Hamas armed wing says it lost contact with group holding Israeli-US hostage Alexander

The armed wing of Hamas said on Tuesday it had lost contact with a group of militants holding Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander in the Gaza Strip.

Abu Ubaida, the armed wing's spokesperson, said on the Telegram that it lost contact after the Israeli army attacked the place where the militants were holding Alexander, who is a New Jersey native and a 21-year-old soldier in the Israeli army.

Abu Ubaida did not say where in Gaza Alexander was purportedly held. The armed wing later released a video warning hostages families that their "children will return in black coffins with their bodies torn apart from shrapnel from your army".

Hamas has previously blamed Israel for the deaths of hostages held in Gaza, including as a direct result of military operations, while also acknowledging on at least one occasion that a hostage was killed by a guard. It said the guard had acted against instructions.

There was no immediate response from the Israeli military to a request for comment on the Hamas statement about Alexander.

President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff told reporters at the White House in March that gaining the release of Alexander, believed to be the last living American hostage held by Hamas in Gaza, was a "top priority for us".

The Tikva Forum, a group representing some family members of those held in Gaza, had said earlier on Tuesday that Alexander was among up to 10 hostages who could be released by Hamas if a new ceasefire was reached, citing a conversation a day earlier between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the mother of another hostage. There was no immediate comment on that from Netanyahu's office.

On Saturday Hamas released a video purportedly showing Alexander, who has been held in Gaza since he was captured by Palestinian militants on October 7, 2023.

The release of Alexander was at the centre of earlier talks held between Hamas leaders and U.S. hostage negotiator Adam Boehler last month.

Hamas released 38 hostages under a ceasefire that began on January 19. In March, Israel's military resumed its ground and aerial offensive on Gaza, abandoning the ceasefire after Hamas rejected proposals to extend the truce without ending the war.

Israeli officials say that offensive will continue until the remaining 59 hostages are freed and Gaza is demilitarized. Hamas insists it will free hostages only as part of a deal to end the war and has rejected demands to lay down its arms.

Reuters

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Zelensky fires Sumy head after Russian strike

Vladimir Zelensky’s office announced on Tuesday that it has fired the head of Ukraine’s Sumy Regional Military Administration, Vladimir Artyukh. The move follows accusations that Artyukh organized a military awards ceremony that was targeted in a Russian missile strike.

On Monday, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed that it carried out a precision strike the previous day on a gathering of Ukrainian command staff in the border city of Sumy. Two Iskander-M missiles were used in the attack on Sunday, it said, adding that over 60 senior Ukrainian servicemen were killed in the strike.

The local Ukrainian authorities have claimed that the attack targeted a military awards ceremony for the 117th Territorial Defense Brigade. Officials reported that the strike resulted in 35 civilian deaths and 129 others injured. 

Several Ukrainian officials, including the mayor of Konotop, Artyom Semenikhin, have since called for the prosecution of Artyukh, accusing him of being directly responsible for the casualties by “organizing an awards ceremony”despite warnings not to do so.

Artyukh has effectively confirmed that the ceremony took place on the day of the attack but denied responsibility for the event, telling public broadcaster Suspilne that he “was invited” but did not organize it. 

Nevertheless, Zelensky signed a decree on Tuesday removing Artyukh from his post. Taras Melnychuk, the cabinet’s representative in parliament, confirmed the move in a post on Telegram on Tuesday and announced that the government has decided on a replacement.

Moscow has stressed that it does not attack civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that the Russian military only strikes “military-related targets.” Russian officials have accused Kiev, however, of deliberately hosting military events in civilian areas. 

Following the Sumy attack, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the facility targeted in Sunday’s strike was hosting both Ukrainian and NATO officers, and claimed they were posing as mercenaries. 

Lavrov went on to say that Kiev routinely flouts international law by placing military facilities and weapons in or near civilian infrastructure, and that there have been “a million” examples of this. 

Sumy is a regional capital and frontline city of over 250,000 people, located 25km from the border with Russia. It has become a focal point of Ukraine’s retreat from Russia’s Kursk Region following its failed incursion.

