OPINION
Time for INEC Chairman, Mahmud Yakubu, to Resign

By Femi Aribisala
Having been caught in lies upon lies, Mahmood Yakubu should do the honourable thing for a change. It is not realistic to insist that President Buhari should fire him. That is unlikely to happen since he is working to protect the president’s interests.
But there is one road still open to Yakubu. He should resign without further delay. He has done enough damage already.The logic is simple. The 2019 presidential election in Nigeria cannot be, by all accounts, the worst election in the history of Nigeria without the corresponding chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) being, at the same time, the worst INEC chairman in the history of Nigeria.
INEC chairman, Mahmood Yakubu, presided over an atrocious and fraudulent election that is now being fiercely contested in the courts. He can no longer remain as INEC chairman.INEC is supposed to be an impartial umpire in elections in Nigeria. However, it is now obvious that Mahmood Yakubu’s INEC operated essentially as an arm of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). The evidence is overwhelming that Yakubu’s INEC massively rigged the election in favour of the government. If integrity and impartiality is to be restored to INEC, Yakubu must leave immediately. If the confidence of Nigerians is to be restored in INEC, then the country deserves a complete overhaul of the organisation.
INEC Shenanigans
INEC, under Mahmood Yakubu, has lost all credibility. It is now practically impossible to believe anything that comes from the organization. The election results it declared defied commonsense. The figures did not add up. The election was not even rigged intelligently. It was rigged on the presumption of impunity.
In many cases, no voters were accredited, nevertheless fictitious returns were made. In others, total votes cast far exceeded the registered voters. In Borno, for example, only 372,347 votes were cast. However, 919,786 votes were declared; an inflation of 547,439 votes. The printing of election materials was contracted to the company of a member of the APC, who was also one of the party’s senatorial candidates.
Before the election, the use of card readers was declared to be mandatory. It was affirmed that the vote would be declared null and void where the card reader was not used. Nevertheless, in most areas of the North, the card reader was not used. The votes were simply inflated and deflated at INEC’s discretion.
In areas of the opposition People Democratic Party (PDP)’s strength, elections were strategically cancelled and supplementary elections scheduled. This ultimately enabled INEC to declare losers as winner and to convert winners into losers; as it happened, for example, in Kano.
But what has proved to be the most indicting of INEC has been the question of the central server. Having somehow obtained the result posted on the INEC central server, Atiku has demonstrated that it is completely different from the result INEC declared publicly. On the INEC server, Atiku prevailed over Buhari by a plurality of 1.6 million votes, while INEC publicly declared that Buhari won the election by nearly four million votes.
Atiku Must Be Stopped
When the APC discovered, to its dismay, that Atiku had access to the INEC central server and had somehow obtained the real and authentic results of the 2019 presidential election, it went into panic mode. The party’s first knee-jerk response was to petition the police to arrest Atiku for hacking into the INEC server. But if Atiku did in fact hack into the server, what does that mean for the results he found there? The afterthought was to insist that Atiku posted fake results into the server.
However, APC kingpins realized there would be trouble ahead if Atiku went public with his findings. The man had to be stopped; otherwise the victory they were celebrating would be in jeopardy. Therefore, they opted for the anomaly whereby, although Buhari himself lost the presidential election of three previous occasions and took the matter to court every time, they became determined that Atiku must be dissuaded from taking the matter to court.
Emissaries, friends, some members of the National Peace Committee, some Northern elites and powers close to Atiku were sent to dissuade him from challenging the election at the Tribunal, fearful that Buhari’s pyrrhic victory would be scuttled if he did so. When that did not work, Lai Mohammed accused Atiku of treasonable felony and conspiracy against the federal government. So doing, it was felt that Atiku would be forced to plea bargain and part of the deal would be that his petition be cancelled.
It has now come to light that hundreds of fake Facebook pages were created to sell propaganda against Atiku. These were discovered and Facebook has already closed them. They were designed to sell the lie that Atiku is corrupt and that he is a wanted felon in the United States. But all that collapsed when Atiku visited the United States in 2018, demonstrating once and for all that the insinuations that he could not go there without being arrested were all lies.
