ONE TABLET A DAY: WHEN SCANDALS BECOME A DAILY PRESCRIPTION.
Hardly does the country recover from one disturbing revelation before another lands on the national table. A questionable budget line today. A fictitious government Agency tomorrow. An appointee refusing to obey the President the next day. Then, almost casually, a senior official is caught on camera encouraging the destabilisation of an opposition party. And a dead body in a locked room.
Individually, each controversy is troubling. Collectively, they paint a frightening picture of a government whose internal controls, moral authority and respect for democratic institutions are steadily deteriorating.
Not every allegation has been conclusively proved in court. Some remain subjects of investigation with predetermined outcomes and official denial. But when controversies become this frequent—and when transparent explanations are repeatedly delayed—public suspicion is no longer unreasonable.
The ₦6.44 Billion World Cup Budget Mystery
One of the most bewildering revelations concerns the allocation of approximately ₦6.44 billion in the approved 2026 budget for Nigeria’s World Cup qualification campaign, despite the Super Eagles having already been eliminated from the qualifying competition before the budget was presented and passed.
Nigeria’s elimination occurred in November 2025. President Bola Tinubu presented the budget in December 2025, while it was passed by the lame duck National Assembly in March 2026 and signed into law on April 17, 2026. Yet the allocation remained in the final document.
The central question is elementary:
How does a country budget billions of Naira for a competition in which it is no longer participating?
Was the allocation an administrative error? Was it copied blindly from an earlier proposal? Was the money intended for another purpose? Was anyone expecting that Nigerians would never examine the thousands of pages contained in the Appropriation Act?
Whatever the explanation, the episode raises serious concerns about the credibility of Nigeria’s budgeting process. A national budget is not a collection of speculative figures. It is a law authorising the expenditure of public money, meaning funds that belong to all Nigerians.
When billions can be assigned to a failed qualification campaign, citizens are entitled to question how many other obsolete, duplicated or fictitious projects may be hiding inside the budget.
The Government Agency That Officially Does Not Exist—But Received a Budget.
Then came the extraordinary controversy involving the so-called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, (PFIPC).
The Presidency, through the office of Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila, said that the organisation did not exist under the Tinubu administration and that no appointment had been made to head it. Really?
But investigations found that the body, appeared under the Presidency in the 2026 Appropriation Act with an allocation of approximately ₦1.3 billion, including personnel, overhead and capital expenditure provisions.
The individual who presented himself as the head of the council reportedly possessed what he described as official appointment documentation, interacted with foreign interests and challenged the Presidency’s denial. He subsequently demanded an independent investigation.
This is not a minor clerical discrepancy.
How does a body that does not exist find its way into a federal budget?
Who prepared its personnel allocation?
Who approved its overhead?
Who inserted its capital projects?
How was Central bank account opened?
Were funds released?
Did officials in the Budget Office, Office of the Accountant-General, Presidency and National Assembly process documents for an organisation they now claim was fictitious?
A fake agency cannot allocate money to itself. It cannot insert itself into an Appropriation Bill, defend its estimates before legislative committees and authorise public expenditure without passing through layers of government bureaucracy.
The scandal therefore extends far beyond one "impostor". It represents a potential failure of the entire chain of public financial management.
The Border Communities Development Agency: One Agency, Two Heads
The leadership crisis at the Border Communities Development Agency, BCDA, offers another disturbing illustration of weakened Presidential authority.
On June 27, 2026, the Presidency announced the appointment of Abdulrazak Sa’ad Namdas as the new Director-General of the agency, replacing Dr Dakorinama Alabo George. The official explanation was that George had resigned to pursue an elective political position.
Reports subsequently emerged that George, described in political accounts as an ally of FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, had continued to occupy the office and conduct official engagements after his replacement was announced. The Presidency reportedly reiterated that Namdas remained the duly appointed head.
This produces a constitutional absurdity: one federal agency, two competing chief executives.
A presidential appointment is not a social-media suggestion. Once the President removes or replaces the head of a federal agency, the affected official is expected to hand over immediately—subject, of course, to any legitimate legal challenge. But that didn't happen because it involves a Minister who has President Tinubu, on a leash.
Where an appointee can apparently disregard a presidential directive because of the protection of a politically powerful patron, the issue becomes larger than an employment dispute. It suggests the existence of competing centres of authority within the government and the President's centre, is the weakest link.
Who is truly in charge?
Is it the President who issues the appointment, or the political godfather who determines whether the appointment will be obeyed or not?
The consequences are serious: paralysis within the agency, conflicting instructions to civil servants, uncertainty over who may approve expenditure and the possibility that official documents could be signed by someone whose authority is disputed.
Gbajabiamila and the Call to “Scatter” the ADC
A video involving the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, created another storm.
