One of the most remarkable and often underappreciated examples of harmonious coexistence in public office was the working relationship between former President Muhammadu Buharis two presidential spokespersons, Femi Adesina and Garba Shehu.

At the time of their appointments, many observersincluding this writeranticipated inevitable friction. In an article I wrote shortly after their emergence in June 2015 titled The Presidential Spokespersons (https://cutt.ly/ntVD9GYM), I had raised concerns over hierarchy, precedence, and the potential katakata that could arise from having two powerful media figures operating within overlapping communication responsibilities.

Traditionally, the office of Special Adviser was considered superior to that of Senior Special Assistant. Yet, contrary to fears and political predictions, both men served for eight years without any visible acrimony.

That uncommon maturity was later reflected in their best-selling memoirsWorking with Buhari by Adesina and According to the President by Shehuboth offering different yet complementary perspectives on the same administration, without bitterness or public rivalry.

Nigeria now appears to be entering another delicate institutional moment this time within its security architecture. While President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was on an official three‑nation trip to France, Kenya and Rwanda, and the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, was representing Nigeria in high‑level meetings with U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and Acting National Security Adviser/Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, news broke announcing the appointment of retired Major General Famadewa as Adviser on Homeland Security.

The announcement generated immediate reactions within security and political circles. Though there had been speculations that some influential interests were uncomfortable with a non-military figure serving as National Security Adviser, many still considered the timing and structure of the appointment curious.

Ironically, the debate over Ribadus suitability began immediately after President Bola Tinubus inauguration in May 2023. I wrote then on The Person Needed for President Tinubus NSA, (https://cutt.ly/FtVSeT67) and later, when Ribadu was first announced as Adviser on Security Matters, I published Nuhu Ribadu and the NSAs Statutory Mandates (https://cutt.ly/YtVSr2lH). In both pieces, I argued that effective national security management is not the exclusive preserve of military officers. Globally including in the United States and the United Kingdom many national security advisers come from legal, diplomatic, intelligence, or academic backgrounds rather than active military command. That position remains valid.

The Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) is a legally established institution with broad statutory responsibilities covering intelligence coordination, strategic security policy, counterterrorism supervision, and inter-agency collaboration. Over the years, it has evolved into the central coordinating hub of Nigerias security ecosystem.

By contrast, there is presently no clearly defined legal framework outlining the mandate of the newly created Homeland Security office. However, Presidency insiders suggest that the concept is modelled after the United States Department of Homeland Security, with focus areas expected to include immigration, civil defence, border management, and domestic intelligence coordination.

In fairness to both men, neither Ribadu nor Famadewa lacks credentials or commitment. Ribadu has shown exceptional loyalty across administrations. As EFCCs pioneer chairman under President Obasanjo, he confronted corruption head‑on, taking on politically exposed individuals once considered untouchable. As NSA under President Tinubu, he undertakes risky visits to volatile security zones, conducts intensive diplomatic shuttle missions, and consistently defends Nigeria against negative international narratives, ranging from terrorism designations to money‑laundering and governance concerns, among his statutory responsibilities.

General Famadewa, on the other hand, may not enjoy the same public visibility, given his deep roots in military intelligence operations. Intelligence officers are rarely household names. Yet, during the Buhari administration, Famadewa was widely regarded as one of the stabilising forces behind the tenure of former NSA, retired Major General Babagana Monguno.

As Principal Staff Officer at ONSA, Famadewa played strategic and operational roles during periods of intense bureaucratic and political turbulence. Despite pressures from competing interests within and outside the Presidency (Aso Rock), Monguno survived eight difficult years largely because of the institutional discipline and strategic coordination around him.

Famadewa is an intellectual soldier, a disciplined spymaster, and an unusually humble gentleman. But beneath that calm disposition lies a workaholic officer known for confronting challenges directly and methodically.

The controversy surrounding the new appointment is therefore less about competence and more about timing especially since both the NSA and the President were outside the country when it was announced. That naturally fuelled speculation.

Beyond timing, there is also concern about overlapping mandates. The titles National Security Adviser and Homeland Security Adviser are similar enough to create ambiguity in an already sensitive security environment. What exactly distinguishes national from homeland?

In bureaucratic systems, unclear lines of authority often breed rivalry, duplication, and institutional tension. This is especially delicate considering that Ribadu is a retired Assistant Inspector General of Police with strong intelligence and law enforcement credentials, while Famadewa is a retired Army Major General with intelligence expertise. In a country where inter-agency rivalry has historically weakened national security coordination, perceptions matter almost as much as policy.

Nigeria has witnessed periods when institutional harmony depended less on rank and more on personal chemistry and presidential clarity. There was even a time when an Army Colonel serving as NSA commanded greater inter-agency respect than some retired generals occupying ministerial positions. That experience demonstrated that security management effectiveness is not solely determined by hierarchy but also by charismatic leadership and presidential backing.

Another dimension of the debate is the growing public concern over what I previously described as the Yorubanisation of key security appointments. Currently, strategic positions such as the Chief of Defence Staff (Military), the Inspector General of Police (Security) and the Director-General of the DSS (Intelligence) are occupied by individuals from the same broad Yoruba ethnic bloc in the Southwest, while the NSA remains the only top‑level, non‑ministerial security position occupied by a Northerner in this case, a Fulani.

Whether fair or exaggerated, such perceptions matter in a multi-ethnic federation like Nigeria, where balancing appointments remains politically sensitive.

Professionally speaking, the controversy could have been avoided if a dedicated Department or Agency of Homeland Security had been created with a clearly defined operational framework similar to the National Counter‑Terrorism Centre under ONSA, which already operates effectively under a serving military general. Such an approach would have preserved institutional clarity and strengthened operational efficiency.

Politics may be transient, but institutional reputation endures. President Tinubu has demonstrated a strong commitment to tackling insecurity in the North, and Nuhu Ribadu has invested significant political and personal capital in defending the administrationoften at considerable reputational cost. The recent commendation by President Donald Trump on Nigerias counter‑terrorism efforts and intelligence coordination with the US military, following the elimination of ISIS/ISWAP leadership just a week after Ribadus visit to Washington, underscores this point.

It is therefore understandable that the latest arrangement has raised concerns about diminished authority or strategic sidelining.

Meanwhile, the AdesinaShehu experience under Buhari shows that duplication doesnt cause dysfunction when roles are clear and egos are managed. Our security system must be protected from turf battles, policy confusion, and political interference.

The Presidency should clarify the mandates, reassure Nigerians that the security leadership is united and focused, and likewise counter the mischievous portrayal of the appointment as kishiya in Hausa.

Anything short of timely clarification risks giving critics room to make derogatory claims of used and dumped.

Yushau A. Shuaib, author of An Encounter with the Spymaster and Award-winning Crisis Communication Strategies, yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Kishiya: Between Ribadus ONSA and Famadewas Homeland Security appeared first on YAShuaib.

The fear of Trump is not the beginning of wisdom. But it is time to tread carefully, with clear eyes and a steady hand.

As a child, whenever I refused to eat or take bitter traditional medicine, my mother would threaten to call Werekacithe unstable and aggressive man who lived at the end of our street. The fear alone was enough to make me comply instantly. I simply obeyed anything out of fear.

Years later, I have come to recognise that Werekaci has many faceson social media, in political spaces, and sometimes in the corridors of global power. The psychology remains the same: invoke a frightening name and watch people abandon their better judgment.
It is through this prism that I now view the growing anxiety in certain Nigerian circles over the posture of United States President Donald Trump toward Nigeriaand the implications this anxiety may have for our 2027 general elections.

