Presidency

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Federal Government has explained President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s absence from the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, saying Nigeria remains fully represented at the high-level gathering.

The clarification followed public comments about the President’s decision not to attend the annual gathering of world leaders in person.

In a statement issued by the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, the Federal Government said President Tinubu had directed Vice President Kashim Shettima to lead Nigeria’s delegation to the UNGA.

It said, “The Vice President will deliver Nigeria’s national statement and participate in high-level meetings and bilateral engagements with world leaders, international organisations and development partners.

“Nigeria will therefore be fully and effectively represented throughout the high-level session.

“Vice President Shettima carries the full mandate of the President and the Federal Republic of Nigeria. His engagements in New York will advance Nigeria’s priorities on peace and security, economic development, climate action, reform of the global financial architecture, sustainable development and international cooperation.”

Idris also noted that Tinubu is currently on annual leave. He said the President’s decision to delegate the responsibility to his deputy does not represent a reduction in Nigeria’s diplomatic presence or standing.

The minister also addressed recent comments from former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and a United States-based lobbying organisation retained by him over Tinubu’s absence from the UNGA.

According to the Federal Government, the comments sought to attach motives to the President’s decision that were not supported by facts.

It said, “Political opposition and robust public debate are legitimate features of democracy. However, speculation should not be presented to Nigerians or the international community as established facts. The government urges political actors to exercise responsibility when discussing matters affecting Nigeria’s international relationships and national reputation.

“Nigeria values its longstanding relationship with the United States, encompassing trade and investment, security cooperation, energy, democratic institutions, regional stability and extensive people-to-people ties.

“That relationship is conducted through established diplomatic and governmental channels and should not be confused with partisan commentary or the activities of private lobbying organisations acting on behalf of political clients.”

The Federal Government urged Nigerians and the media to separate confirmed information from political opinions and claims that lack supporting evidence.

It reaffirmed that Nigeria’s interests would remain a priority throughout the UNGA and that diplomatic engagements with international partners would continue.

“Nigeria will be fully represented in New York. Nigeria’s interests will be vigorously advanced. And the work of strengthening the country’s relationships with its international partners will continue.”

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has rejected allegations by the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council that he compromised Nigeria’s interests in the Mambilla hydropower project.

Atiku, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, said the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris did not find him guilty of corruption or rule that he received a $500,000 bribe linked to the project.

His response came after the APC campaign council called on him to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race over allegations connected to the Mambilla project and a payment made to Jennifer Douglas, his then-wife, in 2003.

The dispute followed the ICC tribunal’s recent ruling in favour of Nigeria in the arbitration involving Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and the Federal Government.

The tribunal rejected Sunrise’s claims over the Mambilla project and ordered the company and its promoter, Leno Adesanya, to reimburse Nigeria for part of its legal expenses. Reports on the award put the recoverable Nigerian legal costs at about $11.82 million.

A major issue examined during the arbitration was a $500,000 payment that Adesanya transferred through China Castle Investments Limited to Douglas’s United States bank account on January 30, 2003.

Adesanya told the tribunal that the money represented a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku. The tribunal, however, rejected his explanation because it was not supported by sufficient documentary evidence.

The APC subsequently linked the payment to negotiations over the Mambilla project and alleged that Atiku, who was vice-president at the time, worked with then Minister of Power Olu Agunloye to facilitate the contract.

Atiku, through a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, challenged the APC to identify where the ICC award made the alleged finding against him.

He accused the ruling party of presenting allegations considered during the arbitration as though they amounted to a corruption verdict.

“The APC cannot manufacture the missing finding simply because the actual award does not provide the political conclusion it desperately wants,” Atiku said.

He added:

“Nigeria alleged before the tribunal that the transfer was connected to the disputed Mambilla contract. Sunrise and Adesanya denied that allegation.

“Adesanya offered an explanation which the tribunal did not accept.

“But an unsuccessful explanation by Leno Adesanya does not automatically become a corruption verdict against Atiku Abubakar.

