Connect with us

Column

Reflecting Dividends of Democracy: A Holistic Approach to Tinubu’s Eight-Year Presidential Tenure

Published

2 years ago

on

Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s presidency of Nigeria has been heralded by several prominent figures, including Minister of Works Dave Umahi and APC chieftain Yekini Nabena, as divinely destined to span two terms, totalling eight years. These endorsements come amid economic challenges and rising expectations for transformative leadership. The billion-dollar question is how Tinubu’s administration can deliver on the promise of lasting positive change. This discussion explores actionable strategies that could ensure the holistic delivery of the dividends of democracy to Nigeria, encompassing economic development, social welfare, political stability, technological advancement, public engagement, and robust implementation mechanisms.

Steadfastly, the current discourse surrounding Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s potential for serving a full eight-year term as Nigeria’s president reflects a mix of optimism, political loyalty, and strategic positioning. While prominent figures like Minister of Works Dave Umahi and APC chieftain Yekini Nabena underscore the notion that Tinubu’s tenure is divinely ordained and resistant to political disruptions, it is important to consider the broader context of such assertions.
 *Support and Optimism*
1. *Political Backing*: The current support from key political figures within the All Progressives Congress (APC), including Nabena and Umahi, signals strong intra-party unity. This cohesion is crucial for navigating the complexities and challenges of governance.
2. *Influential Endorsements*: Arthur Eze’s endorsement reflects a segment of Nigeria’s influential elite placing their confidence in Tinubu’s leadership. These endorsements can serve to bolster public confidence and encourage a collective national effort towards the administration’s goals.
3. *Faith in Reforms*: The emphasis on ongoing reforms suggests a belief that economic and policy measures currently being implemented will yield positive outcomes over time. The assertion that Tinubu’s opponents will eventually have to acknowledge these achievements implies a reliance on the tangible benefits of these reforms to counteract opposition narratives.
 *Challenges and Realities*
1. *Economic Hurdles*: The recognition of the country’s economic challenges indicates an understanding that the success of Tinubu’s administration will be significantly measured by its ability to address these issues effectively. Economic performance often influences political stability and public support.
2. *Political Dynamics*: Nigerian politics is known for its complexity and fluidity. The assertion of divine destiny and inevitability of an eight-year term, while rhetorically potent, does not eliminate the potential for significant political shifts, internal party dissent, or external pressures that could impact Tinubu’s tenure.
3. *Public Sentiment*: Ultimately, the success of any administration is contingent on public perception and satisfaction. While elite support and party coherence are beneficial, widespread public endorsement will be crucial, especially as reforms begin to impact daily life.
Surmising, the notion of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu serving a full eight-year term is supported by influential political and economic figures, reflecting a mix of optimism, strategic political support, and a belief in the administration’s current trajectory. However, the path to realizing this goal will depend on the administration’s ability to address Nigeria’s pressing economic challenges, maintain political stability, and secure broad-based public support. The coming years will be pivotal in determining whether the optimism espoused by Tinubu’s supporters will translate into tangible and lasting success.
The core question remains how can Tinubu’s administration bring to life the ideal vision for Nigeria, ensuring that the principles of democracy are fully realized and the benefits are comprehensively delivered to every citizen?
Essentially, ensuring the holistic delivery of the dividends of democracy under Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration involves a multifaceted approach that addresses economic, social, political, and institutional challenges. If his administration aims to align with the notion of a “divinely destined” leadership, it must focus on tangible results and effective governance. Here are several strategies that could help achieve this:
 *Economic Reforms and Development* 
1. *Fiscal Responsibility and Transparency*: Implement policies that promote fiscal responsibility, reduce corruption, and ensure transparent management of public funds. Transparent governance builds public trust and promotes accountability.
2. *Diversification of the Economy*: Move away from over-dependence on oil by promoting sectors such as agriculture, technology, manufacturing, and services. This diversification can create jobs and ensure sustainable economic growth.
3. *Infrastructure Development*: Prioritize and expedite the completion of critical infrastructure projects such as roads, railways, power generation, and broadband internet. Improved infrastructure can boost economic activity and improve quality of life.
 *Social Welfare and Human Development* 
