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.

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.