Columns
What Tinubu wants, he gets! Let him have his yacht, but let Nigerians breathe
By Sunny Igboanugo
It should be obvious by now even to the dumbest that Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the Asiwaju of Lagos, and the Jagaban Borgu, has conquered Nigeria. The country is virtually in his vice grip and there is very little anyone could do about it.
Like the conquered soldier at the mercy of a superior force, the only thing left is to beg him to take it easy and pity the people. Don’t even bother to contest the fact or contemplate how he did it. Not that Nigerians did not fight, but the forces were just too much – dark forces, some might add. So, what to do? Just flow with the fact that he won the battle, if not the war – his own way.
In the run-up to the 2023 presidential election, his footsoldiers on many platforms, never minced words in telling naysayers to get prepared for the inevitability of his presidency. “Tinubu will be your President for the next eight years, you better get used to it,” they chorused as their usual mantra always. They never provided any lead as to how, but they were sure – dead sure.
Today, that declaration, or is it prophesy, has come to pass. Tinubu is President. And if it is further stretched, he would not only be for four years, but eight, as predicted by his people. Incidentally, it did not only happen, but in the most dramatic and audacious way that forcefully put a stamp of finality on it.
It is needless to state the trajectory that led to this outcome, except to emphasise the fact that the somewhat strange outcome is a reflection an African phenomenon or third world sickness – the reason countries like Zimbabwe contended with Robert Mugabe for donkey years and Cameroon is dealing with Paul Biya, Togo, the Eyedemas, and Uganda, Yuweri Musaveni.
In fact, was it not a notorious fact that out of the three major candidates, Tinubu was the only one who neither granted media interviews, addressed media conferences nor even participated in the public debates organised by different media houses and other groups. Such were either declared unnecessary or enemy territories, but yet, prevailed?
Even at rallies organised by the All Progressives Congress (APC), the ruling party, which he served as National Leader alongside then President, Muhammadu Buhari, or other forums his campaign organisation put up for him, his performances were more or less underwhelming – punctuated or decked in incoherenct expressions that provided a source of entertainment for many Nigerians and weapons of attack by his opponents rather than outlining any meaningful roadmap.
Again, Tinubu was the only one among the leading candidates that his persona was steeped in controversy. From his personal data to academic records, everything about him was all questioned both in Nigeria and even elsewhere including the United States. Yet, he seemed unperturbed. Yet, he still won the election at the end of the day, or more appropriately, declared the winner of the February 25 election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the winner.
How did he win? Many people, especially his opponents and their supporters, believe his victory was man-made. To them, if INEC had kept its words to conduct the election by substantial electronic means, he would not have had any chance at all. In fact they believe he would have been struggling in the third position if that had happened.
Instead, on the day of the election, a certain glitch a la INEC became the hand of the devil that put paid to the entire show. INEC server simply went caput, surprisingly for the presidential result alone as both the House of Representatives and the Senate that represented the National Assembly polls, were seamlessly uploaded into the server.
The election process over, matters were referred to the courts, where the opponents had hoped to upturn the entire show of shame, as some people labelled it. But that was a no-go area also. Strangely, the courts, either the Court of Appeal, Abuja, acting as the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT), or the Supreme Court, rather than delve into the issues raised, resolved all of them in favour of Tinubu and INEC.
Even the question of the deposition at the US District Court in Illinois, Chicago, with which Atiku Abubakar, Presidential Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was sure he would finally nail the President, was discountenanced. The Supreme Court simply threw everything into the dustbin on the ground of technicality.
With all the obstacles, daunting as they appeared initially giving way, it is now all clear for the President. Nigeria is firmly in his hand. Whether he got it through the hands of men or everything was ordained by God, nothing seems to matter at this point. The Tinubu Presidency would be there for the next four years at least and ceteris paribus – all things being equal – till 2031, as it is not likely that he would allow himself to suffer the fate of former President Goodluck Jonathan, the only one alive that did not complete his term.
Who even knows? He might even be another Paul Biya. If all the obstacles that piled up against him, a fraction which would have ended the career of even the most powerful nations of the world with the littlest adherence to the democratic decency failed to stop him, who says he could not beat the records of former President, Olusegun Obasanjo, said to have attempted a third term to prevail and even become a life-President, if he wished.
