos against Chief Oba Otudeko, CFR, Chairman of Honeywell Group, and three other defendants. This marks a decisive conclusion to proceedings initiated in January 2025 regarding alleged non-performing loan transactions.
The foremost industrialist and philanthropist has long expressed confidence in the robustness of Nigeria’s judicial system, asserting from the outset that the matter was civil in nature and had been fully resolved eight years ago.
In a statement by Olasumbo Abolaji, Counsel to Honeywell Group, she reaffirmed the company’s unwavering commitment to good governance, transparency, and responsible corporate conduct. “Dr. Otudeko has for over six decades contributed to Nigeria’s economic and institutional development, including distinguished tenures across banking, industry, and public service. His leadership of First Bank was defined by stability, stewardship, and strategic vision.”
According to the group, “the development marks the closure of a chapter that, while challenging, never diminished our confidence in Dr. Otudeko’s integrity or our belief in the principles that have guided his life and leadership. At no point was there any finding or admission of wrongdoing, and this conclusion further affirms what we have always maintained: that this was a commercial transaction, which was investigated by the EFCC and resolved eight years ago. Dr. Otudeko’s record of service, enterprise, and nation-building stands firm and unblemished.”
During the proceeding earlier today, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, appearing on behalf of EFCC, informed the court that following a comprehensive review of the representations submitted by all relevant parties, including those from the complainant, First Bank of Nigeria, and the defence counsel, the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) has exercised his constitutional discretion to discontinue the prosecution.
Citing the overriding interest of justice, public policy, and the need to forestall abuse of judicial process, Mr. Oyedepo stated that the Attorney-General of the Federation concluded that it was no longer in the public interest to pursue the matter.
The case withdrawal by the agency restores certainty to stakeholders across Nigeria’s financial markets, reinforcing confidence in institutional processes and highlighting the institutional checks that protect commercial engagements.
Ronchess Group Issues Public Disclaimer On Former Consultant Over Alleged Fraud
Ronchess Global Resources Plc., a leading provider of traffic solutions, construction and procurement services in Nigeria, has issued a formal public disclaimer disassociating itself from Mr. Samson Abayomi Davies, a former consultant who is currently facing trial over allegations of stealing, breach of trust, financial misconduct, and attempted corporate and economic sabotage.
In a statement signed by company management, the infrastructure and project delivery firm disclosed that Mr. Davies was disengaged from all responsibilities as of November 23, 2023, following internal investigations that uncovered "serious financial and ethical misconduct."
According to the statement, Mr. Davies allegedly misappropriated company funds running into millions of naira, failed to account for several operational sums entrusted to him, and absconded without resolution.
The company further revealed that, beyond financial impropriety, Mr. Davies had illegally duplicated and retained confidential company documents and assets, actions deemed not only unethical but also criminal. Following these discoveries, he was reported to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), leading to his arrest in late May 2025 and subsequent arraignment in court, where he is currently standing trial for stealing.
In a more troubling turn, the company accuses Mr. Davies of launching a sustained blackmail and extortion campaign against Ronchess, allegedly orchestrating media smear efforts using stolen proprietary materials. The statement alleges that he has been actively promoting defamatory posts across several media platforms to mislead the public, damage the company's reputation and cause economic sabotage.
Ronchess Group has issued a strong caution to the public, stakeholders, and business partners, urging them to refrain from conducting any business with Mr. Davies under the company’s name. “He no longer represents Ronchess in any form,” the statement read. “Any individual or organisation that chooses to conduct business with him in the name of Ronchess does so at their own risk.”
The company emphasised that it will not be liable for any representations, engagements, or financial dealings made by Mr. Davies on its behalf. As the legal proceedings continue, Ronchess reaffirms its commitment to corporate accountability and protecting its reputation against misinformation and malicious acts.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on June 10, 2025, arraigned Samson Davies, owner of Signature Advisory Ltd, on charges of stealing ₦190,791,494 from Ronchess Global Resources and breach of trust. The charge, read before Justice Mojisola Dada at the Special Offences Court in Ikeja, alleges that between October 2022 and October 2023, Davies and his firm “dishonestly converted” the funds to personal use.
