Category: Nigerian Tribune

THE political battle ahead of the 2027 presidential election intensified on Tuesday as former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar accused President Bola Tinubu of responding to the opposition’s growing criticism of his administration’s economic policies.

In a statement titled, ‘Tinubu, the Issue Is Not Atiku – It Is Why Nigerians Can No Longer Afford to Live’, Phrank Shaibu, Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication to Atiku, said the said the former vice-president would continue to challenge the Federal Government on policies affecting the welfare of Nigerians.

According to him, the emerging political debate is no longer merely about economic statistics but about whether Nigerians can afford food, transportation, education, healthcare and other necessities.

‘Bola, Nigerians know exactly whose policy you were attacking,’ Shaibu said, accusing the President of responding to Atiku’s economic proposals without mentioning his name.

He argued that the opposition leader had positioned himself on the side of Nigerians affected by rising fuel prices, transport fares and food costs, adding that the cost-of-living crisis was becoming a major issue in the build-up to 2027.

Shaibu questioned the timing of the Federal Government’s promise to introduce cheaper transportation and other relief measures, arguing that Nigerians had endured economic hardship for more than three years under the Tinubu administration.

He said it was politically inconsistent for the government to criticise Atiku’s proposal to reduce energy costs while promising interventions aimed at reducing the burden on Nigerians.

‘You cannot condemn cheaper living when Atiku proposes it and rename the same objective Renewed Hope when you promise it,’ he said.

The Atiku aide also attacked the petrol pricing regime under the current administration, comparing Nigeria with other oil-producing countries and arguing that Nigerians were paying heavily for fuel despite the country’s status as a major oil producer.

He said the high cost of petrol had affected virtually every sector of the economy, including transportation, agriculture, food distribution and manufacturing.

Shaibu said Atiku’s proposed Atiku Economic Recovery Plan (AERP) would focus on reducing costs at source by providing targeted support for Nigerian crude supplied to domestic refineries under a transparent and independently audited framework.

He said the proposal was designed to lower fuel costs, reduce transportation expenses and ultimately increase the purchasing power of Nigerian workers and families.

Shaibu also took a swipe at the Federal Government’s education policies, particularly its reliance on the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND), arguing that student loans could not replace policies aimed at making education affordable.

He said Atiku’s approach would focus on reducing the cost of education and reviewing the existing student loan framework.

The presidential candidate’s aide further challenged the Federal Government to account for funds it said had been mobilised following the removal of petrol subsidy.

IN the popular knowledge and imagination, a museum is often seen as a quiet building filled with old objects, sculptures, paintings, photographs, archaeological materials, traditional costumes, historical documents and other artefacts preserved from the past. For many, museums are places to visit, observe history and perhaps learn a few things about where a society has come from. But museums are far more than houses for old objects.

Yet, beneath this familiar image lies a much greater possibility. A museum is not merely a shelter for objects that have survived the passage of time. It can be a place where a nation remembers, reflects, confronts its wounds and begins the difficult process of healing.

For nations that have experienced war, political violence, colonialism, ethnic conflict, displacement, religious tensions or deep social divisions, the question of how to remember the past is particularly important. What a society chooses to preserve, what it chooses to display and, perhaps most importantly, what it chooses to discuss can influence how generations understand one another. Museums therefore have a responsibility that extends far beyond the preservation of artefacts. They can become spaces for reconciliation and national renewal.

Every nation has a story, but not every citizen experiences that story in the same way. History is often written from the perspective of those who possessed power, while the experiences of ordinary people, minorities, women, displaced communities and victims of violence may receive little attention. A museum that simply presents a single, unquestioned version of history risks reinforcing old divisions.

This is particularly important in countries where historical grievances continue to influence contemporary relationships. A young person may never have witnessed a conflict but may still carry an understanding of another community shaped by stories passed down through generations. Museums can provide a safe environment in which these memories are brought into conversation rather than allowed to remain sources of suspicion and resentment.

The power of museums lies partly in their ability to make history tangible. A textbook can describe a war, a political crisis or a period of oppression, but seeing an object connected to that experience can produce a different emotional response.

The history of colonial exploitation, slavery, civil wars, political repression, communal violence and other injustices cannot be erased simply because they are painful to discuss. Suppressing difficult memories does not necessarily heal wounds; in many cases, it allows them to remain unresolved.

An honest museum does not have to become a place of accusation. Instead, it can become a place of responsible remembrance. By presenting evidence, personal testimonies and multiple perspectives, museums can encourage citizens to ask difficult questions.

Therefore, museums must move beyond being places where nations simply preserve artefacts and begin to function more deliberately as spaces of memory, dialogue, truth and reconciliation. Their greatest contribution to society may not be the objects they protect, but the understanding they help create around those objects.

Ajekigbe is Assistant Chief Curator, National Museum, Oyo.

ltural property is therefore not simply about where an object should be physically located. It is also about memory, identity, ownership and justice. Returning an artefact can sometimes become part of a larger process of repairing relationships between institutions, communities and nations.