Now, what does this suggest? It simply points to the fact that whatever Tinubu sets his mind on, that he gets. Is it not evident that he neither needs the opinions of Nigerians, particularly those speaking up against his current moves to get by? Besides, it is unlikely, if not impossible for any of his admirers in the APC or elsewhere to oppose his deeds or complain about them.
So, having been handed a fait accompli, of what use would be the complaint about how he decides to share the booty of his capture of power? Is it not obvious from his conducts that he feels no obligations to Nigerians in general but to those on whose back he rode to power? Do his appointments not speak to his mindset? Do they reflect a mindset of a leader inured to public sentiments or reflect any recourse to national ethos, character or constitutionality that forbids any form of nepotism? Who are the people at the Presidential Villa today?
If Tinubu could look Nigerians in the face and continue with the one-sided appointments he has been making since he came into office, despite the grumbles around the country, what then is the use of the continued outcries, about his supposed profligacy? Yes! Even the likes of Asari Dokubo, who had been threatening thunder, brimstone and blood-flow against anyone opposing him has joined in the complaints about the uneven appointments. Before him, were elements from the South West, who believe that everything is being concentrated in the hands of the now ubiquitous Lagos Boys. But of what use?
Like Louis Xiv, king of France, who was quoted as declaring, I’m the state, when would it occur to Nigerians that this is exactly what they are dealing with now? Nigerian President is Nigeria. The only President, Goodluck Jonathan that tried to deviate from the norm, paid dearly for it. So, what is the hullaballoo about the President gifting his empire N6billion or making available N1.6billion for cars for his dear wife or the so-called N5billion yacht?
Option A4, occupies a central place in Nigeria’s democratic development. That unique election model developed and introduced in the Nigerian electoral process by Humphrey Nwosu, the late Professor of Political Science, has become a symbol mounted on a standard and raised high above the sky.
It is Nigeria’s mimic of that biblical golden serpent to which both the nation and its citizens look up at and derive instant succour – much like a balm to their heavily-lacerated democratic soul – a wonder device, that once mesmerised the world.
Yes! Anytime Nigerians want to serenade their democratic spirit with the allure of sweetness, they take a recourse to that unique event that happened more than three decades ago, on June 12, 1993. They reminisce on the purity of the process and beauty of the outcome.
Like the saying that precious things come in simple packages, Option A4, was not only as simple as simplicity itself, but was as powerful as the most impactive dynamite – simple enough to break all barriers of ignorance and powerful enough to destroy all electoral bad behaviours defacing the beautiful perspective of democracy.
Here is the process. Voters converge on a location at approved time, get accredited, queue behind preferred candidates, get counted and the votes recorded in approved result sheets. Finish! No ballot-snatching, no ballot-stuffing, no quarrel, no thuggery, no blood on the floor.
Even the issue of proper voting that lead to void votes is eradicated by the process. The electorates need no education on how to vote properly. The issue of thumb-printing in the wrong space or double-voting is taken care of.
Today, in Nigeria, June 12 is designated as Democracy Day, based on the outcome of that election. It was so seamless and produced such a perfect result that the product – Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola was never challenged on the inviolability, but on the other ideas the military government in power then had.
But did you see the same Option A4 put to test under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu? Did you watch the primaries of the All Progressive Congress (APC), at various stages, including the one that produced the President as candidate of the party in the 2027 presidential election? If you did, you would understand where your country is currently and where it is headed.
How could anyone have the mindset to deface such a beauty, let alone design a mechanism to destroy it, given its centrality as the bastion of Nigerian democratic commemorations? How could anyone be so wicked as to destroy the most beautiful Nigerian democratic ornament?
It is like pulling the original of Monalisa or the best of Bini Bronze from their protective encasements and smashing them on the floor. It takes a mindset that has scant regard for beauty – a destructive spirit to do so.
But see how easily they did it! See how simple it was for them. It was as easy as jumping from 10 to 1,000 in a simple counting process a primary school child could do.
Did you see the smiles on their faces to indicate how much fun they had supervising the putrid, outlandish and parlous construct – like the lurid expression of a rapist seeking to satiate his lust? Clearly, it did not matter to them the danger they’re putting themselves and future generations – comprising their children and grandchildren, Tragedy!
But what is it that Tinubu and his co-travellers have not destroyed since happening on Nigeria? What pain have they not wrought on the polity? Is it the economy? Think of those rich Nigerians alighting from their fancy cars and jumping into the Lagos Lagoon.