“I was not a member of the technical process that evaluated the competing proposals and recommended Sunrise. I did not sit on the procurement panel.

“I did not award the contract. So anyone alleging that I manipulated that process has a simple responsibility: show the instruction I gave, show the intervention I made, and show the paragraph of the tribunal award where that corrupt influence was found.

“If the tribunal wanted to find that the $500,000 was a bribe paid to Atiku, it could have said so plainly. If it wanted to find that Atiku abused his office to procure the contract for Sunrise, it could have said so plainly.

“The APC cannot insert into an international arbitral award words and conclusions that the arbitrators themselves did not put there.”

Atiku Rejects Claim That Tribunal Summoned Him

The former vice-president also disputed the claim that the tribunal summoned him to give evidence but that he refused to appear.

He said the fact that former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and the late Muhammadu Buhari participated in the proceedings did not mean that he was also summoned.

“For the avoidance of doubt, I was not a party to the arbitration and I did not testify before the tribunal,” Atiku said.

“The reported contents of the award do not establish that the tribunal summoned me, ordered me to testify or found that I disobeyed any directive to appear.

“There is a world of difference between a party to an arbitration attempting to secure somebody’s testimony and the tribunal itself summoning that person to appear.

“Those distinctions matter. The APC cannot erase them simply because doing so makes for a more convenient headline.”

Atiku also compared the allegations against him with the long-running controversy over a $460,000 forfeiture involving President Bola Tinubu in the United States.

The ICC proceedings themselves examined Atiku’s role in the Mambilla project and his reported involvement in discussions around the project. However, reports on the final award indicate that the tribunal did not make a finding that Atiku personally received the $500,000 as a bribe.

The arbitration arose from a dispute between Sunrise and the Nigerian government over the Mambilla hydropower project. Sunrise had sought billions of dollars in claims against Nigeria, but the tribunal ultimately ruled against the company’s claims.

The latest exchange has added another political dimension to the Mambilla controversy, with the APC and Atiku offering different interpretations of what the ICC tribunal’s findings mean for the former vice-president.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

The presidency has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of policy confusion and political gamesmanship following what it described as three contradictory statements on petrol subsidy within a single week.

In a strongly worded statement, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, questioned whether the 2023 presidential candidate is proposing a serious economic policy or merely exploiting the temporary economic discomfort facing Nigerians.

The controversy began when Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, announced that the former vice-president would restore petrol subsidy if elected president and later phase it out, describing it as a temporary intervention to give Nigerians and businesses room to recover.

However, another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, quickly issued a clarification, describing Ibe’s statement as “unauthorised and misleading.” Shaibu insisted that Atiku would not set a predetermined date for ending the subsidy, but would maintain it until domestic refining expands and market conditions stabilise.

Hours later, Atiku himself intervened, effectively overruling the clarification and insisting his position “has not changed.” He reiterated that he would restore what he called a “targeted subsidy” if elected president, stating: “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”

Presidency Questions Economic Understanding

Onanuga challenged the former vice-president’s understanding of petroleum market dynamics, pointing out that petrol prices are influenced by multiple factors including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation, and distribution.

“Petrol does not become cheap simply because government orders a subsidy or because competition is expected to emerge,” Onanuga stated.

The presidency also took issue with Atiku’s argument linking fuel prices to food inflation, noting that Nigerians experienced rising food prices even during years when petrol subsidy was in place.

“Agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints also matter,” the  statement read.

Technical Questions on Subsidy Proposal

The presidency raised specific technical questions about Atiku’s proposal, asking whether he is aware that refined petrol constitutes only 45 per cent of the by-products of a refined barrel of crude oil.

Other products include aviation fuel, kerosene, and diesel – the latter deregulated during the Obasanjo-Atiku administration in 2004. The statement questioned whether Atiku would subsidise all these by-products as well.

Onanuga urged Atiku to explain precisely what he means by “targeted subsidy,” including its cost, beneficiaries, funding mechanism, and the objective economic conditions that would determine its eventual termination.

