Opinion

By Mohammed Mohammed Haruna, PhD, mnipr

Every economy has its insiders and its outsiders. The distinction is not always determined by citizenship, geography or even willingness to work. Sometimes, it is drawn quietly by access: access to credit, identity, insurance, knowledge, technology and the institutional pathways through which human effort is converted into economic possibility. Millions may live within an economy, trade within it, labour for it and contribute daily to its survival, yet remain strangely absent from its most productive opportunities. They are present in the marketplace but invisible to formal credit, active in enterprise but largely unknown to the financial system, economically alive but institutionally unseen.

The question, therefore, is no longer merely how large an economy can become, but who gets to participate in its enlargement. Nigeria’s aspiration to build a trillion-dollar economy makes that question particularly urgent. A larger Gross Domestic Product may announce the expansion of national output, but it does not, by itself, tell us how widely economic agency has travelled. Growth can expand while exclusion survives. Wealth can accumulate while opportunity remains fenced. A country can become statistically richer without sufficiently enlarging the economic citizenship of its people.

There is, after all, a difference between economic enlargement and development. An economy may double in size while reproducing substantially the same geography of privilege and exclusion. Development begins when more citizens acquire the tools, knowledge, protection, institutional connections and opportunities through which their latent capacities can become productive economic agency. It is within this tension between economic ambition and economic participation that the public assignment of Dr. Nurudeen Abubakar Zauro, Technical Adviser to the President on Economic and Financial Inclusion in the Office of the Vice President and a leading figure in the Secretariat of the Presidential Committee on Economic and Financial Inclusion (PreCEFI), deserves serious examination.

The temptation in writing about a public officer is often to begin with the individual: his certificates, appointments, conferences, awards and proximity to power. But perhaps the more useful starting point in understanding Zauro is not the man but the idea. That idea is inclusion, and more particularly, the conviction that belonging to an economy should mean more than merely surviving within its territorial boundaries.

The woman selling produce in a rural market, the artisan working from an informal workshop, the smallholder farmer vulnerable to one failed season and the young graduate possessing a viable idea but no pathway to capital are not necessarily unproductive people. Frequently, they are disconnected people. Their exclusion is not always a deficit of effort. It can be a deficit of institutional connection.

The question that appears to have followed Zauro through his academic preparation, training in accounting and finance, years in central banking and digital financial inclusion, and now his assignment within the Presidency is therefore a fundamental development question: how does the formal economy make room for those whose energy sustains commerce but whose circumstances keep them at the margins of capital, technology, insurance and institutional opportunity?

There is a meaningful difference between discovering an idea after receiving an appointment and arriving at an appointment with a question that has already occupied one’s intellectual and professional imagination. In the first case, the office educates the officer. In the second, preparation and opportunity encounter each other. Zauro’s trajectory increasingly appears closer to the latter.

His Central Bank of Nigeria experience is particularly important in understanding this continuity. Central banking in a developing economy offers an unusual window into the contradictions of development. At one level is the economy of policy rates, payment systems, credit aggregates, financial institutions and regulatory architecture. At another is the lived economy of the roadside trader, the smallholder farmer, the young entrepreneur and the woman whose enterprise may be viable but whose economic existence remains inadequately captured by the structures through which formal capital is allocated.

The important policy question is how to connect these two economies, because that is the last-mile problem of development. A financial system can become increasingly sophisticated without becoming sufficiently inclusive. Digital platforms can multiply while digital illiteracy persists. Credit can expand while small enterprises without conventional collateral remain stranded. Citizens may own bank accounts yet remain without meaningful access to affordable credit, pensions, insurance, investment knowledge or protection against shocks capable of erasing years of household progress. To be banked, therefore, is not necessarily to be economically included, and even to be financially included is not automatically to be financially secure.

This distinction is central to any serious assessment of the policy architecture associated with Zauro’s present assignment. The Aso Accord on Economic and Financial Inclusion represents one expression of this wider thinking. Its significance lies in the attempt to broaden the vocabulary of inclusion beyond ownership of a bank account towards finance, digital infrastructure, financial literacy, underserved communities, women, young people, rural populations and small businesses.

The deeper philosophy is important. Financial inclusion, properly understood, is not merely the act of moving more citizens into banking halls or onto digital payment platforms. It is the dismantling of barriers between human capacity and productive opportunity. The female trader already understands inventory. The farmer understands production. The artisan possesses skill. The young graduate may possess an idea. What is often missing is the connective institutional tissue: identity, finance, information, professional networks, insurance, digital competence and the confidence to navigate increasingly complex formal systems.

Financial inclusion, viewed this way, is not charity. It is productivity policy. Every viable enterprise permanently stranded outside formal finance represents potential output unrealised. Every productive woman unable to access appropriate financial services represents foregone economic agency. Every smallholder farmer left without suitable insurance remains one shock away from losing productive assets. Every digitally excluded citizen risks becoming progressively more peripheral to an economy increasingly organised around data, connectivity and electronic transactions.

This is also why PreCEFI should ultimately be judged not by the number of meetings it convenes but by whether it can help solve one of Nigeria’s most persistent governance problems: institutional fragmentation. Nigeria rarely suffers from an absolute absence of institutions. More often, it suffers from insufficient coordination among them. One institution holds identity data. Another regulates payments. Another supervises financial institutions. Different agencies administer social programmes. State governments possess distinct demographic and economic realities. Development partners operate interventions. Private firms possess technology. Professional bodies hold expertise. Yet the excluded citizen experiences the cumulative consequences when these systems fail to connect. The deficit can therefore be a coordination deficit.

PreCEFI’s potential importance lies in its attempt to create an architecture around this fragmentation. Its engagements with subnational governments, federal institutions, financial-sector actors, professional bodies, private organisations and development partners point towards what might be described as institutional orchestration. The effective public officer in a modern developmental state cannot always command results into existence. Important policy outcomes frequently sit across the statutory boundaries of several institutions. Progress therefore requires persuasion, coalition-building, shared ownership, interoperable systems and the patient translation of different institutional languages into common action. It is an administrative craft that often attracts little theatre but can produce consequential outcomes when sustained with discipline.

