Sixty-fifth birthday fireworks: Obasanjo versus Fayose (II) - Newstrends
Connect with us

Opinion

Sixty-fifth birthday fireworks: Obasanjo versus Fayose (II)

Published

on

Olusegun Obasanjo and Ayodele Fayose

Sixty-fifth birthday fireworks: Obasanjo versus Fayose (II)

By BOLANLE BOLAWOLE

Last week we started with the spat between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and former Ekiti State governor, Peter Ayodele Fayose. Fayose had invited Obasanjo to his 65th birthday celebrations, where the former president made statements that irked the celebrant. Fayose afterwards responded in kind to Obasanjo in a “Thank You” message where he took the former president to the cleaners. Obasanjo also responded by topping it up for Fayose!

Going down memory lane, we narrated how relations went from good to bad between the two leaders, hearing, as it were, from the horse’s mouth – meaning, Ayodele Fayose himself – in his unpublished autobiography titled “Peter the Rock: Autobiography of Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose”, which was collated together with others and edited by this writer. Read on:

“Obasanjo returned from the USA on 17th June, 2006 and visited Ekiti on June 18th. He had quickly convened a meeting in Abuja in the early hours of 18th before coming to Ekiti. He was earlier scheduled to have visited Ekiti on the 17th and 18th. Realising that his third term agenda had been killed by the National Assembly, he quickly convened a meeting of the leadership of the party, denied the third term agenda, and called for reconciliation in the party. He then came to Ekiti and praised me to high heavens on the same day. Obasanjo assured the Ekiti people that I would be returned as governor and left. I later met with him at Ota in company with other South-west governors; he said he trusted me and believed in my judgment and, therefore, made me the chairman of a group that would search for his successor. He also reaffirmed his support for my second term bid.

“However, in late August of that year (2006), the then Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Nuhu Ribadu, in collaboration with my enemies who believed there was no way I would not win the 2007 governorship election, convinced Obasanjo that I was fraudulent and should be removed from office. Obasanjo bought into this and invited me to Abuja to ask me to step down as the governor of Ekiti state. I told him the step he was taking stemmed from conspiracy against my person. He finally said I should not contest for a second term as governor of Ekiti state, which was ludicrous. I was very much loved by my people who wanted me to continue in office; to be single-handedly short-circuited by one man was patently undemocratic. But unequal power relations made me succumb and we both agreed I should go to the Senate while they shopped for someone else to take my place. To avoid trouble, I said this was okay by me.

READ ALSO:

“Two weeks later, I was invited by the same Obasanjo to the Presidential villa and, in the presence of Chief Bode George and the then PDP chairman, Dr. Ahmadu Ali, the president said, ‘Ayo, you did not offend me but the powers-that-be in your state do not want you. So you have to resign now as governor.’ To my amazement, they brought out a letter on the letter-head of the Ekiti State Government, which they asked me to sign – a document I never prepared. I pleaded with the president but he insisted, in spite of entreaties by Chief Bode George and Ahmadu Ali. I then cleverly pleaded with him to let me go back home and tidy myself up so that I could leave honourably. He agreed. When I got back to Ekiti, Obasanjo called me to ask, ‘When are you bringing the letter of resignation?‘ He said, ‘If you think you can see light at the end of the tunnel, it is not with me! You better resign.’

“The ‘story behind the story’ of how I tactically dodged signing the resignation letter they prepared in Abuja was that I had been tipped off by Mrs. Mariam Ali, wife of Dr. Ahmadu Ali, whom I was close to. She had sent a message to me through Bukola Saraki and some other people that I would be invited to a place in Abuja to sign a letter but that ‘under no circumstance’ should I sign the letter. Had I signed the letter, I would have been arrested at the door of the Presidential villa by the EFCC. They would have used that letter in the media, saying that I resigned willingly after admitting that I was corrupt. With the Abuja macabre dance, I realised they had made up their mind to get me. The EFCC arrested everyone around me after they had withdrawn my Chief Security Officer, my ADC, etc…

Politics is truly a dirty game! The same Olabode George, who played a key role in how Fayose upstaged Babalola, later became Fayose’s punching bag during Fayose’s second term of office when Chief George took positions that were diametrically opposed to those of the Fayose/Nyesom Wike camp of the PDP.

