Politics
Broom Movement: True or rogue democrats?
in the social media, the harangue signed by the Convener of a group called Broom United Movement (BUM), Mr. Fuad Oki, some weeks back, I got strung-up with the level of hypocrisy and shenanigans in our politics and in our polity. The speech, an inadequate lecture note on POL 301, exhibited stupendous expertise in fictional creativity. The lecturer, a serial political manipulator, engaged himself in rhetorical and polemic narrative on the fundamentals of political science without establishing any theoretical foundation for his epistolary politics. From its convocation to its deliberations, it was obvious that the movement was a political misadventure packaged by a troubled hireling echoing the whisperings and murmurings of his frightened masters “refuging” in the tunnel of perfidy. In short, the entire grandstanding was a whispering campaign by a drowning collective aimed at Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Hear the Convener: “Today we want to commence the process of building Our Party (APC) by demanding genuine reconciliation of our members that their voices will be heard and that their votes will count whenever such need arises… Our Party in Lagos State has never been this divided and dis-United. The current graveyard silence that permeate (sic) our political landscape with a siddon look, a o mu erin joba syndrome, is very dangerous…”
I cannot but laugh listening to my good friend, Oki talking about “the process of building our Party (APC) by demanding genuine reconciliation…” Agreed that every political party draws its membership from the citizenry that identifies with its ideology and political philosophy, this does not in any way suggest that every member of the party is a founder. There are founding fathers, there are founding members and there are ordinary joiners. When a joiner begins to claim the status of a founder with this kind of statement” …building our party (APC)…”, one should wonder where this whimsical usurpation is coming from. As an insider, I have sufficient understanding of the trajectory of APC from its original derivative, Alliance for Democracy (AD). I am aware of the fact that a Political Party is a formal association which should be funded by members through levies and dues; in some cases, through donations from influential members of the Party, from interested corporate organisations and institutional affiliates. However, knowing the massive expenditure that politics and elections require in Nigeria, some of the founding fathers of the party who are moneybags have always taken it upon themselves to fund the Party single-handedly. This was the case with Asiwaju Tinubu who individually shouldered most of the financial commitments of the transiting parties AD, ACN and APC. Without sounding somehow hyperbolic, Tinubu was the major financier of these parties at a time that success or victory at the national level looked very bleak and hopelessly impossible. During these trying times, where was Fuad Oki? Where was Biodun Oki, his brother? Where were his masters that are teleguiding everything today from their hideouts? It is sheer opportunism for Oki and his treacherous band to be ascribing to themselves a status they know they do not deserve. Most of Oki’s allies are mere joiners as they were nowhere around when the birth of APC’s progenitors took place. Those who founded AD, those who funded AD from the scratch and those who pioneered AD from the beginning are the real founders and under no guise should they be denied the fruits of their labour. Personally, I feel fate and people have not been fair to Asiwaju Bola Tinubu with the way and manner they have been trying to rubbish his historic contributions and efforts in the making of the APC and by extension, his role in the consolidation of our nascent democracy.
When Oki was talking of “genuine reconciliation of our members”, “voices of our members will be heard and votes will count”, “Our Party in Lagos State has never been this divided and dis-united”, “a o mu erin joba syndrome”, who was he referring to? Tinubu of course. These vituperations are laced with mischief because Oki was aware of Tinubu’s appointment by President Muhammadu Buhari as APC Chief National Reconciliator. The intention was to discredit and cast aspersion on Tinubu peace credential. What Oki was saying in essence was that the choice of Tinubu by Buhari was not in consonance with extant political realities since Tinubu’s base, Lagos State, was in “total turmoil”.
But what Oki failed to state in his statement was that whatever imaginary trouble that exists in Lagos APC today was a creation of his sponsors. As far as I know, Lagos APC is not witnessing any graveyard silence. Every member of the party in the state is committed to the Ambode second term project. All members of the State House of Assembly, all House of Representatives members from the state and the three Senators from the state have all stated categorically that they will go all the way with the governor. Those who are expressing the only dissenting voice are Oki and his cohorts whose defeat during the 2015 primaries was Tinubu’s cardinal sin against Oki’s principal. Those who are advertising a non-existent crisis are the people whose inordinate ambition for the gubernatorial throne has crashed as a result of the sterling performance of the governor of the state. I am still baffled that while the opposition in the state is obviously and reasonably reluctant to contest with the governor, Oki and his sponsors are calling for party primaries. Is leadership no longer about performance? Why must any responsible individuals and group think of changing a wining and performing team. Was Oki’s principal not deservedly compensated with another term by the same Tinubu when it was generally acknowledged that his performance was outstanding? Why advocate for another primary when there is a general acclamation that the present governor of the state has been more than outstanding?
