Opinion

Why Nigeria and others must not sign the LGBT agreement

Published

3 years ago

November 14, 2023

Sonnie Ekwowusi

Why Nigeria and others must not sign the LGBT agreement

NOVEMBER 15, 2023, might be a tragic day for Africa and the entire Caribbean and Pacific region. It is the day set aside by the European Union (EU) to pressure or coax African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries into signing the deceptively and euphemistically crafted LGBT agreement between the EU and ACP countries. You may be well aware that over the past few months, several meetings have been convened between the EU and ACP parliamentarians aimed at getting ACP leaders to sign the controversial LGBT agreement. For example, a crucial meeting between the EU and ACP Ministers took place in Brussels on November 28, 2022, to potentially exert greater pressure on ACP Ministers to persuade ACP heads of governments to sign the contentious LGBT agreement. Another meeting with the same objective took place from June 19 to 28, 2023, in Brussels. The aforementioned meetings ended in a deadlock as ACP parliamentarians and leaders vehemently opposed the signing of the LGBT agreement. This is why we are shocked to hear today that November 15 has been scheduled for signing the offensive LGBT agreement. The pertinent questions are: Have ACP heads of government compromised their earlier stance on this matter and now agreed to sign the controversial LGBT agreement? If so, why? Did African leaders consult their respective parliaments and their people before agreeing to sign the agreement? Why is the African media not reporting the LGBT negotiations between the EU and the ACP countries since 2021?

One thing is certain. If the ACP governments succumb to the EU’s intimidation and sign the LGBT agreement, it will spell doom for the ACP countries. Why? Because the agreement is primarily aimed at the homosexualization and LGBTization of ACP countries. This agreement, which takes the form of a treaty, is deceptively and deviously worded to impose the EU’s LGBT agenda on ACP countries. This is why ACP countries must unanimously rise up and resist the signing of this agreement. Why? Because once the agreement is signed, it shall automatically override their Constitutions and national sovereignty of the ACP countries. In contrast to the Monroe Doctrine, Nigeria operates the Dualist doctrine under international law. Consequently, by virtue of section 12 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, a treaty signed by Nigerian political leaders does not have the force of law in Nigeria until it is ratified and domesticated by the National Assembly. However, the LGBT agreement has been so craftily worded that once signed by Nigeria and the ACP countries, the agreement automatically supersedes their respective domestic laws and establishes LGBT as their new law.

READ ALSO:

It is unbelievable that the West has elevated the barbaric act of inserting a penis into the anus or fingers into the vagina as a civilizational value. The anus is meant for waste elimination; waste comes out from the anus. However, today, the West is trying to teach us the opposite. Regrettably, the West is attempting to convince us that engaging in anal intercourse is a form of statecraft that supersedes more important matters.

As far as the EU, the U.S., and many parts of Europe are concerned, any country not endorsing the practice of inserting a penis into the rectum is seen as not fulfilling its international obligations. The LGBT countries may appear as stars that reflect light, yet they are waterless clouds carried away by the winds of eroticism, uprooted and twice dead. They resemble fruitless trees in late autumn or wild waves of the sea, casting off the foams of their vomit in public. What a shame! Where has public shame gone?

For example, U.S. President Joe Biden has made LGBT rights the centerpiece of American foreign policy. This is why Biden has ordered that the American flag be flown alongside the LGBT+ flag, portraying America as an LGBT-friendly country. The US government is now persecuting Uganda for enacting anti-homosexual laws in Uganda. In his recent remarks, Biden has claimed that LGBT rights are universal international law. He does not seem to understand that international law is binding upon the consent of nations. He is unaware that the consensus reached at various United Nations Conferences is that the laws passed in every developing country, including Nigeria and other African nations, must reflect the diverse social, economic, and environmental conditions of the country, while respecting their religious, cultural backgrounds, and philosophical convictions.

Therefore, Nigeria should not sign the LGBT agreement on November 15 or at any other time. The same applies to other African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries. Instead of succumbing to the EU’s veiled intimidation and blackmail to sign the agreement, they should assert their sovereignty and walk out on the EU on November 15. Nigeria is a sovereign country, as are other African nations, the Caribbean, and the Pacific countries. We should not be dictated to by the EU. We are no longer under the tutelage of our former colonial masters. If the EU decides to stop providing financial assistance due to our refusal to sign the LGBT agreement, they may proceed to do so. However, we cannot yield to the EU’s cheap blackmail and sign the agreement. In any case, LGBT practices are illegal in Nigeria, and likely in all African countries except South Africa. The concept of same-sex cohabitation or marriage is abhorrent to Nigerian and African sensibilities. Above all, it represents a complete departure from African civilization.