“Initially, news of the collaboration of members of the state House of Assembly with my enemies came as a rumour. I summoned courage and invited them through the Clerk of the House. All entreaties to make them see reason fell on deaf ears. They made some unreasonable demands, obviously acting the script of their collaborators. During the heat, when it became obvious they were not ready to back down, having been coerced and at the same time mesmerised with outlandish promises made to them by their sponsors, I told them that if what they planned eventually happened and I was forced out of office; they, too, would sink with me. True to my courageous and prophetic pronouncement, the House of Assembly was suspended following the declaration of emergency rule.

“Stripped of my security details, I was naked and exposed security-wise. The next thing I saw was that my House of Assembly members were ‘arrested’ and taken over by the EFCC in an organised manner. They signed an impeachment letter at the EFCC camp, which they forwarded to me, and in the space of five days, they brought the ‘Honourables’ to the House of Assembly complex where the then (but now late) Speaker, Friday Aderemi, purportedly sacked the Chief Judge of the state, Justice Kayode Bamisile, which was beyond his powers and those of the House of Assembly, and got a consenting judge to act as Acting Chief Judge. The purported Acting Judge, JBK Aladejana, set up another panel after the first panel had absolved me of any guilt. After my acquittal by the first panel, that should have been the end of the matter, but the second panel then pronounced me guilty.

READ ALSO:

 

“The then Inspector-General of Police, Sunday Ehindero, who had a brother who was very close to me, phoned me that he had been ordered to effect my arrest and that lorry-loads of armed policemen were already on their way to carry out the order. He told me quite clearly that tipping me off was the very best he could do for me. If I waited and the men he had sent cornered me, he would not be in any position to assist me. His hands were tied over this matter, he told me quite emphatically. I had to run for my life. So, I escaped out the Government House in the night of 12th October, 2006 and went into exile”

How did Fayose escape from the Government House already surrounded by security forces? In the trunk of a jalopy car, disguised! And for the next eight years he suffered exile, later returning home to surrender himself to the authorities. He was incarcerated and faced trial but, in the end, he was exonerated and became a free man once again. Those travails must have been what Obasanjo referred to at Fayose’s birthday event; what he neglected to add, however, was that he, Obasanjo, was the chief architect of those travails! Fayose contested election again and was victorious, serving out his second term of office between 2014 and 2018. It was during the latter part of that period that our paths crossed, at his invitation.

The story that is yet to be told, but which Obasanjo alluded to in his controversial remarks at Fayose’s 65th birthday bash, is that it is the same Obasanjo – and Chief Olabode George – that was instrumental in Fayose becoming governor in his first tenure, in place of Obasanjo’s own personal friend, Chief SK Babalola. True, then, is the statement by Gen. Oluleye that Obasanjo has equal capacity to do both good and evil!

Politics is truly a dirty game! The same Olabode George, who played a key role in how Fayose upstaged Babalola, later became Fayose’s punching bag during Fayose’s second term of office when Chief George took positions that were diametrically opposed to those of the Fayose/Nyesom Wike camp of the PDP. Call it Karma or whatever, it is the same Olabode George who reportedly moved the motion to expel Wike, Fayose and other PDP leaders at the recent convention of a faction of the PDP at Ibadan.

Proverbs 30: 18 – 19 says: “There be thr

ee things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: the way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid” A fifth must now be added: The mysterious ways of Nigerian politicians when they engage in their dirty games!

READ ALSO:

Listen to how Fayose himself narrated th

e story of the helping hand he received from Chief Olabode George: “These people still did not give up, despite the fact that I had been given the flag. Again, they set up machinery and started moving around, saying that ‘When Obasanjo comes, we will now allow him to present the flag formally to Fayose in Ekiti.’ They said Obasanjo was going to present the flag to Chief SK Babalola…They were working against me until Obasanjo finally arrived…The night before he landed, Chief SK Babalola and Chief Bamidele Olumilua had sewn the same uniform for themselves and Obasanjo…And I was supposed to be the candidate!

