By Prof. Abdalla Uba Adamu 

On Saturday, March 14, 2026, Dr Muhsin Ibrahim shared a newspaper report with me announcing the passing of Jürgen Habermas. The German philosopher died at the age of ninety-six in Starnberg, an affluent town in Upper Bavaria. Muhsin was well aware of how deeply I had drawn on Habermas’s theory of the structural transformation of the public sphere in my research on Muslim Hausa media cultures. 

His passing marks the end of an era in critical social theory. Habermas’s work on communication, rationality, and society made him one of the most influential philosophers of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, as well as a major intellectual figure in postwar Germany.

Many Africanists did not initially read Habermas directly. Rather, they encountered his ideas through mediated theoretical engagements in the writings of scholars such as Brian Larkin. I myself first became aware of the public–private sphere debate as part of the broader Frankfurt School theoretical repertoire in Larkin’s studies of media culture in northern Nigeria. His work contributed significantly to later “post-public sphere” discussions by demonstrating how Habermasian insights could be adapted to different social, cultural, and technological environments.

Of Habermas’s many publications, the one that proved most decisive for me was The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Originally published in German in 1962 and translated into English by Thomas Burger (with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence) in 1989, it is an extraordinarily dense text. One often needs the guidance of someone already conversant with its arguments to appreciate its analytical elegance. 

I was fortunate to own a copy—purchased for me in the pre-digital era by Gillian Belben, then Director of the British Council in Kano. I read it several times before fully grasping how powerfully it provided a framework for understanding public reactions to Hausa films and the emergence of censorship debates.

Habermas’s study retraces the historical emergence of the bourgeois public sphere as a communicative domain distinct from the state, in which private individuals could assemble to discuss matters of common concern. By analysing the transformations of this sphere, he recovered a concept of enduring importance for social and political theory. In simplified terms, the argument draws attention to differentiated social spaces—those of the home and those of the wider public—and to the ways in which each structures particular forms of discussion and social interaction.

I relied heavily on this analytical distinction when I presented my first international seminar at the Institut für Afrikanistik, University of Cologne, on November 15, 2004. Titled “Enter the Dragon: Shari’a, Popular Culture and Film Censorship in Northern Nigeria,” the seminar explored how Hausa films often rendered visible aspects of domestic life traditionally regarded as private, thereby provoking moral anxieties and regulatory responses. By destabilising the boundary between the two spheres, Hausa cinema helped produce new forms of mediated public debate. A dramatic illustration of this dynamic emerged in the widely discussed Hiyana scandal of 2007, in which a private act became publicly circulated, with far-reaching cultural consequences.

The communicative arena that Habermas conceptualised as the bourgeois public sphere appears today in a historically transformed guise within the networked environments of social media. In Muslim societies such as those of northern Nigeria, digital platforms have intensified the long-standing negotiation between domestic moral order and public cultural expression. 

Conversations once confined to living rooms, mosque courtyards, or informal viewing gatherings now unfold in algorithmically structured yet widely accessible communicative spaces. These interactions do not reproduce Habermas’s ideal of rational-critical debate in any straightforward manner. Rather, they reveal plural, affective, and technologically mediated publics in which questions of religious legitimacy, gendered visibility, and cultural authority are continually contested. Social media, therefore, represent not the revival of the bourgeois public sphere but a new phase in its structural transformation — what might tentatively be described as a “third space.”

The world of critical social theory will undoubtedly feel the loss of Jürgen Habermas. Yet his conceptualisation of the public–private divide will continue to shape scholarly reflections on media, communication, and cultural change for years to come.

Readers interested in further discussions of the public–private debate in Islamic contexts may consult:

Kadivar, Mohsen. 2003. An Introduction to the Public and Private Debate in Islam. Social Research 70 (3): 659–680.

Vice-President Kashim Shettima has praised Anambra State governor, Chukwuma Soludo, for his role in Nigeria’s development and his intellectual contributions to national discourse.

Shettima spoke on Tuesday in Awka, the Anambra State capital, during Soludo’s inauguration for a second term. He attended the event as a representative of President Bola Tinubu.

In a statement issued by Stanley Nkwocha, his senior special assistant on media and communications, the vice-president described Soludo as a committed public servant with strong ideas and dedication to national progress.

