Author: Vanguard News

By NICK DAZANG 

On Sunday, April 5, 2026, the Special Adviser on Information, Bayo Onanuga, said, through a statement, that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, had approved a payment plan to settle N3.3 trillion outstanding debt in the power sector under the presidential power sector financial reforms programme.

Mr. Onanuga further said: ”The long-standing debts accumulated between February 2015 and March 2025. Following verification, N3.3 trillion has been agreed as a full and final settlement, ensuring a fair and transparent resolution”.

To reinforce and shed more light on Mr. Onanuga’s statement, the Special Adviser to the President on Energy, Olu Arowolo-Verheijen, said the programme would go beyond settling legacy debts to restoring confidence in the power sector.

The announcement was a huge relief to Nigerians. Before then the power sector was in comatose mode. For more than six months, the country, from one expanse to the other, was in pitch darkness. Big and small businesses ground to a halt. Coinciding with the heat that ushers in the rainy season, Nigerians were thrown into untold misery.

The Minister of Power, Chief Adebayo Adelabu, who ought to be, front and centre, addressing the challenges of this crucially important sector, was simply overwhelmed. His incompetence and helplessness were defined by an in-eloquence only reminiscent of the incoherent Oracle at Delphi. A picture, which trended on social media, showed the Minister speaking on a handset which was connected to a power bank.

If the N3.3 trillion settlement is viewed as a victory of sorts, and one that is fair, available data not only knock the bottom out of this early triumph, they render it Phyrric and transient. This is because as at 2026, the debt owed Generating Companies, GenCos, which stemmed from unpaid invoices by the Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Company, NBET, had stood at N6.8 trillion.

And contrary to the government’s claim that the payment of the N3.3 trillion debt followed “verification” and that the figure was “agreed as a full and final settlement”, the last reconciliation between government and key stakeholders in the power sector agreed at N4 trillion.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Association Power Generation Companies, APGC, Joy Ogaji, not only attests to this, she disclaims the latest figure(of N3.3 trillion) being bandied in these clear and unmistakable terms: ”We are not aware of any such verification outside the last reconciliation concluded in March 2025”.

Government has also not been forthcoming as to how the N3.3 trillion will be disbursed to the GenCos. Neither has it issued any timelines to undergird payment.

Even though government had earlier issued bonds to the tune of N501 billion to the GenCos, the payment is insignificant when viewed against the debts they owe gas suppliers. Besides, the conditions of disbursements are said to be stringent. These have failed to impress or incentivise gas suppliers to increase their supplies to thermal plants being run by the GenCos.

The payment of N3.3 trillion thus comes short of addressing the challenges of the power sector which cuts across generation, transmission and distribution. It also fails woefully to address concerns being voiced on the privatisation process that had informed the atomisation of the sector.

Like the privatisation exercise that took place on the watch of former Military President Ibrahim Babangida, best practices were observed only in the breach. Patronage, rather than technical expertise and capacity to deliver, governed and suffused the process.

Until now, and due to the huge debts owed GenCos, they faced severe liquidity challenges. They also suffered from acute operational and maintenance difficulties.

The transmission companies are equally hamstrung. They have difficulty transmitting the paltry electricity being generated by thermal and hydroelectric plants. Grid collapse has since become a monthly affair.

As at 2020, electricity distribution companies, DisCos, owed the Federal Government N2.6 trillion. The debt was due to unpaid remittances to NBET. The DisCos have had other issues spanning foreign exchange and operational inefficiency. For instance, in spite of a 76.34 per cent collection efficiency in January 2026, they nonetheless, suffered a revenue shortfall of N63.46 billion.

Several of the DisCos are under receivership either of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria, AMCON, or the banks. This is on account of debt-related insolvencies. Key DisCos reportedly under management receivership include those of Ibadan, Kano, Kaduna, and Port Harcourt. Due to their massive debts and insolvencies, DisCos have been subjected to legislative summonses.

To put the power sector in good stead, the government must adopt a holistic and comprehensive approach. Generation, transmission and distribution must work optimally and in sync. Government must engage and agree with critical stakeholders in the generating sector as to what it owes and how it intends to pay. It cannot foist a figure on them by presidential fiat.

Additionally, alternative forms of power generation, other than thermal and hydro-electricity, should be aggressively invested in. Solar power, which is clean, cheap and available, should be harnessed. It should then be put on a separate grid to power homes and offices. Thermal and hydro power should thereafter be dedicated to manufacturing, the Organized Private Sector, hospitals and schools.

The N3.3 trillion payment, no doubt, is a shot in the arm. But it is a short term measure and it is not all-encompassing. It is probably calibrated to save face, especially for a president who once vowed that Nigerians should not re-elect him if he did not provide electricity.

We must go the whole hog. We must address the challenges that ail all facets of the power sector. As it is, it is not yet Uhuru for the power sector.

•Dazang, a public affairs analyst, wrote from Abuja. 

The post Power sector: Not yet Uhuru appeared first on Vanguard News.

Nigeria’s governance suffers from a profound defect: the absence of accountability. Leaders announce multi-trillion-naira budgets with great ceremony, governors flag-off infrastructure projects amid public acclaim, and grandiloquent policies are initiated. Yet, when delivery fails—as it routinely does—no real consequences follow.