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Britain sends Ukraine second part of $3 billion war loan

Britain sent Ukraine 752 million pounds ($990 million) to buy air defences and artillery on Monday, part of a broader $50 billion international loan programme backed by frozen Russian assets, Britain's government said.

"The world is changing before our eyes, reshaped by global instability, including Russian aggression in Ukraine," finance minister Rachel Reeves said.

The Group of Seven advanced economies agreed an outline lending package in October 2024 - before the election of Donald Trump as president changed the United States' approachto the conflict - and Reeves and her Ukrainian counterpart Serhiy Marchenko finalised details of Britain's contribution in March.

Pressured by the United States' increased reluctance to provide security in Europe, Britain's government announced in February that it would raise defence spending from about 2.3% of national income to 2.5% by 2027 and 3% some time after 2029.

Monday's payment to Ukraine is the second of three instalments totalling 2.26 billion pounds. The first was on March 6 and the final part will be paid next year.

Defence minister John Healey said Britain would give Ukraine 4.5 billion pounds of support this year and that the funds would be used to purchase air defences, artillery and spare parts for vehicles and other equipment.

Other British aid includes help by its defence ministry to procure radar systems, anti-tank mines and hundreds of thousands of drones.

On Sunday two Russian ballistic missiles hit the centre of the northern Ukrainian city of Sumy. Kyiv said the attack killed 34 people and wounded 117.

Russia's defence ministry said it had targeted a gathering of Ukrainian commanding officers in the city.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was appalled by the attack.

Support in Britain for Ukraine's military operations remains high across the public and most major political parties.

RT/Reuters

When Bola Tinubu stood on the podium and declared the infamous words, “Subsidy is gone,” many Nigerians hoped it was the beginning of a new era—an era of reform, accountability, and renewal. Instead, nearly two years later, we are reeling under one of the most devastating periods in Nigeria’s democratic history. What was promised as a pathway to economic rebirth has become a blueprint for national suffering.

Let’s call it what it is: Tinubu’s leadership is inefficient, disconnected, and dangerously close to igniting a socio-economic collapse.

The Economy: From Reform to Ruin

To be fair, Nigeria’s economic troubles didn’t start with Tinubu. But under his watch, they’ve worsened at a breathtaking pace. His flagship policies—fuel subsidy removal and exchange rate unification—were introduced with zero social cushioning, no transition framework, and no clarity on how the poor would survive the fallout.

Today, the price of fuel has more than tripled. Transportation costs have gone through the roof. Inflation is galloping at levels not seen in decades. The naira has been battered, and with it, the dreams of millions who can no longer afford a bag of rice or pay school fees.

Yes, reforms were necessary. But there’s a thin line between bravery and recklessness. Tinubu’s economic decisions, while lauded by the IMF and World Bank, have crushed the everyday Nigerian. Is it really reform if it only serves the elite and foreign investors while leaving the masses in starvation?

Governance in the Shadows

Worse still is the perception that this administration is not only incompetent but also indifferent. At a time when citizens are tightening their belts, Tinubu formed the largest cabinet in Nigeria’s history—48 ministers. That’s not just tone-deaf; it’s insulting.

Meanwhile, corruption scandals are resurfacing with disturbing frequency, with little to no accountability. State institutions are weakened, democratic checks are ignored, and the average Nigerian is expected to “endure” for the sake of “long-term gains.”

How long must we endure? When over 130 million Nigerians are multi-dimensionally poor, when youth unemployment is driving an exodus of our best talents, when hospitals are underfunded and insecurity remains rampant—what future are we really building?

The Growing Storm

What we’re witnessing is a dangerous unraveling. Labor unions are restive. Protests are flaring. Desperation is rising. People are angry, hungry, and losing hope. If this administration doesn’t change course—and fast—it risks pushing Nigeria toward the brink of mass unrest.

Let’s be clear: this is not just an economic crisis. It’s a leadership crisis.

Tinubu promised renewed hope. What he’s delivering is widespread hardship wrapped in elite rhetoric. His administration’s refusal to listen, consult, or adapt has created a governance vacuum. In its place, we now see growing disillusionment, mistrust, and fear for what lies ahead.

The Path Forward

It’s not too late to change course—but time is running out.

The President must immediately roll out targeted economic reliefs, restructure his cabinet, invest in local production, and restore confidence in public institutions. He must remember that he governs not for boardrooms in Washington or Davos, but for the street vendors in Kano, the students in Ibadan, and the jobless graduates in Enugu.

Nigeria cannot afford another year of this kind of leadership. We’ve been here before—and the consequences were disastrous.

We are, quite literally, running out of time.

** Okoroafor is a social accountability advocate and a political commentator focused on governance, accountability, and social justice in West Africa.

For some people, the expression “You have as many hours in the day as Beyoncé” could be inspiring. For me, it’s anxiety-inducing. Probably because it makes clear that lots of those unfinished to-do’s on my list could get done if I only used my time wisely. 

In his new book “Meditations for Mortals,” former journalist and time management researcher Oliver Burkeman explores how we can accept our limitations in life and still be productive. 

“When you give up the unwinnable struggle to do everything, that’s when you can start pouring your finite time and attention into a handful of things that truly count,” he writes.

One of his strategies that resonated with me is to “do things daily-ish.” Steadily working toward a goal is great, but sometimes we can get hyper fixated on unrealistic schedules. 

Any time I vow to do something daily, I get so stressed about sticking to that plan and forget what the actual goal is. If I miss a day, I am inclined to give up altogether. It’s smarter, Burkeman writes, to commit to doing something a few times a week, or “daily-ish.” 

“Deep down, you know that doing something twice per week doesn’t qualify as dailyish, while five times per week does,” Burkeman writes. “In busy periods, three or four times per week might get to count. So you’re still putting some pressure on yourself.”

Being honest about how much time you can devote to something makes you more likely to accomplish it. “The point isn’t to spend your life serving rules,” Burkeman writes. “The point is for the rules to serve life.” 

Even if Beyoncé is able to follow through on daily to-do’s, I know my limitations. Hopefully by committing to doing tasks daily-ish, I can finally cross some of them off my list.

CNBC

Nigeria has officially submitted its ECOWAS schedule of tariff offers to the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) secretariat, marking a significant step in the country's participation in continental trade integration.

The newly gazetted trade commitment establishes zero-duty access for 90 percent of goods traded within Africa, a move that provides clarity and certainty for businesses engaging in cross-border commerce throughout the continent.

Industry, Trade and Investment Minister Jumoke Oduwole announced the development Monday on social media, confirming that Nigeria submitted the signed ECOWAS tariff offer during the AfCFTA ministerial meeting in Kinshasa.

"As Nigeria commences its implementation review of five years of AfCFTA, we have been reflective on the journey so far," Oduwole stated. "Nigerian entrepreneurs are more than ready to take on the challenge to move across borders—and we celebrate that feat by supporting them as a government."

The minister emphasized the agreement's substantial economic implications, noting that it opens access to a market of 1.4 billion people valued at $3.4 trillion—the world's largest free trade area. This represents a crucial opportunity for Nigerian businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises led by youth and women, to expand internationally and generate foreign exchange revenue.

"We continue to harness and keep value within our continent to ensure prosperity for African people. It's a partnership. Everybody has something to gain," she added.

With this submission, Nigeria becomes the 23rd AfCFTA member state to officially gazette its provisional schedule of tariff concessions, further strengthening the implementation of the continental trade framework.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Power Generation Companies (GenCos) have threatened to shut down operations over a N4 trillion debt owed by the federal government, raising fears of a nationwide blackout.

In a statement by Sani Bello, a retired colonel and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the GenCos, the companies cited severe liquidity challenges in Nigeria’s electricity sector, worsened by unpaid invoices, lack of firm contracts, and an unstable market structure.

Mounting Financial Strain

GenCos stated that despite expanding operations, they have been sidelined in payment settlements, forcing them to bear the brunt of the sector’s cash crisis. The situation has been compounded by:

- Unpaid invoices totaling N4 trillion (N2 trillion for 2024 and N1.9 trillion in legacy debts).

- Low revenue collection in 2024 (below 30%), with 2025 projections looking equally bleak.

- High operational costs, including forex scarcity, corporate taxes, concession fees, and regulatory compliance burdens.

The companies also expressed disappointment over stalled financial interventions, such as the World Bank’s Power Sector Recovery Programme (PSRP), due to other market players failing to meet key performance targets.

Calls for Immediate Action

GenCos demanded:

1. Urgent payment plans to clear outstanding debts.

2. Priority payment under the sector’s waterfall structure to ensure full settlement of their invoices.

3. A sustainable financing plan to address market shortfalls and stabilize the sector.

Sector-Wide Crisis Deepens

Nigeria’s power sector is grappling with massive debts from the government, consumers, and distribution companies (DisCos). GenCos also lose 35% of revenue due to technical and commercial inefficiencies, leading to underpayment to gas and hydro plants, which supply 85% and 25% of the nation’s electricity, respectively.

An industry expert warned that if GenCos proceed with a shutdown, the country could face total darkness. “The government only pays 40% of invoices—no business can survive that,” the source said, urging urgent negotiations.

Government Response

The Minister of Power’s office acknowledged the debt, attributing it partly to subsidy obligations and legacy debts predating the current administration.

“The Minister is engaging the Finance Ministry to expedite payments,” said Bolaji Tunji, Special Adviser on Media. “We recognize the severity of this issue and are working to resolve it.”

At least 51 people were killed by gunmen in the early hours of Monday in Nigeria's northern Plateau state, residents and Amnesty International said, two weeks after deadly clashes in another part of the state left dozens dead.

Last week, the national emergency agency said gunmen had killed at least 52 people and displaced nearly 2,000 others over several days of attacks in Plateau, which has a history of violence between farmers and cattle herders.

On Monday, residents said 51 bodies had been recovered in the Zikke and Kimakpa villages in Plateau's Bassa district, while several more were reportedly injured.

The cause of the attack was not immediately known.

"A mass burial is currently underway. There is outrage in the land at the moment," said resident Joseph Chudu Yonkpa, who said the gunmen were cattle herders.

A police spokesperson did not immediately comment.

"No community deserves to go through such trauma, bloodshed, and destruction," said Albert Garba Samuel, spokesperson for local youth group Jere Nation Youths Development Association.

Amnesty International Nigeria said the gunmen also razed and looted homes.

"The inexcusable security lapses that enabled this horrific attack, two weeks after the killing of 52 people, must be investigated," Amnesty said in a statement.

Plateau is one of several ethnically and religiously diverse hinterland states known as Nigeria's Middle Belt, where inter-communal conflict has claimed hundreds of lives in recent years.

The violence is often painted as ethno-religious conflict between Muslim herders and mainly Christian farmers. But climate change and the reduction of grazing land through agricultural expansion are also major factors.

Reuters

Israel makes new Gaza ceasefire proposal but prospects appear slim

Mediators Egypt and Qatar have presented a new Israeli proposal for a Gaza ceasefire to Hamas, Egyptian state-affiliated Al Qahera News TV said on Monday, but a senior Hamas official said at least two elements of the proposal were nonstarters.

Citing sources, Al Qahera said mediators awaited Hamas' response.

Hamas said in a statement later in the day that it was studying the proposal and that it will submit its response "as soon as possible".

The militant group reiterated its core demand that a ceasefire deal must end the war in Gaza and achieve a full Israeli pull-out from the strip.

Earlier, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters that the proposal did not meet the Palestinian group's demand that Israel commit to a complete halt of hostilities.

In the proposal, Israel also for the first time called for the disarmament of Hamas in the next phase of negotiations, which the group will not agree to, Abu Zuhri said.

"Handing over the resistance's weapons is a million red lines and is not subject to consideration, let alone discussion", Abu Zuhri said.

Israel did not immediately comment on the reported proposal.

The head of the Egyptian state information service told Al Qahera: "Hamas knows very well the value of time now and I believe that its response to the Israeli proposal will be quick."

Israel restarted its offensive in the enclave in March, ending a ceasefire that went into effect in late January.

The latest round of talks on Monday in Cairo to restore the ceasefire and free Israeli hostages ended with no apparent breakthrough, Palestinian and Egyptian sources said.

Hamas insists Israel commit to ending the war and pull out its forces from the Gaza Strip as agreed in the three-phase ceasefire accord that went into effect in late January.

Israel has said it will not end the war unless Hamas is eliminated and returns the remaining hostages held in Gaza.

"Hamas is ready to hand over the hostages in one batch in exchange for the end of war and the withdrawal of Israeli military" from Gaza, Abu Zuhri said.

Since restarting its military offensive last month, Israeli forces have killed more than 1,500 Palestinians, Gaza health authorities have said. It has displaced hundreds of thousands of people and imposed a blockade on all supplies entering the enclave.

Meanwhile, 59 Israeli hostages remain in the hands of the militants. Israel believes 24 of them are alive.

Reuters

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Russian strike on Sumy targeted Ukrainian and NATO officers – Lavrov

Sunday’s missile strike on the northeastern Ukrainian city of Sumy was aimed at senior Ukrainian and Western military personnel, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

His comments followed a report from the Russian Defense Ministry, which confirmed that two Iskander-M missiles had struck the location, killing at least 60 senior commanders.

“We have facts about who was at the facility that was hit in Sumy. It was another meeting of Ukrainian military leaders with their Western colleagues, who were either masquerading as mercenaries or I don’t know who,” Lavrov told Interfax on Monday.

“There are NATO servicemen there and they are directly in charge,”the top diplomat added. “Everyone knows this,” Lavrov said, referring to last month’s New York Times report detailing US involvement in Ukrainian attacks on Russia since the escalation of the conflict in 2022.

Kiev has routinely flouted international law by placing armaments in or near civilian infrastructure, the minister said.

”International humanitarian law categorically prohibits the deployment of military facilities and weapons on the territory of civilian facilities,” Lavrov stated. Despite this, from the earliest stages of the conflict, “there were ‘a million’ examples of [Kiev’s] deployment of artillery and air defense systems in city blocks near kindergartens,” he added.

“How many videos have been posted on the Internet, when Ukrainian women shout for the military to get away from stores and playgrounds. But this practice continues,” the diplomat said.

According to local authorities in Sumy, the Russian missile strike killed over 20 civilians and wounded more than 80 others.

Reacting to the claim, the Russian Defense Ministry accused Kiev of systematically using its civilian population “as a human shield.”

Several Ukrainian officials have criticized the location chosen for the meeting.

Artyom Semenikhin, mayor of neighboring city of Konotop and a member of the neo-Nazi Svoboda party, blamed the head of the Sumy Region’s military administration for organizing the conference in a civilian area so close to the front line.

Sumy is situated some 25 kilometers (15 miles) from the Russian border and the nearby Kursk Region, an area where heavy fighting is taking place.

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Ukrainian drone attack on Russia's Kursk kills woman, injures nine, authorities say

A Ukrainian overnight drone attack killed an 85-year-old woman, injured nine people and sparked fires in several buildings in the Russian city of Kursk near the border with Ukraine, regional authorities said on Tuesday.

"Kursk has been subjected to a massive enemy attack overnight," the Kursk region administration said in a post on Telegram messaging app.

A multi-storey apartment building was damaged in result of the drone attack, with several flats catching fire, acting mayor of Kursk, Sergei Kotlyarov said on Telegram. Residents have been evacuated to a nearby school, he added.

Drones also hit also an ambulance garage, damaging 11 cars, the region's administration said.

The scale of the attack was not immediately clear but Russia's Baza and SHOT Telegram channels, which often publish information from sources in the security services and law enforcement, said that more than 20 blasts shook the city.

They posted photos of what looked like a multi-storey residential building on fire at night.

Reuters could not independently verify the reports. There was no immediate comment from Ukraine. Both sides deny targeting civilians in the war, which Russia launched with a full-scale invasion on Ukraine more than three years ago.

