Femi Falana is a human rights attorney and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). In this interview, he discusses the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the President’s authority to take drastic steps to restore law and order in any state where an emergency has been declared in order to stop law and order from collapsing. He also discusses how, among other things, the Supreme Court has offered certain guidelines so that there won’t be any disagreement the next time the president announces a state of emergency. JOY ANIGBOGU provides the passages:

In his ruling, Justice Idris of the Supreme Court stated that as section 305 does not specify the precise form of the extraordinary measures, the President may exercise his discretion. What possible ramifications might this ruling have for Nigerian politics in the coming years?

To be fair to the Supreme Court, I believe that the Honourable Justice Muhammad Idris, who delivered the leading opinion, did issue what is known as a summary decision. Sadly, the majority of commentators have not taken the time to read the ruling. Indeed, the court unquestionably stated or confirmed the President’s authority to take exceptional steps to restore law and order in any state where a state of emergency has been declared. Before today, the President’s ability to use force or take other actions to reestablish law and order was undeniable. The scope of the President’s powers has long been debatable, and the Supreme Court noted that section 305 of the Constitution does not specify the scope of the President’s authority. However, the Honourable Justice Idris stated in the majority ruling that, in contrast to the constitutions of Pakistan and India, section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution does not specifically grant the President the authority to take over or temporarily replace a state’s legislative or executive branches. Furthermore, his lordship stated that Nigeria’s constitutional commitment to federalism and state government autonomy is reflected in this deliberate omission, which is the President’s lack of authority to dissolve democratic structures. Prior to that ruling, the court was informed that Nigeria’s three levels of government—federal, state, and local—are separate, autonomous entities and that none of them is superior to the order. To put it another way, the Supreme Court was merely upholding its previous rulings that state governors are not allowed to suspend or remove democratically elected chairmen and councilors.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has now reaffirmed its stance that elected public officials and structures cannot be disbanded, dissolved, suspended, or relocated unless the Constitution’s requirements are followed. Therefore, I would strongly advise Nigerians to thoroughly review the rulings. In reality, the Honourable Justice Obande Oguiya did not hesitate in the slightest to avoid any ambiguity in what has been considered a minority ruling. His lordship emphasized that the president does not have the authority to remove elected public officials under any clause in the Constitution. The Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of imposing an emergency rule in Rivers State, and I believe this was done on purpose. Given that the governor has since returned to his position, one could argue that it has become academic. I’m referring to Governor Fubara, but the Supreme Court’s challenge to the plaintiffs’ locus standi—that is, the eleven attorneys general who brought the case—is another perplexing aspect of the ruling. This is concerning since the locus standi of the Attorney General of the Federation was contested in the matter of Attorney General of the Federation and Attorney General of Abia State and 35 States, which was resolved in July of last year.

However, the Attorney General has locus standi to bring the case on behalf of the 774 local governments, the Supreme Court ruled. If that was the case, I believed that the court ought to have upheld the locus standi of the 11 attorneys general who filed this extremely important action. However, in contrast to 2004 and 2006, when the emergency rule was contested in Plateau State and Ekiti State, the Supreme Court went beyond its earlier stance this time by merely stating that the court lacks jurisdiction because you lack locus standi. However, the Supreme Court went farther, and only the Supreme Court has the authority to do so by issuing a policy declaration about Section 305 of the Constitution.

According to the ruling, the plaintiffs failed to prove that there was an actionable disagreement between them and the federation, which would have allowed the court to exercise its original jurisdiction. Do you want to elaborate on it and what they were attempting to convey?

Regarding the emergency rule in Rivers State and the suspension of Governor Fubara and other elected officials in that state, the court is attempting to state that the President’s action or decision on Rivers State did not cause a conflict between the plaintiffs, which are the 11 Attorney Generals and the federal government, the Attorney General of the Federation. However, the plaintiffs did assert that any Nigerian governor had a stake in the events in Rivers State and a lawsuit that can be pursued. Furthermore, a few days after the emergency was declared, the Federation’s Attorney General stated that we had only addressed Rivers State and could handle any other governor. The plaintiffs were already terrified, and properly so, because they believed that because it would be our turn, it would be preferable to stop the potential political catastrophe in our states. Therefore, with all due respect, I disagree with the Supreme Court that there was no disagreement between the federal government and the plaintiffs. Of course there was a disagreement. The governors are then free to act without having to wait. They can act quickly in court to stop what they see as constitutional heresy without waiting for their own removal or a state declaration of emergency.

How will the anomaly be fixed if that’s the case and this is the highest court?

When you lose a Supreme Court case, all you have to do is inform your client what to do if he asks. That is the end of the road, you say. The All-Powerful God is appealing. However, the Supreme Court has already offered some guidance on what we might need to do in this specific circumstance, so there shouldn’t be any issue the next time the President of Nigeria needs to declare a state of emergency. As I previously mentioned, the court’s leading ruling made it quite evident that the President is not authorized by section 305 of the Constitution to temporarily replace the state’s legislative or executive branches. And in my opinion, that is the most crucial aspect of the verdict. Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi and whether the court has jurisdiction are the additional areas where we disagree. However, even after the lawsuit was dismissed, the court continued to discuss the case’s merits in great detail. And that will serve as a roadmap for the next time the Nigerian president has a reason to proclaim a state of emergency. That’s my perspective on it.

Many people find this rather perplexing because the final arbiter claims he lacks jurisdiction. It raises a lot of questions. Could you explain how this is possible? Is there any precedence in Nigeria or anyplace else in the globe, and if so, what were the exceptional conditions that made that precedent necessary?

I believe the court’s ruling. When our rights are abused, we also need to learn how to fight back. The suspended governor did not appear in court in the Plateau State case. The suspended governor and lawmakers did not file a lawsuit in the Ekiti State case. The governor and lawmakers of Rivers State did not file a lawsuit. Therefore, if you subscribe to the antiquated locus standi doctrine, you will inevitably disagree with a government decision until it directly affects you. Because any concerned member of the public must be allowed to contest any constitutional dereliction or violation in these days of public interest litigation. It’s also in everyone’s best interests. The president and Abraham Adesanya’s case had been abandoned by the Supreme Court. It happened during the Second Republic. Even then, the late Justice Fatai Williams, who was Nigeria’s Chief Justice at the time, made a minority ruling stating that the courts should open their doors and let disgruntled residents air their grievances. And that was preferable than pushing them underground, where revolutions take place. In the cases of Fawemi Anakilu No. 1 and No. 2, the Supreme Court went one step farther. In fact, the Honourable Justice Ese stated in the Fawemi Anakilu No. 1 case that the word “brother” in England refers to your blood relative, in contrast to the United Kingdom. However, we are all our brothers’ keepers in an African environment with the extended family system. As a result, the Supreme Court has now embraced public interest lawsuits, deviating from the narrow road of locus standi.

In the Centre for Air Pollution v. NNPC case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that stance. However, the Supreme Court recently seemed to be shifting away from public interest litigation by requiring that your injury be greater than that of other members of the public before you can petition the court. It ridicules the idea of public interest litigation. Furthermore, Nigeria is currently the only nation in the Commonwealth—almost the only one—that is returning to the extremely narrow notion of locus standi. And I sincerely hope that our courts would have granted locus standi or acknowledged the locus standi of the eleven Attorney Generals who petitioned the Supreme Court on this issue, just as they did in the case of local government autonomy last year.

In the first place, why does the Supreme Court provide rulings that allow the parties that filed the case to provide alternative interpretations? How detrimental is this to our policy?

I believe that everyone should study court rulings in order to comprehend the rationale behind the rulings. And once more, as I mentioned in this instance, as soon as word spread that the case had been dismissed. The suspension of elected legislators and governors appeared to have the support of the Supreme Court. I’ve taken my time reading the ruling several times. The president has great authority to guarantee the restoration of law and order or constitutional order if a state of emergency is declared, which is why the court acknowledges the president’s extensive powers. However, this does not provide the president the authority to remove elected lawmakers and governors. Both the majority and minority rulings of the Supreme Court made that extremely evident. Now that I’ve accepted it, we may go to the next phase. Where do we go and where do you go from here when something like this happens? It is to exploit other, comparable instances, and I am aware that the Supreme Court is currently considering a number of cases in which the issue of locus standi will be brought up once more. I mean, I’ve just filed a case. On the locus standi issue, I lost a few of my cases. The High Court stated that I might contest the diversion of cash that ought to have been transferred to the federation account using local standards. However, the appeals court remarked, “Oh, Mr. Falana, we commend your effort.” But you no longer have locus standi because of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Fawehinmi and Okonjo-Iweala. Once more, we are bringing that before the Supreme Court so that it can examine his locus standi stance in the public interest and for the benefit of all of us. Because locking up the court’s gates will force residents to take alternative actions that could jeopardize law and order and state security. For this reason, I believe the Supreme Court was involved once more in the case of A.G. A.G. and Bende. of the Federation that the floodgates should be opened in order for the courts to carry out their constitutional function of serving as arbiters in disputes between citizens and the government.

What do you think about the problem of justice being postponed or denied, and then, of course, the issue of the elected governor, deputy, and Assembly members being removed? How can such wrongs be rectified?

Once more, the Supreme Court is advising those impacted to summon the bravery to contest their removal under the constitution. President Bola Tinubu would have gone to court if it had happened in Lagos during his tenure as governor. The goal of every action the Lagos State Government filed against the federal government, as well as every litigation it initiated against the federal government, was to bolster the democratic process. In fact, I can state without fear of contradiction that in some of those cases, state governments may have even been declared bankrupt because the Lagos State Government’s victories in those cases defined Nigerian constitutionalism, whether state governments could establish local governments, whether they could approve building plans within their states, and so on. Since we are transitioning from a military junta-run unitary system of government to a civilian one, the federal government has complete authority over national matters. However, the Lagos State Government organized all the states to oppose the federal government’s efforts to prolong the terms of local government chairmen, hold local government elections, seize local government funds, regulate state physical planning, and so on. They are also redefined. In fact, I contend that litigation encourages restructuring in those circumstances. Because our constitution is unitary, we have been able to settle many conflicts brought on by the military organization. Other governments have also done the same. However, we have been able to redefine federalism and implement it from the unitary structure in Abuja thanks to cases brought by state governments and certain concerned citizens.I]K=8

According to flight tracking data and US sources quoted by Reuters, the US has been conducting intelligence-gathering flights over significant portions of Nigeria since late November, indicating increased security collaboration between the two nations.

According to the exclusive assessment released on Monday, it was impossible to independently verify the surveillance missions’ purpose.

According to Reuters, the planes came after Donald Trump threatened to militarily interfere in Nigeria in November due to what he said was the government’s inability to stop violence against Christian communities.

Additionally, a US pilot employed by a missionary organization was abducted in neighboring Niger months prior to the monitoring operations.

According to flight tracking data for December, the contractor-operated aircraft usually took off from Ghana, flew across Nigeria, and landed back in Accra.

Tenax Aerospace, a Mississippi-based company that supplies special mission planes and collaborates closely with the US military, was identified as the operator by the data, according to its website. Requests for comment were not answered by the business.

The operation seemed to be operating out of Accra, which he referred to as “a known hub for the U.S. military’s logistics network in Africa,” according to Liam Karr, the Africa team lead at the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project, who examined the flight data.

According to Karr, the flights indicated that Washington was reestablishing its intelligence capabilities in the area following Niger’s request last year to withdraw US forces from a significant desert air base and turn to Russia for security support.

“We’ve seen a resumption of intelligence and surveillance flights in Nigeria in recent weeks,” he told Reuters.

The airplane, according to a former US official, was one of several assets that the Trump administration transferred to Ghana in November.

The official stated that the missions included following the kidnapped US pilot and obtaining data on extremist groups operating in Nigeria, such as Boko Haram and its splinter faction, the Islamic State West Africa Province, though it was unclear how many planes remained there.

The aircraft had been passing above Nigeria, according to a current US official, but they would not elaborate due to diplomatic concerns.

According to a different administration official, Washington and Nigeria are still collaborating to “address religious violence, anti-Christian attacks, and the destabilizing spread of terrorism.”

The Pentagon stated in a statement that the US government had “productive meetings” with Nigeria after Trump’s remarks about the nation, but it would not comment on intelligence operations.

Requests for comments were not answered by Ghana’s deputy defense minister or Nigeria’s military spokeswoman.

Nigeria has always stated that armed organizations target both Muslims and Christians, contending that US allegations of Christian persecution oversimplify a complicated security situation and ignore initiatives to defend religious freedom.

At a meeting on November 20 between US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Nuhu Ribadu, a Nigerian security source informed Reuters that the US decided to use air assets for intelligence collection.

A request for comment was not answered by a Nigerian military spokesman.

On November 7, the Tenax Aerospace aircraft was visible on flight monitoring data at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. The US Special Operations Command headquarters are located on MacDill.

Days after the high-level security meeting, on November 24, the aircraft made a flight to Ghana. Since then, it has flown over Nigeria nearly every day.

The data indicates that the aircraft is a Gulfstream V, a long-range commercial jet frequently outfitted for espionage, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions.

Prof. Christopher Imumolen, a former presidential candidate for the Accord Party, claims that the party was experiencing internal strife prior to Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke joining it.

Prof. Imumolen revealed this information on Monday during a guest appearance in an interview on Channels Television’s “The Morning Brief.”

He was responding to the party’s internal political disputes.

“I’ve already been engaged in this conflict. It’s an indication of a struggle that I went to court. We went to the party Secretariat to fight our problems because we had problems there.
“We have been having these fights. If you check many publications, I have attended a lot of interviews to talk about this.

“So, whether Adeleke came or not, we are in charge of the party and we are doing what we are doing today to save the face of the party. And to make sure that whatever happens, the party remains intact,” he said.

Bello Mohammed Matawalle, a former aide to the Minister of State for Defense, has accused his former principal of working with security personnel to kill alleged adversaries, defend supporters, and enable transactions with infamous bandit commanders while he was governor of Zamfara State.

According to reports, Matawalle was governor of Zamfara until 2023. In August of that year, Bola Tinubu nominated him Minister of State for Defense.

In an interview with the Hausa-language media outlet rHi Hausa, Musa Muhammad Kamara, popularly known as Musa Kamarawa, made the accusations.

When Matawalle was the governor of Zamfara State, Kamara claimed to have served as his Senior Special Assistant.

“My name is Kamara Musa Muhammad. He stated, “I am a citizen of Zamfara State and a former SSA to Dr. Bello Matawalle, the current Minister of Defense and former governor of Zamfara.”

According to Kamara, Matawalle collaborated with law enforcement to kill people he deemed adversaries while protecting others.

Kamara asserted, “He has police officers working for him who kill whoever he commands and spare whoever he chooses.”

Kamara claims that his issues started in 2021 when security personnel invited him due to claims that the Zamfara State Government had purchased cars for criminals.

He stated the allegations came when a cleric, Mallam Murtala Asada, purportedly said that government officials purchased cars for bandit leaders including Halilu Sububu and Bello Turji.

As part of an engagement approach at the time, Kamara claimed, “I explained to them that I’m SSA to the Governor and indeed the governor bought vehicles and gave them to them.”

He added that another car was purchased when one of the autos developed a problem.

He declared, “I was the one who got them another Hilux.”

During the interview, Kamara asked Matawalle to publicly refute the accusations under oath and again affirmed his statements by citing the Holy Qur’an.

He declared, “I swear by the Holy Qur’an that I’m speaking the truth,” adding that if the assertions were untrue, Matawalle should likewise swear on the Qur’an.

Kamara further claimed that Matawalle conspired with members of the Nigeria Police Force to target him once he started speaking in public.

“He plotted with the police.” Kamara said, “They sent them on errands to kill anyone he wanted to kill and free whoever he wanted to be free.”

He claimed that the prosecution’s persistent failure to call witnesses in court amounted to “media trials” in the cases brought against him.

Kamara denied any connection to the Zamfara State Government or its current leadership in response to rumors that he still maintains ties to them.

“I have not returned to Government House since the day I left when Matawalle was governor,” he declared, adding that he has no affiliation with the current administration.

Additionally, Kamara said that Matawalle then employed federal institutions to covertly end an investigation against him.

According to him, the case was moved to the Federal High Court in Abuja, where it ultimately failed for lack of proof.

“The case was discharged because there was no evidence and no witness,” he stated.

Kamara claimed he still worries about his safety even after the case was dismissed, claiming that influential people want him to be silenced.

He declared, “They only want to kill me and keep it quiet at any time; they do not want justice.”

Matawalle has not yet addressed the accusations in public as of the time this report was filed.

3,391 recently enlisted Nigerian Army troops have been tasked by Chief of Army Staff Lieutenant General Waidi Shaibu with upholding the greatest standards of discipline, professionalism, courage, and patriotism as they formally begin their military careers.

Shaibu gave the command on Saturday during the Passing Out Parade of the 89 Regular Recruits Intake, which was the first group of troops to graduate from Depot Nigerian Army, Osogbo since its founding, according to a statement released by Colonel Appolonia Anele, Acting Director Army Public Relations.

He called the parade a historic moment, pointing out that it was the Depot Nigerian Army’s first Passing Out Parade in Osogbo.

He reminded the recruits that they had a unique duty to protect the institution’s reputation because they were the pioneer set.

As the inaugural Passing Out Parade of the Nigerian Army Depot at Osogbo, this event is significant. You must proudly wear this badge since you are the pioneer set. Throughout your careers, act as deserving representatives of this institution,” the COAS declared.

The recruits were joining the Nigerian Army at a crucial juncture in the country’s history, characterized by changing and intricate security problems, the Army commander noted.

When faced with hardship, he exhorted them to always act with optimism for victory rather than fear of failure and to take strength from their intense training.

The Chief of Army Staff also reminded the new recruits of the enormous responsibility that came with joining the Nigerian Army, especially in terms of protecting Nigeria’s territorial integrity and advancing national security.

Under his Soldier First Command Mantra, he reiterated the Army’s dedication to their well-being and career advancement and promised them ongoing material, material, and moral support.

“Our soldiers continue to be the Nigerian Army’s fundamental and enduring strength. You will have all you need to be successful, but the country will also expect a lot from you. “Maintain the Army’s core values and cultivate the will to succeed in your personal and professional lives,” he said.

Additionally, Lieutenant General Shaibu praised the Depot Nigerian Army, Osogbo Commandant, officers, instructors, and staff for their commitment to shaping the recruits into disciplined, combat-ready warriors.

In accordance with President Bola Tinubu’s direction, he said that the recently authorized Depot Nigerian Army, Abakaliki, will shortly begin training exercises to improve manpower development and operational readiness.

Minister of Works Dave Umahi has been criticized by a group of pan-Igbo self-determination campaigners for his recent assertion that the Biafra struggle is no longer required.

Speaking during a tour of ongoing government projects in the South-East, Umahi stated that since President Bola Tinubu has brought the region into Nigeria’s mainstream, the struggle for Biafra is no longer essential.

The minister does not have the authority to speak for Ndigbo, according to a joint statement released on Saturday by the American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID), Ambassadors for Self-Determination (ASD), and Rising Sun Foundation (RSF).

Maxwell Dede of the Rising Sun Foundation, Ben Nwankwo of Ambassadors for Self Determination, and Sylvester Onyia of AVID signed the statement headlined “David Umahi lacks the powers to speak for Ndigbo.”

In response to Umahi’s remarks, pan-Igbo rights organizations cautioned the minister against giving himself authority that he does not possess.

Senator David Umahi made an unguarded statement that caught our attention: “Ndigbo should forget Biafra agitation because the Federal Government had addressed all of their challenges.” Therefore, we would want to remind him that he is not authorized to represent Ndigbo. He shouldn’t give himself the authority he doesn’t possess. Biafrans do not believe in traitors like him because he stated that he does not believe in Biafra. He is not being forced to join the fight, but he is unable to stop the movement or speak for the people.

“After being exploited and abandoned by their slave masters, we have witnessed serial betrayers like him who are now living in remorse. Ndi Igbo are not represented by Dave Umahi. He does not represent Alaigbo. He doesn’t represent Biafraland. He doesn’t even speak for everyone in Ebonyi State; he only represents himself.

According to the activists, Umahi’s assertion that Ndigbo are no longer marginalized is an insult to their sensibilities.

What has Tinubu’s government or the federal government accomplished for Alaigbo?
What has Alaigbo gained since Tinubu was elected president? While the Lagos-Kano and Katsina-Niger Republic tracks are operational, why is the Umuahia-Enugu railway still inoperable? Why does one state in the South-West have four ministers but the South-East still has just five, including two junior ministers?

“Is Umahi unaware that despite our people being the nation’s top importers, the South-East lacks a seaport? Is there a cargo airport that operates on Igbo land? Are there any significant federal maritime or industry projects? These items are found in other areas. The statement said, “Alaigbo does not.”

The pan-Igbo activists further denounced the minister’s remarks, saying, “So when someone like Umahi tries to speak for Ndigbo, we must ask: what exactly is he defending?” Why is Mazi Nnamdi Kanu incarcerated for life but the actual terrorists and mass mothers are allowed to roam freely and receive lighthearted treatment?

Kanu was imprisoned, according to the campaigners, with the help of the British government “and a few Nigerian politicians like Umahi” who prioritized their own comfort over justice.

People are upset because of this. People feel deceived as a result. Anyone who supports Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s incarceration is acting against the Igbo people. Saboteurs will always be on the wrong side of history, and Umahi should understand this.

According to the statement, some Jews in Europe hid being Jewish in order to defend themselves amid persecution, but this did not end the suffering, “and it did not stop the creation of Israel in 1948.”

Therefore, Umahi’s denial of Biafra today is not new. Locals have betrayed others in the past. History has not been halted by it. Umahi is not as large as Biafra.
Umahi is not the focus of the Biafra struggle. Appointments are not the issue. The goal is not to appease Abuja. It is about self-respect, justice, and dignity. Some would attempt to undermine it. The activists emphasized that they will fail.

In a similar spirit, the Rising Sun Foundation, American Veterans of Igbo Descent, and Ambassadors for Self-Determination reiterated their call for Nnamdi Kanu’s immediate release.

Additionally, they called for Umahi to be held responsible for the violence in the Southeast.

“Umahi shouldn’t give us cause to believe he is among those who are impeding the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. He was one of the creators of Ebube Agu, which caused chaos for our people. The statement continued, “Those who founded Ebube Agu should be held responsible for the atrocities in Igbo land that are sometimes mistakenly attributed to IPOB and ESN.

The 52-year-old National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharged the 2024 Batch C Stream II after completing their one-year mandatory service, making them the final of roughly 400,000 young graduates it mobilizes each year. As a result, the young graduates’ realities and doubts about what lies ahead for them have increased.

Recall that the countrywide passing out procession was held on Thursday, December 18, 2025, for the Batch C Stream II of 2024 session, who were released following a year of mandatory service.

Some of the hurdles that may impede post-NYSC career chances for some of the discharged corps members include the country’s severe economic conditions, sustainable seed capital, and the realities of academic training mismatch for a few accessible occupations.

It was demonstrated that some of the discharged corps members in the federation’s states are afraid about their employment prospects. Since the government’s N77,000 monthly allowance and corps employers’ pittance have been withheld since the end of the month, several voiced bitterly how they would proceed if the anticipated engagement is delayed.

Conversely, some of them expressed hope that they may use their lifetime careers as a source of income.

Eno Okonnah, a female corps member and University of Calabar English Language graduate, bemoaned the fact that the quantity of her colleagues assigned to the school as Place of Primary Assignment made it impossible for her to be kept at the private school where she served.

Ondo State University of Medical Sciences graduate Abigail Omotunde voiced doubt as the post-NYSC reality became apparent to her.

“The passing-out, end of service, and thoughts about what next had preoccupied my mind in the last two months,” she remarked. In addition to being a skilled hair stylist, I also promote medical equipment and design clothing.

“In the next two weeks, I will make a decision. During my time as a student, I owned a small store, and I currently operate a private practice on campus, catering to both my coworkers and local clients. “I need the seed money to keep running the business and make ends meet,” she stated.

A rise in the number of graduates

The number of eligible graduates mobilized for the country has fluctuated over time due to a number of factors, including government admission policies, backlogs from strikes or academic disruptions, university and polytechnic graduation rates, the efficiency and effectiveness of school administrators, and the school calendar.

The NYSC program regularly recruited between 350,000 and 400,000 corps members in its three yearly batches of A, B, and C. As a result, managers of the only post-Civil War organization still in existence had to make adjustments to deal with the growing number of graduates trained locally and others from the Diaspora on employment generation.

The Skills Acquisition and Entrepreneurship Development (SAED) program was introduced in 2012 to supplement the plan as a result of these issues.

In addition to the yearly automatic employment provided to exceptional corps members by governments and employers of labor, the SAED has complemented the various efforts of both the federal and state governments in facilitating in-camp and post-camp skills acquisition training for corps members, according to a scheme official who wished to remain anonymous.

The official stated that the NYSC/corporate partnership model continues to be a crucial pillar of Nigeria’s job creation and youth empowerment strategy, particularly for post-service employment and entrepreneurship, while discussing corporate partnerships in employment generation for the army of graduates mobilized annually for the scheme.

He revealed that the SAED/corporate partnerships strategy has provided training and start-up financing to thousands of corps members each year.

Standardized Training for Entrepreneurs

The Director General (DG) of the Scheme, Brigadier-General Olakunle Nafiu, revealed plans to modernize the Skill Acquisition and Entrepreneurship Development (SAED) training for Corps members by standardizing the curriculum for greater impact during the week of the 2025 second SAED stakeholders’ summit in Abuja.

With over 30,000 companies officially registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) and over 3.18 million Corps Members trained in entrepreneurship and workplace preparedness since 2012, he referred to the SAED program as a cornerstone of youth empowerment in Nigeria.

The DG further disclosed that Corps members were being integrated into the Federal Government’s 3 Million Technical Talent (3MTT) program and international remote work opportunities via programs like the SAED SME toolkit, Outsource to Nigeria, and NYSC jobs.ng.

The founder of Ayodeji Megbope Inspires Mentoring Academy, Mrs. Ayodeji Megbope, advised discharged corps members not to let the nation’s much-discussed economic problems deter them in an interview, stating that astute minds may achieve breakthroughs.

“Your possibilities are limitless if a woman who started at 40 with N1000, with kids made fun of for stew-smelling uniforms, standing at a school gate hawking moin-moin, can rise to own a restaurant and now a Wellness Center,” the speaker stated.

All discharged corps members were urged by Mrs. Megbope to overcome their anxiety of what lay ahead, develop their abilities, gain competence, and position themselves for long-term success.

Nigeria’s Senate found itself at the center of national concerns during a turbulent and unpredictable year, dealing with pressing economic issues and growing insecurity. Every legislative session represented the pulse of a country demanding responsive governance as inflation skyrocketed and public unrest increased. Lawmakers had to balance upholding order with attending to the urgent issues of their constituents while dealing with the demands of constituency expectations and internal party dynamics. During a crucial year in Nigerian politics, SOLA SHITTU explores the Senate’s perseverance and shortcomings as it navigated these choppy waters.

The gavel struck more forcefully than normal on a stressful afternoon in the crimson chamber. While the galleries were calm, the surrounding countryside was not. The morning news was dominated by inflation statistics, security briefings were popular on digital platforms, and senators’ phones were constantly ringing with comments from constituents who were affected by every policy move made in Abuja. This was obviously not your typical sitting when the presiding officer called the chamber to order. It was simply another day in a year that kept pushing Nigeria’s Senate to the edge of institutional resolve and public tolerance.

The Senate functioned under the scrutiny of widespread fear all year long. Lawmaking was no more a far-off process shielded by procedure; instead, it took place in the context of growing costs, growing insecurity, and irate citizens. While confirmations, budget approvals, and policy endorsements were assessed based on their immediate impact on day-to-day living, motions discussed on the floor were immediately scrutinized outside the chamber. The Red Chamber essentially turned into a mirror reflecting the tensions in the nation.

“This was a perfect storm for the legislature,” says Dr. Nkechi Onu, a Center for Democracy and Development governance specialist. Senators were required to enact laws not just according to protocol but also in accordance with national sentiment. Beyond simple legal compliance, each vote and motion carried symbolic weight.

This delicate balance was overseen by a leadership committed to maintaining control in the face of uncertainty. Godswill Akpabio, the president of the Senate, kept a tight hold on the proceedings and insisted on discipline, speed, and order as stabilizing factors in a volatile political environment. Because both the Senate and the executive branch shared the view that legislative paralysis may worsen economic hardship and security issues, their relationship remained largely cooperative. However, this cooperation was frequently put to the test, especially when measures sparked opposition from the public and lawmakers had to balance party allegiance against demands from constituents.

The Senate’s agenda and public scrutiny were mostly focused on economic issues. Discussions over budget standards, taxation, income generation, and subsidy modifications became hot topics for criticism. Aware of the sentiment back home, senators spoke not only as lawmakers but also as political representatives. On the floor, a number of people publicly cautioned that hasty or insensitive actions could undermine confidence and stoke animosity.

Usually procedural, budget sessions became unusually intense. In a period of widespread hardship, debates on borrowing plans, oil benchmarks, and deficit finance were framed not only as financial choices but also as moral ones. Labor unions, civil society organizations, and market players kept a careful eye on the Senate’s approval procedures since they were all looking for clues regarding the government’s economic agenda. Beyond the chamber, every modification or alteration had symbolic significance.

“Senators weren’t just rubber-stamping budgets,” says economic policy researcher Chinyere Uzo. They had to deal with changes to the oil benchmark, improvements to subsidies, and financing for deficits. Every choice has an instant societal impact. Lawmakers were under tremendous pressure as a result of the constituents’ financial hardship.

The 2025 Appropriations Re-enactment Bill did, in fact, highlight the level of fiscal scrutiny. Senators from both parties examined President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s request for parliamentary clearance to release ₦43.56 trillion in-depth. The breakdown of capital projects, debt servicing, statutory transfers, and recurring expenditures was discussed by lawmakers. While some questioned the viability of borrowing plans, others called for quick approval to avoid administrative stagnation.

“Every figure debated on the floor carried a real human story,” a senior senator who wished to remain anonymous stated. “You couldn’t talk about billions without considering families that are having a hard time making ends meet or students who are having trouble paying their tuition.”

Concerns about security were a persistent undercurrent. Plenary sessions were soberingly frequently interrupted by motions on violent attacks, kidnappings, and regional instability. As senators described episodes from their constituencies, the chamber occasionally fell into uncomfortable quiet as they blended legislative language with personal sorrow. The calendar began to regularly incorporate emergency sessions and private briefings, which strengthened the impression that the legislature was under constant pressure.

“Motions on violent attacks weren’t just parliamentary rhetoric,” says political analyst and former security assistant Peter Adebayo. The constituencies’ actual pain was reflected in them. Direct testimony from communities and families was given to senators. Because they were trying to get it right, that emotional weight influenced discussion and occasionally slowed down decision-making.

Legislation and oversight were frequently combined in the Senate’s reaction to security-related issues. Chiefs of the police and military were called before committees to discuss tactical gaps, budgets, and operations. A critical audience seeking for accountability saw several hearings in real time as they developed into public clashes. Others were settled amicably through backstage discussions that seldom made the news. A fundamental conundrum was brought to light by this contrast: how to use authority without undermining governance.

Oversight operations led to some of the most dramatic events of the year. Committees questioned agency leaders, budgets, and well-known projects. Live broadcasts of hearings increased public interest as confrontation and accountability became entwined. From technical budget clarifications to direct requests for justifications of public service failures, senatorial questioning covered a wide range.

Professor Emeka Okafor, a constitutional attorney at the University of Lagos, states that the Senate had to balance upholding accountability with permitting governance to continue. Oversight is crucial, but institutional stagnation could result from ongoing conflict without a resolution. They had to tread carefully all year long.

The Senate’s internal dynamics put unity to the test. Hasty caucus meetings and short-term adjournments were the result of intense discussions about economic measures. The moral need to alleviate public suffering, regional interests, and party allegiance had to be balanced by the leadership.

Political scientist Ibrahim Sule observes that Senate leadership has to constantly strike a balance between party allegiance and constituency demands, as well as speed and inspection. “Akpabio’s insistence on order was a stabilizing response to pressure on multiple fronts; it was not just formalism.”

Criticisms of obstructionism followed accusations that the chamber was too close to the executive. Senators discussed how to strike the right balance between independence and cooperation, knowing that public confidence changed with each choice.

Public opinion turned out to be one of the Senate’s most enduring problems. Civil society criticism, protests outside the National Assembly building, and constant media coverage made sure that few choices went ignored. Every motion, vote, and comment was magnified by social media, which frequently presented the discussion as a test of the legislators’ abilities.

According to media strategist Funke Adeyemi, “24-hour news cycles and social media made sure that no decision went unnoticed.” The Senate’s responsiveness and institutional rigor had to be balanced. Too much delay led to criticism, and too much hurry increased the chance of errors.