“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” the statement concluded.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

The Presidency has attributed the robust financial results posted by companies on the Nigerian Exchange in the first half of 2026 to the sweeping economic reforms initiated by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration since mid-2023.

In a statement issued Wednesday, the government highlighted the unification of the foreign exchange market as a cornerstone reform that has improved price discovery and enabled companies with significant foreign currency exposure to more accurately value their dollar-denominated revenues.

“By establishing a single, market-determined exchange rate, the reform improved price discovery and enabled companies with substantial foreign currency exposure to more accurately reflect the value of their dollar-denominated revenues in their financial statements,” said Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy.

The reform has particularly benefited export-oriented businesses such as Aradel Holdings and Seplat Energy, whose revenues are largely linked to international oil prices and settled in foreign currency.

The administration’s commitment to strengthening investor confidence in the energy sector was further demonstrated through the timely approval of several landmark upstream transactions, including the Renaissance Africa Energy consortium’s acquisition of Shell Petroleum Development Company assets and Seplat Energy’s acquisition of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited’s assets.

“These strategic approvals significantly expanded the reserve base, production capacity, and long-term growth prospects of both companies while removing regulatory uncertainty,” Onanuga stated.

Manufacturing and industrial companies, including Dangote Cement, BUA Cement, and HBM (formerly Lafarge Africa), have similarly benefited from improved access to foreign exchange and a more predictable currency market, enabling better production planning and more efficient procurement of imported inputs.

The removal of the petrol subsidy has significantly strengthened the government’s fiscal position, increasing capacity for infrastructure investment and reinforcing broader macroeconomic stability, according to the statement.

Onanuga noted that tighter monetary management, ongoing financial sector reforms, and banking sector recapitalisation have strengthened the financial system’s capacity to support large-scale corporate financing.

“Rather than reflecting isolated firm-level developments, these results illustrate how comprehensive structural reforms can translate into measurable improvements in corporate financial performance through stronger market fundamentals and a more predictable business environment,” the statement concluded.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Presidency has fixed September 3, 2026, as the date for presenting the proposed executive bill on state policing to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for consideration.

The timeline was disclosed on Monday by Femi Gbajabiamila, chairman of the Presidential Working Group on the National Policing Bill, after the committee’s inaugural meeting at the State House in Abuja.

President Tinubu had inaugurated the committee in July to prepare the legal framework required for the implementation of state police across Nigeria.

Gbajabiamila explained that the committee had adopted a seven-week work plan that runs from July 27 to September 14, 2026. He said administrative and technical work on the proposed legislation had already begun.

He said, “The approved work programme is a seven-week, milestone-driven exercise running from July 27 to September 14, 2026.

“The resulting Executive Bill package is scheduled for presentation to the President on September 3.

“Subject to his approval, a national consultation on the completed draft will follow, after which the text and supporting materials will be revised and prepared for formal transmission to the National Assembly.

“The timetable is demanding, but it is not a shortcut.”

Gbajabiamila also addressed questions on the financial implications of establishing state police. He said it would be premature to provide any estimate because the assessment would depend on detailed research rather than assumptions.

“There is no cost to securing life and property. That is the first fundamental reason for being in government,” he said.

“At this stage, giving you a cost will be pulling something out of thin air. So we’re not going to be doing guesswork here or guesstimating as to what the cost is.

“The cost will be evidence-based. It will be based on thorough research and on a state-by-state basis because one state differs from another in terms of personnel, architecture, infrastructure and local security needs.”

He added that members of the public would have the opportunity to contribute to the drafting process by submitting memoranda through the dedicated website, nationalpolicingbill.com.

“I talked about memoranda that will be open to the public from today—hopefully for about ten days. If there’s a need for an extension, we’ll extend that.

“The public is included. No matter your station in life, you have an opportunity to contribute meaningfully, because the whole idea behind state policing is for you and I and everybody sitting here and everybody out there to take ownership.”

