Business Day – Page 11 – Asianet Pakistan Private Limited

Fola Adeola tells African entrepreneurs to build institutions outliving founders

Fola Adeola, Co-founder of Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB), has urged African entrepreneurs to build institutions that can outlive their founders, warning that businesses dependent on the personalities of their founders rarely achieve lasting impact.

Adeola said sustainable institutions require deliberate structures, strong governance, consistent standards and the continuous development of leaders capable of running organisations without their founders.

During his keynote speech to more than 1,200 founders, entrepreneurs and executives at the Building Beyond You Conference in Lagos on Friday, Adeola said the future of Africa’s business environment would depend on the ability of its leaders to transition from founder-dependent enterprises to enduring, self-sustaining institutions.

‘When people come to me to say, ‘Help me with this organisation I’m trying to put together,’ the first question I ask them is, ‘How long do you want the organisation to last?” he said.

‘When they say anything from five to 10 years, I tell them you don’t need me. Organisations will last five years and beyond, maybe up to 10.’

Adeola likened businesses without structures for longevity to people trapped under collapsed buildings, saying the human body can survive for days without food, but organisations similarly need structures that allow them to survive beyond the people who founded them.

He said legacy should therefore not be measured by personal fame, wealth or public recognition, but by the ability to create institutions and values that continue after the founder is gone.

According to him, legacy is the total devotion to an interest that is bigger than your own self-interest.

‘Legacy is a deep, unshakable commitment to a cause, to an institution, or a value system that does not depend on public praise, personal enrichment or executive applause,’ Adeola added.

Founders, according to him, should be willing to commit their intellect, energy and resources to building systems that can survive for generations rather than structures designed around their individual personalities.

‘Since’ is a testament to consistency

Adeola also used the word ‘since’ to illustrate the importance of institutional consistency, pointing to organisations that have survived for decades or centuries.

He cited examples including Coca-Cola, Barclays Bank, Oxford University and Cambridge University, arguing that the longevity of such institutions is evidence of their ability to maintain standards across generations.

‘Since is not a statement of age. Since is a testament to consistency,’ he said.

‘It tells the customer we have performed this service, maintained this standard and honoured this promise across decades to centuries, through booms and busts, through world wars, through presidential times, through generations. Guess what? We are still standing.’

Adeola said businesses seeking to build for centuries must therefore avoid short-term decision-making and resist compromising their standards for immediate gains.

He recalled telling colleagues at GTB that he wanted the bank to one day carry a sign stating ‘Since 1990’, with the hope that generations of Nigerians would still see the institution operating centuries later.

‘We are building an institution that must last at least two centuries, and if you are building for 200 years, your decisions today cannot be reckless. Shortcuts cannot be tolerated,’ he said.

He noted that several Nigerian businesses and institutions had also crossed major longevity milestones, citing the Church of Nigeria, House of Tara and the Dangote Group among organisations that had sustained operations over decades.

Succession is central to institutional survival

Adeola said one of the biggest requirements for institutional longevity is the ability of founders to deliberately raise leaders and embed a culture that does not depend on them.

‘Unless you intend to run a tiny one-man show until you die, there is a physical and intellectual limit to what one individual can accomplish,’ he said.

Adding that: ‘As a founder, if you have not raised leaders capable of executing without you, your organisation inevitably enters a phase of diminishing returns.’

He said founders who fail to develop successors risk seeing their businesses lose momentum as their energy declines and the organisations become increasingly dependent on them.

He pointed to the transition at House of Tara, founded by Tara Fela-Durotoye, as an example of deliberate succession planning.

He commended Durotoye for building the beauty business from her living room nearly three decades ago and eventually handing over executive leadership after 25 years to focus on developing the next generation of business leaders.

‘You have demonstrated that African excellence can be codified, can be scaled and can be sustained,’ Adeola said.

According to him, the responsibility of today’s entrepreneurs should extend beyond building successful businesses to creating institutions capable of sustaining their values, standards and impact long after they have left.

Group demands evidence from SaharaReporters over financial allegations against Taraba SEMA boss

The Taraba Integrity Network has challenged the evidentiary basis of a recent SaharaReporters report linking financial transactions involving the Executive Secretary of the Taraba State Emergency Management Agency, Dr Echuseh Audu, to alleged diversion of relief materials.

In a statement signed by its Public Relations Officer, Mohammed Umar, the group said the transactions cited in the report did not establish that Audu diverted relief materials or misappropriated public funds.

The organisation particularly disputed the claim linking N44m paid to Nizamiye Hospital, Abuja, to the treatment of alleged Audu’s daughter, who reportedly later died.

The group said the deceased was not Audu’s daughter and challenged SaharaReporters to publish hospital records, birth records or other documentary evidence establishing the alleged relationship.

It also questioned the connection between the N44m hospital payments and the earlier allegations of diverted TSEMA relief materials, asking for evidence showing that proceeds from any alleged diversion were used to make the hospital payments.