This gap between authority and responsibility has persisted since independence in 1960, undermining 66 years of nation-building efforts. The issue originates in a system where public office is treated as personal entitlement rather than public trust. The 2023 report of the Auditor-General documented N12 trillion in unaccounted public funds, including budgeted roads that never materialised and schools left in disrepair.

Oversight institutions falter. The National Assembly, with its N200 billion annual budget for members’ perks, conducts investigations selectively to protect one another and allies. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission, ICPC, have been compromised by executive interference and internal corruption. They prosecute minor offenders while major culprits evade justice.

Citizens endure the direct impact. In Lagos State, despite trillions of naira in allocations and internal revenues, about 70 per cent of residents lack access to potable water, according to BudgIT data. Northern states proclaim free education, yet UNICEF reports 70 per cent of Nigeria’s out-of-school children are from there. These shortcomings reflect systemic opacity. The Freedom of Information Act of 2011 is largely ignored, with only 12 per cent of ministries disclosing records, per YIAGA Africa. Without transparency, misconduct proliferates.

Corruption represents one facet; the broader malaise is the erosion of institutional legitimacy. This is against a backdrop of gradually lowering but still moderately high inflation rate of about 15 per cent and 50 million unemployed youths, according to National Bureau of Statistics, NBS, 2026.

Progress is possible. Organisations like BudgIT, through initiatives such as #FollowTheMoney, expose contract inflation. SERAP’s litigations have compelled some asset declarations. Digital platforms like Tracka enable public monitoring. Judicial interventions offer glimmers of hope.

Structural reforms are essential. First, the relevant laws should be amended to grant anti-corruption agencies independent funding, fixed tenures, and prosecutorial autonomy. There should be mandatory, real-time implementation of budget portals with AI-driven procurement audits. The National Assembly’s emoluments should be reduced by up to 50 per cent, with pay linked to measurable oversight performance.

Performance bonds should also be introduced for elected officials, requiring verifiable deliverables with financial penalties for non-compliance, enforced by an independent tribunal. Citizen-led audit programmes, incentivised by tax credits, should verify projects at the community level. Nigerians must demand these changes through sustained civic actions—petitions, litigations, and voter accountability. The #EndSARS movement demonstrated the power of collective resolve.

Governance without accountability lacks legitimacy. It breeds distrust, entrenches inequality, and stalls development. Nigeria cannot advance until leaders are held to account—consistently and without exception.

The responsibility rests with the people.

The post Making governance more accountable appeared first on Vanguard News.

IRAN’s threat to cut undersea cables is a serious concern, as these cables carry around 95-99 per cent of global internet traffic, including critical financial transactions. The Strait of Hormuz, where many of these cables are located, is a key chokepoint, handling around 30 per cent of the world’s internet traffic. Iran-backed Houthi rebels in […]

Why civilizations reproduce war despite knowledge

The persistence of war in the modern world, despite an unprecedented accumulation of historical knowledge, reveals a fundamental contradiction within human civilization. This article advances the thesis that contemporary conflicts are not primarily the result of ignorance, but of a deeper systemic failure: the collapse of historical intelligence.

Historical intelligence is defined as the institutional and cognitive capacity of societies to retain, interpret, and apply lessons from past conflicts to present decision-making. Drawing on the classical insights of Plato and Aristotle, alongside the empirical realism of Thucydides and the strategic framework of Carl von Clausewitz, this study demonstrates that the causes of war are historically stable and analytically well understood. However, the repeated failure to institutionalise these insights results in cyclical patterns of conflict. Modern wars are not anomalies, but predictable outcomes of systemic historical neglect.

Introduction

Human civilization possesses an extensive archive of historical experience on war—its causes, dynamics, and consequences. From ancient chronicles to modern strategic theory, the lessons of conflict are neither obscure nor inaccessible. Yet, wars continue to emerge with striking regularity, often reproducing patterns long documented and widely understood.

This paradox suggests that the problem is not a lack of knowledge, but a failure in its application. This article introduces the concept of historical intelligence to explain this failure. It argues that when societies lose the capacity to systematically integrate historical insight into governance and decision-making, they become structurally predisposed to repeat past conflicts. War, therefore, is not merely a political or economic event, but an epistemic failure rooted in the collapse of civilizational memory.

Classical Foundations: Knowledge Without Application

The roots of this problem are evident in classical political philosophy. In The Republic, Plato identifies the expansion of unnecessary desires and the ignorance of rulers as primary causes of war. For Plato, knowledge of justice and the good exists in principle, yet its absence in governance leads to disorder and conflict. This distinction between knowledge and applied knowledge is central: societies may possess insight, yet fail to operationalise it.

Similarly, Aristotle, in Politics, links war to inequality, injustice, and the pursuit of domination. He argues that internal instability often manifests externally, making war an extension of unresolved domestic tensions. Like Plato, Aristotle does not attribute conflict to ignorance alone, but to failures in implementation and governance.

Together, these thinkers establish a foundational principle: the causes of war are known, but not consistently acted upon.