Recently, after publishing a series of opinion articles challenging the so-called Christian genocide narrative promoted by separatist advocates and ethno-religious agitators, my social media pages were flooded with coordinated hostility. Within less than an hour of one post, more than 500 abusive comments appearedattacking not only me but also my family, culture, faith, region and even my country.

Some thoughtful readers later pointed out that most of the accounts were fake, bots and faceless handles with no real constituency. Since then, I have adopted a simple rule: I welcome criticism from people of reason, but I delete reckless and bad-faith attacks from extremists.

The same psychology of manipulation appears to be shaping parts of the discourse around Nigeria and President Trump, whose derogatory remarks about our country are well-documented. In earlier writings, I addressed several of these claims, particularly his repeated references to protecting Nigerian Christians without acknowledging Muslim victims of violence. What is troubling is that some Nigerians now amplify such narratives for domestic political advantage.

When American forces reportedly launched a strike in Sokoto on the eve of Christmas, Trump quickly addressed a Christian audience, invoking what he claimed he could do. Yet Sokoto is neither the epicentre of terrorism nor a major banditry hotspot in Nigeria. The target appeared deliberately symbolic because of its Islamic heritage.

So far, the Nigerian government has gone to extraordinary lengths to placate Washington. Officials have repeatedly shuttled to the United States, hosted American lawmakers in Nigeria, and spent substantial sums on U.S. lobbying firms. Nigeria has also conceded ground on arms-procurement decisions, facilitated the release of Catholic schoolchildren, and even allowed American troops to operate on its soilan unprecedented development in our history. Yet the so-called Christian-genocide campaign has continued to resurface.

Then, on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, as Muslims were leaving a mosque after breaking their Ramadan fast in Ngoshe, Borno State, terrorists slaughtered the Imam and several worshippers while abducting more than 100 women and children. There was no comparable outcrynot from American lawmakers and certainly not from President Trump. The silence was both deafening and revealing: the tragedy simply did not fit the narrative being promoted. But the truth remains clearMuslim lives, to them, appear not to matter.

Meanwhile, among the most reckless accusations circulating on my posts is the claim that Muslims are complicit in terrorism. I do not dignify such claims with extended debate. Long before Boko Haram became a household name, I had written extensively condemning those who falsely invoke Islam to justify violence. These writings appeared in major Nigerian newspapers.

During the ethno-religious conflicts that spread from Maiduguri to Onitsha in 2006, precisely twenty years ago, one of my articles titled Killing in the Name of the Devil appeared in national newspapers, including The Punch, Leadership, Daily Sun, Vanguard, Financial Standard, Daily Trust, and Daily Champion, among others. The article remains accessible on my blog, yashuaib.com, complete with the publication dates.

Over the years, I have written about Boko Haram, banditry, and the Nigerian states failures in counter-terrorismalways as a proud Northern Muslim guided by the Quranic injunction that states: Fear a tumult which will affect not only those who caused it, but also the innocent among you. (Quran 8:25).

Ironically, when I criticise my own people, some critics cheer me. But the moment I point out similar flaws in theirs, those cheers quickly turn into outrage. I have never been hypocritical on this matter. I do not tolerate bullying whether institutional, political, or digitaland I do not argue with fools.

Northerners, contrary to certain stereotypes, are far more tolerant than the fanatics often portrayed in social media debates. The behaviour of a divisive minority should not be mistaken for the character of the majority.

General Theophilus Danjuma, for instance, is widely respected in the North for championing a united Nigeria where all citizens are equal regardless of faith or ethnicity. Similarly, when Abubakar Badaru, a Muslim from Jigawa, was replaced as Defence Minister by General Christopher Musa, a Christian from Kaduna, mainstream Northern opinionincluding Islamic clericswelcomed the development. This acceptance was particularly strong in Sokoto and Maiduguri, where Musa had previously lived, served with distinction and protected civilian lives, leading to the surrender or neutralisation of thousands of terrorists under his watch.

Following recent global events, some commentators have interpreted the U.S.Israel strikes on Iran as a warning for Northern Nigeria, even urging President Trump to oppose Sharia law and Muslim-Muslim tickets. While the Middle East conflict has been widely condemned by several global powers, these critics continue to frame the issue through a simplistic us versus them narrative.

They also overlook a geopolitical reality: Irans isolation was partly worsened by the silence of several neighbouring Arab Muslim states, who either ignored the attack on a fellow Muslim nationthough a non-Arab oneor appeared aligned with the aggressors. Ironically, the critics also ignore a demographic fact: Iran today has a larger Christian population than Israel.

Some commentators further argue that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu may be cautious about provoking Donald Trump, citing the pressure Washington has exerted on countries such as Iran and Venezuela. They therefore predict a possible political adjustment within the Presidency, including speculation that Trump might urge Tinubu to reconsider the current joint ticket ahead of the 2027 elections.

While it would be unfair to deny Vice President Kashim Shettima the continuity enjoyed by his predecessors, Nigerias political choices must remain sovereign. One point must also be stated plainly: if Shettima must be compelled to sacrifice his position under foreign pressure, President Tinubu should ensure that any adjustment does not deepen the already glaring imbalance in federal appointments.

Today, several key institutions in Nigerias economic and financial system are disproportionately led by individuals from one geopolitical zoneand largely from one religious background. The Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS/NRS), PenCom, NDIC, EFCC, NAICOM, AMCON, the Bank of Agriculture, and the Bank of Industry (BOI) are not minor posts. They represent the commanding heights of the national economy.

When leadership of these institutions tilts toward Yorubanisation or Christianisation, it becomes more than a matter of opticsit begins to strain the fragile social contract upon which Nigerias unity rests.

The Igbo, who also feel excluded from sensitive and lucrative positions, must likewise be considered in any recalibration aimed at strengthening national cohesion.

The global communityincluding sections of the American public itselfis increasingly realising that fear of Trump is not the beginning of wisdom. It may well be the beginning of capitulation.

Nigeria must resist the temptation to organise its internal politics around the moods of a foreign leader. We must engage Washington where necessary, push back where appropriate, and above all ensure that our national decisionsincluding decisions about who leads us in 2027are made in Abuja, not in Mar-a-Lago.

Werekaci may be loud. But he does not live here.

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of An Encounter with the Spymaster. He writes from yashuaib@yashuaib.com.

The post 2027 Elections: The Fear of Trump, Werekaci and Nigerian Politics By YAShuaib appeared first on YAShuaib.

Public debate in Nigeria is increasingly shaped not just by facts but also by emotion, identity, and organised outrage. My recent short Facebook post reacting to The New York Times (NYT) report on an Onitsha-based trader and activist triggered an avalanche of hostile responses many from individuals identifying as Igbo and largely sympathetic to IPOB and the quest for Biafra.

What shocked me was not disagreement; that is part of democratic discourse. It was the coordinated pattern of abuse, libellous language, and unrelated propaganda, even after I deleted some of the very offensive posts of online cabals. A closer look revealed what I often call social media warriors from digital pressure groups mobilised from coordinated platforms, less interested in dialogue than in silencing alternative views.

Surprisingly, my harmless Facebook post that sparked the anger was a simple paragraph, which reads: They attacked us for calling out the reckless claim of Christian genocide that painted all Muslims as guilty. Now they insist that The New York Times report on the Onitsha trader who urged an American strike on the Sokoto Caliphate is an editorial attack on Igbos. Haba! So they finally get the point.

The inciting and provocative reactions to the post underscore a deeper national tension about narrative ownership.

