Author: user user

Ahead of the 81st UNGA General Debate to hold from September 22 to 28, 2026, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has mandated Vice President Kashim Shettima to represent him and lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, United States.

A statement signed by Stanley Nkwocha, Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Communications, (Office of the Vice President), disclosed that Shettima will lead a high-level delegation comprising Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State; Governor Dauda Lawal of Zamfara State; ministers and other senior government officials.

The theme of this year’s UNGA is, ‘Restoring trust, managing transformation: A United Nations that delivers for all.’

At the General Debate, Senator Shettima will deliver Nigeria’s national statement, outlining the country’s position and priorities on major global issues with implications for national development, peace and security, economic growth and international cooperation.

The Vice President will also participate in high-level meetings during the UNGA week, including engagements on the Right to Development, climate action and other issues of strategic importance to Nigeria and the African continent.

Senator Shettima is also expected to join other world leaders at the traditional reception for Heads of Delegation and participate in a series of bilateral meetings with leaders of other countries, international organisations and development partners on the sidelines of the General Assembly.

The engagements will provide Nigeria an opportunity to advance President Tinubu’s economic diplomacy, deepen strategic partnerships and strengthen the country’s voice on reform of the global financial architecture, sustainable development, climate finance and multilateral cooperation.

The Vice-President and other members of his delegation are expected to return to Nigeria at the conclusion of engagements in New York.

WHAT is the existential status of blackness in a world of extreme racism? More concretely, how does a black scholar, as a minority, navigate her way through a systemic racial configuration of the academy? Racism has become a systemic and systematic phenomenon that inflects so many dimensions and ways of lives of the West, especially in Europe and North America. The academy is one of those institutions that racism has paradoxically affected. And this is paradoxical in my reckoning because the academy is supposed to be the bastion of enlightenment and critical thinking that possesses the capacity to stem the tide of racism and keep rolling it back systematically. The university, for example, is meant to be a space for the manifestation of the universe of ideas and thoughts that allows for contestation because of its very plurality. Unfortunately, the academy in its American and European incarnations has become polluted by the virus of racism.

Black scholars are now the subject of the most pernicious racial profiling, baiting, hounding, underrepresentation, exclusion, policing and institutional limitation. Over decades, there has been an outcry over the invisibility of black professors in the North American academy. Black academics face distinct structural obstacles in terms of research, publication and mobility. The pressure is even more stacked against female black faculty whose gender location must take double the need to overcompensate in a context that undermines capacity and competence on the basis of skin colour. Black academics are fewer than ten percent of the total faculty across North America. The critical challenge does not only come from making tenure, but also from the constraints to academic leadership and intellectual progression.

The very figure of the black scholar is a subject of ridicule and discrimination. Martin Luther King, Jr. puts his hand on the issue most aptly. According to him, ‘Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them.’ The real trauma derives either from a black academic interiorising the inferiority or spending quality lifetime gingerly sidestepping racial landmines in order to make some landmarks. Every significant effort is scrutinised. Every human flaw is lynched. Every appearance of excellence is diminished. Blackness becomes a blackhole of insignificance. Under the Trump administration, the next frontier of dismantling every vestige of black excellence is the abolishment of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) framework that was established to deal with historical and systemic manifestation of marginalisation and discrimination founded mostly on identity.

All of this reflection crystallises most recently around the now late Jason Arday, erstwhile professor of sociology at the University of Cambridge, who joined the faculty in 2023 and became the youngest professor in Cambridge’s history. Jason Arday’s death by suicide in August 2026 spotlights the existential and systemic vagaries of institutional racism in the United Kingdom. Arday’s life, professional experiences and ultimate and untimely death bore the imprint of systematic and systemic racism that seemed to stage-manage the essence of his person and personality to deliberate acts over which he had no responses. A few examples will illustrate my argument that Arday was a pawn in a racist danse macabre. The fact of being born black was Arday’s entrée into a context of racial struggle for excellence. It would seem that many of the embellishments of his birth, childhood and upbringing-being non-verbal till age 11 and not being able to read or write till age 18, apart from autism, dyslexia and dyscalculia-were necessary to make him larger-than-life in a society where blackness was at best ordinary, or at worst nothingness.

And when he was barely ready for an academic world whose toxic racism he had no idea of, Jason Arday was thrown headlong into charged context of racism in higher education, equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), and minority activism. He published essays, joined advocacy groups, appeared on talk shows, gave lectures and articulated projects that were all meant to champion the cause of blackness and black academic life. From 2022 to early 2023, Jason Arday, born to Ghanaian parents in London, was at the height of his steady academic rise. He was already a professor of the sociology of education at the University of Glasgow, had co-edited a volume on the dynamics of racism in higher education with Palgrave, a monograph on ethnicity in Britain with Routledge, and had gone the rounds in a highly visible spree of activism.