Justifying the birth of BUM, the convener explained that “our party suffers from low organisational capacity and lack of internal democracy… This apparent weakness underscores the need for reform and institutionalisation of a process whereby professionals become more central to the running of our Party”.
It is hypocritical of Oki to pretend not to know how or what was responsible for what he called “low organisational capacity and lack of internal democracy”. Since he came on board the party leadership at the state level, what efforts did he make personally to check the perfidious activities of his sponsors? Rather than do this, Oki conveniently oscillated between the two groups because he found in treachery a rewarding treasury. Those who hawked and escalated party division; those who destroyed the mechanics of party system, those who planted the seeds of discord in the party; those who indulged in intrigues for prebendal enterprise have lost the moral authority to pontificate on political morality. Who is Oki to berate the party leadership for dysfunctional internal democracy within the Party? I submit again that he does not possess the moral credential to theorize on internal democracy. Two personal examples would suffice. In 2006, when a campaign organisation was being set up for Babatunde Fashola gubernatorial activities, this writer was chosen as the Director-General of the campaign organisation during a caucus meeting. In attendance at the meeting where the decision was taken were: Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, Tunde Fashola, Gbenga Asafa, Mutiu Are and Kunle Odufuwa. The meeting lasted for almost six hours. But before the decision could be communicated to me officially, Oki was able to persuade Babatunde Fashola to convince Asiwaju Tinubu to replace this writer with himself. In his usual placatory gesture, Asiwaju Tinubu concurred, promising to compensate this writer with a top political position in the new government. The rest is history because nothing was done afterwards. Yet, one has remained loyal to the party and to its leadership. The same scenario was replayed in 2015 when again, Oki was imposed on Akinwunmi Ambode by Tunde Fashola who did not want Ologunde as the D-G of Ambode Campaign Organisation (AMBO). Since Tinubu and the party leadership were looking for a way to carry him along in the whole project, it was easy for Fashola to have his way.
Secondly, this writer, as a close Personal Aide to Asiwaju Tinubu, was present in all the meetings that Asiwaju Tinubu had with the so-called “Aggrieved “12” who protested in 2006 the selection, imposition and eventual investiture of Fashola as the gubernatorial candidate of the then Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), in most of these meetings, Tinubu continued to justify the selection and enjoined the “Aggrieved 12” to accept his decision in the interest of the party. His reason was that the number of candidates was unwieldy and that any attempt to organise primaries was capable of inflaming tension among members and thus escalating the crisis beyond what the party could manage. He begged. He pleaded. He cajoled. He mesmerized. Eventually, the deal was sealed but it was not easy. All the while, Fashola was anxious and panicky because he did not want Tinubu to succumb to the demands of the “Aggrieved 12”. It was obvious that he did not want primaries because at that time, he was unknown, unpopular, apolitical; he was hated by the politicians and even with Tinubu’s support, he was still not confident that he would win the primaries because he knew how unpopular he was with the politicians. It was the same Fuad Oki as the D-G of the Campaign Organisation that was frustrating intra-party efforts to conduct party primaries.
Now hear the so-called BUM convener on Party Primaries in 2018:“Competitive Party and electoral politics is imperative in order to facilitate internal democracy within our Party, through requirements like Party nomination primaries…” Though this is the ideal thing to do in a normal democratic setting, manipulation of Party constitutional provisions in a society like Nigeria, where aberrations and impunities reign supreme, cannot be considered alien. Irrespective of this, it becomes frightening and disturbing when past beneficiaries of illegalities and impositions condemn with hypocritical passion, the very methods through which they were lifted to power.
Anyone who reads the Convener’s speech without knowing his antecedents will applaud his esoteric preachment. But a profound understanding of his past political antics and jingoism will reveal the vacuity of his delicious sophistry. The kind of idealism being marketed by the Movement cannot be facilitated through political treachery nor can it be canvassed by past beneficiaries of systemic anomalies. Those who lack the integrity and dignity of sainthood should not be the ones to promote Utopianism as they lack the moral credibility to undertake such political advocacy.
Those who are preaching Party cohesion are the same people desecrating the sanctity of democracy by snubbing the internal redress mechanisms and going to the extreme to seek “justice” through party dismemberment. Genuine democrats who believe in the sanctification of democratic tenets will not indulge in sanctimonious cyber carnival of party internal matters. Political rascality and theatrical democratic pretensions are the professional tools of rogue democrats. The Convener, the apostles and the faceless sponsors of Broom United Movement are nothing but rogue democrats seeking recognition through democratic deception.
Kogi’s Quiet Shift: Reviewing Governor Ododo’s First 24 Months in Office
By Rowland Olonishuwa
On Tuesday, Kogi State paused to mark two years since Alhaji Ahmed Usman Ododo took the oath as Executive Governor. Across government circles, community halls, and everyday conversations, the anniversary was more than a date on the calendar; it was a milestone that invites both reflection and renewed optimism. A moment to look back at how far the state has travelled in just twenty-four months, and where it is heading next.
Since assuming office in January 2024, Ododo has steered the state through a period of measured consolidation, delivering strategic interventions across security, infrastructure, human capital, and economic revitalisation that are beginning to translate into real improvements for residents.
Governor Ododo stepped into office at a time when expectations were high, and confidence in public institutions needed rebuilding.
His response to these was not loud declarations, but steady consolidation, strengthening structures, restoring order in governance, and setting a clear direction. Over time, that calm approach has become his signature: leadership that listens first, plans carefully, and moves with purpose.
Security has remained the most urgent concern for Nigerians, and Kogi residents are no exceptions; the Ododo-led administration has treated it as such. From deploying surveillance drones to support intelligence operations to recruiting and integrating local hunters and vigilante personnel into formal security frameworks, the government has built a layered safety net.
For farmers returning to their fields, travellers moving along highways, and families in rural communities, the impact is simple and deeply personal: fewer fears, quicker response, and growing confidence that the government is present and concerned about the ordinary people.
Infrastructural development has followed the same practical logic. Roads have been rehabilitated, easing movement for traders and commuters. Budget priorities have shifted toward capital projects and human development, while revived facilities like the Confluence Rice Mill now provide farmers with real economic opportunity. For many households, this means better income prospects, stronger local trade, and renewed belief that development is no longer a distant promise.
Health and education are not left out; the Ododo-led administration has expanded free healthcare services and supported students through examination funding and institutional improvements.
Parents who once struggled with medical bills and school fees have felt relief. Young people preparing for their futures now see government investment not as abstract policy but as something that touches their daily lives.
Governance reforms, from civil service strengthening to new legislative frameworks, have quietly improved how government functions. Salaries are more predictable, public offices are more responsive, and local government structures are more coordinated. These may not always make headlines, but they shape how citizens experience leadership every day.
As the second year anniversary celebrations fade into routine today and Governor Ododo enters his third year in office, the true meaning of the anniversary will continue to linger on.
Two years may not have solved every challenge in the Confluence State -no government ever does, by the way- but they have set a tone of stability, responsiveness, and direction. The next phase will demand deeper impact, broader reach, and sustained security gains.
But for many in Kogi State, the story of the past twenty-four months is already clear: steady hands on the wheel, and a journey that is firmly underway.
Olonishuwa is the Editor-in-Chief of Newshubmag.com. He writes from Ilorin
Lagos Assembly Debunks Abuja House Rumour, Warns Against Election Season Propaganda
The Lagos State House of Assembly has described as misleading and mischievous the widespread misinformation that it budgeted for the purchase of houses in Abuja for its members in the 2026 Appropriation Law.
This rebuttal is contained in a statement jointly signed by Hon. Stephen Ogundipe, Chairman, House Committee on Information, Strategy, and Security, and Hon. Sa’ad Olumoh, Chairman, House Committee on Economic Planning and Budget.
Describing the report as a deliberate and disturbing falsehood being peddled by patently ignorant people, the statement reads, “There is no provision whatsoever in the 2026 Budget for the purchase of houses in Abuja or anywhere else for members of the Lagos State House of Assembly. The report is a complete fabrication and a product of political mischief intended to misinform the public.
