Connect with us

Opinion

Tinubu’s lost war in Niger as Sigidi | By Festus Adedayo

Published

3 years ago

on

Yoruba have a way with the Sigidi, whose closest modern translation is the robot. So when the Sigidi – a moulded clay effigy – at the height of its self-destruct, asks that it be taken to the river to swim, Yoruba say a catastrophe is in the offing. They render this as, Sigidi nse’re ete, o ni ki won gbe’hun l’odo lo we. Just as the modern robot is credited with the power to take some human actions, the Sigidi too, in the belief of the Yoruba, could. It was one of the insignias of operation of the babalawo. It is puttied all over by clay that is easily dissoluble in water. So, for the Sigidi to ask to be taken to go swim is an invitation to destruction.

Those days when African military generals prepared to embark on war expeditions, they began to manifest queer, supra-human and impenetrable behavior. They recoiled from the world and its realities, wore frightening, fearsome visages and immersed themselves in huge pots of metaphysical liquid preparations Yoruba called agbo ogun. Natives then sang songs to scintillate their bloodthirsty bellicosity. One of such was a song meant to nourish the warmongering inclination in them, rendered as, O npa’le ogun mo, Edumare ma je o t’enu mi jade…

Today marks the expiry of President Bola Tinubu’s ultimatum to the coup plotters of Niger Republic. Against the run of play, when Tinubu, last Friday, wrote the Nigerian Senate seeking its support for military intervention against the junta in Niger Republic, his sabre-rattling bore similar features with those of 17th, 18th and 19th century warlords. Like the Ekitiparapo war which was fought from 1877 to 1893, most wars are triggered by, most times, mundane issues which are however a burst of deep-seated resentments and animosities. This war was regarded as one of the greatest of all wars among the Yoruba, in fact its bloodiest and the most unforgettable in history. It was a war renowned for its varied nomenclatures.

In its rendering as Kiriji War, that appellation was got from the onomatopoeic vibrations of Kirijiji! Kirijiji!! Kirijiji!!! which accompanied the booms of cannons and modern artillery munitions of the said war. When it is rendered as the Ekitiparapo War, it is in reference to the alliance of Ekiti-speaking Yoruba who gathered their ljesa, Igbomina, Egba, ljebu, Ilorin and allied enemies of Ibadan to fight them. Ibadan had by then become so pompous and belligerently oppressive to other parts of Yoruba. As War to End all Wars, it was in reference to the war being the last major war in the 19th century in Yorubaland; and finally, when rendered as The Sixteen Years War, that war’s notoriety for having been prosecuted for 16 consecutive years non-stop is the reference.

While Tinubu’s lure for this war is, on the surface, to protect the ravishing beauty called democracy that may be raped to death in Nigeria’s neighbouring Niger Republic, the bait of the Ekiti Parapo War was Falola, the pretty and delectable wife of warlord, Prince Fabunmi Abe Adesoye of Igbo-Odo, a town later to be known as Oke-Mesi. Falola was a victim of the libidinous rascality of an Ajele (Resident) imposed on the town by Ibadan conquistadors. Tinubu, as Chairman of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and his allies are bent on rescuing democracy, the damsel that General Abdourahmane Tiani, leader of the putschists in Niger coveted. Niger’s democratically elected president, Mohamed Bazoum, had been toppled due to what was referred to as an obscure personnel dispute within Niger’s presidential guard. On a market day in 1876, Oyepetun, the Ibadan Ajele stationed at Imesi-Igbodo, infamous for his avarice, wickedness and general impression that he was one of the most irreverent and badly behaved Residents (Ajele) sent by the Ibadan to Ekiti land, had seized Falola right there in the marketplace, in fact at the front of the Oba’s palace.