On the N12.19m transaction involving the Taraba LPRES Draw Down Account and Katuka’s Kitchen, the group noted that the exact N12,190,726.80 reportedly transferred to the business was subsequently returned to the LPRES account.

The organisation said the transaction, without further evidence, did not establish wrongdoing and asked whether it was a contract payment, reimbursement, erroneous transfer or temporary transaction that was later reversed.

The group also rejected the aggregation of different transactions into N49.44m, arguing that the mere addition of transactions involving personal, business and government-related accounts did not establish that they formed one financial scheme.

‘An inflow is not automatically government money. Government money is not automatically diverted money. And a financial transaction is not automatically evidence of fraud,’ the statement said.

The group further challenged the significance attached to Audu’s alleged BVN connection to Katuka’s Kitchen, saying a BVN association alone did not establish continued control of the account after her reported resignation from the business.

The organisation therefore asked SaharaReporters to produce bank mandates, signatory records and transaction authorisations if it was alleging that Audu continued to control the account.

The organisation also pointed to what it described as the unconfirmed nature of the earlier allegations of TSEMA relief-material diversion, saying such allegations should not be presented as facts while they remained subject to investigation or judicial proceedings.

The Taraba Integrity Group said the people of Taraba deserved accountability but also accuracy, urging SaharaReporters to publish the documentary evidence linking the transactions to diversion, fraud or personal enrichment. It warned against what it described as ‘trial by headline,’ insisting that allegations should remain allegations until supported by evidence.

Meet 18 Africans who have held top positions at the United Nations since 1961

Africa has never been a footnote at the United Nations. Since Tunisia’s Mongi Slim became the first African to preside over the General Assembly in 1961, Africans have repeatedly occupied some of the UN’s highest offices. They have served as presidents of the General Assembly, Secretary-General, and Deputy Secretary-General, helping shape debates on decolonisation, apartheid, peacekeeping, development, human rights, and international security.

But the record also highlights an unresolved contradiction in Africa’s place in the UN system. No African country holds a permanent seat on the Security Council, the UN body primarily responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The council’s five permanent members remain China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, while African countries have traditionally occupied rotating non-permanent seats.

The African Union’s Common African Position, known as the Ezulwini Consensus, calls for at least two permanent African seats, with the continent itself deciding which countries would occupy them.

Against that backdrop, here are 18 Africans who have held some of the UN’s most senior positions, based on the historical record highlighted by AfricaAware.org, with additional biographical details from UN records.

1. Mongi Slim – Tunisia, 1961

Mongi Slim became the first African to preside over the UN General Assembly, taking the gavel for its 16th session in 1961, five years after Tunisia gained independence from France.

Born in 1908, Slim was about 52 when he became Assembly president. A lawyer and diplomat, he had been involved in Tunisia’s independence struggle and was imprisoned twice by French colonial authorities for his nationalist activities.

After independence, he became one of Tunisia’s leading diplomats and served as the country’s representative to the UN Security Council before reaching the Assembly presidency.

Slim died in 1969, aged 61, leaving behind a diplomatic career that had helped establish a place for newly independent African states within the UN system.

2. Alex Quaison-Sackey – Ghana, 1964

Three years later, Alex Quaison-Sackey became the first Black African to preside over the General Assembly, leading its 19th session in 1964.

Born in 1924, Quaison-Sackey was 40 when he assumed the position. He came from Ghana, which had become the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence from colonial rule in 1957.

A career diplomat, he served as Ghana’s Permanent Representative to the UN before becoming Assembly president. He was later appointed Ghana’s Foreign Minister under President Kwame Nkrumah.

Quaison-Sackey also wrote Africa Unbound: Reflections of an African Statesman. He died in 1992 at the age of 68.

3. Angie Brooks – Liberia, 1969

Angie Elizabeth Brooks became the first African woman to preside over the UN General Assembly in 1969.

Born in Liberia in 1928, Brooks was 41 when she became president of the 24th session. She was also only the second woman in history to preside over the Assembly.

A lawyer, jurist, and diplomat, Brooks served as Liberia’s Permanent Representative to the UN and became one of the country’s most prominent international figures.

Her career was significant not only because of the office she held but because she reached it at a time when women and Africans remained heavily underrepresented in senior international institutions. Brooks died in 2007 at 79.

Universal Music Group sues DistroKid over AI music, copyright claims

Universal Music Group, the world’s largest music rights company, has filed a lawsuit against DistroKid, one of the biggest independent music distributors by volume, accusing the platform of deceptive trade practices and widespread copyright infringement.

The suit, lodged in the US District Court for the District of Delaware, centres on DistroKid’s handling of artificial intelligence-generated music and alleged infringing tracks.

Universal Music Group claims DistroKid has created a false impression that the music it distributes consists of releases by real human artists rather than mass-produced AI content. The complaint is careful to note that it is not targeting the legitimate distribution of AI-generated music when it is clearly disclosed as such.

Instead, Universal alleges DistroKid is ‘masquerading as something it is not and benefiting from that false impression.’

According to the filing, DistroKid misleads the market in three key ways. First, it gives the impression that its catalogue comprises artist-backed releases created and owned by human creators. Second, it suggests it supports industry initiatives, including those of the Music Fights Fraud Alliance, aimed at stopping the mass upload of AI ‘slop’ and other tactics designed to generate revenue by crowding out human artists. Third, it presents itself as taking a firm stance against copyright infringement.

Universal Music Group argues that DistroKid is flooding digital platforms with AI-generated tracks that siphon revenue and listeners away from legitimate artists and rightsholders. The company further alleges that DistroKid continues to distribute infringing recordings even after acknowledging it lacks the necessary rights.

‘Time and again, DistroKid concedes that it does not have rights in the sound recording,’ the suit states. ‘Continuing to distribute these infringing tracks allows DistroKid to collect ill-gotten revenues that should have gone to Plaintiffs and other legitimate rightsholders.’

The consequences, Universal says, fall on artists, consumers, digital service providers and rightsholders. Every stream captured by a deceptive AI-generated or infringing track diverts income from working musicians. Consumers are misled into believing they are supporting genuine artists, while platforms believe they are hosting authentic music.

DistroKid, meanwhile, gains an unfair competitive edge because legitimate distributors bear the cost of verifying authenticity and ownership, while DistroKid does not, yet is treated by the market as operating on equal terms.DistroKid has grown rapidly and claims to distribute roughly 40 per cent of all new music in the world for more than four million artists.

In July, private equity firm CVC Capital Partners agreed a ten-figure deal to acquire a majority stake in the company. The transaction, brokered by Goldman Sachs and Raine Group on DistroKid’s behalf, is expected to close in the third quarter of 2026.

Universal is seeking maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work. The complaint names 1,000 specific recordings as examples, creating a theoretical exposure of $150 million. Universal describes these tracks as ‘the tip of the iceberg,’ stating that DistroKid has infringed and continues to infringe thousands of its sound recordings, with discovery likely to uncover many more.

Supporting industry data cited in related reporting shows the scale of AI distribution. Of 1,551 AI music tracks submitted to SIQA’s charts in the first quarter of this year, 90.4 per cent were created using Suno and 75.8 per cent were distributed by DistroKid.

This is not Universal’s first action against a major DIY distributor.

In November 2024, Universal, together with ABKCO Music and Records and Concord Music Group, sued Believe and its TuneCore subsidiary in New York, alleging industrial-scale copyright infringement involving sped-up and remixed versions of protected recordings.

That case sought at least $500 million in damages. The parties settled in April 2026, filing a joint stipulation dismissing all claims with prejudice. Financial terms were not disclosed, though Universal confirmed the matter had been resolved amicably.

The case underscores growing tension in the music industry as AI tools proliferate and independent distribution platforms scale rapidly, raising questions about authenticity, rights management and fair competition in a market increasingly shaped by technology.

Every Nigerian now owes N702,185 as public debt rises

Nigeria’s total public debt stood at N166.79 trillion as of June 30, 2026, according to the Debt Management Office, translating to about N702,185 for every Nigerian, based on a population estimate of 237.53 million from the World Bank.

The per-capita calculation shows the country’s debt burden relative to the base income for Nigerian workers, with the average public debt per Nigerian equivalent to about 10 months of earnings at the current N70,000 national minimum wage.

The Debt Management Office (DMO) reported that Nigeria’s total public debt comprised N91.59 trillion in domestic debt and N75.20 trillion in external debt as of June 30. Domestic debt accounted for 54.91 percent of the total portfolio, while external debt made up 45.09 percent.

At N70,000 a month, a worker earning the national minimum wage receives N840,000 in a full year before deductions. The N702,185 per-capita public debt therefore represents roughly 83.6 percent of one year’s minimum-wage income, or approximately 10 months of the statutory monthly wage.

The DMO’s June debt position also shows that the Federal Government accounts for the overwhelming share of the outstanding obligations. Federal Government-only domestic debt stood at N87.00 trillion, while Federal Government external debt was N65.77 trillion. States and the Federal Capital Territory accounted for the remaining N14.01 trillion combined.

The DMO used an official exchange rate of N1,379.1842 per dollar to convert external debt into naira on June 30, 2026.

On a per-person basis, the N702,185 debt figure is higher than the N70,000 monthly minimum wage by roughly 10 times, underscoring the size of the government’s accumulated obligations when measured against the statutory wage floor.

The calculation does not account for differences in income, employment status, or tax contributions among Nigerians, and is an aggregate indicator rather than an individual liability.

Nigeria Infrastructure Debt Fund targets N45bn in fresh capital

Nigeria Infrastructure Debt Fund (NIDF), Nigeria’s oldest and largest local-currency infrastructure debt fund, has opened a Series 12 offer to raise up to N45 billion, offering investors units at a 23.13 percent discount to its prevailing market price on the Nigerian Exchange (NGX).

The offer, which opened on September 23, 2026, comprises 396.33 million units of N100 each issued at N113.54 per unit under the fund’s N200 billion issuance programme.

The offer price compares with NIDF’s NGX closing price of N147.70 on September 22, representing a discount of N34.16 per unit, or 23.13 percent, according to the fund manager, Chapel Hill Denham Management Limited.

The Series 12 raise marks the 12th capital raise by NIDF since its inception in 2017 and the fourth since its listing on the NGX, underscoring the fund’s continued reliance on the capital market to mobilise long-term funding for infrastructure.

NIDF is the first listed infrastructure debt fund on the NGX and has developed a track record of providing long-dated, naira-denominated financing to infrastructure projects across Nigeria.

Since inception, the fund has made 37 distributions totalling more than N100 billion to investors, according to the announcement.

Over the past decade, NIDF has financed infrastructure projects with an aggregate value of approximately $625 million, while building a diversified portfolio across several infrastructure subsectors.

The fund said it continues to assess a pipeline of infrastructure opportunities that meet its investment criteria, with a focus on projects capable of supporting Nigeria’s infrastructure development while generating sustainable long-term returns and regular distributions for investors.

The latest capital raise comes as Nigeria continues to face a significant infrastructure financing gap, increasing the importance of alternative sources of long-term naira funding beyond traditional bank lending.

For investors, the Series 12 offer provides an opportunity to gain exposure to NIDF’s infrastructure debt portfolio while participating in the fund’s planned expansion and distribution programme.

Chapel Hill Denham Management Limited is the fund manager for NIDF.

The Series 12 offer is the latest stage in the fund’s growth strategy and is expected to support further deployment of capital into qualifying infrastructure projects across Nigeria.

Halogen, NSCDC push joint security model to curb illegal mining

Halogen Security, a Nigerian security risk management firm, and the Lagos State Command of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) are pushing a joint public-private security model to curb illegal mining and protect mineral assets.

The call was made at the 8th edition of the Lagos PR Clinic, themed ‘Collaborative Security as a Paradigm for Mining Security,’ which convened government, security agencies, private-sector operators, academia and industry.

Discussions centred on criminal activity, illegal mining and vandalism across mining corridors, and the need for stronger coordination among public institutions, licensed security providers, businesses and host communities.

Adedotun Keshinro, Lagos State commandant of the NSCDC, said mining security extends beyond individual mine sites to host communities, economic assets, environmental interests and national revenue, requiring a shift from isolated operations to coordinated responses.

He called for tighter alignment among security agencies, regulators, private operators and communities to tackle illegal mining, which has persisted despite enforcement efforts.

Bosun Sosanya, Halogen’s executive director for operations and services, said private security providers should operate as force multipliers for public institutions rather than parallel actors.

‘At Halogen, we do not see our role as separate from that of the state,’ he said.

‘We see private security providers as force multipliers that can work alongside public security institutions to strengthen capacity through deeper collaboration, including joint training, intelligence sharing and capacity building.’

Delivering the lead presentation, Onoja John Attah, commander of the NSCDC mining marshals, outlined the Corps’ efforts to address illegal mining and strengthen enforcement nationwide, highlighting coordinated interventions and intelligence-led operations as key to improving outcomes.

Panelists including Femi Kayode, ASIS chairman; Charles Keku, Pahek Security Services managing director; Franklin Okpara, Unilever chief security officer; Silas S.G, Federal Mines and Steel Development Lagos officer-in-charge and Adedeji Oyenuga, Lagos State University criminology pointed to gaps in intelligence sharing, community engagement and technology adoption.

They said improving safety and accountability in the mining sector will require formal channels for information sharing, joint capacity-building programmes and greater use of surveillance and reporting technology across corridors.

For Halogen, the engagement fits into a broader push for collaborative security as a framework for protecting critical assets while supporting responsible development of mineral resources.

Participants said such partnerships, if sustained, could strengthen enforcement, reduce losses from illegal mining and contribute to more stable revenues from the sector.

For Halogen, the engagement fits into a broader push for collaborative security as a framework for protecting critical assets while supporting responsible development of mineral resources.

Participants said such partnerships, if sustained, could strengthen enforcement, reduce losses from illegal mining and contribute to more stable revenues from the sector.

Tinubu Impeachment: Senate arithmetic that could save the President

The renewed call for the impeachment of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has brought back a familiar feature of Nigeria’s presidential democracy: a politically potent threat that is considerably easier to make than to execute.

The latest demand followed renewed controversy over Tinubu’s prolonged absence from Nigeria and allegations that he failed to transmit a written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives, as required under Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution.

The Social Democratic Party’s 2027 presidential candidate, Adewole Adebayo, has gone further to call for Tinubu’s immediate impeachment, alleging a constitutional breach.

Some lawmakers under the Save Democracy Group have also called on Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker Tajudeen Abbas to reconvene the National Assembly and consider mandating Vice-President Kashim Shettima to act as President.

But while impeachment is constitutionally possible, the political and numerical realities of the 10th National Assembly make a successful removal of Tinubu a substantially different proposition from simply raising the issue in the media or on the floor of the Senate.

Nigeria’s Constitution does not provide for the Senate alone to impeach a sitting president.

Section 143 requires a process involving both chambers of the National Assembly, and the thresholds become progressively more difficult at each critical stage.

The first step is a written notice alleging gross misconduct, signed by at least one-third of all members of the National Assembly and presented to the President of the Senate. The allegation must contain detailed particulars of the alleged misconduct.

Within 14 days, both the Senate and House of Representatives must decide whether the allegation should be investigated. That decision requires a two-thirds majority in each chamber.

If that hurdle is crossed, the President of the Senate asks the Chief Justice of Nigeria to constitute a seven-member investigative panel.

The panel investigates the allegations and gives the President an opportunity to defend himself.

If the panel finds the allegations established, the matter returns to both chambers. The President can only be removed if each chamber adopts the panel’s report by a two-thirds majority of all its members.

This means that an impeachment process cannot be completed simply because opposition senators are able to mobilise a significant number of colleagues.

The arithmetic is particularly important.

The Senate has 109 members, meaning a two-thirds threshold requires 73 senators. The House has 360 members, requiring 240 representatives.

That is where the current political configuration of the National Assembly becomes critical.

Following the June 2026 bye-elections, the Senate returned to its full complement of 109 members, with the APC holding 88 seats, the ADC nine, PDP five, NDC four, and APGA, Labour Party and Accord one each.

In other words, the ruling party alone controls substantially more than the 37 senators that would be required to block a two-thirds resolution.

The implication is not that APC senators cannot rebel against the President. They can. Nor does it mean that an impeachment attempt is constitutionally impossible.

Rather, it means that those seeking Tinubu’s removal would have to persuade a very large number of lawmakers from the ruling party to vote against the President at two separate two-thirds stages, and ultimately secure the same supermajority in the House.

That is a formidable political undertaking.

As Waziri Adio observed during the 2022 impeachment threat against former President Muhammadu Buhari, once a two-thirds majority is required, the burden shifts heavily to those seeking removal. A president needs only enough legislators to prevent the required supermajority from being achieved.

The history of presidential impeachment threats in Nigeria provides perhaps the clearest indication of why the latest call is unlikely to translate into removal.

In 2002, the House of Representatives issued President Olusegun Obasanjo a two-week ultimatum and threatened impeachment over allegations including constitutional breaches, incompetence and corruption.

The move generated enormous political tension, but the required impeachment notice was never successfully served and the process did not culminate in Obasanjo’s removal.

The United States Department of State’s 2003 human rights report also recorded that the impeachment effort eventually failed.

Obasanjo famously dismissed the attempt as a ‘joke taken too far’, a phrase that has since become associated with Nigeria’s repeated presidential impeachment threats.

Two decades later, the country witnessed another striking example.

In June 2018, the National Assembly, then led by Senate President Bukola Saraki and Speaker Yakubu Dogara, warned Buhari that it could invoke its constitutional powers if the administration failed to address worsening insecurity, alleged political harassment and other concerns.

Although the word ‘impeachment’ was not contained in the formal resolution, lawmakers made clear that the threat was understood as an impeachment warning.

Yet Buhari remained in office until the expiration of his second term in May 2023.

The most relevant precedent is the 9th National Assembly, because it demonstrates the enormous gap that can exist between an impeachment threat and an actual constitutional process.

In July 2022, senators across political parties threatened to commence impeachment proceedings against Buhari over the deteriorating security situation.

Led by then Senate Minority Leader Philip Aduda, opposition senators staged a walkout after Senate President Ahmad Lawan declined to entertain their motion.

They subsequently announced a six-week ultimatum, warning that Buhari would face an impeachment notice if the security situation did not improve. The senators even chanted ‘Buhari must go’ while addressing journalists outside the chamber.

But the threatened impeachment never materialised.

The Senate leadership disputed the characterisation of the action as an official impeachment process. Senate spokesperson Ajibola Bashiru said at the time that he was not aware of any impeachment motion having been formally filed.

The episode illustrated one of the central problems with impeachment threats in Nigeria: the difference between political messaging and constitutional action.

A walkout is not an impeachment notice.A press conference is not an impeachment notice.A six-week ultimatum is not an impeachment proceeding.

And even an impeachment notice is only the beginning of a long constitutional process.

The Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre noted in its review of the 2022 episode that Buhari had faced impeachment threats at least four times since assuming office in 2015, yet none resulted in his removal. It also pointed out that the one-third threshold required to initiate proceedings is considerably easier to reach than the two-thirds threshold required to move the process forward and ultimately remove a president.

The immediate controversy surrounding Tinubu is rooted in Section 145 rather than the traditional allegations of corruption or insecurity that characterised previous impeachment threats.

Section 145 provides that when the President proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, he is to transmit a written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker stating that the Vice-President is to perform the functions of President as Acting President.

However, whether Tinubu’s absence constitutes ‘inability’ within the meaning of the Constitution, and whether the relevant constitutional procedure has been complied with, is a matter that can be politically and legally contested.

Tinubu’s camp has not accepted the interpretation advanced by his critics.

Akpabio has said Tinubu remains in charge despite his absence from Nigeria, describing the President as being on working leave and insisting that there is no vacancy in Aso Rock.

Yemi Adaramodu, the Senate spokesman, similarly rejected the demand for an immediate reconvening of the National Assembly, saying there was no reason for such a move and arguing that the legislature should not respond to every political statement made by politicians and civil society groups.

That position is significant because the Senate leadership controls the legislative machinery through which any impeachment process would have to begin.

Nigeria’s impeachment provisions deliberately make presidential removal difficult.

That is not accidental. The President is elected nationally, while the National Assembly is composed of legislators elected from individual constituencies and states. Removing a President therefore requires an unusually broad coalition cutting across political parties and regional interests.

The framers of the constitutional procedure placed several safeguards between an allegation and removal: signatures, notice, separate votes by both chambers, investigation by an independent panel and another two-thirds vote in each chamber.

The experience of Obasanjo and Buhari demonstrates how difficult it is to assemble such a coalition.

The 10th Senate makes the calculation even clearer.

With APC controlling 88 of 109 seats, opposition parties would need an extraordinary level of defection from the ruling party to get anywhere near the 73 votes required for a two-thirds Senate majority.

And even if that were achieved, the House would present another hurdle.

The impeachment effort would therefore have to become more than an opposition campaign.

It would have to become a broad legislative revolt involving significant numbers of lawmakers elected on the platform of the President’s own party. That is a much higher bar.

The repeated failure of impeachment threats does not mean that such threats are politically meaningless.

In 2018 and 2022, the pressure from lawmakers reflected wider concerns about insecurity, governance and the relationship between the executive and legislature.

The 2022 episode, for example, came after attacks including the Abuja-Kaduna train attack and the Kuje correctional facility breach.

The senators’ threat emerged from growing security concerns and frustration with the government’s response.

Similarly, the present controversy has placed Section 145 and presidential accountability back into public discussion.

The legislature can therefore use the controversy to demand explanations, summon relevant officials, debate constitutional compliance and insist on transparency without necessarily proceeding to the extraordinary step of removing the President. That distinction is important.

Impeachment is not simply a stronger version of a Senate resolution. It is a constitutional removal process requiring a supermajority in both chambers.

From Obasanjo in 2002 to Buhari in 2018 and 2022, Nigeria’s democratic history shows that presidential impeachment threats have repeatedly generated headlines without crossing the constitutional finish line.

The 10th National Assembly enters the latest episode with an even more pronounced numerical advantage for the ruling party.

For Tinubu to be impeached, therefore, those calling for his removal would have to convert public and political pressure into a formal constitutional process, secure the required one-third signatures to initiate it, win two-thirds votes in both chambers to investigate, survive a seven-member investigative panel, and then secure another two-thirds vote in both the Senate and House.

The immediate political arithmetic does not point to an easy path.

What the present controversy does demonstrate, however, is the continuing importance of the National Assembly as the institution constitutionally empowered to scrutinise presidential conduct.

Whether lawmakers choose impeachment, investigation, resolution, oversight or another constitutional response is ultimately a question of legislative action rather than political rhetoric.

For now, the history of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic suggests that calling for a president’s impeachment has been considerably easier than assembling the numbers and political coalition required to actually remove one.

Africa Magic pays tribute to Olu Jacobs with special documentary

Africa Magic Showcase have been airing a documentary celebrating the life and career of veteran actor, Sir Olu Jacobs, following his death on September 16, 2026. Titled ‘Doyen of Nollywood: Celebrating Olu Jacobs’, the documentary is a tribute to one of Nigeria’s most respected actors and enduring figures in the creative industry.

Directed by Femi Odugbemi and produced by Zuri 24 Media, the documentary explores Jacobs’ life and career across theatre, television and film, while reflecting on the impact he made on Nigeria’s entertainment industry over several decades.

The late Olu Jacobs was widely regarded as one of the most influential actors of his generation. His career, which spanned several decades, saw him take on roles across stage and screen, earning recognition for his versatility, depth, and commitment to the craft.

Beyond his performances, he played a significant role in shaping the Nigerian acting industry and inspiring a new generation of actors.

Doyen of Nollywood brings together some of the people who knew and worked with Jacobs, offering personal reflections on his career and the mark he left on the industry.

The documentary features contributions from notable actors and industry figures, including: Joke Silva, Afolabi Adesanya, Taiwo Ajai-Lycett, Richard Mofe-Damijo, Patience Ozokwor, Kate Henshaw and Jahman Anikulapo.

Through their stories and recollections, the documentary offers viewers an opportunity to remember Jacobs not only for the memorable characters he portrayed, but also for the discipline, professionalism and influence that defined his career.

The documentary premiered on Africa Magic Showcase on September 25, 2026 at 6:35 pm, with rebroadcast on September 26 at 10:30 pm; September 28 at 4:30 pm; and September 30 at 2:35 pm.

It will also air across other Africa Magic channels, including Africa Magic Epic, on Sunday, September 27 at 10:05 pm; September 28 at 6:30 pm; September 29 at 1:55 pm; and September 30 at 4:20 pm. On Africa Magic Family on September 26 at 7:30 pm, with repeat broadcasts on September 27 at 5:00 pm and September 29 at 1:00 pm.

The special broadcasts will give audiences across Africa Magic an opportunity to revisit the career of one of Nollywood’s most celebrated veterans and remember his contribution to Nigerian theatre, television and film.

Al-Ibenu set to lead one-man protest over NIMASA’s policy delay, officers’ examination suspension

Research journalist and Mariner, Mujahid Al-Ibenu, has called for peaceful protest and greater accountability from the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) over what he described as prolonged uncertainty surrounding the implementation of new policies affecting Nigerian Mariners, coupled with the reported disruption of officers’ professional examinations.

Al-Ibenu said the situation has created considerable anxiety among cadets, students officers, and serving officers who have invested years of their lives and substantial financial resources in training and professional certification.

He argued that while regulatory reforms are necessary to strengthen Nigeria’s maritime administration and bring its seafarer-training system in line with international standards, such reforms must not leave candidates who entered the system under previously approved arrangements without a clear and equitable transition.

Of particular concern, according to Al-Ibenu, is the position of candidates who enrolled in the Associate Certificate programme previously introduced under the regulatory framework and offered through NIMASA-approved Maritime Training Institutions (MTIs).

He said many of those candidates committed significant financial resources, time and personal sacrifices on the understanding that they were undertaking a recognised programme through institutions approved to provide maritime education and training.

The question now demanding an unequivocal answer, he said, is what becomes of those candidates if the regulatory position on the Associate Certificate programme changes.

‘Candidates did not create the programme themselves. They enrolled in institutions operating within the framework approved or recognised by the maritime administration. If people paid substantial sums of money, left employment, committed years to training and pursued sea service on the basis of that programme, NIMASA has a responsibility to explain clearly what happens to them,’ Al-Ibenu said.

He called on the Agency to publish a definitive position on the Associate Certificate programme and provide a transparent transition pathway for every affected candidate.

According to him, it would be unacceptable for candidates to bear the consequences of a regulatory transition when they entered their programmes in good faith through institutions authorised to conduct maritime training.

Al-Ibenu maintained that regulatory accountability should extend beyond the introduction of new rules.

‘An agency cannot simply introduce a programme, allow approved institutions to operate it, allow candidates to invest their money and years of their lives in it, and then leave those candidates to determine their fate when the regulatory framework changes,’ he said.

He called for NIMASA to disclose the status of candidates who have already completed or are currently undertaking the Associate Certificate programme, including whether their qualifications will remain valid, whether they will be permitted to progress to the next stage of certification, and whether additional bridging requirements will be imposed.

Where additional requirements are necessary, he said, NIMASA should clearly state the legal and regulatory basis for such requirements and provide reasonable transitional arrangements rather than placing the entire burden on candidates.

His concerns come against the backdrop of significant reforms announced by NIMASA to Nigeria’s seafarer education, training, assessment, examination and certification regime.

NIMASA has announced new standards pursuant to the Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers) Regulations, 2025, saying the reforms are intended to strengthen compliance with international maritime standards and improve the global competitiveness of Nigerian seafarers.

The Agency has also announced revised curricula and new academic requirements for prospective officers, including arrangements affecting candidates progressing through nautical science and marine engineering.

Al-Ibenu said the reforms should therefore be accompanied by a comprehensive transition policy that answers the questions confronting people already enrolled in the system.

He said the issue is not whether Nigeria should improve its maritime standards but whether the transition will be administered fairly.

‘International standards are important, but so is institutional responsibility. A marina who entered a programme through an approved institution should not wake up one morning to discover that years of investment have become uncertain,’ he said.

The maritime analyst also expressed concern over what he described as the reported abrupt suspension or disruption of officers’ examinations, saying the matter requires an official explanation from NIMASA.

He urged the Agency to provide candidates with a clear examination calendar and explain the circumstances surrounding any suspension, postponement or alteration of examinations.