For countries such as Nigeria, the potential of museums is enormous. Nigeria possesses a remarkably rich cultural heritage, encompassing ancient civilisations, royal traditions, artistic traditions, religious histories, indigenous technologies and the diverse experiences of its many peoples. Yet museums can do more than display these treasures. They can become spaces where Nigerians encounter the breadth of their shared history and appreciate the connections between communities that are too often discussed only through the lens of difference.

The museum of the future should therefore not be defined only by its collection. It should also be defined by the conversations it creates. It should invite visitors to ask questions, listen to unfamiliar perspectives and engage with the complicated realities of the past. Museums can host conversations between generations, exhibitions developed with local communities, oral-history projects and programmes that allow citizens to contribute their own memories. In doing so, the institution becomes a living part of society rather than a silent monument to history.

Technology can strengthen this role. Digital archives, virtual exhibitions and interactive storytelling can make collections accessible to people who may never have the opportunity to visit a museum physically. Young people can encounter historical materials through platforms and formats that are familiar to them. Digitisation can also preserve fragile records and broaden access to national heritage. But technology should remain a tool, not the purpose. The ultimate objective must still be human understanding.

There is, however, a danger in expecting museums to heal a nation by themselves. Museums cannot substitute for justice, good governance, education, economic opportunity or responsible political leadership. A museum cannot repair every wound caused by violence or inequality. Nor should museums be used as instruments of propaganda by governments seeking to control how citizens remember the past. Their credibility depends upon intellectual honesty, professional independence and the willingness to acknowledge complexity.

Healing is not the same as forgetting. A nation does not become united by pretending that painful events never happened. True healing requires remembrance, truth and the courage to understand how the past continues to shape the present. Museums can contribute to this process by providing spaces where painful memories can be acknowledged without allowing those memories to dictate the future.

The most powerful museum may therefore be one that leaves a visitor with questions rather than simply answers. It may be the place where a young Nigerian discovers a part of the country’s history that had never been taught in school. It may be where two people from different communities recognise that their families experienced the same historical event in profoundly different ways. It may be where a visitor encounters an artefact and begins to wonder not only who created it, but who owned it, who lost it, who preserved it and what its journey says about the society from which it came.

Museums can also remind citizens that nations are not permanent, finished creations. They are constantly being rebuilt through memory, dialogue and collective choices. The objects preserved behind glass may belong to yesterday, but the meaning attached to them belongs partly to today and tomorrow. Every generation has the opportunity to reinterpret the past responsibly and decide what lessons should guide the future.

Conclusion

A nation cannot heal by forgetting its wounds, nor can it build unity by denying the experiences of its different communities. It heals when its people are given the opportunity to remember honestly, listen to one another and recognise their shared humanity. Museums can provide precisely such spaces. They can preserve the evidence of the past while creating conversations about the future.

Beyond artefacts, therefore, museums can become instruments of national healing. They can help a society remember without remaining trapped in memory, confront painful truths without surrendering to them, and celebrate diversity without allowing difference to become division. When museums become places where every citizen can see a part of their story, hear another person’s experience and leave with a deeper understanding of the nation they share, they cease to be merely guardians of the past. They become builders of the future.

Inú olósèlú kì í dùn d’ále´’ (a politician’s joy does not endure till evening). An observer of our politics told me this yesterday. I heard it, and something skipped in my heart. It got me quiet throughout the day. The result is this long thought on politics and the profiles of Nigerian politicians.

Politics has the sneaky betrayal of the adder plus its lethal poison. And because a snake’s offspring must be long, this long thing you are reading is about the impermanence of political happiness, the insecurity of power, the endless pursuit of tomorrow and, ultimately, the loneliness of becoming ‘former.’

First, as you read this, take your time to pick whom it fits in your country, your state, your local government, your ward, your town and even your compound.

A politician’s happiness is fleeting. His joy has a short lifespan. Let’s imagine he wins his election.

Wonderful.

But has he really won?

There is the Election Petition Tribunal.

Then the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, depending on the office in contention. The music may stop before the dancer has properly warmed up.

He wins the election and begins another election against uncertainty.

He appoints commissioners and begins wondering who among them is plotting against him.

He sleeps in Government House but sometimes wakes up fighting enemies who exist only in his imagination.

Everybody is suspicious.

The security report says somebody is meeting somebody.

The party chairman has not called.

The deputy governor smiled strangely.

A commissioner spent too long on the telephone.

A former ally posted a cryptic message on Facebook.

Trouble!

Political power comes with a strange mattress.

It looks soft.

But there are nails underneath.

Fear, suspicion, treachery, pressure and the constant knowledge that somebody wants what you have.

That is a four-volume book.

If you want to understand the Nigerian politician, do not begin with his manifesto. Please. You may finish reading it and still not know the man.

Study his ways instead.

Watch what he does three years before an election. Watch who he visits at midnight. Watch the sudden affection for traditional rulers, market women, pastors, imams, youth leaders and everybody who controls ten human beings and a WhatsApp group. Watch the man who has not yet won an election already distributing ministries, committees and political appointments in his head.

The Nigerian politician is a special breed.

He is an incurable optimist, a professional dreamer and a man who can see 2033 with the clarity with which the rest of us struggle to see tomorrow morning.

He has permutations.

Oh, he has permutations!