“So, Chief Bode George told us in the afternoon of the night before, when he came to wait for Chief Obasanjo, and got wind of their plan, to quickly go to Oje market in Ibadan to get Aso Oke (Yoruba local fabric) of the same colour for me and Obasanjo and bring it to him. The fabric was done all night and we brought it to Ado-Ekiti before Obasanjo arrived. We now took it to Akure and gave it to Bode George…”

Fayose narrated how Obasanjo ditched a flabbergasted Chief SK Babalola right there on the podium and threw away his aso-oke, reached out for Fayose’s aso-oke, ordered him to the podium, raised up his hand and formally presented the flag to him as the party flagbearer!

After I heard the story of the role Chief Bode George played in frustrating the plans and plots against Fayose becoming the governor of Ekiti state in 2003 straight from Fayose’s own mouth, I marvelled each time Fayose mercilessly tore into the same Bode George when both leaders stood in opposing camps within the same party, the PDP.

One fateful day I held up a proof of his autobiography to Fayose and said: ‘Concerning your relationship with Chief Olabode George, don’t you think your own words in this book indict you?‘

Characteristically, he stared at me, but said nothing! Those who said I was responsible for Fayose not eventually officially launching the autobiography have a point; don’t they?

*Bolawole ([email protected] 0807 552 5533), former Editor of PUNCH newspapers, Chairman of its Editorial Board and Deputy Editor-in-chief, was also the Managing Director/ Editor-in-chief of the Westerner newsmagazine. He writes the “ON THE LORD’S DAY” column in the Sunday Tribune and “TREASURES” column in the New Telegraph newspapers. He is also a public affairs analyst on radio and television.

 

Sixty-fifth birthday fireworks: Obasanjo versus Fayose (II)

Opinion

New York Times and Onitsha screwdriver sellers’ data, By Farooq Kperogi

Published

on

Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism 
Farooq Kperogi

New York Times and Onitsha screwdriver sellers’ data, By Farooq Kperogi

The New York Times of January 18, 2026 published an explosive story showing how unverified and methodologically questionable data produced by a little-known Onitsha screwdriver seller who moonlights as an NGO activist, Emeka Umeagbalasi of Intersociety, traveled upward into US Republican politics and helped shape a narrative of “Christian genocide” in Nigeria, culminating in Trump-ordered airstrikes in Sokoto State.

Umeagbalasi, who runs Intersociety from his home and relies largely on secondary sources, assumptions, presumptions and Google searches, admitted that he rarely verifies deaths, often imputes victims’ religious identities based on his understanding of what I like to call Nigeria’s emotional geography, and inflates figures that conflict researchers and even church leaders dispute.

Despite these flaws, his claims were cited by Fox News, Senator Ted Cruz, Rep. Riley Moore and other Republicans, and echoed by the White House. It illustrates how fraudulent data, ideological advocacy and US culture-war politics converged to misframe Nigeria’s complex violence as a one-sided religious slaughter rather than a crisis of state failure affecting Christians, Muslims, traditional religious worshipers and nonreligious people.

But a certain class of Nigerians have chosen to either not read the New York Times story (instantiating my recent Facebook post about Nigerians’ fixation with forming opinions based only on headlines) or to read it but allow their preconceived biases to befog their comprehension.

Some low-information, high-ignorance Nigerians even claim that the New York Times report was bought with the reported $9 million the Bola Tinubu government paid to a conservative lobbying firm in Washington, DC. I will return to this point shortly.

Interestingly, a December 26, 2025 investigation by the BBC’s Global Disinformation Unit reached strikingly similar conclusions to those of the New York Times. The BBC investigation, which surprisingly did not gain traction in Nigeria when it was first published, also showed that the figures underpinning the “Christian genocide” narrative are unverifiable, internally inconsistent and sharply at odds with independent conflict-monitoring data.

It noted that groups such as ACLED document widespread killings across Nigeria but find no credible evidence of a coordinated campaign targeting Christians alone. Violence in Nigeria, the BBC observed, is better explained by state weakness, banditry, insurgency and impunity, dynamics that endanger Muslims and Christians alike.

