ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

In an era defined by geopolitical competition, trade wars, sanctions regimes, and shifting alliances, one phrase has migrated from European policy papers to the heart of African diplomacy: “Strategic Autonomy”.

For Nigeria, this is not a new experiment in isolation, nor is it a nostalgic return to Cold War non-alignment. As I outlined in a recent address from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Abuja, it is something far more direct and more urgent.

Strategic autonomy is alignment to Nigerian national interest. Once you are clear in what constitutes your national interest, you align with those interests regardless of which party is at the receiving end. That is the foundation. I am aware of scholarly publications that was recently put together by the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs on the subject.

While the Ministry prepares the full concept note charting new fronts in a multi polar world, let me share the preliminary framework guiding Nigeria’s foreign policy under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Our goal is simple: to ensure that Nigeria, and by extension Africa, is not an object of geopolitics, but a subject that defines its own future.

What Strategic Autonomy means for Nigeria and Africa
Strategic autonomy is often misunderstood as withdrawal. It is the opposite. It is engagement on our terms. Today, Nigerian Foreign Policy has shifted. Gone is the era of reactive alignment. The Tinubu 4Ds agenda is anchored on strategies that are clearly designed to bring succor to Nigerians. The deliberate pursuit of Nigeria’s national interest across economic, security, technological, and diplomatic domains, without being locked into any single bloc. Nigeria’s strategic autonomy rests on 5 pillars in a world of continuous alignment. Together, they form the blueprint for how Nigeria engages a world that is no longer unipolar, but contested, transactional, and opportunity-rich.

NATIONAL INTEREST, NIGERIA FIRST 
Alignment to Nigerian national interest is the guiding rule. For Nigeria, Foreign Policy begins at home. Every treaty, partnership, and diplomatic gesture is measured against one question: does it deliver jobs, infrastructure, security, defence and dignity for Nigerians?

This principle was tested in the enforcement of the One China Policy. When diplomatic lines were blurred, the Ministry acted decisively: relocating trade missions from Abuja to Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial hub, and reaffirming that Nigeria speaks with one voice.  There is no room for diplomatic blunder in Nigeria. The message is clear: Nigeria will be a partner, not a pawn. Strategic autonomy means clarity of position first, and flexibility in tactics second.

ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION 
AfCFTA + global partnerships like China’s zero-tariff access. Nigeria is done with aid-for-diplomacy. The new model is trade-for-growth. Under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda, Nigeria is leveraging two levers simultaneously: 

1. Continental integration through the African Continental Free Trade Area, to build regional value chains. 

2. Global partnerships that open markets. China’s zero-tariff policy for eligible Nigerian exports is a case in point, creating new pathways for agriculture, manufacturing, and solid minerals to reach 1.4 billion consumers.

From the Lagos-Calabar coastal transport system to industrial parks in Ogun and Lekki, Chinese, European, and Gulf investments are being steered toward productive sectors. The goal is not dependency, but diversification: more partners, more markets, more Nigerian-made exports.

SECURITY SOVEREIGNTY
African-led, but open to any partner that delivers results. Nigeria’s security doctrine is rooted in the principle that Africans must lead African solutions. ECOWAS, the AU, and regional counter-terrorism frameworks remain central.

But strategic autonomy also means pragmatism. On terrorism, maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea, and cyber threats, Nigeria is open to cooperation with any partner, East or West that brings intelligence, technology, and capacity without conditions that undermine sovereignty. The benchmark is simple: results for Nigerian communities. Partnerships are judged not by ideology, but by impact on the ground.

TECHNOLOGICAL AGENCY 
Build, don’t just buy. Lead in AI and digital infrastructure. The 21st century will be won on data, chips, and talent. Nigeria refuses to be only a consumer. This is the essence of Minister Bosun Tijjani’s reforms in our digital ecosystem.  Through partnerships in 5G, fiber optics, and smart cities, Nigeria is negotiating technology transfer, not just procurement. Engagement with the World Artificial Intelligence Organization and related partnerships signal intent: to move from adoption to authorship.

The aim is to build domestic capacity in AI, fintech, and digital governance, so that Nigerian developers, not just foreign vendors, shape the platforms used daily by 200 million Nigerians. Technological agency is sovereignty in the digital age.

DIPLOMATIC FLEXIBILITY 
Engage all major powers without being locked into one camp. In a multipolar world, alignment is a choice made per issue, not per decade. Nigeria maintains a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with China on infrastructure and more. It deepens trade and security ties with the US and EU. It expands South-South cooperation with India, Brazil, and the Gulf. It leads on the continent through AfCFTA and AU reform.