I have recently participated in a conference in London organized by world-class public intellectuals. Renowned psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson and others who spoke at the conference expressed concern that Western civilization has eroded. Speaker after speaker at the conference lamented that the West has lost its history and culture and emphasized the importance of preserving one’s civilization as a significant investment in this life.

READ ALSO:

In the feverish pursuit of LGBT sexual pleasure and slavish freedom, the West has lost its core values and identity. Should African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries join the West in this madness? No, we must stick to our own values and traditions. It is suicidal to import practices and lifestyles that are alien to Africa and seek to impose them as laws, all in the name of observing international obligations. It is obvious that the EU has no respect for the religious and philosophical convictions of the African and Nigerian people; otherwise, it would not have been stampeding us to sign the LGBT agreement. Come to think of it, the EU lacks the locus standi to seek to impose on African countries aberrations that are alien to the lifestyle of the African people. Laws are made in consonance with the values of a people. Every country is interested in protecting what it holds dear or its cherished values. The EU has no right to dictate to us the kind of laws we should enact for our people. LGBT is not our value. Gay marriage is not our value. Neither is transgenderism our value. If the West is sinking to the bottomless pit of human civilization with LGBT and transgenderism, it should sink alone; it must not seek to sink together with the African, Pacific, or Caribbean countries.

Happily, at the time of writing, Namibia had pulled out and sworn that it will never sign the LGBT agreement. It is not unlikely that other countries will follow suit and pull out from signing the agreement or signal their intentions to refrain from signing the agreement. In refusing to sign the agreement, Namibia said that the agreement is “not in line with the Namibian Constitution, its legal framework, nor its intended relations and cooperation policy.” It also said that the agreement does not have a definition section to ensure that all parties understand the terms of the agreement and what they entail. According to Namibia, the agreement “refers to a commitment to the full and effective implementation of future outcomes of Beijing and ICPD review Conferences that may bind parties to future processes and outcomes that cannot be predicted at the present moment.” Namibia also complains that the agreement “may elevate non-binding agreements/strategies/initiatives, progress, and processes to a legally binding position or treaty status.

Nigeria should follow the good example of Namibia in this regard and refrain from signing the agreement. Other ACP countries should follow suit. The resolve of Namibia to exercise its national sovereignty and refrain from signing the agreement is praiseworthy. To sign the agreement is tantamount to giving the EU a blank check to fill any amount of money it likes on it and cash it in a bank. Namibia is right. The agreement is a Trojan horse. Apart from LGBT, other provisions of the agreement legalize transgenderism, human capital reduction, and queer behaviorism in a country that signs the agreement. By signing the agreement, a country consents that its children should be taught how to practice “safe”-sex, “safe”-abortion; how to do masturbation, kissing, hugging, penis touching, vagina touching, and how to avoid getting pregnant through sterilization, and so forth, all in the name of sex education or Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE). It is obvious that this agreement specifically targets the children of Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific for corruption and destruction. The agreement threatens to undermine the national sovereignty of the Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific countries that are parties to the agreement. It is targeted at overriding their domestic laws and constitutions as well.

READ ALSO:

In the light of the foregoing, the African Parliamentary Forum, in conjunction with African lawyers and some notable African NGOs, organized the first-ever African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty in Entebbe, Uganda last year. The conference’s communique later gave birth to what has been christened as the Entebbe Declaration. The Entebbe Declaration has not only unequivocally rejected the LGBT agreement but has also urged the ACP governments not to sign it. Annex 1 of the Declaration states as follows: “WHEREAS the ACP-EU treaty’s supremacy clause invalidates provisions in any existing treaty with which it conflicts, thereby also violating the national sovereignty of countries and the integrity of regional and sub-regional bodies, including the African Union and the integration of regional economic communities. WHEREAS the ACP-EU treaty violates cultural and religious values and undermines the integrity of African family values by mandating the implementation of sexual and reproductive health services and “Sexual and reproductive health and rights” (SRHR), deceptively requiring the legalization of abortion, prostitution, same-sex marriage, special LGBT “rights,” and child sexualization. THEREFORE, we collectively urge all heads of African ACP States not to sign the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and urge their respective parliaments and legislatures, which are the national law-making bodies of African States, to refuse to ratify this deceptive treaty.”

