Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: each year we come together to reaffirm the founding vision of this institution. For most of recorded history, individual aspirations were subject to the whims of tyrants and empires. Divisions of race, religion and tribe were settled through the sword and the clash of armies. The idea that nations and peoples could come together in peace to solve their disputes and advance a common prosperity seemed unimaginable.
It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking. The leaders who built the United Nations were not naïve; they did not think this body could eradicate all wars. But in the wake of millions dead and continents in rubble; and with the development of nuclear weapons that could annihilate a planet; they understood that humanity could not survive the course it was on. So they gave us this institution, believing that it could allow us to resolve conflicts, enforce rules of behavior, and build habits of cooperation that would grow stronger over time.
For decades, the U.N. has in fact made a real difference – from helping to eradicate disease, to educating children, to brokering peace. But like every generation of leaders, we face new and profound challenges, and this body continues to be tested. The question is whether we possess the wisdom and the courage, as nation-states and members of an international community, to squarely meet those challenges; whether the United Nations can meet the tests of our time.
For much of my time as President, some of our most urgent challenges have revolved around an increasingly integrated global economy, and our efforts to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetime. Now, five years after the global economy collapsed, thanks to coordinated efforts by the countries here today, jobs are being created, global financial systems have stabilized, and people are being lifted out of poverty. But this progress is fragile and unequal, and we still have work to do together to assure that our citizens can access the opportunity they need to thrive in the 21st century.
Together, we have also worked to end a decade of war. Five years ago, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in harm’s way, and the war in Iraq was the dominant issue in our relationship with the rest of the world. Today, all of our troops have left Iraq. Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.
For the United States, these new circumstances have also meant shifting away from a perpetual war-footing. Beyond bringing our troops home, we have limited the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible, and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties. We are transferring detainees to other countries and trying terrorists in courts of law, while working diligently to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share.
As a result of this work, and cooperation with allies and partners, the world is more stable than it was five years ago. But even a glance at today’s headlines indicates the dangers that remain. In Kenya, we’ve seen terrorists target innocent civilians in a crowded shopping mall. In Pakistan, nearly 100 people were recently killed by suicide bombers outside a church. In Iraq, killings and car bombs continue to be a horrific part of life. Meanwhile, al Qaeda has splintered into regional networks and militias, which has not carried out an attack like 9/11, but does pose serious threats to governments, diplomats, businesses and civilians across the globe.
Just as significantly, the convulsions in the Middle East and North Africa have laid bare deep divisions within societies, as an old order is upended, and people grapple with what comes next. Peaceful movements have been answered by violence – from those resisting change, and from extremists trying to hijack change. Sectarian conflict has reemerged. And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction casts a shadow over the pursuit of peace.
Nowhere have we seen these trends converge more powerfully than in Syria. There, peaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter. In the face of carnage, many retreated to their sectarian identity – Alawite and Sunni; Christian and Kurd – and the situation spiraled into civil war. The international community recognized the stakes early on, but our response has not matched the scale of the challenge. Aid cannot keep pace with the suffering of the wounded and displaced. A peace process is still-born. America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition, but extremist groups have still taken root to exploit the crisis. Assad’s traditional allies have propped him up, citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime. And on August 21st, the regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.
The crisis in Syria, and the destabilization of the region, goes to the heart of broader challenges that the international community must now confront. How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa – conflicts between countries, but also conflicts within them? How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, or embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war? What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct? What is the role of the United Nations, and international law, in meeting cries for justice?
Today, I want to outline where the United States of America stands on these issues. With respect to Syria, we believe that as a starting point, the international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons. When I stated my willingness to order a limited strike against the Assad regime in response to the brazen use of chemical weapons, I did not do so lightly. I did so because I believe it is in the security interest of the United States and the world to meaningfully enforce a prohibition whose origins are older than the U.N. itself. The ban against the use of chemical weapons, even in war, has been agreed to by 98 percent of humanity. It is strengthened by the searing memories of soldiers suffocated in the trenches; Jews slaughtered in gas chambers; and Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood, and landed in opposition neighborhoods. It is an insult to human reason – and to the legitimacy of this institution – to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.
I know that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, there were those who questioned the legitimacy of even a limited strike in the absence of a clear mandate from the Security Council. But without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all. However, as I’ve discussed with President Putin for over a year, most recently in St. Petersburg, my preference has always been a diplomatic resolution to this issue, and in the past several weeks, the United States, Russia and our allies have reached an agreement to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, and then to destroy them.
The Syrian government took a first step by giving an accounting of its stockpiles. Now, there must be a strong Security Council Resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so. If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the U.N. is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws. On the other hand, if we succeed, it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st century, and that this body means what it says.
Agreement on chemical weapons should energize a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political settlement within Syria. I do not believe that military action – by those within Syria, or by external powers – can achieve a lasting peace. Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria – that is for the Syrian people to decide. Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country. The notion that Syria can return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy. It’s time for Russia and Iran to realize that insisting on Assad’s rule will lead directly to the outcome they fear: an increasingly violent space for extremists to operate. In turn, those of us who continue to support the moderate opposition must persuade them that the Syrian people cannot afford a collapse of state institutions, and that a political settlement cannot be reached without addressing the legitimate fears of Alawites and other minorities.
As we pursue a settlement, let us remember that this is not a zero-sum endeavor. We are no longer in a Cold War. There’s no Great Game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists. I welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring about a peaceful resolution of Syria’s civil war. And as we move the Geneva process forward, I urge all nations here to step up to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and surrounding countries. America has committed over a billion dollars to this effort, and today, I can announce that we will be providing an additional $340 million. No aid can take the place of a political resolution that gives the Syrian people the chance to begin rebuilding their country – but it can help desperate people survive.
What broader conclusions can be drawn from America’s policy toward Syria? I know there are those who have been frustrated by our unwillingness to use our military might to depose Assad, and believe that a failure to do so indicates a weakening of America’s resolve in the region. Others have suggested that my willingness to direct even limited military strikes to deter the further use of chemical weapons shows that we have learned nothing from Iraq, and that America continues to seek control over the Middle East for our own purposes. In this way, the situation in Syria mirrors a contradiction that has persisted in the region for decades: the United States is chastised for meddling in the region, and accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy; at the same time, the United States is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region’s problems, and for showing indifference toward suffering Muslim populations.
I realize some of this is inevitable, given America’s role in the world. But these attitudes have a practical impact on the American peoples’ support for our involvement in the region, and allow leaders in the region – and the international community – to avoid addressing difficult problems. So let me take this opportunity to outline what has been U.S. policy towards the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency.
The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure these core interests in the region.
We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.
We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends upon the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.
We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. Wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations, and work to address the root causes of terror. But when its necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct action.
And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security, we reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global non-proliferation regime.
Now, to say these are America’s core interests is not to say these are our only interests. We deeply believe it is in our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous; and will continue to promote democracy, human rights, and open markets, because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity. But I also believe that we can rarely achieve these objectives through unilateral American action – particularly with military action. Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force. Rather, these objectives are best achieved when we partner with the international community, and with the countries and people of the region.
What does this mean going forward? In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. While these issues are not the cause of all the region’s problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too long, and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace.
The United States and Iran have been isolated from one another since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs, and America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War. On the other hand, Americans see an Iranian government that has declared the United States an enemy, and directly – or through proxies – taken Americans hostage, killed U.S. troops and civilians, and threatened our ally Israel with destruction.
I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight – the suspicion runs too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship – one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.
Since I took office, I have made it clear – in letters to the Supreme Leader in Iran and more recently to President Rouhani – that America prefers to resolve our concerns over Iran’s nuclear program peacefully, but that we are determined to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon. We are not seeking regime change, and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy. Instead, we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.
These statements made by our respective governments should offer the basis for a meaningful agreement. We should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the Iranian people, while giving the world confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful. To succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. After all, it is the Iranian government’s choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place. This isn’t simply an issue between America and Iran – the world has seen Iran evade its responsibilities in the past, and has an abiding interest in making sure that Iran meets its obligations in the future.
We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course. Given President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directing John Kerry to pursue this effort with the Iranian government, in close coordination with the European Union, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China. The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested. For while the status quo will only deepen Iran’s isolation, Iran’s genuine commitment to go down a different path will be good for the region and the world, and will help the Iranian people meet their extraordinary potential – in commerce and culture; in science and education.
We are also determined to resolve a conflict that goes back even further than our differences with Iran: the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. I have made clear that the United States will never compromise our commitment to Israel’s security, nor our support for its existence as a Jewish state. Earlier this year, in Jerusalem, I was inspired by young Israelis who stood up for the belief that peace was necessary, just, and possible, and I believe there is a growing recognition within Israel that the occupation of the West Bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the Jewish state. But the children of Israel have the right to live in a world where the nations assembled in this body fully recognize their country, and unequivocally reject those who fire rockets at their homes or incite others to hate them.
Likewise, the United States remains committed to the belief that the Palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own sovereign state. On the same trip, I had the opportunity to meet with young Palestinians in Ramallah whose ambition and potential are matched by the pain they feel in having no firm place in the community of nations. They are understandably cynical that real progress will ever be made, and frustrated by their families enduring the daily indignity of occupation. But they recognize that two states is the only real path to peace: because just as the Palestinian people must not be displaced, the state of Israel is here to stay.
The time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace. Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks. President Abbas has put aside efforts to short-cut the pursuit of peace and come to the negotiating table. Prime Minister Netanyahu has released Palestinian prisoners, and reaffirmed his commitment to a Palestinian state. Current talks are focused on final status issues of borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem.
Now the rest of us must also be willing to take risks. Friends of Israel, including the United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depends upon the realization of a Palestinian state. Arab states – and those who have supported the Palestinians – must recognize that stability will only be served through a two-state solution with a secure Israel. All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists, and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future. Moreover, ties of trade and commerce between Israelis and Arabs could be an engine of growth and opportunity at a time when too many young people in the region are languishing without work. So let us emerge from the familiar corners of blame and prejudice, and support Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace.
Real breakthroughs on these two issues – Iran’s nuclear program, and Israeli-Palestinian peace – would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa. But the current convulsions arising out of the Arab Spring remind us that a just and lasting peace cannot be measured only by agreements between nations. It must also be measured by our ability to resolve conflict and promote justice within nations. And by that measure, it is clear to all of us that there is much more work to be done.
When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt, the entire world was filled with hope. And although the United States – like others – was struck by the speed of transition, and did not – in fact could not – dictate events, we chose to support those who called for change. We did so based on the belief that while these transitions will be hard, and take time, societies based upon democracy and openness and the dignity of the individual will ultimately be more stable, more prosperous, and more peaceful.
Over the last few years, particularly in Egypt, we’ve seen just how hard this transition will be. Mohammed Morsi was democratically elected, but proved unwilling or unable to govern in a way that was fully inclusive. The interim government that replaced him responded to the desires of millions of Egyptians who believed the revolution had taken a wrong turn, but it too has made decisions inconsistent with inclusive democracy – through an emergency law, and restrictions on the press, civil society, and opposition parties.
Of course, America has been attacked by all sides of this internal conflict, simultaneously accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and engineering their removal from power. In fact, the United States has purposely avoided choosing sides. Our over-riding interest throughout these past few years has been to encourage a government that legitimately reflects the will of the Egyptian people, and recognizes true democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society.
That remains our interest today. And so, going forward, the United States will maintain a constructive relationship with the interim government that promotes core interests like the Camp David Accords and counter-terrorism. We will continue support in areas like education that benefit the Egyptian people. But we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military systems, and our support will depend upon Egypt’s progress in pursuing a democratic path.
Our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point: the United States will at times work with governments that do not meet the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests. But we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent, or supporting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We will reject the notion that these principles are simply Western exports, incompatible with Islam or the Arab World - they are the birthright of every person. And while we recognize that our influence will at times be limited; although we will be wary of efforts to impose democracy through military force, and will at times be accused of hypocrisy or inconsistency – we will be engaged in the region for the long haul. For the hard work of forging freedom and democracy is the task of a generation.
This includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain. Ultimately, such long-standing issues cannot be solved by outsiders; they must be addressed by Muslim communities themselves. But we have seen grinding conflicts come to an end before – most recently in Northern Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants finally recognized that an endless cycle of conflict was causing both communities to fall behind a fast-moving world.
In sum, the United States has a hard-earned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries. The notion of American empire may be useful propaganda, but it isn’t borne out by America’s current policy or public opinion. Indeed, as the recent debate within the United States over Syria clearly showed, the danger for the world is not an America that is eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries, or take on every problem in the region as its own. The danger for the world is that the United States, after a decade of war; rightly concerned about issues back home; and aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim World, may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.
I believe that would be a mistake. I believe America must remain engaged for our own security. I believe the world is better for it. Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional – in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all. I must be honest, though: we are far more likely to invest our energy in those countries that want to work with us; that invest in their people, instead of a corrupt few; that embrace a vision of society where everyone can contribute – men and women, Shia or Sunni, Muslim, Christian or Jew. Because from Europe to Asia; from Africa to the Americas, nations that persevered on a democratic path have emerged more prosperous, more peaceful, and more invested in upholding our common security and our common humanity. And I believe that the same will hold true for the Arab World.
This leads me to a final point: there will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, and the violence against civilians so substantial, that the international community will be called upon to act. This will require new thinking and some very tough choices. While the U.N. was designed to prevent wars between states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states. And these challenges will grow more pronounced as we are confronted with states that are fragile or failing – places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk, with no hope of protection from national institutions.
I have made it clear that even when America’s core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect human rights. Yet we cannot and should not bear that burden alone. In Mali, we supported both the French intervention that successfully pushed back al Qaeda, and the African forces who are keeping the peace. In Africa, we are working with partners to bring the Lord’s Resistance Army to an end. And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.
I know that some now criticize the action in Libya as an object lesson. They point to problems that the country now confronts – a democratically-elected government struggling to provide security; armed groups, in some places extremists, ruling parts of a fractured land – and argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. No one is more mindful of these problems than I am, for they resulted in the death of four outstanding U.S. citizens who were committed to the Libyan people, including Ambassador Chris Stevens – a man whose courageous efforts helped save the city of Benghazi. But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya would be better if Qadhafi had been allowed to kill, imprison, or brutalize his people into submission? It is far more likely that without international action, Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.
We live in a world of imperfect choices. Different nations will not agree on the need for action in every instance, and the principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order. But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye to slaughter. While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, and we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda or Srebrenica? If that’s the world that people want to live in, then they should say so, and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.
I believe we can embrace a different future. If we don’t want to choose between inaction and war, we must get better – all of us – at the policies that prevent the breakdown of basic order. Through respect for the responsibilities of nations and the rights of individuals. Through meaningful sanctions for those who break the rules. Through dogged diplomacy that resolves the root causes of conflict, and not merely its aftermath. Through development assistance that brings hope to the marginalized. And yes, sometimes, all this will not be enough – and in such moments, the international community will need to acknowledge that the multilateral use of military force may be required to prevent the very worst from occuring.
Ultimately, this is the international community that America seeks – one where nations do not covet the land or resources of other nations, but one in which we carry out the founding purpose of this institution. A world in which the rules established out of the horrors of war can help us resolve conflicts peacefully, and prevent the kind of wars that our forefathers fought. A world where human beings can live with dignity and meet their basic needs, whether they live in New York or Nairobi; in Peshawar or Damascus.
These are extraordinary times, with extraordinary opportunities. Thanks to human progress, a child born anywhere on Earth can do things today that 60 years ago would have been out of reach for the mass of humanity. I saw this in Africa, where nations moving beyond conflict are now poised to take off. America is with them: partnering to feed the hungry, care for the sick, and to bring power to places off the grid.
I see it across the Pacific, where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in a single generation. I see it in the faces of young people everywhere who can access the entire world with the click of a button, and who are eager to join the cause of eradicating extreme poverty, combating climate change, starting businesses, expanding freedom, and leaving behind the old ideological battles of the past. That’s what’s happening in Asia and Africa; in Europe and the Americas. That’s the future that the people of the Middle East and North Africa deserve – one where they can focus on opportunity, instead of whether they’ll be killed or repressed because of who they are or what they believe.
Time and again, nations and people have shown our capacity to change – to live up to humanity’s highest ideals, to choose our better history. Last month, I stood where fifty years ago Martin Luther King Jr. told America about his dream, at a time when many people of my race could not even vote for President. Earlier this year, I stood in the small cell where Nelson Mandela endured decades cut off from his own people and the world. Who are we to believe that today’s challenges cannot be overcome, when we have seen what changes the human spirit can bring? Who in this hall can argue that the future belongs to those who seek to repress that spirit, rather than those who seek to liberate it?
I know what side of history I want to the United States of America to be on. We are ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges with you – firm in the belief that all men and women are in fact created equal, each individual possessed with a dignity that cannot be denied. That is why we look to the future not with fear, but with hope. That’s why we remain convinced that this community of nations can deliver a more peaceful, prosperous, and just world to the next gene
 |
|
As millions of Nigerians struggle with soaring living costs, unemployment and deepening economic pressures, the reported distribution of seven brand-new 2026 Toyota Land Cruiser Prado SUVs to APC youth leaders has ignited a fierce debate over political priorities, campaign spending and the meaning of youth empowerment.
Seven luxury SUVs. An estimated ₦1.12 billion. And a country where millions of citizens are struggling to make ends meet.
That is the striking contrast confronting Nigerians following the announcement by Dayo Israel, the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Youth Leader, that he had presented brand-new 2026 Toyota Land Cruiser Prado SUVs to selected youth leaders to support election mobilisation ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The announcement, made on X, immediately raised questions about the scale of the expenditure, the source of the funding and the message the ruling party is sending to young Nigerians at a time of widespread economic anxiety.
Israel expressed gratitude to First Lady Oluremi Tinubu for her continued support for the party’s youth structure.
“Today, I presented a brand new 2026 Prado to my committed selected youth leaders to aid their election mobilisation activities,” he wrote.
He also declared that the APC would demonstrate its political strength during the coming election season, promising to deliver “polling unit by polling unit”.
The message was unmistakable: the party is gearing up for 2027, and its mobilisation machinery is already being assembled.
But beyond the political symbolism and the gleaming new vehicles lies a more uncomfortable question: what does a billion-naira fleet of luxury SUVs say about political priorities in a country where many young people are struggling to secure jobs, finance businesses or afford basic necessities?
Seven SUVs, more than ₦1 billion
The figures are staggering.
According to prices listed on the Nigerian website of Toyota's authorised distributor, CFAO Mobility, the 2.4-litre turbo-petrol Adventure version of the Land Cruiser Prado costs approximately ₦160 million, while the Premium version is listed at ₦190 million.
At the Adventure price, seven vehicles would cost about ₦1.12 billion.
At the Premium price, the bill would rise to approximately ₦1.33 billion.
These are estimates based on advertised retail prices, not confirmed figures for the vehicles presented by Israel. Their exact specifications and actual purchase costs have not been independently established.
Nevertheless, the estimates provide a sense of the financial scale involved.
Using a reported Central Bank of Nigeria exchange rate of ₦1,329.51 to the dollar on September 25, 2026, the estimated ₦1.12 billion translates to roughly $842,000.
At the Premium price, the seven vehicles would be worth approximately $1 million.
The figures are estimates, not proof of the amount actually spent. And the announcement does not establish who paid for the vehicles, whether they were purchased by the party, donated privately or financed through another arrangement.
That distinction is important.
There is currently no established evidence in the announcement that public funds were used to acquire the SUVs. Nor does the statement provide enough information to determine the identity of the funder or the precise financial arrangements behind the presentation.
Yet the absence of those details makes transparency even more important.
Who financed the vehicles? Were they purchased outright or donated? What criteria determined which youth leaders received them? And what mechanisms will ensure that the vehicles are used for the stated purpose of election mobilisation?
These are legitimate questions about a high-value political expenditure, particularly when the recipients belong to the youth structure of the party controlling the federal government.
Election mobilisation or a display of political privilege?
Political parties need resources to organise campaigns. Vehicles can help officials travel, coordinate volunteers, attend meetings and reach communities that might otherwise be difficult to access.
Providing transport to campaign officials is not, in itself, evidence of wrongdoing.
The controversy lies in the scale of the reported investment and the broader economic circumstances in which it has occurred.
For many young Nigerians, the struggle is not about choosing between a luxury SUV and another premium vehicle. It is about finding a job, paying rent, securing affordable transportation, raising business capital or keeping a small enterprise alive amid rising costs.
Against that backdrop, seven high-value SUVs intended for political mobilisation inevitably invite questions about whose needs receive priority and what the ruling party considers an effective investment in young people.
The APC's youth leadership operates within the political organisation supporting President Bola Tinubu's administration. Its activities therefore attract scrutiny beyond ordinary party logistics, especially when they are presented as part of preparations for another presidential election.
The question is not whether campaign officials deserve transportation.
It is whether the scale of political spending is matched by a comparable commitment to expanding economic opportunities for the millions of young Nigerians whose support political parties seek.
What else could ₦1.12 billion achieve?
Consider the alternatives.
At an estimated cost of ₦1.12 billion, the money represented by the seven vehicles could equal:
- 11,200 grants of ₦100,000 for aspiring entrepreneurs.
- 1,120 grants of ₦1 million for small businesses requiring greater start-up capital.
- 16,000 monthly wage payments of ₦70,000, using Nigeria's national minimum wage as a benchmark.
These are illustrative comparisons, not claims that distributing money alone would solve unemployment or guarantee sustainable businesses. Effective empowerment programmes require careful beneficiary selection, training, oversight, access to markets and mechanisms to prevent waste.
But the comparisons expose the opportunity cost of expensive political investments.
A young graduate searching endlessly for employment might see a different kind of hope in a credible job-creation programme. A trader struggling to expand a business might benefit from affordable credit. A skilled young person with a viable business idea might need equipment and training more than another political rally.
The seven Prados may improve the mobility of their recipients. They do not, by themselves, create jobs, lower food prices, expand vocational training or provide affordable credit to young people outside the party's political network.
Those challenges require action from government, financial institutions, employers and other stakeholders.
But for a ruling party seeking another mandate, the contrast between the resources devoted to election mobilisation and the economic difficulties facing ordinary citizens is difficult to ignore.
Opposition voices question APC's priorities
The announcement has drawn criticism from political opponents, who argue that the reported expenditure highlights a disconnect between the ruling party's political preparations and the hardship confronting Nigerians.
An African Democratic Congress (ADC) chieftain, Samuel Ede, said the development raised serious questions about the party's priorities.
“At a time when millions of Nigerians are battling hunger, unemployment and rising living costs, the APC is preparing for 2027 with seven luxury SUVs worth an estimated ₦1.12 billion. This raises serious questions about the party’s priorities. Nigerian youths need jobs, opportunities and economic relief, not just political mobilisation ahead of elections,” he said.
Political analyst Sunday Tukur also questioned what the vehicles would achieve beyond their stated electoral purpose.
“The question Nigerians should be asking is what seven Prados worth an estimated ₦1.12 billion will achieve beyond electoral mobilisation. That amount could support meaningful youth empowerment initiatives if properly invested. Political parties have a right to organise for elections, but the contrast between luxury campaign spending and the economic hardship facing ordinary Nigerians deserves serious scrutiny,” he said.
Their comments reflect a wider debate over whether political parties should be judged solely by their ability to build campaign structures or also by the economic vision they offer citizens.
The APC could argue that an effective mobilisation network is essential to electoral competition. Critics, however, contend that the scale of the reported expenditure deserves explanation in a country where economic insecurity remains a central public concern.
Neither argument eliminates the need for transparency about the vehicles' funding and intended use.
Economic hardship meets political extravagance
The controversy has unfolded against a difficult economic backdrop.
A Reuters report published in August 2026 highlighted continuing cost-of-living pressures in Nigeria despite signs of improving investor confidence. The report cited World Bank estimates indicating that more than half of Nigerians lived in poverty in 2025, compared with approximately 42 per cent in 2022.
Those figures provide important context for understanding why the announcement has attracted such strong reactions.
For households struggling with food bills, transport fares, rent and other essentials, the image of brand-new luxury SUVs being distributed for political activities can become a symbol of the distance between the political establishment and everyday economic realities.
The vehicles are not proof that government funds were misused. But the announcement has reopened a difficult debate about the relationship between political power, wealth and the expectations placed on leaders during a period of economic strain.
And because the vehicles are intended to support election mobilisation, the timing makes the questions even more pointed.
As the 2027 campaign season approaches, political parties will be seeking votes, loyalty and public confidence. Their spending decisions will inevitably become part of the wider conversation about what they prioritise and how they intend to govern.
Nigerians react: “What is this?”
On X, the announcement triggered a wave of criticism, with some users drawing sharp comparisons between the luxury vehicles and the financial difficulties confronting ordinary Nigerians.
Political commentator Kayode Ogundamisi questioned the symbolism of the presentation, arguing that it reflected a widening disconnect between the ruling party's political elite and citizens enduring economic hardship.
He wrote:
“For context, @dayoisrael is the youth leader of Nigeria’s ruling APC, the same party whose president, Tinubu, is asking Nigerians to endure more suffering.
“When a party’s youth leader can donate multiple Prados to party loyalists, you begin to understand why more Nigerians are turning against Tinubu and the APC.”
Ogundamisi also questioned the broader culture of political gift-giving and the display of wealth by influential figures associated with the ruling establishment.
Other reactions were more confrontational, with critics accusing the party of prioritising electoral machinery over the needs of struggling citizens.
One X user questioned the contrast between calls for ordinary Nigerians to engage in small-scale economic activities and the distribution of luxury vehicles to political operatives.
The user wrote:
“These are the issues. Remi Tinubu asked our mothers and us to go and be frying Ankara, roasted corn and kulikuli, but APC National Youth Leader, Dayo Israel, presented a brand-new 2026 Prado SUV to APC youth leaders for election mobilisation activities.”
Another user expressed disbelief over the announcement, writing:
“You’re a disgrace, Dayo Israel. For one moment, I thought these were ambulances for FMC, Abeokuta. What is this?”
Other comments contained partisan accusations and calls for political change ahead of 2027. Such statements reflect the views of individual users and should not be treated as evidence of wrongdoing or as a measure of nationwide public opinion.
Still, the intensity of the reactions illustrates how quickly a political spending announcement can become a wider debate about economic hardship, fairness and accountability.
The questions APC must answer
For all the anger and political rhetoric surrounding the presentation, the central issues remain straightforward.
The public deserves clarity about the source of funding, the actual purchase price, the specifications of the vehicles and the conditions attached to their use.
The APC should also explain how the distribution fits into its broader youth engagement strategy and what measurable benefits its political activities are expected to deliver.
If the vehicles were privately funded, transparent disclosure could help clarify that point. If they were purchased with party resources, the party could explain the expenditure in the context of its campaign budget.
And if the presentation is being promoted as an example of support for young people, the party should be prepared to explain how that support extends beyond the selected recipients to the much larger population of young Nigerians outside its political structure.
These questions do not presume that the expenditure was unlawful. They recognise that large political expenditures, especially those publicly associated with election mobilisation, deserve scrutiny.
Seven Prados cannot answer the bigger question
Ultimately, the controversy is about more than seven vehicles.
It is about the kind of political priorities Nigerians see as the country moves towards another general election.
For the APC, the Prados may represent a practical investment in campaign organisation, intended to strengthen its presence across polling units and improve coordination among youth leaders.
For critics, the estimated ₦1.12 billion cost represents a troubling contrast between the resources available to political operatives and the challenges confronting young people who need jobs, affordable credit, skills and economic opportunities.
Both the stated purpose of the vehicles and the questions raised by their distribution deserve to be examined on the available evidence.
The critical issue is whether political mobilisation is accompanied by a credible commitment to improving the lives of the citizens whose votes political parties seek.
As 2027 approaches, Nigerians will be weighing campaign promises against economic realities, political displays against policy outcomes, and declarations of youth empowerment against the opportunities actually available to young people.
Seven luxury SUVs can transport party officials across the country. They can support meetings, campaigns and electoral coordination.
But they cannot, on their own, answer the questions of an unemployed graduate, finance a struggling entrepreneur or relieve a household burdened by rising living costs.
The APC has signalled its readiness to mobilise for 2027. The bigger test is whether its vision for young Nigerians extends beyond the campaign trail—and whether it can demonstrate, with measurable results, how its promises translate into better lives for the people it hopes to represent.
News
Ayobami Oyalowo, Executive Director of Finance and Administration at the Ogun-Oshun River Basin Authority, has said reforms implemented under Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Olayemi Cardoso have improved the foreign exchange market, strengthened external reserves and enhanced the resilience of the banking sector.
Assessing Cardoso’s three-year tenure, Oyalowo said the apex bank had shifted towards a more orthodox monetary policy framework, prioritising price stability, market discipline and stronger financial sector supervision.
Cardoso assumed office in September 2023 amid significant economic challenges, including foreign exchange market distortions, declining external buffers and rising inflation. Headline inflation stood at 25.80 per cent in August 2023, while multiple exchange rates, foreign currency shortages and accumulated foreign exchange obligations weakened business confidence.
According to Oyalowo, the reforms marked a departure from the CBN’s extensive involvement in intervention programmes across sectors such as agriculture, aviation and power.
He recalled that Cardoso disclosed at the November 2023 Annual Bankers’ Dinner that the CBN had injected more than ₦10 trillion into the economy through various intervention programmes.
Oyalowo said the scale of the interventions raised concerns about excess liquidity, policy effectiveness and the central bank’s involvement in activities that could be better handled by fiscal authorities and development finance institutions.
“The economic significance of this shift lies in restoring consistency between the CBN’s objectives and its policy instruments,” he said.
Forex Market Reforms and Reserve Growth
Oyalowo identified the foreign exchange market as one of the major areas affected by the reforms, following years of multiple exchange rates, restricted access to foreign currency and accumulated obligations.
He said the CBN’s measures were designed to improve price discovery, enhance liquidity and rebuild confidence in the official market.
Among the key initiatives, he highlighted the Electronic Foreign Exchange Matching System, introduced in December 2024, and the Nigerian Foreign Exchange Code, launched in January 2025. Both measures were aimed at improving transparency, accountability and market conduct.
He also pointed to the settlement of verified foreign exchange obligations from an inherited backlog estimated at $7 billion, noting that the move helped address concerns among international investors, airlines and multinational companies over capital repatriation and legitimate financial claims.
However, Oyalowo acknowledged that the adjustment came at a significant economic cost, including sharp naira depreciation, higher import costs, increased production expenses for manufacturers and mounting pressure on household purchasing power.
On external reserves, he said Nigeria’s gross foreign exchange reserves increased from approximately $33 billion when Cardoso assumed office to about $55 billion in October 2026.
He added that net external reserves had risen to approximately $46 billion, compared with $34.80 billion at the end of 2025 and $3.99 billion at the end of 2023, citing figures disclosed by the CBN.
Oyalowo also referenced the CBN’s 2025 Annual Report, which showed that aggregate foreign exchange inflows rose by 13.81 per cent to $109.86 billion in 2025, from $96.53 billion in 2024.
Net foreign exchange inflows stood at $60.81 billion, while autonomous sources accounted for approximately 64 per cent of total inflows.
He described the growing contribution of autonomous sources as significant, explaining that private-sector inflows, export earnings and remittances could provide a more sustainable supply of foreign exchange than administrative allocation.
Improved Credit Outlook and Investor Confidence
Oyalowo further cited improvements in Nigeria’s international credit assessments as evidence of renewed confidence in the country’s economic direction.
He noted that S&P Global upgraded Nigeria’s sovereign credit rating from ‘B−’ to ‘B’ with a Stable Outlook in May 2026. Fitch Ratings also affirmed Nigeria’s ‘B’ rating in October 2026 and revised its outlook from Stable to Positive.
He said Nigeria’s return to the FTSE Russell Frontier Market classification in September 2026 reflected improvements in foreign exchange market accessibility and capital repatriation.
Despite these developments, Oyalowo acknowledged that Nigeria’s sovereign credit ratings remained below investment grade.
He also cited National Bureau of Statistics data showing that capital importation increased to $23.22 billion in 2025, compared with $12.32 billion in 2024.
Portfolio investment accounted for approximately $19.74 billion, representing 85 per cent of total capital importation, while foreign direct investment stood at about $923 million.
According to him, the figures indicated renewed investor interest but underscored the need to attract more long-term capital into manufacturing, infrastructure, energy and technology.
Inflation, Interest Rates and Household Pressures
On inflation, Oyalowo said the CBN had maintained a restrictive monetary policy stance through higher interest rates and liquidity management measures.
He noted that headline inflation moderated to 15.39 per cent in August 2026, from 15.43 per cent in July and 25.80 per cent in August 2023.
However, he cautioned that the rebasing of the Consumer Price Index in 2025 meant historical inflation comparisons needed to be interpreted carefully.
“Moreover, lower inflation does not mean prices have returned to previous levels,” he said, stressing that households continued to bear the cumulative effects of earlier price increases.
He added that while tighter monetary policy could help contain inflationary pressures, high borrowing costs had made it more expensive for businesses to access credit, potentially constraining investment and economic expansion.
Bank Recapitalisation Strengthens Financial Sector
Oyalowo also highlighted the CBN’s banking sector recapitalisation programme, introduced in March 2024, as a major component of the reforms.
The programme raised minimum capital requirements to ₦500 billion for commercial banks with international authorisation, ₦200 billion for national banks and ₦50 billion for regional banks.
By March 2026, he said, 33 banks had met the revised requirements, collectively raising ₦4.65 trillion in fresh capital.
Domestic investors contributed 72.55 per cent of the capital raised, while international investors accounted for 27.45 per cent.
According to Oyalowo, the recapitalisation exercise had strengthened banks’ capacity to absorb financial shocks and finance larger transactions.
However, he emphasised that increased capital must be supported by sound governance, effective risk management and responsible lending practices.
“Stronger balance sheets must be accompanied by sound governance, effective risk management and responsible lending,” he said.
He noted that the challenge for policymakers was to balance financial sector resilience with affordable access to credit, particularly for businesses operating under restrictive monetary conditions.
CBN, Finance Ministry Deepen Policy Coordination
Oyalowo identified the September 18, 2026, Memorandum of Understanding between the CBN and the Federal Ministry of Finance as another important development.
He said the agreement established a framework for closer coordination between fiscal and monetary authorities, covering government cash management, debt issuance planning, liquidity forecasting and macroeconomic analysis.
According to him, the arrangement could reduce the risk of fiscal and monetary policies working at cross-purposes, particularly where government borrowing and spending influence inflation, liquidity conditions and access to credit.
He added that the framework recognised the structural factors driving inflation in Nigeria, including food supply constraints, energy costs, transportation and logistics expenses.
Consolidating the Gains of Reform
Three years into Cardoso’s tenure, Oyalowo said the CBN had recorded measurable changes in foreign exchange market accessibility, external reserves, banking sector capitalisation and investor participation.
He maintained that the governor’s emphasis on monetary orthodoxy had provided the apex bank with a clearer institutional direction, while acknowledging the economic costs associated with the adjustment process.
He stressed, however, that sustaining the gains would require consistent policies, stronger productive investment and measures to ease the pressure on households and businesses.
“The next responsibility is to consolidate these reforms, preserve the gains in macroeconomic stability and create conditions for stronger productive investment, more affordable credit and improved living standards,” Oyalowo said.
Business
In The Spotlight
From ending hunger to eradicating poverty, President Tinubu is making big promises ahead of 2027. But after more than three years in power, Nigerians deserve answers, evidence and measurable results—not another round of political assurances.
Nigeria is hungry for change. Yet, as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu asks Nigerians to give him another four years, he is offering a familiar menu of promises: prosperity, economic recovery, cheaper food, more jobs and an end to poverty.
At the All Progressives Congress (APC) campaign flag-off in Kaduna, the President sought to reassure Nigerians that better days were ahead. He promised growth, opportunity and recovery, insisting that his administration was working to eradicate hunger and poverty.
But Nigerians have heard these promises before.
In 2023, Tinubu campaigned on the promise of Renewed Hope. Today, as he prepares to seek another mandate, the question confronting his administration is unavoidable: what has happened to the hope Nigerians were promised the first time?
For millions of citizens battling soaring living costs, struggling businesses and shrinking purchasing power, another promise of prosperity may sound less like reassurance and more like a demand for patience from people who have already waited long enough.
Campaign rallies are designed to inspire. Governing, however, demands results.
And it is on that score—not the volume of applause at a stadium—that Tinubu’s promises must be judged.
The President Promises Prosperity. But Where Is the Relief?
Tinubu’s declaration that Nigeria is on the path to prosperity raises an uncomfortable question: prosperity for whom?
The government has defended its economic reforms, particularly the removal of petrol subsidies and changes to the foreign-exchange system, as necessary steps towards stabilising public finances and correcting longstanding economic distortions.
There may be a case for reforms that address structural weaknesses. But economic policies cannot be judged by government revenue, market confidence or official declarations alone.
They must also be judged by what happens in the homes of ordinary Nigerians.
Can families afford three meals a day? Can workers pay their bills without exhausting their salaries? Can small businesses survive rising operating costs? Can young graduates find decent jobs instead of spending years searching for employment?
These are the questions that matter.
Macroeconomic stability is important, but it means little to a family that cannot afford food or a worker whose salary loses purchasing power every month. Growth that fails to improve living standards risks becoming a statistic without meaning for those left behind.
Tinubu cannot simply ask Nigerians to trust that prosperity is coming. He must show them where it is, how it is being delivered and when they can reasonably expect to feel its benefits.
Poverty Will Go? Nigerians Want to Know When.
Perhaps no promise is more consequential—or more demanding—than Tinubu’s pledge to eradicate poverty.
At the Kaduna rally, the President blamed previous administrations and political opponents for hunger and poverty, insisting that his government was trying to eliminate both.
But blaming yesterday’s leaders cannot become an excuse for the shortcomings of today’s government.
Nigeria’s economic problems predate Tinubu’s presidency. Years of weak growth, insecurity, infrastructure deficits and policy failures have contributed to the country’s difficulties. Yet Tinubu has been in charge since May 2023, and his administration must accept responsibility for its own record.
The President cannot claim credit for every improvement while assigning every setback to his predecessors.
If his government is serious about ending poverty, Nigerians deserve clear targets, credible timelines and regular reports showing how many people have been lifted out of poverty and how many remain trapped in it.
Which programmes are working? Which have failed? How much has been spent? What has changed for the poorest households?
Without answers, the promise to eradicate poverty risks becoming another attractive campaign slogan—repeated at rallies while struggling families continue to count the cost of survival.
Fuel Subsidy: Nigerians Are Paying, But What Are They Getting in Return?
Tinubu’s declaration that petrol subsidy belongs to the past leaves little doubt about his intention to maintain the policy direction adopted in 2023.
His administration has argued that removing the subsidy would free public resources for infrastructure, education, healthcare and other essential services. It has also cited corruption and inefficiencies associated with the former system.
But a policy does not become successful merely because a president insists that there is no going back.
The removal of the subsidy has had far-reaching consequences for transport costs, food distribution and the operating expenses of businesses. For many households, the increased cost of getting to work, moving goods and meeting basic needs has become a daily burden.
The crucial question is whether the promised benefits are reaching the people who have borne the costs.
Where is the transparent accounting of the savings? How much has been channelled into public services? What measurable relief have vulnerable households received?
If the government believes the policy is working, it should demonstrate that success with verifiable evidence.
Nigerians cannot be expected to accept hardship indefinitely on the strength of promises about future benefits. Sacrifice without visible returns is not a sustainable economic strategy; it is a test of public patience.
Hunger Cannot Be Defeated With Speeches
Tinubu’s promise to eradicate hunger is another declaration that must be measured against reality.
Food is not a luxury. It is a basic necessity. When families struggle to afford it, the consequences extend beyond household budgets to public health, education, productivity and social stability.
The administration’s 2023 agenda included agricultural hubs, improved storage facilities, reduced post-harvest losses and other measures intended to strengthen food production and affordability.
These are relevant objectives. But Nigerians need to know how far the programmes have progressed and whether they are producing measurable results.
Farmers need security to cultivate their land. They need affordable fertiliser, seeds, equipment, financing and reliable access to markets. Food must also be transported and stored efficiently before it reaches consumers.
A serious food-security strategy must address the entire chain, not simply promise more agricultural production.
The government should publish clear figures on food production, food insecurity, agricultural investment and the prices consumers pay for essential commodities.
It must also explain what it will do differently where existing interventions have failed to deliver sufficient relief.
The President may declare war on hunger, but the victory will be determined at the market, in the kitchen and on the tables of Nigerian families.
One Million Digital Jobs: Where Is the Scorecard?
Tinubu’s 2023 campaign included a pledge to create one million jobs in the digital economy. His wider agenda also promised employment through industrial development, infrastructure and support for businesses.
As he seeks another term, these commitments demand a public accounting.
How many sustainable jobs have been created? How many young Nigerians have secured paid employment through government-backed initiatives? How many trained participants have found work? How many businesses have expanded their workforce because of government support?
These are basic questions, not political traps.
Nigeria’s young people need more than motivational speeches about opportunity. They need an economy in which education can lead to employment, enterprise can lead to growth and hard work can provide a route out of poverty.
Training programmes are useful, but training without employment opportunities cannot solve the jobs crisis. Entrepreneurship initiatives matter, but young business owners also need affordable finance, reliable electricity, dependable internet and a stable operating environment.
If the administration has made substantial progress, it should publish the figures. If it has fallen short, it should explain why and present a credible corrective plan.
A million-job promise should not remain suspended between campaign rhetoric and public expectation.
## Workers May Receive Their Salaries, But Can They Still Afford to Live?
Tinubu has defended his administration’s record on regular salary payments, praising APC governors for their performance.
But the regular payment of salaries, important as it is, cannot be the sole measure of workers’ welfare.
What matters is what those salaries can buy.
A worker may receive a salary on time and still struggle to pay rent, buy food, cover transport costs and meet school fees. A nominal increase in wages can also lose much of its value when prices rise faster than earnings.
Workers need purchasing power, decent working conditions and access to affordable essential services. They need an economy in which employment offers security rather than merely a monthly reminder of how much living has become.
The administration should therefore look beyond payroll compliance and demonstrate how its policies are affecting real wages, household incomes and living standards.
For millions of workers, the question is brutally simple: if they are earning, why are so many still struggling?
Roads Are Welcome. Accountability Is Essential.
Tinubu’s inauguration of an 81-kilometre section of the Abuja-Kaduna-Zaria-Kano dual carriageway provides a tangible infrastructure milestone for the administration to showcase.
Roads can improve connectivity, facilitate trade and help farmers move produce to markets. Infrastructure investment can also create jobs and support economic growth.
But an inauguration is not the end of the story.
Citizens deserve to know how much projects cost, whether they were delivered on schedule, whether construction meets the required standards and what economic benefits they are expected to generate.
The same scrutiny should apply to railways, electricity projects, ports and other major public investments.
Nigeria has enormous infrastructure needs and limited public resources. Every naira spent must therefore be justified by value, quality and public benefit.
The government should not merely count kilometres of roads inaugurated. It should demonstrate how completed projects reduce transport costs, improve access to markets and strengthen economic activity.
Public infrastructure is not a political gift to citizens. It is a public investment financed with resources that belong to them.
Four More Years? First, Account for the First Three.
Tinubu’s request for another term raises a legitimate question of continuity: should an administration have more time to complete reforms whose benefits may take years to materialise?
There is no automatic answer. Some reforms require sustained implementation, and governments cannot reasonably be expected to solve every structural problem in a single term.
But continuity cannot be an argument for postponing accountability.
Before asking Nigerians to renew his mandate, the President should provide a detailed performance report against his 2023 commitments. That report should distinguish completed promises from ongoing programmes, explain missed targets and establish measurable objectives for any proposed second term.
It should include:
- Poverty: Verifiable evidence of progress in reducing poverty and improving household incomes.
- Food: Measurable progress on food insecurity, agricultural productivity and consumer prices.
- Jobs: An independently verifiable account of employment created, including the durability and quality of those jobs.
- Economic reforms: Transparent information on fiscal savings, public spending and the distribution of benefits and costs.
- Workers: Evidence of improvements in real wages and purchasing power.
- Infrastructure: Project costs, delivery schedules, quality assessments and public benefits.
These are the foundations of responsible democratic accountability.
A second-term manifesto should not simply recycle the first term’s ambitions. It should explain what has been achieved, what has not, why the gaps exist and how the administration intends to close them.
Conclusion: Hope Must Not Become an Excuse for Broken Expectations
Tinubu’s Kaduna campaign has placed prosperity, poverty eradication, food security, employment and infrastructure at the centre of his re-election message.
These are precisely the issues on which Nigerians need decisive progress. But the importance of the promises makes scrutiny more necessary, not less.
The President can defend his reforms. He can argue that the economy needs more time to respond. He can point to projects completed and policies introduced. But he must also confront the hardship that persists and demonstrate that the benefits of his economic agenda are reaching ordinary citizens.
Nigerians should not have to choose between accepting every government explanation and dismissing every policy initiative. They deserve the evidence needed to judge the administration on its actual record.
The 2027 campaign must therefore be more than a contest of speeches, slogans and promises. It must be an opportunity to demand measurable commitments and hold those seeking power accountable for their performance.
Tinubu says poverty will go. Nigerians want to know when. He promises prosperity. They want to know for whom. He asks for four more years. They want to know what he has achieved with the years already given to him.
These are not hostile questions. They are democratic obligations.
The burden is on the President to show that his promises amount to more than words spoken from a campaign podium.
Nigeria does not need hope without evidence, reforms without accountability or promises without deadlines. It needs results that citizens can see, feel and afford.
In The Spotlight
The 2027 elections are just two months away, and nothing about the opposition tells you that they are serious and that they are ready to wrestle power from the ruling APC. The APC has a whopping 12.9 million registered members; the PDP has 2.4 million; the ADC has between 1.2 and 1.6 million; and the LP has 1.3 million. This registration is NIN-based, so figure manipulation is eliminated.
The figures speak volumes about the parties’ nationwide spread and presence, and their ability to mobilise supporters for elections. In the recent off-season elections held in Bauchi, Kano, Gombe and Delta states, the APC swept all the seats, with only the APM winning one seat in Bauchi state.
This is a glimpse of the level of preparedness of the parties across the country, 3 months away from an election. The APC has a controlling majority in terms of the number of state governors, leading with 31 governors, with the APM following with 2, while ACCORD, APGA, and Labour parties have one each. It is the same picture in the National Assembly, with the APC leading with 88 senators, followed by the ADC with 9 senators, PDP with 5 senators, NDC with 4 senators, while APGA, ACCORD, and Labour parties have 1 senator each. In the House of Representatives, the APC has 242 seats, the PDP has 72, the Labour Party has 22, the NNPP has 15, and the rest are shared among the other parties.
If the opposition was upbeat about Gov. Adeleke’s victory in Osun State, today, he is leading President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s presidential campaign council in the state. This is not limited to Osun State alone in the ranks of the opposition parties, as Prof. Charles Soludo, the Governor of Anambra State, is also the coordinator of President Tinubu’s campaign council in his state. The FCT minister, Mr Nyesom Wike of the PDP, also leads President Tinubu’s campaign council in Abuja, even though he belongs to the PDP. Mr Wike is leading a rainbow coalition, a cross-party political platform convened by the FCT minister to support President Tinubu’s 2nd-term election. All these governors and party leaders have set aside political and party differences to support President Tinubu’s 2nd term. The political parties and their leaderships, namely the APC, APGA, ACCORD, and PDP, have reached a consensus on their preferred presidential candidate, even if they have different ideas or candidates at the grassroots level.
The Peter Obi/Kwankwaso ticket of the NDC has lost considerable steam for many reasons. The momentum Peter Obi gathered in 2023 has waned because he has been deemed to lack focus and a clear ideology. He has flip-flopped innumerable times on policies and has failed to produce a blueprint or manifesto for what he wants to do. The large followership he commanded in the North Central states has been considerably broken by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s forays into the region. Most of those states are now APC states, with the APC party chairman, Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda, and the Defence Minister, Gen. Christopher Musa, as well as Gov. Agbu Kefas of Taraba and Gov. Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau, leading President Tinubu’s charge for North Central votes. Prof. Soludo of Anambra State is also keen on making significant forays into the Obidients’ followership in his state. This is the same in Imo, with Gov. Hope Uzodinma curtailing Peter Obi’s influence in the state, thereby reducing Peter Obi’s support base in the South East. Kwankwaso’s influence on the ticket is limited to Kano alone, not to a single other northern state. Kano is likely to be evenly split between President Tinubu and Peter Obi/ Kwankwaso of the NDC.
Alh. Atiku Abubakar’s ADC charge has been lacklustre, uncoordinated, and lacking in momentum. It also seems to be lacking in funding, unlike previous campaigns he waged, in which he went toe-to-toe with the ruling party and matched their spending. His campaign also lacks heavyweights that could make a difference. It does not have the PDP structure it has run on previously, so the finances and the personnel are just not there. Unfortunately for him, his politicking only comes alive during election seasons, and he has been unable to build and maintain a political structure outside them. He has not been able to mobilise the opposition to come together under his umbrella, to launch a charge to unseat President Tinubu. The Kwankwasos and the Elrufais are missing from his campaigns, and so are the Wikes. Former Governor Rotimi Amaechi, as his running mate, lacks the support they require from the massive votes in Rivers and seems clueless in other South-South states. This is perhaps Atiku’s poorest outing yet, and I believe he ought to have relinquished his quest for the Presidency this time round. Changing political parties every election season does not exude ideology, vision, or focus. It reeks of desperation. The greatest undoing of the opposition, however, is their collective inability to come together as one and push a single candidate. They remain disunited in their quests.
President Tinubu’s wager for the Presidency back in 2023 was a well-organised, well-oiled, and properly structured campaign that made use of structures long built over the years. Against all odds, he emerged as the APC flagbearer and eventually the winner of the elections. Since then, his government has embarked on reforms and policy implementation that have led to the emancipation of our economy. Our foreign reserves are stronger, our GDP is on a continuous upward trend, we have stronger FDI inflows than we have seen in decades, and we are achieving food security. Agreed, more can be done to cushion the effects of these reforms on the common man, and the government is not resting on its laurels. The opposition does not have clear policies and programmes to run on.
Their only programme is to seize power, and that is it. As far as 2027 is concerned, President Tinubu’s campaign council is not only replicating the structure and mode of operation of its 2023 campaigns but also perfecting them, with 31 governors and their structures on board. The fact that President Tinubu is visiting a select number of states makes it even more efficient. Those states are the ones he needs to make a difference in from the last round of elections. He is better prepared and more equipped now, with more hands on deck. He is not ’emilokaning’ this one; he is bossing it as the C-in-C, without any gimmicks or cabals standing in his way.
By Tahir Ibrahim Tahir