Historical Continuity and the Logic of Repetition

The recurrence of war across time is empirically demonstrated by Thucydides in his analysis of the Peloponnesian War. His identification of fear, honour and interest as enduring drivers of conflict reveals a stable structure of human motivation. These forces continue to shape modern geopolitics, underscoring the continuity of conflict dynamics.

In the modern era, Carl von Clausewitz reinforces this continuity by defining war as “the continuation of politics by other means”. War, in this formulation, is not an anomaly but a systemic outcome when political processes fail.

Despite these enduring insights, societies repeatedly engage in conflicts that replicate patterns observed in past historical conflicts. This repetition cannot be attributed to ignorance; rather, it indicates a breakdown in the mechanisms that translate knowledge into action. Historical intelligence, therefore, is not cumulative but fragile, subject to erosion and collapse across generations.

The Collapse of Historical Intelligence

The collapse of historical intelligence occurs when the connection between past experience and present decision-making is weakened or severed. This collapse manifests through several mechanisms.

First, selective interpretation of history allows political actors to construct narratives that justify present actions while disregarding contradictory lessons. Second, institutional fragmentation prevents the systematic integration of historical analysis into governance structures. Third, short-term political incentives prioritise immediate gains over long-term stability, discouraging historically informed decision-making.

Additionally, the instrumentalisation of history, its use as a tool for ideological or strategic purposes, distorts understanding and undermines objective analysis. In such conditions, history ceases to function as a guide and becomes a resource for manipulation.

This results in a condition of functional historical amnesia, where knowledge exists but is not meaningfully applied. As George Santayana famously observed: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. The issue, however, is not merely forgetting, but the systemic inability to operationalise memory.

Contemporary Implications

The consequences of this collapse are evident in the persistence of conflict patterns in the contemporary world. Miscalculation, overconfidence, escalation dynamics and failure of diplomacy, features present in ancient wars, continue to characterise modern conflicts.

This continuity suggests that technological advancement and institutional development have not been matched by progress in historical reasoning. Global governance systems often lack structured mechanisms for integrating historical insight into policy formulation. As a result, responses to conflict remain reactive rather than preventive.

Without the institutionalisation of historical intelligence, societies remain vulnerable to repeating the same strategic and moral errors. War, in this context, becomes not an exception, but an expected outcome of systemic neglect.

Conclusion

My argument is that the persistence of war is best understood not as a failure of knowledge, but as a failure of its application. The insights of Plato and Aristotle demonstrate that the structural causes of conflict: excessive desire, injustice and governance failure, have long been identified. The analyses of Thucydides and Carl von Clausewitz further confirm the continuity of these dynamics.

Yet, the recurrence of war reveals a deeper systemic issue: the collapse of historical intelligence. When societies fail to retain and apply the lessons of the past, history loses its function as a guide and becomes a passive archive. Under such conditions, conflict is not only possible but predictable.

The implication is both clear and profound: peace is not merely a political objective, but an intellectual achievement. It depends on the capacity of civilizations to transform historical knowledge into operational wisdom. Until this capacity is restored and institutionalised, humanity will remain trapped in a cycle where each generation confronts crises that previous generations had already understood, but failed to prevent.

•Dr Dada, FRSA, Nigerian Systems Thinker,

CEO, DESI Consultants Ltd, wrote via: desicoin@gmail.com

The post Why civilizations reproduce war despite knowledge appeared first on Vanguard News.

By Ernest Ofoye

Nigeria is no longer merely battling insecurity—it is confronting a full-scale erosion of state authority across multiple regions. What was once described as isolated insurgency has now evolved into a widespread national crisis involving terrorism, banditry and organised criminality.

Recent events across the country have brought this reality into sharper focus. From renewed attacks in Plateau State to the growing wave of violence in Kwara State, the pattern is clear and deeply troubling. Most alarming is the reported killing of a Brigadier General of the Nigerian Army in active service—a painful reminder that even those tasked with defending the nation are increasingly vulnerable.

The truth must be told plainly: insurgents are gaining ground, while our soldiers are being lost in disturbing numbers.

At the centre of this crisis is a security system under severe strain. The Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria—comprising the Nigerian Army, the Nigerian Navy, and the Nigerian Air Force—have continued to demonstrate courage and commitment under extremely difficult conditions. Their sacrifices remain undeniable. However, beyond their bravery lies a deeper systemic challenge that must be addressed.

For too long, Nigeria’s response to insecurity has remained largely reactive rather than preventive. Security forces are frequently deployed after attacks have occurred, rather than positioned to neutralise threats before they materialise. Intelligence, where available, is often not translated into timely action. This gap between information and response has proven costly.

Equally concerning is the fragmentation within the broader security architecture. The Armed Forces, alongside other agencies such as the Police and intelligence services, do not always operate within a fully integrated, real-time command structure. Meanwhile, those perpetrating violence move with coordination, speed, and adaptability.

There is also the uncomfortable reality that certain areas within the country are gradually slipping beyond effective state control. In these locations, criminal elements operate with alarming boldness, sometimes imposing their will on local populations. This is not merely a security lapse; it is a challenge to national sovereignty.

The issue of intelligence at the community level further compounds the problem. In many instances, local populations possess early knowledge of suspicious movements and emerging threats. Yet, the absence of structured, secure and trusted channels for reporting has created a disconnect between the people and security institutions.

In addition, the demands placed on security personnel have become overwhelming. Prolonged deployments, operational fatigue, and gaps in equipment and welfare support have placed immense pressure on those at the front lines. When soldiers fall repeatedly in ambushes and attacks, it raises fundamental questions—not about their bravery—but about the adequacy of the system supporting them.

Perhaps most worrying is the geographical spread of insecurity. What began predominantly in the North-East has extended into the North-West and is now increasingly evident in the North-Central. This pattern suggests not random violence, but a gradual and strategic expansion that, if unchecked, could create ungoverned corridors across the country.

At this point, Nigerians must confront a difficult but necessary question: are these outcomes merely the result of systemic inefficiencies, or is there a deeper undertone that has yet to be fully addressed? When warnings are not acted upon, when attacks are repeated, and when perpetrators grow increasingly emboldened, such questions naturally arise.

What is clear, however, is that the time for incremental responses has passed. Nigeria requires a decisive and comprehensive reset of its security strategy.

A formal declaration of a national security emergency would signal urgency and enable stronger coordination across all levels of government. Beyond this, there must be a deliberate integration of the Nigerian Army, Navy, and Air Force into a unified, technology-driven operational framework where intelligence is shared in real time and joint missions are executed seamlessly.

The deployment of modern surveillance systems is no longer optional. Drone technology, satellite intelligence, digital tracking systems, and advanced monitoring infrastructure must become central to Nigeria’s security operations. The nature of the threat has changed; the tools used to confront it must also evolve.

Furthermore, the approach to territorial control must shift from temporary clearance operations to sustained presence and governance. It is not enough to dislodge criminal elements; the state must immediately establish authority, restore civil administration, and maintain a visible presence in reclaimed areas.

Equally important is the need to build a structured community intelligence network. Citizens must be empowered, protected, and encouraged to contribute to security efforts through reliable and confidential reporting mechanisms.

The welfare and operational support of security personnel must also be treated as a priority. A nation that depends on its soldiers for survival must, in turn, ensure that they are properly equipped, adequately supported, and duly honoured.

Security, however, cannot be left to the Federal Government alone. State governments must take greater responsibility in supporting localised security initiatives. Traditional institutions must strengthen grassroots vigilance, and citizens must remain alert and cooperative with lawful authorities. This is a collective responsibility.

The loss of senior military officers and countless other brave personnel is a solemn reminder of the urgency of this moment. Nigeria stands at a crossroads.

We can choose to act decisively—firmly, intelligently, and collectively—or continue along a path where responses lag behind realities.

History will judge the choices made at this time.

Nigeria must rise—not in rhetoric, but in action.

And the time to act is now.

•Ofoye, a Public Affairs Commentator, wrote from Lagos.

The post A nation under siege: Why Nigeria’s security architecture is failing appeared first on Vanguard News.

By EMMANUEL ONWUBIKO

A psychologist whose publication on will power and psychological science of self-control I came across on the internet affirmed that with more self-control we would all eat right, exercise regularly, avoid drugs and alcohol, save for retirement, stop procrastinating and achieve all sorts of noble goals.

Determined to provide charity, this our beloved scientist said: “Take, for example, the results of the American Psychological Association’s annual Stress in America Survey. The survey asks, among other things, about participants’ abilities to make healthy lifestyle changes. Survey participants regularly cite lack of willpower as the number one reason for not following through with such changes.”

Lack of willpower isn’t the only reason you might fail to reach your goals. Willpower researcher and psychologist at Florida State University, Dr Roy Baumeister, describes three necessary components for achieving objectives: First, he says, you need to establish the motivation for change and set a clear goal. Second, you need to monitor your behaviour toward that goal. The third component is willpower. Whether your goal is to lose weight, kick a smoking habit, study more, or spend less time on Facebook, willpower is a critical step to achieving that outcome”.

There are moments in the life of a nation when a single political pronouncement carries the weight of history, justice and long-suppressed identity. The recent remark by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, during a public function in Asaba, that the long-awaited creation of a new state for the South-East will culminate in Anioma State (with Asaba as its capital) represents one of such defining moments. It is not merely a political development, it is a profound statement of recognition, restitution and national recalibration.

For decades, the agitation for Anioma State has endured as one of Nigeria’s most consistent yet under-appreciated demands for state creation. Now, with the indication that deliberations have reached a conclusive stage and only await formal proclamation, the agitation has received its most significant boost yet. It signals not just administrative restructuring but a moral response to history and a strategic rebalancing of Nigeria’s federal character.

At the heart of this development lies the relentless advocacy of Ned Nwoko, whose persistence, clarity of thought and principled engagement have elevated the Anioma question from regional agitation to national discourse. While it is historically accurate to state that the demand for Anioma State did not begin with him, it is equally undeniable that he has emerged as the most coherent and influential contemporary voice driving its realisation. His ability to align historical justice with political pragmatism has proven decisive.