This is not non-alignment. It is multi-alignment: engaging all, belonging to none, and extracting maximum value for Nigeria from each relationship. Strategic autonomy is alignment to Nigerian national interests. Nigeria’s 5 Pillars offer more than a foreign policy. They offer a template for mid-sized and emerging powers navigating great power competition. It is a policy of conviction without rigidity. Of partnership without dependence. Of ambition without illusion.

Nigeria will continue to deepen partnerships that deliver infrastructure, jobs, and technology, but always on Nigerian terms. In 2026, the measure of sovereignty is not who you oppose. It is what you are able to build.

We can no longer afford an economy built only on exporting raw materials to one market and importing finished goods from another. The African Continental Free Trade Area gives us the platform to build regional value chains. At the same time, we must diversify globally. This is why we welcome China’s decision to grant zero-tariff treatment to 53 African countries, while we simultaneously deepen trade with the EU, the US, the Gulf, and our neighbors in ECOWAS. No single partner can meet all our development needs, and we will not be dependent on any one.

The primary duty of any government is the protection of its citizens. That principle must guide our security partnerships. African-led solutions through the AU and ECOWAS remain our first choice. But we will not outsource our judgment. We greatly appreciate the US but if any country says he can help me to wipe out terrorism in Nigeria in the next two weeks, will I say because I’m friend to the US I will not agree? No,”. The safety of Nigerians comes first. Strategic autonomy means we evaluate every security offer by one metric: does it deliver peace, security and stability for our people?

In a multipolar world, we must talk to everyone and be forced to choose no one. This is not duplicity. It is maturity. We have demonstrated this in recent weeks. We condemned Afrophobic attacks in South Africa because the dignity of Nigerians abroad is non-negotiable. We pushed the agenda at the recent ECOWAS Summit in Freetown Sierra Leone where President Tinubu’s voice was clear and unambiguous. At the same time, we are preserving and strengthening the Nigeria-South Africa strategic partnership because both countries benefit from trade, investment, and regional leadership. That is strategic autonomy in practice.

The 4D Agenda meets a fragmenting World
The global shifts make this doctrine necessary today.  Today, we have multipolarity. The unipolar moment has passed. Power is diffused across Washington, Beijing, Brussels, New Delhi, Riyadh, and other capitals. Under President Tinubu’s 4D Foreign Policy Agenda: Demography, Development, Diaspora and Democracy — Nigeria’s diplomacy is calibrated to one question: what does this mean for Nigerian citizens? Ideological blocs are secondary to results.

Africa has 60% of the world’s youngest population. By 2050, one in four people on earth will be African.  Nigeria will be the third most populated country in the world by 2050. We cannot allow our future to be scripted by others. We must define our own development model, centered on jobs, skills, and innovation. In this context, some analysts have described our approach as “pragmatism devoid of doctrine.” I disagree.

“I don’t agree with that kind of characterization. Everything foreign policy is about national interest,”.  What we are doing is giving that age-old principle a modern name and structure. We are drawing from our own history. As one of my lecturers at the University used to say, “ non-alignment is alignment to your national interest.” That remains true. Doctrine without delivery is rhetoric. For strategic autonomy to produce tangible benefits, Africa must take deliberate steps.

We must fully implement AfCFTA to unlock a $3.4 trillion single market. That means reducing tariffs, harmonizing standards, and building cross-border infrastructure. We must invest heavily in energy and infrastructure. No factory runs without power. No trade happens without roads, rail, and ports. Strategic autonomy requires industrial power.

Africa must speak with one voice in global forums — at the UN, G20, and WTO. Africa’s 54 countries carry more weight together than separately. It is time to protect and deepen democratic institutions. Autonomy should never be confused with authoritarianism. The legitimacy of our choices comes from the consent of our people.

Let me be clear. Strategic autonomy is not about turning our backs on partners. It is about choosing partners freely. It is the right to trade with anyone, learn from everyone, and be dominated by no one. The world is fragmenting into blocs. Africa’s best option is not to join a bloc, but to become a bloc ourselves — economically integrated, politically coherent, and diplomatically confident.

Written by Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye,
Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Federal Republic of Nigeria

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

By Dr Festus Goziem Okubor writing from Ute-Erumu

Let us begin with a number so obscene it should make every Nigerian’s blood boil: Four trillion naira. That is what the fuel subsidy hemorrhage cost this nation in 2022 alone. Not on schools.

