Featured
ON ZIK GBEMRE’S CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY IN HIS DIATRIBE TITLED “WHY OKPE KINGDOM & UPU MUST BEWARE OF PROF NATUFE’S DIVISIVE CAMPAIGN TO TEAR URHOBO APART”
INTRODUCTION
On June18, 2025, an Urhobo friend forwarded an article by one Mr. Zik Gbemre on the above subject. I thanked him for it. I also thank Mr. Gbemre for penning the said article, because he has broadened the debate of Okpe Union’s demand for the recognition of Okpe as a distinct ethnic nationality, outside the territory of the Okpe Kingdom.
Thus, I shall disregard his insulting outbursts against my person. We have to focus on the main ISSUE, which is the retrieval or restoration of the independence of the Okpe Nation. Let us exchange facts based on historical and cultural evidences instead of trading personal insults and falsifying History.
THE ISSUE
Students of Nigerian history are familiar with the British colonial policy of fusing diverse ethnic nationalities into one. Outside the contemporary Delta State, this British policy was more pronounced in the “Hausa-Fulani” phenomenon which most Nigerians, until recently, assumed to be one ethnic nationality. We are living witnesses to the awakened consciousness of the Hausas as they engage in an existential struggle to extricate themselves from the “Hausa-Fulani” appellation. It was this same British policy that birthed the false classification of Okpe as “a clan of Urhobo”. At its infancy they referred to Urhobo as “Sobo”.
Contemporary Okpe
nationals were born and raised in this falsity especially as they relate externally.
This classification has robbed Okpe of its ethnic identity, as contributions by Okpe nationals are credited to the Urhobo and not to the Okpe nationality. This cataloguing illegally extinguished Okpe ethnicity and institutionalized the assimilation of the Okpe nationality by the Urhobo.
For the benefits of Mr. Gbemre and his cohorts, it is pertinent that we recall the British fusion of Okpe with the Urhobo by providing the following excerpts from the website of the Okpe Union:
“According to R. E. Bradbury, a renowned British scholar, (The Benin Kingdom and the Edo-Speaking Peoples of South-Western Nigeria, 1970, p.128) the classification of Okpe among the Urhobo was influenced by geographic contiguity and the expediency of British colonial administration “rather than a linguistic basis.” He concluded that “Okpe is …closer to the Edo of the Benin Kingdom than are the Urhobo dialects proper”. In the 1930s the Okpe was placed in “Western Urhobo” and the Isoko in “Eastern Urhobo.” By administering the Okpe under the Urhobo umbrella, the British set in motion a process that led to the gradual but a systematic erosion of Okpe ethnicity which was erroneously subsumed under the Urhobo.
Over time, this grave error of British colonialism assumed a “truth” of its own as the outside world and several Okpe began to refer to the Okpe as “Urhobo.” This falsity was inherited by post-colonial Nigerian governments. A similar fate befell the Isoko of “Eastern Urhobo.” However, unlike the Okpe, their western counterpart, the Isokos were able to extricate themselves from the Urhobo appellation and restored their independence as a distinct ethnic nationality”.
“Notwithstanding the long years of interregnum, and the attempts by some powerful leaders to establish mini kingdoms, the Okpe people remained together as a Nation, thus giving significance to the slogan “Okpe Agbamua eni” (the unity of Okpe is an Elephant or Okpe Unity enables the lifting of an elephant). The establishment of the Okpe Union on May 16, 1930, in Lagos, galvanized the Okpe people into greater resolve.
The Okpe Union, the oldest registered ethnic organization of Delta State, and in Nigeria, became the mouth piece of the Okpe Nation and a defender of Okpe Identity. It championed the fight for the restoration of the Okpe Monarchy and succeeded in doing so when the British colonial regime approved the coronation of the second Orodje of Okpe Kingdom, Esezi II on January 1, 1945.
Though the monarchy was to rotate among the four ruling houses, it was however decided by the Ruling Houses that a prince from the Esezi Ruling house be crowned the Orodje, as a way of appeasing the gods for the curse placed on Okpe
Kingdom by Esezi l”.
It is instructive to note that, during the Midwest and Bendel State regimes era, when the current Edo and Delta states were together as one state, the colonial blurring of Okpe ethnic identity receded tremendously as Okpe people became practically recognised as a people with a distinct language.
This paved the way for the use of the Okpe Language for public newscast and language requests and magazine programmes in the then Bendel Broadcasting Service Radio and Television, separate from the Urhobo Language. This was continued in Delta State in the first years of the military regime. Unfortunately, when the first Civilian Government of Delta State headed by Governor Felix Ibru came on board, there was established a policy of officially recognizing five Ethnic Groups in Delta State which were, in alphabetical order, Anioma, Ijaw, Isoko, Itsekiri, and Urhobo. The Ikas, Ndokwas (Ukuanis) and the Enuanis were to express or parade themselves as Anioma people; the Okpe and Urhobo people were to express or parade themselves as Urhobo people while the Ijaw, Isoko and Itsekiri retained their identities that they already had in the defunct Bendel State.
