Atiku Abubakar Calls for Urgent Restructuring, Signals Political Shift Atiku Abubakar, former Vice President of Nigeria and the 2023 presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has reiterated the urgent need for restructuring in Nigeria. Speaking at a coalition meeting in Yola, he emphasized that restructuring is essential for the nation’s stability and democracy to thrive. Atiku expressed deep concerns about the country’s trajectory, warning that failure to implement necessary reforms could leave future generations feeling alienated in their homeland. He urged political leaders and citizens alike to take decisive action to prevent further national decline. Hints at a Major Political Announcement During his address, Atiku subtly indicated that he might be making a significant political declaration soon. While he refrained from providing details, he assured Nigerians that he would soon break his silence on critical national matters. His remarks have sparked speculation about a potential new political movement or candidacy ahead of the next election cycle. Political Support and Cross-Party Influence The gathering witnessed attendance from influential politicians across party lines, including Senator Ishaku Abbo. Abbo reaffirmed Atiku’s leadership, emphasizing that his influence extends beyond partisan affiliations. He also praised Atiku’s tenure as Vice President, highlighting his commitment to democratic principles and governance reforms. Notably, representatives from all 21 local government areas in Adamawa State were present, including members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) affiliated with Senator Aishatu Binani, the party’s 2023 governorship candidate. This cross-party attendance underscores Atiku’s enduring political relevance and the widespread support for restructuring. The Road Ahead for Nigeria’s Political Landscape As Nigeria grapples with economic and governance challenges, Atiku’s call for restructuring reignites the national debate on federalism and equitable resource distribution. His potential political move could reshape the country’s political dynamics ahead of the next elections. For further insights into Nigeria’s restructuring discourse, read this comprehensive analysis from a reputable think tank. READ ALSO: Follow the LMSINT MEDIA channel on WhatsApp: Join Our WhatsApp Group Hear: Chat on WhatsApp Join our Telegram Channel
PANDEF Condemns Politicization of Allegations The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has firmly opposed demands for the resignation of Senate President Godswill Akpabio following sexual harassment allegations leveled against him by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. Meanwhile, the Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) has criticized the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), accusing it of politicizing the controversy. CAN Calls for Mediation, Rejects Premature Resignation Demands Speaking on behalf of CAN in the 19 Northern states and the Federal Capital Territory, Rev. Joseph Hayab described the dispute as “regrettable and embarrassing.” He urged respected national elders to intervene to uphold the credibility of the National Assembly. “There is an urgent need for mediation. Akpabio and Natasha both have figures they hold in high regard. It is crucial that members of the National Assembly take responsibility in managing this issue professionally,” CAN stated during a media session in Kaduna. The religious body dismissed calls for Akpabio’s resignation, describing them as unwarranted and lacking merit due to the absence of concrete evidence against him. “Groups demanding Akpabio’s resignation should reconsider, as no conclusive proof has been established against him. It is essential to address sexual harassment allegations with seriousness but also fairness and impartiality,” CAN emphasized. CAN further urged media organizations to exercise caution in their reportage, warning that sensationalism could deepen national divisions along gender and regional lines. Additionally, the association advised political actors to remain focused on governance, highlighting the importance of the timely passage of the 2025 national budget. PANDEF Criticizes ACF for Politicizing the Allegations In a separate statement, PANDEF strongly criticized the ACF, accusing it of leveraging the allegations for political purposes aimed at discrediting Southern leaders and positioning Northern Nigeria for the 2027 elections. PANDEF National Publicity Secretary, Dr. Obiuwevbi Ominimini, condemned the ACF’s claims of bias against Northern senators, asserting that they were intended to stoke regional tensions and weaken President Bola Tinubu’s government. “The ACF’s press release is a direct political attack on Southern Nigeria. Their assertion that only Northern senators are being suspended, and their call for Northern senators to unite