In the widely circulated recording, Gbajabiamila was reported as encouraging House of Representatives member Leke Abejide to remain in the African Democratic Congress, fight those challenging him and scatter them.
Supporters may dismiss the remarks as political banter. But the Chief of Staff to the President is not an ordinary party supporter speaking at a ward meeting.
He occupies one of the most powerful offices in the country. He coordinates access to the President, interacts with ministers and security agencies and operates at the centre of federal power.
For such an official to appear to encourage internal destabilisation within an opposition party is profoundly inappropriate.
Democracy requires a viable opposition. The governing party is entitled to defeat its rivals at elections; it is not entitled to infiltrate, fracture or incapacitate them through the machinery and influence of the state.
The statement reinforces longstanding fears that the administration is pursuing a one-party political order—not only by coercing and welcoming defectors but by encouraging disputes, factions and litigation within opposition parties.
If an opposition party is unpopular, voters should reject it at the ballot box. It should not be “scattered” from the Presidential Villa.
The Betta Edu Humanitarian Ministry Affair
Earlier in the administration, the country was shaken by the controversy surrounding the then Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation, Dr Betta Edu.
The controversy involved a ministerial memorandum reportedly requesting that hundreds of millions of naira be transferred into a private account. President Tinubu suspended Edu and ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to investigate transactions in the ministry and its agencies.
The affair was especially painful because the ministry was established by Late President Muhammadu Buhari to assist Nigeria’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
Money intended for school feeding, conditional cash transfers, disaster victims and impoverished families must be protected with the highest level of transparency. Any suspicion that humanitarian funds are being diverted is not merely financial misconduct; it is an attack on people already struggling to survive.
Although the suspension was presented as evidence of accountability, Nigerians are still entitled to ask for a comprehensive public account of the investigation, the sums traced, the persons prosecuted and any money recovered. It's been absolute silence.
Suspension is not justice. An announced investigation without a publicly explained conclusion merely transfers a scandal from the front pages into official silence.
Budget Padding, Untraceable Projects and Off-Budget Expenditure
The Tinubu administration has also faced repeated questions over the transparency of federal budgets.
Civil-society organisations and legislators have raised concerns about projects inserted without clear locations, duplicated allocations, vague descriptions and expenditure whose relationship with approved budgetary provisions remains contested.
In 2026, fresh public debate arose over claims that trillions of naira in government expenditure were not adequately captured in the national budget. The government rejected allegations that more than ₦8 trillion had been spent outside the budget, while opposition figures demanded fuller disclosure.
The existence of competing claims makes transparency even more important.
The government should publish comprehensive Budget Implementation Reports, releases to ministries and agencies, procurement details, beneficiaries, contractors, project locations and evidence of completion.
Citizens should not have to depend on leaked documents, opposition statements and investigative journalists to understand how their money is being spent.
The Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway Controversy
The Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway may eventually provide substantial economic and transportation benefits if it ever gets beyondLagos. But its procurement and execution have attracted persistent questions.
Critics have questioned the cost, procurement method, environmental and social impact, demolition of businesses and alleged links between the awarded contractor and persons close to the President.
The Presidency as usual, rejected allegations of conflict of interest and defended the project as strategically important.
The issue is not whether Nigeria needs major infrastructure. It does.
The issue is whether a project of such enormous scale was subjected to the most competitive, transparent and publicly defensible procurement process possible. It wasn't.
When citizens are being asked to endure painful economic reforms, contracts worth trillions of naira must not merely be lawful. They must be demonstrably clean, competitively awarded and free from any appearance of favouritism.
Luxury Spending in a Season of Sacrifice
While Nigerians were being asked to make sacrifices following the removal of the fuel subsidy and the collapse in the value of the Naira, total darkness as the national grid packed up, the government faced criticism over expenditures associated with presidential aircraft, official vehicles, renovations, Solar at the Villa and other elite privileges.
The controversy was not simply about whether government requires secure aircraft or reliable transportation. The issue was timing, proportionality and moral sensitivity.
A government cannot preach sacrifice exclusively to the poor while protecting the comfort of the political class and their families.
Millions of citizens have faced rising food prices, transportation costs, school fees hikes, rent and electricity charges. Against that background, every luxury expenditure by public officials becomes a moral statement about whose suffering matters.
Certificate and Vetting Controversies
Several political appointees have faced allegations concerning academic, professional or National Youth Service Corps credentials. In some cases, resignations or removals followed sustained public scrutiny.
These episodes raise questions about the quality of screening undertaken before appointments are announced.
Nigeria possesses multiple institutions capable of verifying certificates, professional qualifications, employment histories and declarations of assets. There is no convincing reason why embarrassing discrepancies should be discovered only after journalists and private citizens begin investigations.
Weak vetting exposes the government to ridicule and has placed unqualified individuals in positions of authority. Consequently, incompetence has become the hallmark of the Tinubu administration.
Allegations of Nepotism and Government by Associates
President Tinubu has repeatedly faced accusations that appointments and strategic public opportunities are disproportionately concentrated among political allies, longstanding associates and individuals linked to his Bourdillon-based networks.
Every President is entitled to appoint trusted people. However, trust must not replace competence, federal character or institutional independence.
When the public begins to perceive the state as an extension of a political family, business network or regional establishment, confidence in the fairness of government deteriorates and eroded.
Appointments should serve Nigeria—not political dynasties, godfathers or personal relationships.
The Weaponisation of State Institutions
Opposition parties and civil-society actors have accused the administration of selectively deploying agencies such as the EFCC, ICPC, police and Department of State Services against political opponents, while investigations involving government allies appear slower or less visible as unequal speed and intensity create their own credibility problem.
An anti-corruption agency must be feared equally by ruling-party officials and opposition politicians. Where justice appears to recognise party membership, it ceases to be justice and becomes political enforcement.
The Rivers State Emergency and Democratic Overreach - My final back-breaker.
The declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State and the suspension of elected state officials generated intense constitutional controversy. We argued that federal intervention was needed to prevent a breakdown of law and order. Democrats contended that suspending elected officials and installing an administrator undermined federalism and exceeded presidential authority.
The episode strengthened concerns about the dictatorial tendencies, concentration of power in the Presidency and the willingness to resolve political conflicts through unlawful executive action.
Democratic disagreements should ordinarily be settled through constitutional institutions—not by neutralising elected structures.
What These Scandals Are Doing to Nigeria
The damage extends beyond the individuals directly involved.
1. Destruction of public trust
When explanations repeatedly conflict with documentary evidence, citizens stop believing official statements—even when government may be telling the truth.
2. Weakening of presidential authority
The BCDA crisis suggests that politically connected officials do disregard presidential decisions. A government that cannot enforce its own appointments cannot effectively enforce national policy.
3. Damage to the budgetary system
The World Cup allocation and the budgeted “non-existent” agency create the impression that the national budget do contain expenditures that have not been properly verified.
4. Erosion of democratic competition
Encouraging the fragmentation of the opposition undermines pluralism and creates fears of an emerging one-party state.
5. Reduced investor confidence
Investors look beyond speeches. They examine procurement integrity, regulatory consistency, judicial independence and the predictability of government decisions.
6. International embarrassment
A fictitious or disputed agency engaging foreign missions damages Nigeria’s diplomatic credibility and raises questions about the authenticity of official documents.
7. Diversion from national emergencies
Every scandal consumes time that should be devoted to insecurity, unemployment, hunger, education, healthcare and infrastructure.
8. Normalisation of impunity
The greatest danger is that Nigerians may become accustomed to scandal. Once outrage disappears, misconduct becomes routine and accountability becomes optional.
Nigeria Needs Answers, Not Another Committee
President Tinubu must recognise that repeated controversies cannot be resolved through denials, temporary suspensions or committees whose reports never reach the public.
If we had a government, I would have suggested that it should:
Publish the full details of the ₦6.44 billion World Cup allocation and immediately freeze any unreleased funds.
Order an independent forensic investigation into the PFIPC affair, including how the disputed body entered the 2026 Appropriation Act.
Resolve the BCDA leadership crisis and determine who authorised the continued exercise of official powers after the presidential replacement.
Require the Chief of Staff to explain publicly the context and intention of his remarks concerning the ADC.
Publish the outcome of the Betta Edu and Humanitarian Ministry investigations.
Release comprehensive and timely Budget Implementation Reports.
Strengthen pre-appointment vetting and public procurement disclosure.
Guarantee that law-enforcement and anti-corruption agencies operate without partisan direction.
But we have now government. This is why we, at ADC, are mobilising Nigerians to queue behind Atiku Abubakar for the 2027 Presidential election. He will preside over a government which:
Investigates transparently.
Punishes wrongdoing.
Recovers public money.
Publishes findings.
Respects opposition parties.
Submits itself to the same laws it applies to its opponents
Nigeria cannot continue taking one scandal every morning like a doctor’s prescription.
The country is already battling hunger, unemployment, insecurity, failed infrastructure and collapsed public confidence. It cannot also afford a government permanently distracted by allegations of financial recklessness, political interference and administrative disorder.
The Tinubu administration, like every tablet, has expired. Nigerians are not asking for perfection. They are demanding accountability. Tinubu Must Go.
Lauretta Onochie
@Laurestar
Comments
Post a Comment