The first arrest was made in December 2023, when he had a plea deal and signed an undertaking stating that he owed the company only 60,000,000 naira and agreed to return all company documents with a payment plan. He made an initial payment of 5 million naria the next day, but began blackmailing and attempting to extort money from the company afterwards..
Davies pleaded not guilty when the charge was brought against him. Prosecutors immediately sought a trial date and remand, while the defence applied for bail on liberal terms.
Justice Dada granted bail set at ₦50 million with two sureties of the same amount each. One surety must own property in Lagos, and Davies was ordered to surrender his international passport to the court. Pending perfection of bail conditions, he was remanded at the Nigerian Correctional Centre.
Dr. Sandra Duru, Nigerian activist and President of the Unique Family Foundation, has publicly revealed explosive claims involving Natasha Akpoti and Nigeria’s Senate President. Speaking through her media platform, Prof Mbeke, Duru said she was initially approached to support Natasha in a case involving alleged sexual harassment.
According to her, a political party leader approached and commended her for defending Natasha and sought to recruit her alongside former Minister Dr. Obiageli Ezekwesili to publicly back Natasha's cause. However, Duru said she insisted on speaking directly with Natasha before proceeding.
On March 27, 2025, Natasha called Duru after returning from the United States. The call was recorded, as per a disclaimer on Duru’s media platform, which automatically records all conversations. Duru disclosed that their relationship grew closer over time and became more personal, leading to deeper discussions about Natasha’s motivations.
In a shocking turn of events, Duru claimed that Natasha confessed that there was “nothing like sexual harassment,” contradicting the allegations previously made. “I broke down,” Duru said, adding that she had already contacted international bodies and made public posts accusing the Senate President.
Duru further alleged that Natasha offered her money and revealed that she had already paid Dr. Ezekwesili to support her claims. When asked whether Ezekwesili knew the truth, Natasha allegedly said, “They know. We are women. We can’t let these men be doing this to us. We have to fight.”
Dr. Duru says she has handed all evidence, including recordings, to the authorities and is cooperating fully with the ongoing investigation.
President Tinubu honours Senate President, Speaker and National Assembly, Assents to Regional Development Commissions
In a momentous stride towards Nigeria’s regional development, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has made history by signing into law the South-West Development Commission (SWDC) and South-South Development Commission (SSDC) bills.
This action completes the establishment of five new Regional Development Commissions (RDCs), fulfilling a legislative priority championed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Speaker Abass and the National Assembly.
The new commissions; the South-West Development Commission (SWDC), the South-South Development Commission (SSDC), the North-West Development Commission (NWDC), the South-East Development Commission (SEDC) and the North-Central Development Commission (NCDC), are under the oversight of the Ministry of Regional Development, created in October 2024.
The ministry is responsible for coordinating the activities of the commissions, ensuring they adhere to their mandates, and facilitating inter-regional collaboration. The established regional commissions are tasked with enhancing infrastructure, economic growth, and social welfare within their regions.
In September 2024, the Senate passed the SWDC Bill with majority backing, then sent it to the House of Representatives for approval. Senator Gbenga Daniel from Ogun East sponsored the bill. Similarly, the SSDC Bill was passed in October 2024 and forwarded to the House of Representatives.
The South-South Development Commission Bill, a legislative priority under Senate President Godswill Akpabio’s leadership, aims to address ecological degradation and economic disparities in Nigeria’s oil-producing region. The South-West Commission will focus on infrastructure development and industrialisation, leveraging the region’s economic potential.
The swift passage of the bills for RDCs, including funding mechanisms, by the National Assembly, underscores the strong bipartisan support for regional development. Senate President Akpabio’s leadership in advancing these bills and ensuring their signage into law reflects his commitment to legislative reforms that promote equitable development across all regions of Nigeria.
President Tinubu’s assent to the SWDC and SSDC bills marks a milestone in Nigeria’s push for regional equity. With Senate President Akpabio and Speaker Tajudeen Abass’s legislative stewardship and the National Assembly’s bipartisan support, the RDC framework positions Nigeria to tackle zone-specific challenges through targeted interventions. With the president's assent, stakeholders can expect the commissions to be fully operational in the coming months, with measurable outcomes to validate this ambitious regional development strategy.
