Category: Business Day

Most children have deviated and carry out deadly practices that stun their parents, when discovered. In most homes these days, pornography is commonplace, immorality is full, cult practices are in vogue, guns are hidden under the bed, and most sons are into yahoo-yahoo, yet parents hardly knew.

Thus, on the day Cecilia Thomas, a deaconess at the Lutheran Church of God in Diobu District marked her 73rd with her first son, Edidiong, being unveiled as an Elder, the congregation admitted that the deaconess was truly a ‘Silent Queen’ who raised her children the most perfect method.

Many thus looked up to her methods especially as her husband died early and she was saddled with the task of bringing up two boys and a girl in a place such as Diobu.

When asked to reveal her template, she waved prayer as the key. ‘Some of our women are not with their children in same location. Prayer is the weapon that can reach them wherever they are because God is faithful. Maybe, one day, God will touch and change them. They will come back to the right path.’

What dominated the thanksgiving ceremonies was the fact that the deaconess was the silent type, yet all her children turned out excellently well in character and career.

She disclosed her method: ‘We brought them up in Christ and church culture. They were well taught and they were made to know that whatever we as parents asked them to do, if they did not believe it, they should follow the word of God. So that is why.’

The Mummy showed huge appreciation to the guests and to God that gave a bright weather on a day in September in a rainy region. She said: ‘God is faithful.’

Edidiong Thomas: Children caring for children:

Edidiong Thomas is the first child of the Thomas family. He was made ‘Elder’ on the day her mom was unveiled on her 73rd. Responding to the accolades to her family for being well brought up, he said it’s all about family norms and values.

He emphatically said why children are going astray very much is because their parents are mere children. ‘Children are bringing up children’, he declared.

As a way of advice, he urged parents of today to emulate good models they see around them. ‘Copy from the old time religion, copy those things that had been existing, plus all the norms and values that were there before now. Then imbibe those things into your children.

‘You don’t just say you know because of career. A lot of people are missing the mark. They become too focused on career and then leave the most important thing which is taking care of the children.’

On the double celebration for mother and son, Thomas said he felt happy and elevated for what God has done; being installed as an Elder. ‘Above all, I am happy for what God has done in my life and my family. Today also is my mom’s birthday. I am overjoyed. And then lastly I asked for and prayed for a fair weather and we god it, all day to this moment. So I am extremely overjoyed.’

He admitted that while growing up, they stuck to their parents’ words. ‘I know that children of today appear to be much into Yahoo life, immorality, lack of attention in the class, cultism, etc. Looking at the lives of then and now, the difference seems huge.

‘To me, it’s all about norms and values. As a person and for my family, we held onto norms and values. Apart from that, we were trained and catered for by parents.

‘Most parents are not mature in the spirit, not mature in the head. And then they become influenced by social factors. I also know it’s because of the information that we have today. Then, there was no internet, etc. Exposure was limited. Internet was created to improve life. Some parents can still help their children use it to better their lives instead of using them to be more corrupt than they should be. So, it’s all about norms and values. We were given norms and then we hope that we will also transfer them to the children we are raising.’

Cleric, Oliver Iwoha on why evil men fill govt positions:

Oliver Iwoha, reverend and Port Harcourt District Superintendent of the Lutheran Church of Nigeria, Diobu, who hails from in Imo State threw much light in why bad men fill up government positions.

He admitted that churches and community townhall meetings look for best of their best to serve in positions, but said it is not so when it comes to electing persons into office.

The Superintendent, who arrived Diobu back after many years of leaving the District, said: ‘What God requires from us is faithfulness, sincerity, straightforward. But now, what we are seeing today is the opposite. Those in authority will like to bring in those that will do their bidding and cover them and their mistakes. They will not touch people that are sincere and straightforward.

‘The leaders suppress good people and elevate evil persons. They prop up those people that are like them so that they will cover for and protect each other. That is what we see these days. It is not only in Lutheran Church that they seek out good men and women. Other churches do so, too.’

On advice to voters, he urged the society to try the true Christian way; ‘Vote on tested and confirmed people you know. Choose people that are God-fearing. God requires those that are straightforward, sincere, humble, etc. This is because if you elect a leader, he or she must represent you and be accountable.

‘So, look for people that will truly represent you, that will tell you the truth, that will help you, that will lead you and tell you what the government is all about. It should not be people that will turn round to silence you.’

He mentioned Peter Obi as one of those loved by the ordinary people but said those in authority seem to fear him. ‘Today in Nigeria, politicians have used money to buy and deceive the people. During election, they will begin to share money to people, an end up blind their eyes.

‘Now the people will no longer see the good people that are straightforward, people that can represent them fully. Because of that money that they will eat today, tomorrow that money will not be there. The people that can serve may not have that particular money, but they are ready.

‘We know a man that is very ready and prepared to serve as President but they would not allow him because of his straightforwardness. They fear he may expose the rot in government.’

Throwing back, he said he arrived the previous evening only to learn that the family his co-minister left behind was doing double celebration. He talked about his journeys from Diobu to Owaza (Abia State) to Enugu, Bayelsa, etc, and now to Diobu as head.

‘Upon return here, I was officially notified that Sister, Deaconess Cecilia Thomas, and her son, Edidiong Thomas, would have great thanksgiving. Incidentally, the late husband of the woman was the one that I took over from as a lay preacher in Owaza 1987. Today, I am here witnessing the 73rd year of his wife who actually was behind the success of man as family head. Here now, we are receiving and celebrating them as our Elder and Deaconess; and to work with them here in the church.