Is it security? Reminisce on the last moments of General Sani Uba, as he watched the approach of the terrorists while crouching on his knees in the forest, having lost the vain hope that his country would save him.
Think of the Oyo school teacher in that final moment as he waited for the impact of that sharp knife on his bare throat, while being slaughtered like a goat at the abattoir. Think of Zamfara, think of Sokoto, think of Kwara, think of Anambra – add to the list – think Nigeria.
Yet, the APC foot-soldiers – including a Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives – a leader in the legislature – the most important institution of democracy – clowned, jested and had fun.
For them, the rest of the country doesn’t matter. All that matters is Tinubu’s happiness. And the master-strategist, the democratic doyen, the June 12-NADECO icon, was all and about, grinning from ear to ear and lapping everything up.
With economy destroyed from day-one with the impulsive, brainwave – subsidy is gone declaration – with security in tatters that school children, now scurry and scamper in different directions like scared rodents, at the slightest sight of strange faces for fear of being the next kidnap victims – with the national fibric almost giving way from the consistent and unrelenting pressure in running the most nepotistic administration – far worse than the days of the late Muhammadu Buhari, thought to be the worst at a time – what else remains of Nigeria?
Before now, I had grieved that Tinubu deliberately left out Humphery Nwosu in that outlandish June 12 struggle honourees list, when he ought to be the numero uno. I had hoped however that someday, someone more amenable than Tinubu would do the needful. But what hope is there now that Tinubu and his men are tightening the noose on Nigerian democracy? Now this!
The worst part is not that the APC goons committed this heinous atrocity, but in the manner they did. They enjoyed the process. Only mindless characters such as mafia kingpins we watch in movies, take pleasure in inflicting pains. That we now watch such playing out in real life is not only disturbing, it is THE TRAGEDY!
My name is Sunny Igboanugo, I’m The Tiny Voice!
I will always refer to the encounter I once had with Kenneth Idiodi. He was then the leader of the Rosicrucian Society in Nigeria, otherwise known as Amok. It was a sit-down at Zodiac Hotel Enugu. Then, I was the reporter of The Guardian in the Coal City.
You know the Amok faith bases its philosophy or belief on the law of Retributive Justice – the law of Karma. That is to say, everything you do in life has its rewards or punishment in equal measure – much like the measure you give, the measure you receive.
I don’t know how much this society draws or links this belief from or with the Bible, but I do recall Jesus Christ warning Simon Peter – return your sword to the scabbard – for he who kills by the sword, dies by the sword.
As a child growing up I listened to one of the epics of Oriental Brothers with the lyrics – ogbu mma ga-esi n’mma na, ogba egbe ga-esi n’egbe na ooo! Translated – he who kills by the sword will die by the sword, he who kills by the gun will die by the nozzle of the gun.
Now, here is where this is relevant in present Nigerian reality – the reason I’m putting details of that encounter out publicly once again, having done so previously.
During that encounter, Idiodi used one event in Nigeria to illustrate his point. He told me of a Nigerian leader who commanded the troop that carried out the Asaba massacre in the heat of the Nigerian civil war – an episode, said to have claimed over 2,000 able-bodied men who had come out to welcome the Nigerian soldiers with songs and dances only to fall in the hail of bullets that descended on them like rainstorms – was not spared by fate.
That commander was to meet his own death in a hail of bullets even as a Head of State. He never mentioned the name of the military top brass. But I used my tongue to count my teeth to come to the answer. You could also do same – use your tongue.
Now, how does this relate? You may have followed the outing of General Yakubu Gowon at the Bola Ahmed Tinubu International Conference Centre, Abuja, where he presented his autobiography titled: My Life of Duty and Allegiance, that contained what seemed his memoir on the Nigerian civil war, which he prosecuted as Head of State.
I’m sure you must have been observing the debate therefrom that event. Now, I’m not so much enamoured of the debate as I’m of the nuances surrounding that unfortunate episode and the role of Gowon in it, given my takeaway from that Idiodi encounter some two decades ago.
Does Gowon, now a nonagenarian really believe that presenting a pious, if not saintly account of himself to the world as snippets of his book, which I picked up here and there suggests, truly suffices for the atrocities of that period?
Take the Asaba massacre for example. Was that the handiwork of Odumegwu Ojukwu, the Biafran leader, whom the former Head of State seems to blame for everything that went wrong. Was he also the one that commanded that mass slaughtering of innocent men?