General Tiani had exhibited same audacious belligerency. Persuaded that this was an affront of the highest order and a final denouement to the continued desecration of Ekitiland by the Ibadan, Prince Fabunmi stormed the home of the Ajele and beheaded him, alongside all his band of invaders. Another account of what led to the war claimed that rather than Oyepetun sexually abusing Falola, Fabunmi’s wife, Oyepetun’s men forcefully took food and palm wine from a woman who was friend to Fabunmi’s wife, leading to a fight. In retaliation, Aare Latosa, without giving his proposed expedition a second thought, angrily sent one of his military commanders, Ajayi Ogboriefon, to Igbo-Odo with a single expedition – decapitate Fabunmi and bring his head to Ibadan in a white calabash.

Like Latosa who did not subject the likely scenario in Ekiti to rigorous examination and the probable negative effects of his pugnacious decree, Tinubu too, riled by the temerity of General Tijani, is seeking the Nigerien soldier’s head on a platter. Eventually however, not only did Latosa’s post-hate sabre-rattling become a huge calamity to befall Yorubaland, the Ekitiparapo war, which was one of the most belligerently prosecuted wars in Yorubaland, with variety of munitions, became a massive albatross to the people, hampering integrationist efforts among the people and becoming one of the ancient fault lines of divisiveness among the people. Its capital intensiveness hampered the people’s economy due to the then sophisticated armaments deployed for the prosecution of the war. For the first time, warriors witnessed the usage of costly breech-loading rifles and sophisticated weapons like Winchester, Martini Henri, Sniders, Mauser.

Apart from negatively impacting the socio-economic and political history of Yoruba race of the 19th century, the war also inflicted huge human losses, leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of people. It also opened Yorubaland to the covert invasion of British colonial penetration. In the same vein, it inflicted significant and far-reaching consequences that led to the opening of the routes to the eventual loss of Ilorin to Alimi’s Fulani. Following from this is its encouragement of the eventual loss of other Yoruba kingdoms to aliens. Historians locate the unending atrocious relationship between the Ife and Modakeke to this peremptory order for the head of Fabunmi by Aare Latosa.

That fractious relationship was later responsible for the hundreds of deaths in the 2000s war between Ife and Modakeke. Modakeke, in the prosecution of the Ekitiparapo war, found themselves allies of Ibadan, deployed to fight the war while their Ife neighbours, fought alongside the Generals of Ekitiparapo. The war also led to Ibadan losing its erstwhile panjandrum role in Yorubaland as a result of this hasty decision by Latosa. Eventually, all Ibadan erstwhile dependencies were severed and granted autonomy by the colonial government who sneaked in on the pretext of seeking armistice. Eventually the Ibadan/Oyo forces that dared the Ekiti had to withdraw. Ogboriefon himself died in the thick of the war.

Last Friday, Tinubu sought the backing of the Nigerian parliament to fight war in Niger. It is alleged that some of the actions on which Tinubu sought senate approval had already been effectuated. For instance, the highly authoritative Wall Street Journal said that even before going to the parliament, he had ordered for Niger to be hit by total darkness. This was done by disconnecting the main transmission lines that provides 75% of Niger’s electricity from Nigeria, thus plunging the Nigerien presidential palace, towns and villages into blackouts. Even the deposed President Bazoum’s cell phone, said the journal, though still remained charged as at the time of the report, stood the risk of running out, leading to him being incommunicado. It is however gladsome that the senate refused this request to invade Niger by the Nigerian president.

The Ekitiparapo War was one of the wars that signified the ambivalent nature of wars. It perhaps was what led to the famous statement that it is only the beginning of a war that is known; no one knows its end. Like the American war against Afghanistan primed to last a few months but which eventually elasticized from 2001 to 2021, ending with the Taliban offensive overthrowing the Islamic Republic and establishing an Islamic Emirate, the Ekitiparapo war also frustrated all strategic permutations, just as the Afghan war did. That war became the longest in US’ military history, even lasting longer than the 20-year-old Vietnam War.

But why, like Aare Latosa, would Tinubu precipitate a war that he has no scientific binoculars to foresee where and when it was heading for? When General Ibrahim Babangida, on August 24, 1990, began similar deployment of 3,000 West African troops into the Liberian capital, Monrovia, as part of the ECOWAS Peace Monitoring Group, (ECOMOG) he too never had an idea of the number of persons he would propitiate to the god of leadership ego that suddenly seized him, nor the billions of dollars of Nigeria’s patrimony that would be sunk into the expedition. Envisaging that ECOMOG operation in Liberia would last for just six months, it later lasted for seven years, even expanding its frontiers into neighbouring Sierra Leone.