He knows who will win the presidential election seven years from now, which governor will defect, which senator will become minister, which minister will become governor and which godfather will become too old to be useful. He can predict the political future of a state while eating pounded yam. And if you tell him his mathematics is impossible, he will smile.

‘You don’t understand politics.’

Only he and his ilk know what they think they know.

A Nigerian politician is a man who believes he knows and owns tomorrow.

While the ordinary Nigerian says, ‘By God’s grace, tomorrow will be better’, the politician says, ‘2030 is a done deal. Senate is sure banker.’ And before his party even decides how much it will sell senatorial form, Oga is already parading himself as ‘Distinguished’. Yes, all his correspondences, all event comperes will bear me witness.

He does not merely hope for tomorrow. He has occupied it.

Ask a politician what he wants after becoming councillor and he will tell you the House of Representatives is his next stop. Ask him about the House and he is already discussing the Senate. Ask him about the Senate and he is eyeing the governor’s chair. Once he becomes governor, the presidency begins to look strangely familiar

Oh no, he does not want to back to what his parents sent him to schoolto study, he just wants to be known and addressedas ‘Honourable Kinnikan’ forever.

His ambition has no retirement age.

Even when a Nigerian politician loses an election, he doesn’t close his eyes. He says he is ‘repositioning ‘ or ‘restrategising’

Translation: I am coming back.

Tomorrow belongs to him.

He will do almost anything to get to tomorrow.

The Nigerian politician is a deeply religious man. Very religious.

He can spend Sunday morning in church, Friday afternoon at the mosque and Saturday night consulting somebody whose office is located behind a mysterious red curtain. He believes in God and all the other gods too.

He also believes in insurance.

And political insurance has many forms.

Prayer. Fasting. Prophecy. Strategic alliances. ‘Spiritual consultation.’ A visit to the native doctor. A mysterious sacrifice somebody insists must be performed at three road junctions for three nights three days before the election.

He will publicly laugh at juju and privately ask somebody to ‘do something’ about his opponent.

Politics, for him, is a strange marriage of democracy and desperation. The ballot box and his oracle don’t always agree and he listens to both.

He will trade almost anybody to get what he wants. That makes him scary because not even his mother is sacred.

The benefactor who discovered him can suddenly become ‘an old friend with whom we have irreconcilable differences.’

The mentor who paid his school fees can become ‘an enemy of progress.’

The political father who made him commissioner or Special Adviser may wake up one morning to discover that his political son has joined forces with the opposition. All is fair in this game.

Not even marriage is spared in the horse-trading. Friendship is not spared.

Loyalty is negotiable.

In Nigerian politics, yesterday’s ‘my leader’ can become today’s ‘agbaaya’, the good-for-nothing old man.

And tomorrow’s ‘that man’ may become next year’s ‘my father and mentor.’

The politician’s dictionary has only one particularly flexible word: interest.

Anything can be justified under that one word. That is why there is a political warning that when you a digging a hole for your political opponent, don’t dig too deep, so that your opponent does not break any bone if and when he falls in that hole. And the interesting part? An opponent who did not break an arm or his leg is easier to persuade to cross the carpet. See? The shallow pit is dug with interest and tomorrow in mind.

Now, that does not mean this logic works all the time. Paralysis and death have been known to take place in politically dug holes.

It is remarkably easy to swindle a politician.

Just wrap a box.

Tell him there is a political position inside.

He will pay to open it.

Tell a politician his name is being considered for a position and his heart starts beating like a campaign drum.

‘Some people at the top are interested in you.’

He orders new clothes.

‘You may be appointed.’

He begins to call people ‘my brother.’

‘You are being considered for the Senate.’

He starts calculating constituency projects.

This is how powerful men become vulnerable.

A politician who cannot be fooled by ordinary lies can be defeated by one sentence whispered by a supposed insider:

‘You are the man they are looking at.’

Suddenly, everybody becomes important.

He is buying drinks.

Paying school fees.

Settling hospital bills.

Donating to associations.

Sponsoring weddings.

Because somewhere inside a wrapped box, he has been promised a political office.

Sometimes the box contains nothing.

A Nigerian politician thinks being a Senator or Governor is the same as being Ooni of Ife or Sultan of Sokoto.

This is perhaps the funniest part.

A political office is temporary.

The Nigerian politician often behaves as though his name has been carved into the walls of eternity.

He fights for a four-year term as if he is defending an ancestral throne.

Everybody becomes an enemy.

The opponent is not merely a contestant. He is an existential threat.

A rival wants the office?

War!

The constitution says four years?

Never mind.

The politician behaves as though the office will be buried with him.

He forgets that somebody held it before him.

Somebody will hold it after him.

And one day, people who used to stand up when he entered a room may not even notice when he enters the same room.

That is the cruelty of political power.

It has a very short memory.

The politician thinks he is rich.

He isn’t.

This is where the laughter should slowly stop.

A politician can spend money like a drunken sailor when he is in office; luxury cars, palatial homes, loud political meetings, parties and endless donations.

People constantly asking.

People constantly receiving.

He begins to mistake access to money for ownership of wealth.

Then comes retirement.

‘Former Governor.’

‘Ex-Senator.’

‘Former Minister.’

‘Ex-Chairman.’

