Connect with us

Opinion

Education,ASUU And The Globalist Agenda (I)

Published

on

Professor Lukman Diso

 

L. I. Diso
BUK

When William Saint, the World Bank Education Consultant, came to Bayero University, Kano in 1999/2000, he hadn’t had the slightest idea that ASUU was ready for him. He was shocked by the level of mobilization and the ambush set to give him the terrifying welcome. The naive mindset people on such missions usually have about Africans being complacent, or having short memory and lacking a sense of history, was clearly visible in his mien. The apparent sudden realization that, contrary to his expectation, ASUU seemed to know the agenda they had been implementing in the last three decades (1970s, 1980s & 1990s), was, perhaps, what terrified him the more.

Let us take a short trip through these decades to see the picture that provides the logical context to this discussion. We shall return to Mr Saint to see who he was, what his mission in Nigeria was, how he planned to accomplish the mission, his encounter with ASUU at Bayero University, Kano, and part of his report recommendations to the World Bank.

All these may help to unravel the critical questions of why education has been systematically accorded diminishing national priority, and its role in Nigeria’s national development been consistently receding in the last 60 years. They would also help to deepen our insights into the trajectory that has shaped ASUU’s evolution and its struggles through the decades. Arising from all this may be the temptation to raise and tackle the following questions:
– Why has ASUU, of all the education stakeholders, decided to be the only consistent defender of education in Nigeria?
– Why do different Nigerian governments invariably respond to education crisis in the same pattern?
– What are the implications of government’s brazen hostility to education and the intermittent disruptions that follow as a consequence?
– What lessons could be learnt from ASUU’s consistent struggles for decades?

ASUU Strike And Posterity-Ameer Abdul Aziz

The 1960s, the decade of Nigeria’s independence, was afflicted with crippling political crisis, so turbulent that the new nation was shaken to its very roots. Whether it was an inevitable corollary of colonial vestiges that characterized such emerging nations, education, especially university education, seemed to remain relatively insulated, and as robust as it was anywhere in the world. The university teaching and learning environment, infrastructure and facilities were of high standard and comparably as good as anywhere in Europe and North America. Conditions of service were equally good and attractive. Staffing policy, in terms of staff-students ratio and staff mix, was based on best-practice standards, which produced a cosmopolitan environment and a vibrant academic culture necessary for university to thrive.
Therefore, the need for coming together as a body to represent the academics was not felt until 1965 when the Association for University Teachers (AUT) was formed. AUT was not political. It was formed to cater only for the welfare of the academics. Other variables that define university seemed to have been taken for granted.

However, in the decade of prosperity and consolidation, as the 1970s were referred to, Nigerian Universities began to slide gradually, at the beginning, as the military consolidated their firm grips on the country. Suddenly, though consciously, as if jinxed to a morgaged future, Nigeria decided to embrace a policy that marked the beginning of the cascading crisis that has bedevilled education, particularly university education, to this day, and likely, to a distant future. AUT protested to the extent of a strike to press for the Government to address the deteriorating conditions of education – teaching and learning, and welfare of staff and students.

However, the Gowon Military Government responded ruthlessly and crushed the strike. That experience served as an eye opener for the academics, and they moved to change the dynamics.

Despite the relative obscurity of the policy’s source and contents, it triggered a warning from concerned visionary and farsighted Nigerian citizens, scholars and the ASUU, which was formed in 1978 from the National Association of University Teachers (NAUT). They warned that the policy was clearly meant to serve the master and to rule over the target with all ruthlessness, to forcefully impose its contents, and ultimately emasculate the university system and education in general. However, as the decade was largely characterized by military culture, and the government, itself remotely manipulated by the same forces that had designed the policy, the warning was ignored. This explains why Obasanjo Military Regime witnessed a lot of crises in the education sector.

The NPN civilian government under Shagari (1979-1983) was a bit cautious towards university education, although there were largely unsuccessful attempts to violate university autonomy in order to implement the same surreptitious agenda. ASUU’s spirited resistance thwarted the implementation of the agenda. As the dogged struggle deepened, the first agreement that gave the academic staff the USS scale with 20% differential relative to civil service scale, was signed in 1982.

Advert

The deepening contradictions in the Shagari Civilian administration provided the excuse that brought Buhari/Idiagbon military regime (Dec.1983- Aug. 1985) in a bloodless coup D’tat. Immediately they settled the military authoritarian culture began to manifest: the repressive policy mills were hastily deployed to launch a direct assault on the University and draconian decrees arbitrarily manufactured. Under this regime, the University was subjected to a torrent of attacks including:
– Termination of university cafetaria services
– Withdrawal of subsidies on accommodation in universities
– Workers retrenchment and wage freeze
– Transfer of university senate’s powers to NUC through Decree 16 of 1985
– Workers retrenchment and wage freeze
ASUU never relented in its strong resistence to these authoritarian policies despite all the harrassment and intimidation the union faced as a consequence.
The palace coup that toppled Buhari and brought Ibrahim Bodamasi Babangida (IBB) regime (1985 – 1993) was a continuation of the military and their repressive anti-intellectual culture. IBB regime never pretended that it was there to serve interests other than Nigerians’. Shortly after settling, the regime dropped the bombshell, unveiling a World Bank/IMF-packaged economic policy with fanatical determination to implement. While the regime initiated a national debate as to whether or not to take the IMF loan, it contemptuously ignored the process and silently took the loan with all the conditionalities before the public final verdict (a clearly overwhelming rejection). Nigerians were shocked by the regime’s stunning insensitivity in this reckless disregard for the far reaching and devastating socio-economic and political implications of this action.
ASUU became the intellectual light, in the forefront leading the resistance movement, providing an incisive critique of the regime’s economic policy and presenting simplefied but thorough analysis of the policy’s implications. The duo of ASUU and the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), the former being an affiliate of the latter, became the most consistent and vocal critics of the policy, vigorously mobilizing the nation with the dogged insistence, to force the government to reverse its decision. As the government intentensified the commitment to the ruthless implementation of this anti-people economic policy, ASUU, NLC, NANS and other pro-people organizations turned the situation into a season of revolutionary activities: intellectually scathing public lectures and production of mobilizational publications to galvanize public opinion against government’s submission to the oppressive policy.
Sensing the massive public support and reaction and the obvious likely consequences, the IBB Regime bared its fangs, unleashing all the repressive instruments at their disposal. Barely one year into IBB’s tenure, the Regime started the full implementation of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) as a package of the IMF conditionalities. NLC, ASUU and NANS started to organize mass protest. NANS, using the Commemoration Day of “Ali-Must- GO”, staged a mass protest, in which many students were shot and killed in ABU, Zaria. The Government’s crackdown was widened and started in full swing:
– Arbitrary arrest of NLC leaders and “bombardment” of NLC offices started across Nigeria
– Plans to Weaken ASUU were hastily hatched and implemented
(1) ASUU was de-affiliated from the NLC by Decree 16 of 1986
(2) Payment of check off dues was made voluntary for ASUU and NANS
(3)The Abisoye Panel set up on ABU Crisis recommended sacking of lecturers for “…not teaching what they were paid to teach”
– A Year later (1987) UniBen VC, Prof. Grace Alele Williams, acting on the contrived report of visitation panel, announced the sack of ASUU President, Dr.Festus Iyayi, from the University. (ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017).
By the time Dr Attahiru M Jega (Dr Iyayi’s Vice-President) was elected ASUU President in an early NDC in 1988, the IBB regime, following the World Bank Agenda, had added more to the list of its atrocities. In fact, a reign of terror was unleashed:
– Government’s plans to retrench lecturers and rationalize courses had already reached advanced stages
– Dr. Patrick Wilmot (ABU, Zaria), a Scholar and vocal critic of Western imperialism, and Ms. Firinne N.C. Adelugba (BUK) had been covertly abducted and deported from Nigeria
– Government was blatant in its refusal to implement the earlier negotiated EUSS (Elongated University Salary Structure)
– As fuel prices were hiked by the Regime, students protested and the Government responded with massive crackdown on their leadership and on other activists across the country
– NLC was summarily dissolved and sole administrator appointed. (ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017)
These constituted Dr Jega’s immediate challenges as the new ASUU President, and his EXCO set out to confront them head on. They formed Joint Action Committee (JAC) with the Senior Staff Association of University Teaching Hospital, Research Institutes and Allied Institutions (SSAUTHRIAI) to present a united front. JAC submitted its demands to Government, which were expectedly shunned. Joint strike commenced nationwide on July 1, 1988. Curiously, only ASUU was immediately banned. The leadership of SSAUTHRIAI immediately capitulated, dissociated itself from the JAC and called off the strike. ASUU continued with the strike under University Lecturers’ Association (ULA). Government immediately launched a crackdown on national and local leadership of ASUU. Drs Jega, Iyayi, and other national officers were arrested and taken to unknown location (which was later learnt to be Lagos) for over a month. Many branch chairmen, secretaries and activists of the Union were arrested across the nation. Yet, the declared strike was kept alive by, more or less, leaderless members; it lingered for sometime, but finally fizzled out unofficially.
Signature campaigns for the release of all the arrested ASUU leaders and members were initiated nationwide. A legal action was instituted in Kano High Court for their freedom. A day to the verdict, Dr Jega was produced and presented to the court; and all others were released. Case closed, but ASUU remained officially banned (1988-1990). Despite this situation, academics never ceased to organize. They continued to network and organize under different names. It was remarkable, given the circumstances, to be able to stop the World Bank University Sector Loan Facility and consequential staff rationalization. The Loan Facility was carefully packaged to sow the seed for Nigerian University System Innovation Project (NUSIP), which popped up later as Obasanjo Administration’s initiative.