Till today, the justification given for ECOWAS’ intervention in the Liberian war has been variously faulted and became largely controversial. Some claim that Babangida merely got Nigeria and other African countries to help fight a war to keep his friend, Samuel Doe of Liberia, in office. While the ECOWAS community hung on to Article 16, of the 1981 Defence Protocol, which said that “the Head of State of the member under attack may request action or assistance from the Community,” it was said that Doe never requested the intervention of ECOWAS but merely demanded Babangida’s help. There was also no consensus to intervene, especially from Francophone African states. Indeed, countries like Cote d`Ivoire and Guinea, which were sympathetic towards and even actively supporting the NPFL, were miffed at the ECOMOG intervention. Cote D’Ivoire had always been Nigeria’s regional rival. Thus, while Doe was Babangida, Nigeria`s President’s bosom friend, Nigeria was to pay heavily through Charles Taylor`s killing of about 1,000 of her nationals in Monrovia in 1990, a list that included journalists Kris Imodibe and Tayo Awotunsin. So, while Nigeria was sympathetic to Doe, Taylor received support from Cote d`Ivoire and Burkino Faso as well as from France and Libya.

As the Babangida friendship war in Liberia dragged on, the operation became progressively dangerous, costly and protracted. By the time ECOMOG pulled out of Liberia in October,1999 Western powers didn’t seem to be aware and stood away from this former American colony. At a reception held in Abuja on the arrival of the last Nigerian ECOMOG soldiers in 1999, President Olusegun Obasanjo said that Nigeria had lost at least 500 of its soldiers, several hundreds were wounded and a staggering sum of US $8 billion was wasted to the peacekeeping operation in Liberia. Obasanjo had concluded, “We will never know the number of Nigerian civilians who lost their lives in the crisis in Liberia.”

From his friends and foes, questions are being asked on why Tinubu suddenly acquired this sudden bellicosity and the reason he is prepared to commit Nigeria to another needless prosecution of war. Could the decision be an outcome of a sudden pounce on him, like the self-revelatory spirit that triggered the removal of subsidy on the day of his inauguration? Explaining his off-the-cuff, unscheduled and unprepared-for severance of the subsidy, the president had said, “I got to the podium, I was possessed with courage, and I said, ‘subsidy is gone’”. Was it the same possessing spirit that is responsible for this ominous throwing of Nigeria into another round of war?

Already, it is said that the military government in Niger had signed or is in the bid to sign an agreement with Russia’s Wagner PMC for the supply of Specialized defense services to repel Tinubu’s threat of military intervention. Wagner is said to have units in Libya, Mali, and Central African Republic and these military units will proceed to Niger, a republic with a population of 27,294,785, immediately with its 12 to13,000 Wagner fighters. As diplomatic relationship stands now, Niger has reportedly severed ties with Nigeria and Togo. Rumours have it that Algeria and Egypt, reputed to possess the strongest military strength in Africa, as well as Guinea, Burkina Faso, Libya, Chad, and Mali, are ready to stand with Niger, making this war a perfect replica of the Ekitiparapo War and bonding of allies.

So, why is Tinubu angling for a war? There is this claim that Tinubu, in the bid to seek the west to legitimize his rule, especially with the judgment of the Presidential Election Court (PEPC) that may “bring anarchy” to Nigeria, is ready to be the lickspittle of the west, anyhow. Indications are rife that the US and the European Union needed an African front to carry their can and Tinubu is a ready tool for this. A military action from ECOWAS may stop Niger’s gravitation towards Russia. Uranium-rich Niger, in 2022, was responsible for 25.38% of EU’s supply, after Kazakstan, which owns world’s largest ounce of uranium. With the Russian uranium export suffering due to sanctions, France and the EU, with huge dependence on nuclear energy, need the sustenance of Niger Republic’s uranium to keep afloat.