By the time he was appointed as the University of Cambridge’s youngest black professor in 2023, the die was already cast, and the curtain was about to close on the life of a brilliant poster boy. At the time of his appointment, the University of Cambridge already had a reputation for being a bastion of racism; had as at 2025 only 75 black academics in its 6,180-strong institution, and Jason Arday was just the sixth black professor in the university. His appointment was celebrated and excoriated. Finally, he was now in the spotlight for the toughest scrutiny of his years of research, activism, publication and academic experiences generally. Cambridge had an objective: Jason Arday’s meteoric rise as an outstanding and outspoken black scholar-with fantastic claims of what has been called ‘improbable triumphs’-fits perfectly into Cambridge’s institutional rehabilitation of its racist reputation. The University appointed Arday with a flurry of high praises.

And then the scrutinies and accusations began dropping like bombs! First, there were private murmurs of concerns from academics about his claims and reputations, then followed by a series of innocuous investigations of his articles and existential and experiential claims. Then the accusation of plagiarism surfaced and became public. The culture war became rekindled, and the ‘racist feeding frenzy’ was underway. It was only a matter of time before Jason Arday resigned his appointment and paid the ultimate price.

But why is his death in a race-charged environment important? Jason Arday’s trauma muddled the waters of the black academic experience with racism in a toxic environment. In other words, his high-profile saga has become a broad stroke that would affect the fate of black scholarship in the West. Now, there will be a renewed call to investigate the very essence of DEI or EDI, and the framework of excellence that has attended black scholarship or the black academic establishment for decades. Now the progressives and the counter-progressives are at each other’s throats in the ideological interpretation of what had gone wrong with the academy. Unfortunately, the disproportionate punishment for whatever the academic sins of Arday are considered to be-from plagiarism to misrepresentation-stands in stark contrast to how the plagiarism audits are gatekept when it comes to white academics. And this should not be any real surprise as racism is founded on a power asymmetry that reinforces the institutional privileges of a few while trumpeting the inferiority of the many.

Jason Arday’s death raises afresh the fundamental question of what constitutes academic merit within the context of racism. If a group of people had been discriminated against for centuries, and structural impediments have been put in place to make the discrimination systemic, how then should academic merit be understood given that those discriminated against have to overcome gigantic obstacles in order to excel? How does the DEI or EDI framework feed into the balancing of the inequality? Do diversity programmes exclude scholarly, intellectual and academic excellence? When white and black scholars are held up to different sets of assessments, then something has gone outright wrong. When an academic space that is decidedly white makes the rules by which the academic merit of non-white academics must be judged, then the game has been rigged.

One of the most pertinent concerns that Arday’s death raised is the swift manner in which the situation has been cast in collective terms. In other words, Arday’s situation supposedly reflects the ills of black scholarship and its supposed progresses and excellences. When a single black scholar, no matter the extent of her failings, is picked up by the racial establishment, attention is drawn to the scholar’s identity and collective space of belonging. Thus, since Jason Arday failed, the entire community of black scholars has failed. If Jason Arday had been white, the academic establishment and the Western media would have demurely characterised it as an individual incident. With Arday’s fall from grace, the right-wing culture warriors have been justified: the black academic community lacks excellence! The DEI or EDI framework must be destroyed. And the entire community of black scholars must pay a very high toll for its transgressions!

To paraphrase the panel of distinguished academics that recently x-rayed this terrible incident on the Toyin Falola Interview, what Jason Arday’s rise and fall has signalled, again, is the power of structural racism to kill. With an onslaught of media frenzy that surpasses three hundred articles in the media, there was no way Arday could have survived the siege against his humanity and reputation. Structural racism pathologises whatever black scholars have to bring to the table of academic merit. Thus, rather than focusing unduly on the tragedy that is Arday’s untimely demise, the terrible incident should galvanise a widespread engagement with how structural racism can be undermined. And the responsibility belongs not only to the progressive Left, but to the entire black academic community that must use Jason Arday’s death as the rallying moment for a renewed onslaught against a systemic discrimination that might signal soon the death of the next black scholar.

The Jason Arday incident mirrors a similar abnegation of academic excellence in the postcolonial academy. And in this context, the issue is that of the continuing prominence of the coloniality of power manifesting in the curricula of many African universities that still pay homage to Western realities and pedagogies. Within this curriculum war, for instance, indigenous modes of knowledge and being are marginalised as being ‘unscientific.’ Many of Africa’s higher education structural and institutional templates now mirror Western frameworks. African universities are mainly sites for the production of raw materials while North American and European universities generate theories. And then, if an academic essay has not been published in American or European journals, it does not possess academic merit that will be recognised by the academic institution processing an African scholar for promotion. The Eurocentric imagination that produced structural racism in North America and Europe has a long reach into the African postcolonial higher education context too.