Not on hospitals. Not on the roads that swallowed trucks. Four trillion naira vanished into the pockets of smugglers, cartel kingpins, and the political godfathers who turned Nigeria’s treasury into their personal automated teller machine.

No doubt, the forecasts for 2023 were worse: over six trillion naira, a sum larger than the entire federal budgets of Ghana, Senegal, and Côte d’Ivoire combined, was projected to go up in smoke, literally. This was not a social safety net. This was not a helping hand for the poor. This was beyond reasonable sense, organized, industrial-scale looting dressed in the language of compassion. The Nigerian fuel subsidy was the greatest heist in the economic history of modern Africa, and for forty years, every single man who occupied Aso Rock looked the other way until
May 29, 2023.

Bola Ahmed Tinubu took the microphone, looked the subsidy vampire in the eye, and drove a stake through its heart. “Subsidy is gone,” he said. No committee. No white paper. No six-month stakeholder consultation designed to produce nothing. Just three words that every one of his predecessors lacked the spine to utter. That is what this piece is about: not spin, not propaganda, but the Cowardice Archive: Forty Years of Broken Promises.

Let us be brutally honest about our history, because the opposition would prefer we rather forget it.

Olusegun Obasanjo tried in 2003. He announced subsidy removal, faced protests, and retreated so fast you could hear the wind break. He tried again in 2004, then 2007; each time blinking at the first sign of resistance. The man who once boasted that Nigeria was not a nation of cows, yet the subsidy swallowed another trillion.

Goodluck Jonathan’s turn; 2012. The Occupy Nigeria movement took to the streets, and Jonathan, facing an election season capitulated completely. He not only restored the subsidy but entrenched it, ensuring the government, deducting billions at source for “under-recovery” a phrase that should live in infamy as the most expensive euphemism in Nigerian history.

Recall the scene again; Inauguration Day. The presidential speech writers must have scripted the
norm; politically correct platitudes; false hope, soothing words with unrealistic inanities. Instead,
Tinubu went off-script and detonated a policy bomb:  The fuel subsidy is gone.;
The political class was stunned. Where were the committees? Where was the national dialogue?
Where was the six-month palliation window that had killed every previous attempt? Tinubu had
done the unthinkable: he simply acted. No consultation with the subsidy cartel. No negotiation
with the smugglers. No advance warning to the political godfathers who had grown fat on the
arbitrage between Nigeria’s subsidized campaigns on removing the subsidy. Unlike his
predecessors, who promised reform and delivered capitulation, Tinubu promised action, and for
the first time in Nigerian history, a president& word was total, final and unbreakable.

Tinubu’s May 29 declaration was not cruel. It was the long-overdue demolition of a criminal
enterprise masquerading as social policy. No doubt the petrol prices soared as the immediate
effect of the proclamation. This part is always painted by political antagonists, in its most
gruesome form, while seeking to defame Tinubu as the cruelest President Nigeria ever had.

They refuse to speak on the positive effect that this has on the economy: monthly allocations to
states and Local Governments that once struggled to pay salaries now routinely exceed pre-2023
levels by margins of forty to sixty percent. Governors who spent years blaming Abuja for their
insolvency suddenly found themselves with resources they had never seen. Whereas this article
does not refute the fact that the masses have borne the immediate effect of subsidy removal, the
price shock, real and painful as it is, should not mask the other reality of structural reallocation
of national resources. Nigeria was spending more on subsidizing premium motor spirit than on
its entire capital budget. Let that sink in: more on fuel than on roads, power, health, and
education combined. Have you ever wondered why since 2023 there has been no serious fuel
scarcity in Nigeria? By now, with the current military interface between America, Israel and
Iran, and its attendant global oil crisis, the queues at filling stations as well as unreachable prices
would have crippled the nation.

The IMF, no friend of populist presidents, wants us to believe that the Dangote Refinery with its
650,000 barrels per day of domestic refining capacity is somehow Aliko Dangote’s achievement
alone, disconnected from government policy. This is either ignorance or deceit. The Dangote
Refinery reached operational status under Tinubu’s watch, because Tinubu created the conditions
for it to thrive. A downstream sector still shackled to subsidy economics would have made the
refinery commercially unviable. Why would anyone invest billions in domestic refining price,
quality, without competitive market access?

Consider where this leads: Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer, has spent decades importing
refined petroleum because its own refineries were monuments to incompetence and corruption.
The subsidy regime made this madness profitable. Why fix refineries when you could import and
pocket the subsidy differential? Tinubu, the political tactician broke that vicious circle.

The end of fuel importation is no longer a distant dream. It is the logical terminus of policies
now in motion. And when that day comes, when Nigeria refines every drop of its own crude, the
credit will belong not only to Tinubu but to all of us through our collective resilience and
defiance against all that robbed Nigeria thin and lean through the heist of petroleum subsidy.
This collective resilience and defiance, no doubt, is coming with painful cost, as no honest
supporter of this administration is oblivious to the pain, through inflation that the removal of Oil
subsidy has brought on household budgets. This temporary painful condition, which will soon
end in the glory of a salvaged nation, that the rent-seekers who fed on Nigeria for forty years will
not refrain from deploying, using every bureaucratic trick, every media plant, every political
proxy to claw 2027 general elections.

As we approach the 2027 crossroads, the question on the ballot cannot be clearer. On one side:
the subsidy vampires, the political actors, business cartels, and bureaucratic networks that fed on
the narrative that Tinubu has made life harder; They will promise to bring back the good old
days; of cheap fuel. They will not mention that those days were financed by debt our
grandchildren will repay. On the other side: a president who, whatever his imperfections, did
what no one before him dared to do. He looked at a system designed to impoverish the nation
and enrich a few, and he dismantled it. Not gradually. Not after a committee report. On Day One.
The history of nations is written at moments like this.

Every country that has ever broken free ofa resource curse, whether Indonesia under Suharto, Brazil under Cardoso, or India under Rao,did so because someone, somewhere, decided to stop the bleeding, whatever the political cost.
Bola Ahmed Tinubu made that decision for Nigeria on May 29, 2023. The reforms are not
complete. The pain has not fully subsided. But the hemorrhage has been stanched.

The patient is stabilizing. No more fake fuel promises. Nigeria has heard enough of those to last a lifetime.

What we have now for the first time in a generation, is a president who said he would act, and
did.

That is a story worth telling in 2027. That is a record worth defending. That is a man worth
reelecting.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

By,

Ken Harries Esq.

Democracies are built not only on elections but also on institutions. While elections provide legitimacy, institutions provide stability and growth. The strongest democracies are those that balance the need for accountability with the need for continuity, recognising that enduring reforms often require consistent leadership to move from legislation to implementation.
As political conversations gradually shift towards the next electoral cycle – 2027, Nigerians should therefore ask a fundamental question: when leadership has demonstrated measurable performance and is steering major national reforms, does changing that leadership necessarily serve the national interest?

This question is particularly elevant to the leadership of the National Assembly. Unlike executive offices where policy direction can change overnight, legislatures thrive on institutional memory, consensus-building, stability and the patient cultivation of broad political support. Complex constitutional amendments, fiscal and governance reforms rarely mature within a single legislative session. They require continuity of vision, experience, stability and leadership.

Since its inauguration, the 10th Senate under the leadership of Senator Godswill Akpabio has pursued an ambitious and innovative legislative agenda touching virtually every major areas of national development. Beyond routine lawmaking, the Senate has considered constitutional amendments, electoral reforms, fiscal restructuring, security legislation and institutional reforms designed to address some of Nigeria’s most pressing challenges. Regardless of one’s political persuasion, few would dispute that the legislative agenda of the National Assembly has been extensive, innovative, bold and consequential.
Perhaps no proposal better illustrates this than the State Police Bill.

For decades, Nigerians have debated whether the country’s security challenges can continue to be effectively managed through an exclusively centralised policing structure. Rising incidents of terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal violence and farmer-herder conflicts have intensified calls for a policing system that is closer to the communities it serves.

The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to establish state police services operating alongside the Nigeria Police Force under carefully defined constitutional safeguards. Its supporters argue that locally recruited officers would possess a better understanding of their communities’ languages, culture, terrain and security dynamics, thereby improving intelligence gathering, crime prevention and emergency response. Rural communities are currently underserved by federal policing, could receive greater security coverage, while stronger collaboration between local communities and security personnel could significantly enhance intelligence-led policing.

Importantly, the proposal is not simply an exercise in decentralisation. Conscious of concerns about political abuse, the amendment incorporates safeguards including independent State Police Service Commissions, judicial oversight, constitutional limits on state policing powers, nationally recognised operational standards, structured coordination with federal security agencies and legislative oversight. These provisions seek to ensure that decentralisation strengthens security without undermining constitutional rights or national cohesion.
The significance of such a far-reaching constitutional reform extends beyond its passage. Should the amendment eventually become law, its successful implementation would demand sustained legislative oversight, continuous engagement with stakeholders and careful monitoring over several years. Institutional continuity could therefore become a significant advantage in ensuring that the reform achieves its intended objectives.
The same principle applies to the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill. Elections remain the foundation of democratic legitimacy, and public confidence in electoral outcomes is predicated largely upon the credibility of the legal framework governing the process. The amendments sought to strengthen voters accreditation, improve result management, reinforce the independence of electoral institutions, regulate the deployment of technology, impose stronger penalties for electoral offences and reduce unnecessary post-election litigation through clearer legal provisions.
These reforms are intended not merely to improve election administration but to strengthen public confidence in democracy itself. Yet electoral reforms seldom end with legislative approval. They require continuous oversight, periodic refinement and close collaboration among the legislature, the electoral commission, political parties, the judiciary and civil society. Stable parliamentary leadership provides greater institutional capacity to guide that process without unnecessary disruption.

Equally significant are the Tax Reform Bills, which sought to modernise Nigeria’s tax administration, simplify compliance, broaden the revenue base and create a more predictable fiscal environment capable of supporting long-term economic growth and improved public service delivery. Such reforms are central to Nigeria’s efforts to reduce dependence on volatile oil revenues and build a more sustainable economy. Like other major reforms, however, their long-term success depends as much on consistent legislative oversight as on their initial passage.

Critics may rightly observe that no legislature is beyond criticism, and the 10th Senate is no exception. Parliamentary leadership in every democracy attracts intense public scrutiny, robust debate and differing political opinions. Those debates are healthy because democratic institutions are strengthened when leaders remain accountable to the citizens they serve.
However, leadership should ultimately be evaluated not solely on controversy but on measurable institutional performance. The more important question is whether the legislature has advanced meaningful reforms, strengthened democratic institutions and fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities. Judged by those standards, supporters argue that the current Senate leadership has maintained legislative productivity while addressing complex national challenges requiring broad political consensus.
Indeed, continuity should never be defended merely because an incumbent seeks another term. Democratic renewal remains essential. Yet experience also has value.

Legislatures differ from many other institutions because effectiveness depends less on executive authority than on negotiation, persuasion, stability, coalition-building and procedural mastery. These qualities are developed over time.

Senator Akpabio’s supporters point to his unusual combination of executive and legislative experience, having served as governor, minister and now Senate President. They argue that this background has enabled him to navigate competing political interests, build consensus across party and regional lines, manage complex legislative negotiations and sustain constructive engagements between the executive and legislative arms of government without compromising the Senate’s constitutional core mandates and responsibilities.
History demonstrates that institutions often suffer when successful reforms are interrupted before reaching maturity. Nigeria itself has witnessed numerous policies abandoned, delayed or fundamentally altered simply because leadership changed. Too often, institutional momentum is sacrificed at the altar of political transition. Democracies pay a price when every new leadership begins by restarting the race rather than sustaining it.

The National Assembly is no different. Major constitutional amendments, security reforms and fiscal restructuring are not relay races in which every incoming leadership drops the baton and begins afresh. They are long-distance national projects requiring persistence, stability, institutional memory and steady stewardship. Continuity, where justified by performance, enables reforms to mature, preserves valuable institutional knowledge and reduces avoidable disruptions to legislative priorities.
This is not an argument that leadership should become permanent, nor is it a plea for blind loyalty to any individual. Every Senate President must earn the confidence of colleagues through competence, integrity, fairness and measurable performance. Ultimately, the decision belongs first to the electorates of Akwa Ibom North-West Senatorial District and, if re-elected, to members of the Senate who will choose their presiding officers in accordance with the Constitution and the Senate Standing Orders.

As Nigerians evaluate the future leadership of the National Assembly, the debate should rise above personalities and partisan loyalties. The real question is not whether one individual occupies a particular office, but whether the institution benefits from continuity at a time when significant constitutional, and security, electoral and fiscal reforms remain unfinished.
History rarely remembers legislatures for the political contests surrounding their leaders. It remembers the institutions they strengthened, the reforms they sustained and the foundations they laid for future generations. If Nigeria believes that the ongoing reforms in policing, elections, taxation and governance are essential to its future, then continuity in parliamentary leadership becomes more than a political preference. It becomes a strategic question about how best to consolidate progress, preserve institutional stability and advance the nation’s democratic development.

Ken Harries Esq
Abuja-based Development Communication Strategist