against perceived bias, is an outright threat to national unity,” Ominimini stated. He recalled that during the 8th Senate, a Southern senator was suspended under a Northern Senate President, yet PANDEF refrained from interfering in legislative matters. “The Senate operates by a set of rules and procedures. Suspensions and disciplinary actions are standard legislative processes. Any aggrieved party has legal options to challenge decisions. However, the ACF’s actions amount to a divisive maneuver that threatens national stability,” PANDEF declared. The group further rejected what it termed an attempt to promote an “anti-Arewa” narrative and called on security agencies to interrogate ACF National Publicity Secretary, Prof. T. A. Muhammad-Baba, over comments it considered inciting. With CAN advocating for restraint and PANDEF opposing political interference, the allegations against Akpabio continue to fuel national discourse, raising concerns about governance, unity, and political maneuvering within the legislature. Reputable News Source READ ALSO: Follow the LMSINT MEDIA channel on WhatsApp: Join Our WhatsApp Group Hear: Chat on WhatsApp Join our Telegram Channel
Kindly Share:
A Growing Trend: Five Institutions Now Bear Tinubu’s Name The recent decision to name a newly built army barracks in Asokoro, Abuja, after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has fueled criticism, adding to the growing list of institutions renamed in his honor since his inauguration in May 2023. The Bola Ahmed Tinubu Barracks, inaugurated on January 23, 2025, is the latest in a series of naming decisions. Just before that, the federal government approved the Bola Ahmed Tinubu Polytechnic in Gwarinpa, Abuja, aimed at advancing vocational, technological, and entrepreneurial education. This pattern started in March 2024 when the Niger State Government renamed Abubakar Imam International Airport in Minna to Bola Ahmed Tinubu International Airport. The move was met with strong opposition, especially from residents of Rafi Local Government Area, where the late Abubakar Imam Kagara hailed from. The controversy was heightened by the fact that the airport had only recently been named after Kagara in June 2023 to honor his contributions to Nigeria’s literary and political history. In May 2024, the National Assembly Library and Resource Centre was inaugurated and renamed the Bola Tinubu Building, further cementing the trend. By December 2024, the Nigeria Immigration Service followed suit, naming its new high-tech headquarters after Tinubu, citing his dedication to innovation. Beyond these five institutions, a proposal for a Bola Ahmed Tinubu Federal University of Nigerian Languages in Aba, Abia State, has been introduced in the House of Representatives. If approved, this would add another major institution to the growing list of entities bearing Tinubu’s name. Ethical and Political Concerns Over Institutional Renaming While renaming institutions after prominent leaders is not unusual, the speed and consistency of naming key national facilities after a sitting president have raised ethical questions. Critics argue that this could be politically motivated, aimed at cementing Tinubu’s legacy rather than recognizing contributions based on merit. Historical Context of Military Barracks Naming Traditionally, military barracks have been named after historic battles, military figures, or key locations related to Nigeria’s armed forces. Notably, during President Umar Musa Yar’Adua’s administration, a policy was introduced to reverse the trend of naming military installations after individuals. For instance, Obasanjo Barracks was renamed Mambilla Barracks, Mohammed Buhari Barracks was restored to Lungi Barracks, and Ibrahim Babangida Barracks reverted to Maimalari Barracks. The recent decision to name the Asokoro barracks after Tinubu contradicts these past policies, making it a focal point of controversy. Public Reactions: Calls for Policy Review Civil Society Organizations Weigh In Several civil society organizations have condemned the renaming trend, arguing that it promotes a culture of sycophancy. Seun Onigbinde, co-founder of BudgIT, labeled it an “abuse of norms,” calling on the president to put an end to the practice. Dr. Moses Paul, convener of the Free Nigeria Movement, criticized the decision, asserting that military barracks should be reserved for honoring fallen soldiers who made significant sacrifices for national security. Other activists, including Comrade Ibrahim Zikirullahi of CHRICED, stressed that naming institutions after sitting presidents politicizes public infrastructure. He argued that such honors should be reserved for leaders post-tenure, based on their actual contributions. Political Influence in Lagos and Beyond Tinubu’s strong political influence in Lagos has led to multiple infrastructures bearing his name. These include: While supporters argue