President Tinubu Signs South-South Development Commission Bill into Law, Honours Senator Asuquo Ekpenyong’s Legislative Vision
President Bola Tinubu has officially enacted the South-South Development Commission Bill, signifying a historic advancement toward equitable regional development in the country. This significant achievement for the region results from the leadership of Senator Asuquo Ekpenyong (APC, Cross River South), who also serves as the Chairman, Senate Committee on NDDC.
Senator Ekpenyong, alongside some co-sponsors from the South-South geopolitical zone, introduced the bill (SB. 358) in 2024 to address systemic disparities in resource allocation and development. The bill was passed with unanimous approval in the Senate.
“Today, we celebrate not just a legislative victory, but a testament to the South-South’s unwavering resolve for equity”, said Senator Asuquo. “The new commission will finally address our region’s unique challenges—from infrastructure deficits to environmental degradation—while ensuring Cross River and all South-South states receive the resources they deserve. I thank President Tinubu for his commitment to regional development and my colleagues for their bipartisan support. Together, we’ve paved the way for a brighter future where no community is left behind.”
Ekpenyong previously argued that the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), which includes non-South-South states like Abia and Imo, diluted focus on the region’s unique challenges. He emphasised the need for a dedicated commission to prioritise geopolitical equity over oil revenue-based allocations, ensuring all South-South states—including Cross River, which previously received minimal NDDC benefits—gain equitable access to resources.
The bill also ensures funding through federal allocations, international grants, and partnerships, bypassing the NDDC’s oil-dependent model. This structure shields the commission from fluctuations in oil prices and ensures sustained development.
President Tinubu’s assent reinforces his administration’s commitment to regional empowerment, following similar approvals of the South-West and South-East Development Commissions. Senate President Godswill Akpabio lauded the bill’s passage, describing it as a catalyst for job creation and grassroots economic transformation.
The Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) has welcomed the bill’s signing and urged the President to appoint capable leadership to the commission to ensure its effectiveness.
Everyone saying as a corps member you’re not allowed to criticize or make comments about the country or government should provide the place in the rule book where this is written.
- Follow the right channel of communication. Any member who fails, neglects or refuses to follow the right channel of communication shall be tried by the Corps Disciplinary Committee and, if found guilty, shall be liable to the following penalties: i. No action shall be taken on such communication; and ii. Extension of service for twenty-one (21) days with half pay.
- Not be rude to constituted authority Any member who is rude to constituted authority shall be tried by the Corps Disciplinary Committee and, if found guilty, be liable to extension of service for a period not less than thirty (30) days with half pay.
- Not address the press on any policy issue without the prior written consent of the State Coordinator. Any member who addresses the press on any policy issue without the written consent of the State Coordinator shall be tried by the Camp Court and, if found guilty, be liable to extension of service for thirty (30) days on half pay.
lexy2014: off point. you have not answered the questions I asked you:
1. where is she graduating from?
2. is NYSC a school that she needs to graduate from? you are ignorant but you too wan drop comment
3. which authority is feeding her?
4. is the authority doing her a favour by feeding her?
5. did she willfully apply to be a youth corper?
6. certificate as proof of study or certificate as proof of service?
- Follow the right channel of communication. Any member who fails, neglects or refuses to follow the right channel of communication shall be tried by the Corps Disciplinary Committee and, if found guilty, shall be liable to the following penalties: i. No action shall be taken on such communication; and ii. Extension of service for twenty-one (21) days with half pay.
- Not be rude to constituted authority Any member who is rude to constituted authority shall be tried by the Corps Disciplinary Committee and, if found guilty, be liable to extension of service for a period not less than thirty (30) days with half pay.
- Not address the press on any policy issue without the prior written consent of the State Coordinator. Any member who addresses the press on any policy issue without the written consent of the State Coordinator shall be tried by the Camp Court and, if found guilty, be liable to extension of service for thirty (30) days on half pay.
creolehunt: And so what? When did it become illegal to criticize government policies or is she not entitled to airing her opinion?
Civilization is really far from nogeria. And I tell you that the nonsense practiced here is not democracy.
What's not her business in criticizing Tinubu? Is she not a Nigerian? Is Tinubu immune from criticism. And what do you mean by "not openly"? Is he a military dictator?
Extract from NYSC Code of Conduct
- Follow the right channel of communication. Any member who fails, neglects or refuses to follow the right channel of communication shall be tried by the Corps Disciplinary Committee and, if found guilty, shall be liable to the following penalties: i. No action shall be taken on such communication; and ii. Extension of service for twenty-one (21) days with half pay.
- Not be rude to constituted authority Any member who is rude to constituted authority shall be tried by the Corps Disciplinary Committee and, if found guilty, be liable to extension of service for a period not less than thirty (30) days with half pay.
- Not address the press on any policy issue without the prior written consent of the State Coordinator. Any member who addresses the press on any policy issue without the written consent of the State Coordinator shall be tried by the Camp Court and, if found guilty, be liable to extension of service for thirty (30) days on half pay.
Lagos, Nigeria – March 7th, 2025 – Malanter, a leading anti-malarial medication marketed by Nkoyo Pharmaceutical Ltd., is proud to announce the appointment of Dr. Chinonso Egemba, widely known as Aproko Doctor, as its official brand ambassador. Dr. Egemba, a renowned medical doctor and storyteller, has dedicated his life to curating and disseminating accurate health information and education to the world starting from Nigeria. With over 8 million combined following across social media platforms, he is a trusted voice in healthcare advocacy. "We are thrilled to partner with Dr. Egemba," said Pharm. Kevin Amoke, Head of Sales and Marketing at Nkoyo Pharmaceuticals Limited. Pharm. Amoke continued " His commitment to health education and his proactive approach to healthcare align seamlessly with our mission to combat malaria and promote a healthier community." Aproko Doctor, who has built a massive following online for his witty and informative takes on health and lifestyle, expressed his excitement about the partnership. "I'm honored to partner with Nkoyo Pharmaceuticals Limited to shine light on their anti-malarial product - Malanter, a drug that has proven to be effective in treating malaria." He continued, “I'm committed to using storytelling on my platform to educate Nigerians and Africans at large about the dangers of malaria and the importance of seeking proper prevention and treatment." This partnership aims to promote malaria awareness, treatment and prevention of malaria in Nigeria, while also showcasing the effectiveness of Malanter in treating malaria. As the brand ambassador, Aproko Doctor will leverage his large social media following and medical expertise to educate Nigerians on the dangers of malaria and the importance of using Malanter for treatment.
Alma Asinobi Aims to Shatter World Record, Seeks To Inspire Global Respect For Nigerian Passports
Alma Asinobi, the explorer and travel influencer behind "Alma Chasing Continents," has revealed her groundbreaking journey to break the Guinness World Record for the fastest solo circumnavigation of the globe. But that's not all – she's also inviting Nigerians (and the world) to make history with her by signing a part of the travel memorabilia, the Nigerian flag.
Asinobi's audacious journey starts on March 15, 2025, departing from Antarctica and traversing North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. She aims to complete the journey in under 70 hours, surpassing the current team record of 73 hours. Doing so solo, while navigating the challenges often associated with a Nigerian passport, adds another layer of complexity and significance to her endeavour.
Her carefully planned route will be tracked live on her website, www.almachasingcontinents.com, allowing audiences worldwide to follow her progress in real time.
"This isn't just about my record attempt – it belongs to everyone who's ever been told their dreams were too ambitious or that their passport wasn't powerful enough," Asinobi declared. “It's about showing what's possible for young African women and anyone with a low-mobility passport. I'm determined to complete this journey in under 70 hours, proving that determination can overcome barriers in global travel. I don’t want my dreams or adventures to be determined by my skin colour or passport."
"Alma's record attempt represents a significant moment for diversity in global adventure travel," says Eneyi Obi, Global Chief Marketing Officer, Rise. "Her journey is inspiring countless travelers from underrepresented backgrounds to pursue their travel ambitions. The support she is receiving from organizations like Risevest is a testament to the power of community in making dreams a reality.
In addition to the circumnavigation record, Asinobi is rallying support to create a unique symbol of national pride. She is seeking over 2,000 signatures on a Nigerian flag, aiming to break the Guinness World Record for the most signatures on a piece of travel memorabilia.