To fully appreciate the significance of this moment, one must return to the deep historical roots of the Anioma identity and the painful episodes that have shaped it. The Anioma people, largely of Igbo extraction, occupy a unique geographical and political space within Delta State. Despite their linguistic, cultural, and historical affinity with the South-East, they have remained administratively located in the South-South geopolitical zone, a situation that has, over time, fostered a lingering identity dilemma.

This identity crisis is not a trivial matter of nomenclature or regional alignment; it is a profound question of belonging. For a people whose historical experience is intertwined with that of the broader Igbo nation, the absence of formal recognition within the South-East framework has created a sense of political and cultural displacement. The creation of Anioma State, therefore, is not merely about drawing new boundaries; it is about restoring coherence to a people’s identity.

The urgency of this restoration is underscored by one of the darkest chapters in Nigeria’s history: the Asaba Massacre during the Nigerian Civil War. In October 1967, in the early phase of the war, federal troops entered Asaba and carried out a brutal massacre of unarmed civilians. Eyewitness accounts and historical records recount how young men and boys were assembled and systematically executed in what remains one of the most harrowing instances of mass killing in Nigeria’s history.

This atrocity was not only a loss of lives but a deep psychological scar that has endured across generations. It symbolised the vulnerability of a people caught in the cross-currents of war, their identity both a marker of belonging and a trigger for victimisation. Yet, decades after the war, the wounds of that tragedy remain insufficiently acknowledged within Nigeria’s national narrative. 

It is within this context that the call for Anioma State acquires a deeper moral dimension. The creation of the state becomes an act of historical recognition; a way of affirming that the lives lost were not forgotten and that the survivors and their descendants are not condemned to perpetual marginality. It is a means of giving back a sense of belonging to a people whose history has been marked by both resilience and neglect.

The argument for Anioma State is further strengthened by considerations of equity within Nigeria’s federal structure. The South-East geopolitical zone currently comprises five states, unlike other zones that have six or more. This imbalance has long been a source of political disadvantage, particularly in the distribution of federal resources and representation. By integrating Anioma State into the South-East, Nigeria would be taking a concrete step toward correcting this structural inequity.

What makes this approach particularly compelling is that it does not involve fragmenting existing South-Eastern states, which could trigger fresh tensions and rivalries. Instead, it represents an additive solution; expanding the region in a manner that strengthens its collective voice without undermining internal cohesion. It is, in essence, a win-win proposition that enhances both regional balance and national stability.

This strategic clarity has been a hallmark of Ned Nwoko’s advocacy. His articulation of the Anioma cause has consistently emphasized that the creation of the state is not a parochial demand but a national imperative. By framing Anioma as both a historical necessity and a pragmatic solution to existing imbalances, he has succeeded in building a broad coalition of support that transcends ethnic and regional divides.

Moreover, his political positioning within the ruling establishment has provided the advocacy with a level of access and influence that previous efforts lacked. In Nigeria’s complex political landscape, where state creation is as much a matter of negotiation as it is of principle, such proximity to the levers of power has proven invaluable. It has enabled the Anioma question to move from the margins of policy discussions to the centre of legislative consideration.

Yet, it would be reductive to attribute the current momentum solely to individual effort. The Anioma movement is the culmination of decades of collective struggle by community leaders, intellectuals, and grassroots organisations who have kept the vision alive through successive administrations. From early memoranda to constitutional conferences, the demand for Anioma State has been consistently articulated, even when it seemed politically unattainable.

This historical continuity is important because it underscores the legitimacy of the demand. Anioma State is not a sudden invention or a politically expedient idea; it is the product of sustained advocacy rooted in a clear understanding of identity, history, and governance. What has changed is not the validity of the argument but the political will to act on it.

An often-overlooked dimension of the Anioma project is its potential to unify Igbo communities beyond the current boundaries of the South-East. Notably, Igbo-speaking populations in Edo State have also expressed interest in being part of the proposed Anioma State. During public hearings in places such as Enugu and Akwa Ibom, representatives from these communities presented memoranda advocating their inclusion, citing shared cultural heritage and historical ties.

The communities, which are Igbanke, Iru, Ogbagie, Igbo-Giri, Owa Ri Uzo, Otobaye, Oghada, Ute-Oha-Eze, Ekpon and other neighbouring Ika Igbo aboriginal communities within Edo State, said their position reflects years of accumulated frustration, neglect and marginalisation they experienced.

Speaking on the platform of The Voice of the Indigenous Ika Igbo Initiative in Edo State, the people lamented that despite their cultural, linguistic and historical affinity with Anioma communities in Delta State and the wider Igbo nation in the South-East, they have remained politically stranded and administratively neglected within Edo State.

This broader vision transforms Anioma from a state creation exercise into a unifying project for dispersed Igbo populations. It offers a platform for reintegration, enabling communities that have long existed on the periphery of regional politics to find a common administrative and cultural home. In doing so, it strengthens the fabric of Igbo identity while contributing to Nigeria’s diversity.

The significance of the Senate President’s statement, therefore, cannot be overstated. As the third-ranking official in the country, his words carry both symbolic and practical weight. They signal that the Anioma proposal has moved beyond speculation into the realm of actionable policy. For advocates who have long battled skepticism and political inertia, this is a moment of validation.