The titles remain, but the convoy disappears.

The phone becomes quieter.

The people who used to say ‘Sir!’ now have urgent meetings elsewhere.

And suddenly, the politician discovers something terrifying:

Political power was not an inheritance.

It was a rented apartment.

The rent has expired.

The politician who had no profession, no business, no craft, no serious investment and no life outside politics begins the subtle hustle again.

The clever ones prepared.

They are lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, businessmen, academics, farmers and professionals who can return to something when politics returns them to ordinary life.

The others discover that ‘former’ is a very expensive word.

The politician is addicted to relevance.

This one is his almost incurable disease.

He cannot doesn’t know when to stop.

He must be seen.

He must be consulted.

He must be invited.

He must be photographed.

He must be quoted.

He wants his telephone number circulating among the powerful.

The former governor wants to see the new governor’s commissioners list. He wants his boys in the new government.

The former minister wants to know who the president will appoint.

The retired godfather still wants to determine who becomes chairman of the local government.

Nobody has told him that politics has moved on.

He knows.

He simply refuses to move with it.

He believes power will make him happy.

This is the saddest one.

The politician spends years chasing the office.

He tells himself:

‘When I become governor, I will be fulfilled.’

Then he becomes governor.

And discovers that the chair is not a magic carpet.

There are still enemies.

Still family problems.

Still illness.

Still betrayal.

Still loneliness.

Still death.

Still the ordinary human fear of losing what one has.

He has everything and may still lie awake at 3 a.m., wondering who is plotting to remove him.

He has a convoy but may not know who genuinely loves him.

He has hundreds of people around him but may not know who he can trust.

He has money but may not know whether people love him or his money.

And one day, the sirens stop.

The cars leave.

The aides disappear.

The office is handed to another man.

The nameplate comes down.

The man who once controlled thousands of lives discovers that he is once again simply Mr. Somebody.

And that is when the joke becomes painful.

Because perhaps the tragedy of the Nigerian politician is not that he wants too much.

It is that he spends so much of his life pursuing power that he forgets to build a life that can survive without it.

He conquers tomorrow.

He captures today.

He defeats yesterday.

And then, suddenly, tomorrow arrives without asking his permission.

He is no longer governor.

No longer senator.

No longer minister.

No longer chairman.

Just an old man sitting somewhere, looking at photographs of the days when people stood whenever he entered a room.

The photographer may still be alive.

The people in the photographs may still be alive.

But the power is dead.

And perhaps that is the final profile of the Nigerian politician:

A man who spends his whole life trying to become somebody, only to discover at the end that the greatest somebody he could have become was his ungreedy, contented self.

FOR many people, everyday life unfolds in familiar routines that often go unnoticed. Yet, for photographers, these ordinary moments can become powerful visual stories that preserve memories, document cultures, and inspire reflection. It was this idea that formed the heart of the sixth edition of the annual international photography exhibition held in Ibadan.

Curated by renowned photographer and visual artist, Nseabasi Akpan, this year’s exhibition, themed ‘Everyday Life,’ brought together photographers from Nigeria and several countries across Europe to explore the richness of daily human experiences through the lens of camera. The exhibition was held at the National Museum, Ibadan, with support from the African Culture Fund.

The event showcased a diverse collection of works that captured the essence of ordinary existence – from family life and community interactions to work, leisure, celebrations, and personal moments. Through compelling images, the participating artists invited viewers to pause and appreciate the details that often escape attention in the rush of everyday living.

Among the Nigerian photographers featured were veteran photographer, Thadeus Adeyemi Omotoyinbo, whose photographs documented wedding ceremonies from the 1970s; Ademola Bamigbelu, known for capturing dramatic moments on football pitches; and Caleb Ishaya Oseshi, whose works examined Nigerians’ relationship with mobile phones and digital culture. Their contributions offered audiences a blend of nostalgia, social commentary, and contemporary realities.

The exhibition also highlighted the international appeal of the Ibadan photography gathering. Artists from Spain, Poland, Serbia, and The Netherlands joined their Nigerian counterparts, transforming the event into a platform for global artistic exchange and cross-cultural dialogue.

Speaking during the opening ceremony, Akpan described photography as a medium capable of transforming ordinary moments into lasting memories. According to him, the exhibition celebrates everyday life through images that observe, interpret, and document experiences that shape people’s daily existence.

Reflecting on the origin of the initiative, Akpan explained that the idea emerged during the COVID-19 lockdown when he envisioned creating a platform where photographers from around the world could exhibit their works, connect with one another, and build professional networks in Ibadan while commemorating World Photography Day. Since its debut in 2021, the exhibition has continued to grow in scope and international participation.

Beyond showcasing artistic excellence, the exhibition serves as a source of inspiration for emerging photographers. Akpan believes that photography should be viewed not only as a creative pursuit but also as a viable professional career. He stressed the importance of exposing young people to photography and visual storytelling, arguing that such engagement can help them recognise the vast creative and economic opportunities within the field.

One of the exhibition’s most captivating attractions was a collection of wedding photographs taken in 1971 by veteran photographer, Omotoyinbo.

The images offered visitors a glimpse into the fashion, customs, and social life of an earlier era, demonstrating photography’s unique ability to preserve history for future generations.