From what he knew about them, he drew some lessons for young mothers and today’s children. ‘Yeah, like I said, the late Bro Moses Thomas was a dedicated and agile minister. Every Sunday, he would travel from here in Diobu Port Harcourt to Owaza in Abia State to conduct church service until I was sent. The wife was very supportive.

‘She is a straightforward woman, very dedicated, humble, and sincere. I know her very well as a strong member in the Women Fellowship. I was happy when I arrived yesterday, I was informed that she has been installed a Deaconess in this church. The son was very young those days.

‘To the glory of God, today, both mother and son are now Deaconess and Elder in our midst; and I am privileged to work with them. It’s a blessing, and honour, and also a responsibility.’

He regretted that the hunt for money has caused distraction for families but that the deaconess is very humble.

‘I advise women to emulate her humility. She is respectful and dedicated. Dedication is always expected in this work. When you dedicate yourself, people will see, because it was as a result of her dedication that the people at home saw that dedication, saw the humility and faith, and they picked her to be a Deaconess.

‘In the same way, our brother, Edidiong, was found to be dedicated and humble and sincere, and they picked him and made him and Elder. So, that can serve as a lesson to young people to realise that people are watching them, especially in the body of Christ. They must learn that when you are dedicated, when you know your work, when you are sincere and straightforward, God and the body of Christ will find you and use you. All that God wants from us is dedication, straightforwardness, sincerity. That is also what will take us to heaven.’

The African Union (AU) and the International Executive Committee of the All Africa Music Awards (AFRIMA) have unveiled the global calendar for the landmark 10th edition, with the main events scheduled for May 18-23, 2027, in Lagos, Nigeria, culminating in the grand awards ceremony on May 23.

The calendar was unveiled at the 10th AFRIMA Creative Industry Roundtable and Global Calendar Unveiling held at Sofitel in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California, United States. AFRIMA President/Executive Producer, Mike Dada, announced that the Call for Entries will open worldwide on October 11, 2026, and close on January 10, 2027.

According to Dada, collation and pre-screening of entries will take place from January 11-14, followed by adjudication from January 15-22 and the global announcement of nominees on January 29. Public voting will run from February 21 to May 21, 2027.

Eligible creative works must have been produced and released within the official eligibility period, from August 10, 2025 to January 10, 2027

Dada also unveiled the international build-up programme, tagged #Road2AFRIMA10Xperience, covering London, Windhoek, Cotonou, Nairobi, Accra, Paris, Warri and Port Harcourt.

In Lagos, the AFRIMA 10X Conference, Media Parley and Industry Night will be held on April 14, alongside university activations and concerts between February and April, ahead of the main events from May 18-23, 2027, starting with the AFRIMA Diamond Showcase.

‘The journey will culminate in Lagos with the 10th AFRIMA Main Events from May 18 to 23, 2027, and the grand awards ceremony on May 23,’ Dada announced.

Speaking on the significance of the milestone, Dada said the 10th edition would celebrate a decade of African musical excellence while strengthening AFRIMA’s contribution to Africa’s creative economy. ‘African artistes are filling arenas around the world. African sounds are influencing global culture. But visibility alone is not enough. We must turn visibility into opportunity, opportunity into investment, and investment into sustainable creative industries. Africa must not only export culture; Africa must capture the capital and build wealth from its culture,’ he said.

Describing the global calendar as more than a list of dates, Dada said it represents ‘a roadmap for engagement, collaboration, investment and cultural exchange,’ bringing together artistes, creatives, investors, policymakers, media and industry leaders. He added that every stop on the #Road2AFRIMA10Xperience is designed to create new conversations, partnerships, opportunities and pathways for African creativity.

At the well-attended event, the Los Angeles unveiling marks the latest stage in the build-up to the 10th AFRIMA, following earlier #Road2AFRIMA10Xperience engagements in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire; and Rabat and Casablanca, Morocco. The Los Angeles event attracted personalities from Africa and the United States, including comedian Darryl Vega; actors Razz Adeoti, Bayo Akinfemi and Ozie Nzeribe; digital creator Laurence Brahm; artiste Seyi Brown; producer Septimum; The Africa Channel COO Narendra Reddy; DJ Sly King from Ghana among others; and renowned Guinness world record holder choreographer, dance instructor and fitness coach Kaffy, who also hosted at the event.

Award-winning American artiste and producer Septimius The Great delivered the welcome remarks.

‘The connection between African artistes and American artistes is more important than ever. We have the talent, the creativity and the stories, but when we build the bridge between Africa and America, we create opportunities that can take our music and our culture to an even bigger global audience.’

Also speaking at the conference, Reddy called for a more sustainable African creative economy where creators receive fair commercial value for their work. ‘Creators must make real money from their work, not be used and discarded after their content generates value. Africa’s 54 nations must collaborate and build stronger partnerships with the rest of the world to open markets, attract investment, and take African music and creativity to global audiences,’ he said.

Established in 2013 by the International Executive Committee of AFRIMA in partnership with the African Union, AFRIMA has become Africa’s biggest, most prestigious and longest-running music awards platform, developing, celebrating and promoting African music, culture and creative talent globally. Its broadcast reaches audiences in more than 84 countries, with millions of viewers worldwide.

For many years, Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW), as a religious organisation, have based its stand on blood transfusion on the interpretation of Mosaic Law, which, among other things, forbade believers from anything that relates to blood.