The danger for America, which has spent about $500 million to arm and equip Niger’s military, said the Wall Street Journal, is that it may unwittingly be allowing Russia to pick up some of its most treasured drone bases, which are used to fly missions across the Sahara between Libya and Nigeria. Niger had been the centerpiece of America and Europe’s fight against the contagious spread in Africa’s Sahel of Islamic State and al Qaeda, through a spool spin. This spin is “across 3,000-mile semiarid territory on the southern shore of the Sahara that also includes Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad.” If Tinubu fights their war, sacrificing thousands of Nigerian soldiers in the process, EU and America would in turn rub his back by sustaining his life-long ambition to be Nigeria’s president. Don’t forget that the Tinubu government exhibited palpable fright when the EU cavalierly removed the legitimacy rug off his feet through the damning report it brought out on the election that ensured his presidency.

Unfortunately for Tinubu and his ECOWAS, the coup plotters of Niger have tremendous home support. Tinubu doesn’t have same at home on this war-baiting plan of his. Already, a group of northern senators in a release issued on Friday and signed by Sen. Suleiman Kawu Sumaila dissociated itself from Tinubu’s bellicose pursuit. While condemning the Niger coup, the group said it took exception to use of military force because “the consequences will be casualties among the innocent citizens who go about their daily business… (in) the seven northern states who share border with Niger Republic, namely Sokoto, Kebbi, Katsina, Zamfara, Jigawa, Yobe and Borno.” The group thus covertly urged its colleagues in parliament, “to observe due diligence in invoking section 5 sub section (4) (a) and (b) of 1999 Nigerian Constitution as amended,” ostensibly by not giving go-ahead to Tinubu to prosecute the war.

As the senators said, geographically, seven Northern states share borders of 1,608 kilometers with Niger Republic. Senator Shehu Sanni also recently reminded Tinubu that about 3000 escapees from Boko Haram onslaughts are taking refuge in Nigerien refugee camps. If they could issue their own release too, the Nigerian Army, expected to prosecute the Tinubu war, would openly rebel against it. This is because a huge number of Nigerian military personnel, from headship to the recruits, are believed to share consanguinity with Niger, with their family members and relations based in Niger Republic. Indeed, many of our senators and House of Reps members are suspected to be citizens of Niger Republic. Ex-President Muhammadu Buhari never hid his consanguinity with Niger. Due to the porous borders and filial bonding between the two countries, a Nigerien boy who walks into, say Kano, schools therein and enters the civil service or the military, duds his actual citizenship and easily meshes into Nigeria.

For French-speaking Africa, the fight against France is a war of liberation. A respondent told the Wall Street Journal that “What happened in Niger is nothing other than the struggle of the people of Niger with their colonizers.” Like Nigeria, Niger and other French-speaking African countries had been tied to the apron strings of their colonial masters. Unlike Nigeria, they have made up their minds to exit the servitude. Back here in Nigeria, the ground Tinubu is standing to declare this war is suffering a seismic shake.

The Tinubu declaration of war against Niger could be indicative of two, or even three, things about his presidency. One is that it could be yet another symptom of a peremptory, off-the-cuff, kick-and-follow governance that gives less consideration to the rigour of critical interrogation of issues. The Niger war declaration bears same hollow texture with the fuel subsidy removal. Second, the war may be Tinubu’s Sigidi signaling catastrophe for his government and for our dear country. Unless Tinubu beats a retreat and sticks to shuttle diplomacy with the Niger Republic junta, the war, which he has lost ab initio, even without firing a single bullet, will negatively define his administration. It is a calamity in the making. On a second thought, knowing the stuff that these Lagos politicians are made of, could the flaunt of bravado over Niger Republic, the request to the senate, the rejection and the protests in Niger Republic be a stage-managed choreography, part of the machinations of the Lagos boy to show the west that he tried his best, but his people rebelled against it? Curiouser and curiouser!