There were artists from Spain (Professor Antonio Aragon Renuncio), Poland (Filip Wierzbicki-Nowak), The Netherlands (Jacqueline Dersjant, Rob Godfried and Kitty Van Vlaanderen), Serbia (Katarina Radovic), South Africa (Laurence Moorcroft), Zambia (Maingaila Muvundika), Italy (Silvia and Massimo), Ghana (Asamoah William) and Germany (Stan Lafleur).

Nigerian photography artists included Abel Oluwole, Jude Hindan, Juliet Ebute and Victor Oluwayoju.

The one-week exhibition reinforced a timeless truth: extraordinary stories are often hidden within ordinary moments. By documenting the rhythms of daily life, the photographers not only captured images but also created enduring records of human experience, reminding audiences that beauty can be found in the seemingly mundane.

NATIONAL chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Professor Nentawe Yilwatda, has acknowledged growing reservations about the direction of the Nigerian economy.

At a policy roundtable, held in Abuja, on Tuesday, and organised by the All Progressives Congress Professional Forum, the APC chairman assured Nigerians that the present administration would soon shift its focus from macroeconomic stability into microeconomic prosperity.

Amidst growing external reserves, increase in Gross Domestic Product and a relative stability in foreign exchange rate, Nigerians have continued to groan over poor purchasing power.

Professor Yilwatda, who represented President Bola Tinubu at the event, to present the scorecards of his administration, declared that the next phase of Renewed Hope would translate to more food, stronger purchasing power for the average Nigerian.

He said: ‘A good GDP number does not automatically put food on a family’s table. Stronger reserves do not pay school fees. A stronger stock market does not automatically put money into the pocket of a market woman.

‘Therefore, we are in the next phase of Renewed Hope which must translate macroeconomic stability into microeconomic prosperity: more food, more jobs, lower inflation, affordable credit, reliable power, more manufacturing, greater exports and stronger purchasing power.’

In a veiled allusion to the declaration by the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, to return fuel subsidy regime, the APC national chairman advised Nigerians to pick between consolidation of the progress in the economy and a return to the years of fiscal pressures.

He said: ‘As we approach 2027, Nigerians will hear many promises. Some will promise to reverse the reforms; others will promise prosperity without confronting the structural problems that brought us here. The question is whether we go backwards or consolidate and improve the progress we have begun.

‘For the All Progressives Congress, the answer is clear. We choose progress, productivity, investment, infrastructure, innovation, Nigerian enterprise, exports, human capital, and we choose President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. And we choose the ambition of a $1 trillion Nigerian economy by 2030 by Mr President for our common prosperity.’

Relocating your entire family to the United Kingdom can be a financial requirement that can catch even the most prepared applicants off guard. Beyond visa application fees, flight tickets, and initial accommodation, the single largest upfront expense most families face is the mandatory health levy imposed on foreign immigrants. Many people mistakenly assume that health payments in the UK are deducted monthly from salaries like local taxes. The UK government requires immigrants to pay for multiple years of healthcare access upfront before their visas are even granted. When you are applying as a main applicant alongside a spouse and children, this single bill can quickly wipe out emergency savings if you do not plan ahead.

In this article, Tribune Online examines the essential financial hacks, official exemptions, and practical planning steps every migrating family needs to navigate the health surcharge without running into financial distress.

Understand the true cost before application

The Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) gives migrants access to the National Health Service (NHS) during their stay. According to official guidelines published on GOV.UK, the standard surcharge stands at £1,035 per year for each adult applicant.

Dependant children under the age of 18 and students pay a slightly discounted rate of £776 per year. Because this money is calculated based on the total length of your visa grant, a family of four applying for a standard three-year Skilled Worker route must pay for all three years upfront at the time of submission.

Apply for health and care worker visa exemptions

If you or your spouse has a background in medicine, nursing, caregiving, or allied healthcare services, exploring the Health and Care Worker visa route is the most effective way to eliminate this cost entirely. Immigrants qualifying under this specialized category are fully exempt from paying the surcharge.

This complete waiver also extends directly to every dependant family member accompanying the healthcare professional. Securing a role within an eligible NHS trust or licensed care provider immediately saves an average family thousands of pounds before departure.

Request an employer surcharge clawback agreement

Many reputable international employers and licensed sponsors understand the steep financial burden placed on incoming foreign talent. While some corporate packages only cover the primary worker’s visa fees, several organisations offer relocation assistance loans or full upfront fee coverage for accompanying family members.

You can negotiate an upfront payment arrangement where the employer settles the total visa and health bill during the certificate of sponsorship stage.

In turn, you agree to an interest-free monthly salary deduction spread across twelve to twenty-four months, keeping your immediate liquid capital intact.

Time your visa durations strategically

The UK Home Office calculates the health surcharge in six-month blocks rather than prorating it down to exact days. According to immigration advisory reports from Fragomen Global, extra days granted beyond a full year automatically trigger an additional six-month surcharge fee per person.

When your sponsor drafts your certificate of sponsorship, ensure the start and end dates do not accidentally spill into an unnecessary extra block. Aligning contract lengths closely with exact annual marks prevents your family from paying hundreds of pounds for months you will not spend on that specific visa.