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

The Nigerian Army is set for its largest peacetime expansion in decades, with President Bola Tinubu approving the creation of four additional divisions and the recruitment of 28,000 personnel, according to a presidential statement issued Thursday.

The restructuring, which will take the army’s divisional strength from eight to twelve, is designed to deepen military presence across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones and shorten response times to security emergencies. The new divisions will be established in Makurdi, Ilorin, Jalingo and Benin City, bringing the total number of command headquarters to twelve.

The phased implementation, which runs until December 2026, reflects what officials describe as a calculated approach to force modernisation. Phase one, due by September 2026, will activate the 5th Division in Makurdi, 9th Division in Ilorin, and 10th Division in Jalingo, alongside the reorganisation of existing formations. Phase two will see the establishment of the 83rd Division in Benin City by December 2026.

Each division will cover between two and five states, with the 82nd Division in Enugu responsible for five South-Eastern states—the largest territorial coverage. The 7th Division in Maiduguri will continue to anchor counter-insurgency operations in Borno and Yobe, while the new 10th Division in Jalingo will oversee Taraba and Adamawa, strengthening the military’s grip on the North-East corridor.

Beyond troop numbers, the President has also approved the acquisition of critical military platforms and equipment, alongside enhanced welfare packages for service members. Officials say these investments are intended to address long-standing gaps in operational readiness and morale.

Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga emphasised that the expansion would “significantly improve command and control” and “decentralise operational decision-making,” allowing field commanders greater autonomy to respond to local threats. The move is also expected to bolster border security and protect critical national infrastructure, including oil and gas facilities in the South-South, which will now fall under the newly established 83rd Division in Benin City.

Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General Waidi Ibrahim Shuaibu, has been lauded by the President for the army’s professionalism, with Tinubu pledging continued support to ensure the force remains “fully capable of protecting the nation.”

Security analysts view the expansion as a clear signal of the administration’s intent to adopt a more proactive, geographically distributed approach to national defence, moving away from the over-centralised command structure that has historically hampered rapid response to crises.

The announcement comes amid ongoing operations against insurgents, bandits, and separatist agitators, with the new divisions expected to ease the burden on overstretched units and improve intelligence gathering at the grassroots level.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Presidency has confirmed that all the pupils and teachers abducted in Orire, Ogbomoso area of Oyo State have regained their freedom.

The announcement came on Friday through the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, who disclosed that security agencies rescued the victims.

However, the Presidency did not provide details of the operation that led to their release.

“Finally, all the kidnapped pupils and teachers in Orire, Oyo have been rescued by our security agencies,” Onanuga wrote in a post on X.

The abduction had raised concerns among residents and attracted national attention. Authorities are yet to release additional information on the rescue operation or the condition of the victims.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Public affairs analyst Mahdi Shehu has faulted the Presidency’s response to the controversy surrounding an alleged fake federal agency, saying the explanation raised more concerns than answers.

In a post shared on his official X account on Thursday, Shehu described the Presidency’s position as inconsistent and doubtful. He questioned how an agency said to lack proper legal backing allegedly operated within government structures without detection.

According to him, the issue goes beyond allegations that Adeyemi forged an appointment letter. He argued that several government institutions should explain how the agency reportedly functioned openly.

“Assuming without conceding that Ajibade forged his appointment letter, which is a criminal offence, who is responsible for the following bigger crimes?” he asked.

Shehu said the agency allegedly secured about N1.3 billion through the national budget process before President Bola Tinubu signed the appropriation bill into law.

He also questioned how the organisation reportedly employed about 300 staff members from the federal civil service, opened accounts with both a commercial bank and the Central Bank of Nigeria, and obtained office accommodation inside the Federal Secretariat.

According to him, such developments could not have taken place without the awareness or involvement of several authorities and institutions.

He further expressed concern that security and anti-graft agencies such as the Department of State Services, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission allegedly failed to uncover any irregularities during their screening and monitoring processes.

“Even if Ajibade is culpable, many more ‘big men’ are very much,” he said.

The commentator maintained that the Presidency’s explanation exposed deep weaknesses within public institutions.