Under your nose as Head of State, you watched citizens slaughtered mercilessly like infested herds in the streets – you watched young girls corralled into leprosy colonies and wantonly raped before being wasted – you watched as train coaches bearing people fleeing the scene were stopped and their human cargoes thrown alive into River Benue like rotten goods for fishes to feast on – you watched all these and didn’t lift a finger.
Then as Head of State, you not only supervised but watched millions of children with distended stomachs, tiny feet, glazy eyes, heavy heads on ropelike necks, practically begging for death to come quickly and save them from further punishment.
You supervised and watched the cataclysmic eruptions from the blitzkrieg on churches, markets and hospitals – all to keep Nigeria together. In your mind the brutal and merciless butchery of innocent people who were not soldiers and had nothing to do with the war could be explained away just like that?
O! It was Ojukwu that caused it. Ojukwu was the one who released the bombs, caused the blockades that led to the kwashiorkor that killed millions or other atrocities thereof? What a pity!
Now, I return to Idiodi. How else could anyone interpret today’s Nigeria without introducing the law of retributive justice that the Amok leader spoke of? How do you fault the link of the commander who massacred over 2,000 souls dying by the barrel of the same gun, even as Head of State?
How could anyone fail to relate what is happening to our Gowon today with the past? This is a Geneal that wakes up to see hundreds of his brothers and sisters being buried in mass graves as was done during the onslaught he supervised against another people and he still thinks it has nothing to do with him?
Now, the story you told at that event in Abuja on Tuesday, is not new. You simply repeated yourself. My interpretation of that event is that you’re a man undergoing daily torture. You wouldn’t be a human being otherwise, given what is before you, which didn’t start today.
You’re probably trying to escape your fate by appealing to public sympathy. How helpful could that be in the face of the clear evidence of your culpability in the deliberate wasting of more than three million souls? Nobody would believe you.
Yes! They could humour you. But that’s the best anyone could do for you. I hear money rained like a fountain and that you left the scene with billions of naira in your kitty. At 90? Haba General!
Now, here is the thing General. None of these would help.
None would work. You have tried prayers. But you forget that the prayer of sinner is an abomination and a reproach before God, unless he repents. You have also written the book. Surely, this too would end up in the trashcan of history – meaningless piece of conjectures, propaganda, half-truths and outright lies – perhaps!
But, why don’t you try the one thing you have been running away from, for more than five decades – go on your knees in total supplication and surrender, repentance and penance – then rise, call all Nigerians and empty yourself with the truth.
Thereafter openly apologise to the millions of souls whose tormenting wailing you probably hear every day during your disturbed sleep and in your quiet moments, but choose to suppress with these baby tales. Ask them for forgiveness, genuinely and see. There may lie the answer you seek.
Try that and see if it wouldn’t be a more efficacious cure for this decades-old wound than this Ojukwu-bashing and those wasted prayer sessions. You might not only have atoned for the past, but saved the future. May God guide you.
My name is Sunny Igboanugo, I’m The Tiny Voice
By MAX AMUCHIE | The Sunday Stew
In the last two weeks, Parts One and Two diagnosed a structural mutation in the Nigerian state: a dual sovereignty system in which the Institutional Mirage performs authority while the Shadow Order exercises it, sustained by The Insecurity Triad as a mechanism of mutual reproduction.
What remains is the hardest question in political theory: not what is happening, but whether it can be reversed.
The answer is yes—but not through reform.
Systems that reproduce decay cannot be repaired within their own logic. They must be structurally interrupted.
The Trinity does not collapse. It is displaced.
From Ritual Governance to Peripheral Presence
The first reversal targets the geography of illusion.
The Institutional Mirage is concentrated in the symbolic centre—where governance is performed through summits, communiqués, and administrative ceremony—while dissolving at the periphery where authority is actually tested.
This produces a distorted state: visible in Abuja, absent in the borderlands.
To reverse the Trinity, the state must abandon Ritual Governance—the substitution of performance for presence—and return to the empirical occupation of territory.
This is not military occupation. It is administrative presence as sovereignty.
A state exists not when it speaks in the capital, but when:
a child attends a functioning school without paying a parallel tax of fear;
a farmer harvests without negotiating with non-state authority;
a dispute is resolved by a recognised court faster than an armed intermediary.
Governance is not restored by declaration. It is restored by continuity.
Where state presence becomes routine, the Shadow loses its monopoly on predictability.