Related Topics:
Comments

Opinion

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

Published

7 days ago

on

October 23, 2026

By

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

Opinion

Oyo, Osun Petrol Price War: Why Fair Competition Should Matter 

Published

1 week ago

on

October 22, 2026

By

The decision by some filling stations in Oyo and Osun states to sell petrol at lower prices than their competitors has brought renewed attention to pricing practices in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector and, more importantly, to what consumers stand to gain when competition is allowed to work.

Investigations and enquiries into petrol prices in the two states revealed differences in pump prices, with some independent petroleum marketers (IPM) selling Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), popularly known as petrol, for about ₦1,375 per litre, while some competing stations charged about ₦1,385 per litre.

Although the difference is just ₦10 per litre, the savings are meaningful for motorists, commercial transport operators, artisans, traders and other residents who depend on petrol to earn a living.

For a commercial driver buying 40 litres, for instance, the price difference amounts to ₦400. For small businesses that rely on petrol-powered generators, repeated purchases at lower prices could provide some relief amid the rising cost of living. Across thousands of consumers and multiple purchases, modest savings can become a substantial reduction in household and business expenses.

However, findings from the enquiries suggest that some independent marketers who had previously sold petrol at relatively lower prices later adjusted their pump prices to match those of competing stations.

The development has prompted questions about what influences pricing decisions in the two states and whether consumers are being allowed to benefit fully from competition among petroleum marketers.

Information obtained during engagements with some marketers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also indicated that the leadership of the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN) in the two states had expressed displeasure over the decision by some members to sell petrol below the prices charged by other filling stations.

The circumstances surrounding the reported position of the association’s leadership, however, require clarification from the relevant IPMAN officials. Their response is necessary to establish the facts, understand the basis of the reported concerns and give the association an opportunity to state its position.

THE CASE FOR FAIR COMPETITION

At the heart of the matter is a question that directly affects consumers: should a petroleum marketer who can legitimately sell petrol at a lower price be discouraged from doing so simply because competitors are charging more?

The answer should be guided by evidence, legality and consumer welfare. In a competitive market, businesses generally make pricing decisions based on their operating costs, supply arrangements, margins and commercial objectives. Where a marketer can sustainably offer a lower price while meeting all applicable regulatory, product-quality and safety requirements, consumers should be able to consider that option.

Fair competition is not merely a benefit to individual buyers. It creates pressure on businesses to control costs, improve efficiency and offer better value. A lower price from one marketer can encourage others to review their own costs and pricing decisions, potentially producing wider benefits for customers.

This does not mean that every low-priced offer is automatically sustainable or that marketers should ignore the economic realities of running their businesses. Differences in supply costs, transportation, location and other expenses may legitimately result in different pump prices.

The issue, therefore, is not whether every filling station should sell petrol at the same price. It is whether businesses can compete fairly, transparently and within the law, without undue pressure to abandon commercially viable prices that benefit consumers.

Any intervention that prevents legitimate price competition should be supported by clear evidence and a lawful, consumer-focused justification. Otherwise, the likely result is a narrower range of choices and less pressure on sellers to offer better prices.

THE BURDEN ON ORDINARY RESIDENTS

For many households and small businesses, petrol prices go beyond what appears on a filling station’s price board. Higher fuel costs can increase transportation fares, the cost of moving goods and the expense of running generators and other equipment.

Traders may have to spend more transporting their goods to markets, while commercial drivers face pressure from rising operating costs. Such expenses can eventually be passed on to consumers through higher prices for goods and services.

Against this background, any legitimate opportunity to reduce fuel expenses deserves serious attention.

Allowing genuine competition among petroleum marketers could offer some relief, particularly where consumers have access to reliable information about prices and can choose where to buy their fuel. The ability to compare prices is itself an important part of a functioning market.

At the same time, price differences should be examined in context. A lower pump price alone does not establish wrongdoing by competing stations, just as a higher price does not automatically amount to exploitation. Reliable evidence about supply costs, market conditions and the conduct of the parties concerned is needed to reach a fair conclusion.

The central point remains clear: where lower prices are lawful, sustainable and supported by quality and safety compliance, consumers should not be deprived of the benefit merely because uniformity is more convenient for sellers.

