The National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) has reiterated its commitment to grooming credible leaders for national development, declaring that it will not succumb to what it described as blackmail by students unwilling to abide by the Institute’s rules.

In a statement on Sunday, Head of Public Affairs at the Institute, Prof. Sola Adeyanju, reacted to a media report linked to a student identified simply as Yeshua, describing it as an attempt to discredit the institution.

Adeyanju noted that a petition allegedly sent to the President but instead published in the media contained claims of intimidation, which he dismissed as baseless. He maintained that NIPSS remains focused on its core mandate of training top decision-makers and policy-makers across the public and private sectors.

As Nigeria’s foremost policy think tank, NIPSS is mandated to build leaders who are effective, ethical, and capable of making sound decisions in their organisations and for the country,” he stated.

As Nigeria’s foremost policy think tank, NIPSS is mandated to build leaders who are effective, ethical, and capable of making sound decisions in their organisations and for the country,” he stated.

He said, “In doing this, it has set some parameters along the lines of discipline, time management, emotional intelligence, respect for rules and regulations, respect for other people’s rights, and many more. Those who have passed through the National Institute trainings, particularly the Senior Executive Course, leading to the award of the Member of the National Institute (mni), will attest to this.

The performance of the products of the National Institute has been acknowledged in Nigeria and around the world; that is in addition to its cutting-edge, top-notch research results for national development. It has not, at any time, been found wanting in the discharge of all its mandates and obligations.

This is the 47th Course and the graduates with mni are always proud and happy to raise their shoulders high wherever they find themselves for the level of moulding they have received from the National Institute.

Coming to the specific issue of Mal Yushau, it is a case of someone who would not allow himself to be subjected to constituted authorities in the Institute. One of the cardinal rules of the National Institute is to keep whatever is discussed within, particularly during plenary, confidential.

This is a rule that all participants have signed to uphold. It is modelled along the Chatham House Rule. The essence is to give all our resource persons the freedom of intellectual and academic independence to speak their minds. Whatever will be published should be after the course is concluded. In fact, some process their Individual Research Projects into books, with approval from the Management.

However, Mr Yushau, being a PR and media person, violated this rule by publishing what transpired in the Institute. He got it wrong by insinuating that he meant well. The truth is, the content is immaterial; the act of publishing when you are not supposed to is what matters.

Mr Yushau knows very well that he signed the document where he promised to abide by this rule. Upon violation, he was queried and he responded by apologising. Thereafter, he was warned that it should never happen again.

However, it did not take Mr Yushau long before re-violating the same rule he was warned about. He published another story on the theme of the study given to the Senior Executive Participants of SEC 47, 2025, and NIPSS, which he belonged to, using his byline.

The study is still ongoing and should not, by any imagination, be published, in part or full, until the Course is over. This is in flagrant violation of the rules for which he was appropriately queried for the second time.

‘However, instead of replying to the query accordingly, Mr Yushau threw caution to the wind and decided to lecture and threaten the National Institute on the inappropriateness of issuing him a query. This he did in bad faith. Let us reiterate that the cheap blackmail of saying the content was to support Mr President on his agenda cannot hold.

We are all working towards the success of Mr President, as exemplified in the many detailed research and other activities of the Institute being submitted to Mr President from time to time.

Nevertheless, being an orderly and law-abiding Institution, with a reputation built over the years with a clear and known ethos and standards, Mr Yushau was given a suspension for six weeks, after receiving the second query for the same offence. He was still serving the suspension when he sent a letter of complaint to the media, insinuating bullying.

We need to stress here that all we asked Mr Yushau to do is obey laid down rules and regulations, and this is not tantamount to bullying in whatever way. The newspaper did a story on this, and the Director General gave a detailed response.

“As if that was not enough, his case is still being considered, as he has been invited by the Disciplinary Committee set up by the Management to look into his case and give him a fair hearing when he decided to publish (again) a petition meant for Mr President in the media. One would have thought that a petition meant for Mr President would be submitted in his office.

We are aware that he has been going from one media house to another in order to blackmail the National Institute. This is counterproductive, as the National Institute will not subject itself to blackmail by a candidate who refuses to obey simple rules and regulations.

“The National Institute, in line with the dreams of its founding fathers, many of whom are still alive, will not reduce the standard of producing decent, courteous, sound and effective leaders for the country. Let us say here that Mr Yushau is using his affiliation with the media for a negative cause.

Contrary to his claims, he is actually trying to denigrate the very National think tank, which is the pride of Nigeria, for his selfish end. That Mr Yushau’s nomination came from the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations, NIPR (an organisation we are all proud of) speaks volumes.

He has not demonstrated the very tenet of public relations, as he has not only let himself down professionally, but he has let his nominating agency down. We are looking for leaders with emotional intelligence, not those who will betray his or her temperament when faced with the issue of discipline.

Without prejudice to the outcome of his letter to Mr President, let it be on record that the NIPR has also set up a panel of inquiry to look into his case. The questions Mr Yushau should ask himself are: how many participants are in his Course, and how many of them have been queried twice within two months? For the benefit of doubt, there are 96 of them, and he is the only one who has gotten two queries.

We leave this to the general public to judge. In conclusion, the Disciplinary Committee set up to look into his case has submitted its report to Management, and the six-week suspension has not lapsed, so we await the verdict of Management on his case. Until then, we want to thank all our media organisations for holding on to the truth.”

Nation