READ ALSO:

Crucially, the BBC report situates the persistence of the genocide framing within southeastern Nigeria’s political history. It highlights how some of the loudest voices amplifying the narrative are rooted in Igbo political grievances and are entangled with pro-Biafra networks that have long sought international sympathy by portraying the Nigerian state as genocidal.

Recasting Nigeria’s complex security crisis as a religious extermination campaign provides a morally powerful export narrative, particularly when targeted at US evangelical and conservative audiences.

The report quoted a Biafran separatist group as admitting to playing a major role in promoting the “Christian genocide” narrative in the US Congress. “The Biafra Republic Government in Exile, BRGIE, described it as a ‘highly orchestrated effort,’ saying it had hired lobbying firms and met US officials, including Cruz.”

That framing found fertile ground in Washington. Lobbying firms and advocacy networks tailored the message for American culture-war politics, where persecution of Christians abroad resonates strongly. Republican lawmakers, often unfamiliar with Nigeria’s internal dynamics, repeated the claims with little scrutiny.

In that sense, the genocide story was less the product of rigorous evidence than of ideological alignment, diaspora activism and a lobbying ecosystem eager for simple moral binaries.

This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, suggest that Christians are not being killed in large numbers in northern Nigeria or that victims are unjustified in framing their suffering in religious terms simply because many of the perpetrators identify as Muslims. My first column on this issue acknowledged this fact.

But the pushback is warranted because the narrative is built on false data and amplified to US lobby groups by people whose agenda is not primarily about Christian genocide. It is also warranted because Muslims are being murdered in large numbers by the same actors who are killing Christians.

On the surface, it may seem defensible to argue that since the people killing Muslims are also Muslims, only the killings of Christians matter. But that position is both morally and sociologically problematic.

First, every unjustified death should concern us. Second, human beings inhabit a multiplicity of identities. Being Muslim is not the sum total of the lives of people murdered by bandits and terrorists.

To suggest that the murder of Hausa and sedentary Fulani by bandits and terrorists does not matter as much as the murder of Christians simply because the villains and victims share the same faith betrays a lack of humanity.

READ ALSO:

In my part of Nigeria, broadly speaking Borgu, which stretches across parts of Kebbi, Niger and Kwara States, scores of our people are murdered regularly. To imply that those deaths do not matter because most people there are Muslims cuts deeply. And that is where the “Christian genocide” narrative has led.

The internationalization of this narrative in the service of separatist advocacy makes it particularly jarring. That is why independent international media have been drawn to interrogate it, and why the story is now crumbling under sustained scrutiny.

Now, back to the conspiracy theory that the New York Times story was spurred by the Nigerian government.

There is no relationship between the Nigerian government’s reported payment to a conservative lobbying firm in Washington and the New York Times investigation that dismantled the Christian genocide narrative. None. The two events merely occurred in the same news cycle, and coincidence is being mistaken for causation.

To begin with the basics, there is no credible historical record of the New York Times ever accepting monetary inducement to write or slant a story. Not from governments, not from corporations, not from foreign lobbies.

In more than a century of operation, the paper has been sued, criticized, corrected, embarrassed and sometimes wrong, but it has never been shown to have sold its news judgment for cash.

The Times is not a fragile outfit scrambling for influence money. It is a multibillion-dollar publicly traded company whose value runs into the low tens of billions of dollars, whose brand is widely regarded as America’s newspaper of record and whose reporters earn, on average, six-figure salaries.

Its institutional power flows from credibility, not access fees. Destroying that credibility for a $9 million foreign lobbying contract, money that would not even pass through its books, would be commercial and reputational suicide.

Just as importantly, the lobbying payment itself is being misunderstood. Lobbyists in Washington influence government policy, not news coverage. They target lawmakers, executive agencies and regulatory processes.

They do not buy front-page investigations at elite newspapers, especially not papers that routinely antagonize conservative politicians and administrations. The idea that a conservative lobby would bribe a liberal newspaper to undermine a conservative narrative is internally incoherent.

The contrast with Nigerian media practices is uncomfortable but unavoidable. In the United States, mainstream news organizations do not accept bribes to write stories. Paying journalists to publish or suppress coverage is a career-ending offense. Newsrooms are legally exposed, aggressively scrutinized and professionally policed in ways that make such conduct extraordinarily risky.

That does not mean American journalism is perfect or bias-free. It means its failures are not transactional in the crude cash-for-coverage sense that some Nigerians assume or know.

So why does the bribery explanation feel plausible to some Nigerians? The answer lies not in evidence but in cognition and experience.

People rely on the availability heuristic, drawing on what they know best. If influence at home is often bought with money, money becomes the default explanation everywhere else. This is reinforced by analogical overreach, that is, the assumption that foreign institutions must function like local ones despite radically different incentive structures and accountability systems.

There is also institutional opacity. When people lack procedural knowledge of how elite Western media operate, they substitute a simpler question for a harder one. Instead of asking how a newspaper verifies sources or decides newsworthiness, they ask who paid whom. Add correlation-as-causation bias, the temptation to connect two adjacent events, and a narrative writes itself.

Layered onto this is monocausal populism, the belief that complex outcomes must have a single villain, usually money, and epistemic provincialism, the assumption that local moral failures are universal features of power.

In low-trust environments like Nigeria, conspiracy rationality becomes an ordinary mode of explanation rather than a fringe pathology. It supplies coherence where institutional trust is absent.

Finally, there is what in media studies we call narrative closure bias. The bribery story feels complete. Institutional independence feels abstract and unsatisfying. Closure beats accuracy.

Put plainly, the claim that a conservative lobby bribed a liberal American newspaper to publish an investigation that undercut conservative politicians tells us far more about how Nigerians make sense of distant power than about how American journalism actually works.

The New York Times story stands or falls on its evidence and methods. So far, critics have attacked neither. They have simply imagined a transaction that never happened.

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

Views expressed on this opinion are personal and do not reflect the thoughts and beliefs of newstrends.ng or its owners.

New York Times and Onitsha screwdriver sellers’ data, By Farooq Kperogi

Continue Reading

Opinion

Farooq Kperogi: Celebrating ASUU-FG’s historic reset with caveats

Published

on

Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism 
Farooq Kperogi

Farooq Kperogi: Celebrating ASUU-FG’s historic reset with caveats

After sixteen years of stalemate, serial strikes and ritualized brinkmanship, the Federal Government and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) have finally signed a renegotiated agreement that replaces the moribund 2009 pact. This is at once historic, consequential and praiseworthy.

For the first time in a generation, Nigeria’s public universities have a framework that promises industrial harmony, predictability of academic calendars and an end to the cruel cycle in which students lose years of their lives to shutdowns that have nothing to do with them. If implemented faithfully, the agreement will allow students to graduate on time, restore confidence in public universities and begin the long task of rebuilding Nigeria’s battered higher education system.

Credit is due to the Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa, and to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for pushing this through. In fact, the ASUU agreement is about the only major promise Tinubu made in the poetry of campaign that he has clearly kept in the prose of governance.

The symbolism is even more striking when contrasted with the immediate past. The Muhammadu Buhari administration presided over one of the most destructive eras in the history of Nigerian university education.

This was made all the more tragic by the presence of Adamu Adamu as Minister of Education. Before his appointment, Adamu, for whom I had enormously unconditional respect, was a well-known public defender of ASUU in his intrepid newspaper columns in the Daily Trust. Once in office, however, he turned out to be one of the most hostile ministers Nigerian academics have ever encountered.

On October 9, 2022, at the height of that administration’s war with ASUU, I wrote on social media: “Adamu Adamu, an erstwhile ASUU ally, is turning out to be the deadliest foe ASUU has ever had. With help from Ngige, he’s dealing the union one crushing blow after another…. Lesson: the fact that someone is your friend today doesn’t mean they can’t be a murderous foe tomorrow.”

The Tinubu administration has, at the very least, reversed that posture of antagonism and replaced it with negotiation, compromise and a willingness to reset the relationship between government and academia.

At its core, the new pact addresses the three issues that have driven nearly two decades of conflict: pay, welfare and the structure of university funding.

READ ALSO:

First is a 40 percent salary increase for lecturers, effective January 1, 2026. Someone rightly remarked that it’s the single largest upward review of academic salaries in over a decade. It’s a long overdue correction after years of erosion by inflation and currency collapse.

For professors, this comes with a new professorial cadre allowance of about 140,000 naira monthly, while readers (roughly equivalent to associate professors) receive about 70,000 naira. Earned academic allowances have also been restructured and tied more clearly to actual academic labor such as postgraduate supervision, fieldwork and research coordination.

Second is a major reform of retirement benefits. Professors who retire at the statutory age of 70 are now guaranteed pension benefits equivalent to their full annual salary. This provision alone is transformative. It ends the shameful tradition of professors retiring into poverty after decades of service and sends a powerful signal to younger academics that a life devoted to teaching and research will not be punished at the end.

Third is the institutionalization of research funding through the proposed establishment of a National Research Council, funded at not less than one percent of GDP. For the first time in Nigeria’s history, research financing is being embedded in national planning rather than left to donor whims and sporadic government interventions.

If implemented properly, this could anchor doctoral training, strengthen laboratories and libraries and finally position Nigeria as a serious knowledge producer.

Fourth is a new funding structure for universities that links capital funding, infrastructure development and staff development to long-term planning rather than emergency interventions. TETFund remains central, but funding is now part of an overarching reform framework.

Fifth is a recommitment to university autonomy and academic freedom, including protections against political interference in hiring, curriculum and internal governance. If faithfully implemented, which is never a guarantee but noteworthy nonetheless, vice-chancellors may not be the glorified political appointees that many of them are now, and universities may cease to be extensions of the civil service.

Finally, the agreement formally buries the 2009 pact that haunted the system like a zombie document. The new framework, produced by the Yayale Ahmed Committee after fourteen months of negotiations, is structured, phased and subject to periodic review. This gives ASUU leverage and gives government predictability.

Yet it is important to separate celebration from illusion. The new agreement is a noteworthy improvement on the living and working conditions of Nigerian university lecturers. But it is not yet competitive by continental standards, and it is unlikely, on its own, to halt academic brain drain.

READ ALSO:

Before the agreement, a full professor in a federal university earned roughly 525,000 naira to 630,000 naira monthly. With a 40 percent raise and the new 140,000-naira professorial allowance, a senior professor will now earn in the range of 1 million naira to 1.1 million naira per month, depending on rank and allowances.

That sounds impressive in naira terms. In continental terms, however, it remains deeply uncompetitive.

In South Africa, professors earn the equivalent of about $4,500 to $5,000 per month. In Kenya, professors earn around $1,300 monthly. In Uganda, the figure is about $1,100. In Ghana, professors earn roughly $700 to $800 monthly. In Egypt and Morocco, senior academics earn well above Nigeria’s new scale.

At current exchange rates, a Nigerian professor earning 1.1 million naira a month makes roughly $700. That places Nigeria near the bottom of Africa’s academic pay ladder, ahead of only a handful of fragile economies.

This is why Nigerian universities continue to hemorrhage talent. Professors are leaving for South Africa, Rwanda, Kenya, Botswana, the Gulf, Europe and North America not because they dislike Nigeria but because Nigeria does not value academic labor competitively. A Nigerian professor now earns in a month what a South African professor earns in a week.

The salary increase is therefore a necessary correction, not a strategic solution. It slows the bleeding. It does not stop it.

There is also a potential booby trap embedded in the agreement that deserves sober reflection. The guarantee of full-salary pensions for retired professors has been widely welcomed, and rightly so. But pension experts have warned that this provision resembles a return to the old defined-benefit pension system that Nigeria abandoned two decades ago because it was fiscally unsustainable.

A January 16, 2026, report by TheCable highlighted the controversy sparked by the Director-General of the National Pension Commission, who defended the ASUU deal amid fears that it could undermine the contributory pension scheme. Critics argue that guaranteeing pensions equivalent to full salaries without a clearly defined funding mechanism risks recreating the very problems that forced Nigeria to reform its pension system in the first place.

If the new pension promise is not carefully structured, transparently funded and legally insulated from political manipulation, it could become a future flashpoint for industrial conflict that unfairly punishes students and parents.

Expectations will rise. Budgetary pressures will mount. Regulators will resist. And another round of industrial disharmony could follow.

There is one more omission in the agreement that deserves attention. My friend Prof. Moses Ochonu and I have long argued that the federal government should not simply accede to ASUU’s demands, however legitimate, without also insisting on mechanisms for instructional accountability, research productivity, service delivery and innovation.

Without a system to institutionalize accountability and transparency, students will always be shortchanged, and the nation will be betrayed by lecturers who show little commitment to their craft or to genuine knowledge production and dissemination.

It has become a disturbing culture in Nigerian universities for lecturers to show up in class whenever they please without consequence. In my undergraduate days, I took courses where lecturers appeared only twice in the entire semester, first to introduce themselves and last to set an exam on material they never taught. My conversations with today’s undergraduates suggest that this still happens.

Of course, not everyone is guilty of this. Many Nigerian academics are dedicated teachers and serious scholars working under brutal conditions. But not even one person should be allowed to get away with such negligence.

University lecturers should also not be allowed to publish in substandard, pay-to-play, predatory journals simply to climb the academic ladder. Promotion should reward intellectual rigor, not transactional publishing.
If Nigeria is going to invest billions in salaries, pensions, and research funding, it must also demand excellence in return. Anything less is a betrayal of students and of the country’s development aspirations.

This agreement gives Nigeria a chance to rebuild. Whether it becomes a renaissance or another chapter in the long story of squandered opportunity will depend on what happens next.

Kperogi is a renowned Nigerian columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Where’s Kano’s former SSG Bichi? By Farooq Kperogi

Published

on

Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism 
Farooq Kperogi

Where’s Kano’s former SSG Bichi? By Farooq Kperogi

In late 2024, it came into the open for the first time that the relationship between Dr. Rabiu Kwankwaso and his protégé, Gov. Abba Kabiru Yusuf, had fractured. But it was quickly papered over and dismissed as mere noise, a distraction engineered by enemies of Kwankwasiyya.

Then a few people in Gov. Yusuf’s government, accused of standing in the way between Dr. Kwankwaso and Gov. Yusuf, were fired. The most prominent of such firings was that of Prof. Abdullahi Baffa Bichi, the Secretary to the Government (SSG).

Prof. Bichi’s firing shocked me, so I reached out to a friend of mine who seems to be deeply inserted into, or at least close to people who are denizens of, the Kwankwasiyya power structure to seek explanations for why Bichi was let go.

He confided that Prof. Bichi was one of the arrowheads of the people who were goading Gov. Yusuf to assert his independence from Dr. Kwankwaso. That shocked me.

It shocked me because when Dr. Kwankwaso called me sometime in late 2023, he was with Prof. Bichi. He introduced Bichi with a lot of enthusiasm and asked if I knew him because we are both professors who graduated from Bayero University.

READ ALSO:

I said Bichi graduated before me but that I knew him by reputation because of his service as the Executive Secretary of the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) from 2016 to 2019. He had a major falling out with former Education Minister Adamu Adamu, which caused his unceremonious firing, about which I wrote at the time.

Kwankwaso spoke very highly of Bichi and said he wanted me to get close to him. We never did. Kwankwaso did not remember to send me Bichi’s phone number as he promised, and I never reminded him.

But they seemed to have a great chemistry, and I got the impression that Bichi was one of Kwankwaso’s metaphoric eyes in the government, a trusted sentinel planted at the nerve center of power.

You can imagine my shock when I was told that he was one of the engineers of a political divorce between Yusuf and Kwankwaso.

But now that the divorce between Yusuf and Kwankwaso appears to have happened even after Bichi has been sacrificed in the service of signaling the indissolubility of the political bond between them, what do we make of this?

Where is Bichi? What is he saying about all this? Is he having the last laugh?

Where’s Kano’s former SSG Bichi? By Farooq Kperogi

Farouk Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism.

Continue Reading
HostArmada Affordable Cloud SSD Shared Hosting
HostArmada - Affordable Cloud SSD Web Hosting

Trending