The occurrance of an interesting coincidence in 1990 helped to expose the desperation of the IBB regime to implement the IMF/World Bank policies. A day after the Association of University Teachers (AUT) – name adopted by the banned ASUU – had held a National Conference on the World Bank in OAU, Ile-Ife, the Orka Coup took place, April 22, 1990. In his coup speech, Major Gideon Orkar made apparently innocuous reference to the prevalent repressive tendencies of IBB and his Government. He adduced three reasons for the coup, part of which included:
“(d) The intent to cow the students by the promulgation of the draconian Decree Number 47.
(e) The cowing of the university teaching and non-teaching staff by an intended massive purge, using the 150 million dollar loan as the necessitating factor.”
Given the contemporary issues against which the ASUU, NLC and students were consistently united, and that which informed the core of their struggles against the government, it was easy for a sensitive government like IBB’s to perceive a connection between the coup and the conference. Hence, the conferene organizers, Prof. Omotoye Olorode and Dr. Idowu Awopetu (ASUU National Treasurer) were immediately arrested and detained as alledged coup suspects.They were subjected to military trials (Court Martial) but were found innocent and released. Yet, they were compulsorily retired “in public interest”. They were reinstated by the court when Prof. Aliu Babatunde Fafunwa became Education Minister.
After a long spell of unease between the Government and AUT (the former still defiant to address ASUU’s demands), September 1990 became a new dawn for ASUU as it was deproscribed. ASUU intensified its demand for collective bargaining – to negotiate the conditions of service and other work-related issues for its members. The IBB Gvernment remained adamant and invariably hostile whenever ASUU made attempt to push its demands, until May 1992, when Dr Jega was reelected President. After several failed efforts to get the Government to start negotiation, ASUU commenced the suspended strike. However, as if that was the Greenhouse conditions desperately needed, the Government readily submitted to start negotiation as the strike subsisted. What an irony! No sooner had the negotiation commenced than it was unilaterally suspended by the Government! ASUU had no option than to commence the strike.
On May 25, the strike commenced, but had to be suspended on May 30 as Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) stepped in. That marked the beginning of a series of crowded activities as ASUU responded to every Government move to arm-twist its way. ASUU continued to checkmate the Government’s unsavory litiny of absurdities until one by one they reached their climax and crumbled with a bang. Follow the labyrinth of tragicomedy of industrial relations as it unfolded:
– On June 1, the IAP found Dr Jega guilty of contempt of court, but the judge, apparently considering the weighty political implications, decided to waive it.
– On July 20, with Government irresponsibilty, ASUU had to commence the strike
– On July 22, ASUU was banned again, but the strike continued under Academic Staff of Nigerian Universities (ASNU)
– The situation remained until the Government was forced to negotiate through a committee it constituted
– On September 3, 1992, the two parties reached an agreement on Funding, Conditions of Service [with University Academic Salary Scale (UASS)], and Autonomy and Academic Freedom
– On September 4, the 4-month old strike was suspended and academic activities commenced.
Immediately the Agreement was signed, other university workers were instigated to ask for “parity”, insisting that whatever was given to ASUU must be given to them. Even some of their members reasoned and questioned the basis of their leaders’ claims to parity, pointing out that they had been part of JAC when the struggle had begun, but unilaterally decided to ditch the JAC, capitulated and called off the strike when the chips were down. With our union preserved and intact, and without any collectively bargained agreement, what justification do we have to claim parity? – these SSANU members rationally queried.
However, as implementation of the ASUU Agreement commenced SSANU intensified its parity demand, which led to another round of the “Theatre of the Absurd”. The new vicious cycle started with the appointment of Professor Ben Nwabueze as Secretary (Minister) of Education. He contrived a new concept of “the Agreement of Imperfect Obligation”, meaning that the FG/ASUU Agreement was not (legally) binding on the Government to implement. He therefore directed universities to stop implementing the UASS/USS. Without any provocation, Prof Nwabueze continued his vicious attacks on ASUU with systematic breaches of the Agreement. It was obvious that he was deployed to do the hatchet job, and he was certainly doing it with utmost efficiency. ASUU’s voice of protest was drowned in a wirlwind of blackmail and intimidation. Its persistent demand to stop the breaches of the Agreement came up against a brick wall. With most aspects of the Agreement rolled back and no sign of de-escalating the breaches, ASUU had no option other than to take action.
– ASUU resumed the strike on May 3, 1993, and all member universities joined
– Three days later, the Government announced the dismissal of all striking lecturers and salary stoppage
– A Decree making teaching essential service, retroactively prohibiting teachers from going on strike, was enacted
– All lecturers on strike were given sack letters
– In some campuses, lecturers were ejected from their houses, despite the argument that residency of campus quarters was governed by the rental law.
– A particular case of UniAbuja Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Isa Muhammed, was pathetic. He went to the extent of sending the estate staff to tear off the roofs of lecturers’ houses, and then the security personnel to eject them.
– Even after the reinstatement of all lecturers later, Prof. Isa Muhammed refused to reinstate the EXCO of UniAbuja.

(TO BE CONTINUED…..)

Opinion

How Abba Yusuf Is Positioning Kano as the Commercial and Industrial Capital of Northern Nigeria

Published

on

H

Saminu Umar Ph.D, Senior Lecture; Department of Information and Media Studies, Bayero University, Kano surijyarzaki@gmail.com
There is a particular kind of political courage that does not announce itself with drama, does not seek the validation of crowds, and does not wait for the approval of godfathers. It is the kind that sits quietly inside a budget document, inside a policy decision, inside an early morning visit to a dying industrial estate, inside the deliberate and systematic dismantling of decades of economic underperformance. It is the kind of courage that says, not in speeches but in actions, that a great city will not accept a diminished destiny.
That is the story of Kano under Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf. And it is a story that is only just beginning to be fully told. To appreciate what Governor Yusuf is building, one must first confront, honestly and without sentimentality, what Kano had become before he assumed office in May 2023.
Kano was once, without serious dispute, the undisputed commercial and industrial capital of Northern Nigeria and one of the most economically consequential cities on the African continent. Its trans-Saharan trade connections, dating back more than five centuries, made it a terminal point of commerce linking sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. Its groundnut pyramids, towering monuments of agricultural productivity that defined Nigeria’s pre-oil economy, symbolised a city that understood how to convert natural resources into national wealth. Its textile mills, at their peak employing hundreds of thousands of workers, made it one of West Africa’s most productive manufacturing centres. Its leather industry, anchored on the ancient Kofar Mata dye pits that have operated continuously for over 500 years, produced finished goods that travelled to markets in France, Italy, and across the Arab world.
Then came decades of policy neglect, energy poverty, deindustrialisation, and a political culture that prioritised the personal ambitions of powerful individuals over the developmental needs of a city of millions. The groundnut pyramids disappeared. The textile mills fell silent. The industrial estates, Sharada, Bompai, and Challawa, which once hummed with the sound of productive enterprise, became landscapes of rusting machinery, abandoned factory floors, and unfulfilled potential. Kano did not lose its identity overnight. It lost it slowly, painfully, and largely in silence.
Governor Yusuf inherited that silence. He is determined to fill it with something far more enduring.
The most honest and revealing thing any governor can show you is not a speech. It is a budget. Speeches are aspirations. Budgets are commitments. And the budget Governor Yusuf signed into law for 2026, a historic N1.477 trillion appropriation, the largest in Kano’s entire history, is a commitment of extraordinary ambition and clarity.
Of that figure, 68 percent, representing the overwhelming majority of public expenditure, is allocated to capital projects. Infrastructure receives N346.2 billion, education N405.3 billion, and health N212.2 billion. These are not the budget lines of a government managing decline. They are the budget lines of a government engineering a renaissance.
The infrastructure allocation alone signals the governor’s understanding that no city can reclaim commercial and industrial leadership without the physical foundations to support it. Urban road expansions, transformer procurement, solar streetlight installation across the state, housing development initiatives, and market renovation projects spanning all 44 local government areas of the state are not isolated interventions. They are components of a coherent spatial development strategy designed to make Kano physically competitive with any commercial city in West Africa.
The 2025 budget, which preceded this historic 2026 appropriation, recorded over 80 percent implementation performance, a figure that speaks not merely to financial planning but to execution capacity, the rarest and most valuable quality in Nigerian state governance.
No commercial or industrial capital can sustain itself on infrastructure alone. It requires people. Educated, skilled, healthy, and economically empowered people who can drive enterprise, absorb technology, and participate meaningfully in a modern economy. Governor Yusuf understands this with a clarity that is reflected in every major policy decision his administration has taken.
In education, the results are already visible and measurable. Kano ranked first in Nigeria’s 2025 NECO results, a historic achievement for a state that had watched its educational standards erode for years. That ranking did not emerge from luck. It emerged from a state of emergency declared on the education sector, backed by mass classroom renovations, free basic education, payment of NECO fees for students, an expanded scholarship programme, the recruitment of 400 Mathematics teachers, and the establishment of Kano State Polytechnic in Gaya to extend technical and vocational education to the state’s southern corridor.
In healthcare, the administration has invested N149.7 billion in upgrading hospitals across local government areas, launched the Abba Care Scheme to expand health insurance coverage, and partnered with international organisations to strengthen maternal and newborn health services across the North West region.
In women and youth empowerment, over N334 million has been disbursed to 6,680 women across all 44 local government areas, each receiving a monthly stipend of N50,000 to grow their businesses and support their families. More than N800 million has been invested in youth empowerment programmes benefiting over 5,300 young people. Tricycles have been distributed to enable young men and women engage in productive economic activities. These are not welfare gestures. They are deliberate investments in the human capital of a city that intends to lead.
Perhaps the most strategically significant dimension of Governor Yusuf’s industrial vision is his understanding that no state government, regardless of the quality of its internal governance, can fully reposition a city of Kano’s size and complexity without sustained federal partnership. The resources, the regulatory architecture, the trade facilitation frameworks, the innovation infrastructure, and the international connections required to make Kano the commercial and industrial capital of Northern Nigeria exist, in significant measure, at the federal level.
That understanding was at the heart of his historic decision to align Kano with the Federal Government under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Critics characterised the decision in political terms. The governor has consistently characterised it in developmental terms. The distinction matters enormously.
The immediate and most visible fruit of that alignment is the national launch of the Energise Commercialisation Now initiative in Kano from April 23 to 25, 2026, to be flagged off by Her Excellency Senator Oluremi Tinubu, CON, First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The programme, designed to identify commercially viable innovations, connect them with investors and manufacturers, and scale them into enterprises that create jobs and generate wealth, is precisely the kind of federal intervention that Kano’s industrial revival requires.
For Kano’s universities, including Bayero University Kano, Kano University of Science and Technology Wudil, and Northwest University Kano, the ECoN initiative creates a structured pipeline from academic research to commercial application. For the innovators and entrepreneurs in Kano’s vibrant informal sector, it creates access to financing, mentorship, and market connections that were previously unavailable. For the industrial estates of Sharada, Bompai, and Challawa, it signals the arrival of the investment mobilisation agenda that could finally reverse decades of industrial decline.
A commercial and industrial capital cannot ignore the productive hinterland that feeds it, supplies its raw materials, and employs the majority of its population. Governor Yusuf has not made that mistake.
His administration has procured 199,000 bags of fertiliser for distribution to farmers across the state, approved 11 mini-dams to support year-round agricultural production, and hired new agricultural extension workers to improve farming practices and productivity. It has revived garment clusters in all 44 local government areas, remodelled major markets, and strengthened SME support structures that connect small producers to larger commercial networks.
On the environment, the administration has planted over 5.5 million trees under its Climate Change Policy, cleared drainage channels across the state, and procured waste management equipment to address the urban environmental challenges that deter investment and reduce quality of life in major commercial cities. These are the actions of a government that understands that sustainable commercial and industrial leadership requires a liveable, well-managed, and environmentally responsible city.
Political analysts tracking Kano’s trajectory have begun to note a pattern that goes beyond routine governance. Governor Yusuf, they observe, has spent the past two years systematically rebuilding Kano’s institutional foundations, redirecting loyalty structures toward Government House, and positioning the state for a new era of political and economic relevance that will define not only the 2027 general elections but the decade beyond them.
The governor himself has been characteristically direct about his intentions. He designated 2026 as the Year of Youth Employment and Peace, a declaration that frames job creation not as a political promise but as a governance priority with a specific timeline and a clear accountability framework. He has engaged members of the National Assembly representing Kano in structured dialogue designed to align state executive priorities with federal legislative action, creating a coordination architecture that maximises the state’s ability to attract and deploy federal resources.
The result of all this is a Kano that is, for the first time in a generation, moving with purpose, direction, and momentum toward the commercial and industrial leadership that its history, its people, and its potential have always demanded.
Kano did not build its legacy in a day. The trans-Saharan traders who made this city a continental commercial crossroads did not do so through speeches or political rallies. They did it through consistent, disciplined, and visionary work across generations. Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf is drawing on that same tradition, applying it to the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, and doing so with the full weight of a state government that has finally, decisively, and irreversibly placed the interests of its people at the centre of every decision it makes.

Advert

The commercial and industrial capital of Northern Nigeria is not a title to be claimed. It is a status to be earned, sustained, and defended through the quality of governance, the depth of investment, and the courage of leadership.

 

Continue Reading

Opinion

First Lady in Kano: What Senator Oluremi Tinubu’s Visit Tells Us About Abuja’s Commitment to Kano’s Industrial Future

Published

on

Kano Map

 

 

Saminu Umar Ph.D, Senior Lecture; Department of Information and Media Studies, Bayero University, Kano surijyarzaki@gmail.com

In the entire history of Kano State, few moments have carried the weight of symbolic and substantive significance that April 23, 2026 promises to deliver. On that day, Her Excellency Senator Oluremi Tinubu, CON, First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, will stand in Nigeria’s most commercially historic city, not as a visitor passing through, but as the personal representative of a presidency that has made a conscious, deliberate, and far-reaching commitment to Kano’s industrial future. For a state that hosts one of West Africa’s busiest and most diverse commercial ecosystems, that accounts for a significant share of Nigeria’s leather, textile, groundnut, and agricultural commodity trade, and that carries within its borders an extraordinary concentration of entrepreneurial talent and industrial heritage, that commitment could not have come at a more critical time.
It is important to establish, from the outset, that Senator Oluremi Tinubu is not a conventional First Lady. In many countries, and indeed in much of Nigeria’s own political history, the office of the First Lady has been largely ceremonial, defined by social welfare appearances, ribbon cuttings, and charitable foundations. Senator Tinubu represents a sharp departure from that tradition. She served as the Senator representing Lagos Central Senatorial District in the National Assembly, accumulating a legislative record that spanned poverty alleviation, women’s rights, child welfare, and economic empowerment. She understands the architecture of governance, the language of policy, and the machinery of federal bureaucracy in ways that most ceremonial First Ladies simply do not.
When the Honourable Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Dr. Kingsley Tochukwu Udeh, SAN, personally visited the State House in Abuja in March 2026 to brief Senator Tinubu and formally request her championship of the Energise Commercialisation Now initiative, her acceptance was not the passive endorsement of a spouse lending her name to a government programme. It was the active engagement of a political leader who understood exactly what the programme was designed to achieve, and who brought her own convictions, her own networks, and her own authority to its execution. The First Lady is not merely attending the Kano event. She is championing it, and there is a profound difference between the two.
To understand why Abuja’s commitment to Kano’s industrial future matters so enormously, one must understand what Kano already is, and what it could become with the right federal partnership.
Kano State, with an estimated population of over 20 million people, is the most populous state in Nigeria. Its Kurmi Market, one of the oldest and most historically significant trading centres in West Africa, was once the terminal point of trans-Saharan trade routes that connected sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. The city’s leather industry, centred on the ancient Kofar Mata dye pits, produces finished leather goods that have found markets across Europe and Asia for centuries. Its textile sector, once among the most productive in West Africa, employed hundreds of thousands of workers before decades of policy neglect and energy poverty began eroding its foundations. Its agricultural hinterland, stretching across 44 local government areas, produces groundnuts, sorghum, millet, cowpea, and a range of commodities with enormous value-addition and export potential.
Yet despite this extraordinary economic inheritance, Kano has consistently punched below its weight in the national development conversation, largely because of the political isolation that defined its relationship with the Federal Government for too long. A state in perpetual opposition to the centre is a state that watches federal programmes pass it by. A state whose governor answers to a political godfather rather than to his own people is a state that cannot fully mobilise its own resources in the national interest.
Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf’s decision to align with the Federal Government under President Tinubu has fundamentally altered that equation. The ECoN national launch in Kano is among the first, most visible, and most consequential expressions of that alteration.
The Energise Commercialisation Now initiative is structured around a three-day programme format that moves from political mobilisation on day one, through innovation discovery and evaluation on day two, to investment and commercialisation facilitation on day three. For Kano, each of those days carries specific and measurable potential.
On day two alone, exhibiting innovators from Kano’s universities, including Bayero University Kano, Kano University of Science and Technology Wudil, and Northwest University Kano, alongside entrepreneurs from the state’s vibrant informal sector, will have the opportunity to present their innovations to a room containing private sector investors, venture capital firms, development finance institutions, and international partners expected to include representatives from the African Development Bank, Afreximbank, WIPO, and global technology platforms. For many of these innovators, it will be the first time in their careers that they will stand before an audience with the financial capacity and institutional authority to take their ideas from concept to commercial scale.
On day three, the deal rooms and industry matchmaking sessions could potentially generate investment commitments that transform Kano’s manufacturing landscape. The state’s existing industrial clusters, including the Sharada Industrial Estate, the Bompai Industrial Area, and the Challawa Industrial Estate, all of which have faced longstanding challenges of energy supply, infrastructure maintenance, and access to capital, stand to benefit directly from the investment mobilisation agenda that ECoN is designed to drive.
The Kano State Government has not been waiting passively for federal programmes to arrive. It has been doing the foundational work that makes federal partnership productive rather than performative.

Advert

The state’s 2026 budget of N1.477 trillion, the largest in its history, allocates N405.3 billion to education, N346.2 billion to infrastructure, and N212.2 billion to health. The administration has trained 2,000 Neighbourhood Watch operatives to strengthen community security, cleared N32 billion in pension backlogs that successive administrations had abandoned, and established Kano State Polytechnic in Gaya to expand technical and vocational education access in the state’s southern corridor. It has planted over 5.5 million trees under its Climate Change Policy, procured 199,000 bags of fertiliser for distribution to farmers, and approved 11 mini-dams to support year-round agricultural production.

These investments create the enabling environment that federal programmes like ECoN require to deliver lasting impact. An innovation commercialisation programme landing in a state with functional schools, rehabilitated hospitals, improved security, and an administration committed to SME development is a programme that has a genuine chance of changing lives. Senator Tinubu is not coming to Kano to commission a programme in a vacuum. She is coming to commission a programme in a state that is ready to receive it, deploy it, and convert it into tangible, lasting prosperity for its people.
Beyond Kano, the First Lady’s visit carries a message for the entire North West geopolitical zone and indeed for every part of Nigeria watching how the Tinubu administration deploys its development programmes. It signals that federal resources follow productive partnership. It signals that states willing to engage constructively with the centre, align with its development agenda, and build their own internal capacity will be rewarded with federal presence, federal investment, and federal attention at the highest levels.
For the governors and First Ladies from across the North West who have been invited to witness the Kano event, the message is unmistakable: this is what constructive federal alignment looks like in practice. This is what it means to place the interests of your people above the dictates of political sentiment.

History does not always announce itself loudly. Sometimes it arrives quietly, in the form of a three-day programme in a city that has waited too long for its moment. When Senator Oluremi Tinubu stands before Kano on April 23, she will not merely be flagging off a federal initiative. She will be opening a chapter in Kano’s industrial story that the state’s millions of people, its traders and craftsmen, its graduates and innovators, its farmers and manufacturers, have every right to read with pride, with hope, and with the quiet, unshakeable confidence that their best days are not behind them.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Amupitan and the Credibility of the 2027 Elections-Salihu Tanko Yakasai

Published

on

 

By Salihu Tanko Yakasai.

In any election, the most important stakeholder is the electoral umpire. Whoever is chosen to lead the electoral body carries a heavy burden, particularly in how key players and observers perceive the independence of that umpire, whether he will be fair and just or take sides with those who appointed him.

Typically, the person appointed to head the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is expected to ensure a level playing field for all candidates, irrespective of whether they belong to the ruling party or the opposition. Over the years in Nigeria, however, some INEC chairmen have been found wanting in the discharge of their duties.

Maurice Iwu is widely regarded as one of Nigeria’s most controversial INEC chairmen, largely because the 2007 elections under his leadership were heavily criticized for irregularities and lack of credibility. Even Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, who won that election, admitted the process was flawed. While some argue he operated within a weak system, his tenure is still often seen as a low point for electoral integrity in Nigeria.

If you’re looking at credibility, transparency, and public trust, his tenure is often seen as a low point for Nigeria’s electoral process.

But from all indications, the current INEC chairman, Joash Amupitan, seems to be on the verge of becoming even worse than Maurice Iwu, as his tenure has been marked by one controversy after another since his appointment.

1- Religious bias allegation

The current INEC chairman, Amupitan, has faced criticism over a past petition in which he reportedly raised concerns about what he described as “Christian genocide.” This has drawn objections from groups such as the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, who argue that such a position raises questions about his neutrality in a religiously diverse country and have called for his removal.

Advert

2- ADC leadership portal controversy

While citing a court order, the INEC chairman reportedly derecognized David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola as Chairman and Secretary of the African Democratic Congress, respectively. This removal from INEC’s official portal could undermine the party’s ability to field candidates. Critics see this as a move that may disadvantage opposition parties in favor of the ruling All Progressives Congress.

3- Voter revalidation exercise concerns

Another major issue was the proposed voter revalidation exercise introduced close to the election timeline, which sparked backlash. Many argued that attempting to revalidate tens of millions of voters within a short period could disenfranchise many Nigerians in the 2027 general elections. Following public pressure, the commission suspended the exercise.

4- Social media partisanship allegation

Questions have been raised about an alleged social media account linked to Amupitan, said to contain posts supportive of the APC and critical of opposition movements such as the “Obidient” movement. Although he denied ownership, some online claims suggest links to personal identifiers such as an email address and phone number, leaving the issue contested.

All these controversies are happening even before the elections. If Maurice Iwu is the yardstick for a poor election umpire, then by all accounts, Amupitan appears to be on track to surpass that record. If he can be perceived as this compromised before the elections, what should be expected on election day?

When the credibility of an election collapses, the consequences go far beyond the ballot box. Voter turnout drops as people begin to feel their votes no longer count, and the legitimacy of whoever emerges as winner is immediately questioned. This often fuels political tension, deepens divisions, and in some cases can trigger unrest. Ultimately, a flawed electoral process does not just produce disputed outcomes, it weakens public trust in democracy itself and makes governance far more difficult.

This is why all well-meaning Nigerians, as well as the international community, must lend their voices to calls for the removal of such a controversial INEC chairman. The credibility of the elections is already being questioned even before they are held. It is like a referee in a football match wearing the jersey of one of the teams, you do not need anyone to tell you that such a referee cannot be neutral.

As Kofi Annan once said, “Credible elections are the cornerstone of democracy.” When that credibility is in doubt, the very foundation of the democratic process is weakened. Nigeria cannot afford to gamble with that foundation in 2027.

Continue Reading

Trending