Project Lead Blessing Abeng detailed how the team has transformed what seems impossible on paper into a viable itinerary: "When we first mapped out visiting seven continents in 70 hours with a Nigerian passport, we identified so many potential failure points. We've now built contingency plans for each one, from weather delays in Antarctica to connecting flight challenges as a result of visa restrictions."
The significance of timing the attempt during Women's Month was highlighted as intentional. "Representing Nigerian women on a global stage like this matters," Asinobi emphasised. "Every young girl should see that their dreams have no skin or geographic limitations – regardless of where their passport was issued. My dreams should not be defined by my skin or the color of my passport. My superpower lies in my God-given free will, and we will break this record with God on my side.
Alma is a daring Travel and Lifestyle Content Creator on a mission to redefine global exploration. She has earned several accolades, including a Travel & Leisure Influencer of the Year nomination at the 2022 Pulse Influencer Award and was recently named one of the 2024 Top 100 Influential Nigerians by List NG. Her work has been recognised by publications such as This Day Live and BellaNaija for contributing to women's development.
Senate Unanimously Votes to Suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
The Nigerian Senate has unanimously voted to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, for six months. This decision follows the recommendations of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions after an investigation into allegations of misconduct and violations of Senate rules.
The suspension stems from a series of controversies involving Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, including her protest against the reassignment of her seat during a plenary session on February 20. The incident escalated into a heated confrontation with Senate leadership and its presiding officers, prompting the referral of her case to the Ethics Committee for review.
During today’s plenary session, Senate President Godswill Akpabio called for a vote on the committee’s findings. The Ethics Committee concluded that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had violated Senate rules by refusing to appear before the panel and engaging in actions deemed disrespectful to the institution. The suspension was approved unanimously by all senators present.
Besides her suspension, the following disciplinary actions were taken: A withdrawal of her salary and that of her aides, a ban on accessing National Assembly premises, closure of her Senate office for the suspension duration, withdrawal of her security details, and a requirement to submit a formal written apology to the Senate for reconsideration of her status.
Senate Minority Leader Abba Moro supported the Ethics Committee’s recommendations, stating that disciplinary action was necessary to uphold decorum in the Senate. “As Nigerians, we have a tradition; if you beat your child with one hand, you draw them closer with the other,” he remarked.
This development marks a significant moment in the ongoing tensions within the 10th Senate and underscores its commitment to enforcing discipline among its members while addressing internal conflicts.
Few figures have divided opinions and families across Nigeria as Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan [Kogi Central, PDP] has in the past two weeks. Fewer have navigated controversy and legal brinkmanship with the same unyielding intensity. Her career, marked by a relentless pursuit of influence and a penchant for turning personal grievances into public legal battles, reads like an intriguing but dramatic saga of passion and retribution.
While the media has been inundated with stories about the recent seat arrangement and her unwillingness to follow Senate rules, her latest response is a legal action against the leader of the chambers. In a claim filed by her legal counsel, Victor Giwa, who has emerged as a key figure in her battles, she is demanding N100 billion in general damages for defamation and N300 million in litigation costs.
Therefore, as one delves into her storied past, a clear pattern emerges: For Natasha, leveraging legal threats and high-stakes litigation is not merely a reaction but her stock in trade. Her career underscores a reality where the boundaries between private grievances and public service are frequently blurred.
From the outset, Natasha’s political and personal journey has been anything but conventional. However, her entanglement with her current husband, Chief Emmanuel Oritsejolomi Uduaghan, a man with longstanding political ties and significant business interests, would propel her into an arena of bitter personal disputes and public legal confrontations.
Before her ascent to the Senate, a startling revelation emerged. A document filed by Victor Giwa of Indemnity Partners and dated November 19, 2020, detailed a series of grave allegations, including "breach of promise of marriage, poisoning, foeticide," and demanded a staggering N10 billion in damages. The letter painted a picture of a woman wronged, claiming she had been instrumental in Chief Uduaghan's business successes, only to be betrayed.
This legal document, which demanded a staggering N10 billion in damages, was only set aside upon Chief Uduaghan's eventual acquiescence to marrying her. This pattern reveals much about her modus operandi. In her view, every slight—small or personal—is a battleground. Her narrative suggests that if one does not comply with her terms, social media becomes the primary venue for settling scores while the courts are the secondary stop. While legally contentious, this stance has become emblematic of her approach to personal and political adversaries.
Legal Warfare, National Politics and Courtroom Tactics
Central to this saga is the aggressive legal strategy spearheaded by Natasha’s legal teams. In the matter involving her estranged husband, while the document in question was disseminated by Indemnity Partners—with a letter signed by Senior Advocate Chief B. C. Igwilo - it is her legal counsel, Victor Giwa, who has emerged as a key figure in her subsequent battles.
In an explosive twist to the narrative, sources reported that over the past weekend, Natasha threatened the Senate President with immediate legal action if she were summoned before an ethics committee. This threat, articulated as part of her broader strategy, underscores her readiness to deploy social media and court maneuverings as a strategic tool to achieve her goals.
For Natasha, repeatedly invoking legal recourse—whether for alleged breaches of promise in marriage or defamation in the political arena—signals a calculated strategy. Her willingness to escalate personal disputes into highly publicised legal battles is not an aberration but rather a reflection of a broader pattern of behaviour. This behaviour is deeply rooted in the dynamics of power and control, where the courtroom becomes a modern-day arena for settling personal scores and redefining public image.
Amid the turbulence of personal legal battles and aggressive courtroom manoeuvres, a broader question looms: What is the impact of such high-profile disputes on the sanctity and function of legislative institutions? The Senate, as a crucible of democratic deliberation and policymaking, must be managed with a level of decorum and order that allows for respectful debate and collective progress. When political actors resort to legal intimidation and public threats—such as Natasha’s weekend ultimatum to the Senate President—it undermines the institutional integrity of the legislature.
The importance of decorum in the Senate cannot be overstated. A legislative body functions not merely as a forum for exchanging ideas but as a symbol of national governance, where order, respect, and adherence to established protocols are paramount. This is the only way scores of representatives of different tribes, regions and faiths with varying interests and opinions can achieve consensus through structured debate and dialogue.
The infusion of personal vendettas and aggressive legal posturing into this space risks eroding public trust and compromising the effectiveness of the Senate. Therefore, members of the Senate—regardless of their personal grievances or political ambitions—must exercise restraint and uphold the principles of mutual respect and institutional accountability.
A Senate mired in personal vendettas and legal skirmishes risks compromising its mandate to serve the public interest. The principles of decorum and order are not merely abstract ideals; they are essential to ensuring that legislative debates remain focused on policy and progress rather than devolving into platforms for personal retribution. In this light, the insistence on maintaining a respectful, orderly, and neutral legislative environment is not only a matter of institutional protocol but a fundamental requirement for the health of the nation’s democratic processes.
Happy to see that the host Ahmed Isah ( Ordinary president) acknowledge that Senator Natasha was wrong and should apologise.
Senator Peter Nwebonyi was a guest on Brekere, an Abuja based radio talk show where he laid down the facts of what transpired in the Senate on Thursday.
Happy to see that the host Ahmed Isah ( Ordinary president) acknowledge that Senator Natasha was wrong and should apologise. pic.twitter.com/3EVf0uccIz
Recent reports on social media alleging that the Nigerian Senate summoned Ahmed Isah—popularly known as the Ordinary President of the Brekete Family—to appear before it by February 27, 2025, have been officially refuted.
A media aide in the National Assembly, Ahmed Tijani, fired back on Twitter, stating, "It's amazing how you people just sit in your little corner and concoct stories without any basis. The Senate DID NOT AT ANY TIME issue a summons to the said individual. You should desist from pushing this utter misinformation."
Earlier this week, a Twitter account belonging to one “Abu Bakar” claimed that the Senate had summoned the radio personality to its chamber following his phone call with the controversial senator from Kogi State, Natasha Uduaghan.
The confusion arose after a section of the media reported the matter, asserting that the announcement about the summons had originated from Ahmed Isah’s official X handle. This claim was further amplified by Kaduna politician Shehu Sani and the civil rights organisation HURIWA, despite the absence of any such summons on the Senate’s official channels.
This occurs amid heightened tensions surrounding a separate issue involving Senator Natasha Uduaghan and her apparent unwillingness to adhere to Senate Standing Order 6, concerning seat arrangement in the chamber during debates. The dispute erupted after the Senate leadership followed the normal procedure of reshuffling seats—a move that most senators accepted without objection after recent party defections to the ruling party.
Sources emphasise that the misinformation regarding Ahmed Isah follows a similar pattern of rumours and ‘alternative facts’ that have beset the ongoing controversy over the well-established Senate rules. As the debate concerning proper protocol and internal management continues, stakeholders are urging all Nigerians to verify facts before disseminating unsubstantiated claims.
Recently, the South-South Women Congress condemned what it described as the “unruly and disrespectful behaviour” of Senator Natasha. In a strong statement issued from Warri, the group’s leader, Mrs. Roli Akpomedaye, urged the senator to apologise or face sanctions. She emphasised that adherence to the Senate’s rules is non-negotiable, asserting that no lawmaker is above the law.
In the latest episode of Senate drama, social media influencer Jack joins other Nigerians who have criticised Senator Natasha Uduaghan of Kogi Central for her disruptive antics. According to the post, whenever she throws a tantrum in the chamber, she swiftly rushes to the media, presenting herself as the victim.
The controversy centres on clear Senate rules. Under Order 6, every senator is meant to remain in their designated seat during debates—a rule intended to ensure proceedings are smooth and orderly. However, following recent party defections that caused a reshuffle of seating arrangements, a reallocation of seats was necessary—a move most senators accepted without protest.
The female senator refused and attempted to justify her actions by referencing a different order, exacerbating the situation.
Critics argue that allowing emotions to dictate decisions will not aid progress. “Why enter the Senate and start shouting names?” the post inquires, suggesting that her behaviour is not an act of bold defiance but merely stirring up unnecessary drama.
This is not the first instance in which her actions have raised eyebrows. Adding to the wave of criticism, the South-South Women Congress has condemned what it labelled as the “unruly and disrespectful behaviour” of Senator Natasha. In a strong statement issued from Warri, the group’s leader, Mrs. Roli Akpomedaye, urged the senator to apologise or face sanctions. She emphasised that adherence to the Senate’s rules is non-negotiable, asserting that no lawmaker is above the law.
*Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Entertain EFCC Case, as Defense Counsel affirms Otudeko's innocence, Case Adjourned till 17 March*
On Thursday 13th February, court proceedings in the case of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) vs former FBN Holdings (also known as First HoldCo Plc) Chairman Dr Oba Otudeko, former First Bank Managing Director Stephen Onasanya, and others was adjourned to 17th March 2025.
At the hearing, the defendants’ counsel challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter. Dr Otudeko’s legal team, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, argued that the subject matter of the charge arose from a standard banker-customer relationship which had been completely resolved over 8 years ago, with the EFCC itself involved in the entire resolution process. Further buttressing the point, the third defence counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, asserted that a civil banker-customer relationship should not be reclassified as a criminal matter.
In response, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, representing the EFCC contended that the defendants’ arraignment should be addressed before any other applications.
Rebutting this argument, Olanipekun emphasised the need for judicial restraint, cautioning against "pulling cases by the strand of hair." He referenced legal precedents established after the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), which held that a preliminary objection must be considered before a plea is taken.
The defence counsels asked the court to disregard the prosecution’s request and decide on their preliminary requests based on the multiple precedents where the courts have done so. It is important to note that despite having ample time, the prosecutor had not filed a response to the preliminary objections prior to the hearing.
Curiously, Babajide Koku, SAN, counsel for FBN Holdings was also present in court and announced that his client, FBN Holdings is the complainant in the charge. Meanwhile, Mr Ade Adedeji, SAN, representing Anchorage Leisures Limited, noted that it appeared the case was malicious, driven by improper motive and arose from boardroom politics.
Justice Aneke adjourned the case to 17th March 2025 for a ruling on the applications.
The case has drawn considerable attention, reflecting ongoing debate about the EFCC’s prosecutorial boundaries. As the case unfolds, all eyes will remain on the court's next steps and the broader implications for corporate governance in the country.
Politics › Mr President, Do Not Let This Tariff Punish Nigerians Again - Rotimi Matthew by Qtsnow(op): 9:16am On Nov 03, 2025