From Pacification Bargaining to Sovereign Integrity
The second reversal confronts a deeper failure: negotiated sovereignty.
The state has increasingly drifted into a system of Negotiated Sovereignty sustained through what may be described as Pacification Bargaining—the purchase of temporary calm from rival authority structures through ransom logic, amnesty arrangements, protection payments, or informal accommodation.
This is not strategy. It is dependency disguised as pragmatism.
Every bargain strengthens The Insecurity Triad by:
monetising abduction economies;
legitimising territorial extraction;
reinforcing the Shadow’s role as a negotiating sovereign.
The result is a system of self-financing violence in which each concession funds the next cycle of coercion.
Pacification Bargaining does not resolve insecurity. It institutionalises it.
Each transaction deepens the perception that coercion is profitable, territorial pressure is negotiable, and sovereign authority is conditional rather than absolute.
Sovereign recovery therefore requires rupture in this economy.
The state must reassert a non-negotiable monopoly over:
taxation;
adjudication;
legitimate force.
Integrity, in this context, is not moral posture. It is institutional refusal to participate in markets of coercion.
A state that bargains over its coercive authority is not managing insecurity—it is outsourcing sovereignty.
The Critical Break: Dismantling the Insecurity Triad
To dismantle The Insecurity Triad is to break the loop between performed sovereignty and enforced sovereignty.
This cannot be achieved through security operations alone, though coercive force remains an essential and non-negotiable instrument of restoring empirical sovereignty. It requires something deeper: the reconstruction of institutional credibility in the very spaces the Institutional Mirage has abandoned.
It requires the state to stop performing governance and start delivering it. To stop negotiating the terms of its own authority and start enforcing them.
To recover the map—not in abstraction, but in detail: name by name, community by community—that armed actors are actively redrawing through coercion, taxation, and enforced renaming.
Dismantling the Triad is therefore not only a security task. It is a reversal of political geography itself.
The Cartographic Re-occupation of the Republic
The Shadow Order does not only occupy land. It reorganises meaning.
Through what may be understood as Constitutional Erasure, it renames territories, restructures local identity, and replaces the symbolic map through which authority is recognised.
Once this occurs, sovereignty is no longer contested physically alone—it is contested cognitively.
Cartographic Re-occupation is therefore not symbolic politics. It is structural restoration.
It requires three coordinated acts.
First, administrative re-anchoring: the immediate restoration of functioning institutions—schools, clinics, courts, and local administration—under continuous state presence.
Second, symbolic restoration: the reassertion of original geographic and civic identities through formal public renaming and constitutional recognition.
Third, cognitive consolidation: governance must cease to appear as intervention and become the default condition of life.
The state is not restored when it returns to territory. It is restored when territory returns to the state’s cognitive map.
Intellectual Closure: The State After Fragmentation
The deeper insight of this architecture is that sovereignty in Nigeria is no longer singular.
What has emerged is a fragmented order in which authority is distributed between competing logics of governance—one performed, one enforced, both partially functional, neither complete.
This is where African political thought clarifies the structure beneath the surface.
The logic of adaptive survival described by Jean-François Bayart explains why the state persists even as it weakens. Achille Mbembe explains how survival itself becomes managed rather than guaranteed.
Together, they clarify the central claim of the Trinity: this is not collapse. It is reorganisation.
Closing Movement
Nigeria does not face a singular collapse of authority. It faces a structured competition between performed sovereignty and functional sovereignty.
The Mirage still speaks in the language of the state.
The Shadow still governs in the language of necessity.
Between them, society survives by navigating two competing logics of order.
The question is no longer who governs.
It is whether governance itself can be reassembled into a single coherent structure.
The Reversal Condition: Sequential Sovereignty Restoration
The Trinity is reversible, but only in sequence.
Protection must be restored before compliance can shift.
Compliance must shift before territorial credibility stabilises.
Territorial credibility must stabilise before institutional authority can move from performance to function.
Any inversion of this order produces relapse.
The system is not resistant to reform. It is resistant to mis-sequencing.
The Trinity reverses only when sovereignty becomes empirically enforceable again through the sequential reconstitution of protection, compliance, and territorial credibility, thereby disrupting the mutual reproduction loop between the Institutional Mirage and the Shadow Order sustained by The Insecurity Triad.
Where this sequence fails, the loop does not weaken. It adapts.