It is also a moment that calls for unity and strategic engagement. The realisation of Anioma State will require not only formal proclamation but also careful implementation, including boundary delineation, resource allocation, and administrative setup. Stakeholders must therefore approach this phase with the same clarity and commitment that have characterized the advocacy thus far.

For the broader Igbo nation, this development represents a significant gain. It is an expansion of political space, an enhancement of representation and a reaffirmation of identity. It demonstrates that constructive engagement within the Nigerian framework can yield tangible results, even for demands that have long been considered difficult.

At a time when national cohesion is often tested by competing interests and historical grievances, the Anioma initiative offers a model of how such challenges can be addressed. It shows that recognition, fairness and inclusion are not abstract ideals but practical tools for building a more stable and equitable federation.

Ultimately, the creation of Anioma State is about more than geography. It is about dignity, memory, and belonging. It is about acknowledging the past while shaping a more inclusive future. It is about ensuring that people who have long stood at the crossroads of identity can finally find clarity and recognition within the Nigerian union.

As the nation awaits the formal pronouncement, one thing is clear: the journey of Anioma State has entered its decisive phase. And in that journey, the convergence of historical justice, political will, and principled advocacy has created a moment that may well redefine the contours of Nigeria’s federal landscape.

*Onwubiko is the founder of Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeri, HURIWA, and was National Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria

The post The big boost for Anioma State appeared first on Vanguard News.

In as much as many have undertaken to speak on the ongoing political crises in the country centering on the future of electoral politics, I have decided to make basic clarifications. My preferred surgical tools are the Antecedent, Behaviour and Consequence, ABC,  of what might, on the long run, endanger us all and, of course, condemn some to the dust bin of history.

Regrettably, some of those who have written on the issue, trying to mislead the populace, are my friends with whom we set out as young people to build a new country and world order based on peace, progress, development and social justice. These are otherwise intelligent people educated with the resources of the country but have for what appears to me as pecuniary reasons, decided to side with backwardness and retrogression. But I digress. Let me address the Nigerian populace, laying down basic facts so that their choices can be made in the collective interests of our country and the African people.

At the centre of the current political crisis is the African Democratic Congress, ADC, whose leadership was delisted in an April Fool move by the ‘Independent’ National Electoral Commission, INEC. The Commission, which was established as a non-partisan body, was not expected to be a tragi-comic organisation guilty of acts of commission and omission by an otherwise knowledgeable bunch of directors, parading an assortment of degrees, including PhD in Law.

Some have blamed the ADC leaders for not registering an entirely new political party rather than adopting an existing one. My simple answer is: you do not admonish a hunch back to straighten up; if he could, he would have done so before you encounter him. The leaders of what turned out to be the ADC coalition tried to register a brand new party but were denied. So, adopting the ADC was a fallback position. In doing so, as we now know, they were meticulous. They obeyed all the constitutional rules of the party and those of INEC, including inviting the latter to observe the processes which INEC fully endorsed.

The basic summary of the processes was that the ADC National Working Committee, NWC, had series of meetings, ending with a trinity of proposals to its National Executive Council, NEC. The first was to accept a wider coalition in which new members would be infused and the ADC would become the central opposition party. Secondly, that the NWC be dissolved and a new Caretaker Committee established to run the party. Thirdly, that the NEC, using its constitutional powers, should waive the provision that the new entrants should spend two years as members before being eligible to be officers of the party. All three proposals were put without any counter motion, and adopted by the party NEC meeting of July 29, 2025 at the New Chelsea Hotel, Abuja. The INEC, which was procedurally invited to the NEC meeting, attended, was satisfied that all known constitutional and electoral rules were complied with. On that basis, INEC granted institutional recognition to the new ADC leadership which comprised Senator David Mark as Chairman, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary and a fusion of the old leadership and new leaders as the NWC Caretaker Committee.

So, when a former official of the party later claimed he did not resign his position and that since other officials, including the former Chairman Ralph Okey Nwosu had resigned, he should be recognised as the authentic Chairman of the party, any educated person, least of all, a law Professor like Joash Amupitan who heads the INEC, should, but for mischief, know that the character is delusional. The process the INEC observed and endorsed was not that of individual resignations, but the constitutional dissolution of the entire ADC leadership and its replacement. So, except for non-legal or mischievous reasons, no member of a constitutionally dissolved executive can later claim he remains an officer of the party and should be the new leader. A court in response to this individual’s case, directed that the status quo should be maintained. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should know that the status quo is as at the time the court case was initiated or at worse, before the dissolution of the old executive. But the Amupitan INEC intentionally misinterpreted this to mean the removal of the ADC leadership, leaving an organisation without any leadership. Even amongst anarchists, there must be leaders.

The obvious beneficiary of this conscious illogicality is the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC. I have read praises of the APC leaders as “political strategists” for trying to destroy the opposition before the January 2027 general elections.

But I think such people are not well informed because, the ultimate “political strategist’ in our history, the tyrant, General Sani Abacha, ended up in the dustbin of history. He had deceived the political class that his November 17, 1993 coup was to merely restore the June 12, 1993 presidential victory of Chief Moshood Kashimawo Abiola. Rather than do so, Abacha imprisoned Abiola. He promised that with his coup, civilian adminstrators would be appointed to run the states. Instead, he appointed military administrators. Then he said the Deputy State Administrators would be civilians. He never appointed a single one. He then promised a democratic transition and established five political parties. He ended up being the sole candidate of all the parties. But his coronation never took place; he died unsung.