In conclusion, the EU should leave ACP countries alone in this LGBT matter. Life is about living and letting live. The EU should allow ACP countries to make their own decisions. Practices like LGBT lifestyles cannot be referred to as “human rights”; otherwise, deviant behaviors such as embezzlement of public funds, graft, scams, murder, theft, terrorist attacks, human trafficking, and so forth could also be referred to as “human rights.” You may be aware that as far back as June 29, 2016, the prestigious and highly esteemed European Court of Human Rights, sitting in Strasbourg, France, delivered a historic and unimpeachable judgment that LGBTQ+ is not a human right. The court, which is the highest court in Europe, held that “marriages” entered into by people of the same sex cannot be considered as marriages. As important as this judgment is, the liberal media, such as pro-gay CNN or pro-gay BBC, and others refused to report it.

Therefore, following the good example of Namibia, Nigeria, and the other ACP countries, we must not sign the LGBT agreement. The truth remains that when democracies lose their constituting philosophical and legal principles—when wrongs are described as “rights,” and the tools of law are deployed to do and justify evil—democracies metamorphose into LGBT totalitarianism.

***Sonnie Ekwowusi is the chairman, Human & Constitutional Rights Committee, African Bar Association.

Why Nigeria and others must not sign the LGBT agreement

Opinion

2027: Tinubu May Get Less Than 10% of Northern Votes — Ard

Published

6 hours ago

September 7, 2026

Hamdalat Bisiriyu

President Bola Tinubu could suffer a dramatic collapse in his Northern support in the 2027 presidential election, securing less than 10 per cent of votes from the region if the poll is free and credible, Convener of the League of Northern Democrats and key promoter of the All-Democratic Alliance (ADA), Dr Umar Ardo, has predicted.

Ardo made the prediction on Monday in an interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State, arguing that the outcome would largely reflect how Northern voters assess the Tinubu administration’s performance.

He identified insecurity, worsening poverty, economic hardship and the rising cost of living as major issues likely to influence voting decisions in the region.

According to him, the persistent insecurity affecting communities, farmers, traders and businesses remains one of the administration’s biggest challenges.

“You can solve the issue of insecurity and insurgency in one year,” he said, insisting that the Federal Government could significantly reduce the crisis with the right strategy and sufficient political will.

Ardo also faulted the administration’s economic reforms, particularly the removal of fuel subsidy, questioning whether ordinary Nigerians had experienced corresponding benefits.

“Subsidy removal, is it a benefit?” he asked, arguing that the reforms had eroded purchasing power and made basic necessities increasingly unaffordable.

He said the impact had been particularly severe in Northern Nigeria, where a large proportion of the population is economically vulnerable.

“The economic reform has pushed from the state of poverty to destitution,” he said.

The political commentator also raised concerns about political representation under the Tinubu administration, arguing that the composition of government could shape public perception of its commitment to different regions.

Ardo said Northern voters should not be assumed to be permanently aligned with the voting pattern recorded in 2023, stressing that prevailing economic and security conditions would determine their choices in 2027.

“If a free, fair and credible election is conducted in Nigeria, Tinubu can’t get 10 percent of the Northern part,” he declared.

His prediction puts the spotlight on the opposition’s capacity to exploit any erosion of Tinubu’s Northern support, with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other opposition figures potentially positioned to benefit from any major electoral realignment.

Opinion

Beyond the Ballot: Shaping a Bar That Works for All

Published

1 week ago

August 30, 2026

Trends Admin

Beyond the Ballot: Shaping a Bar That Works for All

By Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye, SAN

The inaugural address of Mrs. Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, titled “From the Call to the Cause,” marks a historic turning point for the legal community as she officially assumes office as the 33rd President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) as she wa sworn in by her predecessor, Afam Osigwe, SAN, at the High Court complex in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.

