Opinion
Pantami: Buhari’s terrorism-canceling in name of region and religion
Published
5 years agoon
On Christmas day in 2009, Nigeria’s Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aged 23, having been born December 22, 1986, attempted to detonate plastic explosives that were hidden in his underwear. He had boarded a Northwest Airlines Flight 253 heading from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan, with 289 passengers on board. Providence however rescued those souls as the explosives refused to explode, burning instead Abdulmutallab’s laps and genitalia. About three years after, on February 16, 2012, a United States federal court convicted him on eight counts bordering on his criminality. These included an attempt to unleash a weapon of mass destruction. Abdulmutallab got a term of sentencing for life and another 50 years without parole. Since then, he has been sequestered at the ADX Florence federal prison in Colorado, America.
I will return to this grisly narrative presently.
Whenever the west cites the 64 AD example of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning, Nigeria goes into historical kitty to flaunt hers. The fiddling Nero is a classical example of governmental neglect of duty and focus on frivolities. Or trivialities. Nigeria’s own Nero is the story of the first and only Prime Minister in the history of Nigeria, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. As Muhammadu Buhari sits cross-legged and picking his teeth in search of some interloping strands of meat, 57 years ago, Balewa did same. Separated by several kilometers in their places of ancestry, Balewa’s Bauchi several Sahelian deserts away from Buhari’s Daura, both leaders are however tragically united by their gross insouciance to raging matters of state. Nigeria is today literally being consumed by a ball of fire in form of ricochets of guns booming in virtually every state of the country. Buhari is however not aware. As Baal, god of the Sidonians, lapsed into bothersome silence, even as 450 of its prophets invoked its spirit on Mount Carmel, Buhari has slid into his characteristic sleep, dead to the tinder of fire that is burning Nigeria.
Backtrack to 1963 and 1964 Nigeria. The national census and the 1964 Federal Elections had thrown the country into a bedlam. This was garnished by blood flowing from the orgy of killings in the Western Region. Balewa however chose to little the acrimonious and vengeful spillage of blood. In June, 1964, as he toured Benin, just like Buhari’s hirelings placed the blame of the Nigerian conflagration on the media, Balewa too said he could not judge the intensity of lawlessness in the West on account of newspaper reports of the brigandage. Balewa was unworried and unconcerned about the slide. As he departed Nigeria for Accra to attend an OAU meeting in October, 1965 at the Ikeja airport, the Prime Minister cynically told a reporter who asked if he wasn’t bothered by the fire raging through the western region that, “Ikeja is part of the West and I cannot see any fire burning.” Exactly two and half months after that statement, specifically on January 15, 1966, that fire he couldn’t see consumed him in Nigeria’s first military coup which ended his life.
As it is, Isa Ali Pantami, Nigeria’s Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, is the fire burning Nigeria now that Buhari too cannot see. Or is pretending not to see. Though with his government’s overt pampering of violence, bandits and insurgents, no one in their right senses expected Buhari to do away with or prosecute Pantami over a truckload of allegations of his insurgency-baiting words in recent past, the way the presidency diffidently told Nigerians to go jump inside the river last Thursday was however benumbing. The cusp it hung its arguments was so baffling that you would wonder if we were indeed not in Balewa’s First Republic. In a release defending Pantami, Buhari, through his Senior Special Assistant, Garba Shehu, said that because Pantami “had been leading the charge against illegal data deductions and pricing… revolutionized government’s virtual public engagement to respond to COVID-19 and save(d) taxpayers’ money… established ICT start-up centres to boost youth entrepreneurship and create jobs… changed policy to ensure locally produced ICT content is used by ministries…(and) deregistered some 9.2 million SIMs – ending the ability for criminals and terrorists to flagrantly use mobile networks undetected,” therefore, allegations that he was hands-in-gloves with insurgency and authored views not different from Abubakar Shekau’s are immaterial. How I wish my late teacher, Prof Campell Shittu Momoh, were here to spank Shehu’s irreverent buttocks for that ill logic and assault on the god of symbolic and deductive logic.
Buhari then leapt into indefensible cants. In doing, this, he made claims that were either deliberately misleading or demonstrative of a government that hypocritically has two different value systems. The release canvassed that, since Pantami made the said violence-baiting words “in the early 2000s,” when “the minister was a man in his twenties” and “next year, he will be 50,” Nigerians should know that “time has passed” and he should not be made to answer for those words. That is decidedly an arithmetic of deceit.
If Pantami canvassed those extremist views in “the early 2000s” and “next year, he will be 50,” a la the presidency, then Pantami made the statements in his thirties in selfsame “the early 2000s.” In very unmistakable manner, that release must have convinced doubting Thomases who didn’t believe that in Buhari’s reckoning, no northern Moslem can do any wrong, in the name of region or religion.
In law, 18 years is the age of responsibility. At that age, a person is deemed to be old enough to carry the cross of his actions, inactions and deeds. But because the Buhari government is so grossly consumed by the hail of nepotism and justification of violence “in the name of region or religion,” Pantami had not crossed that consequential age of responsibility.
If you place Abdulmutallab – the lad whose painful story I narrated above – and his extremist views beside acidic views alleged to have been uttered by Pantami, they share same crimson colour, both united by extremism.
For instance, Abdulmutallab had said, “The Koran obliges every able Muslim to participate in jihad and fight in the way of Allah…I carried the device to avenge the killing of my Muslim brothers and sisters… ” He called the failed explosives laden to his underwear on that flight “blessed weapon” and claimed the motive for wanting to bomb 289 people in the flight as due to “the tyranny of the United States.” Flip to Pantami’s and tell me the difference in them.
What the Buhari justification of Pantami’s extremist views means is that if Abdulmutallab were to have been in Buhari’s Nigeria, his “blossoming youth” would not be “cancelled” as the US did of Abdulmutallab. All he needed to do, according to Buhari, through Shehu, was to promise “he will not repeat them” and “publicly and permanently condemn(ed) his earlier (action) as wrong” and he would be in the clear.
Buhari’s sense of justice is one of the weirdest in human history. While this sense of justice advocates rehabilitation for “repentant” insurgents, it leaves his victim to wallow in pains. It is this same skewed sense of justice which got Buhari to seek the 36 state governments’ lands and water belts for Fulani herdsmen involved in commercial pastoral venture while it is less bothered by the travails of Nigerian poultry farmers whose business is today in comatose due to governmental neglect, “in the name of region and religion.”
Today, terrorism is Nigeria’s major national challenge; of course, spurned by absence of leadership. There is no doubt that Nigeria is bleeding from all her major arteries.
The number of people who have been killed in the last six months should rival the casualty figures in any major war. Nowhere is safe. A couple of days ago, three children among kidnapped students of Greenfield University, Kaduna, were killed like chickens. Bandits are killing in scores in Zamfara. UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, claimed that about 65,000 Nigerians were propelled to flee the country following an April 14 series of attacks by armed groups on Damasak, a town located in the north-eastern part of Borno State. Eight people were reported killed with many injured. Same UNHCR claimed that an upsurge of violence that has held the jugular of the Lake Chad Basin has so far uprooted 3.3 million Nigerians from their homes, a figure that includes about 300,000 Nigerian refugees and excludes about 2.2 million others who have been displaced in north-eastern states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe. In the first quarter of last year, Global Rights Nigeria, an organization that keeps tabs on Nigeria’s cadaver harvest, said that at least 1,416 lives were lost to violence within that period. It is apparent that a quadruple more of that figure has since died. But for Buhari’s defence of region and religion, those people may still be alive today.
To say that Nigeria is a killing field is an understatement. The twin evils of audacity of spillage of blood in major parts of the northern part of Nigeria and the absence of government have lionized renegades in other parts of the country to unleash their terror on defenceless people. Violence has been effectively democratized in all the nooks and crannies of the country, with all the regions competing to outdo one another in the violence roulette.
Nigeria’s Southeast is not left in the orgy of violence. While IPOB inflicts its anger and fury on the Nigerian state, a state of fear grips our compatriots in that enclave. Unidentified anarchists set prisoners free, burn police stations and kill policemen, blinded from the fact that the victims are their own kin. On Thursday last week, the city of Enugu was a bedlam. The New Artisan area had been set on fire. Soldiers from the 2 Division of the Nigerian Army literally took over the Coal City. They strewn up the Otigba Junction Roundabout, even amidst an evening downpour. You would think that there was a coup. Again on Saturday, news came in that the country home of Hope Uzodinma, governor of Imo State, had been set ablaze by suspected hoodlums. They reportedly threw petrol bombs into the house located in Oru East local government area of the state. Sorrows, tears and blood, apologies to Fela Anikulapo Kuti, are the regular trade mark in the Nigeria under Buhari.
While violence has become a recurring decimal in the globe, world leaders are taking steps to track and tame the incubus. Here in Nigeria, there are manifest feelings that the body language of the northern ruling elite, including that of the president, is in support of violence and agents of violence, in the name of region and religion. Right from the days of Goodluck Jonathan, there have been claims that the outlawry that has claimed thousands of lives of Nigerians is being given vent and funded with millions of dollars by powerful men in government who cover their outlawry in wide babanriga. Pantami is the first major identifiable link that Nigeria has had so far to that high-level allegation.
The whole world must be laughing itself silly on account of Nigeria’s Albert Camus absurdity under Buhari. How can a man with such toxic views, which he claimed to have reneged but with scant public evidence, be in charge of Nigeria’s sensitive data ministry:? Christians whose data are in the hands of such a man who advocated their killings in the name of God are as vulnerable as a man who rubbed gasoline on his body and standing beside the mai suya’s red hot iron gauze.
A man who, “in the early 2000s,” a la Buhari’s Shehu, who was then “in his twenties” but allegedly superintended over the killing of a final year student of a university, on allegation that he distributed Christian tracts; who openly expressed a voyeur attraction for Osama bin Laden’s bloodsucking evangelism; who allegedly had dalliance with terrorists and expressed extremist views, is not one you embrace and give a pat in the back, even when he claims he had repented of them. Or even if his brilliance took your country to the moon.
The biblical Saul example that is being hoisted by some felons here is Satanic and inappropriate. Repentance not only comes with genuine confession, sobriety and contriteness, the repentee (pardon my invention) is still not unaccountable to the repentor (again, pardon, please) which in this case is the Nigerian state, for the crime of his past, once he is within the radius of the age of crime liability. As exhibited in the sentencing of the policeman who killed America’s George Floyd last week, the arc of the universe is tilted towards justice. Nigeria’s shouldn’t tilt towards bloodshed and mindless justification of blood-baiting felons, in the name of region and religion.
Rather than come out with a blanket shawl covering Pantami, the first step of a government that is not allied to blood-letting should be to ask its minister accused of wearing an apparel soaked in blood of innocent people to step aside for thorough investigation. Many have said that, judging by alleged health challenge of the president which necessitates proxy governance of Nigeria, many of the governmental decisions attributed to him, including the Garba Shehu release on Pantami, Buhari is everything but aware of them. They might have been decisions taken by powerful proxies, Buhari having retreated into his inscrutable and inaccessible world.
There is no doubt that, as Garba Shehu argued, powerful conglomerates and persons might have escalated the Pantami riddle because his ministerial decisions took oily morsels from their throats. When such victimizers unleash a mob on their victims, only God can come to their rescue. However, Pantami is not denying many of these blood-dripping claims. The presidency may argue in favour of the timing of the hail of allegations against its anointed ministerial son but not its veracity, nor the age of responsibility for crime. It is not judicially empowered to so do.
By this wooly shawl spread round Pantami to cover the blood oozing out of his hands, Buhari is audaciously saying, 57 years after Balewa: “Ikeja is part of the West and I cannot see any fire burning.” Well, he will have his Pantami retained as minister. The carnage on innocent Nigerians will continue. History reveals however that when leaders like this think it is peace and safety, destruction sidles in at night like a fox. Blood is spiritual and shedding of its corpuscles is like water, it will find its course. Everyone who aids and abets it will be answerable to its burning fury. Blood devours like foxes do to chickens in their pen, leaving in its trail blood, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
You may like
-
Nigeria’s Insecurity: Why the System Rewards Reaction, Not Prevention
-
Nigeria must be a place where children can dream without fear — Sean Dampte
-
Nursing Mother Bags 20 Years For Terrorism Support, Illegal Possession of 302 Rounds Of AK-47 Ammunition
-
No Return to Fuel Subsidy, FG Insists Amid Rising Hardship
Opinion
State Police, Local Government Autonomy: Answers to Nigeria’s Lingering Questions | By Titilope Gbadamosi
Published
17 hours agoon
June 12, 2026Almost every democratically elected administration in Nigeria has had to grapple with pockets of insecurity in one form or another. Nigerians have watched uprisings metamorphose into banditry and terrorism, as though every administration had its own uniquely tailored brand of insecurity, defined by the modus operandi of these vicious elements.
The faces change, the methods change, but the burden on whoever occupies the highest office in the land has remained heavy and constant.
Just two administrations ago, during President Goodluck Jonathan’s tenure, we witnessed the horror of the abduction of the Chibok girls and explosives going off in public spaces in Abuja, the nation’s capital. Every well meaning Nigerian was worried, and nowhere felt truly safe. The President’s seat was not the most desirable at the time, and it was clearly a difficult job.
President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration had its own share, mostly in the form of clashes between farmers and herders, driven by grazing routes lost to farming, droughts pushing herders toward greener pastures, and old accommodations between communities slowly breaking down.
I recall quite vividly, while serving as Special Assistant to the former Governor of Oyo State, the late Senator Abiola Ajimobi, joining the head of our team in several peace talks with farmers, traditional rulers, and the Hausa and Fulani community in the state. One lesson from those rooms has stayed with me ever since. The people who understood the grievances, the terrain, and the actors were all local, yet the command of security sat far away in Abuja. That gap is the question every administration has struggled to answer.
Today, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is in charge, and Nigerians who are students of history watched to see what shape insecurity would take and, more importantly, what this President would do differently. In recent development, the country received an answer that previous decades only debated.
On June 11, following the President’s formal request to the National Assembly to restructure our security architecture, the House of Representatives passed the constitutional amendment to establish state police, with 289 members voting in support and barely a voice against, while the Senate works to complete passage before year end. Today June 12th,2026, in his Democracy Day address, the President spoke plainly: the insecurity we face is partly the product of collapsed grassroots governance, and his administration remains committed to financial autonomy for our 774 local government councils. There it is, a two pronged solution: state police and true local government autonomy.
The first prong closes the gap I saw in those Oyo State peace talks. The amendment to Section 214 of the Constitution creates a dual policing structure under which each state may establish its own force. Security decisions will now be taken by those who know the terrain, the actors, and the grievances at first hand.
To his credit, the President did not merely champion the idea; he asked the National Assembly to institute controls to prevent abuses, the mark of a leader interested in a reform that endures rather than one that backfires. All of this rides on the largest security investment in our history, a 5.41 trillion naira commitment in the 2026 budget and over 50,000 new police officers approved for recruitment.
The second prong puts resources where the new responsibility will live. Since the Supreme Court ruled in July 2024 that federation allocations belonging to local governments must reach them directly, monthly allocations to the 774 councils have grown from roughly 387 billion naira in March 2025 to nearly 530 billion naira by September 2025. The money has never been the problem; control of it was. By pressing autonomy to its conclusion, this administration is returning both funds and accountability to the communities where insecurity actually begins, so that the grassroots governance whose collapse the President identified can finally be rebuilt.
So who wins in all of these? Nigerians win, because security decisions and development funds will finally live where the people live. Governors win the powers they have long demanded, and with them the responsibility they can no longer pass to Abuja. And the country wins a President willing to attempt what others only discussed. The President reminded us on Democracy Day that Nigerians bend and bleed but do not break. With these two reforms, we may finally stop having to prove it so often.
Dr. Titilope Gbadamosi is the Special Assistant on Youth Initiatives (Monitoring and Delivery) to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Opinion
Nigeria’s Insecurity: Why the System Rewards Reaction, Not Prevention
Published
7 days agoon
June 6, 2026The most foolish person in a burning house is not the one who cannot find the exit. It is the one who knew the house would burn, watched it happen, and only ran when the ceiling collapsed. That is Nigeria’s governance posture toward insecurity—a pattern so consistent that it has become normalized.
“Ikú tó pa ojúgbà ẹni, òwe ló fi pa. (The death that kills your neighbour is a proverb directed at you).
The bandits did not simply arrive. They sent warnings ahead of them through a trail of violence that crossed state lines and appeared in every massacre headline we filed away as someone else’s problem.
When Insecurity Was Still “Someone Else’s Problem”
When the North was burning and the Middle Belt bleeding, the South West treated it as distant noise. Kwara became the first warning sign—the bridge between North and South—slowly slipping under the shadow of insurgency. The question every serious observer should have asked was simple: what happens when it crosses the border?
South West governors issued statements—careful, brief, and reactive. None moved with the urgency the threat demanded. Before long, violence arrived at our doorstep: herder brutality in Oke-Ogun, attacks in Oyo and Ekiti, kidnappings along the Ibadan–Ijebu-Ode expressway, and forest camps emerging in Ondo.
The warning signs had matured into reality, yet we were still searching for an exit strategy that should have been built years earlier.
The Problem: We Only Count the Dead
In safety performance management, there is a critical distinction between lagging indicators—outcomes after failure (deaths, destruction, losses)—and leading indicators, which measure prevention before failure occurs.
Aviation, oil and gas, and other high-risk industries understand this clearly: a system that obsesses over lagging indicators will always arrive after the accident.
Nigeria’s security governance is built almost entirely on lagging indicators. We count attacks after they happen. We rebuild after a collapse. We mourn after preventable deaths.
We rarely ask:
How many attacks were prevented this quarter?
How many threats were neutralized before execution?
How many cells were dismantled at the planning stage?
We do not know the answers—because we are not measuring them. The system was never designed to prevent. It was designed to respond: loudly, visibly, expensively, and always too late.
Another Base. The Same Question Nobody Asks
The presidency is reportedly considering a military base in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo state. It is a familiar pattern: a major security incident, public outrage, and an institutional response designed to signal seriousness.
But the critical question remains unanswered: what has been the leading-indicator performance of existing bases?
How have long-standing military formations in places like Jos, Benue, and Zamfara—some active for over two decades—actually shifted the security outcome?
A military base without actionable intelligence is a stationary slaughter ground for soldiers. It does not prevent attacks; it often becomes a reactive outpost in a repeating cycle: attack, deployment, statement, investigation, and then silence—while underlying threat networks remain intact.
The Incentive Structure Behind the Chaos
The deeper issue is not the capability of security forces. It is the incentive structure of the system.
When leadership is judged only by incidents that have already occurred, governance shifts from prevention to performance management of failure. The objective becomes managing optics, not reducing probability.
Nigeria’s security budget has grown significantly over the past decade, yet insecurity has worsened. Kidnappings have become more brazen. Why? Because funding is justified by the persistence of the crisis, not its resolution.
If the problem is solved, what justifies the next budget cycle?
For years, decentralization has been proposed as the structural reform that could change the system—but it remains trapped in political rhetoric. Why? Because decentralization disperses power, and power in Nigeria’s political economy is not dispersed. It is concentrated.
Sixteen Days. Full Stop.
Forty-six children and teachers were kidnapped in Oriire. It reportedly took sixteen days for the presidency to authorize a specialized rescue framework.
Sixteen days before the Commander-in-Chief treated the abduction of forty-six human beings as a crisis requiring formal executive activation.
But responsibility in moments like this is not singular.
The Oyo State Governor, by constitutional convention regarded as the Chief Security Officer of the state and a recipient of security votes, also occupies a central coordinating role in the security architecture of the state. Within a crisis of this scale, expectations of rapid intergovernmental coordination, visible command urgency, and sustained pressure on federal response mechanisms are not optional, hey are inherent to the office.
Yet, the response cycle, from abduction to high-level coordinated action and physical engagement with affected communities, unfolded at a pace that raised legitimate public concern about the speed and intensity of institutional reaction.
By the time visible field visits and coordinated engagements occurred, the delay had already become part of the public record of the crisis itself—shaping perception as much as the incident shaped fear on the ground.
In a functional security system, crisis response is measured in hours, not days. Not for symbolism, but because time directly affects outcomes: every passing hour in an active kidnapping reduces the probability of safe recovery and increases the leverage of perpetrators.
Sixteen days, therefore, is not merely a lapse in timing. It reflects a deeper structural problem—where urgency is often declared after pressure builds, rather than operationalized when intelligence first breaks.
And in that gap between incident and action, citizens are left to absorb the consequences of delayed coordination across all tiers of authority.
The Verdict
Nigeria does not primarily need more military bases. It needs a new security measurement architecture—one that prioritizes intelligence conversion rates, early-warning response times, and pre-emptive disruption metrics over post-incident operations.
Every threat must be treated as time-sensitive, where minutes and hours determine outcomes—not weeks and statements.
Most importantly, citizens must shift the accountability question:
Not only “why did the attack happen?”
But “why was it not prevented?”
Nigeria’s security challenge is ultimately a leadership and systems failure—an institutional preference for reaction over prevention, because prevention is politically invisible.
You cannot hold a press conference about the attack that never happened.
Until this reality is named and confronted with precision, the cycle will continue.
Growing support has continued to trail a youthful politician and technology advocate, Hon. Khalil Mustapha Adegboyega, popularly known as Repete, as many youths in Ibadan North Federal Constituency expressed confidence in his leadership style and vision for development.
Across several communities within the constituency, residents, particularly students, artisans and young professionals, described Repete as one of the emerging political figures with strong grassroots appeal and a passion for youth empowerment.
Supporters said his growing popularity stems from his consistent advocacy for innovation, entrepreneurship and skills development aimed at addressing unemployment and creating opportunities for young people.
As an engineer and technology enthusiast, Repete is also said to possess a deep understanding of the evolving digital economy and the need to position youths for global competitiveness.
Many of his supporters noted that his approach to leadership focuses on practical solutions, mentorship and capacity-building initiatives capable of helping young people become self-reliant and economically productive.
Some community stakeholders who spoke on his rising profile said his humility, accessibility and relationship with the grassroots have continued to endear him to many residents within the constituency.
They added that Repete’s engagement with youths and community groups reflects his commitment to inclusive governance and people-oriented representation.
Observers within the constituency also maintained that the increasing support for the politician reflects a growing desire among residents for a new generation of leaders driven by innovation, competence and accountability.
According to them, many young people see Repete as a symbol of hope and progressive leadership capable of contributing meaningfully to the development of Ibadan North Federal Constituency.
Advertisement
Entertainment
Nigeria must be a place where children can dream without fear — Sean Dampte
Adekunle Gold, Simi welcome twins
Ayefele drops new album, Reflections
Reggae Legend, Jimmy Cliff, Dies At 81
Photos: Davido blows $3.7m on lavish Miami white wedding for Chioma
FAAN probes K1 for spilling alcohol on airport officer during boarding
MegaIcon Magazine Facebook Page
MEGAICON TV
Advertisement
Trending
-
News4 days agoOseni Donates Boreholes, Transformer, Solar Streetlights to Ibadan Community
-
News3 days agoOseni fulfils ₦5m pledge for Anfaani Central Mosque solar project
-
News1 week agoOseni supports Ibadan mosque solar project with ₦5m
-
News4 days agoAdelabu family aide supplied kidnappers with intelligence on sister’s movement, twins’ abduction – Police