Build a dedicated foreign currency sinking fund

Paying fees across international banking channels exposes applicants to unpredictable foreign exchange rate spikes and extra card processing fees. The official exchange rate applied by visa processing portals is often higher than everyday commercial bank rates.Open a dedicated foreign currency account at least six to nine months before your targeted submission date.

Depositing funds gradually in the target currency locks in your budget, shields your relocation capital from sudden domestic currency depreciation, and ensures your transaction clears smoothly without card limit rejections.

Claim refunds for unused months when switching visas

Many migrants arrive in one immigration category and subsequently switch to an exempt route or leave the country earlier than expected. If your visa status changes or if your initial application is rejected, you are legally entitled to an automatic or requested refund for any remaining full six-month blocks of unused surcharge.

Keep accurate digital copies of every payment confirmation receipt and Home Office case reference number. Monitoring your immigration account ensures that any due reimbursement is credited directly back to the original payment card without bureaucratic delays.

Thorough financial forecasting is what separates a stressful relocation from a smooth transition. By identifying available fee waivers, negotiating employer support, and structuring your family’s application timeline carefully, you can protect your household finances and start your new chapter on solid ground.

THE Federal Government has appointed Dr. Olugbenga A. Awe as the new pro-chancellor and chairman of the governing council of the Federal University of Technology, Akure, FUTA.

The letter conveying his appointment dated 30th of July, 2026 and signed by the Minister of Education, Dr Tunji Alausa, reads, ‘I write to convey approval for your appointment as pro-chancellor and chairman, governing council, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State. Your appointment takes effect from 29th July, 2026.’

Dr. Awe replaces Senator Nora Ladi Daduut, who has been appointed as the country’s Ambassador to South Korea.

Dr. Olugbenga Awe is a distinguished physician, academic, entrepreneur, and visionary leader whose career reflects excellence in medicine, higher education, enterprise, and public-spirited service.

A graduate of the University of Lagos with advanced postgraduate training in Obstetrics and Gynecology and Internal Medicine, he is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Mercer University School of Medicine in the United States of America.

The Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) on Wednesday insisted that it did not submit the names or Form EC9E documents of 10 Anambra State House of Assembly candidates published by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The party, in a statement signed by its Director of New Media and Strategic Communications, Agada Abuh Theophilus, demanded an immediate electronic audit of INEC’s candidate nomination portal to establish how the disputed names and documents entered the commission’s system.

The NDC said the 10 names published by INEC were never uploaded by the party and did not emerge from its nomination and appeal processes.

It asked the electoral commission to explain how the documents of the affected candidates got into its system.

The candidates listed by the party are Umennaajiego Jude Ezenwa for Onitsha South 1; Akpotue Obinna Chibuike for Onitsha South 2; Nwankwo Chiemerie for Orumba North; Maduagwu Eric K. for Anaocha 1; Ngoebisi Obinna for Idemili North; Isintume Charles for Njikoka 1; Nwachukwu Nonso for Nnewi South 1; Okeke Ifeanyi Akunne for Nnewi South 2; Nnonyelu Samson E. for Ayamelum; and Azotani Chuks Francis for Dunukofia.

The party said the nomination process required political parties to submit the names and particulars of their approved candidates, after which INEC would process and publish them.

It maintained that it uploaded only the candidates who emerged from its appeal process, but alleged that the commission rejected those nominees.

‘It is the party’s legal responsibility to submit the names and credentials of its nominated candidates,’ the statement said.

‘The NDC did not collect or forward completed EC9E forms for the 10 persons whose names later appeared on INEC’s published list.’

The party therefore questioned how INEC obtained the credentials of the affected candidates.

‘How did the Commission obtain their credentials when it is the party’s legal duty to submit the names of its approved candidates?’ it asked.

The party recalled an earlier statement by its National Chairman, Senator Moses Cleopas, who said he was the custodian of the access code issued to the party for uploading candidates.

The NDC said Cleopas never uploaded the disputed names.

According to the party, after the primaries and appeal process, Anambra stakeholders, working with party leadership, representatives of the presidential candidate and the appeals panel, produced a final list which was signed off by all parties involved.

It said the list was subsequently uploaded using the access code provided by INEC.

However, the party alleged that officials who controlled the backend of the nomination portal kept several of its candidates on ‘Pending’ status, claiming the system already contained names submitted by field monitors during the primaries.

The NDC said it formally appealed the disputed names and submitted its actual nominees with a covering letter, but alleged that INEC refused to replace them.

It further alleged that the commission subsequently collected Form EC9 directly from the disputed candidates, bypassing the party, and published them as authentic NDC candidates.

Cleopas described the development as contrary to the Electoral Act and INEC’s guidelines.

He said that if the names submitted by the party did not tally with those INEC claimed to have received from its monitoring teams, the commission should have left the affected positions vacant rather than preload names and prevent the party from uploading its nominees.

‘At the very worst, INEC could have left us with no candidates for those positions if it was unwilling to engage us on any perceived anomaly,’ he said.

The NDC chairman also condemned what he described as an emerging pattern in which INEC prevents political parties from uploading their preferred candidates while imposing other names on them, particularly opposition parties.

