Connect with us

Opinion

Osinbajo: Senator Adeyeye and his dishonest thesis | By Ajibola Basiru

Published

on

File photo of Sen. Ajibola Basiru

I read with deep interest an article published in Premium Times by my predecessor in the Senate as the representative of Osun Central Senatorial District, Senator Professor Sola Adeyeye. I believe the description of him at the foot of the article as “the senator for Osun Central in the National Assembly” is clealy erroneous as since June 2019, I have been representing Osun Central Senatorial District in the Senate Chamber of the National Assembly. Nonetheless, I find it curious that a news organ will not know that the Spokesperson of the Senate is the Senator representing Osun Central Senatorial District.

The central thesis of Senator Adeyeye is that Professor Yemi Osinbajo is the preferred aspirant of President Mohammadu Buhari on the account of what he considered to be the loyalty of Professor Yemi Osinbajo to the President and alleged inadequacies of other aspirants particularly Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

In pursuing this thesis for which he is apparently expressing the eventual triumph of Professor Osinbajo, he predicated his thesis on the following contentions: that a person can only attain the office of the President if he is supported by those he referred to as the establishment: that religion has almost lost relevance ultimately in the Nigeria political context; that the President was referring to Professor Osinbajo when he answered the question on who is the favourite among the aspirants in a live television interview; that President Buhari will anoint Professor Osinbajo as appreciation of the later’s loyalty; that most Buhari men are against Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu; and of course making defamatory and denigrating remarks against Asiwaju Tinubu.

The Theory of Establishment as the only route to the Presidency appears to be the typification of Nigerian democracy by the writer. Senator Adeyeye asserted and I think rather firmly that “if the establishment does not want you, you can never win the presidency”. I am at a loss to see the factual and empirical basis for this assertion in view of the recent political history of Nigeria that saw the presidency of President Buhari dislodging an incumbent President and a political party that has controlled the Presidency for about 16 years before the 2015 electoral loss. Which establishment want President Buhari and the APC in 2015. I see here a clear attempt to use a banal assertion to becloud the spirited efforts of the coalition that ripened to the APC and the struggle of our leaders like President Buhari, Chief Bisi Akande, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Chief Ogbonnaya Onu among others that ensure the presidency for the APC against all odds. Perhaps, Segun Adeniyi’s book with the title “Against the Run of Play” comes to mind.

Another banal assertion by the Distinguished Senator is that “religion as a factor in Nigerian political outcomes is overrated, especially at the national level.” Beyond this mere assertion, I am yet to see the empirical study that support the assertion. His further assertion that “when it matters, realpolitik always trumps religion” leaves the gaping questions of “when realpolitik matter?” and “who determines when realpolitik matters?” I see in the assertion an overly dangerous assumption that mass of the people and their opinions can be easily discounted in a democratic polity. To dismiss with a stroke of pen the possible effects of religion in a largely traditional society like ours in democratic choices is far from being profound. Is the Senator oblivious of the fact that Professor Yemi Osinbajo became Vice President in 2105 largely due to the orchestrated campaign again a Muslim/Muslim ticket because President Buhari was perceived to be an Islamic extremist and hence the party needed a Pastor from the South West to ensure the candidacy is sellable to the southerners?

My sense in reading the article is that people are outrightly discounted in our democratic enterprise, what matters from his theory is the predisposition of what he termed the “establishment”. Therefore, the mission for the Distinguished Senator is simple, market the aspiration of Professor Osinbajo and make disparaging and even outright defamatory assertions against other aspirants, particularly Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to curry the favour, nay the endorsement of “the establishment” for his aspirant. I indeed find very interesting that the Senator readily asserted with apparent finality “that Nigeria is not a land of political revolution.” These are indeed very interesting times!

According to Professor Adeyeye, “If the North thought Osinbajo a problem on religious grounds, he wouldn’t have been accepted as the vice president to a Buhari as president”. So, we are being told that it is the “North” that accepted Osinbajo as the Vice-President? Are we being taken on a journey of amnesia on how Professor Osinbajo became the Vice President by mere assertion and deliberate distortion? So, it is the “Northern establishment” that suo motu “notice(d) the genius behind the string of legal victories – Professor Yẹmí Osìnbàjò” and his emergence is not part of the negotiated political arrangements with our party Leaders in the South West after the victory of the All Progressives Congress (APC)?

While, I am not denying the astuteness of Professor Osinbajo as a legal scholar, to simply attribute his emergence as the Vice President to being “noticed” by the “Northern establishment” as a “genius” is to distort and deliberately falsify political development and history we all know and partook in.

The writer is obviously claiming to have conducted census of the President Buhari’s foot soldiers against Asiwaju Bola Tinubu as he claimed “let him name one Buhari foot soldier in Tinubu’s camp and I will name a hundred that are not there”. Perhaps he can oblige the public with result of his census of anti Tinubu Buhari foot soldiers to back his assertions! In making comment on President Buhari’s comment that the presidency is not for sale to the highest bidder, perhaps the Senator is oblivious of the fact that the President has access to information of the camp already reported as wooing delegates with cash gifts in Naira and Dollar. Surely, we wise citizens are paying attention!

That the Senator is not content with selling his aspirant to those he called “the establishment” without attacking Asiwaju is revealed by this obviously deprecatory and defamatory assertion unfortunately penned by a personality I have so much respect for:

“Yes, Tinubu has the structure, he has amassed the money and is already throwing it around left, right and centre, but the truth is that many are just fleecing him at the moment. Many signals within the party and within the establishment indicate he is on a hiding to nothing. Many see Tinubu as a greedy blackmailer who must be kept away from Aso Rock because he has the capacity to create an entirely different political patronage structure that can alienate the ‘Class of 1966’.”

The above remarks revealed a desperate move to disparage the character and reputation of Asiwaju Tinubu and must be interrogated to reveal that they were made with bile and guile. Asiwaju Tinubu has been out of office since 2007 and has not held office and has never been indicted for corruption and breach of public trust. So, we can ask our Senator, when has it become a crime to be rich. Where is the evidence of Asiwaju throwing “money around left, right and centre”? Baseless allegation from a Distinguished Senator is rather mind boggling! It is rather outlandish to hide under the one finger of “many” to call Asiwaju Tinubu “a greedy blackmailer”! Let the Senator identify a single patronage given to Asiwaju Tinubu since the inception of President Buhari’s administration. Then talking of blackmail, who is Asiwaju Tinubu blackmailing? President Buhari or Professor Osinbajo or “the establishment “? It is quite unfortunate that a mind trained in science will make disparaging remarks without any evidence and hiding under unidentifiable “many”.

Apart from unfounded denigrating remarks, there was also the intention to rally the “establishment” against Asiwaju Tinubu when he commented that Asiwaju is someone “who must be kept away from Aso Rock because he has the capacity to create an entirely different political patronage structure that can alienate the ‘Class of 1966’.”

The apparent desperation of the commentator to rally the “establishment” against the candidacy of Asiwaju Tinubu was brought out with more potency when he again asserted: “Incidentally, Tinubu went full throttle to politically terminate Ambode when the latter tinkered with the patronage structure in Lagos. As far as the establishment are concerned, Tinubu has been amply rewarded with the free rein they’ve given him over Lagos and its purse strings. Giving him Aso Rock is class suicide for the establishment.”

Many issues may be raised from the above. Of what relevance is issue of Ambode to the choice of Nigerian presidency? Is it that it is “the establishment” that gifted Lagos to Asiwaju as a reward? And reward for what? The innuendo of control of purse of Lagos is another evidence of the liberty the Senator took in making defamatory assertions in his article. The assertion on “giving” out Aso Rock depicts the obvious understanding of the Senator that our democracy has become a spoil of war. Perhaps, the Senator will need to elucidate how Asiwaju Tinubu winning the Presidential election will constitute “class suicide for the establishment”. I think this is a mere exercise in scaremongering and calling a dog a bad name to kill it.

I don’t think it is necessary to comment on equally defamatory assertions against Godwin Emefiele, the Central Bank Governor, as it has become a pattern in coming against any perceived opponent of the writer’s aspirant. However, I find it rather strange the “new revelation” that the late Abba Kyari “was said” to have been working closely with Tinubu to frustrate the nomination of Professor Osinbajo as the Vice President in 2019. Apparently, the Senator was not sure of himself on that fact and therefore used the phrase “was said” which in legal parlance means what he stated was mere hearsay. It speaks to the motive of the commentator that such revelation could be based on what “was said! Also, as a student of logic, I cannot find the sequence in the contention that because Buhari did not replace Osinbajo as vice president in 2019 “is a strong indication that Buhari thinks him worthy of succeeding him in 2023”. That is a rather outlandish proposition!

I wouldn’t know that Distinguished Senator Adeyeye has developed talent for mind reading when he said the President was referring to Professor Osinbajo in a Channels Television interview with Maupe Ogun. However, if the Senator was cocksure of having read the mind of the President at that interview, one will think the subsequent paragraphs of his article campaigning to the President to help make the case with the “Northern establishment that Osinbajo is the best bet for Nigeria” is needless! It seems my Distinguished leader is not convinced himself of the mind reading. And I am at a loss to understand what the Senator meant when he said: “For a man who knows what Osinbajo has endured as vice president, he knew what he was talking about.” Is it that the Vice-President has been a beast of burden and Nigerian Presidency is a compensation and not about service?

Speaking about loyalty, is it the case that party leaders and supporters who are outside the government are not loyal to the government both in birthing it into power and sustaining it. The price for loyalty cannot and ought not to be exclusive preserve of those who have been in the corridor of power for about seven years. Can anyone in his right mind doubt the commitment and loyalty of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the emergence and sustenance of the APC and its government under the leadership of President Buhari?

Senator Ajibola Basiru, Ph.D. is the Senator for Osun Central in the Senate Chamber of National Assembly.

Comments

Opinion

Makinde’s G-Wagon Gift to CCII PG A Disrespect to Olubadan, Alaafin and A Total Disregard for Yoruba Traditional Institutions

Published

on

The reported presentation of a brand-new Mercedes-Benz G-Wagon 500 by Governor Seyi Makinde to the President-General of the Central Council of Ibadan Indigenes (CCII), Barrister Sulaimon Ajeniyi Ajewole, as a birthday gift has exposed a disturbing development in the governor’s attitude towards Yoruba traditional institutions. Beyond the extravagance of the gesture, it raises fundamental questions about his priorities, sense of responsibility and regard for the revered royal institutions of Ibadan and Oyo.

What is Governor Makinde trying to achieve? A division and deep-seated animosity between Olubadan and the head of a socio-cultural organisation who is supposed to be at the forefront of protecting Olubadan stool from ridicule and disrespect?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Governor Makinde appreciating an individual for his contributions to society. Barrister Ajewole may be entitled to personal goodwill and recognition from Makinde. However, the governor’s insensitive generosity becomes difficult to defend when juxtaposed with allegations that the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja, and the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Akeem Owoade, have been deprived of their official vehicles and statutory salaries since ascending their respective thrones.

More than a year after Oba Ladoja became the Olubadan and approaching two years since Oba Owoade ascended the Alaafin throne, the alleged failure of the Makinde administration to fulfil these obligations is an indictment of its priorities and its understanding of the dignity attached to traditional authority.

How does a governor find the resources, enthusiasm and political will to present a luxury G-Wagon 500 to the head of a socio-cultural organisation as a birthday gift, yet allegedly fail to discharge the statutory and institutional responsibilities owed to two of the most revered traditional rulers in Yorubaland? What is the justification for celebrating an individual with an expensive automobile while the occupants of ancient royal stools are reportedly left without official vehicles and their statutory entitlements?

This is not an argument against Barrister Ajewole receiving a gift. It is an indictment of a government whose generosity appears selective and whose priorities are increasingly difficult to reconcile with its public responsibilities.The Olubadan is not just another traditional ruler. He presides over Ibadanland, one of the most historically significant cities in Yorubaland and a cultural centre whose influence extends far beyond Oyo State. The Alaafin, on the other hand, occupies a throne whose historical significance is inseparable from the evolution of Yoruba civilisation. The Alaafin institution is not an ordinary palace establishment; it is a historic symbol of Yoruba political authority, heritage and identity.

These are institutions that existed long before Makinde became governor and will continue to exist long after he leaves office. Their dignity should not depend on the personal disposition, political calculations or convenience of whoever occupies Agodi Government House. Makinde must be reminded that statutory salaries are not birthday presents, and official vehicles provided under government policy are not acts of personal generosity. They are institutional obligations. A governor does not deserve applause for fulfilling obligations that the law or established government policy imposes on his administration.

Conversely, withholding or neglecting such obligations without important justification is a serious failure of responsibility. The troubling question is whether Makinde has reduced the relationship between government and traditional institutions to a transactional arrangement in which personal relationships and political convenience determine who receives recognition and who is left unattended. Does the governor believe that the President-General of CCII deserves a brand-new G-Wagon while the Olubadan and Alaafin can be left to contend with the indignity of allegedly outstanding official entitlements?

What exactly is Makinde’s understanding of respect for Yoruba traditional institutions? A governor who routinely invokes Yoruba identity, cultural heritage and indigenous values should be the first to defend the dignity of the institutions that embody those values. Unfortunately, Makinde’s administration is creating an embarrassing impression that the prestige of traditional institutions is secondary to his personal relationships and political preferences. Oh, does Makinde think CCII PG can marshall his influence to direct members of clubs, associations and unions affiliated to CCII to vote for Makinde’s stooge guber candidate?

Traditional rulers are not political ornaments to be celebrated when convenient and neglected when inconvenient. They are custodians of history, culture, customs and ancestral authority. Their institutions deserve institutional respect irrespective of political affiliations, personal disagreements or their perceived disposition towards the government. The G-Wagon presentation has therefore become more than a birthday gesture. It has exposed a disturbing moral contradiction.

If Makinde could demonstrate such remarkable generosity towards the CCII President-General, why has his administration allegedly failed to demonstrate comparable commitment to the institutional dignity of the Olubadan and Alaafin? Is the governor suggesting, by his actions, that an individual occupying the leadership of a socio-cultural organisation deserves more official consideration than the foremost royal institutions in his state?

The governor owes the people of Oyo State an explanation. He must publicly clarify whether the statutory salaries of the two monarchs have been paid since their ascension, whether official vehicles are provided for their offices under existing government policy, and why these alleged entitlements remain outstanding. If there are administrative or legal impediments, he should explain them rather than allow the controversy to fester.

It is particularly disgraceful that the dignity of two internationally recognised Yoruba royal institutions should become a subject of public controversy under a government that ought to be protecting their prestige. By allowing the situation to persist without a satisfactory explanation, Makinde has dragged the image of Yoruba traditional institutions into unnecessary embarrassment and diminished the respect that should ordinarily accompany their exalted positions.

The governor must understand that he is a temporary occupant of political office, whereas the Olubadan and the Alaafin represent enduring institutions of Yoruba civilisation. He cannot elevate himself above the historical significance of these thrones, nor should he behave as though their dignity is subject to his personal discretion. If the G-Wagon was purchased with Makinde’s personal resources, he is entitled to give it to whomever he pleases.

But personal generosity cannot excuse governmental irresponsibility. A governor who can celebrate an individual with a luxury automobile should have no justification for allegedly neglecting the statutory institutional entitlements of the Olubadan and the Alaafin. Yoruba traditional institutions are not personal appendages of the governor, and their dignity must never be held hostage to his whims, preferences or political calculations.