that these renamings recognize Tinubu’s impact on Lagos and Nigeria, critics believe they reinforce political dominance and undermine democratic principles. A Call for Legislative Action Given the growing concerns, transparency advocates like Auwal Musa Rafsanjani of Transparency International Nigeria (TI-Nigeria) are pushing for legislation to regulate the renaming of public institutions. He suggests that such decisions should involve broad consultations with civil society groups and the public to prevent political manipulation. Comparing Nigeria’s case with international examples, Rafsanjani pointed out that similar patterns in countries like Zimbabwe, Uganda, and Russia have often led to political instability and weakened democratic institutions. For Nigeria, the debate over naming institutions after Tinubu highlights deeper issues of governance, accountability, and the role of political influence in shaping national symbols. As this trend continues, calls for reform are expected to grow louder. Conclusion: A Growing Debate on Leadership and Legacy While President Tinubu’s administration has not violated any laws in renaming institutions, the widespread criticism indicates that many Nigerians see this practice as ethically questionable. If left unchecked, it could set a precedent where institutions and infrastructures are renamed with every new administration, eroding historical continuity. The question remains: Should public institutions be named after a sitting president, or should such honors be reserved for leaders who have completed their tenure and left an undeniable mark on history? For now, the debate rages on. READ ALSO: Follow the LMSINT MEDIA channel on WhatsApp: Join Our WhatsApp Group Hear: Chat on WhatsApp Join our Telegram Chanel.
Kindly Share:
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has criticized Nigeria’s current leadership, claiming that the country has become a “failed state” due to the policies of his successors, former President Muhammadu Buhari and President Bola Tinubu. He argued that their leadership has led Nigeria into a state of chaos, insecurity, and underdevelopment. Obasanjo made these remarks during a speech at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University in the United States. The forum, which honors the late Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe, hosted Obasanjo’s keynote address titled “Leadership Failure and State Capture in Nigeria,” which was delivered via a pre-recorded video. Although Obasanjo did not directly name the two leaders, he referenced their popular nicknames: “Baba-go-slow” for Buhari and “Emilokan” for Tinubu, both of which have been used by their critics. According to Obasanjo, the situation in Nigeria is dire, marked by widespread corruption and immorality that has worsened the country’s instability, youth unrest, and underdevelopment. He emphasized that the “failed state” status of Nigeria is evident in the consequences of pervasive corruption, incompetence, and injustice. Obasanjo also criticized the Nigerian judiciary, claiming it has been compromised by politicians as part of a larger “state capture.” He argued that the judiciary, once respected internationally, has now become a tool for political manipulation. He pointed out that politicians often encourage their rivals to “go to court” after rigging elections, knowing that they can rely on a compromised judicial system. Obasanjo likened this situation to a cancerous growth that needs to be excised from Nigeria. In addition, Obasanjo spoke about how the political elite continues to exploit the nation’s resources for personal gain. He criticized the practice of acquiring national assets at below-market prices and allocating resources to local, regional, and international interests. He also mentioned the continued control of some states by former governors, such as one who, despite leaving office 25 years ago, still holds significant influence in his state. Obasanjo and Tinubu have a long history of political rivalry, which began during Obasanjo’s presidency when Tinubu was the governor of Lagos State. Their political animosity continued, with Obasanjo’s party failing to unseat Tinubu in the 2003 elections. The only time they aligned politically was in 2015 when they worked together to oppose the re-election of President Goodluck Jonathan. Finally, Obasanjo condemned Nigerian politicians for exploiting the country’s widespread poverty and hunger, using “stomach infrastructure” tactics—distributing food and gifts to the poor in exchange for votes. He noted that such practices, funded by looted public funds, take advantage of vulnerable citizens rather than offering real solutions to their long-term problems. In summary, Obasanjo painted a grim picture of Nigeria’s political landscape, accusing its leaders of corruption, state capture, and neglect of the country’s development needs. READ ALSO:
