The much-anticipated cabinet reshuffle of President Bola Tinubu occurred recently with five ministers sacked. Ten others were either reassigned to other ministries or demoted, while seven new ministers-designate were appointed. Two ministries were scrapped. The administration viewed the changes as “far-reaching actions to reinvigorate its capacity for optimal performance” to deliver on its promises to Nigeria.

But we differ as these changes were, at best, cosmetic. Seismic action is needed in proportion to the manifestly grotesque situation that Nigeria is in. Unmistakably, the country is like a nation at war with the prevailing strangulating socio-economic challenges, with inflation at 40 per cent and spiralling out of control, a devalued naira, mass hunger, a litre of petrol selling above N1,300 in some states and high-level of insecurity pervading the nation.

Truly, the reshuffle was a marked departure from Muhammadu Buhari’s inflexibility, which saw most of his ministers literally left to sleep for almost eight years. Tinubu may have matched his words with action, having charged members of his cabinet to perform or get fired, during their November 2023 retreat. “If you are performing, nothing to fear, if you miss the objective, we review; if there is no performance, you leave us…,” the president had said then.

To make the assessment somewhat easier, a Results Delivery Unit was set up, which the presidential Adviser on Policy Coordination, Hadiza Usman, heads to monitor the performance of ministers and MDAs of the federal government.

The ministers fired were Tahir Mamman (Education), Uju-Ken Ohaneye (Women Affairs), Lola Ade-John (Tourism), alongside ministers of state, Abdullahi Gwarzo (Housing and Urban Development) and Jamila Bio Ibrahim (Youth Development). The ministries of Sports and Niger Delta were scrapped and the Ministry of Tourism was merged with that of Arts, Culture and Creative Economy. While the responsibilities of the sports ministry were ceded to the new National Sports Commission, the Niger Delta ministry transmogrified into the Ministry of Regional Development to supervise the commissions created for the country’s six geo-political blocs.

An element in the overhaul is the presidential directive that limits the number of vehicles in a minister’s convoy to just three and five security details. Before, the paraphernalia around ministers were caravan-like. But these cost reduction measures, while laudable, only scratch the surface.

Looking at the priority areas of the administration, as outlined during last year’s cabinet retreat: food security, job creation, ending poverty, access to capital, fairness and rule of law, and the anti-corruption stance, which should foster development and catapult Nigeria from being a “potential to pragmatic” economic development hub, in relation to the performance of the government and the cabinet tweak, the signs of national redemption are not here yet.

Are the sacked ministers the only deadwoods in this government? We do not think so. There are still ministers who cannot point to what they have achieved within the context of turning around the Nigeria situation from its present malaise. This means that politics may have weighed heavier, rather than the positive notches in the scorecards of many ministers who survived the purge.

It is a ruse for the regime to think of economic development with the kind of erratic power supply and perennial system collapse, confusion and dishonesty in the management of the petroleum downstream sector that the country is mired in. The net effect has been big corporations folding up and leaving Nigeria, just as small and middle scale enterprises are becoming totally dysfunctional.

Corruption remains the reason why the four public refineries are not working, despite the cumulative sum of $25 billion spent on their turnaround by successive regimes. In the case of the Port Harcourt refinery, it has gulped $1.5 billion and missed seven timelines for the resumption of operations since December 2023. This gaffe is inexplicable.

It is beyond debate that this administration is not ready to confront the cabal involved in the fuel subsidy scam and known corporate crude oil thieves and bring them to book. Their criminalities have brought the country to its knees. Therefore, Hadiza Usman’s, or rather, President Tinubu’s pass marks for the ministers in charge of power, the economy, petroleum and several other underperformers, in our view, are suspect.

Having the most expansive cabinet of 46 members ever in the country, enlarged further with the seven new members that the Senate screened and cleared last week, more than the five persons discharged, contradicts the logic behind the reduction in the convoys and security aides of ministers.

The expectation of PREMIUM TIMES was that the recent shake-up would be used to cure the cabinet of its glaring weakness in the absence of acclaimed technocrats in the mould of the Ngozi Okonjo-Iwealas, Amina Mohammeds, Akinwumi Adesinas, Obiageli Ezekwesilis, and Aruma Ottehs, whose stellar performances pivoted the achievements of past administrations, to drive the government’s renewed hope agenda.

Instead, Tinubu chose to retain the cohorts of jaded politicians, some of who are former governors whose investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for alleged corrupt practices while in office were stalled by their appointments. Tinubu has seemingly conferred immunity on them, which is a luxury the constitution did not give them.

A government that is conscious of its integrity, public perception and committed to an anti-graft mandate, should have used this recent opportunity to ask these sets of ministers and aides to go and clear their names with the EFCC first. Not doing so sets up a duplicitous portrait of the president.

An aspect of the Tinubu administration often overlooked is the gross violation of Section 14 (3) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, which deals with the observation of federal character in the composition of the MDAs and conduct of their affairs. This constitutional provision emphasises that adherence to the principle promotes “national unity.” Key appointments in the government, without question, are mainly in the hands of Tinubu’s Yoruba ethnic stock. This is not how to manage diversity in a complex and fractious political entity like Nigeria.

At the cabinet level, the Ministries of Finance, Power, Justice, Trade, Marine and Blue Economy, Interior Affairs, Solid Minerals, Communications, all have Yorubas in charge. Besides, it appears that the president has appropriated the substantive Petroleum minister position, as only two ministers-of-state are there.

Other similarly staffed positions are those of the Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Staff to the President, Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Accountant-General of the Federation, Head of Service, those in charge of EFCC, NAFDAC, NIMASA, Nigeria Customs, Immigration Service, Army, SSS and Commander of Brigade of Guards, and much more.

This is extreme parochialism and a vicious assault on nation-building efforts. Buhari, as a critic has noted, might have tried to concentrate power in the North, but he was not as brazen as Tinubu. As such, the president should reflect deeply on the lop-sidedness of the said appointments and address them immediately. A lot of Yorubas are embarrassed by this tactless statecraft and have excoriated him accordingly.

Having shown that ministries could be scrapped or merged, Tinubu should go the whole hog by acting on the decade-old Stephen Orosanye report now, to profoundly reduce the cost of governance and entrench efficiency in our bureaucracy.

With a horde of underperforming ministers, worsening welfare of the people, and vulnerability of lives and property, this government risks the loss of its legitimacy, which is the worst albatross any regime could face.

Premium Times

“The partiality that inevitably affects judges has been noted in cases with a political flavour.” – David Pannick, KC, Judges, p. 44 (1987)

The state as we know it enjoys three notional monopolies. One is a monopoly of legitimate taxation. The second is a monopoly of the legitimate instrumentality of violence; and the third is a monopoly of legitimate dispute resolution. In Nigeria, all three monopolies are now contested by non-state entities.

Of these three monopolies, many focus on the legitimate instrumentality of violence but it is the capacity of a state to resolve disputes lawfully and peacefully among those who live in it that makes the other two monopolies worthwhile. That is why courts, administrative and even traditional institutions exist.

David Pannick, KC reminds us that “as part of the function of deciding disputes, the courts provide a public service, at almost no charge to customers (who pay for their lawyers but not for the judge and the courtroom).” This is the ideal. Nigeria’s judicial system is in a profound crisis of legitimacy today because of ample evidence suggesting strongly that the requirement that litigants should not pay for the judge or the courtroom may not apply to certain categories, especially among political litigants.

To be clear, the most important reasons for which people sometimes end up in court often are not things to which it is possible to assign any value – dignity, equity, justice, memory, safety or human life. These are all invaluable. Without them, organised society fails. Jurisprudence is the system for organising knowledge about judicial decisions that ultimately deliver and govern these invaluable public goods.

However, judicial business is not confined to these. Many disputes that end up in court involve property or things of material value, such as land, inheritance, shares, stocks, or chattels. Some others may extend to intangibles of value, such as status or reputation. There could also be cases concerning access to political power from which perch the people involved hope to reap benefits that are material in consequence.

These are all things for which the currency of transaction or exchange is money. In Nigerian parlance, that is called “Kudi”. When a court system prioritises disputes affecting things measured in the currency of money over things that are entirely invaluable, it replaces a system of jurisprudence in favour of a preoccupation with “Kudisprudence”.

By way of full disclosure, I did not invent this expression, “Kudisprudence”. I was introduced to it by a friend and school mate of long standing who also happens to be a diligent Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). He has not licensed me to disclose his identity, and I am obliged to respect his anonymity.

Two cases occurred this past week to illustrate how this distinction between jurisprudence and Kudisprudence affects judicial decision making in Nigeria. On 30 October, the police arraigned a member of the House of Representatives, Mascot Ikwechegh, on charges of assault against a gig-economy driver working with Bolt. A now viral video clip showed Mr Ikwechegh had assaulted the driver in words and deed. He called the driver vermin in different forms and threatened to “disappear” him without consequences, before proceeding to satiate on the driver his thirst for physical violence.

For those conversant with that Nigerian rat-killer, the material on the video clip portrayed Mr Ikwechegh as the member representing “Otapiapia” Federal Constituency in the Rat Killers Assembly. On his arraignment, the court granted him bail on an oral application in the sum of N500,000 with sureties who only had to show evidence of utility bills for proof of their residence. The case was adjourned for one week.

Two days later, on 1 November, another court in the same Abuja was host to proceedings charging at least 114 children according to the British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, with treasonable felony. These charges arose in connection with the #EndBadGovernment protests which occurred last August around the country. Arrested in different locations in northern Nigeria reportedly, these children were transferred to Abuja where they had been detained en masse for 93 days.

On arraignment, they all looked “visibly unwell and malnourished.” In their short spell in  court, at least four of them suffered fainting feats. Having beheld all of this, the presiding judge promptly rewarded the children with bail in the sum of N10 million each or a total of N1.14 billion, with two sureties each of whom must be a senior federal civil servant of at least Grade Level 15. He adjourned the case to 24 January 2025. These terms were manifestly such that none of these children can hope to comply with.

This is a court system in which material things, such as status, make all the difference between receiving justice or being on the end of the administration of law even when it is manifestly unjust. The parliamentarian received jurisprudence from a court system that was happy to serve malnourished children with anything but that.

There is an even more worrying scenario to which the expression “Kudisprudence” may be applied. That can be the case where a judicial decision follows upon a bargain – implicit or explicit – between a judge or magistrate on the one hand and a party (disclosed or undisclosed) on the other. This was the sense in which Stanislav Andrzejewski, the former Polish soldier and prisoner-of-war who founded the Sociology Department at the University of Reading in England coined the word “kleptocracy” in 1968, which he defined as “a system of government [that] consists precisely of the practice of selling what the law forbids to sell.” Among the things a kleptocracy can buy and sell in its political open market, Professor Andrzejewski included “even judges.”

The fact that Kudisprudence in the second sense occurs in certain courts in Nigeria is not in question. Many disciplinary cases concluded by the National Judicial Council (NJC), no less, testify to this fact. The only issue left to be determined is how pervasive this is. One thing seems clear: political cases increasingly appear to suggest – very much as David Pannick writes – a higher predisposition to what look like outcomes of Kudisprudence.

For evidence of how this system of Kudisprudence can work, a recent report by the advocacy group, Citizen Gavel, names a notorious former governor and current minister who has a long track record of “building judicial infrastructure and offering other forms of support” to the judiciary in acts of generosity that “often coincide with periods when he has faced significant legal challenges. This raises the possibility that these actions may have indirectly influenced judicial decisions.” Law professor, Fidelis Oditah (SAN) adds that in the courts in the Rivers State disputes may have been “corruptly procured” and that the decision have more than a whiff of “a rat” about them.

In its nature, judicial quid pro quo does not necessarily occur on social media or with receipts. Verified cases are more likely than not to be fewer in fact than the number of actual incidents. Many more followers of the recent goings on in Nigeria’s judicial system may themselves have evidence to conclude that it has evolved from a system of jurisprudence to one preoccupied with Kudisprudence.

On its own, that would be sufficient cause for worry; but the reason the system now suffers an overwhelming sense of crisis of credibility is because it cannot be ruled out that this preoccupation with Kudisprudence in the first sense is not the result (in a significant number particularly of political cases), of Kudisprudence in the second – transactional – sense.

David Pannick concludes that courts offer to “those who are greedy, vexatious, exhibitionist, aspiring to canonisation, or just plain impossible a platform to perform.” Every one of them has a right to a court system that regards the public interest in justice as something that money cannot buy.

Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a lawyer, teaches at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and can be reached through chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu.

The Nigerian state and people have a tradition of morally, politically, diplomatically, materially, financially and militarily supporting the struggles of peoples for independence against foreign invaders and colonisers.

The government provided arms to national liberation movements in Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde, Mozambique, and Angola. They gave all-round support to  the South West African Peoples Organisation (SWAPO) of Namibian and, the African National Congress (ANC) and Pan-African Congress (PAC) of South Africa.

In the 1970s, the Nigerian government gave scholarships to many Southern Africans and donated over N25 million (not today’s naira) towards the liberation struggles in Southern Africa. A Southern African Relief Fund (SARF) was specifically formed and tasked to coordinate educational, material and financial assistance to liberation movements. The children of Soweto who found themselves in Nigeria were specially welcomed, accommodated and educated.

A major factor underlying Nigerian government support to the national liberation movements in Africa was the Student Movement. The students  support for liberation organisations in fact, predated the independence of Nigeria. In March 1960, students in Enugu, Lagos, Ibadan, and Zaria embarked on protests against the Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa. They wanted  an end to racial discrimination and segregation throughout Africa. They also demanded  the expulsion of all White Southern Africans working in Nigeria.

Earlier in 1959, students had organized demonstrations against the visit to Nigeria of then British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. They argued that British policies were hostile against Black People and African nationalism, and demanded the expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth.

The struggles paid off when on 5 April, 1960, a bill calling for the ban of all trade with South Africa was adopted in parliament. Also, in 1961, Nigeria’s Prime Minister, Sir Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, pushed for the expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth.

The Student Movement felt that the liberation of Africa is organically linked with the struggle against Western imperialism. This  was why they organized massive public protests against the crude and barbaric murder of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of Congo Kinshasa by forces of Western imperialism.

They also protested against French government anti-independence terrorism in Algeria, as well as its testing of atomic bomb in the Sahara Desert. In 1965, they demonstrated against the Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from Britain.

But the Students Movement equally felt that the struggle for African liberation is inseparable from the that  against Western militarism in Nigeria. So,  in November 1960, about 800 students began peaceful demonstrations against the Anglo-Nigeria Defence Pact. They carried placards, which, amongst others, read: ‘Away with Anglo-Balewa Pact’, ‘Down with Colonial Mentality’, and ‘Keep us out of NATO’.

Police attempted  to suppress the protests and in reaction,  students broke into the Cabinet Office, manhandled Ministers, and invaded the Federal  Parliament. As a compromise, they were allowed to present a petition to the Governor-General. In it, they asserted, amongst other things, that the Defence Pact  negated Nigeria’s independence and  violated  the nation’s policy of Non-Alignment. The Pact, they argued,  would weaken the Nigeria’s  international credibility and role in Africa.

The British government was consequently compelled to abandoned the Pact, positing that it was an “embarrassment” to the Nigerian government, “useless” to Britain, and injurious to Anglo-Nigerian relations.

From the mid-1970s, Nigerian students became radically anti-West. They insisted and demanded that they be militarily recruited, trained and armed  to fight side-by-side with the various armed wings of the liberation movements. Nigerians sometimes insulted and, occasionally  assaulted Europeans on the streets on the grounds that their people are exploiting and oppressing their Black brothers and sisters in Southern Africa.

This era marked the height of the national liberation struggles against Portuguese colonialism in Africa. The highlight of that  was the struggle for Angolan independence. This struggle almost tore the Organisation of African Unity (now African Union) apart, but for General Murtala Ramat Mohammed’s rallying statement, “Africa Has Come Of Age”. Also, Nigeria’s support for Angola sped up the independence for Zimbabwe.

The formation of the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) in 1980, radicalised students’ anti-imperialism, Pan-Africanism and support for the Southern African national liberation movements. There were constant student protests against British positions during the Lancaster House Conference on Zimbabwean independence between 1979 and 1980.

Western support for Apartheid South Africa, the  apartheid praxis in itself including the  imprisonment and execution of freedom fighters, its constant attacks on the Frontline States, and Shagari’s government subservience to the West, attracted hostile criticism and occasionally, protests within and outside the campuses.

In its December 1982 Charter of Demands, NANS demanded that the Nigerian government pursued a clear-cut, radical and anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist and anti-racist foreign policy that would lead to the liberation of Namibia, South Africa,  Western Sahara and the Palestine. It organized protests against United States (US) support for apartheid South Africa; the latter’s denial of Namibian independence; South Africa’s belligerence against the frontline states (Angola, Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe); and the US-Apartheid violation of U.N. Resolution 435 on Namibia.

NANS equally believed that the best way to fight imperialism was to oppose its agents, policies, and practices in Nigeria. Therefore, it staunchly opposed the country’s foreign policies, exemplified in their standoff with the Shagari administration on its policy and actions towards Flight Lieutenant John Jerry Rawlings 31 December, 1981 overthrow of  the civilian administration of Liman in Ghana.

The Western countries had reacted to the coup by organising a multi-national force to invade Ghana, using Nigeria as the staging post. The NANS leadership, under Chris Mammah, courageously exposed it in the press and demanded that Nigeria should refuse to participate. Nigeria subsequently did, and the invasion fell through.

Student leaders and activists similarly condemned the abortion of the OAU Heads of State Summit scheduled for 5 August, 1982 in Tripoli. The Summit was aborted primarily to stop the admission of the Western Sahara (also known as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic) into the OAU and, to stop the emergence of the Libyan President, Muammar Gaddafi, as OAU Chairman. President Shagari played a leading role in the abortion of the Summit. NANS denounced the abortion as being: “in line with the design of America and world imperialism.”

NANS equally demanded that Nigeria should  have no  diplomatic relations with Israel, grant the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) official recognition, and support it in all international fora. In 1984, General Muhammadu Buhari played a decisive role in the admission of Western Sahara as a full member of the OAU.

The imposition of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank neoliberalism by General Ibrahim Babangida administration led to a cycle of confrontations between students and the military from 1986 to 1991. In these confrontations, students linked their demands for the termination of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) and the development of Nigeria with the release of all political prisoners and termination of White-minority rule and colonialism in Africa.

It was a glorious era, sadly with no glorious inheritors as the NANS today, lacking in pro-people ideology and bereft of cherished values, has become like chaff blown around by the wind.

Ahmed Aminu-Ramatu Yusuf worked as deputy director, Cabinet Affairs Office, The Presidency, and retired as General Manager (Administration), Nigerian Meteorological Agency, (NiMet). Email: aaramatuyusuf@yahoo.com

For as long as I can remember, I have grappled with the paradox that lies at the heart of organized religion—its capacity to uplift and unify, juxtaposed with the fractures and conflicts it has perpetuated throughout history. While faith has undeniably served as a cornerstone of human civilization, inspiring charitable acts, fostering solidarity, and offering solace to the weary, it has also been a vehicle for control, oppression, sectarianism, and violence. Organized religion, far from being an unalloyed force for good, has too often resisted progress, stifled inquiry, and justified social hierarchies that marginalize the very people it purports to serve.

Recently, I engaged in a stimulating conversation with a colleague who identifies as both an evangelical Christian and a dedicated member of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Brian proudly shared stories of the charity work his church and affiliated groups have undertaken in Africa. SBC Organizations like “Baptists on Mission” collaborate with the “Door of Hope” to create villages for abandoned children in South Africa. Others, such as the Arizona Mission Network, sponsor mission trips to Kenya to build homes, teach the Bible, and plant churches.

Brian’s enthusiasm was heartfelt, and I acknowledged the tangible good those charitable initiatives can yield. However, beneath the altruistic surface of these religious endeavors lies a history riddled with contradictions and moral failures that betray the very principles Christianity espouses. These charitable acts often serve as a salve for deeper institutional transgressions, concealing a legacy that is difficult to reconcile with the ideals of faith and compassion.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), like many religious institutions, has been enmeshed in some of history’s most egregious injustices. Its complicity extends beyond philanthropy to alliances that reflect a troubling pursuit of power. The union between Christian nationalists and Donald Trump today, for example, represents a dangerous confluence of faith and politics which  has posed an existential threat to America’s once famed democracy—one far removed from divine principles.

I reminded Brian that his congregation belongs to a legacy shaped by a Faustian pact with Trump, similar to the temptation Satan offered Jesus after forty days of fasting: “All these kingdoms I will give you, if you bow down and worship me.” The origins of the SBC itself are steeped not merely in spiritual conviction but in the defense of slavery—an uncomfortable truth that underscores the intersection of faith, power, and historical complicity.

Before the 1840s, Baptists in the U.S. were united under a loose coalition called the Triennial Convention. However, a split eventually led to the creation of two distinct groups: the Baptists and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The division occurred in 1845 over the issue of slavery and missionary eligibility. Northern Baptists opposed slavery and refused to appoint slaveholders as missionaries, while Southern Baptists, many of whom were slave owners, argued that slavery was not sinful and believed slaveholding missionaries should be allowed to serve. The conflict came to a head in 1844 when the Home Mission Society denied James E. Reeve, a slaveholder from Georgia, a missionary position, prompting southern leaders to break away and establish the SBC.

The legacy of this schism goes beyond theology. Even after slavery was abolished, many southern evangelicals supported segregation through the Jim Crow laws, ensuring Black in Americans remained oppressed and excluded from the social fabric. Christian nationalists justified these laws with religious rhetoric, and the fight to dismantle them required the courage of the Civil Rights Movement. Today, the SBC remains predominantly white, while African Americans largely affiliate with other Baptist groups—a reminder of how race and faith have diverged sharply within Christianity in the United States.

It’s equally  important to note that several leaders within the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) have identified as evangelical Christians. They do not see people of other races as equals or as fellow children of God. Ironically, these same people came to Africa and sold us religion under the guise of charity, framing their work as altruistic.

Throughout history, organized religion has proven to be a powerful instrument of control. Early Christian missionaries in Africa, for example, sold religion under the guise of charity but it was simply another form of control, masked with good deeds. Even Al Capone—a notorious gangster—engaged in charity work, which did not make him any less of a criminal. Their true mission was to make Africans more compliant to colonial powers, easing the way for land grabbing and resource exploitation. By controlling minds, they paved the way for the physical conquest of entire nations.

The hypocrisy of organized religion isn’t exclusive to Christianity. We see similar patterns in other faiths. In Saudi Arabia for example, a nation that presents itself as the global guardian of Islamic values simultaneously engages in practices that starkly contradict those principles. The country enforces strict religious laws—public beheadings, floggings, and restrictions on women—claiming to uphold Sharia law. At the same time, many of its elites engage in behaviors that violate the same religious doctrines they impose on others.

Wealthy Saudis are known for indulging in extravagant lifestyles abroad, frequenting casinos, nightclubs, and resorts where alcohol and other activities forbidden under Islamic law are readily available. This glaring disparity between proclaimed piety and realpolitik suggests that religion in Saudi Arabia functions less as a moral compass and more as a tool for social control and political legitimacy.