STAKEHOLDERS MUST CLARIFY THE ISSUES

The reported concerns over lower pump prices in Oyo and Osun call for open engagement among IPMAN leadership, independent marketers and other relevant stakeholders.

IPMAN officials in both states should be given the opportunity to explain whether any concerns were raised about members selling petrol below prevailing local prices and, if so, the reasons behind those concerns.

Independent marketers, on their part, should be prepared to explain how they arrive at their pump prices and demonstrate that their pricing practices are commercially sustainable and comply with relevant requirements.

The relevant regulatory authorities also have a role to play in ensuring that petroleum products meet quality and safety standards and that market participants operate within the applicable legal framework. They should also remain alert to any conduct that unlawfully restricts competition or misleads consumers.

No stakeholder should be condemned solely on the basis of an unverified allegation. Equally, concerns that could affect consumers’ access to competitively priced fuel should not be dismissed without proper examination.

A balanced approach requires both scrutiny and restraint: lower prices should be tested against evidence, while attempts to suppress legitimate competition should also face appropriate questions.

CONSUMERS SHOULD NOT BE LEFT OUT

Ultimately, the debate over petrol prices in Oyo and Osun should not become a contest between filling station owners. The interests of consumers must remain central.

Petroleum marketers need a business environment in which they can operate sustainably, recover legitimate costs and earn reasonable returns. Consumers, however, also deserve a marketplace where they can make informed choices and benefit from genuine competition.

If a filling station can lawfully and sustainably sell quality petrol at a lower price, that decision should be assessed on its merits rather than opposed simply because neighbouring stations charge more. Competition should not be treated as a problem merely because it exposes differences in pricing.

The way forward lies in transparency, fair competition and constructive engagement among stakeholders.

For residents struggling with the cost of transportation, food and other necessities, even modest savings matter. Ensuring that legitimate competition is allowed to work could help ease some of that pressure, while proper oversight can protect consumers from unsafe products and unsustainable practices.

The relevant question is whether all parties are prepared to put a fair and transparent marketplace ahead of unnecessary disputes over pricing. Consumers should not be asked to pay more simply to preserve uniformity where lawful competition can deliver better value.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Governor Seyi Makinde’s Media Chat: A Hundred And Twenty Minutes Of Trash Talk | By Sola Abegunde

Published

2 weeks ago

on

October 13, 2026

By

I knew that Governor Makinde would provide us with a hundred and twenty minutes of comic relief and at the same time, I knew he is bound to commit unforced errors which would further expose his shenanigans.

The outgoing Governor of Oyo state did not disappoint on both fronts.

Personally, I understand the need for him to have one final valedictory Media Chat.

The atmosphere might be too hot for him to even think of such luxury after the general election in 2027. So, if he’s got the opportunity now, why not take a shot at it?

I must however say that the Governor displayed his insensitivity right from the choice of the Studio the Chat was aired.

Shortly before the Media Chat commenced, I came across a release signed by the Chairman of the Nigeria Union of Journalist, NUJ, BCOS Chapel, Com. Ademola Balogun.

Com. Balogun was full of lamentations concerning the very terrible state of the Oyo state Broadcasting Corporations, BCOS.

He was of the very strong opinion that the BCOS should have meaningful opportunities to cover Government activities.

He also called on Governor Seyi Makinde to empower the BCOS to invest in modern studio, transmitting equipment, digital broadcasting facilities and online platforms.

Com. Ademola spoke extensively about Staff welfare and other issues.

Sadly, while Governor Seyi Makinde has been consistent in empowering a particular Radio station, the Broadcasting Corporations of Oyo state, BCOS has been dying slowly.

Unfortunately, I have no good news for Com. Ademola. His lamentations will definitely fall on stone deaf ears. It is too late for Governor Makinde to change his ways. I just pray that the Governor would not wake up one day and sold off whatever remains of the Corporation.

That is just by the way. Let me address Governor Makinde’s Media Chat for whatever it is worth. The Governor spent a whole two hours venting anger and spreading outright lies and half-truths.

I am surprised that Governor Makinde has not seen any reason for him to have a second thought about his awkward and reckless comments about the Law Profession.

I am saying this because, for the second time, his Deputy was sitting closely beside him and yet, he felt like it was humorous for him to take a dig at Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli, the All Progressives Congress, APC Gubernatorial candidate, regarding his misconceived failure as a Law practitioner.

He repeated the ignorant and reckless comments about Senator Alli, not being a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and for that reason, according to Governor Seyi Makinde, the Oyo South Senator is not an accomplished Legal Practitioner.

He had made that same reckless comments a couple of weeks ago and at that time also, the Deputy Governor was beside him!

The respectable man is an accomplished Lawyer of many years of experience, who had trained a lot of successful Lawyers.

I also wonder, how people like Dr. Nureni Adeniran and Olasunkanmi Olaleye, who are also Lawyers and have been working with Governor Seyi Makinde over the years would feel about those reckless comments coming from their Boss.

If you want to follow Governor Seyi Makinde’s reasoning, if you are a teacher and you did not rise to the status of a School Principal or Head teacher, then, you’re a failure.

If you are a Military Personnel and you didn’t rise to the position of a General, you’re a failure!

Any time I saw the Governor arguing in this regard, I always asked myself if he was actually himself, because, for me, only a drunkard is capable of reasoning in that manner, or, perhaps, some young elements who had taken so much banned substances.

I have carefully analyzed the 120 minutes Media Chat and I saw that Governor Seyi Makinde spent so much time treating two issues.

The first, being his frustration about his perceived betrayal by president Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the second being his failed attempt to rewrite the Constitution of Nigeria regarding the financial autonomy for Local Governments.

The birthday boy tried to work him through the crisis at the Circular Road, but it was obvious that the main reasons behind Governor Makinde’s Media Chat were grounded on his firm beliefs that Tinubu breached certain agreements with him and others in 2023 and his warped opinion about how the Local Governments should operate within our Federation.

Let’s start with Governor Seyi Makinde’s allegations against Tinubu.

According to him, in 2023, an agreement was signed between certain individuals, including himself.

He said there was an agreement that a Government of National Unity would be formed by president Tinubu after he won the presidential election of 2023 and that he and the Governor of Lagos state, Babajide Sanwo-Olu were signatories to that agreement.

According to him, president Tinubu was not a signatory to the agreement but he was informed after the agreement was signed!

He went further to say that on the strength of that agreement, he presented Bimbo Adekambi as a Ministerial nominee because the president had earlier told him that he wanted to appoint the Minister for Budget and Planing from Oyo state.

To his chagrin and disappointment, president Tinubu settled for Bayo Adelabu and asked him to own the nomination of the former Minister for power, a request he claimed he rejected.

He therefore concluded that all the Ministers nominated from the South West are from Bourdilon.

I have carefully analyzed this confession by Governor Seyi Makinde and I have a few questions for him.

Why is it that Governor Seyi Makinde is the only one complaining about a breached agreement?

Why did it take him all these long to come out with this fact?

What was the criteria for the nomination of Bimbo Adekambi? Did he just take a random decision to choose Adekambi without a prior relationship between the two of them or what?

How does Governor Seyi Makinde want to convince any right thinking person that he believed an agreement would be binding on Tinubu on the strength of Governor Sanwo-Olu’s alleged signature?

For me, that doesn’t make any sense, most especially, for an ” accomplished Engr” like Seyi Makinde!

I am surprised that Governor Makinde leaves out what he benefited from the alignment with Tinubu in 2023.

Remove the alignment with Tinubu in 2023, Seyi Makinde was a goner and the fact that he was able to secure a second term in office ought to have been enough for him.

I am also surprised that Governor Makinde didn’t understand that he was advertising his penchant for serial betrayal and greed when he was relating the events that shaped his re-election in 2023.

It was all about him and the decisions he took, not only affected the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP alone, it also affected certain candidates of his party during the first ballot in 2023.

Now, to the issue of Local Government Autonomy.

Governor Seyi Makinde is a very funny individual. He was very clear about his position on Local Government Autonomy in 2023.