“The policies of His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, have benefited from the candour, specialist insight, and patriotic counsel of this distinguished economist, this restless thinker, and this public intellectual of uncommon range, both in open fora and in private conversations. And that is how it should be,” Shettima stated.

“That is what it means to be in the business of nation-building. It means placing the welfare of the federation above the vanity of partisan fences. It means understanding that Nigeria is too precious a vessel to be abandoned to the storms simply because the rowers wear different colours.”

He said Soludo has shown that leadership can bring people together without conflict. He noted that such leadership can persuade without disrespect and remain firm without losing its values, especially at a time of division.

“It is therefore no surprise that his people have welcomed him again and entrusted him with another term to hold the rudder of this great state and guide it farther into safe and prosperous waters,” he stated, declaring that “the people of Anambra are today renewing not just a mandate, but a covenant with competence.”

“And as Dr Onyekachukwu Ibezim takes this oath once again beside him, the state is also affirming that leadership is not only about the brilliance of the man at the top but also about the steadiness, loyalty, and discipline of those who help translate vision into order and order into progress,” the vice-president added.

Shettima said the Anambra governor has demonstrated that political differences do not have to lead to conflict. He noted that such differences can create room for cooperation.

“Professor Soludo has shown, too, that it is possible to see beyond the dangerous shenanigans that so often pass for politics in our clime and to keep faith with the higher calling of public life,” he said.

The vice-president also highlighted Soludo’s influence on national conversations. He said the governor’s views on economic and political matters attract wide attention.

He said Soludo has maintained a cordial working relationship with the federal government. He added that this has created stability in engagements between both sides.

According to him, the governor has demonstrated a commitment to real change rather than political rhetoric.

Shettima said the Anambra government has taken steps to improve public order, strengthen security, and tackle criminal activities in parts of the state. He expressed confidence that the second term would consolidate earlier achievements.

He added that the federal government remains ready to work with state governments that prioritise the welfare of citizens.

In his speech, Soludo pledged to serve the state with renewed dedication. He said his administration would build on the progress recorded in his first term, with focus on development and transformation.

“Anambra state has witnessed significant progress in the health, education, financial, agricultural, and other sectors under his leadership,” he said.

The governor also expressed appreciation to the people of Anambra for their support during the last election.

“The unprecedented 73 percent of the votes you cast in our favour was more than ordinary votes but an affirmation of love, patriotism, and partnership in rebuilding our homeland. We will never take your historic support for granted,” he said.

Soludo also thanked President Tinubu, Vice-President Shettima, and their spouses for their support.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The federal government has announced Thursday, March 19, and Friday, March 20, as public holidays in celebration of this year’s Eid-el-Fitr.

The Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, disclosed this in a statement released on Tuesday.

Eid-el-Fitr is observed by Muslims worldwide to mark the conclusion of Ramadan, the holy month of fasting.

In his message, the minister congratulated Muslims on completing the fasting period. He urged them to continue to reflect the values of love, generosity, peace, tolerance, and sacrifice associated with Ramadan.

He also encouraged Nigerians to use the festive period to offer prayers for peace, unity, and progress in the country.

“The Federal Government of Nigeria has declared Thursday, 19th March, and Friday, 20th March 2026, as public holidays to mark the celebration of Eid-ul-Fitr, which signifies the end of the holy month of Ramadan,” the statement reads.

“While wishing the Muslim faithful a joyful Eid-ul-Fitr celebration, the Minister encourages citizens to celebrate responsibly and extend acts of kindness to the less privileged in society.”

Tunji-Ojo further advised citizens to celebrate in a responsible manner and show kindness to vulnerable members of society.

He added that the federal government remains focused on strengthening national unity and ensuring peaceful coexistence across Nigeria.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Governor Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau State has dismissed six political appointees and placed another official on suspension.

The development was made public on Tuesday through a statement issued by the Secretary to the State Government (SSG), Samuel Jatau, according to NAN.

Jatau explained that the action forms part of efforts by the state government to improve performance and strengthen service delivery across various offices.

Those removed from their positions include Timothy Golu, the governor’s special adviser on strategic communication, and Fom Gwottson, liaison officer for Jos South. Others are Nanbol Rimvyat and Nannim Langyi, who served as liaison officers for Langtang North.