He said such a development could fuel internal crises within political parties.

Cleopas vowed that the NDC would continue to pursue the matter until the situation was reversed.

The NDC called on INEC to conduct an electronic audit trail of its candidate nomination portal to establish how the 10 disputed names were entered into the system.

The party alleged that the names were introduced through the backend of the portal and demanded that the commission explain how and when this occurred.

It maintained that an electronic audit was necessary to establish the source of the disputed nominations and ensure transparency in the candidate nomination process.

The Chairman of the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), Hon. Yusuf Gagdi, has said the committee will invite the former Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, if evidence before it warrants his appearance.

Gagdi, who spoke on Channels Television’s Politics Today, said the committee’s mandate was not restricted to particular individuals, stressing that its primary objective was to establish how an agency allegedly lacking a legal foundation became part of the Federal Government’s administrative and budgetary framework.

He said, ‘A mandate does not restrict us from inviting anybody. But since the central attraction of the resolutions of the House is not about Adeniyi or about Right Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila, it is about first-the central attraction is, how does the agency find itself into the four angles of the administration in Nigeria? That is the first thing.’

According to him, individuals would only be invited where the evidence emerging from the investigation established the need for their appearance.

‘Until evidence led you to inviting the two persons that you mentioned, then you invite them. But if in the course of engagement by the committee, the committee has seen no need to invite anybody based on the relevant available document before them, I think there is no need wasting time to summon them,’ he said.

Gagdi also explained why the committee met Prince Adeniyi at a police facility instead of bringing him before a public hearing.

He said the committee had initially asked the police to produce Adeniyi but was informed by the Inspector-General of Police that he was in custody pursuant to a court order.

‘Based on our principle of democracy, respecting constituted authority and proper separation of powers where you have the legislature, executive and judiciary, I think if we had coerced the police to present him, we would be insulting the supremacy of the judiciary,’ Gagdi said.

He added that the committee subsequently decided to meet Adeniyi behind closed doors at the police facility, where members questioned him.

‘Yes, in person,’ he said when asked whether he had personally met Adeniyi.

Gagdi, however, declined to disclose details of Adeniyi’s testimony, citing the ongoing criminal investigations and court proceedings involving him.

‘Conversation about what he told us is-it will be very limited in view of the fact that he is in police custody, facing prosecution in the court of law,’ he said.

He explained that disclosing the substance of Adeniyi’s testimony could undermine investigations being conducted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the police.

The committee chairman said the report recently presented by the committee was only preliminary and was intended to inform Nigerians that the investigation was progressing.

‘We presented the preliminary report to give hope to Nigerians that the committee is doing its job and we have gotten to a particular level,’ he said.

Gagdi rejected suggestions that the committee had failed to observe the principles of natural justice by not interrogating all the individuals whose names featured in the investigation.

He said the committee had investigated relevant persons and institutions within the scope of its mandate, but stressed that its fundamental task was to establish the legal status and origin of the agency.

‘One, you cannot say we investigated Adeniyi, but we did not investigate Betta Edu. We investigated everybody. What you are missing is, what is the terms of reference of the committee?’ he said.

According to him, the committee invited government institutions and examined documents submitted by agencies including the Office of the Head of Service of the Federation, Office of the National Security Adviser, Department of State Services, EFCC, ICPC and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

He said the committee also advertised for memoranda from members of the public, adding that none of the three petitions it received was against former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Betta Edu.

‘The three petitions we received, none of them was against Betta Edu,’ Gagdi said.

He said the committee’s decision to meet Adeniyi was specifically linked to a petition alleging that he defrauded a contractor of N400 million.

According to Gagdi, the petitioner alleged that he was invited from Ibadan to Abuja by Adeniyi, who subsequently showed him a residence and allegedly represented it as part of the process for securing a N2 billion contract.

He said the petitioner provided evidence of four separate transfers totalling N400 million to Adeniyi.

‘That was why we invited Road Safety,’ Gagdi said, explaining that the committee also sought to verify the use of an official vehicle and number plate allegedly connected to Adeniyi.

On Gbajabiamila, Gagdi said the committee examined documents purportedly linking the former Chief of Staff to the alleged agency and discovered inconsistencies in the signatures and other features of the documents.

He said the committee had received several documents from government institutions and compared them with the disputed appointment letter allegedly signed by Gbajabiamila.

‘When we saw the signatures of that letter, common sense, you put them together with the appointment letter by Prince Adeniyi, they are two different,’ he said.

Gagdi maintained that the committee did not need to invite Gbajabiamila merely because his name appeared in a disputed document, arguing that evidence before the committee had indicated that some of the documents were allegedly forged.

He said the committee also examined an alleged National Assembly Act establishing the agency and other documents purportedly signed or issued by senior government officials.

‘The same man got a fake resolution, executive order from the President, Executive Order 5 from the President, equally fake. The same man got a fake Act of the National Assembly that says the Act establishing Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council/Presidential Economic Advisory Council,’ he said.

Gagdi stressed that the committee would invite Gbajabiamila if subsequent evidence established a need for his appearance.

‘If the evidence relevant before us have warranted inviting Femi, if we have invited Secretary to the Government of the Federation, why can’t we invite Right Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila?’ he asked.