The same APC pretending to be holier-than-thou has ended up electing Femi Gbajabiamila as the new speaker of the House of Representatives, in spite of the fact that it is on record that he was convicted for professional misconduct by the Supreme Court of Georgia, U.S.A. for defrauding a client. It has also elected Ovie Omo Agege as deputy Senate president, despite the fact that he was also convicted of a felony while practicing law in the United States.
Servers Don’t Exist
Against all their pleas and arm-twisting, the shoe finally dropped when Atiku filed his petition. He posted for all to see that the result on the INEC server shows he won the election; and he authenticated this by quoting the serial numbers unique to the INEC server.
On this issue, the word from INEC has turned out to be lies upon lies. INEC’s first gambit was to declare to an incredulous public that it has no central electronic servers. Only God knows how it expected to get away with this lie. INEC officials had spent the better part of the campaign season boasting that their central server would make rigging elections obsolete in Nigeria. That, they had set up servers in each of the 36 states of Nigeria and in Abuja.
So, how could INEC now say it does not have a server? Where are the data of the 80 million registered voters stored if not in an electronic server? How does the card reader authenticate a voter’s PVC card without an electronic server? INEC conveniently forgot that it admitted publicly that it used its servers to collate results in the previous Ekiti and Osun elections. So, how did these servers suddenly disappear?
Servers Were Not Used
It soon became apparent that the lie that there are no servers could not be sustained, so INEC tried another gambit. It then said an INEC central server actually exists, but it was not used for the election. It was only used for rehearsals and dummy runs.
So, how are we to explain the situation where INEC collected over N1 billion to upgrade the existing server against the 2019 elections, only to now shamelessly tell Nigerians that it only used it for experiments? What then was the point of the upgrade? Did rehearsals not already take place during the Ekiti and Osun elections.
Why did Mahmood Yakubu boast before the election that: “we are pioneering and deploying in 2019 general elections, a new platform for the electronic collation and transmission of results.”
Clearly, another better lie became necessary again. So INEC tried this one for size. It said it could not have engaged in electronic collation of results because the Electoral Act intended to validate the process was not signed into law by the president. But this is simply not going to wash because INEC does not need the president’s permission in order to engage in the electronic collation of results.
Section 160 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution states categorically that: “in the case of the Independent National Electoral Commission, its powers to make its own rules or otherwise regulate its own procedure shall not be subject to the approval or control of the president”.
Servers Were Used
But now the matter has been taken out of INEC’s hands. INEC has turned on itself. No less than 20 officials deployed during the election as electoral officers have now come forward to say that they transmitted results electronically to a central server, using their smart card readers during the 2019 presidential election. In effect, the cat is now out of the bag. INEC and Mahmood Yakubu need to go back to their factory and manufacture other lies about the server.
The question now is how did INEC think it could get away with all these lies, with so many people involved? Why was it necessary for INEC to tell all these lies? It can only be because it was fraudulent with the election. It can only be because it is trying to hide the truth that the result it declared to Nigerians claiming Buhari won the election is a lie. The true result must be the one in its server, which it is trying to say does not exist.
Servers Out of Bounds
So, INEC had to change its line of defence yet again. Atiku wants the court to give him permission to inspect the INEC server. Even if the results posted there have been deleted, they can still be retrieved by forensic experts. What is INEC’s response to this? It does not want Atiku to see its non-existent server that has now resurrected from the dead. It does not want its server released to Atiku, in spite of saying it was not used to collate the result. If it was not used, why not confidently submit it for inspection, knowing nothing would be found there?
The long and short of this is that Mahmood Yakubu’s INEC can no longer be believed. By the earlier denial of not owning any servers, INEC is already guilty of evidence tampering, whether or not the servers contain the results as claimed by Atiku. Not wanting to release the server for inspection shows INEC has something to hide. It shows there is information in the server which it does not want to reveal to Atiku’s legal team and Nigerians.