The Olubadan and the Alaafin deserve honour, not humiliation; institutional respect, not selective generosity. Makinde may be governor today, but he is certainly not greater than the institutions whose dignity he has a duty to protect.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Winning Election Before the Ballot: How Oseni Is Silencing Opponents with 500KVA Transformers

Published

on

In an era when many politicians are remembered more for promises than for performance, Hon. Engr. Aderemi Oseni stands out as a rare exception — a lawmaker whose impact is visible, measurable, and felt in the daily lives of his people. The latest testament to this people-centred leadership is the ongoing delivery of 20 additional 500KVA transformers for distribution to communities across Oyo South Senatorial District.

This is not just about electricity. It is about powering dreams, businesses, and hope.

Oseni, who currently represents Ibarapa East/Ido Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives and chairs the strategic House Committee on the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA), is contesting for the Oyo South Senatorial seat under the All Progressives Congress (APC). His candidacy is already being defined not by noise, but by concrete results.

The new consignment of transformers is part of a sustained intervention to address the chronic electricity challenges confronting communities in the district.

For months, residents of Oyo South — traders in Beere, artisans in Ibarapa, welders in Ido, cold-room operators in Ibadan South-West, and students burning the midnight candle in Ibadan North-East — have groaned under the weight of an epileptic power supply. Transformers that have served for over two decades are either overloaded, vandalised, or completely grounded. In many communities, darkness has become a way of life, and with it, economic activities grind to a halt.

Hon. Oseni understands this pain. As an engineer by training and a grassroots politician by conviction, he knows that electricity is not a luxury; it is the oxygen of economic growth, community development, and improved living standards.

The 20 new 500KVA transformers are, therefore, a strategic economic intervention.

The greatest beneficiaries of this initiative are those in the informal sector — the backbone of Oyo South’s economy. For the woman frying akara in Oja Oba who needs power to grind beans early in the morning, for the barber in Apata who loses customers when there is no light to clip, for the fashion designer in Challenge whose electric sewing machine is idle, and for the young graduate running a computer business centre in Ibarapa — this intervention means everything.

When power returns, productivity returns. When productivity returns, poverty reduces.

It is instructive that one of the beneficiary communities is Ita Baale/Olugbode in Ibadan North-East Local Government — the home community of Governor Seyi Makinde. By extending his intervention even to areas traditionally seen as opposition strongholds, Hon. Oseni has demonstrated that good governance knows no political boundaries. Light has no party colour. Development should have no discrimination.

Many other communities across the nine local governments that make up Oyo South — Ibadan North, Ibadan North-East, Ibadan North-West, Ibadan South-East, Ibadan South-West, Ibarapa East, Ibarapa North, Ibarapa Central, and Ido — are already celebrating while waiting to take delivery of the transformers, with installation already ongoing in phases in some areas.

This transformer project is not an isolated act. It fits into a larger pattern of purposeful representation that has defined Hon. Oseni’s tenure in the Green Chamber.

As Chairman of the House Committee on FERMA, he has been pivotal in pushing for the rehabilitation of federal roads that crisscross Oyo South, easing the movement of farm produce from Ibarapa’s agrarian belt to Ibadan markets and reducing man-hours lost in traffic.

In Ibarapa East/Ido Federal Constituency, his current constituency, his footprints are everywhere: boreholes sunk in water-scarce communities, classroom blocks renovated, financial support for market women, scholarships for indigent students, and the facilitation of federal employment opportunities for youths.

Colleagues in the House of Representatives describe him as “The Star Boy of the National Assembly.” He sits quietly but effectively, a man who prefers to let his work speak. Constituents describe him as accessible — a lawmaker whose phone number still goes through and whose gate remains open.

Oyo South is the economic heartbeat of Oyo State. It houses Ibadan, the political capital of the South-West. It needs a Senator who understands both urban renewal and rural development; a Senator who can navigate Abuja’s power corridors to attract federal presence, yet remain rooted in the palaces, markets, and streets of Ibadan and Ibarapa.

Hon. Oseni brings a rare blend: engineering expertise, legislative experience, and grassroots empathy. His years in the House have equipped him with the legislative savvy to sponsor and support bills that will address the peculiar needs of Oyo South — from urban electricity to rural roads, from youth unemployment to agricultural modernisation.

At a time when Nigeria’s energy sector is undergoing reform, Oyo South needs a Senator who will not just complain about darkness, but who has already shown he can deliver transformers, facilitate connections, and engage distribution companies to do more.

In Nigerian politics, many come with manifestos, but few come with evidence. Hon. Oseni’s campaign for Oyo South Senatorial District is not built on empty slogans; it is built on transformers delivered, roads fixed, boreholes working, and lives touched.

The 20 new transformers are not campaign props. They are installations that will outlive this election cycle. They will power homes long after the ballots are counted. That is the hallmark of genuine service — to do what is needed, not just what is popular.

As the 2027 general elections approach, the people of Oyo South are faced with a clear choice: to continue with politics as usual, or to elevate a proven performer to the Senate to do even more.

If a House of Representatives member can light up communities with 20 transformers, imagine what he can do with the greater influence of a Senator of the Federal Republic.

Indeed, Hon. Oseni is not just contesting to be Senator; he is contesting to bring more light — literally and figuratively — to Oyo South.

 

Joseph Okwuofu worked with The Nation newspapers and is the CEO/Publisher of Naija Examiner online newspaper.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Doctors’ Strike and the Price of Human Life | By Olusegun Hassan

Published

on

The popular Yoruba saying, “Ẹni kan l’ọmọ,” meaning that only the person wearing the shoes knows where they pinch, recently took on a deeper meaning for me. Just last week, I experienced its true significance beyond its familiar place as an aphorism.

Popular sayings often remain mere expressions in our consciousness until we find ourselves at the receiving end of the experiences they describe. Similarly, systemic flaws and structural deficiencies in society may seem distant until we become victims of them. News of kidnapping is just another newspaper report until a loved one is abducted and the family is thrown into a desperate search for money to pay a ransom. In the same vein, the news that “doctors are on strike” may appear to be just another headline until someone close to us dies because urgent medical attention was unavailable as a result of the strike.

Nigeria’s story is replete with such unfortunate experiences, which have given rise to another familiar expression: “May Nigeria not happen to you.”

While the media landscape was still reeling from reports of the death of popular gospel singer Toluwanisings, who reportedly died on October 14, 2026, following an alleged lack of urgent medical attention during a doctors’ strike, I also lost a close relative two days later, on October 16, under circumstances involving the same lack of timely medical care.

She was an asthma patient who suffered an attack in the middle of the night. After receiving first aid, she was rushed to the nearest hospital, a teaching hospital, only to be turned away because doctors were on strike and none was available to attend to her. By the time the family reached the nearest private hospital, she had died. Her death left the entire family, myself included, traumatised.

These are only two cases among many similar tragedies that have occurred over the years. They raise a painful question: how many of these deaths could have been prevented if essential medical services had remained accessible?

I cannot help but wonder: what is the value of human life in this country? At what point did the sanctity of human life become secondary to demands for improved welfare by medical unions?

This is not to suggest that the grievances of doctors are illegitimate. Far from it. Medical professionals deserve fair remuneration, adequate facilities, safe working conditions and an environment that enables them to perform their duties effectively. The question, however, is whether the pursuit of these legitimate demands should come at such a devastating cost to human life, particularly when the fundamental purpose of the medical profession is to preserve life through the provision of appropriate healthcare.

It is a troubling paradox.

Doctors undoubtedly have the right to demand fair treatment and safe working conditions. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that protects patients from abandonment and avoidable harm. When patients die because essential medical services have been withdrawn without adequate safeguards, the ethical justification for the action becomes a serious matter for scrutiny.

The World Medical Association (WMA), an international body that promotes widely recognised ethical standards for physicians, upholds principles that include respect for human life and the dignity of patients. These principles underscore the responsibility of doctors to protect the health and well-being of those under their care, provide competent and timely treatment, prevent avoidable harm and act in their patients’ best interests.

These are not merely ideals about compassion. They are professional obligations that must continue to guide medical decisions, including during industrial disputes.

In Nigeria, the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) addressed this issue in January 2024, reportedly directing the heads of teaching hospitals, federal medical centres and specialised hospitals to ensure that industrial action did not result in the abandonment or premature discharge of patients.

Among the safeguards outlined were the following:

  • Accident and emergency departments must remain open and adequately staffed.
  • Emergency paediatric services, labour wards, neonatal units and intensive care units must continue to provide emergency and critical care.
  • Patients already admitted to hospital must not be discharged merely because a strike has commenced.
  • Patients with scheduled appointments before the strike must be attended to in accordance with the applicable directives.

These safeguards reinforce an important principle: the right to pursue employment-related demands does not extinguish a doctor’s professional obligation to protect patients from preventable harm.

Where emergency patients are turned away, critically ill patients are abandoned, or essential services are shut down without adequate arrangements for emergency care, the circumstances warrant investigation. Where evidence establishes a breach of professional obligations or applicable regulations, appropriate disciplinary or legal action should follow.

Similarly, when a patient dies after being denied emergency treatment during an industrial action, the circumstances surrounding the death deserve a thorough and impartial investigation. Where negligence, professional misconduct or a breach of applicable directives is established, appropriate sanctions should be imposed in accordance with the law and relevant professional regulations.

The point is simple: no legitimate grievance should justify abandoning a patient whose life is in immediate danger.

At this juncture, it is equally important to acknowledge the government’s share of the blame. While this article emphasises the ethical obligation of doctors to preserve human life, the government must also recognise that poor remuneration, unpaid allowances, inadequate medical facilities, excessive workloads and unsafe working conditions undermine doctors’ morale and their ability to provide quality healthcare.

The consequences are increasingly evident in Nigeria’s continuing loss of medical professionals to other countries.

In 2025, the Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Professor Muhammad Ali Pate, reportedly disclosed that more than 16,000 Nigerian doctors had emigrated over the preceding five to seven years, largely in search of better opportunities abroad. Furthermore, a 2025 report on Nigeria’s health statistics reportedly indicated that 4,193 doctors and dentists left the country in 2024 alone.

These departures deepen staffing shortages, increase the pressure on the doctors who remain and expose patients to longer waiting times and potentially avoidable deaths.

The government must therefore move beyond repeated negotiations and implement sustainable reforms. These should include the prompt payment of salaries and allowances, improved working conditions, adequate funding for public hospitals, transparent career progression and the effective implementation of agreements reached with medical unions.

The Federal Ministry of Health and relevant hospital authorities must also strengthen monitoring and oversight during industrial disputes to ensure that emergency and critical care services remain available in public hospitals. Patients in life-threatening conditions must not be turned away simply because doctors are on strike.

Ultimately, responsibility for Nigeria’s healthcare crisis cannot be placed entirely on one side. Doctors must uphold their professional and ethical obligations, while the government must fulfil its responsibility to create conditions in which those obligations can be discharged effectively.

Medicine is not an ordinary occupation. It carries a profound moral responsibility because, in certain circumstances, the timely intervention of a medical professional can make the difference between life and death. No employment grievance should be used to justify abandoning a patient whose life is in immediate danger.

The sanctity of human life demands responsibility from the doctors entrusted with treating patients and from the government authorities responsible for ensuring that appropriate treatment remains available.

A functional healthcare system depends on cooperation between these two critical stakeholders. When they fail to find common ground, it is the ordinary citizen who suffers the consequences. As the familiar saying goes, when two elephants fight, the grass suffers.

And trust me, I know what that suffering feels like. I have just experienced it.

Olusegun Hassan, Ph.D.
Public Policy Analyst and Social Commentator

Continue Reading

Trending