No serious account of Zauro’s emerging public-service footprint, however, should construct the mythology of the solitary technocrat. Capacity may reside in an individual, but public service remains an institutional enterprise. Ideas require room. Initiative requires confidence. Responsibility requires trust. Innovation within government frequently requires leaders sufficiently confident in their own authority to identify capable people, expose them to responsibility and allow their preparation to be tested against the difficult realities of governance.

It is here that the role of Zauro’s principals becomes indispensable to an honest understanding of his journey. His Excellency, Senator Kashim Shettima, GCON, Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, has provided strategic political leadership for the economic and financial inclusion agenda within the responsibilities entrusted to his Office. Alongside him, Senator Ibrahim Hassan Hadejia, Deputy Chief of Staff to the President in the Office of the Vice President, occupies an important position within the institutional machinery through which complex assignments are coordinated and sustained.

From the guidance, trust, mentorship, counsel and institutional support of these principals, Zauro has evidently benefited immensely. That fact diminishes neither his preparation nor his exertions. It properly contextualises them. One of the least discussed responsibilities of leadership is the identification and deployment of competence. Nations do not progress merely because talented people exist. Every country has intelligent citizens. Progress occurs when systems of leadership can recognise capacity, assign responsibility, provide guidance and create sufficient institutional space for competent people to contribute towards clearly defined public purposes.

Preparation without opportunity can remain dormant, while opportunity without trust can remain constrained. When preparation encounters the confidence of perceptive leadership, however, public service can become a platform for consequential action. The larger framework remains the mandate of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the administration’s aspiration for a stronger and much larger Nigerian economy. Yet the expansion of national output creates an unavoidable policy obligation: growth must find citizens, and the statistics must eventually acquire faces.

Reform cannot remain indefinitely at the level of macroeconomic abstraction. Its social and political legitimacy must ultimately be encountered in opportunity, enterprise, jobs, resilience and the expanded ability of citizens to participate productively in economic life. This is where the work of inclusion meets the broader presidential mandate. The President provides the national reform and development direction. The Vice President provides strategic leadership across responsibilities entrusted to his Office. The Deputy Chief of Staff supports the coordination required to move complex assignments through government. Technical officers such as Zauro are given specialised responsibilities through which aspects of the larger ambition may acquire operational form. The technical officer does not work outside the national blueprint. He works within it.

Several initiatives associated with the present inclusion agenda illuminate the thinking behind this work. The ambition to train millions of Nigerians in financial inclusion and literacy, including through collaboration with professional bodies, rests on an important development premise: capacity is infrastructure. Infrastructure, in the conventional imagination, is concrete, steel, electricity, rail and fibre. These are indispensable, but there is another infrastructure without which physical and technological investments may yield far less than their potential. That infrastructure is human competence.

A sophisticated financial system has limited developmental reach when millions lack the knowledge and confidence required to navigate it. A digital platform is only as inclusive as the ability of its intended users to understand and use it safely. Credit availability means little to a potential entrepreneur who cannot formalise, structure or communicate the economics of an enterprise. A road connects places, while knowledge connects people to possibilities. Both are infrastructures of development.

The same logic applies to women’s economic participation. Initiatives such as She’s Included should not be understood as exercises in benevolence. Women’s economic inclusion is economic arithmetic. A society cannot constrain the productive capacity of a substantial proportion of its population and still expect to optimise national output. The exclusion of women from finance, skills, networks and capital represents foregone enterprise, weakened household resilience and diminished national productivity.

Effective inclusion, however, also requires recognising that uniformity is not equity. A female micro-entrepreneur operating informally, carrying disproportionate care responsibilities and possessing little conventional collateral does not encounter the financial system from the same starting position as a salaried professional. Giving both the same product and declaring the system inclusive is to confuse sameness with fairness. The test of a gender-responsive inclusion agenda is therefore not how many women attend an event or open an account, but whether more women acquire durable economic agency.

That distinction brings us to the most important part of the discussion: the next frontier. The work associated with Zauro and PreCEFI may have established a compelling architecture of intention, but public policy eventually encounters its hardest question after the communiqués, accords, committees, partnerships and launches have been completed. The question is what actually changed.

For the present inclusion agenda to mature into a durable national institution, and for Zauro himself to become even more effective in the assignment entrusted to him, the next phase should move decisively from policy mobilisation towards an independently measurable architecture of outcomes.

The first requirement is a public inclusion scorecard. Nigeria should be able to see, at regular intervals and preferably at state and local levels, not merely how many citizens possess accounts but how many actively save, obtain responsible credit, hold insurance, use digital financial services safely, build viable enterprises and demonstrate improved financial resilience. What gets announced attracts attention, but what gets measured attracts accountability.

The second requirement is to move from counting beneficiaries to tracking developmental journeys. Training millions of people may be impressive as an output, but the more consequential questions arise afterwards. How many acquired demonstrable competence? How many formalised enterprises? How many accessed appropriate finance? How many increased revenue, created employment or improved household resilience? Public policy should not confuse reach with impact.

The third requirement is an independent evaluation mechanism. PreCEFI and its partners should periodically invite credible universities, research institutions and independent evaluators to assess major interventions against published baselines and targets. The purpose would not be to embarrass government but to protect policy from the dangers of self-congratulation. Serious institutions learn in public, and strong policy leadership should be confident enough to allow evidence to confirm success, identify weaknesses and guide correction.

The fourth requirement is a stronger subnational delivery architecture. Exclusion is experienced locally even when policy is designed nationally. The constraints confronting a woman entrepreneur in Lagos may differ substantially from those facing a farmer in Kebbi, a trader in Aba or a pastoral community in Adamawa. A national strategy therefore needs state-level delivery compacts, locally disaggregated data and measurable responsibilities for implementation partners. Abuja can coordinate inclusion, but it cannot manufacture every last mile.

The fifth requirement is deeper integration of Nigeria’s emerging digital public infrastructure. Identity, payments and appropriately governed data-sharing systems should increasingly work together so that citizens do not repeatedly prove their existence to disconnected institutions. Interoperability, however, must be accompanied by strong privacy, cybersecurity, consumer protection and accessible grievance-redress mechanisms. The excluded citizen should not be invited into the digital economy only to become the easiest victim within it.