What all this conveys is that Atiku actually won the election, but INEC manipulated the results against him.
Having been caught in lies upon lies, Mahmood Yakubu should do the honourable thing for a change. It is not realistic to insist that President Buhari should fire him. That is unlikely to happen since he is working to protect the president’s interests. But there is one road still open to Yakubu. He should resign without further delay. He has done enough damage already.
With regard to the presidency, this is no longer a question of nullifying the election. The only option left is to declare Atiku Abubakar as the elected president of Nigeria outrightly.
OPINION
Tinubunomics: Stabilisation First, Growth Must Follow

Why Okonjo-Iweala Was Right
Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s statement that President Tinubu deserves credit for stabilising the economy is not just diplomatic—it’s analytically sound. Stability is the prerequisite for any meaningful reform. Without it, growth is impossible.
But unfortunately, many Nigerians appear to have misread Mrs. Okonjo-Iweala, leading to misguided backlash. Let us break down the reality using the analogy of doctors in an emergency unit of a hospital:Economic triage analogy: Nigeria was haemorrhaging from reckless monetary expansion, subsidy fraud, and forex arbitrage. Tinubu’s early actions—removing fuel subsidy, halting money printing, and unifying forex markets—were akin to emergency surgery to stabilise patient Nigeria.
Inflation containment: Inflation, while still high, has stopped its dangerous upward spiral. July 2025 figures show a cooling to 21.88%. This is stability.
Forex rationalisation: The naira now trades within a stable band (N1,500–N1,600), eliminating arbitrage opportunities that previously drained public funds.
This is stability.
But Stabilisation Is Not a Cure
Stability is the floor, not the ceiling. Without growth and social cushioning, patient Nigeria risks slipping into economic coma. Let us put two of the flagship policies of Tinubunomics under the X-ray
Fuel subsidy removal: While it stopped treasury looting, it hasn’t yet catalysed domestic refining.
NNPCL refineries remain idle, and Dangote’s monopoly lacks pricing pressure.
Forex unification: It ended arbitrage but made imports prohibitively expensive.
No clear import substitution strategy has followed.
Growth Requires Sectoral Activation
Mrs. Iweala’s call for growth and safety nets is a roadmap. Here’s what’s needed
Sector Reform Needed
Agriculture – Security for farmers, mechanisation, irrigation
Industry – Power supply, tax reform, infrastructure
Energy & Power – Attract private sector operatorship of TCN for grid upgrades and modernisation, unbundle the DISCOs and re-award licences to more competent operators. Boost crude oil production: The US has 50 billion bbls in reserves and producing 13 million bbls per day. Nigeria has 38 billion bbls in reserves but producing less than 2 million bbls.
Infrastructure – Roads, rail, broadband. 35 states are still not connected to the federal capital by rail.
Digital Economy – Rural connectivity, start-up support
Health & Education – Primary care, public health, hospital infrastructure, healthcare workers’ welfare, school infrastructure, teachers’ welfare.
Fiscal Capacity and Private Sector Involvement
Given a federal budget of approximately $35 billion, Nigeria’s fiscal space is severely constrained. This allocation must cover a wide array of obligations—from debt servicing and recurrent expenditure to essential public services—leaving limited room for strategic investment in growth-driving sectors such as infrastructure, manufacturing, and innovation.To bridge this gap, the active participation of the private sector is not optional—it is imperative. Unlocking private capital, fostering public-private partnerships, and creating a predictable investment climate are critical to achieving sustainable development and inclusive economic expansion. The government must focus on enabling policies, while the private sector drives execution and scale.
Conclusion: Stabilisation Is Not Success.
Tinubu’s reforms have stopped the bleeding. But healing requires sustained treatment—growth, jobs, and protection for the vulnerable – which must come with speed! Okonjo-Iweala’s assessment is not just correct; it’s a call to action.
Nick Agule is a Nigerian citizen and public affairs analyst passionate about the development of Nigeria.