While some senators used stakeholder consultations and town halls to interact directly with critics, others relied on protocol to handle public criticism. The year’s defining fault line was the discrepancy between public expectations and institutional rationale.

Beyond the formalities of committee and plenary work, there was a personal cost. Senators discussed in private how lobby organizations, party leaders, and constituents were putting constant pressure on them. Late into the night, calls for assistance, clarification, or intervention rang out. Employees put in long hours to monitor movements, write reports, and plan public relations campaigns.

“The amount of calls, emails, and messages was overwhelming,” a legislative assistant remarked. “Managing expectations and making sure people felt heard were more important than simply passing laws.”

Quieter victories frequently went mostly unnoticed in the middle of this upheaval. Following stakeholder involvement, amendments were improved, committee reports incorporated constituency concerns, and potentially divisive proposals were defused through concessions. The hidden unfolding of legislative action was made up of these small victories that were obscured by more dramatic catastrophes.

Dr. Onu points out that not every achievement gets headlines. However, sustainable governance requires these behind-the-scenes changes. They show that the Senate is able to compromise and change.

As the year went on, it became evident that the Senate was being put to the test on empathy, discretion, and resilience in addition to productivity. Moments of unusual consensus were also produced by decisions made under duress, which exposed divisions within parties and between regions.

By the last few months of the year, weariness was apparent. Both politicians and staff were burdened by the sheer number of motions, debates, and emergency sessions. However, a sense of institutional resilience was also present. Even if questions remained about whether the Senate had done enough to close the gap between policy and perception, it had absorbed waves of criticism, modified its procedures, and carried on with its operations.

According to Professor Okafor, “Nigerian institutions can withstand crises because of the Senate’s resilience under pressure.” However, converting legislative efforts into concrete results is essential for maintaining public trust over the long term. Even well-meaning choices will be questioned if they have no obvious effect.

At the end of the year, the red chamber was clearly at a turning point. Its strengths and weaknesses had been revealed after months of working under close observation. Even if unanswered concerns about openness, responsiveness, and independence persisted, the Senate showed the capacity to absorb shocks, modify deadlines, and reevaluate priorities.

In the end, the year was more defined by what it showed about Nigeria’s struggling legislature than by any particular measures. The Senate emerged as an institution walking a tightrope between stability and sensitivity rather than as an inflexible gatekeeper or a passive appendage. It was a year of cautious reform, crisis management, and nonstop compromise.

Within the red walls of the chamber, the lessons of pressure, compromise, and consequence reverberate as another legislative year approaches. It’s still unclear if the Senate can use these lessons to build more public trust. It is evident that the institution has been altered by the experience, molded by a year in which the daily challenges of the country it serves were inextricably linked to the legislative process.

If governors disobey the Supreme Court’s ruling on local government autonomy, President Bola Tinubu threatens to step in.

Speaking at the All Progressives Congress’s (APC) 15th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting on Friday night in the Banquet Hall of the Presidential Villa in Abuja, Tinubu issued the warning.

He emphasized that governors must abide by and respect the Supreme Court’s ruling on local government autonomy because it continues to be the highest legal authority in the country.

Give them their money directly, according to the Supreme Court’s ruling. I will cut it if you wait on my executive order because I have the yam and the knife.

“We will calculate the percentage before FAAC, and I will forward it to their accounts.” All I’m doing is showing my governors a great deal of respect and understanding.

President Tinubu stated, “If you don’t start implementing it FAAC after FAAC, you will see deduction from the source.”

Tinubu instructed the National Assembly to call the Inspector General of Police to investigate the implications of the State Police in order to establish controls and stop abuses.

“We intend to pursue State Police.” The Forest Rangers will be armed by us. We shall vanquish those bandits and terrorists. The President stated, “We have to.

“Allow it, don’t elbow, don’t shut the door against the people,” Tinubu said, urging the party’s leadership to ensure justice in the APC e-membership registration process.

“You now have authority; if you don’t exercise it, we will remove it.” We are skilled at it. “We’ll handle it on your behalf,” he declared.

Earlier, Vice-President Kashim Shettima said, “APC is fortunate that President Tinubu is not in opposition today,” acknowledging President Tinubu’s contribution to the opposition culture that helped the APC win power.

He stood when it was out of style, long before power calling. financed democracy when it was safe to remain silent and organized when it was risky to do so.

Tinubu is the type of warrior you hope will never face you in the ring.

Shettima declared, “His experience is not just history; it is the party’s armor forged in resistance, sharpened by survival, and perfected by victory.”

Additionally, Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda, the National Chairman of the APC, stated that the party has solid roots across all six geopolitical zones and is still cohesive, resilient, and forward-thinking.

With steadfast backing, he promised that the party will solidify its gains and keep offering Nigerians significant leadership.

He restated the party’s unwavering support for the audacious and extensive changes being carried out by President Tinubu’s administration.