According to the organisation, Jehovah connects the sacredness of life with blood. It therefore bases its stand on Jehovah’s command to Noah in Genesis 9: 4, which says ‘…only flesh with its life, its blood you must not eat.’

Over the years, JW have operated strictly against blood transfusion, which many have endured even at the expense of loved ones.

But a recent update from its leadership, tagged ‘2026 Governing Body Update #6 ‘, discussed an adjustment to JW’s position on blood components – further indicating that ‘Christians are not under the Mosaic Law.’

While the organisation holds the right to its interpretation of the Bible as a religious sect, many adherents have lost their lives for refusing to accept blood transfusion in their critical moments, while the belief lasted.

In recent months, several natural disasters like earthquakes in Venezuela, Japan, and Colombia, wildfires in Europe and in North America, and devastating mudslides in Asia have affected many, including Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In many of the affected places, Jehovah’s Witnesses were directly involved in rescue efforts involving fellow witnesses, where local brothers and sisters donated over half a million dollars’ worth of food, clothing, and other supplies.

While JW branch offices in affected areas set up relief centres to help people in need of essential items, those in critical condition and in need of blood transfusion could not get the help required because the organisation they belong to does not support blood transfusion.

According to the Governing Body, Jehovah’s Witnesses have always endeavoured to reflect on God’s view of the sacredness of life. While that position is true and justified, it was, however, based on a misinterpretation of the scriptures.

The occurrence of natural disasters and medical advancements in a way forced the Governing Body to reevaluate the organisation’s position on blood transfusion – therefore positing that ‘It’s an opportunity for each of God’s servants to reflect Jehovah’s view of life.’

According to the Governing Body, obedience to Jehovah’s view of life includes avoiding the consumption of blood.

‘And since the underlying principle is respect for life, it also includes avoiding blood guilt caused by murder or by careless or reckless conduct that could result in the loss of life.’

Furthermore, the Governing Body, in obedience to the apostolic command to abstain from blood, reiterated that the Bible does not comment on the use of a person’s own blood in medical and surgical care.

‘Therefore, like other choices about health care, each Christian must make his own decision about the use of his own blood in all medical and surgical care.’

New perspective/Biblical understanding on blood transfusion

The Bible expressly warned that believers are not to add or remove from any part of the scripture. However, this part of the Bible and other commandments have been interpreted from various points of view.

Therefore, it is not surprising to see the JW Governing Body review the organisation’s stand on blood transfusion – which for many years have exposed Jehovah’s Witnesses to controversies in many places.

‘It’s more about Biblical understanding of the principle about the use and consumption of blood that became clearer,’ a witness who wanted to remain anonymous told BusinessDay.

She added that there has been no pushback from within the organisation to force the Governing Body to review her position on blood transfusion.

‘There are so many people that I know that would still refuse any form of blood, because their conscience doesn’t allow them.’

She also clarified that whole blood is still not taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses, but they can only take the four components as required for treatment

‘If their conscience allows it, they can store their own blood and reuse it for medical procedures. The former principle was to take fractions of the components of whole blood and not whole blood or the full components,’ she said.

The anonymous Witness also disclosed that the review was not directly influenced by technological advancements. ‘JW’s have always been tech-savvy and use tech to their advantage.

‘We’ve always had very successful no-blood surgeries, backed by the world’s most advanced doctors,’ she added.

Importance of blood transfusion

Blood transfusion is primarily needed to save a person’s life when they have lost too much blood. It helps people with severe anaemia by giving their body the red blood cells it needs to carry oxygen.

Blood transfusion is also very important during major surgeries, accidents, childbirth, and other emergencies, where the patients’ blood count is low.

Similarly, some patients with serious illnesses may also require blood or blood components as part of their treatment. ‘Having enough safe blood available in hospitals means doctors can respond quickly when someone’s life is at risk,’ Said Yekeen, former chairman, YMLSF OYO State branch, told BusinessDay.

According to Yekeen, hospitals need regular blood donors to ensure that blood is available when patients need it urgently – hence people should be open to blood donation and transfusion.

‘People should be willing to donate blood because their small act of kindness can save someone’s life,’ Yekeen said.

According to him, donated blood is carefully tested/screened and matched to make the transfusion as safe as possible. ‘By donating blood and being open to receiving it when necessary, we can help save lives and support one another,’ he added.

Power of decision given to each Witness

While the recent review of the Governing Body is seen as a welcome development, much still has to be done in areas of acceptance because the U-turn now places the power to give or receive on individual Witnesses.

Therefore, the Governing Body warned that taking the matter lightly could harm a Christian’s conscience and his relationship with Jehovah.

The warning according to the Governing Body was based on the fact that members of the Body are not masters of other believers’ faith, but are rather fellow workers in faith.

‘This scriptural clarification allows each Christian to do as stated in Galatians 6: 5. Each one will carry his own load.

‘After further prayerful consideration, the Governing Body has decided that this same principle applies to the four primary components of whole blood,’ the Governing Body stated.

On the back of this, the Body urged Witnesses to prayerfully consider all factors relevant to their situation when making medical decisions involving products derived from blood.

‘In this way, each Christian can make a decision that leaves him with a clean conscience and shows deep respect for Jehovah, the source of life.’

The Governing Body also touched on how individual Witnesses can view the acceptance or rejection of any blood-related product.

‘Each Christian will likely reason differently. Some might reject all such products because they believe that taking any part of blood is wrong.

‘Others might accept certain products because they represent a small percentage of whole blood,’ the Governing Body stated.

Industry professionals has reiterated the need for manufacturers to move beyond AI experimentation and embrace practical, scalable solutions that can boost productivity, strengthen competitiveness and deliver measurable economic value across the region.

They argue that Artificial intelligence could unlock billions of dollars in economic value for Africa’s manufacturing sector, but companies must first address weaknesses in data, infrastructure, energy and technical skills.

Stakeholders at the recent GITEX Nigeria 2026 explored how artificial intelligence can be practically deployed across the manufacturing sector.

Speaking during a session filled with excitement, fresh ideas and solutions-driven contributions, Ian Leslie, Chief Information Officer of Dangote Cement, said that African manufacturers have an opportunity to use AI to leapfrog decades of legacy industrial systems that have slowed digital transformation in more developed markets.

Leslie said that AI should not be viewed as a substitute for fixing the continent’s fundamental industrial weaknesses.

According to him, the problem with automation in manufacturing worldwide is fragmented, poor-quality data, which is locked into proprietary systems that were never designed to share it,’ he stated.

‘One of the genuine advantages I think Africa does have is the absence of legacy,’ ‘New capacity can be born digital rather than retrofitted,’Leslie said.

He further said that manufacturers across the continent face pressure to improve productivity and compete in a global market where advanced technologies are increasingly being deployed to optimise production, supply chains and industrial operations.

The GITEX Nigeria provides an important platform for those connections, bringing together the innovators, entrepreneurs and organisations driving Africa’s digital transformation.

The event also included discussions that centred on productivity, operational efficiency, return on investment, workforce augmentation, and the critical role of data and digital infrastructure in driving AI adoption at scale.

Building Africa’s next digital chapter Africa’s digital opportunity is therefore about more than moving services online or increasing digital transactions. It is about creating the infrastructure and conditions that allow digital participation on to translate into broader economic opportunity.

I have attended enough UN General Assembly weeks over the years to know that the General Assembly itself is only part of the story. The speeches matter, the bilateral meetings matter, and the symbolism matters. But increasingly, the real business of UNGA week happens outside the UN building-in hotel conference rooms, investment forums, private dinners and side events across Manhattan. This year, that reality became impossible to miss. The side events were no longer really ‘side’ events. In many ways, they were the main event.

And Nigeria showed up.

Not simply to attend, make speeches and take photographs, but increasingly to negotiate, attract capital, build partnerships and convert international interest in Nigeria into actual commercial conversations. Nigeria arrived in New York under the impressive and energetic leadership of Vice President Shettima, with state governors, ministers, business leaders, investors and entrepreneurs spread across dozens of engagements. What struck me was not simply the size of the Nigerian presence, but the seriousness and focus.

For me, nothing captured the potential of the week better than one 24-hour period midweek. One evening at Nigeria House, Solid Minerals Minister Dele Alake and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau signed a Critical Minerals Framework Agreement between Nigeria and the United States.

The following morning in an event co-hosted by Dr. Jumoke Oduwale, Nigeria’s Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Investment, and the US Chamber of Commerce, Nigerian mining company Promethean Resources was signing commercial agreements with a series of American partners: Vermeer for precision mining equipment; Renewvia for renewable power for mining and processing operations as well as surrounding host communities; and Terra Industries for mining security infrastructure.

Government creates the framework. Business follows with transactions.

Investment follows opportunity. And ultimately, communities and the wider economy should benefit. That is how these things are supposed to work. A framework signed one evening and commercial partnerships being advanced the following morning is certainly not proof of success. But it is the right sequence-and one we need to see much more often.

Call it Naija dey carry first.

Even by Friday, when UNGA fatigue had set in across New York, Wale Adeosun, the CEO of Kuramo Capital was still able to bring together a strong room of investors and financiers from Nigeria, across Africa and beyond. People were not there simply as a courtesy. They came because there was business to discuss. And another deal was signed there by Hannatu Musa Musawa, Nigeria’s Minister of Art, Culture, Tourism and the Creative Economy – this one focused on Nigeria’s booming creative sector.

Nigeria was indeed one of the stories of UNGA 81. We should, however, be careful not to confuse attention with achievement. Nigeria is not the only country with critical minerals. Across Africa and the rest of the world, governments are competing aggressively for the same capital, technology and strategic partnerships. Some have better infrastructure. Some have simpler regulatory environments. Some have fewer security challenges. And many are moving quickly.

The opportunity Nigeria has today is therefore real-but it is not permanent. Signing ceremonies create attention. Framework agreements create opportunity. Neither creates a mine. That requires the far less glamorous work of financing, exploration, permitting, infrastructure, security, logistics, power and sustained engagement with host communities. It requires projects actually moving forward in places suc/h as Kaduna, Plateau, Zamfara, Nasarawa, Niger and Bauchi-far from the ballrooms of Manhattan.

If the agreements being celebrated today are still only agreements twelve months from now, investors will move on. What made this UNGA week particularly interesting, however, was that the minerals story was only one part of a much broader Nigerian story.

Dangote’s recent ‘peoples IPO’ and his expanding regional industrial ambitions in Kenya and beyond were a big part of the conversation-a Nigerian industrial platform increasingly looking beyond Nigeria itself. United Nations Deputy Secretary General Amina Mohammed remained one of the most visible figures in global diplomacy, demonstrating again that Nigerians are not simply participating in international institutions but helping lead them. And the Nigerian Sovereign Investment Authority signed an agreement with the World Bank and Africa50 for a $300 million distributed renewable energy fund for the country, yet another milestone of the week.

Meanwhile, some of the biggest Nigerian investment stories of the week were happening thousands of kilometres away from New York. TotalEnergies and AMNI International announced an $800 million final investment decision for the Ima gas development offshore Bonny Island, designed to supply significant gas volumes to Nigeria LNG’s Train 7 expansion. Importantly, the project also carries substantial Nigerian financing and local-content participation. And in Paris with President Tinubu himself in attendance, the Ogun State Government and DP World advanced a proposed multibillion-dollar deep-sea port and Blue Marine Special Economic Zone-an ambitious project intended to create another major industrial and logistics gateway while helping relieve the chronic pressure on Lagos ports.

Mining, renewable energy, and creative economy agreements in New York. Gas investment offshore Nigeria. A major port and industrial-zone initiative being advanced in Paris. Different sectors. Different investors. Different locations. But all within the same week. That begins to look less like an event and more like a broader shift in how Nigeria is engaging global capital.

And then there is Nigeria’s cultural economy, which increasingly requires no government delegation at all. Popular restaurant Lagos Times Square was doing brisk business. Afrobeats seemed to follow you through Manhattan, even in elevators. And the Tony Elumelu Foundation marked fifteen years of entrepreneurship impact with a gathering of entrepreneurs, investors and partners from across the continent.

These may appear disconnected from mining, renewable energy, gas and ports. They are not.

Countries attract investment partly through economics, but also through relevance. Nigeria’s culture, diaspora, entrepreneurs and business leaders have created a global presence that government could never manufacture through a communications campaign alone. Perhaps that was what struck me most about the week. No single ministry coordinated all of this. No single government agency could have. Nigeria’s presence emerged simultaneously through government, business, finance, infrastructure, culture, entrepreneurship and the diaspora.

That makes it more credible.

When a country’s global presence is visible at the same time in critical-minerals negotiations, renewable energy funds, mining equipment and offtake agreements, gas investments, port infrastructure, global institutional leadership, entrepreneurship gatherings, Afrobeats and restaurants, it begins to look less like national branding and more like economic momentum coming from multiple independent directions.

But momentum is useful only if it is converted into outcomes. So the real test of UNGA 81 will not be how many Nigerian events were held in New York, how many ministers spoke, or how many agreements were signed. The test will come over the next twelve months.

Are the mining agreements translating into equipment arriving at operating sites? Is renewable power reaching mines and host communities? Are security systems being deployed? Is Nigerian tin entering international supply chains under new offtake arrangements? Are the gas investments progressing? Is the port project moving from announcement toward construction?

Those are the measures that matter. Nigeria showed this week that it can command attention. More importantly, it showed how to use that attention to negotiate partnerships rather than simply celebrate its potential. Now comes the harder part: execution. The opportunity may have been created in New York, Paris and other global centres this week. But whether it becomes real will ultimately be determined back home-in the mines, communities, ports, industrial zones and project sites across Nigeria.

That is where the next UNGA story needs to be written, hopefully long before UNGA 82.

Dr. Wiebe Boer, Chief Growth Officer, JIPA Network, and member, BusinessDay Editorial Advisory Board

The Supreme Court’s decision restoring key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 has reopened a potentially consequential legal front for political parties and candidates preparing for the 2027 general election, particularly those whose nominations, membership status or party primaries could be challenged on grounds of non-compliance with the law.

In a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday, a seven-member panel of the apex court allowed the appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) against the Court of Appeal judgment that had voided Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act. The Supreme Court held that the provisions were not inconsistent with the Constitution and restored the earlier judgment of the Federal High Court.

The ruling is significant because political parties have already conducted most of their primaries for the 2027 election. It means that requirements governing party membership registers and nomination procedures remain legally enforceable as parties move from the primary stage towards the general election.

At the centre of the judgment is the principle that parties cannot freely depart from the membership register submitted to INEC when conducting their primaries, congresses and conventions.

Section 77(5) provides that only members whose names are contained in the register submitted to INEC, at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention, can vote or be voted for. Section 77(6) requires parties to use that submitted register for the exercise, while Section 77(7) prescribes a serious consequence for failure to submit the register within the stipulated period: the party cannot field a candidate for that election.

The immediate implication is that disputes over who was legitimately a member of a party at the relevant time, which register was used for a primary and whether the statutory deadline was observed could now become central to pre-election litigation.

This could particularly affect politicians who changed parties after their original party registers or primaries had been submitted to INEC, although the legal effect will depend on the specific facts and timing of each case.

The concern is already being raised around candidates produced by political alliances and factions that emerged after the formal party processes.

In Kwara, for instance, the nomination of Saliu Mustapha and other candidates associated with the Bukola Saraki-backed G15 alliance could attract scrutiny if their circumstances involve questions about when they became members of the sponsoring party, when their names entered the relevant register and whether the party complied with the statutory requirements.

Similar questions could arise around candidates produced through the Nyesom Wike-backed Rainbow Coalition in Rivers State and other states where politicians moved across party lines or entered new political arrangements after established party processes.

A new battlefield for 2027 litigation

The ruling could therefore shift the focus of 2027 electoral litigation from the broad question of whether the provisions are constitutional to the more factual question of whether individual parties complied with them.

Already, Nigeria’s elections are characterised by extensive pre-election litigation, with disputes over party membership, primaries, delegates, nomination and substitution frequently reaching the courts.

The restored provisions could add another layer.

Candidates who believe they were unlawfully excluded from a primary could challenge the process. Rival aspirants could question whether the correct membership register was used. Parties could face suits over whether their registers were submitted within the statutory timeframe. And candidates who emerged from disputed or factional processes could face challenges from opponents relying on the restored provisions.

For INEC, the judgment strengthens its statutory role in receiving and maintaining party membership registers and overseeing compliance with electoral requirements. It also gives the commission a clearer statutory basis for applying the consequences prescribed by Section 77(7).

For political parties, however, the ruling is a reminder that internal party processes now carry consequences beyond the parties themselves.

The central question heading into 2027 may therefore no longer simply be who won a party primary, but whether the person was legally entitled to participate in it, whether the correct register was used, whether the nomination method complied with the law and whether the sponsoring party satisfied all statutory requirements.

Ruling stirs confusion in Rivers

Rivers State politics looks completely fractured, and every single political ruling of the Supreme Court causes more fracture and greater confusion in the state, whether the case emanated from the state or not.

The latest ruling is on the electoral timetable by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Rivers State is totally fractured again, with confusion ruling the air.

Many claim the ruling has thrown out Ogundu Kingsley Chinda (OK Chinda), the guber arrowhead of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who was believed to have been single-handedly installed from his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) high position of Minority Leader at the National Assembly to pick the APC form and muscle everybody else out, including the sitting governor, to pick the ticket.

Many have quoted parts of the judgment to agree or disagree with Chinda.

What the Supreme Court said

The Supreme Court judgment on INEC’s appeal delivered in September 2026 upheld the appeal by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), setting aside lower rulings and affirming the constitutionality of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7), and 84(2) of the Electoral Act governing party primaries and membership registers.

Appeal outcome

A seven-member panel led by Justice Adamu Jauro upheld INEC’s appeal, overturning previous interpretations that had challenged the commission’s regulatory authority.

· Statutory Validity: The apex court ruled that Sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act do not conflict with the 1999 Constitution, validating the statutory requirements surrounding membership registers and candidate nomination methods.

· Dismissal of Opposition Suits: Separate appeals filed by the Youth Party and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against INEC’s framework were dismissed by the court.

· Cost Award: The Supreme Court awarded N2 million in costs against the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) in the primary appeal

The bottom line of the ruling is that INEC had the right to issue deadlines, and they remain valid. By this, parties that obeyed the timetable are protected.

Those who think Ok Chinda is okay with the SC ruling have called attention to the fact that INEC has since published a list of candidates including Chinda’s name. By this, it can only take a court case to remove his name.

A political commentator, Iwor Romgbo, said, ‘For anyone asking whether a published candidate can simply be disqualified, the answer is: not by mere allegations. Under the current electoral framework, a challenge to a candidate’s qualification or emergence through a party primary must be pursued through the appropriate legal process. It is primarily a matter for pre-election litigation by the appropriate aspirant, subject to the specific facts and grounds of the case.

‘So, unless there is a competent court judgment affecting a candidate’s nomination or qualification, a name published by INEC remains on the ballot.

His current status, however, is subject to several ongoing court processes, as reports indicate that while his name has been published, ongoing legal and electoral discussions surrounding party registers and compliance with the Electoral Act have emerged regarding the candidate’s documentation status.

His detractors argue that the Supreme Court Judgment had implications for OK Chinda’s candidacy. One source said: ‘Based on the latest Supreme Court ruling, O.K. Chinda is looking at a disqualification because he supposedly registered as an APC member on April 23, 2026. Sources claim he joined the party a few days after the party had already submitted its membership register to INEC.

‘By the Supreme Court’s recent judgment, O.K. Chinda risks losing his APC governorship ticket should the party’s leadership want to abide by the Supreme Court judgment and if truly he joined APC after the party had submitted its register to INEC.’

Another political commentator said anyone who wants to deceive themselves can go ahead and do so, but if Nigeria were a country of laws, O.K. Chinda’s candidacy of the APC has no legs to stand because it falls short of section 77 subsection 4 of the Electoral Act 2026 signed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on 18 February 2026.

‘The aforementioned section mandated all parties to submit their membership register not later than 21 days before the commencement of their primaries. It then means that if the APC that conducted its first primaries on Saturday, 16 May 2026, had waited for the last day to submit their register to INEC, they submitted it on April 25 2026, while OK Chinda registered two days later (see his membership slip below dated 27/4/2026). That is to say that OK Chinda’s name was not in the register submitted to INEC.

‘Having realised the mistake he made with that candidacy in a bid to block Governor Fubara from getting the ticket, not with any competent person from RIPCO who were already registered members, but someone from his ethnicity, he ensured that he made two other governorship candidates from his ethnicity, governorship candidates of the PDP and the Labour, should the law catch up with OK Chinda post-election.

‘With that, he came out to tell his supporters that he has not ‘anointed’ any of the candidates, evoking the confusion that has enveloped his supporters, many of whom have stopped posting ‘Rivers will be Ok’, unlike in 2022 when Wike did not make any mistakes and there was no need for pussyfooting, and many of us who believed in him started selling the candidacy of Sim Fubara after he emerged as the Rivers State PDP Governorship Candidate on Thursday, 25 May 2022. That’s it, and that’s all. No saccharine, no sugar, no spice.’

Alwell Ene, another political commentator, said only lawyers can say if Ok Chinda was ok or not because the Supreme Court-endorsed timetable means that Chinda did not meet up the submission date if they are to count from the start of all primaries, but would be ok if they are to start from guber primaries only.

Some others argued that Chinda’s matter may be beyond meeting the submission deadline for the APC register to INEC, but the issue is his proper resignation from the PDP before qualifying to pick up the nomination form from the APC. The source further pointed out that Chinda’s last salary as Minority Leader may be raised to confirm if he left properly because he is being accused of staying on as Minority Leader and also joining the APC within the same material time.

The problem may be that the case would need to be a pre-election case. Only those who contested with him in the primaries can qualify to raise it in court, but where would they get such persons to come to court?

Did the Supreme Court rule on APC factions?

Darlington Nwauju weighs in:

Darlington Nwauju, publicity secretary of the Emeka Beke faction of the APC, responding to inquiries, said the arguments on the ground should not be about Rivers APC executives. It’s about Kingsley Chinda and the rest. ‘And like I said, it will be taken on a case-by-case basis. Some registered before he did, others registered soon after, etc.

‘The SC has reinforced the INEC rules, so all that is required to nail him would be to further prove that between 23 April and the day he participated in the APC primaries, he still had something to do with House Minority leadership.’

On OK Chinda, he said: ‘I don’t know how those who want the court to help them disqualify him can succeed because APC will help him clean up his records and INEC will readily acquiesce. So, I don’t see anything blocking him.’

Many immediately recalled how a Wike aide was exposed for accessing INEC’s backend. Now, they say, it is becoming clear what they went to clean up.

Did the Supreme Court rule on the APC exco matter as rumoured afresh over the two factions and the two court rulings nullifying the Wike-backed Tony Okocha faction?

Nwauju said: ‘I don’t know where they are getting their stories from. After the May 29th Appeal Court decision, which Okocha and his crew lost, they refused to appeal further. So, I don’t know which Supreme Court and who took the matter to the apex court. But such stories will trend because, of course, you know people want to get rid of Wike and his shenanigans.

Conclusion:

Confusion will continue to rule the political waves of Rivers State even if Fubara claims they have reconciled. Many have also claimed that Fubara is saying he would stay on till November 2026 because of his six-month suspension, which they dub unconstitutional. Fubara is in the UN and has not issued any statement on politics.

This shows how much rumours now rule Rivers State, and the level of confusion in the political life of the oil-rich state. These things affect investment confidence and set back the hand of economic development.

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 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.

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.

Nigeria’s public service has witnessed several waves of reform since independence. Successive administrations have introduced policies, committees, transformation programmes, digital platforms and institutional restructuring designed to make government more efficient, responsive and accountable. Yet one persistent challenge remains: how do we know, with sufficient evidence, whether these reforms are actually being implemented and producing the results for which they were designed?

From the perspective of the Bureau of Public Service Reforms (BPSR), this is no longer simply a question of monitoring. It is a question of building a modern system of reform intelligence capable of giving government a clear and continuously updated picture of reform implementation across the public service.

BPSR occupies a strategic position within Nigeria’s reform architecture. Its mandate includes coordinating, monitoring and evaluating public-sector reforms, conducting research and promoting best practices for improving the effectiveness of the public service. This responsibility places the Bureau at the centre of one of the most important challenges facing contemporary governance: translating government policies and reform commitments into measurable institutional and citizen outcomes.

The public service is increasingly digital. Government is deploying electronic platforms, digital records, online services, data systems and technology-enabled processes. It is therefore logical that the management of public-sector reform should also become digital.

This is where the concept of a BPSR Digital Reform Tracker deserves serious consideration. The proposed tracker should become more than an online repository of government reforms. It should function as a strategic management and accountability instrument through which BPSR can monitor the lifecycle of major reforms-from policy commitment and implementation to institutionalisation and measurable results.

Every major reform should have a digital profile showing its objective, responsible institution, implementation milestones, timelines, performance indicators, current status, and evidence of progress, implementation risks and measurable outcomes.

For public-sector officials, this would create a common reference point for reform implementation. A Permanent Secretary should be able to know the status of reforms within the ministry. A Director should be able to identify outstanding milestones. Reform coordinators should be able to see where implementation is falling behind. Senior government leadership should have access to an aggregated national picture.

Most importantly, BPSR itself would be better positioned to provide evidence-based advice on where intervention is required.

The proposed system could classify reforms according to a simple performance architecture: on track, at risk, delayed, stalled, completed or institutionalised. But the real value would come from the evidence behind each classification.

A reform should not be considered successful simply because a policy document has been approved, a committee established or a digital platform launched. The critical issue is whether the intended institutional change has occurred.

For example, if a reform seeks to reduce the time required to deliver a public service, the relevant indicator should measure whether processing time has actually declined. If a reform seeks to improve procurement efficiency, the assessment should examine measurable improvements in compliance, cycle time, value for money and transparency. If an MDA introduces a digital service, the question should extend beyond whether the platform exists to whether citizens are actually using it and receiving better services.

This distinction is critical to the future of public-sector reform. BPSR is championing a transition from activity-based reform monitoring to results-based reform management.

The Bureau’s existing monitoring and evaluation responsibilities provide an important foundation for this approach. Its reform work already recognises the importance of indicators, targets, baseline information and means of verification. The next step is to bring these elements together through a digital system that allows reform information to be updated, analysed and interpreted continuously.

Such a system would also strengthen coordination across government.

Public-sector reform does not take place within isolated institutional boundaries. Budget reform can affect procurement.

Procurement reform can affect project implementation. Human-resource reform can affect institutional performance. Digital transformation can affect almost every government process. Regulatory reform can determine whether private-sector investment responds to government policy.

Without an integrated reform-tracking mechanism, these interdependencies can easily become invisible. The BPSR Reform Tracker is providing government with a national reform map, showing not only individual reforms but also how they relate to one another.

This would help identify duplication, conflicting mandates, implementation gaps and reforms that are dependent on decisions or actions by other institutions.

For BPSR, the value is particularly significant. The Bureau would be able to move from receiving reform reports periodically to having access to a dynamic evidence base from which it can generate early-warning signals.

If an MDA repeatedly misses implementation milestones, the system should flag the reform for attention. If several institutions encounter similar implementation obstacles, BPSR should be able to identify the systemic issue and advise government accordingly.

In this sense, digital reform monitoring becomes an early-warning mechanism for government performance. There is also a powerful opportunity to strengthen institutional accountability.

Every reform should have a clearly identified institutional owner. Responsibilities should not disappear into the language of committees or broad government programmes. The tracker should identify the responsible MDA, implementation lead, milestone and expected delivery date. This does not mean creating a punitive system for public servants. Rather, it should create a professional management tool that allows government to distinguish between genuine implementation challenges and avoidable delays.

Public-sector reform is often complex. Officials face changes in policy direction, funding constraints, legal limitations, institutional resistance, capacity gaps and technological challenges. A credible reform-tracking system should therefore capture not only whether a reform is delayed but why it is delayed.

This is where BPSR’s professional judgement becomes essential. The Bureau should not merely collect data. It should interpret it.

The future BPSR should increasingly operate as a centre of reform intelligence, helping government understand the evidence behind reform performance and recommending practical interventions. This also provides an opportunity to improve the relationship between BPSR and MDAs.

Rather than viewing monitoring as an inspection exercise, the Reform Tracker should promote a culture of continuous improvement. MDAs should be able to update their implementation status, identify constraints and request technical support. BPSR, in turn, can provide comparative analysis, identify good practices and facilitate institutional learning.

A reform that succeeds in one ministry should not remain a ministry-specific success. The system should make it possible to identify successful practices and determine whether they can be adapted elsewhere in government. This could turn BPSR into a stronger knowledge hub for public-sector transformation.

There is another dimension that deserves attention: institutional memory. Nigeria has experienced several changes of administration, and each administration naturally brings new priorities. Yet important public-sector reforms should not disappear simply because political leadership changes.

A digital reform tracker would preserve the history of government reform commitments. It would show what was initiated, what was completed, what was discontinued and what remains outstanding.

This would help future administrations make better decisions. They would not have to begin every reform conversation from zero.

The system could also strengthen the quality of annual public-service reporting. Instead of relying primarily on retrospective reporting, BPSR could generate periodic national reform performance reports based on continuously updated information. Such reports could identify reforms that are performing well, reforms requiring intervention and emerging systemic risks.

For senior public-sector officials, this would provide a more useful basis for decision-making than fragmented reports from individual institutions. For policymakers, it would provide evidence. For development partners, it would provide greater clarity about reform implementation. For researchers and civil society, it would create a stronger basis for assessing government performance. For citizens, it would provide greater transparency.

But transparency must be approached carefully. Not every piece of administrative information should necessarily be placed in the public domain. BPSR should develop appropriate data governance, verification, and security and access protocols. Public disclosure should focus on information that can legitimately strengthen accountability without compromising sensitive government information.

The ultimate objective should be to create a system that is credible, evidence-based, secure and useful to government. Technology should also be deployed intelligently. Artificial intelligence and data analytics could eventually assist BPSR in identifying patterns in reform performance, detecting recurring delays, comparing implementation trends and generating early-warning alerts. However, technology should support professional judgement rather than replace it.

The principle should remain simple: data informs judgement; officials make decisions; institutions remain accountable. For BPSR, the digital transformation of reform monitoring represents an opportunity to redefine the Bureau’s strategic value to government.

The future should not be about BPSR merely asking MDAs to submit reform reports. It should be about creating a system in which reform information is structured, verified, analysed and transformed into actionable intelligence. That is the real promise of a BPSR Digital Reform Tracker.

Nigeria does not need another dashboard that simply displays impressive statistics. It needs a management instrument that tells the truth about reform implementation.

Which reforms are moving? Which ones are stuck? Why are they stuck? Who is responsible? What resources are required? What intervention is necessary? And most importantly, what has changed for the Nigerian citizen? These are the questions that should define the next generation of public-sector reform.

From the perspective of BPSR, digital reform tracking should therefore be understood not as an information-technology project but as a governance reform in its own right. It would strengthen evidence-based decision-making, improve coordination, preserve institutional memory, support accountability and enable government to identify implementation problems before they become systemic failures.

The ambition should be clear: every major public-service reform should be traceable, measurable and evidence-backed. Nigeria has invested considerably in reform ideas. The next frontier is reform delivery. BPSR can lead that transition by building a national digital architecture in which reforms are no longer buried in reports, policy documents and institutional files, but can be continuously tracked from commitment to implementation, from implementation to outcomes, and from outcomes to lasting institutional change.

The measure of successful reform is ultimately not how often government announces change. It is how consistently government can demonstrate that change has occurred. That is the reform dashboard Nigeria now needs.

.Dr. Arabi is the director-general, Bureau of Public Service Reforms (BPSR), The Presidency, Nigeria.