4. *Education and Healthcare*: Invest significantly in education and healthcare systems to enhance human capital. This includes building schools, and hospitals, training medical personnel, and implementing policies that make education and healthcare accessible and affordable.
5. *Social Safety Nets*: Develop robust social safety nets to protect the most vulnerable populations from economic shocks. This includes unemployment benefits, food security programs, and affordable housing initiatives.
 *Political Stability and Good Governance* 
6. *Strengthen Democratic Institutions*: Ensure the independence and efficiency of democratic institutions such as the judiciary, electoral commission, and anti-corruption bodies. Strong institutions are crucial for the rule of law and democratic stability.
7. *Inclusive Governance*: Promote inclusivity by ensuring that all ethnic, religious, and social groups are represented in government. This can foster national unity and mitigate potential conflicts.
8. *Electoral Reforms*: Implement electoral reforms that ensure free, fair, and credible elections. This can enhance political stability and public confidence in the democratic process.
 *Security and Rule of Law*
9. *Tackle Insecurity*: Develop a comprehensive approach to combat insecurity, including strengthening the military and police forces, addressing root causes of insurgency and banditry, and promoting community policing.
10. *Justice and Legal Reforms*: Ensure swift and fair justice delivery by reforming the judicial system and reducing case backlogs. Legal reforms should also focus on protecting human rights and curbing abuses by security agencies.
 *Technological Advancement and Innovation* 
11. *Digital Economy*: Leverage technology and digital solutions to enhance governance efficiency, economic growth, and service delivery. Developing a digital infrastructure can spur innovation and attract investments.
12. *Encouraging Startups*: Foster an environment that supports startups and entrepreneurship through government-backed initiatives, access to funding, and regulatory support.
 *Public Engagement and Communication*
13. *Transparent Communication*: Maintain clear and consistent communication with the public regarding government policies, achievements, and challenges. Engaging the public through various platforms can build trust and foster a sense of collective effort.
14. *Civic Education*: Promote civic education to ensure that citizens are informed about their rights and responsibilities in a democratic society. Active citizen participation is essential for a thriving democracy.
 *Implementation and Monitoring* 
15. *Effective Implementation*: Develop mechanisms for the effective implementation of policies and initiatives. This includes setting clear goals, timelines, and responsibilities for government agencies.
16. *Monitoring and Evaluation*: Establish robust systems for monitoring and evaluating the impact of government programs. Continuous assessment allows for adjustments and improvements to ensure desired outcomes.
By focusing on these strategies, Tinubu’s administration can work towards the holistic delivery of the dividends of democracy, aligning with the perceived divine mandate and improving the lives of Nigerians across all sectors.
In conclusion, ensuring the holistic delivery of democratic dividends under Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration requires a comprehensive and multifaceted approach to addressing Nigeria’s economic, social, political, and institutional challenges. By focusing on transparency, economic diversification, robust infrastructure, social welfare, inclusive governance, and security, the administration can align with its perceived divine mandate. Effective implementation, coupled with continuous public engagement, can foster trust and inclusive development. If these strategies are diligently pursued, the Tinubu administration could indeed realize the transformative change envisioned for Nigeria, thus solidifying its legacy and meeting the high expectations set by its advocates.

♦ Professor Ojo Emmanuel Ademola is a Nigerian Professor of Cyber Security and Information Technology Management, and holds a Chartered Manager Status, and by extension, Chartered Fellow (CMgr FCMI) by the highly Reputable Royal Chartered Management Institute.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Anthony Obi Ogbo

From Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington

Published

3 weeks ago

on

January 13, 2026

By

“Nigeria reframed terrorism, corrected Washington’s lens, and secured cooperation —a  pure anatomy of diplomatic turnaround“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

Nigeria’s recent engagement of a United States–based lobbying firm under a reported $9 million contract was widely scrutinized, predictably misunderstood by some, and quietly effective. The objective was clear: to shape Washington’s understanding of Nigeria’s complex security challenges—particularly violence affecting Christian communities—within an accurate geopolitical, intelligence, and regional framework. Such engagements are not unusual. In fact, they are a routine and essential feature of modern international diplomacy, allowing governments to clarify policy positions, counter distorted narratives, and ensure that domestic security crises are not flattened into simplistic talking points for foreign consumption.