He further called for clarification regarding candidates who had already completed the prescribed training and sea-service requirements and were preparing for their professional examinations before any changes were introduced.

For Al-Ibenu, uncertainty surrounding professional examinations can have serious consequences for maritime careers.

Seafarers progressing towards officer certification depend on a predictable system of training, sea service, assessment and examination. Delays can affect employment opportunities, contractual commitments, sea-time progression and the ability of candidates to advance towards higher certificates of competency.

He further warned that prolonged regulatory uncertainty should also be considered from the standpoint of the psychological well-being and morale of Nigerian seafarers.

According to him, a law-abiding citizen who has carefully planned his professional life, invested his resources and followed the established regulatory pathway can become deeply frustrated when the process upon which his future depends remains uncertain for an extended period.

‘As officers, we are trained to operate within established procedures, respect authority and comply with the law. But when a law-abiding person has done everything expected of him and is subsequently left in prolonged uncertainty about his career, the effect on morale should not be underestimated,’ Al-Ibenu said.

He said prolonged frustration, anxiety and uncertainty could contribute to serious psychological distress and, in some cases, mental-health challenges, particularly among young people whose professional identity and economic future are tied closely to their progression within the maritime sector.

He cautioned that such consequences could ultimately create problems beyond the maritime industry if affected individuals lose confidence in legitimate professional pathways.

‘When a right-thinking individual becomes frustrated for too long, there is a possibility of a deviation of interest or a loss of confidence in the system. That can create additional problems for society and, ultimately, for the country. This is why we must maintain the rule of law while ensuring that the system itself gives citizens reason to continue believing in lawful and legitimate processes,’ he said.

Al-Ibenu stressed that his position was not against regulatory reform or Nigeria’s pursuit of international maritime standards.

Rather, he said, the human and psychological effects of regulatory implementation should form part of the consideration whenever major changes are introduced.

He said Nigeria must seek a balance between achieving international standards and protecting the morale, confidence and professional stability of the people expected to operate under those standards.

‘While the new regulations are designed to promote international standards and strengthen our maritime sector, the psychological effect of their implementation should also be put into consideration. We are not regulating machines; we are regulating a profession made up of human beings who have families, responsibilities, aspirations and legitimate expectations for their careers,’ he said.

He therefore called for NIMASA to publish a comprehensive transition framework covering existing students, Associate Certificate candidates, cadets, officers awaiting examinations and other seafarers affected by the regulatory changes.

The framework, he said, should identify which candidates are covered by previous arrangements, who is required to undertake bridging courses, what qualifications remain recognised, and the precise pathway through which affected candidates can continue their professional progression.

Al-Ibenu further called for direct engagement between NIMASA, approved MTIs and representatives of affected candidates.

He said such engagement would help prevent misinformation and allow the Agency to hear directly from the people whose professional futures are being affected by the implementation of its policies.

He stressed that accountability must be measurable.

‘If NIMASA approved or recognised institutions to conduct these programmes, then there must be an institutional record of what candidates were admitted to study, what requirements they were given and what certification pathway they were promised. The regulator should therefore be able to explain, with records and not general statements, what happens next,’ he said.

He also urged approved MTIs to provide candidates with full documentation concerning their programmes, including admission records, course requirements, examination status and any correspondence received from NIMASA regarding the transition.

While advocating peaceful protest if the concerns remain unresolved, Al-Ibenu said any demonstration by officers and ratings must remain lawful, orderly and professionally conducted.

He said the objective should not be confrontation for its own sake but to demand transparency, fairness and institutional accountability.

He called on the Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, NIMASA, maritime training institutions and other relevant stakeholders to urgently address the concerns.

According to him, Nigeria cannot credibly seek to develop a globally competitive maritime workforce while leaving existing candidates uncertain about whether the qualifications they pursued through approved institutions will be recognised.

He said the responsibility for providing clarity ultimately rests with the regulator.

‘Nigerian seafarers deserve a system in which the rules are clear before they make life-changing investments. Where the rules change, there must be a fair transition. And where an approved programme is discontinued or fundamentally altered, those who relied on it deserve to know exactly what becomes of their investment,’ Al-Ibenu said.

He consequently demanded that NIMASA publicly account for the implementation of its policies, clarify the status of the Associate Certificate programme and affected candidates, publish a transparent examination timetable, and provide a defined transition mechanism for seafarers caught between the previous and current regulatory frameworks.

For Al-Ibenu, the credibility of Nigeria’s maritime regulatory system will ultimately be measured not only by the standards it introduces, but also by how responsibly it treats the people who entered the system in good faith and trusted the regulator to protect the integrity of their professional pathway.

He maintained that the objective should ultimately be to build a regulatory system that commands both international respect and the confidence of Nigerian mariners.

He said Nigeria’s maritime future depends not only on stronger regulations, but on ensuring that those who are expected to uphold those regulations remain confident that the system is fair, predictable and worthy of their trust.