Connect with us

Politics

SELECTIVE BENCHMARKING AND THE BURDEN OF DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA

Published

on

SELECTIVE BENCHMARKING AND THE BURDEN OF DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA. Written by George Omagbemi Sylvester

SELECTIVE BENCHMARKING AND THE BURDEN OF DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA.

Written by George Omagbemi Sylvester

 

“Why Our Collective Guilt, Loud Arguments, and Even Biases Are Not the Problem; but the Path to National Renewal.”

 

Nigeria is a country permanently trapped in argument. From insecurity to economic hardship, from electoral controversies to judicial contradictions, every major national event immediately fractures public opinion. Social media explodes, dinner tables become parliaments, and WhatsApp groups transform into ideological battlegrounds. To the casual observer, this constant disagreement may appear unhealthy, divisive, and unproductive. But beneath the noise lies an uncomfortable truth Nigerians rarely admit: WE ARE ALL GUILTY BUT YET OUR GUILT IS ONE OF THE STRONGEST PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY.

This phenomenon can best be described as selective benchmarking though the habit of judging national events through selective moral, political and emotional lenses depending on our political alignment, expectations, or disappointments. When something goes wrong in Nigeria, citizens almost always fall into three broad groups.

 

The first group blames the government outright. They see every failure as evidence of incompetence, corruption, or deliberate sabotage of the national interest. They highlight institutional collapse, leadership failure, and broken promises. This group is often dismissed as pessimistic, noisy, or anti-government. Yet paradoxically, this is the group that gives democracy its teeth. Without relentless criticism, governments drift easily into complacency or authoritarian comfort.

 

The second group defends the government. They argue that leadership is difficult, that inherited problems are complex and that institutions require time to mature. They emphasize effort over outcome, intention over impact. This group is equally demonized and often labeled as enablers or apologists. But they too are indispensable to democracy. As political philosopher Edmund Burke warned, “To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.” Defenders, rightly or wrongly, try to preserve belief in the state, preventing total collapse of public trust.

 

The third group is the smallest and most intellectually seductive. These are the analysts, the balanced voices, the “let us look at it from all sides” commentators. They interrogate context, history, data, and comparative global standards. They resist emotional outrage and partisan loyalty. On paper, they are the most reasonable. In practice, however, they often contribute less to democratic energy. Their neutrality, while intellectually admirable, rarely mobilizes citizens or pressures power. As political scientist Samuel Huntington noted, democracy is not sustained by consensus alone but by “INSTITUTIONALIZED CONFLICT.”

 

This is the uncomfortable irony of Nigeria’s democratic struggle: the so-called ‘bad groups’ are often more useful to democracy than the ‘good’ neutral observers.

 

DEMOCRACY IS NOT POLITENESS, IT IS CONTESTATION. One of the greatest misconceptions Nigerians hold is that democracy is about unity of opinion. It is not. Democracy thrives on disagreement, protest, opposition, and constant benchmarking of power against public expectations. According to Robert Dahl, one of the world’s foremost democratic theorists, democracy requires “continuous responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens.” That responsiveness is not activated by silence or neutrality but by pressure.

 

Nigeria’s problem, therefore, is not that citizens argue. The problem is how we argue.

Too often, selective benchmarking degenerates into tribalism, religious bias, and blind party loyalty. Government critics sometimes exaggerate failures, ignore progress, or frame every issue as ethnic conspiracy. Government defenders sometimes excuse the inexcusable, rationalize incompetence, or attack citizens instead of addressing facts. When benchmarking becomes tribal, democracy weakens. When it becomes evidence-based and goal-oriented, democracy matures.

 

As economist Amartya Sen argued, “Public reasoning is the backbone of democracy.” Public reasoning dies when facts are ignored and emotions weaponized.

 

WE ARE ALL GUILTY, AND THAT IS THE POINT. The honest confession Nigerians must make is simple: none of us is completely neutral. We all belong (consciously or unconsciously) to one of the first two groups. We criticize when our expectations are betrayed; we defend when our hopes are invested. Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

 

This collective guilt is not a moral failure. It is a democratic reality. In advanced democracies, citizens align with ideologies, parties, or policy preferences and argue fiercely. What separates functional democracies from failing ones is not the absence of bias but the presence of strong institutions, verifiable data and civic discipline.

 

Nigeria’s institutions remain fragile, which means public debate carries even more responsibility. When institutions are weak, citizens become the loudest checks on power. That is why silencing dissent, labeling critics as enemies, or banning platforms of expression is fundamentally anti-democratic.

 

As John Stuart Mill famously warned, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” Nigeria must learn to argue fiercely without dehumanizing one another.

 

SELECTIVE BENCHMARKING VS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Benchmarking itself is not evil. Selective benchmarking becomes dangerous only when it abandons national development as its ultimate goal. The moment insecurity, inflation, corruption, or unemployment becomes an opportunity to score party points rather than solve problems, democracy becomes performative.

 

Countries that developed did so amid intense internal criticism. South Africa’s post-apartheid democracy, India’s noisy parliamentary culture and even the United States polarized system all prove one thing: development does not require silence; it requires structured disagreement.

SELECTIVE BENCHMARKING AND THE BURDEN OF DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA.

Written by George Omagbemi Sylvester

Nigeria needs critics who demand accountability and defenders who insist on stability, but both must be anchored on facts, not sentiments. As governance expert Francis Fukuyama emphasized, “Political order depends not just on state power but on legitimacy.” Legitimacy is earned through results, transparency and honest engagement with criticism.

 

A MESSAGE ACROSS PARTY LINES. This reflection cuts across all political parties whether ADC, LP, PDP, APC, and others. Democracy does not belong to one party or ideology. It belongs to citizens who argue, vote, protest, defend, critique and demand better.

 

You are not a bad citizen because you criticize government.

You are not a traitor because you defend government efforts.

You are not superior because you claim neutrality.

 

What matters is intent and method.

 

Avoid tribalism.

Avoid religious manipulation.

Avoid over-politicising national pain.

 

Let national development be the benchmark and not party survival.

 

TOWARDS A MORE INTELLIGENT DEMOCRATIC CULTURE. Nigeria’s future depends on transforming selective benchmarking into selective responsibility. Criticize with facts. Defend with evidence. Analyze with relevance. Democracy is not about being right; it is about being accountable to the collective good.

 

As Nelson Mandela once said, “A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy.” The same applies to citizens.

 

So yes, we are all guilty. Guilty of bias. Guilty of passion. Guilty of selective outrage. Though, if properly channeled, this guilt can become Nigeria’s democratic strength rather than its curse.

 

Happy New Year to all Nigerians; across SDP, NNPP, ADC, LP, PDP, APC and beyond. May our arguments build institutions, not burn bridges.

SELECTIVE BENCHMARKING AND THE BURDEN OF DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA.

Written by George Omagbemi Sylvester

Politics

Kogi’s Quiet Shift: Reviewing Governor Ododo’s First 24 Months in Office 

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Politics

Lagos Assembly Debunks Abuja House Rumour, Warns Against Election Season Propaganda

Published

on

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.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Democracy in the Crosshairs: How Nigeria’s Ruling APC Weaponises Power and Silences Dissent

Published

on

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.

Democracy in the Crosshairs: How Nigeria’s Ruling APC Weaponises Power and Silences Dissent.
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

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.

 

Democracy in the Crosshairs: How Nigeria’s Ruling APC Weaponises Power and Silences Dissent.
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

Continue Reading

Cover Of The Week

Trending