Email: nick.agule@yahoo.co.uk
X: Nick Agule, FCA
Facebook: Nick Agule, FCA
OPINION
President Bola Tinubu: Establish a National Bureau for Ethnic Relations and Inter Group Unity

By Wilfred Uji
I once wrote an article based on a thorough research that all the states of North Central of Nigeria, Kwara, Niger, Kogi, Benue, Plateau and Nasarawa States, share a great deal of historical relations, resources, ethnicity and intergroup relations. These states have a common shared boarders with common security challenges that can only be effectively managed and resolved from a regional perspective and framework.
The exercise at the creation of states have overtime drawn arbitrary boundaries which in contemporary times are critical security and developmental issues that affects the sub region.
Firstly is the knowledge and teaching of history that can help grow and promote a regional unity and intergroup relations.
As far back as the pre-colonial era, the North Central of Nigeria had a plethora of multi ethnic groups which co-existed within the framework of mutual dependence exploiting indigenous peace initiatives. The diverse ethnic groups comprising of Nupe, Gwari, Gbagi, Eggon, Igala, Idoma, Jukun, Alago, Tiv, Gwanadara, Birom, Tarok, Angas, etc were independent state sovereignties before the advent of British colonial rule by the first quarter of the twentieth century.
Secoundly that British colonialism for economic and political exigencies almagamated all these ethnic groups under the Northern Region with headquarters first at Lokoja and later moved to Kaduna.
The indirect rule policy placed all the traditional political chiefdoms of the sub region under the political supervision, for the convience of taxation and draft labor, under the Sokoto Caliphate.
The indirect rule political structure was not intended to be a game changer that would enforce the dominance and hegemony of the Sokoto Caliphate over the people, land and resources of the sub region.
Thirdly, in the realization of the above, the British colonial state first created the Munchi Province and later the Benue Province as a political and state framework that could accommodate all the ethnic diversity of some of the North Central people.
State creation which ought to allow room for minority representation and expression, over time, has been turned upside down, by some ethnic groups as a vehicle of the exclusion of some minority groups.
For instance, the creation of Benue State in 1976 and Nasarawa State in 1996, does not signify and imply the exclusion of the Tiv and Idoma from Nasarawa State as well as the exclusion of the Alago and Jukun from Benue State.
These ethnic groups, long before state creation, had indigenous roots in all the states of the North Central of Nigeria. Historically, it is misleading and erroneous for these ethnic nationalities to be regarded as tenant settlers in the states where they are located.
The term tenant settlers have been used by the ruling political class of some states of the North Central of Nigeria as a staging point for land grabbing, genocide, land claims and struggles that has created a night mare for the security landscape of the region. In contemporary times, there is no denying the fact that there is an ethnic question in the North Central of Nigeria where there has been a revival of ethnic nationalism by some irredentist groups reinforced by revisionist historians. The ethnic nationalism which on one hand is a cultural revival but on the other promotes a hate agenda, is dangerous and antithetical to the inter group relations and unity of the North Central of Nigeria.
Ethnic hate, the idea that some ethnic nationalities do not belong or have indigenous roots in a state, has been responsible for some of the modern genocide and massacre in the history of modern Nigeria.
For political and security reasons, there is scanty research in this regard, the study of modern genocide backed by state action. Or where such research exist, it is often play down and watered as inter group conflicts and violent hostilities that should be treated with kids gloves and palliatives. This liberal and pessimistic approach to conflict management has been a responsible factor in the decimal reoccurrence of violent ethnic conflicts of the North Central States. The Liberal approach to conflict management, looks at the symptoms instead of the treatment of the disease.
Ethnocentrism is both an African and Nigerian reality that over time and space has been fueled and exploited by the ruling political class and elites. It is one of critical challenge of nation building in Africa that appears to be a curse of a continent and people.
All nations of the world have their share of the nightmare of ethnic and racial bigotry at one point or the other in their national history and transformation.
