Connect with us

Politics

Trumping China in Africa?

Published

on

Obasanjo: A living legend - Gov. Abiodun

 

 

Olusegun Obasanjo and Greg Mills

The Trump Administration recently announced a long-awaited new strategy towards Africa.
It’s designed to be tougher in its selection of partners and to counter what is described as the “predatory” practices of China and Russia, which it says are “deliberately and aggressively targeting their investments in the region to gain a competitive advantage”.

National security adviser John Bolton outlined the new strategy in remarks at the Heritage Foundation. Russia, he alleged, is “seeking to increase its influence in the region through corrupt economic dealings.” Russia and China’s efforts across the continent, he said, “stunt” Africa’s economic growth.

There is some to admire in the new strategy. It positions the US to “support open markets for American businesses, grow Africa’s middle class, promote youth employment opportunities, and improve the business climate.”
Nothing wrong with any of this, in principle.

The strategy calls for an end to the dissipation of aid across a multitude of projects and in the name of many causes. The US is the largest provider of development assistance world-wide and to Africa, spending $8.7 billion on the continent alone in 2017. USAID maintains more than two dozen regional and bilateral African missions.

Nothing much amiss with this idea either. As Ambassador Bolton correctly noted, one of the comparative strengths of the Marshall Plan was in its targeting of key economic sectors.

Yet problems in the operational ineffectiveness of aid is not only confined to Africa. It is also at least as much a donor problem as one of the recipients. The high transaction costs of aid reflect the multiple domestic constituencies in the donor countries that need to be assuaged, highlighting institutional priorities and politics that are seldom African in origin.

The strategy also says that the US will reassess its support for certain UN operations. There are longstanding concerns about ill-prepared UN peacekeepers intent on picking up the per diem rather than carrying out their military tasks.

The strategy also highlights the folly of giving aid to countries whose governance is troublesome, singling out the “morally bankrupt” leadership of South Sudan where Washington has expended nearly $4 billion in the last four years.
Again, whereas such a bold change might spur an improvement in the delivery of commitments, this is a problem less to do with Africa than among the donors and contributing nations.

But there is cause for concern over some elements of the new Africa strategy.

Bolton said of China’s dealings with the continent that it “uses bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing’s wishes and demands.” Citing well-founded fears about rising debt in Zambia (which has ballooned nearly four-fold to over 70% of GDP in just ten years) and Djibouti (which has seen the strategically-vital Horn of African country effectively mortgage its container port to Beijing), he claims that China’s “investment ventures are riddled with corruption, and do not meet the same environmental or ethical standards as US developmental programmes.”

Still China’s relationship with the continent is not all bad. Far from it. Nor can we say that the US’ relationship with the continent is universally beneficial to all recipients.

China’s second coming in Africa – the first being a short-lived intervention during the wars of liberation in the 1960s and 1970s – has transformed the image of the continent from largely one of a problem to be solved to a commercial prospect. As a result, China’s trade relationship with Africa has grown this century from just $10 billion to nearly $200 billion, and its continental investment stake is now greater than that of the United States at $35 billion by 2017, with over $140 billion in Chinese loans committed to date.

While there is nothing wrong with greater competition over ideas, Africa is likely to resist making a choice between China and the United States. The US is asking African countries to choose sides at a time when many don’t have this luxury.

It would be more interesting to find the means whereby the two superpowers work together, though the strategy makes little mention of global interdependence as an operating principle.

This is worrying, since the history of superpower rivalry in Africa is messy, destructive and occasionally bloody. The continent should do everything to avoid this happening again.

There is another concern. The document stresses the need to combat terrorism, and to use foreign aid to open up US markets to African partners, with little recognition of the different levels of development, sophistication and threat across the continent’s 55 states.

Some fear that US relations with Saudi Arabia point to how Washington will approach African countries – you can do what you want (and get a lot from us) as long as you act as a partner.

If so, this approach would dramatically undersell the US’ greatest African asset and its key distinguishing feature from China and Russia; not technology or access to the American market, but the values Washington represents.

Two-thirds of African polled routinely prefer democracy to any other form of government. Ethiopia’s recent turn from an authoritarian to a more democratic system makes lie of the notion that Africans prefer economic growth to human rights.

The United States is unlikely to beat China at its African game of delivering low-cost infrastructure in exchange for resources and contracts. Not only is the weight of population numbers on China’s side, but aid conditionality is likely to drive a race to the governance bottom, not the top.

Also, not too many Americans have the appetite for working in remote African environments for the same rewards as their Chinese counterparts. As a beacon of constitutionalism, instead the US should be focusing on how better to support democracy across Africa, fighting the battle for influence with tools few others possess.

The strategy does say that “Foreign assistance from the United States will concentrate on states that promote democratic ideals, support fiscal transparency, and undertake economic reforms.” While it points to the need for “prioritisation” and not tolerating “ineffective governance” and subsidising “corrupt leaders and violators of human rights”, the question is exactly ‘how’?

Washington can play a critical role in improving governance oversight and checks and balances on executive power by increasing support for parliamentary capacity, supporting greater transparency and vigilance over elections not least in having the means to identify tampering and guts to call them out as fraudulent, and a surge in funding African scholarships for the next generation.

The latter would probably, if it was to do nothing else, be the area where the US could achieve the greatest bang for its buck, both by Africa and in increasing its scale, power and placement of its own network. Putting just 20% of its African aid budget to scholarships, would enable 40,000 fresh students to attend US graduate courses.
That would really be generational and transformative, putting soft power to work, outsmarting China in Africa.

###

President Obasanjo and Dr Mills are co-authors of the just-released ‘Democracy Works: Rewiring Politics for Africa’s Advantage’.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

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