Her leadership, the hiccup of her emergence notwithstanding, represents a historic milestone as the first woman elected to the NBA presidency through a competitive, though highly disputed, national ballot. Her address presents a powerful vision for a “bolder Bar” that actively confronts internal fractures, deep professional disconnects, and economic vulnerabilities. Central to her message is the core understanding that an association tasked with safeguarding judicial independence and speaking truth to power cannot effectively fulfill its national mandate if it remains internally fragmented. By focusing on the professional survival of young lawyers and vowing to act decisively against public misconduct, Badejo-Okusanya highlights an urgent reality: institutional strength requires collective solidarity and institutional determination. Fostering lasting unity within the NBA under this administration demands a deliberate shift from performative governance to deeply institutionalized, structural changes that build bridges across classes, factions, generations, and geographical divides.

To bring the NBA together, the new administration must incorporate proactive mechanisms for post-election reconciliation directly into its governance framework. The leadership must deliberately distance itself from divisive rhetoric and provocative nuances. The competitive nature of Bar elections often leaves behind lingering bitter factions that can stunt long-term cooperation and slow down progressive policies. By building an “olive branch” initiative that integrates runner-up contestants and their core campaign stakeholders into strategic national committees, the leadership can transform former rivals into active co-creators of the Bar’s future. Indeed this strategy which I dubbed the Abraham Lincoln strategy remains an eternal clincher.

Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election and famously appointed his chief Republican nomination rivals to key cabinet positions. Lincoln believed the country faced extreme peril during the crisis leading into the Civil War l. He wanted the most capable and influential leaders in his administration regardless of past personal competition. He valued robust debate over agreement, using differing viewpoints to make better decisions. This inclusivity must simultaneously bridge the widening economic and generational gap between senior practitioners and younger advocates. Enforcing standardized minimum remuneration and welfare requirements across all local branches will help reduce the economic alienation felt by younger members. To make this sustainable, the administration should establish joint mentorship hubs where senior legal practitioners collaborate with tech-savvy young lawyers on modern areas of practice, such as artificial intelligence, data privacy, and digital commerce, turning a generational divide into a symbiotic avenue for mutual professional empowerment.

True unity also requires restoring civil digital discourse through a comprehensive Digital Ethics Enforcement framework, fulfilling the President’s explicit warning against the breakdown of professional etiquette on social media. The profession has lost some vast mileage due to the digital posture of some members. To achieve this, the NBA can look to established global precedents where foreign bar associations have successfully navigated the complexities of digital misconduct. For instance, the American Bar Association (ABA) successfully integrated technological expectations into its framework via the Ethics 20/20 Commission, explicitly modifying its Model Rules of Professional Conduct such as Rules 1.6 and 8.4 to govern online confidentiality, misleading public statements, and deceptive digital behaviour. Similarly, the Law Society of England and Wales updated its practice note and compliance frameworks to penalize offensive online remarks, reinforcing that comments made by a lawyer in a personal capacity can still be actively disciplined as professional misconduct if public trust is damaged. By adopting a similar structure, the NBA can expand its own Rules of Professional Conduct into a clear code for online behaviour, utilizing its network of regional Ethics and Disciplinary Committees to monitor digital spaces and safely review flagged misconduct via secure portals.

Backing this framework with public disciplinary actions and a tiered system of sanctions will allow the NBA to decisively penalize cyberbullying, transitioning professional disputes into mediated internal forums rather than chaotic public platforms. This digital accountability should be reinforced by introducing mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) modules in digital etiquette, ensuring that practitioners maintain technological and behavioral competence.

Immediately, the NBA must dismantle the persistent perception that it is a “Lagos-Abuja centric” organization. Actively decentralizing national activities, rotating National Executive Council (NEC) meetings across various geopolitical zones, and providing direct financial and technical resources to smaller, rural branches will make every lawyer feel valued regardless of geography. Ultimately, by integrating these targeted, practical strategies and internationally proven ethical standards into the foundational ideals of her inaugural address, the administration can successfully unite its members and establish a cohesive, resilient front capable of defending the rule of law across Nigeria.

The new administration must pursue a deliberate policy towards attracting many docile members back into its fold.
If the new administration must know, the opaque electoral processes that had dogged the association in recent history has adversely affected the morale of a significant number but silent members of the Association. Chief Yomi Alliyu graphically stated the disturbing position when he posited in an opinion piece that: “The NBA has been hijacked by political lawyers to the disaffection of real practitioners of law. “Elections from 2016 or so vide e-voting had been manipulated to favour members of this class.”

The new administration must therefore consciously pursue reconciliatory steps that rein in all members. As at now, the silent class war must end for NBA to achieve its full potential.

I was sorely tempted to headline this peice: Nigerian Bar Association: the road to Kigali. I refrained because I still saw a silver lining which this new administration can latch on to save the NBA from itself!