In an era where global perception can influence aid, sanctions, military cooperation, and diplomatic goodwill, strategic communication has become inseparable from national security. Nigeria’s decision to professionally engage Washington signaled an understanding that security today is fought not only on the battlefield but also in briefing rooms, policy memos, and diplomatic corridors.

Evidence suggests that this recalibration has begun to yield results. Just days ago, former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly acknowledged—belatedly—that Muslims are equally among the primary victims of ISIS terrorism. It was a striking rhetorical shift for a political figure who had long leaned on broad, inflammatory framing that blurred the distinction between extremist violence and religious identity. That admission did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed sustained pressure from global security analysts, regional experts, and Muslim leaders who have repeatedly challenged the false narrative that terrorism is rooted in faith rather than criminal ideology, geopolitical instability, and organized violence.

More importantly, the acknowledgment coincided with tangible policy movement. Trump-aligned U.S. security networks have quietly expanded counterterrorism cooperation with Nigeria under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration. This development underscores a pragmatic recognition that effective counterterrorism is not achieved through threats, isolation, or performative rhetoric, but through partnership, intelligence sharing, and regional capacity building.

This week, the United States delivered fresh military supplies to Nigeria to support ongoing security operations. The delivery followed recent U.S. air strikes against Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) targets, carried out at Nigeria’s formal request. While air strikes often attract public attention, the more consequential story lies beneath the surface: a shift toward coordinated intelligence operations, logistical support, and sustained military collaboration. This is not symbolic diplomacy. It is functional, operational alignment.

Contrast this moment with an earlier chapter in Nigeria–U.S. relations. During the Jonathan administration, Nigeria experienced significant difficulties in its diplomatic engagement with Washington. Rather than relying on seasoned foreign policy professionals, security strategists, and international communications experts, the government leaned heavily on local intermediaries and political loyalists to interpret and convey Nigeria’s position abroad. The result was a weakened diplomatic posture, fragmented messaging, and persistent misinterpretation of Nigeria’s internal security realities. Critical issues—ranging from Boko Haram’s evolution to regional insurgency dynamics—were often viewed through incomplete or distorted lenses.

That experience offered a lasting lesson: goodwill alone does not translate into influence. In global politics, perception must be managed as deliberately as policy. Strategic silence, amateur diplomacy, or reactive communication leaves a vacuum—one that is quickly filled by external narratives, advocacy groups, or political opportunists with their own agendas.

What has changed now is not merely tone, but method. Nigeria’s current approach reflects an understanding that diplomacy is not capitulation, and lobbying is not a sign of weakness. It is leverage. It is preparation. It is the disciplined articulation of national interest in a language that global power centers understand. By engaging professionally, Nigeria reframed its security narrative—not as a sectarian failure, but as a shared counterterrorism challenge that requires international coordination.

Even Donald Trump’s posture illustrates this transformation. A leader who once relied on threats, ultimatums, and rhetorical spectacle has now, through institutional channels, become part of a support framework working with regional actors to strengthen security and civilian protection. The shift is not ideological; it is a strategic move. And it reflects the enduring truth that diplomacy often succeeds where bluster fails.

