ubamobile

08
Sat, Aug

News

The Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has criticised the National Economic Council's (NEC) approval of a $4.5 billion refinancing of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited's oil-backed loan, describing the move as evidence that the Tinubu administration is relying excessively on debt to finance government activities.

In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku argued that each new oil-backed obligation commits more of Nigeria's future oil revenues to debt repayment rather than national development.

He recalled that the Presidency recently responded to his concerns over what he described as an unexplained crude oil windfall by stating that Nigeria could not fully benefit from high global oil prices because future crude earnings had already been committed to servicing oil-backed foreign loans. According to Atiku, the latest refinancing decision reinforces that explanation rather than addressing the underlying issue.

He questioned why the government continues to seek additional borrowing despite implementing major economic reforms, including the removal of fuel subsidies, the introduction of new taxes, and increased revenue from crude oil sales.

According to Atiku, the administration has continued to accumulate debt instead of using increased revenues to strengthen public finances and reduce borrowing. He argued that this approach places a growing financial burden on future generations.

He also maintained that Nigerians have endured significant economic hardship as a result of government reforms but have yet to experience the expected economic benefits. In his view, the continued reliance on borrowing undermines the objectives of those reforms.

Atiku further criticised President Bola Tinubu's economic management, alleging that borrowing has become a defining feature of the administration's fiscal policy. He said Nigeria requires leadership that protects national assets and manages public finances responsibly rather than relying on debt secured against future oil production.

He called on the Tinubu administration to publish the full details of the refinancing arrangement, including its terms, repayment obligations, and the volume of crude oil committed under the agreement.

According to Atiku, Nigerians deserve greater transparency and accountability regarding the country's borrowing decisions and the management of its natural resources.

News

News

News

News

Business

Dangote Petroleum Refinery has announced a reduction in the ex-depot prices of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and Automotive Gas Oil (AGO), commonly known as diesel, as part of efforts to improve affordability and strengthen the supply of refined petroleum products in Nigeria.

The new prices, which take effect on Thursday, August 6, will see the ex-depot price of PMS reduced from ₦1,215 per litre to ₦1,165 per litre, representing a ₦50 decrease per litre.

The refinery also lowered the price of diesel from ₦1,650 per litre to ₦1,570 per litre, marking an ₦80 reduction per litre.

According to Dangote Petroleum Refinery, the adjustment reflects its continued commitment to enhancing energy accessibility, supporting businesses, and easing the impact of fuel costs on consumers.

The company said the price reduction was made possible through improved operational efficiency and its focus on maintaining a stable supply of high-quality petroleum products to the Nigerian market.

Dangote Refinery, described as Africa’s largest refinery, continues to play a key role in Nigeria’s energy sector by reducing dependence on imported refined products and contributing to national energy security.

The refinery reiterated its commitment to delivering value to consumers and businesses while passing on the benefits of operational improvements whenever market conditions allow.

Business

Business

Business

Business

In The Spotlight

Opinions

There is an old African saying that a king who surrounds himself only with praise singers soon mistakes applause for progress. Every leader, however powerful, needs people who are willing to speak uncomfortable truths not because they dislike him, but because they care about the nation he leads.

That is why the recent visit of the leadership of the Catholic Church to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was significant because it brought together one of Nigeria’s most influential religious bodies, which chose to use the opportunity to present an honest assessment of the country’s condition. The Bishops spoke about insecurity, economic hardship, rising poverty, unemployment and the growing frustration among ordinary Nigerians. They urged the government to respond more decisively to the challenges confronting citizens.


Their intervention was neither a political rally nor an opposition press conference. It was a candid conversation between moral leaders and the country’s elected President. They echoed concerns that millions of Nigerians express daily in markets, churches, mosques, offices and homes.

Yet what followed was sadly predictable. Instead of engaging the substance of their message, some of the President’s supporters turned on the messengers. His Eminence, John Cardinal Onaiyekan, one of Nigeria’s most respected clerics and public intellectuals, became a particular target. Social media was awash with accusations that he was partisan, anti-government or motivated by politics rather than patriotism.

That reaction says far more about the state of our political culture than it does about the Cardinal. It also raises a far more important question: in a democracy, who should tell the President the truth if respected religious leaders, elder statesmen and independent voices are discouraged from doing so?

 

The Patriotic Duty of Honest Counsel


A good number of Nigeria’s religious leaders have never existed merely to conduct worship services. Throughout our history, they have served as the nation’s moral conscience.

During military rule, many stood courageously against dictatorship, arbitrary detention, injustice and the abuse of power. They defended democratic freedoms when many others remained silent. Their interventions were not always welcomed by those in authority, but history has largely vindicated them. The same principle applies today.

When religious leaders speak about hunger, insecurity or the suffering of ordinary Nigerians, they are not contesting elections, lobbying for appointments or starting abstract policy debates. They are reflecting the lived experiences of millions of worshippers, stories of families unable to feed themselves, parents struggling to pay school fees, workers whose salaries have been overtaken by inflation, young graduates searching endlessly for jobs and communities living under the constant fear of kidnapping and violence.

The Catholic Church has long contributed to nation-building through its schools, hospitals, humanitarian work and advocacy for justice. Successive Catholic bishops have criticised military regimes and civilian administrations alike whenever they believed national values were being undermined. Cardinal Onaiyekan’s record reflects that same consistency. He has spoken against corruption, insecurity, electoral malpractice and poor governance under different governments and political parties.

One may disagree with his conclusions. That is legitimate. What is neither legitimate nor helpful is attempting to delegitimise him simply because his assessment is uncomfortable.

Constructive criticism should never be mistaken for hostility. Democracies thrive when religious institutions, civil society organisations, labour unions, professional associations, traditional rulers, academics and the media are free to speak honestly without being branded enemies of government.

Indeed, leaders often benefit more from sincere critics than enthusiastic supporters. Praise tells a leader what he wants to hear. Honest criticism tells him what he needs to know.

When Truth Becomes Treason

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the reaction to the bishops’ visit is not disagreement itself but the growing tendency to delegitimise anyone who expresses concern about the country’s direction.

Increasingly, public discourse appears divided into two camps: those who defend government unconditionally and those portrayed as enemies simply for asking difficult questions. That is neither healthy nor sustainable.

A democratically elected President governs both those who voted for him and those who did not. His supporters have every right to defend his policies. Equally, critics have the constitutional right to question those policies. Democracy requires both voices.

Unfortunately, our politics increasingly rewards loyalty over honesty. Public officials become reluctant to acknowledge policy shortcomings for fear of appearing disloyal, while political supporters sometimes interpret every criticism as a personal attack on the President rather than an invitation to improve governance. The result is an echo chamber where truth becomes politically inconvenient. Once leaders hear only applause, they gradually lose touch with the lived experiences of ordinary citizens.

The questions raised by the bishops therefore deserve thoughtful answers rather than personal attacks. Has insecurity ceased to threaten communities across Nigeria? Are food prices no longer crushing household budgets? Has youth unemployment suddenly disappeared? Can we honestly say that millions of Nigerians are not struggling under the weight of economic reforms?

If these concerns remain real and they clearly do, then those who raise them should not be dismissed simply because their message is uncomfortable.

 

Listening Is Leadership

One of the most underrated qualities of effective leadership is the willingness to listen. Listening is not weakness. It is confidence. A confident leader understands that criticism is not always opposition. Sometimes it is valuable feedback.

President Tinubu has demonstrated remarkable political resilience throughout his career. Those who have followed his journey know he has endured intense criticism and difficult political battles over several decades. That same resilience should encourage an openness to differing perspectives.

The Catholic Bishops did not organise a protest outside the Presidential Villa. They accepted an invitation, met respectfully with the President and conveyed their concerns directly. That is precisely how democratic engagement should work.

Whether one agrees with every point they raised is beside the point. The more important issue is preserving the civic space for respected national voices to speak honestly without attracting organised campaigns of vilification.

 

A Democracy Needs More Conversations, Not Fewer

Nigeria’s challenges are too complex for government alone to solve. Economic recovery, security, constitutional reform, youth employment and national cohesion all require the contributions of citizens and institutions beyond the corridors of power. Government should therefore welcome credible external feedback, not fear it.

Religious institutions, civil society organisations, academia, traditional institutions, the private sector and the media all possess valuable insights drawn from daily engagement with Nigerians. Their observations should be regarded as national assets rather than political irritants because democracies grow stronger when difficult conversations occur respectfully instead of being suppressed.

The measure of a mature democracy is not the absence of criticism. It is the ability to receive criticism without descending into hostility.

Ultimately, President Tinubu will not be judged by how vigorously his supporters defended him online or how effectively his critics challenged him. He will be judged by whether Nigerians became safer, more prosperous and more hopeful during his presidency. Those outcomes cannot be achieved by silencing independent voices. They require listening, reflection and the humility to acknowledge that no government has a monopoly of wisdom.

The Catholic bishops have discharged what they believe to be their moral responsibility. Government must continue to discharge its constitutional responsibility. And the rest of us must defend something even more important than any individual politician or cleric: the democratic space where citizens can still speak truth to power without being treated as enemies of the state.

By Olufunke Baruwa

Opinions

Opinions

Opinions

Opinions

In The Spotlight

Guest Columnists

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo was again in his element on Friday when news broke that he had done one of the things he is best known for in Nigeria’s political space: descending heavily on the man who served as his vice president for two terms spanning eight years, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. In his latest onslaught, Obasanjo described his decision to pick Atiku as his deputy as his biggest mistake.

For many Nigerians who have followed the relationship between the two men over the years, the latest criticism came as no surprise. Rather, it appeared to be another chapter in a political feud that has refused to go away.

Nigeria has witnessed many political rivalries, but few have endured as long—or generated as much public interest—as the strained relationship between Obasanjo and Atiku. More than two decades after they jointly occupied the nation’s two highest offices, the wounds of that broken partnership appear far from healed.

The two men were indeed political partners who jointly won the presidential elections of 1999 and 2003. Their administration is widely believed to have played a significant role in stabilising Nigeria’s return to civilian rule after years of military dictatorship. Their relationship was initially cordial, with both men appearing united in pursuing the business of governance. However, that cordiality gradually gave way to mistrust, political disagreements and open confrontation. As events later unfolded, one of Nigeria’s strongest political partnerships became one of its deepest and most enduring rivalries.

What continues to intrigue many Nigerians is that while Atiku repeatedly extends what appears to be an olive branch through visits, consultations and public gestures of respect, Obasanjo has remained one of his fiercest critics. Interestingly, these criticisms often seem to become more pronounced whenever another presidential election approaches and Atiku once again expresses interest in seeking the country’s highest office.

Where exactly did things fall apart for these two men? The two camps will almost certainly continue to provide different answers to that question. Atiku has repeatedly maintained that his former boss’ problem with him stemmed from his opposition to the alleged third-term agenda by resisting moves to amend the Constitution to allow the president to remain in office beyond the constitutionally prescribed two terms. Obasanjo, on his part, has attributed the breakdown in their relationship to what he has described as Atiku’s alleged moves to facilitate his impeachment and subsequently replace him as president. Political analysts have also offered different interpretations of what caused the final breakdown. Whatever the true story may be, the principal actors themselves probably know better than anyone else where things really went wrong.

The pattern that some Nigerians claim to have observed is that whenever Atiku prepares for another presidential race, Obasanjo frequently grants interviews or issues statements that are critical of the former vice president. The questions, therefore, are these: Is this merely a coincidence? Is it simply Obasanjo’s genuine political assessment of a man he once worked closely with? Or is it the continuation of an old political disagreement that has never truly been resolved?


One interesting aspect of the relationship is that Atiku has continued to visit Obasanjo at his Abeokuta residence in Ogun State for what are usually described as courtesy visits or political consultations. He still appears to accord the former president considerable public respect despite the repeated criticisms directed at him. Even during previous presidential campaigns, Atiku found time to visit his former boss. One cannot say with certainty whether such visits are driven more by political calculation, respect for an elder statesman or a genuine hope that reconciliation may one day be possible.

Can genuine reconciliation ever happen between these two men? History suggests that nothing is impossible in politics. Many political enemies have reconciled after years of hostility. Nigeria itself has witnessed several unlikely political alliances that many once considered impossible. President Bola Tinubu readily comes to mind as one political leader who has welcomed back into his fold several former associates, critics and even perceived political enemies. It was for this reason that one of his former critics, who later became his aide, likened him to Jesus Christ because of his willingness to forgive and reconcile. Can the Obasanjo-Atiku relationship ever follow a similar path? Is their disagreement fundamentally different? Has too much happened over the years for genuine reconciliation to take place? Or do old political wounds eventually heal with time?

Another issue worthy of consideration is the manner in which Atiku has consistently reacted to Obasanjo’s criticisms. One school of thought believes that Atiku should simply stop seeking validation from his former boss and concentrate on selling himself directly to the electorate. According to those who hold this view, elections are ultimately decided by voters and not by endorsements or condemnations from former leaders. Another school of thought, however, argues that Atiku should continue to show respect because elders deserve courtesy regardless of political disagreements. Respect, they insist, should not be mistaken for weakness.

There is also the question of whether Obasanjo still carries significant political weight. Irrespective of what anyone may say, the former president remains one of Nigeria’s most influential political figures. He still commands considerable media attention, both within and outside the country. His opinions on national issues continue to attract widespread interest, which explains why he remains a respected voice in national and international affairs. However, whether his endorsement—or indeed his criticism—still significantly influences electoral outcomes is another matter entirely. Do younger voters still cast their ballots based on the opinions of elder statesmen? Or has Nigerian politics evolved beyond that level of elite influence?

Another question that naturally arises is whether anybody or any political group benefits from this lingering feud. Does Obasanjo’s criticism in any meaningful way weaken Atiku politically? Does it strengthen another opposition presidential candidate? Does it directly or indirectly benefit the ruling party? Or has the disagreement become so familiar that many Nigerians simply regard it as another recurring episode in the country’s political theatre?

Whether one agrees with Obasanjo’s criticisms of Atiku or sympathises with the latter’s repeated efforts at reconciliation, one fact remains undeniable: Nigeria has lived with this political disagreement for far too long. Disagreements, whether political or otherwise, are perfectly normal in every democracy, but personal feuds that endure for decades are hardly healthy for the political system.

Democracy is better served when political leaders disagree over policies, programmes and competing visions for national development rather than sustain personal battles that outlive the offices they once occupied.


If reconciliation is still possible, it would send a powerful message that political differences need not become permanent hostilities. If it is no longer possible, perhaps both men owe Nigerians the maturity to let history take its natural course. Ultimately, it is neither Obasanjo nor Atiku who will determine Nigeria’s future at the ballot box. That responsibility belongs to the electorate, whose votes—not endorsements or denunciations—remain the true currency of democracy.

By Olalekan Adetaya

Guest Columnists

Guest Columnists

Guest Columnists

Guest Columnists

In The Spotlight

Letters

Letters

Letters

Letters

Jonathan Sacks Four Ministers

More News Archive
Typography
  • Smaller Small Medium Big Bigger
  • Default Helvetica Segoe Georgia Times

President Goodluck Jonathan on Wednesday fired Stella Oduah, the embattled Minister of Aviation, the Minister of Police Affairs, Caleb Olubolade; Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Godsday Orubebe; and the Minister of State for Finance, Yerima Ngana.

Huhuonline.com learnt that while Orubebe, Odua Ngama were asked to resign over various issues. Olubolade resigned to pursue the governorship election in Ekiti state. 

solokowa

Today524
Yesterday1015
This week4280
This month5601
Total1385887

Visitor Info

  • IP: 216.73.217.115
  • Browser: Unknown
  • Browser Version:
  • Operating System: Unknown

Who Is Online

3
Online
2026-08-08

Joomla! Debug Console

Session

Profile Information

Memory Usage

Database Queries