The lesson for us all is to allow political plurality and freedom of choice. For our collective good and the future of our country, we must preserve and make institutions functional. These should include the legislature, judiciary and electoral commission.

There must be functional opposition. When the United Kingdom provides public funding, called “Short Money” for opposition parties to take care of their administrative and research costs, it is not because it is insane. When that country pays opposition parties 22,853 pounds for each seat they occupy and additional funds per 200 votes, it is conscious that without strong opposition, its democracy is doomed.

If the ADC is endangered just because it is an opposition party, our democracy is endangered. Our fundamental right to freedom of association will be endangered.

As a former labour leader both in Nigeria and Africa, I am painfully aware that the establishment of trade unions and workers organisations and their well-being is based on the right to associate. Section 40 of the Nigeria Constitution states explicitly: “Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests”.  If this is compromised, we are all compromised.

The post The ABC, ADC and APC of Nigerian politics, by Owei Lakemfa appeared first on Vanguard News.

Inter Milan put one hand on the Serie A title on Sunday after coming back from two goals down to win 4-3 in a thrilling match at Como and move nine points clear of Napoli, who could only draw 1-1 at Parma.

Trailing by two in the dying moments of the first half due to goals from Alex Valle and youthful virtuoso Nico Paz, Inter looked set to give champions Napoli hope their Scudetto defence might still be alive.

But Marcus Thuram brilliantly poked home Nicolo Barella’s cross in stoppage time at the end of the opening half before the France forward pounced on a mix-up between Como goalkeeper Jean Butez and defender Marc-Oliver Kempf to loop home the leveller moments after the break.

Denzel Dumfries bulleted home Hakan Calhanoglu’s perfectly-delivered free-kick in the 58th minute and then completed the turnaround at the Stadio Giuseppe Sinigaglia by coolly guiding home Manuel Akanji’s knock-down 14 minutes later.

With six matches remaining in the season Inter now have a near-unassailable lead at the top of the table, while Como’s first defeat in two months left them outside the Champions League positions.

Pressed by DAZN into declaring that the title was already sewn up, Inter midfielder Barella simply said “let’s wait a little while”, and Dumfries was equally evasive.

“Today was a great win but every match counts and we have to stay focussed,” said Dumfries, who has missed a huge chunk of this season with injuries.

Como battled to the end with Lucas Da Cunha’s late penalty, for a soft foul on Paz by Ange-Yoan Bonny, nearly being followed up by a last-gasp leveller when Alberto Moreno smashed the crossbar from close range.

“Today my team showed me that we’re capable of and played with desire and courage,” said Como coach Cesc Fabregas.

“Yes we made mistakes. We’re a young team, and when you do, these teams will punish you. That’s the way it is.”

Juventus have taken Como’s place in the top four of Italy’s top flight, a disappointment after a superb first half in which Paz was the star of the show with a brilliant 11th goal of the season and the saved shot which led to Valle’s opener.

Como have never played European football and were in Italy’s third tier when acquired by tobacco giant Djarum seven years ago.

– Napoli slip –

Scott McTominay’s drilled finish on the hour mark gave Napoli a draw at Parma which now looks almost certain not to be enough for a third league crown in four seasons.

Antonio Conte’s team were on the back foot within 36 seconds, which was how long it took for Gabriel Strefezza to race on to Nesta Elphege’s knock-on and beautifully curl home Parma’s opener.

Napoli struggled to break down the hosts who were content to sit deep and soak up the pressure and deny the away team a sixth straight league win even after McTominay’s equaliser.

Last weekend’s win over AC Milan had reopened the prospect of retaining the title but Sunday’s results mean Inter would have to completely collapse to allow Napoli a sniff of the title.

“If you concede a goal after 30 seconds it’s inevitable that a match which was already going to be against a deep-lying team was going to become even more like that,” said Conte.

“They rightly put up the barricades and tried to hit us on the counter… in the end I can’t really criticise the team for their desire and commitment.”

Parma are level on 36 points with Genoa, who also took a step towards safety with a tumultuous 2-1 win over Sassuolo in the day’s early fixture.

Both teams were down to 10 men for the second half following a tunnel bust-up between Genoa midfielder Mikael Ellertsson and Italy international Domenico Berardi.

Caleb Ekuban tapped home Genoa’s winner with six minutes remaining in front of a typically passionate crowd at the Stadio Luigi Ferraris, who watched their team move nine points away from the relegation zone in 13th.

The post Inter close in on Serie A title after comeback triumph at Como appeared first on Vanguard News.

Hungary’s Viktor Orban, who conceded defeat to his rival in parliamentary elections on Sunday, was for 16 years a dominant and divisive figure who constantly tweaked his country’s political system during his time in power.

But the self-styled “illiberal” politician saw his tight grip on power gradually weaken from 2024 when Peter Magyar, 45, a former government insider burst on to the scene.