His position was that he never even believed in their existence and I was amused when the birthday boy was saying that despite his position on Local Government Autonomy in 2023, he was still able to win in 31 Local Governments, signifying the fact that the people of Oyo state believed Governor Makinde’s explanations.

I am extremely happy that Governor Seyi Makinde has not changed his opinion on how Local Governments should operate within the Federating units.

He is still stuck on the fact that the 33 Local Governments in Oyo state should be appendages to the State Government, even, in spite of the Judgment of the Supreme Court granting them full financial autonomy.

I am shocked that Governor Seyi Makinde could attempt to confuse what happened between the Lagos state Government when Tinubu was Governor of the state and the Federal Government during Obasanjo’s period, with the illegalities he has been perpetuating with the resources 33 Local Governments.

There is a clear distinction between both scenarios.

In the case of Tinubu as Governor of Lagos state, the Lagos state Government created more Local Governments and the Federal Government was of the opinion that the state Government was wrong to have done so.

As a result of this misunderstanding, the Federal Government stopped the monthly allocations for the Local Governments in Lagos state and it led to a Judicial dispute.

In the end, the Supreme Court held that the Local Governments created by the Lagos state Government were incohate, but it faulted the Federal Government for withholding the monthly allocations belonging to the Local Governments in Lagos state.

Lagos state Government thereafter recognized and administered the newly created Local Governments as Local Government Development Areas and many states have since copied the template, including Oyo state.

In the present scenario, the president, through the Attorney general of the Federation approached the Supreme Court and sought to secure full financial autonomy for the 774 Local Governments and the Supreme Court agreed to the request.

I have been asking myself, why is it that Governor Seyi Makinde is having problems with that judgement?

The monthly allocations released to the 33 Local Governments are released against their names.

Is Governor Seyi Makinde saying that it is proper for a Governor to still be the supervisor for the 33 Local Governments?

How does the judgment of the Supreme Court translate to the Federal Government trying to take control of the 774 Local Governments?

Yorubas will always say that a dog can not stand watch over two different buildings. ( Aja kii roro, ko so ojule meji po).

I was also surprised to hear Governor Seyi Makinde talking about the fact that, instead of full financial autonomy for the Local Governments, he preferred to discuss about how the Local Governments could be empowered to survive without monthly allocations from Abuja.

Haba! Governor Makinde!! Gently now.

You are depriving the Local Governments of their entitlements and you except them to thrive. How would that happen?

Why didn’t we start with the state? Can Oyo state survive without monthly allocations?

I think everyone can now see that Bimbo Adekambi as Governor, would never allow the Local Governments to breathe.

On the other hand, Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli has promised to guarantee full financial autonomy for the 33 Local Governments and the implementation of the policy requires no rocket science. All it requires is the will.

There is an existing judgment of the Supreme Court which has outlined the steps to be taken by any willing state Government.

Sarafa Alli only needs to direct relevant stakeholders at the Local Governments to comply with the judgment and that is the end of the matter.

What is so difficult in that, if you are not covetous?

I might have to do this piece in series but I will like to warn the residents of the Circular Road.

You heard Governor Seyi Makinde. He is promising you nothing.

My only problem with him is his attempts to shift the blame of the chaos he orchestrated at the Circular Road on the late Governor Abiola Ajimobi.

He even said that that the Government of Ajimobi defrauded residents of the Circular Road!

Sometimes, people like Governor Seyi Makinde needs no one to enchant them. Their character is an enchantment on itself.

If you’re saying that the Governments of the late Ajimobi defrauded residents of the Circular Road, is Bimbo Adekambi not an integral part of that Government and that is before you begin to ask the Governor for proofs.

I enjoyed Governor Seyi Makinde’s valedictory Media Chat, while looking forward to the new era awaiting him next year.

My father used to tell us that the mouth of the liar does not ooze blood. ( Enu opuro kii seje).

By the way, I saw that Governor Seyi Makinde never mentioned anything about the report of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the abduction of Teachers and Pupils of Yawota and Esinele communities of Oriire Local Government.

How far now?

Sola Abegunde.

Continue Reading

Trending