Ukrainian troops, which staged a cross-border incursion into the Kursk region of which the city of Kursk is the administrative centre, still remainin parts of it, although Russian forces have recaptured much lost territory.

The attack follows a Russian missile and bomb attack on the Ukrainian city of Sumy over the weekend that killed 35 people and injured at least 119.

RT/Reuters

The last time I wrote about this tragedy, which I now call Tinubu’s Terrible Tribalism, I had asked: Is Tinubu settling scores? Because the president’s naked embrace of Yorubacentricism after a lifetime of railing with his kinsmen against Hausa-Fulani hegemony could only have been inspired by vengeance.

But such undisguised and unbridled vengeance in his first term against the North, whose votes he must secure for re-election, would be foolhardiness. The focus on the North isn’t to understate the treachery other zones feel but to emphasise the political irrationality and moral hypocrisy of Tinubu’s tribalism. Tinubu might be arrogant and occasionally temperamental, but he is a consummate schemer. The idea that he can allow self-indulgence to blind him to basic political calculations is a little preposterous. So why is Tinubu relentlessly perpetuating a Yoruba hegemony so early in his presidency?

It’s doubtful even that the mercurial Sunday Igboho, saddled with the responsibilities of a president, would have relegated statesmanship and national cohesion to this extent in pursuit of an apparent ethnic championship. Igboho, being less cunning and presumptuous might have been more sensitive. The reality is astounding, so it bears repeating. All critical instruments of coercion are effectively in the hands of one ethnic group. A Yoruba is president. A Yoruba is the Chief of Army Staff. Yoruba is the Inspector General of Police. A Yoruba is the Director General of the State Security Service. A Yoruba is the EFCC chairman. A Yoruba is the Chief Justice of the Federation. A Yoruba is the Attorney General of the Federation. A Yoruba is the Comptroller General of Customs. A Yoruba heads Immigration. The Chief Justice is not the president’s appointee but shouldn’t the Yoruba headship of two of the three arms of government make Tinubu worry about imbalance? Even if the Yoruba had conquered Nigeria, wouldn’t they have been more magnanimous?

A few commentators have argued that having come to the throne majorly through self-help and against all odds, Tinubu perhaps feels entitled to do and undo. Expanding his Lagos dynasty and imposing it on the entire country might be, for him, his natural progression. But perhaps that portrays Tinubu too much as a Tarzan. However, Tinubu’s politics, read benignly, conceives good governance to be dependent on a guided continuity. For him, democracy means benign Babasopecracy (patriarchal autocracy). It doesn’t matter if it is forced to masquerade and run around as a liberal multiparty democracy. So what others see as opportunistic self-aggrandising godfatherism aimed at entrenching a private political dynasty using Yoruba as mere building blocks, he possibly sees as progressive politics. While an obsession for an expanded dynasty coheres with Tinubu’s political history and explains in part his carefree tribalism, nothing in this dynasty concept precludes shrewd calculated inclusiveness. Allowing pliable folks from all parts of the country to occupy critical security positions to hoodwink the populace would have provided a necessary smokescreen. But Tinubu has chosen to be explicit.

Nigeria has six zones. Yoruba is primarily one zone. Nigeria has over 250 ethnic groups. Yoruba is only one of them, though it constitutes about 20 per cent of the national population. A Yoruba is the Minister of Finance and Coordinator of the Economy. A Yoruba is the Oil Minister. Another Yoruba is the CBN Governor. A Yoruba is the Minister of Blue Economy. Yet another Yoruba is the Minster of Digital Economy. A Yoruba is the Minister of Solid Minerals. A Yoruba is the Minister of Trade and Industries. A Yoruba is the head of FIRS. A Yoruba is Managing Director of Bank of Agriculture. A Yoruba is Managing Director of Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF). Another Yoruba is the Accountant General of the Federation. The Yoruba hold the most critical positions, not just in the security and law enforcement sectors but also in the economy. The Yoruba may be the smartest Nigerians, but the gap isn’t this wide. Therefore, any attempt to sell this perfidy as meritocracy is political Yahoo-Yahoo. The abject and comprehensive servility of the National Assembly should be proof to Tinubu that many other Nigerians are as willing as the Yoruba to worship Tinubu, to sing On Your Mandate while lying face down at his feet. If so, why is Tinubu’s Tribalism so headlong, so relentless?