The 62-year-old nationalist was a close ally of US President Donald Trump, China and Russia, but a thorn in the side of the European Union establishment.

Leading a central European country of just 9.5 million people, Orban cultivated an international reputation as a staunch opponent of immigration, LGBTQ rights and the West’s support for Ukraine against Russia’s invasion.

He stood out among European political leaders “as someone different,” Emilia Palonen, associate professor at the University of Helsinki told AFP.

“Illiberal political leaders look up to him as a role model, who has made it, managed to take power,” she added.

– Learning from his mistakes –

Orban became a household name during the dying days of communism in 1989 with a fiery speech demanding democracy and the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

He was one of “new” Europe’s brightest stars, becoming a lawmaker in freshly democratic and optimistic Hungary in 1990.

But he soon shed his image as a radical liberal and began moulding the Fidesz party he co-founded into a new conservative force preaching family and Christian values.

The move paid off, and with Orban developing a rare knack for connecting with ordinary voters, he became prime minister in 1998 at just 35.

His first period in office was rocky, resulting in a humiliating loss against the Socialists in 2002 and again in 2006.

He bounced back, older and savvier in 2010.

“The left was deeply unpopular back then, and, combined with the global economic downturn, this gave him a really fertile ground for a political shift,” Palonen said.

Armed with a two-thirds majority in parliament, Orban implemented a root-and-branch reform of Hungarian state institutions and introduced a new constitution steeped in conservative values.

“He has learned from his first term mistakes. He was able to push through sweeping changes rapidly, cementing his power,” Palonen added.

– Orban system –

Orban began remaking Hungary’s institutions, building a system he dubbed the “illiberal state” in 2014.

“He managed to build up the political system around himself,” political scientist Attila Gyulai from the ELTE University’s Centre for Social Sciences told AFP.

“All policy issues, ideological preferences, socio-cultural perceptions culminate in one referendum-like question: do you want Viktor Orban? Yes or no?”

Orban’s detractors repeatedly accused him of undercutting the independence of the judiciary and academic freedom, muzzling the press and curtailing civil rights, generating clashes with the European Union.

Orban turned this to his advantage, running multimedia campaigns around his tussles with “Brussels”, portraying himself as the protector of national interests.

His governing Fidesz-KDNP coalition was re-elected with thumping majorities in the past three elections.

Long part of the EU’s largest political family, the European People’s Party (EPP) and Fidesz split in 2021.

The following year, the EU suspended billions of euros of funding earmarked for Hungary over corruption and rule of law concerns.

Although Orban’s government undertook reforms that allowed some funds to be unblocked, billions of euros remain frozen.

– Wearing out –

After his 2022 electoral victory, Orban positioned himself as a geopolitical player, nurturing close ties with Trump, hard-right leaders and eastern autocracies.

Just last week, US Vice President JD Vance visited Hungary to rally together with Orban, who Trump  described as a “truly strong and powerful leader”.

Orban’s government also spent taxpayers’ money lavishly to promote his political model.

He used Hungary’s six-month EU presidency in 2024 to undertake a self-styled peace mission to Moscow, infuriating fellow European leaders.

But even as similar leaders rose to power around the globe, Orban’s domestic authority waned against a backdrop of economic stagnation, scandal and the emergence of the charismatic Peter Magyar.

His authority also took a hit as record numbers attended the Budapest Pride march he sought to ban.

“All of Orban’s domestic and foreign policy since 2010 were about changing the prevailing liberal values and political logic in Hungary, and beyond,” political scientist Gyulai said.

“He certainly succeeded on leaving his mark,” he added, pointing to the EU’s hardening line on migration.

“But he acted as a battering ram” so he could be the one who “wears out first,” he said.

In the end, his focus on foreign policy and networks at the expense of domestic affairs cost him dearly.

“Orban’s focus on external alliances, particularly his ostentatious closeness to Trump and Vance” was “less effective,” according to Bulcsu Hunyadi, an anayst with Political Capital.

Vanguard News

The post Hungary votes out prime minister Viktor Orbán after 16 years in power appeared first on Vanguard News.

By Efe Onodjae

The Lagos State Police have begun an investigation into the shooting of Adedipe Adeyinkan, popularly known as “Agali,” which occurred on April 11, 2026, at about 11:30 p.m. on National Stadium Bridge, inward Iponri.

In a late-night post on its official X page, the Lagos State Police Command stated that investigations had commenced following the reported shooting.

The post read: “The Command is aware of the shooting incident involving Adedipe Adeyinkan, popularly known as ‘Agali,’ which occurred on April 11, 2026, at about 11:30 p.m. on National Stadium Bridge inward Iponri. The victim was rushed to Mainland General Hospital, Yaba, where he was confirmed dead.
“Investigation is ongoing to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the incident.”
Earlier on Saturday, our correspondent witnessed a white car and a black car at the scene, which appeared to be surrounded by uniformed police officers, although the scene initially suggested an accident. This was at about 11:52 p.m.
While the police did not provide further details, reports circulating on social media platforms alleged that the deceased was a prominent figure within the Buccaneers confraternity in the Surulere axis.

The post Police begin investigation into killing of Agali in Lagos appeared first on Vanguard News.