The sixth requirement is the creation of a permanent citizen feedback architecture. The people for whom inclusion policies are designed should have structured mechanisms for reporting what works, what excludes them and where products or programmes fail. Policy elites often understand systems from the perspective of those who design them, while citizens experience them from the point at which they break down. That knowledge is itself valuable data and should be systematically incorporated into programme design and evaluation.

The seventh requirement is institutional permanence. The ultimate test of PreCEFI will be whether its work becomes embedded deeply enough in national and subnational systems to survive individual officeholders and political transitions. Personality may mobilise an agenda, but institutions must preserve it. The strongest legacy Zauro and his colleagues can build would therefore not merely be a collection of successful programmes, but an inclusion architecture capable of sustaining itself beyond the tenure of any particular administration or public officer.

These are not arguments against Zauro’s work. They are arguments for its maturation. Indeed, avoiding hagiography requires acknowledging that the significance of a public officer lies not in being beyond criticism but in being capable of converting scrutiny into better public outcomes. For Zauro, this may be the deeper meaning of the trust reposed in him by his principals. Trust in public service is not a decoration. It is a debt payable in results.

Gratitude to President Tinubu for the national mandate within which the assignment finds its purpose, to Vice President Shettima for the guidance, mentorship, confidence and strategic leadership that have given Zauro’s preparation room for expression, and to Senator Hadejia for the counsel, institutional support and coordination surrounding the assignment should not merely be matters of protocol. They are part of the moral story of opportunity.

The greatest tribute to confidence, however, is not repeated acknowledgement. It is the work that makes the trust count. It is ensuring that the privilege of serving close to the centre of power is converted into value for people who may never enter the gates of the Presidential Villa, never sit at a policy roundtable and never know the names of those designing the frameworks that shape their economic lives.

Those citizens include the woman seeking capital to enlarge h

By Ibrahim Happiness

I read with keen interest two articles published on June 2, 2026. One was the fact that Murtala Muhammed International Airport  is not insured, and another titled, “Teachers from Hell.” Though they address different issues, both expose a troubling reality in Nigeria: the persistent failure to enforce laws and regulations designed to protect citizens.

The article on the insurance status of the Murtala Muhammed International Airport (MMIA) raises serious questions about accountability in public institutions. If indeed Nigeria’s busiest airport operated without adequate insurance coverage despite clear regulatory requirements, then this represents not merely an administrative oversight but a failure of governance. The existence of regulations means little when compliance is not enforced.

What makes the situation particularly concerning is that the consequences of such lapses are often borne by the public. The approval of hundreds of billions of naira for airport rehabilitation highlights the enormous cost of neglecting basic risk management measures. Nigerians deserve to know how such a critical national asset was allowed to operate without the safeguards prescribed by law and who should be held responsible.

The article’s call for accountability is therefore timely and necessary. Beyond assurances and directives, there should be transparency regarding the circumstances that led to the lapse and concrete measures to prevent a recurrence. Public confidence can only be restored when accountability is visible and meaningful.

The second article, “Teachers from Hell,” addresses an equally disturbing issue: the violation of trust within educational institutions. Reports of teachers and school officials involved in kidnapping, sexual abuse, and other crimes against children are deeply troubling. Schools are meant to be safe spaces where children learn, grow, and develop. When those entrusted with their care become perpetrators of abuse, the consequences extend far beyond the immediate victims.

The cases highlighted in the article demonstrate the urgent need for stronger safeguarding measures in schools. Thorough background checks, effective monitoring systems, child protection policies, and accessible reporting channels must become standard practice across both public and private educational institutions.

Equally important is the need to educate children about personal safety and their rights. Awareness empowers children to recognise inappropriate behaviour and seek help when necessary. At the same time, swift prosecution of offenders remains essential to ensuring justice and deterring future abuse.

Although one article focuses on airport management and the other on child protection, both ultimately point to the same challenge: the gap between policy and implementation. Nigeria has laws, regulations, and institutional frameworks in place. What is often lacking is the commitment to enforce them consistently and effectively.

The fire incident at MMIA and the abuse cases in schools are reminders that regulations alone cannot guarantee safety. Without accountability, oversight, and enforcement, even the best policies become little more than words on paper.

Nigeria’s progress will not be measured by the number of laws it enacts but by how faithfully those laws are implemented. Citizens deserve institutions that uphold standards, protect lives, and act responsibly before crises occur, rather than after the damage is done.

Ibrahim Happiness is a 300-level student in Strategic Communication at the University of Abuja. She can be reached at: happinessibrahim11@gmail.com.

By Prince Daniel Aboki

Every Nigerian has the constitutional right to support any political party or candidate of their choice. That right is guaranteed by the Constitution and should always be respected.

However, an industry cannot thrive when, every election cycle, a few individuals position themselves as speaking on behalf of everyone, mobilising groups to endorse politicians and, in the process, reducing the industry’s engagement with government to the pursuit of personal benefits.

When this becomes the dominant culture, the industry risks not being taken seriously. Government and development partners are beginning to see the industry not as a strategic economic sector but as a collection of individuals seeking patronage every four years. More often than not, the distribution of cash gifts, vehicles, and other favours also creates avoidable divisions within the industry, as practitioners become aligned with competing political interests. Instead of fostering unity around the collective growth of Kannywood, election seasons too often leave the industry fragmented long after the campaigns have ended.

Politicians understand the influence that Kannywood celebrities command, particularly in Kano and across Northern Nigeria. They know these personalities can shape public opinion, mobilise supporters, and amplify campaign messages during elections. That influence is valuable, but it should be used as a bargaining tool to secure lasting benefits for the entire industry—not for personal aggrandisement. Our collective influence should translate into meaningful negotiations for better policies, sustainable funding, stronger institutions, improved infrastructure, and greater opportunities for everyone in Kannywood, rather than short-term personal gains for a few individuals.

Kannywood is far bigger than election campaigns. It is one of Northern Nigeria’s greatest cultural and economic assets. It has the capacity to create thousands of jobs, preserve and promote our culture, strengthen social values, attract tourism, earn foreign exchange, stimulate investment, and project Northern Nigeria to the world.

What makes this even more compelling is that Kannywood has already demonstrated its commercial strength. Some of its producers operate some of the biggest and most successful YouTube channels in Nigeria, attracting millions of views and building significant audiences worldwide. That success should not remain the achievement of a few individuals. It should be consolidated into an industry-wide strategy that creates opportunities for younger filmmakers, actors, writers, directors, editors, cinematographers, musicians, and other creative professionals.

This is the conversation we should be having with those in office and those seeking public office.

Rather than seeking cash gifts, vehicles, or personal favours, we should be demanding policies that strengthen the entire industry: film villages, production funds, affordable financing, stronger copyright protection, modern cinema infrastructure, professional training, international partnerships, tax incentives, and support for participation in global film markets and festivals. That is how enduring creative industries are built.

Over the years, Nollywood has increasingly engaged government and development partners on issues that strengthen the industry’s ecosystem. The conversation has largely centred on policy, investment, institutional support, skills development, financing, and international collaboration. Individual practitioners may support political candidates—as they are entitled to—but the industry’s long-term development has remained a central focus.

This does not mean Nollywood is a perfect congregation. There have also been individuals within Nollywood who have pursued personal interests above the collective interest of the industry. However, when the two industries are compared, Nollywood has, on balance, positioned itself more effectively as a strategic partner in industry development, policy engagement, and institutional growth. Kannywood can do the same.

We must stop approaching politicians with a cap in hand every election season. An industry with this much talent, influence, and economic potential should not present itself as a sector waiting for handouts. It should present itself as a partner in development—one capable of creating jobs, generating revenue, attracting investment, promoting tourism, preserving culture, and contributing meaningfully to the economy of Northern Nigeria.

Politicians will respect Kannywood when Kannywood first respects its own value. This is not a criticism of anyone’s constitutional right to participate in politics or support a candidate. Rather, it is a call for Kannywood to recognise its collective economic power and organise itself as an industry worthy of sustained investment, strategic partnerships, and long-term development.

The question should no longer be, “Who is giving us what?” The question should be, “What policies, investments, and partnerships will transform Kannywood into one of Africa’s most competitive creative industries?”

The future of Kannywood will not be determined by what a handful of individuals receive during an election season. It will be determined by what the entire industry builds together for generations to come.

The choice before us is simple: we can continue chasing political patronage every four years, or we can build an industry that creates wealth, creates jobs, attracts investment, shapes culture, and becomes impossible for governments and the rest of the world to ignore.

Prince Daniel is “A Concerned Citizen” and a filmmaker. He can be reached via blackvillemedia@gmail.com.

By Zayyad I. Muhammad

What makes other countries continue to develop and achieve sustainable success is their ability to pursue collective and common goals across all socioeconomic sectors. When the people and their leaders share a clear national vision and work towards common objectives, the country naturally excels in development, whether in education, human capital, infrastructure, technology, innovation, or national pride.

Many countries are made up of people from different cultures, races, religions, and ethnic backgrounds. Yet, when it comes to national goals and objectives, they stand united as one nation, driven by a shared sense of purpose and commitment to progress. Their diversity becomes a source of strength rather than division because the national interest comes first.

One of Nigeria’s greatest challenges is the absence of strong national goals and objectives that are genuinely shared by all citizens. As a nation, we often struggle to build consensus around long-term priorities that transcend politics, ethnicity, religion, and regional interests.

Ironically, one of the few areas where Nigerians consistently demonstrate unity is sports, especially football. If Nigeria could cultivate the same level of collective commitment, patriotism, and shared purpose in education, human capital development, innovation, infrastructure, and economic growth as it does in football, the country would make remarkable progress and achieve far greater national development.

Another irony of Nigeria’s politics is that many leaders champion national unity while they occupy positions at the centre of government. They speak the language of inclusion, national cohesion, and collective progress because they represent the entire federation. However, the moment many of them leave office or slip out of public view, they often retreat into ethnic or regional politics, becoming champions of sectional interests rather than national ones. This inconsistency weakens nation-building, deepens divisions, and makes it difficult to sustain a truly national agenda.

Nigeria’s progress depends not only on good leadership but also on a shared national consciousness. The country needs leaders and followers who will remain committed to national unity and development regardless of whether they hold public office. Likewise, citizens must place the Nigerian project above ethnic, religious, and regional considerations. Only when our collective interest consistently outweighs our individual or sectional interests can Nigeria unlock its immense potential and achieve the level of sustainable development seen in many successful nations.

 Zayyad I. Muhammad writes from Abuja via zaymohd@yahoo.com.

By Abashi Rahab

I read the article titled “End ‘One-Way’ Driving on Lagos-Ibadan Expressway,” published on June 2, 2026, with mixed feelings. The article rightly draws attention to the growing menace of motorists driving against traffic on one of Nigeria’s busiest highways and to the tragic consequences that often follow. The reported death of a dispatch rider is a painful reminder of the dangers associated with this reckless and unlawful practice.

‎I fully agree that one-way driving poses a serious threat to public safety and should be condemned in the strongest terms. No destination is worth risking innocent lives, and all road users have a responsibility to obey traffic regulations designed to protect everyone.

‎However, while the article advocates stricter enforcement and tougher sanctions for offenders, the problem requires a broader and more sustainable response. The persistence of one-way driving despite existing laws suggests that punishment alone may not be enough to eliminate the practice.

‎One factor that deserves attention is the severe traffic congestion that frequently characterises the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway. Although traffic delays do not justify violating the law, they often contribute to the frustration that leads some motorists to make dangerous decisions. Addressing congestion through better road planning and traffic management should therefore form part of the solution.

‎There is also a need for improved road signage, clearer diversions, and better communication regarding alternative routes. Motorists are more likely to comply with traffic regulations when they are provided with safe and practical options.

‎Public awareness campaigns should equally be intensified. While most drivers know that one-way driving is an offence, many may not fully appreciate the devastating consequences it can have. Continuous sensitisation through traditional and digital media can help reinforce responsible driving habits and promote a culture of road safety.

‎Equally important is the consistent and impartial enforcement of traffic laws. Regulations must apply to all road users regardless of status or influence. When some individuals appear to evade sanctions, public confidence in the system is weakened and compliance declines.

‎Government agencies should also embrace modern traffic management technologies, including surveillance cameras, automated monitoring systems, and intelligent traffic control measures. These tools can improve enforcement, enhance traffic flow, and reduce opportunities for dangerous violations.

The article’s recommendation to install anti-one-way devices is commendable and warrants serious consideration. However, such measures should complement broader efforts to address the underlying causes of the problem rather than serve as a standalone solution.

‎Ultimately, ending one-way driving on the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway requires a combination of effective law enforcement, public education, improved infrastructure, better traffic management, and collective responsibility. While offenders must be held accountable, lasting success will depend on giving equal attention to prevention.

‎The loss of even one life due to a preventable traffic violation is one too many. Government agencies, security personnel, transport unions, and motorists must therefore work together to ensure that the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway becomes safer for all who use it.

‎Abashi Rahab is a Strategic Communication student at Yakubu Gowon University, Abuja, and an intern at IMPR. He wrote via ‎abashirahab@gmail.com.

‎By Fatih Lawal-Garu  

‎Across Nigeria today, an allegation can become a death sentence long before any investigation begins. Increasingly, crowds, not courts, decide who lives and who dies. Whether the accusation is theft, blasphemy, kidnapping, or even a perceived cultural offence, many Nigerians are willing to dispense instant “justice,” replacing the rule of law with the rule of the mob.  

‎On December 28, 2025, filmmaker Don Pedro Obaseki was abducted, beaten, stripped naked, and publicly paraded through the streets of Benin City over allegations that he had insulted the Oba of Benin while abroad. He survived the ordeal and later filed a ₦500 million fundamental rights suit, which he withdrew after receiving a public apology. Barely three months later, on March 19, 2026, during the Alue-Do Festival in Ozoro, Delta State, viral videos showed coordinated sexual assaults on women. Large groups of men chased, groped, and tore the clothes of women in broad daylight under the guise of an ancient fertility rite. In Maraban Jos, Kaduna State, an Islamiyya school teacher named Ummulkhair was lynched and burnt alive after being accused of kidnapping a child. Four years earlier, Deborah Samuel Yakubu, a student of Shehu Shagari College of Education in Sokoto, was beaten, stoned, and burnt alive by fellow students over allegations of blasphemy.  

‎These incidents reveal that mob violence is neither regional nor confined to a single grievance. It cuts across Nigeria’s geopolitical zones, religions, cultures, ethnicities, and genders. Crowds arrogate to themselves the powers of the police, the courts, and the executioner without evidence, due process, or regard for human life. Amnesty International documented 555 victims of mob violence between 2012 and 2023, averaging about 55 deaths annually.

A Daily Trust editorial reported that between June and December 2025 alone, 60 people were killed while 20 others were brutally assaulted by mobs. From January 2026 to date, another 27 people have reportedly lost their lives to jungle justice. These victims were not killed by bandits, terrorists, armed robbers, or even security agencies. They were ordinary Nigerians killed by fellow Nigerians over allegations of theft, kidnapping, blasphemy, cultural violations, ethnic prejudice, unverified suspicions, and deliberate mischief.  

‎There was a time when the cry of “thief!” prompted citizens to alert the police. Today, shouts of “Ole,” “gbomo gbomo,” or “barawo” often signal the beginning of a public execution. Within minutes, a crowd gathers, accusations replace evidence, and an alleged offender is beaten, stoned, or burnt alive. The rise of jungle justice reflects a growing loss of confidence in Nigeria’s criminal justice system. Many citizens believe suspects handed over to the police will regain their freedom through bribery, political influence, or endless judicial delays. Although these concerns are genuine, they cannot justify abandoning the law. Ironically, many Nigerians now fear jungle justice almost as much as they fear criminals or even state policing. A misunderstanding or mistaken identity can be enough to trigger a murderous crowd.  

‎Equally disturbing is the erosion of human dignity. Jungle justice has become less about punishing alleged offenders than humiliating them. Victims are stripped naked, tortured, filmed, mocked, and sometimes burnt alive while spectators cheer or record videos. The spectacle suggests that many participants are motivated not merely by anger but by an opportunity to humiliate another human being. Social media has become an accomplice to this violence. Videos of lynchings and public humiliation are often recorded, shared, and circulated within minutes, turning human suffering into entertainment. Rather than provoking outrage, such videos frequently attract applause, jokes, or calls for even harsher punishment, encouraging copycat violence and further normalising mob justice.  

‎‎The mob is also deeply hypocritical. Petty thieves often help lynch suspected thieves. Political thugs, extortionists, and habitual lawbreakers suddenly become defenders of public morality. Those whose daily lives violate the law frequently present themselves as its most passionate enforcers. Jungle justice, therefore, is often less about justice than the intoxicating feeling of exercising unchecked power. Crowds also create a dangerous sense of anonymity. Individuals who would never assault another person on their own often participate in extreme violence once responsibility is diluted among hundreds of people. Protected by numbers, ordinary people can become willing participants in acts they would otherwise condemn.  

‎This hypocrisy reflects a broader national habit of rationalising wrongdoing. Nigerians often seek excuses for actions they already wish to commit. Ask a Yahoo boy why he engages in cybercrime, and he may invoke colonial exploitation or slavery. Ask a voter why he sells his vote, and he may describe it as his chance to “eat from the national cake.” Ask a supporter of jungle justice why he approves of mob executions, and he will likely argue that the suspect would simply bribe the police and walk free. While these grievances expose genuine institutional failures, they cannot excuse criminality or justify replacing the justice system with mob rule. Corruption in public institutions should inspire reform, not lawlessness.  

‎Fear sustains this culture. Witnesses seldom identify perpetrators because they fear violent reprisals. Authorities, meanwhile, often conduct weak investigations that end without meaningful prosecutions. This silence emboldens future attacks and creates the impression that mob violence carries little or no consequence. The long-term consequences extend beyond the victims themselves. Every lynching weakens confidence in state institutions, deepens public fear, and normalises violence as a legitimate means of resolving disputes. Communities become less trusting, public spaces feel increasingly unsafe, and every stranger becomes vulnerable to suspicion.  

‎Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees the right to life, fair hearing, and protection from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. No citizen or crowd possesses the legal authority to arrest, prosecute, convict, and execute another person. The criminal justice system is founded upon the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is better that guilty persons occasionally escape punishment than that innocent people are condemned without trial. Nigeria cannot build a just society upon instant punishment and collective vengeance. Restoring public confidence in the police and the judiciary, ensuring swift and impartial justice, prosecuting those responsible for mob violence, and rejecting vigilantism are essential to reversing this dangerous trend.  

‎Until jungle justice is condemned not only in speeches but also through consistent enforcement of the law, the cry of “thief!” will continue to signify not the pursuit of justice, but the beginning of another preventable tragedy. When a crowd becomes judge, jury, and executioner, no Nigerian is truly safe, not even those cheering from the sidelines. 

Fatih Lawal-Garu is a Mass Communication graduate from Bayero University, Kano, and writes at ibnkamilgaru1@gmail.com.

By Abubakar Idris Misau

At first glance, the words “Deserting” and “Desertification” sound almost identical and, taken together, seem to make no sense; ironically, however, especially as intended here, they are the antagonists who jointly tell us what we must do to save life on Earth. Sorry, let me explain.

It was my elementary school Maths teacher who first taught me that multiplying two negative numbers yields a positive result. I had to concede later that this isn’t a conspiracy. If it were, it would never have been corroborated by our English teacher. The two core-subjects’ teachers were staunch enemies [I mean, non-friends]; yet the latter said there’s a similar rule in linguistics and semantics about what is called the “double negatives”.

Since deserting literally means abandoning something, it seems negative. By contrast, desertification, the process by which fertile, productive land becomes arid and desolate, is so dangerous that it no doubt qualifies as another negative. Following the arithmetic-linguistic logic of double negatives, therefore, “deserting”, as used in this piece, becomes an honourable cause. Simply put, deserting desertification does not mean running away from what one needs to care for, but rather abandoning our harmful habits that are turning our green, fertile lands into dry, lifeless deserts. In other words, desertification is a call to action to change how we treat the surface of our dear mother Earth.

Come to think of it, Mother Earth is the only mother whose children are hell-bent on turning her barren, out of greed. We do this by double-dealing, on the one hand with the mother and on the other with her enemies. It seems to me as though we love coming to her in the morning, saying “Oh, Mama, give us today our daily bread”, and then going behind her back and setting the bakery on fire at night! I mean, it’s no different when the so-called most intelligent species, numbering up to 8 billion, dedicates its intellect to deforestation, overgrazing, poor agronomic practices, open-pit mining, and other unsustainable land-use practices that strip land of vegetation, exhaust soil nutrients, and disrupt the water cycle; all while expecting the mother to keep providing us with every ecosystem service as if nothing happened. But it is simply an “inevitable consequence of nature” [to borrow from Prof. Brian Cox] that when we stretch dryland ecosystems to their breaking points, they turn into arid wastelands – read: deserts – or, more appropriately, “sandlands”.

As a matter of fact, whichever way one sees the bad guy, the truth is that Mr Desertification hardly ever acts alone. In the Sahelian ecological region of Northern Nigeria and other regions globally, he almost always works with Madam Earth’s children to damage her reproductive organs. Now, that’s a bad revelation. Meanwhile, the good news is that not all her children are the same. Some good Samaritans have even been working to extinguish the fire, in which case they deserve some support; some conspire against her out of ignorance, in which case they can do with some education; and so on – hence this call to action.

Here, forgive me for introducing the Greek philosopher Aristotle. It was his idea that writers, in fulfilling their duty, should try to structure arguments around the three fundamental pillars [modes] of persuasion, the rhetorical triangle: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos concerns the communicator’s credibility; Pathos, the audience’s emotions; and Logos, the logical reasoning contained in the presentation.

Long story short, since this writer is not an authority on the subject in question, he ought not to suggest any social behavioural change straight out of his moro-moro head. He is simply to convey the message of the world’s most credible Who’s Who on the issue: namely, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

According to the UNCCD, humanity destroys about 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 …100 million hectares of productive land every year. The first time I read this, I was shocked. I knew that we cleared up to 10 million hectares of forest land annually, but I didn’t know that we were destroying the rangelands, grasslands, and so on at that rate. For perspective, damaging 100 million hectares of land annually is equivalent to losing the whole of Egypt. Or, better still, destroying the equivalent of four football fields every second. Most probably, this message would make more sense to us if the changes were happening right before our eyes. Imagine two countries playing a game in the ongoing World Cup, only for the stadium to turn into a total desert in a second. The World Cup would likely be asked to give way for an emergency UNCCD Summit.

In fact, there is no doubting it, the more land we allow to desert encroachment, the more likely we are to go to war with each other. That is why, in 2020, during a UN Security Council meeting to discuss ‘Maintenance of international peace and security: the humanitarian impact of environmental degradation and peace and security’, Ibrahim Thiaw, Executive Secretary of UNCCD, said: “In arid lands, such as in Africa’s Sahel region, violence often erupts over competition for access to depleted land and scarce water resources.” He then went on to outline three factors that are adding fuel to the fire: over-dependence on natural resources by rural dwellers; shrinking resources due to land degradation, drought, and climate change; and high population density.

All of these are self-evident. In Northern Nigeria, the conflict between farmers and herders over scarce natural resources is a vivid case of that. It’s also common knowledge that Lake Chad has lost up to [a staggering] 90% of its surface area since the 1960s, shrinking from 26,000 km² in 1963 to as low as <1,500 km² in 2018 when the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published the story “Tale of a disappearing lake”. These affect millions of people.

There is no question whatsoever: drylands are the closest bus stops to deserts and are therefore the major victims of desertification. Now, let’s go back to Bonn to collect some statistics from the UNCCD again. Covering up to 41% of the earth’s land surface, mainly in developing countries of Africa and Asia, drylands are home to more than 2 billion people. And because more than 70% and 20% of them are rangelands and grasslands, respectively, half of the world’s livestock and up to 44% of crops are produced from drylands. How essential are they?

Meanwhile, right now, as scientists say, up to 40% of the world’s land is already degraded, directly affecting over 3.2 billion people. Also, land degradation and droughts cost the global community an estimated eye-watering $878 billion every single year. Isn’t that a lot of money to squander on making the earth look like the surface of Mars, huh?! For me, turning the green planet into another red planet is a cold, dry, bitter joke.

As the Roman Philosopher-Emperor Marcus Aurelius put it 18 centuries ago, “You can commit injustice by doing nothing”. Indeed, this is an issue on which neutrality is complicity. It now makes more sense to me what one of my mentors once told me, for which I must quote him verbatim: “Mr Idris”, he said, “you see, doing nothing is such an expensive hobby…” Suffice it to say that if we continue to ignore this crisis, the financial and physical hangover will be brutal. Well, it actually already is.

I don’t want to go into a discussion of the need for governments and big corporations to invest $1 billion a day until 2030 to meet global land restoration targets, which, in fact, is precisely required. I know it might sound like a hefty price tag, but it is actually the ultimate buy-one-get-one-free deal. We know for a fact that for every $1 invested in healthy land, the economic return ranges from $7 to $30. It turns out that, under this realistic assumption, saving the planet is highly profitable.

While not everything can be detailed in an article this short, addressing desertification isn’t rocket science. We know how to do it well enough. The solution simply requires a massive shift. We first need to address deforestation and work toward restoring already degraded lands. Farmers need to switch to smart agricultural methods that protect the soil. If we can save rainwater and give the soil periodic holidays to “fallow”, we definitely can stop the deserts from winning. I tell you all these because I have a modest understanding of the basics. After all, I am a development practitioner who envisioned a climate-resilient, food-secure sub-Saharan Africa and whose work and current focus span sustainable land-use practices, assisted natural regeneration, and agroforestry and livelihood systems in Nigeria.  

In 1994, the UN General Assembly established the UNCCD and declared June 17 as the World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought. Since then, June 17 has been commemorated to raise awareness of solutions to land degradation, drought, and desertification. The theme for this year, 2026, is “Rangeland: Recognise. Respect. Restore.” As this writer presumes we all know what rangelands are, it’s fair to allow relevant MDAs, such as the Ministries of Agriculture, Environment, and Livestock, and initiatives such as the African-led Great Green Wall Initiative, to deliver their mandates in peace. At the same time, we equally do our parts as individuals and as groups.

Therefore, the choice before us is simple, yet likely embarrassing depending on how we manage it. We can either continue on our current path, in which case we will watch our favourite green spaces turn to dust, or we can take a stand today to save life on land. Because if we don’t desert our destructive habits right now, the desert is going to move in and claim our dessert (dessert, not desert). My ancestors would say, “Dabara ta rage wa mai shiga rijiya.”

There I lie.

Abubakar Idris Misau, a Forestry and Wildlife graduate from the University of Maiduguri, writes from Akure, Southwest, Nigeria. He is reachable via email abubakar.consult@gmail.com.

By Ibrahim Aliyu Gurin 

The Federal Government’s decision to reform the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) has been greeted with excitement by some and scepticism by others. After 53 years, many believe the scheme is finally getting the attention it deserves.

For years, corps members have complained about insecurity, poor welfare, irrelevant postings and outdated processes. The newly approved reforms, ranging from technology-driven mobilisation to skills-based deployment and improved orientation camps, suggest that the government is finally listening. That is a good start.

However, the NYSC was never established solely to teach graduates entrepreneurship or job skills. It was established to promote national unity after the civil war, and to a large extent, many would agree that it has contributed to that goal.

Perhaps that is why the government now believes the scheme can be led by civilians rather than the military officers who have overseen it since its inception. But that decision raises an important question.

One of the things that has distinguished the NYSC over the years is discipline. The orderliness in orientation camps and the sense of responsibility expected of corps members have largely been shaped by the scheme’s military leadership. While the military will still provide security, it remains to be seen whether civilian leadership can maintain the same standard.

The bigger challenge, however, is implementation. Nigerians have seen many good policies announced with great excitement, only for little to change in reality. If corps members still face unsafe postings and placements that add little value to their future, then these reforms will remain good ideas on paper. Otherwise, after years in school and a year of national service, they may simply be told to start an akara or kuli-kuli business. Honest work deserves respect, but graduates hope these reforms will create greater opportunities.

So, is the NYSC reforming or deforming?

The answer is not in the policy document. It will be written in the experience of the next corps member who leaves home believing that service to the nation is still worth it.

After all, changing the driver doesn’t automatically make the journey better. What matters is whether the person behind the wheel knows the road.

Ibrahim Aliyu Gurin is a graduate in mass communication from Bayero University, Kano, and can be reached at ibrahimaliyu5023@gmail.com.

By Nura Jibo MRICS

The man, President Barack Hussein Obama, will never cease to amaze me. In 2008, when Obama was campaigning for his presidential bid against John McCain, I was in the Sudan Savanna region of Northern Nigeria, managing a N6 billion redevelopment of the Yankari Animal Game Reserve Holiday Resort and Safari Project in Bauchi State.

At that time, the 2i/c in my office, Dr Aminu Bashir, was scheduled to visit the United States. He asked me if there was anything that I needed him to buy in America. I humbly requested two (2) books: The Audacity of Hope and Dreams from My Father, both written by Barack Obama.

Indeed, it was a joyous moment for me the very day I laid my hands on the two of Obama’s international bestseller books. 

For those who are not aware of what qualifies a book to be labelled a bestseller, any book that its publishers sell an average of more than 10,000 copies within a week is automatically considered a bestseller under US standards. Obama’s “Audacity of Hope” immediately qualified for the New York Times bestseller list because of its profundity.

Today marks exactly 18 years since Barack Obama made history in the United States of America. And today, which marks the day of another victory with the launch of the Obama Presidential Centre on Juneteenth 2026, is not only a win for the US Democrats and democracy, but also a day when consistency meets sincerity and the ability to reemerge.

Chicago has been home to Obama, his wife Michelle, and their children, Sasha and Malia.

The lessons I learned from the Obamas are not only about courage and conviction but also about inspiring me to rise and do more with my life.

1. Personally, Obama’s personality (behaviours and appearance), as defined in simple psychology, inspired me to write my first book that debuted in 2010, which I sent to him and his wife, Michelle, one copy each-in 2010, via the US Embassy in Nigeria. At that time, my aim was not really to practice quantity surveying as a meal ticket. My dream was to immerse myself in the study of global literature and novels by renowned authors, such as the Russian Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky and the Chinese Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. I sincerely cared less about studying physics and chemistry books because I believed they offered less to humanity, as they contributed more to inflicting havoc on the scientific world via bombs, drones, and missiles. 

I deeply thought that science was never favourable for me. I was quite surprised when I see myself today practicing a segment of it and excelling in quantity surveying at an appreciable speed and awe, because my thinking was to one day appear in a global debate with world leaders such as Barack Obama to discuss the West and Africa and seek an explanation from my Kanoonline super writer friend, Dave McEwan Hill’s candid observation, who averred that: “If we want to keep our best people at home we have to provide a better country for them to operate in. If Nigerian leaders were honest, progressive, and ambitious, they would have rewarded high achievers rather than multibillion-dollar thieves.” McEwan Hill believes that many of our best brains would have stayed at home to build the nation.

However, most of them have gone overseas to be in more satisfying and more remunerative employment in better-run communities.

While I can’t agree with Dave as little as he does, his double-decker challenge was just like the way the Obamas challenged the late McCain and Trump, with his trumpeting of our cosmopolitan world in a George Galloway manner. Indeed, Dave McEwan Hill acknowledged what he described as my impressive contributions that nonetheless read like special pleading to ignite curiosity that the “blacks” are any less intelligent than the “whites. ” To which the question is more complex than that, as he asserted elsewhere that all members of all races function just as well as each other when placed equally in advanced environments. The key question is why some environments get so far ahead of others. 

So far, I have repeatedly featured and succeeded in debating the world at the United Nations Conference of the Parties level for umpteenth times.

2. Hence, anytime I listen to Obama, I come away with something new and extraordinary, not in my professional field, but outside my constituency. For example, before the birth of Obama’s Presidential Centre, I established a 3-hectare tree shelterbelt and two high-powered solar boreholes as a community organiser and climate change advocate in Nigeria. In my shelterbelt, biodiversity has already been restored for the people of Asayaya village across a comprehensive 3-hectare area, with a grant of no less than £70,000 from the BCDA.

3. After succeeding in biodiversity restoration, I looked up to the United States of America to leverage the establishment and registration of a segment of my NGO: the African Climate Change Research Centre (ACCREC), which I affiliated with the UNFCCC Secretariat in Bonn, Germany, as its climate observer organisation for well over sixteen years now. Prof. Bello Makama–an African American Chemist of all time, painstakingly registered ACCREC in New York and became its first US Country Director at SUNY-ERIE, courtesy of following the Obama legacy.

4. Now that Obama has launched his Presidential Centre in Chicago, with Presidents George Bush Jr., Biden, and Clinton in attendance, only God knows what is going on in my mind regarding what I will come up with in a couple of months. I will not digress, but I take a huge lesson from the veracity of Obama’s amazing construction, which cost well over $850 million, with Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects and Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates as its landscape architects; the centre is designed to receive an average of 1,666 visitors every week. They will enjoy learning, sports, entertainment and music to the zenith.

5. Indeed, anytime I read and watch the Obamas, rest assured I will come up with something new, especially when I reflect on their times as a husband and wife in perfect harmony.

6. The time they spent in Chicago, with Michelle as an Associate Dean and Obama as a professor of law, often reminds me of the days I traversed and visited nearly fifty countries for my international career. I lived in Europe, North Africa, South America, West Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, sharing ideas and presenting my case studies to the international community, my immediate community and African neighbourhoods.

7. Anyone who wants to know more about what I am up to in a couple of days can watch this space for my open letter to President Obama. This letter is certainly going to be different and very unique from the one I wrote and sent to President Donald John Trump at his house in Mar-a-Lago!

By Muhsin Ibrahim

The interview with Professor Tijjani Naniya on Arise News that I shared on Facebook yesterday continues to generate more (wild) reactions. At the time of posting this, more than 1100 comments had been made. This is far more than my previous posts or, generally, above-average social media posts.

Of those comments, many are expletives. I deleted a few, but I chose to leave almost all the subsequent ones, including those containing abuse and insults. Why?

I want people, especially the thoughtful among us, to see who the faces behind the Hausa Zallah agitation are and what many of them represent.

Those comments contradict several core Hausa socio-cultural ideologies codified by scholars such as Kirk-Green (1974), Alhassan et al. (1982), and Adamu (2001). I wonder where those so-called Hausa Zalla folks got them. If they were genuinely “Hausa Zallah”, they should demonstrate the cherished Hausa values.

Equally, go see how erstwhile Hausa “enemies” are defending the Hausa Zallah ideology. Naniya did not blame southeasterners for our growing insecurity or disunity. Rather, he traced the etymology of the term “Hausa-Fulani” to them. This is debatable, but it should be based on knowledge rather than insults.

When the Hausa Zallah staged a protest in Berlin, they displayed pictures of Nnamdi Kanu and called for his release. Why? So, even if Naniya associated the agitation with the Southeast, he might not be wrong. We should dig deeper to find the connection because it exists.

Folks asked for my opinion on all this. I have no problem with people identifying as Hausa, Fulani, or both. Actually, it’s bag governance that is fuelling all this hogwash. Identity politics is not a case in places where people live in peace and property.

In my neighbourhood in Cologne, there is a mosque, a church, and a mandir (a Hindu temple) within shouting distance. I have lived here for five years. I have never witnessed ANY problems between followers of these religions.

For me, we should unite against bandits, terrorists and corrupt politicians. They do not fight for or represent any particular ethnicity, religion or region. They are our real enemies, not your friend, colleague or neighbour who did not choose to be born Hausa, Fulani, Igbo, Yoruba, you name it.

When bandits or terrorists strike, they often do not distinguish between victims. They kidnap or kill them all. When a politician steals our money, it affects our roads, schools, hospitals, and more.

Wake up. Think and do the right thing.

Muhsin Ibrahim can be reached via muhsin2008@gmail.com.