Also affected are Paul Datugum and Nimchat Rims, who held similar roles in Qua’an Pan and Langtang South respectively.

In a related move, the governor approved the suspension of Johnbull Shekarau, chairman of the Plateau State House of Assembly Service Commission, over alleged actions said to be inconsistent with the expectations of his office.

The SSG did not disclose specific reasons for the dismissal of the six appointees. He, however, instructed them to return all government property in their possession to the appropriate authorities.

Jatau added that the governor appreciated the contributions of the affected officials during their time in office and wished them success in their future pursuits.

Iranian state media has announced the death of Ali Larijani, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, following reported Israeli air attacks carried out overnight.

The confirmation came after Israel’s Defence Minister, Israel Katz, stated that Larijani and Basij commander Gholamreza Soleimani were killed during the strikes.

In a statement issued by his office, Katz alleged that both men lost their lives in the operation.

“I have just been updated by the Chief of Staff that Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, and the head of the Basij — Iran’s central repression apparatus — (Soleimani), were eliminated last night,” Katz claimed in a statement released by his ministry.

Earlier reports from Israeli media indicated that Larijani was the intended target of the overnight assault.

The development marks a significant escalation in tensions between Iran and Israel, as both sides continue to exchange accusations over ongoing military actions.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

President Donald Trump has responded to the resignation of Joseph Kent, Director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center, following controversy linked to U.S. military action against Iran.

Trump spoke on the development during an interview with Fox News, where he shared his views on Kent’s position on national security and the ongoing conflict involving Iran.

He claimed that he had long held concerns about Kent’s approach. “I always thought he was weak on security. Very weak on security. I didn’t know him well. But I thought he seemed like a pretty nice guy. But when I read his statement, I realised that it’s a good thing he’s out because he said Iran was not a threat,” Trump said in a video released by Fox News on Tuesday.

Kent stepped down earlier the same day. His resignation followed criticism of the war in Iran and questions about the reasons behind the military engagement.

In a letter addressed to the president, Kent stated that his decision came after careful consideration. “After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today,” he wrote.

He explained that he could not align himself with the administration’s current foreign policy, especially its military actions. “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” he stated.

Kent added that his views were based on principles he believed had guided previous policies. “I support the values and the foreign policies that you campaigned on in 2016, 2020, 2024, which you enacted in your first term. Until June of 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trap that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation,” he said.

He also criticised what he described as the role of external influence and media narratives. Kent said “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” promoted misinformation that “wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments” encouraging military action.

The former counterterrorism chief warned that U.S. leaders may have been misled about the level of threat posed by Iran. “This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie,” he said.

Reflecting on his personal experience, Kent pointed to the cost of war. “As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives,” he said.

He concluded his message with a call for a policy rethink. “I pray that you will reflect upon what we are doing in Iran, and who we are doing it for. The time for bold action is now. You can reverse course and chart a new path for our nation, or you can allow us to slip further toward decline and chaos. You hold the cards,” he wrote.

Kent ended his letter on a note of appreciation for his time in office. “It was an honor to serve in your administration and to serve our great nation.”

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center, Joseph Kent, has stepped down from his role, citing disagreement with Washington’s military involvement in Iran and questioning the factors behind the conflict.

Kent conveyed his decision in a letter to President Donald Trump. He said he reached the conclusion after careful thought and confirmed that his resignation takes immediate effect.

“After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today,” he wrote.

He stated that he could no longer support the administration’s current foreign policy, especially its decision to engage Iran militarily.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” he stated.

Kent noted that his position reflects principles he believes once shaped U.S. foreign policy.

“I support the values and the foreign policies that you campaigned on in 2016, 2020, 2024, which you enacted in your first term,” Kent wrote.

“Until June of 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trap that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation.”

He also accused “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” of driving what he described as a misinformation effort. According to him, the campaign “wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments” that encouraged action against Iran.

Kent argued that U.S. leadership received misleading information about the situation.

“This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie,” he said, while drawing a comparison with events that preceded the Iraq war.

He pointed to his own military background to stress the human cost of war.

“As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives,” he said.

Kent urged the president to reconsider the current approach and warned about possible long-term consequences.

“I pray that you will reflect upon what we are doing in Iran, and who we are doing it for. The time for bold action is now. You can reverse course and chart a new path for our nation, or you can allow us to slip further toward decline and chaos. You hold the cards,” he said.

He ended his letter by expressing gratitude for the opportunity to serve. “It was an honor to serve in your administration and to serve our great nation.”

By Professor Abdalla Uba Adamu

The phrase can be read in two ways: the dangers within mentorship, and the danger that mentorship itself may be disappearing.

As one grows older and accumulates experience, visibility, and a measure of goodwill, public culture often expects a form of “payback.” One of the most valued ways to do this is by mentoring younger colleagues—especially those approaching exit points in their careers. Nowhere is this expectation more pronounced than in academic circles. Yet over the years, I have watched the mentorship process deteriorate from both mentors’ and mentees’ perspectives.

When I began my career, mentees were frequently exploited. They carried out the basic research for their mentors—data gathering, analysis, and preliminary drafting—while the senior scholar ultimately received the credit in subsequent publications. When some mentees later attempted to assert ownership of their intellectual labour by publishing from the same datasets, mentors simply stopped working with them. By then, however, the senior academics had already crossed the Rubicon: they had secured their place in the system and had little incentive to look back.

Being exploited intellectually is not a small matter. In academia, one’s ideas, labour, and reputation are the core of one’s identity. When these are appropriated or manipulated, it feels like a violation — not just of professional ethics, but of dignity. Watching others suffer the same fate, and then seeing the perpetrators continue to flourish without consequence, naturally intensifies the sense of injustice.

A later generation of mentors adopted a more tactical strategy. Mentees were still required to do most of the “dirty work,” often writing up results for papers or book chapters, after which mentors insisted on being listed as joint authors. I objected to this practice on several occasions, arguing that a mentor is institutionally remunerated to support the mentee’s development, not to appropriate the mentee’s intellectual rewards. Yet some mentees willingly entered into such parasitic arrangements, convinced that the mentor’s visibility would enhance their own prospects. Meanwhile, mentors leveraged the mentees’ labour to boost citation counts and online academic metrics—the modern equivalent of academic swagger.

Mentees themselves have not been entirely blameless. Whether within formal institutional settings or in the more fluid spaces of public culture, mentorship ideally enables individuals to reach their potential. Increasingly, however, the relationship is being instrumentalised for economic gain or opportunistic advantage. Recent distressing experiences involving well-known academics [on Facebook and a young man named Ismail Sani] illustrate how goodwill and a willingness to assist can be exploited by outright scams. Such incidents inevitably make potential mentors more cautious, and sometimes less willing, to extend help in the future.

What we are witnessing, therefore, is a shift in expectations from intellectual mentorship to personal patronage. In many of our social environments, the two easily get conflated. Respect for elders, the culture of assistance, and the visibility that comes with academic success can combine to create the assumption that a mentor is also a benefactor. When repeated often enough, the requests begin to feel less like genuine emergencies and more like a pattern of dependence. That can make even a generous person start to withdraw.

Another troubling dimension is the subtle guilt-tripping employed by some would-be mentees. I have received numerous requests to serve as a referee for individuals I scarcely know. We may have met briefly at an event, or they may simply have encountered something I wrote. To them, I appear as a convenient “low-hanging fruit.” Basic courtesy would require prior contact—at the very least, a reminder of the context in which we met. I usually decline such requests. After all, referees are expected to have genuine knowledge of a candidate’s work and character. How can one write an honest assessment based on nothing more than fleeting acquaintance or social-media followership?

Social media has radically transformed access to public figures, rendering them perpetually available. Once a mentoring relationship is established, some mentees interpret access as entitlement. The boundary between guidance and material obligation becomes blurred. Social media makes this worse because it creates intimacy without context — people feel they “know” you, and therefore feel justified in making personal demands. Over time, the mentor begins to anticipate the next request, and the original intellectual purpose of the relationship is quietly eroded.

In the physical, offline world, proximity often enables one to gauge the sincerity of requests for guidance or assistance. The anonymity and immediacy of online interaction, however, have produced what might be called a form of “closed distance”: a space stripped of emotional grammar and contextual obligation. In such a space, panhandling can easily be reframed as a moral claim upon those perceived as accessible or influential.

The cumulative effect is worrying. Mentorship, as a meaningful intellectual and moral relationship, may itself be in danger.

What have your own experiences been?

Borno State Governor, Babagana Zulum, has denounced the explosion that hit parts of Maiduguri on Monday evening, describing it as a cruel and cowardly act.

The governor, who is currently in Saudi Arabia for the Lesser Hajj, expressed grief over the incident. He noted that the attack affected innocent residents during the Ramadan period.

In a statement issued by his Special Adviser on Media, Dauda Iliya, Zulum urged residents to stay alert. He also called on security agencies to intensify monitoring efforts, especially around mosques and other public locations.

“I am deeply saddened by the explosions that occurred in parts of the metropolis on Monday evening. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims and those injured as a result of the blast,” Zulum said.

“The act is utterly condemnable, barbaric and inhumane,” he added.

Zulum suggested that the incident could be linked to ongoing military operations against insurgents in Sambisa Forest and other locations in the region.

He, however, assured residents that security forces remain in control of the situation and are taking steps to prevent further attacks.

The governor appealed for calm and encouraged the public to continue their lawful activities while cooperating with security personnel.

He also advised residents to report any suspicious movements or activities within their communities to the appropriate authorities.

Zulum reaffirmed his administration’s resolve to work closely with security agencies to safeguard lives and property across Borno State.

The UEFA Champions League Round of 16 enters a crucial phase this week as clubs prepare for the return leg fixtures.

The matches are scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday. All sixteen teams remain in contention, but only eight will advance to the quarter-finals at the end of the ties. The opening legs took place last week.

The teams still in the competition include Bayern Munich, Liverpool, Atalanta, Sporting CP, Tottenham, Paris Saint-Germain, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Arsenal, Newcastle United, Atletico Madrid, Galatasaray, Bayer Leverkusen, Manchester City and Bodo/Glimt.

Several fixtures present different challenges based on first-leg outcomes.

On Tuesday, Sporting CP will host Bodo/Glimt in Lisbon after suffering a 3-0 defeat in Norway. Chelsea face a difficult task against Paris Saint-Germain at Stamford Bridge following a 5-2 loss in the first leg. Manchester City welcome Real Madrid to the Etihad Stadium after losing 3-0 in Spain and must produce a strong performance to overturn the deficit. Arsenal take on Bayer Leverkusen at the Emirates Stadium after a 1-1 draw in Germany, with both sides still evenly matched.

Wednesday’s fixtures also promise intense action. Barcelona host Newcastle at Camp Nou after both sides settled for a 1-1 draw in England. Tottenham will attempt to recover from a 5-2 defeat against Atletico Madrid when they meet in London. Liverpool face Galatasaray at Anfield after a narrow 1-0 loss in Turkey, while Bayern Munich appear to be in a commanding position against Atalanta following a 6-1 victory in the first leg.

A former coach at TTC Football Academy, Emmanuel Brown, shared his thoughts on the upcoming matches.

“It’s now getting more interesting at this stage of the competition.

“The second leg is the last chance for every team to try and give their all to progress to the next stage of the competition.

“Those teams that lost the first legs will be under more pressure compared to the teams that won their first legs. Because you know you will get knocked out if you fail to win the second leg, and it’s obviously like your last chance.

“I was impressed by several first-leg matches, especially Bodo/Glimt’s victory over Sporting. The Norwegian side is definitely a dark horse to watch in this year’s Champions League; they are well-organized and function as a cohesive unit,” he said.

Brown also identified teams he believes are in strong positions to qualify for the next round.

“From the first-leg results, it seems some teams already have one foot in the last eight.

“Bodo/Glimt, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, PSG, and Atletico Madrid, which all won their first legs, seem favourite to progress.

“I also see Arsenal progressing because they will be playing at home, as well as Barcelona.

“The match between Liverpool and Galatasaray is tough to call. Galatasaray won narrowly 1-0 in Turkey, but Liverpool is a different challenge at Anfield.

“I hope Galatasaray qualifies because of Victor Osimhen. I want to watch that man go far in this competition, but my head is telling me Liverpool could win. However, I believe it is a 50-50 chance,” he said.