The “road to Kigali” serves as a grim warning about the risk of total institutional fracture, polarization, and potential irrelevance. If proactive steps are not taken to unify and reform the body, it faces the danger of fracturing into competing, ethnicized, or regionalized professional factions, effectively ending the era of a single, unified voice for the Nigerian Bar.

The 1992 Port Harcourt Conference Crisis, was a definitive moment that brought the NBA to the brink of permanent destruction. Today, unless we play the ostrich, the cries of war are abroad but the present leadership could etch their names in gold if the NBA is consciously, deliberately and clinically steered from self implosion. Their job is cut out for them.Failure to seize the moment may end up placing us all on the road to Kigali.

Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye SAN
Eagle102.5 FM Ilese-Ijebu

Opinion

Why Atiku’s subsidy gambit rattles Tinubu, By Farooq Kperogi

Published

2 weeks ago

August 22, 2026

Trends Admin

Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based professor of journalism.

Farooq Kperogi

Why Atiku’s subsidy gambit rattles Tinubu, By Farooq Kperogi

Atiku Abubakar may finally have discovered the issue that can draw political blood from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. And I am enjoying seeing the president and his inner circle squirm in discomfort like cats stranded on a hot zinc roof.

On Thursday, barely a day after official campaigns began for the 2027 presidential election, Atiku pledged to restore petrol subsidies if Nigerians elect him president. That pledge, more than anything he has done lately to dislodge Tinubu, is the clearest signal yet that he is prepared to wrest power from the president.

Before now, Atiku expended money, time and energy excavating Tinubu’s past, much of which Nigerians already know. Tinubu’s 1993 civil forfeiture of $460,000 to the US government in a case that grew out of a heroin-trafficking investigation has been public knowledge for years. It was Sahara Reporters that first reported it on September 15, 2008. Fresh FBI or DEA papers are unlikely to suddenly alter electoral attitudes.

The Chicago State University expedition was even less politically useful. Tinubu genuinely attended and graduated from CSU in 1979. Caleb Westberg, the university’s registrar, said so under oath. He agreed that the photocopy Tinubu submitted to INEC did not look like the 1979 samples shown to him, but CSU’s diploma templates changed over the years and the BBC found that Tinubu’s copy resembled replacement diplomas from the 1990s. Westberg also said the missing portion of the university logo could have been cut off during photocopying because American diplomas are unusually large and aren’t intended to be photocopied.

In America, diplomas are largely ceremonial documents that people frame and hang on walls. Transcripts are the official records routinely used to verify attendance and graduation. Atiku’s legal expedition ironically helped establish that Tinubu has a CSU transcript and graduated with honors.

The BBC Global Disinformation Team found no evidence for the claim that Tinubu forged the CSU diploma he submitted to INEC. The report, in fact, won “Fact-Check of the Year by a Working Journalist” at the 2024 African Fact-Checking Awards in Accra. In other words, Atiku spent enormous political energy helping to settle a question whose answer was electorally barren.

Tinubu understood this and mostly ignored the attacks. More importantly, Atiku offered little policy distance from Tinubu on the economic question that has tormented Nigerians since May 2023. He had promised during the last election to remove petrol subsidies within his first 100 days in office. On the most consequential economic policy of the Tinubu presidency, Atiku was traveling on the same ideological road.

READ ALSO:

That changed this week. Atiku asked the question millions of Nigerians have been asking: where is the money supposedly saved from subsidy removal? He then promised a new subsidy structure that would privilege locally refined petrol, give qualifying Nigerian refineries crude at preferential prices, impose a fixed annual spending ceiling, trace subsidized crude to actual domestic production and punish diversion. His formulation is that “the subsidy will follow the barrel.”

That is a more serious proposal than the Presidency’s caricature of it. And Tinubu suddenly found his voice. He personally dismissed Atiku’s pledge as a demonstration of “serious ignorance” of governance and the economy. Atiku’s previous assaults on Tinubu’s character produced studied presidential indifference. But his challenge to the economic orthodoxy that has pauperized Nigerians produced presidential irritation. That means he struck a raw nerve.

If Atiku’s proposal demonstrates ignorance, what does Tinubu’s policy demonstrate? Any honest person knows the answer: cruelty. Between ignorance and cruelty, which is more benign? You be the judge.

The anti-subsidy theology that Tinubu and his neoliberal choristers recite has always rested on a false premise. Subsidy simply means government assistance. Every functional society subsidizes something its people need for survival and economic productivity. Governments subsidize food, agriculture, housing, healthcare, transportation or energy according to the peculiarities of their societies.

For Nigeria, petrol occupies a uniquely central place because it doubles as an infrastructural substitute. People buy petrol because public electricity is unreliable. Small businesses generate their own power. Goods move mostly by road. Workers commute in vehicles powered by fuel. Farmers, artisans, traders and manufacturers absorb fuel costs and pass them on through prices.

A petrol subsidy therefore travels through the economy. Its removal travels through the economy too, only in the opposite direction. It raises transportation costs, production costs, food prices and the cost of nearly everything that depends on movement or power.

READ ALSO:

I warned about this exactly one month before Tinubu was inaugurated. In my April 29, 2023 column titled “Six Agenda Items for Tinubu’s Success,” I warned that any policy that caused an arbitrary and unbearable increase in petrol prices without a corresponding improvement in incomes and living conditions would sink Tinubu. That warning was elementary commonsense.

The subsidy removal has since wreaked havoc on the economy, deepened poverty, killed businesses, murdered hope, hollowed out the middle class and democratized misery. Reuters now describes the aftermath of Tinubu’s reforms as the worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation. Nearly 80 percent of Nigerians in a recent voter tracker said the country was headed in the wrong direction.

The government’s answer is always the same sterile, tired, intentionally dishonest incantation: temporary pains will yield permanent gains. But we have heard that sermon before.

Ibrahim Babangida’s Structural Adjustment Program came with the same vocabulary of sacrifice, deregulation, currency devaluation, subsidy withdrawal and deferred prosperity. Nigerians were told to endure pain today for abundance tomorrow. By the time Babangida left in 1993, manufacturing had been battered, purchasing power had collapsed and social misery had spread. The promised gains vanished into the ether.

Only living people can enjoy future gains. A government that starves people in installments cannot redeem itself with a hypothetical prosperity scheduled for an undefined tomorrow.

Tinubu’s most frequently advertised dividend of subsidy removal is that states now receive more money and can pay salaries and pensions. That is useful to salary earners, pensioners and the relatives who depend on them. Every Nigerian with a functioning brain cell knows that formal salary and pension earners constitute only a small fraction of Nigeria’s population. The wellbeing of state treasuries is a poor substitute for the wellbeing of the vast majority of citizens.

What kind of economic triumph makes governors more solvent while making citizens poorer? Government has improved the liquidity of public treasuries by draining the liquidity of household economies.

Atiku has finally opened a policy flank that Tinubu cannot wave away with moral insults, ethnic mobilization or tales of macroeconomic “reform.”

Nonetheless, Atiku’s conversion deserves scrutiny. He promised in 2023 to remove the same subsidy he now wants to restore in a redesigned form. I disagreed with him then. A politician who changes his mind after observing the destructive consequences of a policy can reasonably plead that evidence changed his assumptions. Nigerians also have abundant reasons to distrust politicians who discover compassion during campaigns.

They campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Tinubu, after all, told Nigerians during the 2023 campaign that if he failed to give them electricity and returned for a second term, they should not vote for him, although he inserted an escape clause about giving “adequate reasons” for failure. Muhammadu Buhari promised a paradise of security, prosperity and integrity before power exposed the hollowness of his promises.

Atiku therefore has work to do. He must keep explaining the cost of his subsidy plan, its funding source, its legal path under the Petroleum Industry Act, its anti-corruption safeguards and the mechanisms that will ensure cheaper energy reaches households and industries. He should put these commitments in language that can be measured and used against him if he wins.

In spite of my well-justified distrust of the promises of politicians, including Atiku who supervised a ruinous privation program when he was vice president, I can’t help but concede that this is the first truly useful political argument of the 2027 campaign.

Policy contrast is finally replacing pointless and unproductive character assassination. Nigerians already know that Tinubu has a morally complicated past, but they live every day with something more immediate: the extortionate price of food, transport, electricity, medicine and survival.

Atiku has finally moved the contest from Tinubu’s old files in America to Nigerian kitchens, markets, factories and motor parks. That is where Tinubu is most vulnerable. Tinubu can survive old scandals, but the mass hunger his “reforms” have created is a more formidable opponent than impotent darts thrown at his character.