While refuting revenge as a motive for Tinubu’s Terrible Tribalism, I had wondered about the virtue of the entire NADECO and Afenifere enterprises of the 90s and early 2000s. Perhaps we had all been deceived into jumping onto a duplicitous wagon for group vendetta or ethnic actualisation, rather than national liberation. That attempt to interrogate the original authenticity of Afenifere because of the startling repudiation of its core principles by one of its champions provoked the former Afenifere leader, Ayo Adebanjo, who sadly died recently. In response to that article, Adebanjo had disowned Tinubu and disagreed vehemently that Tinubu was promoting any genuine Yoruba interests. He said Tinubu’s tribalism was dangerous cronyism, a patently self-serving adventure by a wolf in sheep’s clothing to turn Nigeria into a one-party state and become its life president.

In his response to that article, a former Minister in the Jonathan administration said he was baffled by the scale of Tinubu’s Tribalism, which he believed was borne of triumphalism. He wondered why Tinubu was recklessly alienating people of other tribes who were starting to respond by switching off, becoming apathetic, in many government institutions. He wondered how embracing only a section of the Yoruba, instead of the entire South, would help the president, assuming he had something deep-seated against the North and wanted to call its bluff. My response was that besides triumphalism, Tinubu wanted to conscript the Yoruba emotionally to protect and preserve his presidency as a Yoruba project. In addition to their block votes, which might compensate for some of the inevitable losses up North, the Yoruba intelligentsia, if pushed into ethnic defensiveness by any indiscriminate anti-Yoruba sentiment by the other groups, could become the formidable and validating voice to legitimise and promote him, his second term ambition, and possibly any life presidency ideas, no matter his performance. In other words, Tinubu could be banking on the benefits of becoming synonymous with Yoruba, arguably the country’s most enlightened clan.

Many years ago, Tinubu was an apostle of Sovereign National Conference. The SNC, that vehicle of inclusion, was supposed to transport ethnic nationalities to a people-oriented constitution to enthrone freedom, equity, social justice and prosperity in the nation. The SNC was the gbogborise fermented in Yoruba land, which must be administered to Nigeria, or it would inexorably perish. Then, Tinubu had said the cracks in the foundation of the nation demanded a fundamental overhaul. Those days, he regarded the unity of the country as desirable and negotiable, rather than inviolable and sacrosanct. Now, Tinubu regards that unity with callous levity. And perhaps any noisy agitation for a Sovereign National Conference now could easily be treated as treason.

For so many years, Tinubu and his political associates demanded true federalism, underlined by resource control and the devolution of powers. Those days they seemed the most principled politicians in Africa. They wanted decentralisation to curb the prevalent national ailment. That ailment was stagnation and inequity and the reign of mediocrity. Unavoidably, they wanted an end to Hausa Fulani hegemony. Now, Tinubu is cheerfully concentrating power in the hands of one ethnic group. It has become his obsession. Now, Tinubu no longer remembers the positions and appointments that defined lopsidedness, which made him and his friends cry about Hausa Fulani’s hegemony. They now say all positions are equal. Perhaps Tinubu thinks Nigerians are cows.

In truth, nobody expects habitually wheeling and dealing politicians to be averse to opportunism or to pass any strict tests of moral hygiene. But Tinubu’s brazen tribalism is confounding. Some say Tinubu has only revealed his true colours. But for some of us who saw some good in him, his industrial-scale tribalism is concerning. Because such crippling myopia could be a consequence of a more fundamental moral depreciation. In multi-ethnic African nations, rabid tribalism is always a recipe for stagnation and instability. Any concentration of power in a single ethnic group is always a disservice to the tribe and country. That Tinubu cannot foresee this ruin is worrisome. That he can, uninhibited by conscience, and with defiance, choose this course is pitiable.