In international politics, power is not only measured by firepower or economic weight, but by the ability to persuade, align, and sustain cooperation. Nigeria’s recent experience is a reminder that nations are not judged solely by their crises, but by how effectively they explain, manage, and confront them on the global stage. Diplomacy, when practiced with clarity and professionalism, does not dilute sovereignty—it reinforces it.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

When Air Power Becomes a Christmas Performance: The Illusion of Success in Trump’s Nigerian Strike

Published

1 month ago

on

December 28, 2025

By

“Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

When President Trump announced his authorized United States air strike against ISIL (ISIS) fighters in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day, there was an immediate burst of celebration on Nigerian social media. For a country exhausted by years of kidnappings, massacres, and territorial insecurity, the announcement sounded like long-awaited international support. Memes circulated, praise poured in, and some Nigerians hailed Trump as a decisive global sheriff finally willing to act where others hesitated.

But after the initial euphoria settled, a sobering assessment emerged: the strike appeared less like a strategic military intervention and more like a made-for-television spectacle designed to burnish Trump’s international strongman image.

This was not the first time the United States has launched air strikes in Africa or the Sahel under the banner of counterterrorism. From Libya to Somalia, from Syria to Yemen, U.S. “precision strikes” have often been announced with confidence and celebrated with press briefings—only for the targeted groups to regroup, mutate, and, in some cases, expand their reach. In Nigeria itself, years of foreign-backed security assistance have failed to decisively neutralize Boko Haram or its ISIS-affiliated offshoots. Instead, violence has fragmented, spread, and grown more complex.

No verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated

The Nigerian strike followed a familiar pattern. U.S. officials framed it as a blow against ISIS-West Africa Province (ISWAP), a group aligned with the global ISIS network. Trump’s language suggested a decisive intervention—an act of muscular diplomacy signaling that America still projects power where it chooses. Yet no verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated, leadership structures dismantled, or operational capacity degraded.

What followed was a digital smokescreen. Social media accounts, many anonymous and unverified, began circulating gruesome images of dead bodies and destroyed villages—photos long associated with banditry in Nigeria’s northwest. These images were quickly repurposed to “prove” the success of Trump’s strike. However, this is where the narrative falls apart under scrutiny.

Trump’s mission, as publicly stated, was to target ISIS. Not bandits. Not kidnappers. Not rural criminal gangs. ISIS is a transnational terrorist organization with ideological, financial, and operational links across continents. Bandits, by contrast, are primarily armed criminal groups—motivated by ransom, cattle theft, and territorial control, not global jihad. Conflating the two may be politically convenient, but it is analytically dishonest.

Killing or displacing bandits does not equate to dismantling ISIS. In fact, indiscriminate or poorly targeted air strikes often worsen the situation, pushing criminal groups to radicalize, splinter, or align with extremist factions for protection and legitimacy. This pattern has been observed repeatedly in conflict zones where military force substitutes for intelligence-driven strategy.

A truly successful counterterrorism raid is not measured by dramatic announcements or viral images. It is measured by clear, verifiable outcomes, including the confirmed elimination of high-ranking commanders, disruption of recruitment and financing networks, seizure of weapons caches, and—most importantly—sustained reductions in civilian attacks. None of these benchmarks has been credibly demonstrated in the aftermath of Trump’s Nigerian air strike.

Instead, Nigeria wakes up to the same grim reality: villages remain vulnerable, highways unsafe, and communities terrorized. The strike did not change the security equation. It did not empower Nigerian forces. It did not restore civilian confidence. And it certainly did not neutralize ISIS as a strategic threat.

This air strike offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.

In that sense, the air strike was not merely ineffective—it was a failure dressed in the language of strength, executed for optics, and amplified for political gain. It offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.

If the goal is truly to eliminate ISIS and its affiliates in West Africa, the path is neither theatrical nor unilateral. It requires robust intelligence sharing, sustained training, and real-time coordination with Nigerian and regional forces. It demands targeted arms assistance, logistical support, and investments in surveillance capabilities that allow local militaries to act decisively and lawfully. Above all, it requires a long-term commitment to strengthening state capacity—not fleeting air shows announced from afar.

Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise. And celebration without results is self-deception. Trump’s Nigerian air strike may have produced headlines, but history will remember it for what it was: a failed mission masquerading as success.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Trump’s Nigeria Strike: Bombs, Boasts, and the Illusion of Victory

Published

1 month ago

on

December 26, 2025

By

“With Obama, Al-Qaeda was not eliminated by noise; it was suffocated by intelligence.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

It has now been confirmed that the United States acted in collaboration with Nigeria in the recent strike on Islamic State elements in northwest Nigeria. That cooperation deserves recognition. Intelligence-sharing between Washington and Abuja is necessary, overdue, and welcome. Terrorism is transnational; defeating it requires allies, not isolation.

But let us be clear: bombs alone do not defeat terror. And Donald Trump’s strike—trumpeted loudly on social media before facts, casualties, or strategy were disclosed—was less a turning point than a performance.

Trump’s announcement was a classic spectacle: “powerful,” “deadly,” “perfect strikes.” No numbers. No clarity. No accountability. Just noise. It was the same choreography America has deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia—places where U.S. airpower landed hard, headlines screamed victory, and instability deepened afterward. Violence escalated. Militancy adapted. Civilians paid the price.

History is unkind to airstrikes sold as solutions.

Nigeria knows this better than anyone. Long before Trump’s tweet, the Nigerian military had already conducted multiple operations in the same terror corridor. At least five major strikes and offensives stand out:

  • First, Operation Hadarin Daji, launched to dismantle bandit and terror camps across Zamfara, Katsina, and Sokoto, involving sustained air and ground assaults.
  • Second, Operation Tsaftan Daji, which targeted terrorist hideouts in the Kamuku and Sububu forests—precisely the terrain now in the headlines.
  • Third, repeated Nigerian Air Force precision strikes in the Zurmi–Shinkafi axis, neutralizing commanders and destroying logistics hubs.
  • Fourth, joint operations with Nigerien forces, disrupting cross-border supply routes used by ISIS-linked groups.
  • Fifth, recent coordinated offensives involving intelligence-led raids, special forces insertions, and follow-up ground clearing in the northwest.

These were not symbolic gestures. They were Nigerian-led, Nigerian-funded, Nigerian-executed. And yet, there were no fireworks on social media. No flag-waving hysteria. No intoxicated praise of Nigerian commanders as saviors of civilization.

Why? Because there is a dangerous segment of Nigerians who suffer from what can only be called the American Wonder mentality—a colonial hangover that applauds anything louder simply because it comes from Washington. The same Nigerians who ignore their own soldiers dying in silence suddenly abandon Christmas meals to celebrate Trump’s tweets, typing incoherent praise, mangling grammar, and mistaking spectacle for substance.

It is embarrassing. And it is intellectually lazy.

Terrorism is not defeated by volume or virality. It is defeated by intelligence—quiet, patient, unglamorous work. The United States knows this. Barack Obama understood it. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled through social media theatrics or chest-thumping declarations. It was weakened through intelligence fusion, financial disruption, targeted operations, local partnerships, and relentless pressure on leadership networks—mostly without fanfare.

Obama did not tweet. He acted. So what actually works against groups like ISIS in Nigeria?

First, intelligence supremacy. Human intelligence from local communities, defectors, and infiltrators matters more than bombs. Terror groups survive on secrecy. Break that, and they collapse.

Second, financial and logistical strangulation. Terrorists run on money, fuel, arms, and food. Cut access to smuggling routes, illicit mining, ransom flows, and cross-border trade, and their operational capacity withers.

Third, community stabilization and governance. Terrorism thrives where the state is absent. Roads, schools, policing, and justice systems matter. People who trust the state do not shelter terrorists.

Fourth, regional coordination, not episodic strikes. Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Burkina Faso must sustain joint pressure, not reactive operations driven by headlines.

Airstrikes can support these strategies—but only as tools, never as substitutes.

Trump’s strike may have killed militants. It may have disrupted camps. That is commendable. But it is not a solution. It is a moment. And moments, without strategy, fade.

If Nigerians truly want terror defeated, they should stop worshiping foreign loudness and start demanding disciplined intelligence, consistent policy, and respect for the men and women already fighting on the ground.

Real victories are quiet. Real security is built, not tweeted.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending