ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

President Bola Tinubu on Thursday declared that he is ready to contest the 2027 election to seek a second term in office as Nigeria’s leader.

According to him, he is ready to break the shackles of ignorance and poverty, put freedom in the hearts of Nigerians and ensure democracy survives.

Taking a swipe at opposition parties, President Tinubu said he wants to give something different from the rascality or noise-making of a street convention.

According to him, the country must submit to the principles of separation of powers and respect the judiciary even when rulings don’t favour a particular group.

Naija News reports that Tinubu made the declaration when he met with the leadership and coordinators of the Renewed Hope Ambassadors at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.

Tinubu added that he can’t be intimidated by the antics of opposition parties and politicians, declaring that he was once in their shoes and understands the game.

“They want to scare me off? It’s a lie. I have been through this path before, and if I have to come back over and over again, I will do the same thing,” he added.

Meanwhile, the Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, has berated former Vice President Atiku Abubakar over his interest in the 2027 presidency.

Onanuga argued that Atiku is simply pursuing a self-serving interest without regard for zoning or Nigeria’s power rotation arrangement, which gives preference to a southern candidate for the 2027 presidency.

According to the presidential media aide, Atiku has constantly disregarded zoning arrangements in his previous ambitions for the presidency, leading to a crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

He added that Atiku’s open declaration of intent to contest the 2027 presidency is following the same route and may plunge the African Democratic Congress (ADC) into similar troubles.

Onanuga, however, predicted that Atiku would suffer a resounding defeat at the polls, describing him as a man who never learns.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has dismissed the reported suspension of former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, by a faction of the party in Adamawa State.

The party described the move as invalid, insisting that those behind it lack the authority to take such action.

The National Publicity Secretary of the party, Bolaji Abdullahi, said the announcement carries no weight within the party.

According to Abdullahi, “No, no, no. There’s nothing to it. It doesn’t make sense.

“Those saying it (they suspended Atiku and Babachir Lawal), don’t have the power to do that. No, they don’t have the power to do that. They are just jesters.”

The development followed a press conference by a factional chairman in Adamawa State, Raji Zumo, who announced the suspension of Atiku, Lawal and the party’s transition committee chairman, Sadiq Ibrahim.

Abdullahi said, “Let it be clearly stated, no individual, regardless of his status or influence, is above the law or the constitution of the African Democratic Congress, as long as he is a card-carrying member of the party.

“Those individuals are suspended for their roles in fostering disunity, creating parallel structures, undermining lawful authority, and disregarding a subsisting court order.”

The ADC has been grappling with internal disputes over its leadership structure.

Separate factions led by Nafiu Bala Gombe and Kingsley Ogga, both reportedly expelled during the party’s national convention, are laying claim to the position of national chairman.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had earlier withdrawn recognition of the party’s leadership structures amid the ongoing crisis.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

By Gloria Ikibah

The House of Representatives has intensified its investigation into the troubled Anchor Borrowers Programme, turning its spotlight on insurance providers linked to the scheme amid concerns over weak coverage and alleged fund mismanagement.

At a hearing convened by the House Committee on Nutrition and Food Security, lawmakers began scrutinising the role of the Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Corporation alongside private insurers in a programme valued at over N1.12 trillion.

The session forms part of a broader inquiry into how funds earmarked for agricultural support were handled, including allegations of diversion by government agencies and questions surrounding disbursement by participating financial institutions.

Representing the Managing Director of the Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Corporation, Dayo Babaronti told the committee that the agency insured just over 200,000 farmers, covering about N109 billion under the scheme.

He revealed that the Central Bank deviated from the original framework, which designated the corporation as the sole insurer, by bringing in additional firms, including Veritas Kapital Insurance and Leadway Insurance. Neither company was present at the hearing.

According to him, the corporation’s involvement amounted to only a small fraction of the overall programme, leaving significant gaps in coverage.

He also outlined the corporation’s limited role in other agricultural financing initiatives, including support for smallholder farmers and specific crop programmes, where insurance backing fell far short of funding allocations. In some cases, he noted, the corporation was excluded entirely despite policy provisions.

Tge Committee Chairman, Rep. Chike Okafor, signalled that further hearings would follow, noting that the panel had received numerous complaints from farmers and industry groups regarding inadequate insurance protection.

He explained that the committee will recall the agency for additional questioning, particularly as its submission arrived late, leaving little time for proper review.

Rep. Okafor maintained that the investigation is aimed at uncovering the root causes behind the programme’s shortcomings and ensuring accountability across all institutions involved.

He pointed to early findings suggesting that key stakeholders, especially farmers and commodity associations, were largely excluded from the design and implementation of the intervention, a factor believed to have contributed to its underperformance.

He stressed the committee’s determination to get to the bottom of the issues, stating, “The reason why we are here is because the programmes did not succeed 100%. If they had succeeded 100%, we will not be here.”