Osama bin Laden, a figure with huge following who preached religious purity and jihad, was allegedly discovered to possess a stash of pornography when U.S. forces killed him—an ironic display of the disconnect between public piety and private indulgence. Hypocrisy, it seems, often accompanies those who weaponize religion. The same can be said for Christian evangelicals in America’s Bible Belt, who use scripture to defend racial hierarchies, champion Trump’s white nationalist agenda, and oppose progressive movements for racial and social justice.

Today, the trend continues with prosperity gospel preachers, especially in Africa and some parts of the U.S. These pastors promise wealth and success to struggling followers in exchange for donations, creating a transactional faith based on false hope. While these “men of God” live in unconscionable luxury—driving exotic cars and residing in gilded mansions—their congregants often live in poverty. Religion, in this sense, becomes a business model where spiritual promises are sold for material gain, leaving many followers exploited and disillusioned.

Despite its claims to offer spiritual salvation, organized religion often prioritizes power, wealth, and control. The charity it offers, while beneficial on the surface, frequently serves as a mask for deeper agendas. Across cultures and centuries, religion has consistently been wielded by those in power to maintain control over minds and societies.

There is a growing reason why many young people today are turning away from organized religion. Increasingly, they are disillusioned by instances of hypocrisy within religious institutions, where leaders preach values they fail to uphold. Scandals, such as financial misconduct or sexual abuse, have severely eroded trust in these institutions, making young people skeptical of the moral authority they claim to possess. The gap between the preached ideals and practiced behaviors fuels a sense of betrayal, pushing many to question their involvement.

Moreover, with greater access to education and scientific knowledge, young individuals often challenge religious doctrines that appear to conflict with scientific evidence. As they explore philosophical and empirical explanations for life’s complexities, organized religion may seem less relevant or compelling to their understanding of the world.

This shift aligns with broader cultural trends toward individualism, where personal experiences, spirituality, and activism are prioritized over the authority of established religious systems. The most compelling argument against organized religion lies in its historical and ongoing tendency to prioritize institutional power and control over genuine spiritual development.

Religion could be a force for good, fostering community, justice, and moral accountability. Yet, in practice, it has too often served as a tool for manipulation—binding people not in spiritual unity but in psychological and economic chains. As believers and skeptics alike, we must interrogate the true purpose of organized religion: Is it about faith—or fetters?

Every Sunday, as I stand before the Holy Eucharist, these thoughts weigh heavily on my mind.

Dr. Agbo is a US-based medical doctor and author. 

The primary reason a group of Nigerians had a meeting in Abuja with embassy and trade officials from Vietnam on Wednesday October 30, 2024 was to explore business opportunities for cooperation and development. That quickly changed to nagging questions such as why Vietnam which was a physically flattened country back in May 1976 when it began diplomatic relations with Nigeria is, today, fast developing, while Nigeria is fast degenerating and steadily under-developing? Why is the Vietnamese Foreign Exchange Reserves $92.3 billion and that of Nigeria $39.07 billion?

Why should Nigeria which five decades ago had thriving granaries exporting cotton to Europe and, integrated modern textile companies in places like Lagos, Kaduna, Kano, Aba and Asaba be begging Vietnam for textile expertise?

How come Nigeria in 1976 with a population of 64.658 million had over 500,000 textile workers, now with 234 million people, it has a little over 20,000 workers in that industry?

Retired public servant, Suleiman Haliru who comes from a family of cotton growers and, worked in that industry as a boy, lamented that many of the thriving cotton and textile companies in Kaduna are now beer parlours.

The participants at the meeting which included retired diplomats, representatives of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, former civil servants, journalists, businessmen and women, the representative of the Kano State Government, Mr Nazir Haliru and that of the National Assembly, Paul Gowon Haruna, struggled to find answers.

Even so, more questions continued to pop up. Why is Vietnam so food-sufficient that it not only feeds its population but also exports so much food, while the Nigerian populace is crying: “We are hungry”? How come the Vietnamese population living below the poverty line is 4.2 per cent while that of Nigeria is above 80 per cent?

Ambassador Sani Bako, MFR, the pioneer Nigerian Ambassador to Vietnam who is also the Chairman of the Nigeria-Vietnam Economic Trade and Cultural Association, made a critical observation. He noted that Vietnam which was razed to the ground during its 20-year war of independence against the United States with the latter applying chemicals to ensure the lands were unusable, is today exporting rice to scores of countries. He added: “Prayers are very good, but we should also stand up to make our country work.”

The Vietnamese team led by its ambassador, Mr Bui Quoc Hung, said after the war, the United States for years imposed blockade and sanctions on Vietnam, but that the country survived and has thrived because the people are united and, have a focused leadership which sees itself as part of the population. The politics of Vietnam, he said, is quite stable under the leadership of the Communist Party which is now the sole political party.

On international relations, he said: “In terms of ideology, we are socialists. But we have to trade with the capitalists; we have to shake hands with the capitalists. We have enjoyed international co-operation, support and solidarity.”

Its Bamboo Tree Diplomacy that draws inspiration from the bamboo plant which is of cultural significance, he said, emphasises open and independent relations with all countries. This, he said, has seen world leaders visiting, including “Bush the Father, Bush the son” and Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin.

The Vietnamese economy, he explained, has been so diversified that just as it is assisting the United Arab Emirate develop food sufficiency, so it is importing cashew nuts from Nigeria, building chips for Artificial Intelligence entities, manufacturing electric cars, and producing 35 per cent of the Samsung mobile phones. He said all the while, Vietnam stayed true to its agricultural roots which sees it utilising bamboo and the banana tree for all sorts of products, including textile, and planting rice everywhere, including the mountains. The Vietnamese, he said, have turned planting rice to an art form, so well that it has become a tourist attraction. He said rice requires just four basic needs to grow: water, fertilizer, good seedling and hard work, adding that despite the rich varieties available, his country is still engaged in rice research.

Vietnam, he said, has developed due to the resilience, hard work and collective determination of the people.

In answering the questions, the ambassador said everything he was wearing was produced by his country and that unlike Nigeria, the Vietnamese have their cultural textiles and national brand.

As the discussions continued, Mr Hung decided to speak frankly. First, he said there are practices in Nigeria that cannot happen in his country. He gave the example of the Vietnamese Trade Consular NguyenChi Mai who came in from Lagos and had her return time unilaterally changed by the airline.

Secondly, he said, when Vietnamese businessmen hear about kidnappings and terrorism in Nigeria, they are reluctant to come. Thirdly, that the Nigerian business environment is not friendly. Fourthly, he said it is difficult for Vietnamese investors to cope with an ever-fluctuating foreign currency system, especially when Nigeria relies entirely on the dollar rather than also use alternative currencies like the RMB (Yuan) or Russian Ruble. He also thinks Nigeria’s infrastructure needs updating, adding that there are no power failures in his country.

Nigeria, he suggested, needs to invest in education so that issues of lecturers in tertiary institutions protesting about pay would no longer occur. He said the prevailing unfavourable situation is making many Nigerian children go abroad for studies.

He also noted that a lot of food is wasted in Nigeria due to lack of food processing, saying: “You take pineapple in the morning and in the evening, you throw the rest away.”

He said he could not easily move around in the first year of his posting as he had to wait for long to present his Letter of Credence. He said he has been to Lagos and looks forward to visiting other parts of the country to explore business opportunities for his country. Vietnam, he said, has good and clear policies on small and medium size enterprises, making them blossom.

The Ambassador said he has to go with his car and driver to places like Wuse Market and the mall to make purchases but that in Vietnam, he walked because virtually in every corner one can purchase what he needs.

Talking about diversity, he said his country has more than 50 nationalities speaking different languages, but that the citizens are conscious that they are one people.

Ambassador Bako, in his closing remarks, said: “The Ambassador has been quite frank, but unless you are frank, you are not going to make it.” I concur, but need to add that when your friend tells you the truth, you don’t need to quarrel over it as you have the democratic right either to accept or reject it. Both have consequences.