When U.S. President Donald Trump raised the inflammatory claim of Christian persecution and genocide in Nigeria, many Nigerians Muslims and Christians alike rejected that sweeping characterisation. The Nigerian government rejected it. Distinguished Christian voices such as Bishop Matthew Kukah warned against framing Nigerias complex insecurity through a purely religious lens.

Yet some local actors from particular sections of the country, based on their ethno-religious agitations, amplified Trumps claim, using it to cast suspicion and aspersion on Nigerian Muslims collectively, as if millions were complicit in terrorism. That dangerous generalisation, strangely, was also applauded in some quarters.

During that debate, I wrote Genocide Claim: President Trump, Ribadus Team and the Saudi Prince, arguing that Trumps claim was politically motivated, selective, and detached from Nigerias security realities. His foreign policy record including his warm relations with Saudi Arabia suggests strategic and financial calculations rather than religious solidarity. Nigerias insecurity, while grave, stems from criminality, weak governance, and socio-economic pressures, not a state-driven religious extermination.

That article, too, drew coordinated attacks. The goal appeared clear: intimidate dissent. Unfortunately for the attackers, I can’t be intimidated but laugh at their folly.

Now the debate has shifted following the New York Times report (NYT), which referenced Emeka Umeagbalasi, head of the Onitsha-based NGO Intersociety, whose claims about Christian killings reportedly influenced U.S. political conversations.

Curiously, rather than engaging with the substance of the report through a reasoned rejoinder, much of the anger on social media was directed at Taiwo Aina, the New York Times photographer credited under one of the images. She became the target of sustained online attacks because of her Yoruba name from many users who identified as Igbo.

What made their reaction even more troubling was that other journalists involved in the report Saikoh Jammeh, Dionne Searcey, Ismail Auwal, and David Chidi Eleke whose names were clearly listed, faced no comparable backlash. The selective outrage, especially against a female photojournalist whose role is largely technical and visual, says more about the emotional climate of the debate than about the report itself.

Before the NYT report, the BBC Global Disinformation Unit had investigated Intersocietys figures and found them unverified and inflated. Despite the lack of verifiable data, such claims fed into U.S. conservative political narratives and Trumps rhetoric. Independent conflict trackers such as ACLED consistently show that violence in Nigeria affects multiple communities, not Christians alone.

The BBC report noted that Intersocietys narratives are shaped by southeastern political grievances and often align with IPOB-linked activism. PRNigerias earlier independent analysis similarly observed Intersocietys shift from governance advocacy to persecution-focused messaging. That BBC investigation authored by Olaronke Alo, Chiamaka Enendu, and Ijeoma Ndukwe also attracted fierce backlash.

The pattern is troubling. When international actors portray Nigeria through a narrow religious-genocide frame, local extremists feel validated. But when global media question the credibility of those claims, it is suddenly labelled ethnic profiling.

You cannot condemn collective labelling only when it affects you.

Even more disturbing is the symbolism emerging online: viral videos of groups dressed in white garments, flanked by U.S. and Israeli flags, calling on Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to rescue them from Nigeria. Such appeals reflect deep frustration but also dangerous faith in foreign intervention. History shows external powers act primarily in their own interests.

Nigerias unity debate is valid, and reforms like restructuring and federalism deserve serious discussion. But misinformation, hate narratives, and appeals to foreign powers will not bring justice they only deepen mistrust.

We must ask: Who benefits from calling Nigeria a religious genocide zone? Who gains when neighbours become enemies? Who profits when foreign powers exploit our crisis?

Our insecurity is real, but it demands facts, responsible leadership, and national cohesion not propaganda and sickening fake news by enemies of our unity.

Yushau A. Shuaib
Author of ‘An Encounter with the Spymaster’
yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Between Trumps Genocide Claim and New York Times Onitsha Trader Narrative by YAShuaib appeared first on YAShuaib.

I have always resisted being dragged into ethnoreligious arguments. Not because the issues are trivial, but because many of the loudest voices in such debates are not merely passionatethey are fanatical. Some are so blinded by affiliation that they excuse injustice, flirt with heresy, or even justify violence in defence of identity. In recent months, especially after U.S. President Donald Trumps inflammatory threats against Nigerian Muslims over an alleged Christian genocide in Nigeria, I found myself losing respect for some elders, friends, and colleagues. Their positions were so reckless and prejudiced that I questioned whether our long-standing relationships had ever been grounded in sincerity.

It was against this background that recent media reports jolted my memory: a Department of State Services (DSS) operative, Ifeanyi Onyewuenyi, had been arrested for allegedly abducting, raping, and forcibly converting a Muslim girl to Christianity. Instantly, my mind travelled back to 2016the traumatic case of Ese Oruru and Yunusa Dahiru, popularly known as Yellow. That episode dominated newspapers, television screens, social media timelines, and the commentary of self-styled influencers who fed hungrily on outrage.

In March 2016, precisely 10 years ago I intervened in that heated national debate with an article titled Ese Oruru: From Delta to Northern Savannah. (Link to the article:https://yashuaib.com/2016/03/ese-oruru-from-delta-creek-to-northern-savannah-by-yushau-a-shuaib/) Drawing from my positive 1992 National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) experience in Delta State, I contrasted a past era of inter-ethnic openness with the poisonous divisions that surfaced during the Ese OruruYunusa Dahiru saga. Ese, a teenage girl from Bayelsa, and Yunusa, a young Kano-born artisan living in Yenagoa, became unwilling symbols in a storm whipped up by sensationalist media, political opportunists, and religious bigots.

My argument then was simple but unpopular: what should have been treated as a grave but personal criminal matteran ill-advised and unlawful teenage elopementwas irresponsibly reframed into a national crisis of religion and ethnicity. The case was weaponised. Hypocrisy flourished. Sectarian outrage drowned nuance. And anyone who urged restraint or perspective was branded a traitor.

The facts of that case are well known. Ese Oruru, a teenager, was taken from Bayelsa to Kano by Yunusa Dahiru, who claimed to be her boyfriend. She was allegedly forced to convert to Islam and married without parental consent. Following intense public pressure, she was rescued in 2016 while pregnant. In 2020, a Federal High Court sentenced Yunusa to 26 years in prison for child trafficking and sexual exploitation. On appeal, the sentence was reduced to seven years, accounting for time already spent in custody.

What received far less attention, however, was what happened afterwards. Yunusa reportedly completed his secondary education while incarcerated and was described by the Nigerian Correctional Service as a well-behaved and reform-minded inmate and was released in 2023. Ese Oruru, on the other hand, despite the trauma and stigma, returned to school and later gained admission to the University of Ilorin, from which she graduated in 2025. These outcomes did not erase the crime, but they reminded us that justice, rehabilitation, and human recovery can coexist.

Fast-forward to the present. The DSS has confirmed the arrest of its operative, Ifeanyi Onyewuenyi, following a petition alleging that he abducted a Muslim girl, Walida Abdulhadi, kept her in a DSS residence for two years, sexually exploited her, and forcibly converted her to Christianity. According to her family, they searched desperately for Walida during this period and reportedly lost her mother to the trauma. They only learned of her whereabouts when the suspect allegedly called her father on New Years Day 2026, claiming Walida had given birth to his child and that he intended to marry her.

The familys lawyers have rightly described the case as a grave abuse of office and demanded prosecution and an independent investigation of the DSS facility involved. To its credit, the DSS confirmed the arrest, condemned the alleged conduct as a violation of its code of ethics, and announced that a full investigation is underway, with assurances that findings will be made public.

And yet, here lies the uncomfortable question: where is the outrage?

Nearly a decade ago, Nigeria erupted over the abduction and alleged forced conversion of Ese Oruru, a Christian girl, to Islam. Today, a Muslim girl is alleged to have been abducted, raped, and forcibly converted to Christianity by a state security operative. Will this case attract the same volume of condemnation? The same moral panic? The same international attention? Or will it be quietly processed because it does not fit a preferred narrative?

When I wrote in 2016, I was almost crucified for refusing to dance to the drums of sectarian hysteria. Today, faced with a disturbingly similar incident, I find myself cautiousalmost hesitantto speak, knowing how easily principled arguments can be twisted into accusations of bias.

But silence, too, is a position.

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of An Encounter with the Spymaster and can be reached via yashuaib@yashuaib.com.

The post From Ese Oruru to Walida: Exposing Selective Outrage in Child Sexual Exploitation Cases appeared first on YAShuaib.

When U.S. President Donald Trump recently renewed his fixation with what he described as “Christian genocide” in Nigeriagoing as far as calling the country a “disgraced nation”I couldn’t help but laugh. Not because Nigeria’s security challenges are trivial, but because Trump’s history of loud, reckless, and contradictory outbursts makes it difficult for any serious observer to take him at face value.

This is the same Trump who, during his first tenure, described Nigeria among African “shithole countries” and labelled then-President Muhammadu Buhari as “lifeless.” He once confronted Buhari with the question, “Why are you killing Christians?”, despite being widely known for superficial engagement with facts. No American leader in modern times has displayed Trump’s blend of theatrical tantrums, political sensationalism, and Hollywood-style dramatics.

Trump’s behaviour is often stranger than fiction. Before the New York mayoral election, he repeatedly attacked Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim politician of South Asian descent born in Uganda, Africa, calling him a “communist” and threatening to punish New York City if he won. Trump vowed to slash federal funding, deploy the National Guard, and even suggested arresting him over immigration disagreements. Yet despite Trump’s intimidation, Mamdani wonproof that Trump’s political threats often collapse under their own emptiness.

His track record is replete with contradictions. He loudly condemns alleged “Islamists” in Nigeria yet openly courted controversial figures abroadincluding a former “terrorist leader” turned Syrian president, Ahmed al-Sharaa meeting him both in Saudi Arabia and at the White House. Despite presenting himself as a defender of persecuted Christians, Trump’s positions are dictated more by political theatre and personal interests than principle.

He once peddled a fabricated narrative of “white genocide” in South Africa, later dismissed by experts as propaganda. For someone whose policies contributed to the Gaza Genocide against Palestinians and whose rhetoric often inflames divisions, it is astonishing that some Nigerians still treat his statements as gospel truth.

Yet, certain political actors and ethnic propagandists celebrated Trump’s threat to “invade Nigeria,” as though foreign military intervention were a badge of honour. Thankfully, prominent Christian voicesespecially officials from the Middle Belt, including Benue State Governor Reverend Father Hyacinth Alia and Secretary to the Government of the Federation Senator George Akume, as well as vocal public commentators from Southern Nigeria such as Femi Fani-Kayode and Reno Omokrifirmly rejected the genocide narrative, affirming that violence in Nigeria affects Muslims and Christians alike.

Ironically, when Muslims attempted to counter the propaganda, some were accused of never condemning terrorism. But truth is not built on emotion. As a Muslim my writings over two decadesincluding 2003’s “Sharia: Between Civilisation and Belief,” 2006’s “Killing in the Name of the Devil,” 2012’s “Boko Haram and Political Elites in Northern Nigeria,” and 2018’s “Still on Murderous Fulani Kidnappers,” among othersdemonstrate consistent condemnation of all violent crimes, irrespective of perpetrators’ religion or region. My blog, www.yashuaib.com, further archives these personal opinion articles. Not everyone is a hypocrite. Some of us speak from conviction, not convenience.

Security as well as investigative media reports reveal that the so-called “Christian genocide” narrative was constructed mainly by disgruntled Middle Belt activists, IPOB sympathisers, and foreign lobby groups disguised as NGOs. While some Christian communities document every casualty, Muslim communitieswho have suffered the brunt of Boko Haram, banditry and state violence such as the 2016 Zaria Shiite massacrerarely do so. Terrorists have ravaged entire Muslim-majority towns in the North, but their tragedies lack global amplification because they do not fit a convenient foreign narrative.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu acted maturely by dispatching a delegation led by National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu to engage U.S. authorities. Observers noted that the Chief of Defence Staff, General Olufemi Oluyede, Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun and Chief of Defence Intelligence, Lt General Emmanuel Parker Undiandeye all Christianswere on that delegation. If there were a coordinated genocide against Christians, would these respected top security chiefs be complicit?

After every engagement involving Nigeria’s delegationincluding Attorney General Lateef Fagbemi and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Bianca Ojukwu, with American authorities, deeply irresponsible official statements followed. Freshman U.S. Congressman Riley Moore mentioned “Christians” eight times without acknowledging Muslims who are also terrorism victims. Similarly, U.S. Secretary of Defence/War Pete Hegseth’s office emphasised “protection of Christians” and “stopping violence against Christians in Nigeria.”

What about other Nigerians who suffer the same violence? What is the agenda behind this selective framing? Are Muslims and other communities expected to remain silent in the face of such reckless rhetoric? This one-sided narrative sends a troubling messageas though Muslim lives do not matter in the scheme to undermine Nigeria. Even more unfortunate is that some Nigerians are celebrating this distortion, as if the rest of us are no longer their brothers and sisters in nationhood.

Meanwhile, as Ribadu’s delegation sought to clarify Nigeria’s secular stance in the USA, Trump welcomed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House. He approved a major defence pact, facilitated F-35 jet sales, and celebrated investment commitments worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Saudi Arabiathe spiritual heart of global Islamwas also designated a major U.S. ally, while Nigeria was labelled a “country of concern.” Trump’s selective morality is guided not by religious solidarity but by strategic and financial interests.

This makes one thing clear: Nigeria must resist being drawn into emotional propaganda. Americans, as responsible people, will never sanction the invasion of Nigeria over flimsy and concocted excuses as if we are a banana republic. Trump’s threats are mere bluster. The real danger lies in foreign-funded lobbyistsboth locally and internationallydriving the genocide narrative. Once Nigeria ceases to trend, they will shift their campaign elsewhere.

It would not be surprising if, realising that Trump is not coming, the so-called Christian genocide claimants may turn to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with claims that Jews are persecuted in Nigeria. Such a scenario would be absurd, yet not impossibleeven though the most vocal self-proclaimed “Nigerian Jew” is currently serving a terrorism sentence in Sokoto.

Nigeria’s security crises are real but not religious genocide. They stem from criminality, governance failures, climate pressure and economic distressnot state persecution.

Nigeria must confront these challenges honestly, rejecting foreign labels designed to fracture our unity.

The question remains: Is Trump protecting Nigerian Christiansor his own political and business interests, often in competition with China?

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of “An Encounter with the Spymaster.” yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Genocide Claim: President Trump, Ribadu’s Team and the Saudi Prince appeared first on YAShuaib.

There are few things more dignifying than when a towering public figure extends the courtesy of respect wrapped in humility. General Lucky Irabor, former Chief of Defence Staff, exemplifies that rare blend of strength and grace. When he invited me to the presentation of his new book, “SCARS: Nigerias Journey and the Boko Haram Conundrum,” I was reminded that behind the imposing military uniform lies a man of reflection, intellect, and empathy unless, of course, one dares to cross the line.

This quality stands in sharp contrast to the arrogance I have encountered at a strategic institute where a few officers inflated egos left little room for courtesy or intellectual exchange.

I could not attend the book launch due to a scheduling conflict with the International Public Relations Associations (IPRA) Golden World Awards in Ghana, where both the Nigeria Customs Service and my organisation, Image Merchants Promotion Limited (IMPR), were being honoured. On my return to Abuja, all copies of the book had sold out at the designated bookshops, and I was due to travel to Canada that same night. Learning of my predicament, General Irabor personally ensured a copy was sent to me a gesture that spoke volumes about his character.

Taking the advice of his friend, Vice President Kashim Shettima, that to truly enjoy a book, read it on a long journey, I opened it mid-flight and did not stop until I reached the last page. In less than twenty-four hours, I devoured the 300-page memoir a deeply analytical, well-researched, and intellectually stimulating work that goes far beyond the typical autobiographical recount of a retired general.

Irabors SCARS stands out for its narrative style. It is not a self-indulgent memoir but a reflective chronicle that blends personal experience with historical analysis and policy critique. He writes with academic precision, referencing other scholars, field experiences, and verifiable data. Between the lines, the discerning reader can sense his measured but firm convictions on the Boko Haram insurgency, Niger Delta militancy, IPOB separatism, Yoruba nationalism, and the societal decay that has haunted Nigeria since independence.

The book is a panoramic chronicle from the civil war and military coups to democratic transitions and insurgencies offering a sober reflection on the choices and failures that have defined Nigerias evolution. Notably, Irabor avoids sensationalism or name-dropping; even his acknowledgments are strikingly modest despite the calibre of personalities including former Presidents who later attended the unveiling in Abuja.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, in his foreword, aptly describes the book as a soldiers honest reflection on a nations unfinished journey. But the true revelations lie within the pages in Irabors unflinching interrogation of Nigerias political and moral contradictions.

Among the books most intriguing points is his assertion that no full-fledged coup dtat in Nigeria has ever occurred without civilian collaboration. He argues that soldiers, bound by their oath of allegiance, often justify interventions through the prism of national defence. This interpretation shifts part of the blame for Nigerias military incursions to opportunistic civilians who manipulate or enable such actions for personal gain.

Equally provocative is his historical framing of Northern Nigerias recurring religious conflicts. Irabor traces their roots to Usman Dan Fodios jihad of 1804, viewing it as the starting point of organized religious militancy in the region. While this perspective is historically grounded, it risks oversimplification. Thankfully, Irabor tempers his argument by contextualizing it within the broader millenarian revolts of early colonialism, suggesting that both Islamic revivalism and Christian evangelism during the colonial era contributed to shaping Nigerias spiritual and social divides.

One area readers may find conspicuously absent is any mention of the tragic death of gallant General Ibrahim Attahiru, the late Chief of Army Staff who perished in a plane crash shortly after Boko Harams leader, Abubakar Shekau, was reportedly killed. Given Irabors position as the CDS, his silence on the matter is perhaps deliberate an act of discretion from a professional soldier who values institutional continuity over personal disclosure.

Still, his candour shines through elsewhere. The sections on Northern Nigerias political elite are unambiguously critical. Irabor faults the regions leaders for presiding over deepening poverty, illiteracy, and insecurity despite their educational exposure and political dominance. He cites World Bank data showing that the ten poorest states in Nigeria are all in the North-East and North-West, with 87% of the nations poorest population concentrated there. He attributes this grim reality to elite hypocrisy, religious manipulation, and the failure to translate political power into social progress.

He particularly denounces the politicisation of religion, using the Sharia Movement in Zamfara (1999) as a case study of how political opportunism derailed governance. Quoting Emir Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, Irabor laments the commodification of piety a process through which religion becomes a tool of control rather than a vehicle for moral upliftment.

He calls on Northern leaders to emulate progressive Muslim societies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which have harmonised faith with modernity rather than allowing religion to justify stagnation. His position on the Almajiri system is particularly powerful; he argues that no faith sanctions the institutionalisation of street begging or the abandonment of children in the name of learning.

The chapter on the Dead Horse Theory is one of the books most intellectually stimulating sections. Here, Irabor uses the metaphor to describe Nigerias tendency to keep beating dead horses sustaining failed policies and obsolete institutions instead of pursuing meaningful reform. He cites the duplication of examination bodies like WAEC and NECO, the Nomadic Education Programme, and the regional cut-off mark policy as examples of how Nigeria perpetuates inefficiency under the guise of inclusiveness.

The discussion on Boko Haram is both historical and diagnostic. Irabor situates the insurgency within a continuum of religious and socio-political crises, from the Maitatsine riots of the 1980s to the Sharia clashes of 19992000. He chronicles how Mohammed Yusuf, the sects founder, began as a member of Bornos Sharia Implementation Committee, only to break away and radicalise disillusioned youth by preaching against Western education and government corruption. The book exposes the irony of Boko Harams dependence on Western technology weapons, communication tools, and propaganda platforms even while denouncing Western civilisation.

Irabor portrays Boko Haram not as a purely religious movement but as a symptom of governance failure, economic deprivation, and elite negligence. He identifies the drivers of extremism as unaddressed political grievances, weaponisation of religion and tribe, a biased legal framework, and weakened institutions.

The author also voices deep concern over what he described as an international conspiracy against Nigeria, singling out certain foreign entities and media organisations. He accuses them of not only supplying logistical support to terrorist groups but also of deliberately spreading false narratives aimed at discrediting the Nigerian military and destabilising national security.

In his closing reflections, the General offers a pragmatic pathway forward: diplomatic negotiation, socioeconomic and political realignment, and governance reforms that reward merit and restore trust. The time for change is now, he writes, and it must begin with truth, inclusion, and a commitment to genuine progress.

SCARS is not just a memoir; it is a mirror reflecting Nigerias wounds the scars of war, hypocrisy, and wasted potential. Irabors writing is measured but fearless, scholarly yet deeply human. His critique of the North is not an attack but a plea for introspection; his assessment of Nigerias leadership failures is not cynical but reformist.

This book is an essential read for anyone seeking to understand Nigerias enduring crises from insurgency and leadership to the complex interplay between faith, politics, and national identity.

General Lucky Irabors SCARS leaves readers not with despair, but with hope the hope that confronting our scars honestly is the first step toward national healing.

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of An Encounter with the Spymaster and Award-Winning Crisis Communication Strategies. yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Irabor’s Scars on Northern Boko Haram and the Dead Horse Theory appeared first on YAShuaib.

For decades, the specter of a Third World War loomed large in my mind, fueled by youthful readings of Nostradamus’s prophecies and shaped by early global events when I was a student of Bayero University Kano (BUK). One defining moment was Saddam Husseins 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

As a student writer at the time, I penned a passionate defense of the allied forces backed by Saudi Arabia, condemning Saddams aggression. That article, In Defence of Saudi Arabia, earned me more than a few enemies on campus, including a physical confrontation from my senior, Saka Raji Audu testament to the deep emotions stirred by global politics, even among students.

Looking back, my youthful conviction was both sincere and, in many ways, naive. I hadn’t yet grasped the more insidious realities behind the headlines. In time, a disturbing pattern began to emerge: courageous, independent, non-monarchical leaders in the Arab and broader Muslim world were being systematically weakened or eliminated, not solely by Western powers, but with the silent consent, and sometimes active participation, of Arab monarchies.

A turning point in this awakening came with the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq under the now-debunked claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The deafening silence of Arab leaders during this blatant assault on a fellow Arab nation was chilling. Not only was Iraq reduced to rubble, but Saddam Husseinonce courted and financially and militarily backed by these same Arab powers during his eight-year war with Iranwas subjected to a “Kangaroo court” after the killing of his sons.

In my 2004 article, Saddam Trial: The Humiliation of the Arab World, I expressed outrage at the complicity of Arab leaders and their failure to build military and technological capacities despite immense oil wealth. Instead, they remained reliant on foreign powers to protect their regimes, even at the cost of betraying their own.

That outrage deepened after Saddams execution on Eid al-Adhaa sacred day in Islam meant for mercy and reflection. My 2007 piece, Saddam Hanging and Arab Culpability, decried both the timing of the execution and the broader betrayal by Arab leaders who stood idly by while a sovereign nation was dismantled under false pretenses.

Then came the Arab Spring in 2011a movement sparked by the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia. That year, I wrote Arab World: Between Democracy and Monarchy, where I highlighted a paradox: while many self-proclaimed Arab republics had devolved into brutal dictatorships, constitutional monarchies seemed to offer better living standards, stronger economies, and more stable governance. This raised uncomfortable questions: Was democracy truly the answer for the region? Or could a reformed monarchy offer a viable alternative?

Whatever the answer, one thing was clear: monarchical Arab states were selectively silent or actively supportive when the West destroyed nations led by strong, pan-Arab, and pan-African voices.

The 2011 NATO-led invasion of Libya marked another watershed. On the false premise of humanitarian intervention, Western powersagain with the approval or silence of Arab regimestoppled Muammar Gaddafi, a leader who had transformed Libya through free education, healthcare, and massive infrastructure development. Gaddafi was also a formidable voice for African unity and economic independence.

In my article Saddam, Gaddafi and the Arabs An African Perspective, I condemned the Western medias dehumanizing portrayal of their deaths and the Arab worlds cowardly complicity. Libyas destruction triggered a chain reaction: looted arms depots fueled terrorists like Boko Haram and ISWAP, unleashing instability across West Africafrom Nigeria to Mali, Niger to Cameroon.

Yet, refugees and internally displaced people had nowhere to go, while only a few countries could accommodate them. Moved by such hypocrisy, I wrote May Allah Bless Chancellor Merkel of Germany in 2015a tribute to a Christian woman leader who welcomed over a million refugees, many of them Muslims. Her compassion stood in stark contrast to the indifference of some Arab leaders whose actions helped displace their own people.

And Libya was not alone. Syria under Bashar Assad, Lebanon, and Yemennon-monarchical Arab nationshave also suffered immensely. The pattern is clear: when a nation dares to chart an independent path, especially one not aligned with Western or monarchic Arab interests, it becomes a target. Even the plight of the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, underscores this tragic hypocrisy. Beyond occasional condemnations, Arab monarchies have offered little meaningful support.

The duplicity became more glaring under Donald Trumps presidency. A man known for his erratic, often inflammatory style, Trump cozied up to brutal regimes and abandoned diplomacy. His abrupt cancellation of nuclear talks with Iran, the assassination of a top Iranian general, and aggressive posturing towards nations like China, Canada, and South Africa among others marked a dangerous shift in U.S. foreign policy. His overt support for Israels military aggressionespecially the recent unprovoked strikes on Irancame barely a month after receiving lavish gifts, including a presidential jet, during a state visit to oil-rich Arab nations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Whats worse? These same Arab leaders, whose nations share the region with Iran, remained conspicuously silent. Only when Iran retaliated by targeting U.S. military bases did they suddenly find their voices. Trumps subsequent announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran revealed the disturbing extent to which global narrativesand potentially even future warsare being shaped by a handful of powers under the guise of diplomacy.

Meanwhile, the loudest voices condemning the attack on Iran were not from the Muslim world, but from the Eastern bloc: Russia, China, among a few others. Most Arab leaders, fearful of offending their Western patrons, chose discretion over solidarity. It is also worth noting that people of consciencemany of them non-Muslim scholars, activists, politicians, and other influential voices, including Nigerias own Femi Fani-Kayodehave been vocal in condemning the unjustifiable atrocities committed against Palestinians and Iranians in the ongoing conflicts orchestrated by Benjamin Netanyahus Israel.

This reinforced one of my earlier reflections on the region: Any Muslim who thinks supporting an Arab is protecting Islam must have a rethink. Islam is not a religion based on ethnicity, tribal marks, geographical location or color of skin. It is a faith rooted in compassion, good conduct, truthfulness, and coexistence. This principle remains urgent today.

The Middle East is being held hostagenot only by Western imperial ambitions but by the cowardice and complicity of Arab monarchies. Until Arab leaders begin to act in the true interest of their people and region, rather than in service to foreign alliances and personal survival, the region will remain in perpetual turmoil.

The time for silent diplomacy and selective outrage is over. What the Middle East needs now is courageous leadershipbold enough to resist manipulation, honest enough to admit past failures, and principled enough to chart a truly independent future.

Yushau A. Shuaib mnipr is the author of Award-Winning Crisis Communication Strategies.
Email: yashuaib@yashuaib.com

REFERENCES:
“In Defence of Saudia Arabia” by YAShuaib 1990
https://yashuaib.com/1990/12/in-defence-of-saudi-arabia/

“Saddam Trial: The Humiliation of the Arab World” by YAShuaib 2004
https://yashuaib.com/2004/07/saddam-trial-the-humiliation-of-the-arab-world/

“Saddam Hanging and Arab Culpability” by YAShuaib2007
https://yashuaib.com/2007/01/saddam-hanging-and-arab-culpability/

“Arab World: Between Democracy and Monarchy” by YAShuaib2011
https://yashuaib.com/2011/03/arab-world-between-democracy-and-monarchy/

“My article titled “Saddam, Ghaddafi and the Arabs An African Perspective” by YAShuaib 2011
https://yashuaib.com/2011/11/saddam-ghaddafi-and-the-arabs-an-african-perspectives/

“May Allah Bless Chancellor Merkel of Germany” by YAShuaib2015
https://yashuaib.com/2015/12/may-allah-bless-chancellor-merkel-of-germany/

The post Reflections: How Arab Monarchies Enable Western Aggression Against Defiant Leaders appeared first on YAShuaib.

My father died a while ago! Janaza will be at Sultan Bello Mosque Kaduna after Jumuat prayer Insha Allah

This was the sombre message that greeted me on my phone from Sadiq Kabir Dangogo, son of the legendary Mallam Kabir Dangogo, as I awoke for the Ramadan Sahur at 4:00 AM on Friday, March 7, 2025. For a moment, I was paralyzed by disbelief. I pinched myself to ensure it wasnt a nightmare and sought further confirmation. The reality soon sank in: the man who had inspired countless African public relations professionals was no more.

Mallam Kabir Dangogo was not just a name in the field of public relations; he was an institution. His contributions to the profession were monumental, and his legacy will continue to inspire generations of PR practitioners.

My first encounter with Mallam Dangogo was through his writings during my early years in PR. However, it was an unforgettable honor to share a podium with him when we were both recognized as PR Personalities of the Year by the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR) Kano/Jigawa Chapter exactly 30 years ago. The event, held on August 5, 1995, at Daula Hotel in Kano, was graced by dignitaries such as the NIPR President, Alhaji Sabo Muhammad; former Governor of Jigawa State, Alhaji Ali Saad Birnin Kudu; and my boss Alhaji Abu Gidado, then Minister of State for Finance, who was the Special Guest of Honour.

That moment marked the beginning of a mentorship and professional relationship that profoundly shaped my career. Mallam Dangogos towering presence in strategic communication opened doors to numerous opportunities and networks. His establishment of Timex Communications and Training School after his retirement further cemented his commitment to nurturing the next generation of PR professionals.

As a revered authority in financial public relations and reputation management, Mallam Dangogos expertise transcended borders. On February 21, 2019, we had the privilege of hosting him at the PRNigeria Centre in Abuja for a mentorship session with our interns, mostly Mass Communication students. Unbeknownst to him, we had orchestrated a surprise 70th birthday celebration in his honor.

At exactly 4:00 PM, as I led him into our conference room, the staff and interns erupted into a melodious rendition of Happy Birthday. The look of surprise on his face was priceless. The celebration deepened as calls began pouring in from top PR practitioners across the continent. The first was from the President of the African Public Relations Association (APRA), Mr. Yomi Badejo-Okusanya, followed by the President of the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR), Mr. Mukhtar Sirajo, and many others, all extending heartfelt wishes.

In his remarks that day, Mallam Dangogo admitted that he had long forgotten his birthday, which he rarely commemorated. With a sense of nostalgia, he reflected on the golden days of public relations, when decorum, ethics, and professionalism were the guiding principles of the profession. He lamented the current state of PR in Nigeria, emphasizing that the profession was not merely about crafting grammatically impeccable press releases or delivering eloquent speeches at press conferences. He urged young practitioners to be hardworking, diligent, and steadfast in upholding the ethics of the profession.

Born on February 21, 1949, Mallam Kabir Dangogo was a scholar and a trailblazer. He earned academic degrees from Ohio University, Athens, in the United States in 1981, and the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom in 1987. Mallam Dangogos illustrious career began in journalism, where he worked at the New Nigerian newspaper and the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA). He actually served as the Managing Editor of New Nigerian newspaper between 1988 and 1989, a Senior Lecturer at Kaduna Polytechnic in the late 1980s, and the Press Adviser for the United States Information Service in 1990.

He later transitioned into public relations, serving as a Public Relations Officer at the Bank of the North Limited and Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. He was the founding President of the Association of Corporate Affairs Managers of Banks (ACAMB). He served as Secretary-General of the Federation of African Public Relations Associations (FAPRA later known as APRA) while also being the Chairman of the Nigeria Chapter of the International Public Relations Associations (IPRA) between 2002 and 2006, bringing pride to Nigeria on the continental and global stage.

After 32 years of distinguished service in various corporate organizations, Mallam Dangogo voluntarily retired from Union Bank on June 26, 2005, as the Assistant General Manager (AGM) of Corporate Affairs. He then established Timex Communications, a PR firm and communication training school that hosted global events in Nigeria.

His contributions to the profession were recognized globally. In 1981, he was elected a Fellow of the International Radio and Television Society (IRTS) in New York. He became a Fellow of the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR) in 2000 and received the NIPR Presidents Award for Excellence in Public Relations in 1996. He was also a Fellow of the Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON) and received the Lagos State Chapter of the NIPR Award for Excellence in Public Relations in 2005.

Mallam Kabir Dangogo was a multi-award-winning PR practitioner whose decades of distinguished practice left an indelible mark on the communications landscape and the banking industry. His remarkable journey is a testament to his exceptional leadership, professionalism, and unwavering commitment to excellence.

As we bid farewell to this doyen of public relations in Africa, we celebrate a life well-lived and a legacy that will endure. May his soul rest in peace.

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of “A Dozen Tips for Media Relations” and “Introduction to Financial Public Relations in Nigeria.” yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Kabir Dangogo: The Demise of a Doyen of Public Relations in Africa appeared first on YAShuaib.

Lasisi Olagunju, an esteemed columnist renowned for his incisive and thought-provoking writing, has long captivated readers with his ability to intertwine Yoruba folktales, historical references, and literary insight. His articles often critically examine Nigerias political and social landscape uniquely. Yet, even admirers like myselfa friend of over two decadesoccasionally find ourselves questioning some of his more provocative viewpoints.

Armed with a First-Class degree in English Studies and a PhD in political communication, Olagunju skillfully employs proverbs and allegorical storytelling to enrich his narratives, often embedding subtle hints that resonate with discerning readers capable of reading between the lines.

However, one area that has at times troubled me during our discussions is his candidand at times excessivecriticism of Northern Nigeria, which often extends to former President Buhari. Olagunju’s thematic collection of essays titled Cowries of Blood offers a poignant glimpse into his perspective on the Arewa region.

In his recent column, In Defence of Nepotism, Olagunju recounts a conversation with a northern friend (he didnt say I am the one) who criticised President Bola Tinubu for nepotistic appointments favouring the Yoruba. Olagunju counters this by asserting that the majority of key security appointments under Tinubu are held by northerners. His analysis appears to be informed by recent data from Sunday Dare, the newly appointed Presidential Adviser on Public Communication and Orientation. This data claims that strategic security roles are predominantly occupied by northerners, thereby challenging allegations of ethnic favouritism toward the Yoruba.

While Olagunju and Dare invoke the term “key and strategic positions” to bolster their arguments, they should note that certain statutory lead agencies hold far more critical operational and mandated significance than others.

For example, Dare’s analysis is not without its flaws. It raises eyebrows when he includes the two Defence Ministers, Muhammad Badaru and Bello Matawalle, as northern heads of agencies responsible for supervising the Army, Navy, and Air Force, yet omits the Minister of Interior, Dr. Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo from the Southwest, who oversees pivotal security agencies such as the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), Immigration, Prison and the Fire Services as well as the board in charge of recruitments and promotions in those agencies.

Additionally, Dare, a former Minister of Youth and Sports, makes a confusing classification by listing the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) as security agencies led by northerners. Haba! This stretch of the concept of security agencies beyond their traditional confines further fuels scepticism regarding the credibility of his claims.

While Dares narrative may appear disingenuous, Olagunju’s assertion that Nigeria is geopolitically divided into three regionsSouth, West, and Northis laughable.

Emerging analyses, such as a recent report by PRNigeria, present a more nuanced view of security leadership distribution across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones: Northwest, Northeast, Northcentral, Southwest, Southeast, and South-South.

Olagunjus perspectives on nepotism extend beyond mere data analysis. He argues that nepotism, often viewed negatively, can be a pragmatic strategy for leaders navigating Nigeria’s complex ethno-regional landscape. He traces the pattern of regional favouritism in appointments back to previous administrations.

A particularly striking claim from Olagunju posits that former President Olusegun Obasanjo strategically appointed primarily Southern and Northern Christians to sensitive security positions to mitigate perceived threats to his administration.

Olagunju notes, “Obasanjo had three Inspectors-General of Police, and all three were from his western region (Yoruba). His DG SSS from 1999 to 2007 was Colonel Kayode Are, his Abeokuta kinsman. For the army, Obasanjo, a Southern Christian, in eight years, had four gentlemen as his Chief of Army Staff. He started in 1999 with Victor Malu, a Christian from the North; then he moved south and picked Alexander Ogomudia, a Southern minority. After two years, two months, Obasanjo took the position back to the North but did not give it to those who might use it to injure him. He picked Martin Luther Agwai, a Southern Kaduna minority Christian. Three years later, he went south again and selected Andrew Owoye Azazi, another Southern minority. He was clearly deliberate about what he did, mixing his nationalist broth with condiments of small nepotism here a little altruism there. The Obasanjo experience ended almost twenty years ago. This is the age of reason, with an apology to Thomas Paine. The gloves are off.”

However, as Olagunju emphasises this troubling narrative, it raises pertinent questions: Are Northern Muslims seen as potential threats capable of undermining any sitting president? Does this atmosphere of distrust underpin Tinubu’s preference for predominantly Yoruba Christian leadership within critical security agencies?