He further said the committee was seeking to establish whether disputed correspondence actually originated from the Office of the Chief of Staff.

According to him, officials summoned by the committee were unable to authenticate some of the documents attributed to Gbajabiamila.

He said the committee also examined the letterheads, reference formats and other identifying features of official correspondence from the State House.

Gagdi insisted that the committee’s preliminary findings should not be mistaken for the final position of the House of Representatives.

‘What the committee said to the general public today is not the position of the House of Representatives, but it is rather the position of the committee. We did that to respect the people of Nigeria that want to know what we have done and how far we have gone,’ he said.

He added that the investigation was still ongoing and that the committee’s substantive report would eventually be laid before the House.

Barring any last-minute changes, the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the alleged establishment and operations of the unestablished Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) is set to unveil its preliminary findings to the public.

The development comes 33 days after the Chairman of the committee, Hon. Yusuf Gagdi, promised that the preliminary report of the investigation would be made public, following a series of investigative hearings at which senior government officials and other stakeholders gave evidence on how the purported Council operated at one the offices allowed to the Office of Secretary to the Government of the Federation (oSGF) located at Federal Secretariat, Abuja.

The Ad-hoc Committee was constituted sequel to the adoption of a motion sponsored by Gadgi, over the inclusion of PFIPC in the 2026 Appropriation Act with an allocation of about N1.3 billion despite the Presidency’s position that no such agency had been legally established.

The Ad-hoc Committee had also questioned the sum of N27.4 billion take-off grant reportedly set aside for the fake Council.

At the inaugural hearing, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs. Didi Esther Walson-Jack, told the lawmakers that the purported council had occupied an office space in Phase III of the Federal Secretariat, Abuja, which was originally allocated to the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.

She also disclosed that officials associated with the PFIPC had participated in the manpower budget process and obtained approval for the establishment of 314 positions, including 300 additional positions.

Walson-Jack, however, later told the panel that the appointment letter and other documents presented by the alleged Director-General of the PFIPC, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, were not authentic. Her evidence became central to the Ad-hoc Committee’s subsequent declaration that the purported appointment letter and an alleged establishment Act presented by Adeyemi were forged.

On his part, Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Mr. Tanimu Yakubu, while addressing the Ad-hoc Committee, explained how the PFIPC found its way into the 2026 budget.

He explained that the Budget Office acted on official instruments attributed to other government institutions, including an administrative code from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and establishment-related documents attributed to the Office of the Head of the Civil Service.

Yakubu further disclosed that although the National Assembly appropriated about N1.302 billion for the PFIPC, comprising personnel, overhead and capital provisions, no funds were released or spent because the statutory conditions for expenditure were not completed. ‘There was no financial clearance. There was no lawful recruitment, no payroll enrolment and no salary payment,’ he told the lawmakers.

The Accountant-General of the Federation, Mr. Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, subsequently told the panel that a forged State House letter was allegedly used to obtain official recognition for the purported council. His evidence also raised questions about how the organisation secured an administrative code and gained access to other government processes despite the alleged absence of a valid legal foundation.

Meanwhile, the Ad-hoc Committee disclosed that it had identified about 29 allegedly forged documents linked to the fake Council.

While testifying before the Ad-hoc Committee, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), represented by Director of Banking Services, Hamisu Abdullahi, confirmed that two domiciliary accounts had been opened for the PFIPC on the instruction of the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.

The CBN, however, said the accounts remained dormant, with no transactions or funds passing through them.

During his presentation, Permanent Secretary of Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dunoma Umar Ahmed, told the Ad-hoc Committee that the Ministry had no official dealings with the PFIPC and did not approve its request to collaborate on a proposed World Investment Summit.

He said Adeyemi had approached the Ministry on several occasions but the requests were declined because of inconsistencies in the correspondence.

The Nigeria Police Force also appeared before the panel and disclosed that investigations into the activities of Adeyemi had resulted in an eight-count charge before the Federal High Court. Police representatives further informed lawmakers that some documents allegedly used by the purported council contained signatures that failed verification, while the committee later ordered the Inspector-General of Police to produce Adeyemi for questioning.

During the investigative hearing, Corps Marshal of Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC), Mr. Shehu Mohammed, confirmed that seven official Federal Government number plates earlier issued to vehicles linked to the PFIPC are to be withdrawn.

He said that the Commission relied on documents submitted by the organisation, verified its purported website and physically confirmed its office address at the Federal Secretariat before approving the plates.

In a related development, a businessman, Mr. Gbenga Collins, Managing Director of Divine Dopacy Nigeria Limited, while addressing the Ad-hoc Committee alleged that he paid the sum of N400 million to Prince Adeyemi after being promised a government contract to renovate and furnish what he was told was the official residence of the embattled PFIPC Director-General.

He explained the use of government offices, vehicles bearing official number plates and the presence of security personnel convinced him that Adeyemi represented a legitimate government institution.

While Adeyemi has denied the allegations and challenged the manner in which he was being portrayed, the Ad-hoc Committee’s findings are expected to reconcile the conflicting testimonies and establish institutional responsibility for the PFIPC’s movement through the government system.