The tragic death of Professor Jason Arday reverberated across the world in ways that demonstrate that a lot is still wrong with our world. Now the world has moved on to the next mediatised event. And the discourse around racism, academic excellence and existential finality has thinned to the minimum. But then, the question remains: who will be the next victim of structural racism? When will the next Jason Arday die?

Olaopa is the Chairman, Federal Civil Service Commission, Abuja, and Professor of Public Administration.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate in Oyo State, Barrister Hazeem Gbolarumi, has declared that the party has overcome its internal divisions, insisting that there is no longer any ‘Wike faction’ or ‘Makinde faction’ in the state chapter.

Gbolarumi made the declaration while speaking with journalists and party stakeholders, as he outlined his vision for the state ahead of the 2027 governorship election.

The candidate, who said he had remained a member of the PDP since its formation, maintained that the party was now united and focused on the elections.

‘There is no faction in the party anymore. There is nothing like Wike faction or Makinde faction. It is one PDP now,’ he said.

‘I have never for one day or one minute defected from this political party since inception.’

Gbolarumi, who described himself as a grassroots politician, said his long-standing relationship with the people would influence his approach to governance if elected.

‘I am a grass-rooter. Others are not. I live with my people at the grassroots. I always come to the people’s level,’ he said.

He said his administration would focus on education, infrastructure, healthcare, justice and equity, stressing that his ambition was being pursued through the platform and established structure of the PDP.

The governorship candidate also spoke on the relationship between elected office holders and the political party, rejecting the belief that becoming governor automatically makes an individual the leader of the party.

‘I don’t believe in being the governor automatically makes you the leader of the party. We need to respect the party leaders and structure,’ he said.

According to him, elected representatives must remain accountable to the party and its objectives, while the party would work towards the success of its candidates across different levels of government.

He added that the party would also seek to deliver its presidential candidate in the 2027 election.

Wike’s Tinubu support

On former Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike’s relationship with the PDP, Gbolarumi said Wike’s decision to support President Bola Tinubu did not, in his view, amount to anti-party activity.

‘Wike is not anti-party. The party had a nod before he went to support Tinubu. That he is willing to retain his support is personal to you. He didn’t say he won’t support our candidates at other levels,’ he said.

Gbolarumi’s comments come against the background of the political disagreements that had previously divided prominent PDP members into camps associated with Wike and Governor Seyi Makinde.

He, however, insisted that the Oyo PDP had moved beyond the factional differences and was now concentrating on the 2027 elections.

‘Many Oyo youths are jobless’

Turning to the economy, unemployment and youth development, the PDP candidate criticised what he described as inadequate economic empowerment opportunities for young people in the state.

He said thousands of youths had graduated from tertiary institutions or acquired vocational skills but were still without jobs or the resources required to establish businesses.

‘Many youths are jobless. They have graduated. What are we doing about that? Our youths need to be empowered. Some of them have skills,’ he said.

Gbolarumi said youth empowerment should not be limited to the distribution of cash, arguing that strategic support for small businesses could create a chain of employment.

He said a young entrepreneur who received the necessary support to establish a viable business could in turn employ other people.

The candidate also linked the unemployment situation to the need for an industrial development policy capable of attracting companies and creating sustainable employment.

‘There may not be job creation if you don’t have an industrial development vision. Most of our youths are ready to work but have no job,’ he said.

He said his administration, if elected, would therefore seek to create an environment where businesses could thrive and young people could deploy their skills productively.

‘Let the people rate Makinde’s administration’

Asked to assess the performance of the incumbent administration of Governor Seyi Makinde, Gbolarumi declined to give his own rating, saying the people of the state were in the best position to judge the government.

‘As regards rating the administration, I allow the masses to rate,’ he said.

He also ruled out using the distribution of money and food as the major strategy for his campaign, describing what is popularly referred to as ‘stomach infrastructure’ as an inadequate approach to addressing the needs of the people.

According to him, campaign spending would be necessary for publicity, branding and mobilisation, but he would not use money or food to induce voters.

‘Money is not everything. We won’t share money to people. We won’t do that. It’s normal we spend money for branding, campaigns and awareness, but not stomach infrastructure,’ he said.

He further criticised the practice of politicians returning to communities during election periods with food items and cash after allegedly failing to deliver meaningful development while in office.

‘You have been given the opportunity to serve without doing anything and you are coming back to cajole us with rice and beans. It’s unfair,’ he said.

Olunloyo seeks industrial investment, stronger legislation

Also speaking at the interaction, the PDP candidate for Oyo Central Senatorial District, Hon. Ayobami Olunloyo, identified legislation, constituency projects and investment attraction as key areas through which the state could tackle its economic challenges.

Olunloyo said effective legislation could provide the framework for attracting new industries while also protecting businesses already operating in the state.

He called for greater attention to agriculture, particularly the provision of communal storage facilities that would enable farmers to preserve their produce and reduce losses before taking their goods to the market.

According to him, improving agricultural storage would help farmers get better value for their produce and strengthen the state’s agricultural economy.

On constituency projects, Olunloyo advocated increased investment in education and vocational training, saying academic qualifications alone were not enough to prepare young people for the changing economy.

He said government must provide opportunities for people to acquire practical and vocational skills that could make them self-reliant and improve their chances of employment.

Olunloyo also stressed the need for deliberate efforts to attract private-sector investment to Oyo State, saying government should create the right conditions for companies to establish businesses and expand their operations.

PDP assures members of structure

The meeting was attended by the PDP State Chairman, Prof. Rahman Akinoso; Organising Secretary, Olaniyi Stephen; State Working Committee Auditor, Hon. Ajagbe Oladotun; representative of Ibadan South-East II, Taiwo Jimoh, popularly known as Solution; Chairman, Forum of Local Government Chairmen, Hon. Abiola Jimoh; and Head of Media and Strategic Communications, Chesterfield Efe.

The party leadership also spoke on its preparations for the 2027 elections, with the state chairman giving assurances on the party’s membership structure and mobilisation.

The chairman indicated that members of the party had been uploaded in the relevant electoral process, describing the development as part of the preparations to strengthen the party ahead of the elections.

The Allied Peoples Movement (APM) in Oyo State has rejected allegations by the campaign organisation of the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate, Senator Sharafadeen Alli, that some APM and Park Management System (PMS) elements were planning to vandalise his campaign billboards and posters across Ibadan.

The APM Presidential/Governorship Apex Campaign Council described the allegation as false, saying it was intended to create tension and divert attention from issues concerning the state.

The council, in a statement issued by its Media and Publicity Committee, was reacting to an earlier statement by the Sharafadeen Alli Campaign Organisation, which alleged that some APM members were working with PMS figures to destroy Alli’s campaign materials in parts of Ibadan.

The Alli campaign organisation had claimed that the alleged plan was discussed at a meeting in the Gbagi area of Ibadan and that areas including Egbeda, Ibadan North-East, Lagelu and Akinyele were potential targets.

But dismissing the allegation, the APM council said, ‘We state without hesitation that this claim is a deliberate falsehood, crafted to provoke fear, smear our campaign, and distract the public from the real issues facing Oyo State.’

‘APM rejects this allegation completely and unequivocally,’ it added.

The council maintained that the party’s campaign was based on peaceful mobilisation and adherence to democratic principles, stressing that it neither encouraged nor sponsored violence.

‘APM has built its reputation on peaceful mobilisation, disciplined engagement, and respect for democratic norms. We do not destroy opponents’ materials, we do not sponsor thuggery, and we do not engage in violence,’ the statement said.

The party also rejected any attempt to associate it with political violence in the state, while making reference to allegations historically levelled against the APC.

‘For clarity, APM is not the political organisation known for thuggery or violent political behaviour in Oyo State,’ the council said.

It added, ‘The people of this state are fully aware of the long-standing reputation of the APC regarding political violence, intimidation, and disruptive tactics during election seasons. That history does not belong to APM, and we refuse to allow anyone to drag us into that narrative.’

The APM council urged the Alli campaign organisation to refrain from what it described as inflammatory statements capable of heightening political tension ahead of the 2027 election.

‘We, therefore, urge the Sharafadeen Alli Campaign Organisation to desist from spreading inflammatory claims that could mislead the public or provoke unnecessary tension,’ it said.

‘Oyo State deserves a mature, respectful political atmosphere, not reckless allegations.’

The council further said its campaign would remain focused on peaceful political participation, respect for candidates and their supporters, compliance with electoral laws and the promotion of stability in the state.

‘APM stands unshaken. We remain committed to delivering a campaign rooted in integrity, stability, and genuine service to the people of Oyo State,’ it stated.

It added that ‘no amount of manufactured tension, reckless propaganda, or desperate political theatre’ would derail its commitment to peaceful democratic engagement.

The council also declared that the party would continue its campaign ‘with discipline and honour,’ insisting that it would not be drawn into what it described as ‘gutter politics.’

The statement concluded: ‘APM is moving forward confidently, peacefully, and with the full conviction that the majority of the people of Oyo State are solidly behind our party and our candidates.’