“If anything, the explanation coming from the Presidency regarding the ‘fake’ agency is questionable, doubtful, suspect, contradictory, inconsistent, selective and indeed exposes the system, top to bottom, as being sufficiently and extensively vulnerable,” he wrote.

Shehu also stated that countries with stronger institutions would hold officials accountable in similar situations.

“In a normal society, nothing close to this will ever happen and if per adventure it does, decent heads will bow out and many more heads will role into prison,” he said.

The Presidency had earlier accused Adeyemi of forging official documents, creating non-existent presidential agencies and presenting himself falsely as a government official.

In a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency announced that Adeyemi would appear before the Federal High Court in Abuja on July 27 over charges bordering on forgery, impersonation and obtaining by false pretence.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

A Nigerian man by the name of Prince Adeniyi Mathew is currently under investigation over allegations that he fraudulently established a phantom federal agency which he named the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), falsely claiming it was an official body of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

According to sources, Mathew went a step further by appointing himself as the council’s director-general, securing a physical office for the agency within the Federal Secretariat complex in Abuja, and even opening a dedicated account for it at the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Most shockingly, he is accused of successfully inserting a budgetary provision of approximately ₦1.3 billion for the agency into Nigeria’s 2026 fiscal proposal.

Insiders reveal that, emboldened by the apparent success of his deception, Mathew allegedly convened high-level meetings with serving ministers and Nigerian ambassadors, issuing directives to them on the execution of government programmes. He is also said to have represented Nigeria at several international summits on multiple occasions, all under the guise of his bogus office.

However, the elaborate ruse has now collapsed. Security agencies have been alerted and are said to have commenced appropriate legal and administrative actions against the suspect, as investigations into the full extent of the fraud continue.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Presidency has defended the Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, against allegations of bribery levelled against him by Adeniyi Adeyemi, whom it described as the convener of a non-existent government agency.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, alleged that Adeyemi forged an appointment letter and falsely claimed to be a presidential appointee.

Onanuga said Adeyemi presented himself as the director-general of the so-called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council. He added that the agency had no legal backing and was not recognised by the federal government.

The presidential aide said the matter came to the attention of security agencies after complaints emerged in 2025 that the group was operating alongside the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission.

According to him, Gbajabiamila petitioned the Department of State Services and the Nigeria Police Force in October 2025 over the activities of the group.

“The attention of this office has been drawn to the activities of certain individuals and groups engaged in the forgery of official appointment letters purportedly issued from my office,” the petition reads.

Onanuga stated that the Chief of Staff could not have appointed Adeyemi into office because the agency in question did not exist. He also explained that appointments into federal government offices are handled through the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and not through the office of the Chief of Staff.

He further disclosed that police operatives arrested Adeyemi in Abuja on October 27, 2025. Security operatives reportedly recovered forged documents from his office and residence during the investigation.

The Presidency alleged that investigators discovered that Adeyemi forged documents to present himself as a government official. It also accused him of attempting to obtain a note verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to secure United States visas for himself and members of the council he allegedly created.

Onanuga also claimed that investigators uncovered 34 bank accounts linked to Adeyemi, including nine accounts allegedly opened in the names of fictitious agencies.

He alleged that Adeyemi used forged documents to open an account with the Central Bank of Nigeria after misleading the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation. However, he added that investigators did not find evidence showing that public funds were paid into the account.

The presidential spokesman said the police filed an eight-count charge against Adeyemi and two other persons before a Federal High Court in Abuja on November 27, 2025.

He said the matter is expected to come up in court on July 27.

Onanuga also said Adeyemi’s recent claim that Gbajabiamila appointed him contradicted the statement he earlier made to investigators during interrogation.

“Politicians and members of the public who are weaponising Adeyemi’s claim against the Chief of Staff should refrain from swallowing his narrative hook, line and sinker,” he said.

“They are advised to await the trial of Adeyemi and his accomplices, as well as the court’s judgement, as comments made today are subjudice.”