In the United States of America, it was dubbed the race question in the post emancipation era, the politics of the color line as William Dubios described the racial tension and phenomenon of his prevailing age and society. The race question sparked many reactions including the establishment of societies and organizations for the protection of the African American as well as the defence of the fundamental civil rights of the “American Negro”.
One of such initiative adopted by the State in America which was aimed at the improvement of the welfare and wellbeing of the African American as as his integration into main stream society was the establishment of the Bureau For Freed Men on race relations. The Bureau as a Federal institution was designed for the reconciliation of the inequality and segregation of the African American inorder for him to access equitable development and national resources, but, more importantly, political representation at both state and national level.
Subsequently, the Bureau came up with a number of proactive programmes and policies including the Affirmative Action as well as Federal Character Quota Systems that ensured the equitable and just integration of African Americans in main stream society and politics.
In recent years, Nigeria has established some regional frameworks that can translate into the creation of a Bureau for Ethnic Relations. One of such regional framework is the establishment of the North Central Development Commission by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The Development Commission if strategically placed and positioned, can create a Bureau For Ethnic Relations that will help promote and reconcile inter-ethnic relations and development within the North Central of Nigeria.
I am limited as to the mandate of the commission interms development and the transformation of the North Central of Nigeria.
If the commission suffers from a deficit to manage ethnic relations along the lines of affirmative action and federal character principle, then, the federal government should as a matter of social priority establish an Bureau For Ethnic Relations of the six geopolitical units of Nigeria.
Let me end this write up by using the words of William Dubios that the challenge of Nigeria in the twenty first century is that of ethnic relations, it is that of the ethnic content, that of fairer skin races to that of the dark skin races.
Prof. Uji Wilfred is from the Department of History and International Studies, Federal University of Lafia
Education
Varsity Don Advocates Establishment of National Bureau for Ethnic Relations, Inter-Group Unity

By David Torough, Abuja
A university scholar, Prof. Uji Wilfred of the Department of History and International Studies, Federal University of Lafia, has called on the Federal Government to establish a National Bureau for Ethnic Relations to strengthen inter-group unity and address the deep-seated ethnic tensions in Nigeria, particularly in the North Central region.
Prof.
Wilfred, in a paper drawing from years of research, argued that the six states of the North Central—Kwara, Niger, Kogi, Benue, Plateau, and Nasarawa share long-standing historical, cultural, and economic ties that have been eroded by arbitrary state boundaries and ethnic politics.According to him, pre-colonial North Central Nigeria was home to a rich mix of ethnic groups—including Nupe, Gwari, Gbagi, Eggon, Igala, Idoma, Jukun, Alago, Tiv, Birom, Tarok, Angas, among others, who coexisted through indigenous peace mechanisms.
These communities, he noted, were amalgamated by British colonial authorities under the Northern Region, first headquartered in Lokoja before being moved to Kaduna.
He stressed that state creation, which was intended to promote minority inclusion, has in some cases fueled exclusionary politics and ethnic tensions. “It is historically misleading,” Wilfred stated, “to regard certain ethnic nationalities as mere tenant settlers in states where they have deep indigenous roots.”
The don warned that such narratives have been exploited by political elites for land grabbing, ethnic cleansing, and violent conflicts, undermining security in the sub-region.
He likened Nigeria’s ethnic question to America’s historic “race question” and urged the adoption of structures similar to the Freedmen’s Bureau, which addressed racial inequality in post-emancipation America through affirmative action and equitable representation.
Wilfred acknowledged the recent creation of the North Central Development Commission by President Bola Tinubu as a step in the right direction, but said its mandate may not be sufficient to address ethnic relations.
He urged the federal government to either expand the commission’s role or create a dedicated Bureau for Ethnic Relations in all six geo-political zones to foster reconciliation, equality, and sustainable development.
Quoting African-American scholar W.E.B. Du Bois, Prof. Wilfred concluded that the challenge of Nigeria in the 21st century is fundamentally one of ethnic relations, which must be addressed with deliberate policies for unity and integration.