Despite being a Muslim, President Tinubu has entrusted the most influential security and economic positions predominantly to Yoruba Christians from the Southwest. Notable examples include the Acting Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Olufemi Oluyode; Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun; Director General of the DSS, Adeola Ajayi; and EFCC Chairman, Olanipekun Olukayede, who all lead front-line agencies in military, security, intelligence, and anti-corruption efforts.

Similarly, key national economic positions are held by Yoruba Christians from the South-West, such as the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Yemi Cardoso; the powerful Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), Zacch Adedeji; and the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Wale Edun.

Olagunjus analysis deepens when he alludes to the power dynamics within Tinubus administration. He provocatively suggests uncertainty surrounding who truly holds powerwhether it is President Tinubu, his wife Remi Tinubu, an ordained senior pastor in the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), or even their son and close associates.

This observation leads to a broader concern about the direction of Nigerias democracy. Could this also reflect the agitation of Yoruba Muslims who feel underrepresented in Tinubus administration?

Olagunju further predicts impending leadership changes, particularly regarding the next Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) chairman. He argues that Tinubu’s choice is likely to reflect home-region bias, echoing the missteps of previous leaders. He warns that unlike President Goodluck Jonathanwho appointed a non-regional INEC chairman to his detrimentTinubu will likely prioritize regional loyalty in this critical appointment in 2025.

The implications of nepotism in Nigerias leadership are profound. Every moment a leader prioritizes ethnicity over competence is a moment that edges the nation closer to instability. If certain groups are deemed untrustworthy for critical appointments, how can they, in turn, trust the administration with their votes?

Ultimately, every moment spent fostering nepotism over competence distances Nigeria from effective governance. Leaders must embrace inclusivity and meritocracy to nurture trust and collaboration among all regions and ethnicities. Only then can Nigeria aspire to realise its full potential as a united nation.

Yushau A. Shuaib
www.YAShuaib.com, yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Security Sector: Olagunju, Dare and Nepotism in Appointments appeared first on YAShuaib.

The recent submission of four executive bills to the National Assembly by President Bola Tinubu has sparked intense debate. President Bola Tinubu’s recent submission of four executive tax reform bills to the National Assembly has sparked heated debate. Central to the controversy is Zacch Adedeji, Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), whose clarifications on the reforms have yet to clear the air but intensified discussions.

At first glance, the four bills appear to serve distinct purposes: The Nigeria Tax Bill seeks to harmonise various tax laws to reduce multiplicity; the Nigeria Tax Administration Bill focuses on standardising tax processes and compliance requirements; the Nigeria Revenue Service Bill aims to replace the FIRS Act and establish a National Revenue Service (NRS) to be responsible for collecting both domestic and international revenues; and the Joint Revenue Board Bill will create a framework for resolving revenue conflicts between states and local governments.

A key aspect of these proposals involves replacing the FIRS with the NRS, which would become a central and most powerful revenue service in the history of Nigeria with the task of being the only agency responsible for collecting all government revenues, including those currently managed by other agencies in oil, customs, and port and other sectors. It will be more powerful and influential than the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Nigeria National Petroleum Company NNPC and others.

Another contentious point is the proposed Value Added Tax (VAT) distribution model. Under the new framework, states receiving VAT collections would retain significant revenue. However, some northern leaders fear this model will disproportionately benefit states where companies are headquartered rather than those where goods and services are consumed.

In a statement from Alhaji Muhammad Inuwa Yahaya, Gombe State’s Governor and Chairman of the Northern Governors Forum, northern governors opposed the proposed derivation-based VAT distribution model, citing concerns that it would disadvantage their states.

They urged National Assembly members to reject any legislation perceived as unfavourable to any region of the country. The communiqu stated: The Forum is concerned by the recent Tax Reform Bill sent to the National Assembly, especially the proposed shift to a derivation-based VAT distribution model, which disadvantages the North.

The governors reaffirmed their commitment to national development while emphasising the need for equity in policy implementation to prevent any geopolitical zone from feeling marginalised.

Consequently, the following day, the National Economic Council (NEC), chaired by Vice President Kashim Shettima, recommended President Tinubu withdraw the Tax Reform Bills from the National Assembly. The NEC convened for its 144th meeting at the State House in Abuja, where state governors and Federal Executive Council members, including Finance Minister Wale Edun and Budget and National Planning Minister Abubakar Bagudu, participated.

Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde remarked that the council recognised the necessity for further understanding and alignment on the bills, emphasising that more comprehensive consultation would be in the nations best interest.

Despite this recommendation by Nigerian governors and federal cabinet members in NEC, President Tinubu asserted that he would not withdraw the proposed tax reform bills. His spokesperson, Bayo Onanuga, indicated that the president believes the legislative process should continue, allowing room for input and adjustments through public hearings.

Tinubu remains committed to reforming Nigerias tax system. Through these proposed bills, the government aims to streamline tax administration, enhance efficiency, and align with global best practices. The billsthe Nigeria Tax Bill, Nigeria Tax Administration Bill, Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Bill, and Joint Revenue Board Establishment Billseek to unify tax processes, reduce overlapping responsibilities, and simplify compliance for both businesses and individuals.

It is widely believed that Zacch Adedeji, as the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), is the driving force behind these reform proposals. His educational background, prior positions, and current role have established him as one of the most influential figures in Tinubu’s administration.

Born on January 8, 1978, in Ogbomosho, Oyo State, Adedeji graduated with first-class honors in Accountancy from Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, where he also obtained his Masters and PhD in the same field. He began his professional journey at Procter & Gamble (P&G) as Corporate Finance Manager for West Africa and later as Finance Leader for SAP Implementation. He also served as Finance Commissioner in Oyo State under Governor Isiaka Ajimobi (20112015). He was appointed Executive Secretary of the National Sugar Development Council (NSDC) by President Muhammadu Buhari before becoming the Executive Chairman of FIRS under President Tinubu.

While his political ambition is fuzzyhaving avoided any major controversysome suspect his positions on tax reform and proposed legislation harbour hidden agendas. In light of these concerns, he proactively engaged with members of the National Assembly following the submission of the bills. He addressed both the Senate Committee on Finance, chaired by Senator Sani Musa, and the House of Representatives Committee, led by Hon. James Faleke.

Adedeji articulated the reforms’ goals, emphasising the need to harmonise existing tax laws, streamline administration, and align Nigerias tax system with global standards. He conveyed that the reforms aim to consolidate disparate tax laws and enhance transparency while improving efficiency in revenue collection. He highlighted that these changes would modernise Nigerias tax system, adapt to the realities of the digital economy, and position the country attractively for investment. He confirmed that no additional taxes would be introduced, aligning with President Tinubu’s commitment to not taxing poverty and inflation.

However, until the full details of the bills are made public, speculation will undoubtedly continue. The discrepancy between President Tinubu’s stance and Vice President Shettima-led NEC’s recommendation only adds to the confusion.

The contradictory stance of FEC and NEC is indeed puzzling, especially considering the All Progressive Congress (APC) controls governance at the national and state levels. A unified and diplomatic approach would have been more effective in addressing the tax reform proposals unless the drama was a deliberate script for political purposes.

As the debate continues, Adedejis true intentions and the broader impact of these reforms on Nigerias economy remain in question. The outcome will undoubtedly shape the nation’s economic trajectory.

Yushau A. Shuaib is the publisher of PRNigeria and Economic Confidential. yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post FEC vs. NEC: What Does Zaccheus Adedeji of FIRS Want? By YAShuaib appeared first on YAShuaib.