“The Lagos State House of Assembly does not operate in Abuja. Our constitutional responsibilities, constituencies, and legislative duties are entirely within Lagos State. It is, therefore, illogical, irrational, and irresponsible for anyone to suggest that legislators would appropriate public funds for personal housing outside their jurisdiction.”
The statement emphasised that the budget is already in the public domain and accessible for scrutiny by discerning Lagosians and Nigerians alike. It reiterated that the Lagos State Government operates a transparent budget that speaks to the needs of the people and the demands of a megalopolis.
“We view this rumour as part of a wider attempt at election-season propaganda, designed to erode public trust, sow discord, and malign democratic institutions.”
The chairmen further clarified that the 2026 capital expenditure of the House of Assembly is less than 0.04% of the total CAPEX of the state, which clearly demonstrates the culture of prudence, accountability, and fiscal responsibility that guides the legislature. However, they noted, “Historically, the House does not even access up to its approved budget in many fiscal years.”
They stressed that the Assembly remains fully committed to excellence, transparency, good governance, and the collective welfare of the people of Lagos State, in line with the objectives of the 2026 Budget of Shared Prosperity.
“We therefore challenge those behind this harebrained allegation to produce credible evidence or retract their statements forthwith. Failure to do so may attract appropriate legal actions.
“We urge Lagosians and the general public to disregard this baseless rumour and always verify information from official and credible sources.”
Politics
Democracy in the Crosshairs: How Nigeria’s Ruling APC Weaponises Power and Silences Dissent
Democracy in the Crosshairs: How Nigeria’s Ruling APC Weaponises Power and Silences Dissent.
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com
“Tinubu’s Government, the EFCC and the Strategic Undermining of Opposition Governors”.
In a striking indictment of Nigeria’s current political reality, Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State declared that “you cannot speak truth to power in this dispensation”, directly accusing the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of intolerance for dissent and an erosion of democratic norms.
Makinde’s remarks (made during a public event in Ibadan on January 25, 2026) were more than a local governor’s lament. They crystallised a mounting national frustration: that Nigeria’s political landscape has tilted dangerously toward executive overreach, institutional capture and political engineering.
This narrative is not isolated. Across Nigeria, governors from opposition parties have defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in numbers unprecedented in the nation’s democratic history. Critics argue that these defections are not merely voluntary political choices, but part of a strategic pressure campaign leveraging federal power and institutions to fracture opposition influence.
At its centre lies Nigeria’s principal anti-graft agency – the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The EFCC: Anti-Graft Agency or Political Instrument? Founded to combat corruption, the EFCC’s constitutional mandate is to investigate and prosecute financial and economic crimes across public and private sectors. Its legal independence is enshrined in statute and it has historically pursued high-profile cases, including recovery of nearly $500 million in illicit assets in a single year, demonstrating its capacity for tackling corruption.
However, critics now claim that under the Tinubu administration, the EFCC’s prosecutorial power is being perceived (if not deployed) as a political instrument.
Opposition leaders, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and coalition parties such as the African Democratic Congress (ADC), have publicly accused the federal government of using anti-corruption agencies to intimidate opposition figures and governors, effectively pressuring them into aligning with the APC.
In a statement released in December 2025, opposition figures alleged that institutions such as the EFCC, the Nigerian Police and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission were being selectively wielded to weaken political competitors rather than combat financial crime impartially.
This is not merely rhetorical noise. The opposition’s grievances centre on several observable patterns:
Reopened or New Investigations Against Opposition Figures: The ADC pointed to recent abnormal reactivation of long-dormant cases or new inquiries into financial activities involving senior opposition politicians. These, they argue, often arise shortly before critical elections or political realignments.
Alleged Differential Treatment: According to opponents of the current administration, individuals who have defected to the APC appear less likely to face sustained legal scrutiny or prosecution in EFCC proceedings, even in cases of credible allegations of mismanagement.
Timing of Actions: The timing of certain high-profile investigations, emerging ahead of the 2027 general elections, reinforces perceptions that anti-graft measures are tailored to political cycles rather than legal merit.
The EFCC and Presidency have publicly denied these allegations, insisting that the commission operates independently and pursues corruption irrespective of political affiliation and that Nigeria’s democratic freedoms (including party choice and mobility) remain intact.
Yet the perception of bias, once systemic, is hard to erase, especially when political actors deploy powerful state machinery with strategic timing and selective intensity.