The Social Contract Is Not Broken — It Is Being Replaced
There can be no social contract in a state where the sovereign performs authority it does not possess, negotiates with rivals it cannot defeat, and watches—from the polished corridors of Abuja—as the names of its own communities are erased from the landscape it claims to govern.
The conventional framing of Nigeria’s crisis describes a broken social contract: the state has failed its obligations, and the people are paying the price.
That framing is not wrong. But it is insufficient.
A broken contract implies a single agreement that has lapsed—and the possibility, in principle, of renegotiation and restoration.
What the Trinity of State Decay reveals is something more structural.
The social contract is not merely broken. It is being replaced.
In the spaces where the Institutional Mirage does not reach—in the northwest, northeast, and Middle Belt, in renamed villages and abandoned farmlands—a rival contract is being written.
On rival terms. Under rival authority. With rival consequences for those who refuse to sign.
The Shadow Order does not offer freedom. It offers a different captivity—one organised around extraction, fear, and the brutal clarity of power that does not pretend to be something it is not.
Within its own logic, it is internally consistent and therefore predictable.
And in conditions where protection becomes uncertain and uneven, predictability itself begins to function as a substitute for legitimacy—not as consent, but as adaptation under constraint.
The Institutional Mirage, by contrast, sustains a different form of instability: the unpredictability of protection, the inconsistency of enforcement, and the performance of authority that does not reliably translate into outcomes.
It is this asymmetry—between predictable coercion and unpredictable protection—that accelerates the silent transfer of compliance from formal sovereignty to rival order.
Conventional state failure frameworks assume a linear erosion of capacity.
The Trinity departs from this by demonstrating a dual-state condition in which formal and rival sovereignties coexist, interact, and reinforce decay.
Nigeria is not a failed state.
It is a state in the grip of a Trinity.
The Definition
Drawing on the full architecture of the foregoing analysis, I now offer a formulation of the Trinity of State Decay theory:
The Trinity of State Decay is the decoupling of a state into rival sovereignties: the Institutional Mirage, which performs authority without fully possessing it, and the Shadow Order—or competing Shadow Orders—which exercises de facto authority in spaces the Mirage has vacated, both sustained by The Insecurity Triad as the mechanism of their mutual reproduction.
The Trinity intensifies where the Mirage fragments into competing centres of performed authority, accelerating the transfer of empirical sovereignty to rival structures.
The Trinity reverses only when sovereignty becomes empirically enforceable again as a stable condition of governance.
This condition is not defined by the mere presence of the state, but by the alignment of three realities: protection must be enforceable, compliance must orient toward the state, and territorial authority must remain continuous.
Where these diverge, sovereignty fragments.
Where they converge, sovereignty reconstitutes.
Recovery is not repair or return. It is the production of a new equilibrium in which the Mirage collapses into function, the Shadow is displaced, and The Insecurity Triad loses its organising role.
This condition is produced through sequence: protection must precede compliance, compliance must precede territorial credibility, and territorial credibility must precede institutional function. Any inversion produces relapse; where the sequence holds, the loop breaks.
While derived from the Nigerian case, the Trinity offers a generalisable framework for analysing state decay in contexts where formal sovereignty persists alongside entrenched systems of rival governance.
Stay seasoned.
•Concluded
•Dr. Max Amuchie is the CEO of Sundiata Post and architect of The Insecurity Triad Analytical Framework, and the Trinity of State Decay theory. He writes The Sunday Stew, a weekly syndicated column on faith, character, and the forces that shape society, with a focus on Nigeria and Africa in a global context.
X — @MaxAmuchie | Email: max.a@sundiatapost.com | Tel: +234(0)8053069436
-
News4 weeks agoBREAKING: Makinde, Turaki, lose! *S’Court affirms Wike’s PDP leadership
-
News2 weeks agoTinubu to African leaders: Copy Nigeria, produce your way out of poverty
-
News1 week agoBREAKING: US-Nigeria troops slaughter 175 ISWAP fighters
-
Features4 weeks agoJim Nwobodo: The Sun shines, thrills, at ‘The Vanguard Awards’
-
Columns4 days agoDear General Gowon: That apology you’re running from is your nemesis
-
News2 weeks agoWhy we pegged presidential ticket forms at N60million – NDC
-
News2 weeks agoGowon on civil war: My book is to put records straight, remove falsehood
-
News2 weeks agoBREAKING! Coast brightens for Obi, as NDC zones presidency to South