Defections and Power Realignment: A Democracy at Risk? Since 2023 and particularly through 2025, a remarkable number of state governors and senior political leaders have crossed over from opposition parties (notably the Peoples Democratic Party – PDP) to the APC. Though defections are normal in Nigeria’s fluid political system, the scale and speed in recent years are historically noteworthy, raising critical questions about underlying incentives.
The SaharaWeeklyNG reported Makinde’s comments within the broader context of a political climate where dissenting voices face greater obstacles than at any time in recent democratic memory.
Governors who remain in opposition find themselves squeezed between growing federal assertiveness and dwindling political capital. Some analysts argue that the combination of federal resource control, political appointments and influence over public agencies exerts tangible pressure on subnational leaders to align with the ruling party for political survival. This dynamic, they contend, undermines competitive party politics and weakens Nigeria’s multiparty democracy.
Speaking Truth to Power: What Makinde’s Critique Exposes. Governor Makinde’s core grievance (that it is increasingly difficult, perhaps perilous, to speak truth to power) resonates widely among civil society actors, political analysts and democratic advocates:
“YOU CANNOT SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER IN THIS DISPENSATION,” Makinde declared, specifically citing the government’s handling of contentious tax reform bills as an example where dissent was neither welcomed nor transparently debated.
Makinde’s critique reflects deeper structural concerns:
Exclusion of Key Stakeholders: Opposition leaders and state executives report being marginalised from meaningful consultation on national policies affecting federal-state relations, revenue sharing and fiscal reforms.
Institutional Intimidation: The perception that state politicians become targets of federal legal scrutiny after taking firm oppositional stances (real or perceived) discourages robust democratic debate.
Erosion of Opposition Space: A symbiotic effect of party defections and institutional pressure is a shrinking viable space for genuine political opposition, weakening checks and balances essential to democratic governance.
A respected political scientist, Dr. Aisha Bello of the University of Lagos, recently argued that “when opposition becomes fraught with state leverage instead of ideological competition, the very foundation of democratic contestation collapses,” adding that “a government that shies away from criticism risks inversion into autocracy.”
Another expert, Prof. Chinedu Eze, former dean of political studies at Ahmadu Bello University, warned that “selective use of anti-corruption agencies as political tools corrodes public trust and ultimately delegates justice into the hands of incumbents rather than independent courts.” These observations echo growing public skepticism.
The Way Forward: Strengthening Democracy and Institutions. Nigeria’s path forward depends on restoring confidence in democratic norms and institutional independence.
Transparent EFCC Processes: Civil society groups and legal scholars are advocating for enhanced transparency in anti-graft investigations, including clear prosecutorial thresholds and independent audits of case initiation and closures.
Judicial Oversight: Strengthening the judiciary’s capacity and independence is critical to ensuring that allegations of political weaponisation do not go unchecked. Courts must remain the ultimate arbiters of evidence and guilt.
Political Reforms: Advocates demand reforms to party financing, federal-state fiscal relations, and consultation mechanisms to reduce incentives for defections driven by federal resource leverage.
Public Engagement: A more informed and engaged civil society, anchored by independent media and civic education, must hold both government and opposition accountable for adherence to democratic principles.
Beyond The Present Moment.
Governor Makinde’s assertion that it is no longer tenable to “speak truth to power” under the current administration reflects unsettling trends in Nigeria’s evolving democratic landscape. While the EFCC and the Presidency maintain that anti-corruption efforts are independent and constitutionally grounded, opposition leaders (backed by political data and patterns of defections) argue that state power is being used to consolidate one-party dominance and undermine political pluralism.
At this critical juncture, Nigeria must choose between entrenching competitive democracy or sliding toward a political monopoly where dissent is subdued, institutions compromised, and power concentrated.
For Nigeria’s democratic ideals to survive (and thrive) its leaders and citizens must ensure that speaking truth to power remains not a perilous act of defiance but an honoured pillar of national life.
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoWhy Babangida’s Hilltop Home Became Nigeria’s Political “Mecca”
-
society6 months agoPower is a Loan, Not a Possession: The Sacred Duty of Planting People
-
Business6 months agoBatsumi Travel CEO Lisa Sebogodi Wins Prestigious Africa Travel 100 Women Award
-
news6 months agoTHE APPOINTMENT OF WASIU AYINDE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS AN AMBASSADOR SOUNDS EMBARRASSING
You must be logged in to post a comment Login