However, as the James Ibori Government established the DESOPADEC Law of Delta State in 2007, Ndokwa was officially recognised as an ethnic nationality in the DESOPADEC Law which rendered the previous ethnic nationality policies obsolete. In fact, the Delta State Government followed up by issuing a letter of apology to the Ndokwa Nation for previously omitting its name from the list of recognized ethnic nationalities. Unfortunately, the Okpe people did not seize the opportunity to protest the omission of Okpe.
By the time Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan came on board, the struggle concentrated on having a Commissioner for the Okpe Nation in the DESOPADEC Commission scaled through when the House of Assembly moved a motion to dissolve the Commission. Governor Uduaghan then reconstituted the DESOPADEC Board to include an Okpe Commissioner in the person of Chief Joseph Egigba. In 2015, the Ika people also succeeded in having the DESOPADEC Law amended to reflect Ika ethnic nationality in the DESOPADEC Law. One implication of the recognition of an ethnic nationality in the DESOPADEC Law is that the group becomes entitled to an Executive Director and a Sub-Budget.
In terms of slots, projects and impact on the area, the difference cannot be overemphasised. Today, as Okpe which is bigger than several of the recognised ethnic nationalities in the DESOPADEC, and even has more quantum in petroluem and gas production is not recognised under the law.
EXPOSING THE WRONGFUL CLASSIFICATION
“Even though the Okpe succeeded in resuscitating the Okpe Monarchy, the struggle for the reinstatement and recognition of its distinct ethnic nationality is an ongoing task that the Okpe Union is spear-heading in collaboration with other Okpe organizations in the sensitization of the population and the Government of Delta State”. (https://okpeunionng.net/okpe-kingdom-history/)
For more details on the distinctiveness of Okpe ethnic nationality vis-a-vis the Urhobo, Mr. Gbemre and his cohorts are advised to consult the Keynote Address by HRM Orhue l, Orodje of Okpe Kingdom, entitled: “TRADITION AND GOVERNANCE IN OKPE KINGDOM: A KEYNOTE ADDRESS DELIVERED ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2007 BY HRM ORHUE 1, LL.M., CFR, mni., ORODJE OF OKPE KINGDOM AT THE 3RD ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE OKPE UNION OF NORTH AMERICA HELD AT MARRIOTT HOTEL, COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND, MD.USA,
AUGUST 31 – SEPTEMBER 03, 2007” (https://okpeunionng.net/tradition-and-governance/)
In the above referenced Keynote Address, HRM Orhue l, Orodje of Okpe Kingdom succinctly stated as follows:
“Okpe is a unique ethnic nationality. It has distinctive roots in ancient history, tradition, culture, customs and language.” He added: “Our people are rooted in migration from the Bini Kingdom. This historical experience is similar to most other ethnic nationalities of the Western Niger Delta.
Of all these nationalities however, Okpe History, language, tradition, and culture are closer to those of Bini which form part of the Edoid group of languages.”
Dr. (Prince) Isaac Sunday Mebitaghan, JP.,
(A Brief History of Okpe Kingdom, New Era Publications, Benin City, Nigeria, 2001.) and Rev. Dr. Charles E, Osume (The Okpe People, Mosogar Antioch Baptist Church, Mosogar, 2nd Edition, 2022) provided detailed analyses on the origins of the Okpe people that clearly affirmed the distinctiveness of the Okpe people as belonging to the same ancestry and language unlike the Urhobo ethnic nationality.
In its study on the History of the Okpe People of Delta Central, Udogun Okpe stated emphatically that “Okpe is indubitably known to be a distinct and autonomous Kingdom, an ethnic entity from its beginning. The people and their language are distinct and are named after their progenitor, Okpe, whose four sons (princes Orhue, Orhorho, Evbreke, and Esezi – OIN) founded the present day Okpe Kingdom”. (Udogun-Okpe, THE OKPE PEOPLE OF DELTA CENTRAL SENATORIAL DISTRICT, DELTA STATE, NIGERIA, 2020, p. 2.)
As the mouth piece of the Okpe Nation, Okpe Union has been consistently steadfast in its advocacy for the restoration of Okpe independence as a distinct ethnic nationality and not a sub-group or clan of the Urhobo or of any other ethnic nationality in the world.
This position on the retrieval of Okpe independence was strongly restated by Okpe nationals during the 95th Anniversary Celebrations of the founding of the Okpe Union on May 16, 2025 in Lagos. For example, in his comments on the subject at the 95th Anniversary Celebrations, AVM Frank Ajobena (RTD), former Military Administrator of Abia State, pointedly reiterated the distinctiveness of Okpe ethnic nationality. While he rightfully recognized the Urhobos as our neighbours, he however reminded them that “the identity of a people is fundamental to their emancipation.” He continued: “I don’t know why our brothers are apprehensive of Okpe establishing itself as a nationality.
We do not share a common ancestry with the Urhobo people. We do not share the same language with the Urhobo”.
The Okpe language is very different from the Urhobo, just as the Urhobo is different from the Ukuani, and the Itsekiri is different from the Isoko; even though they may all trace their respective origins to Benin Kingdom. However, due to their proximity and century-old relationships, it is normal to find commonalities between all these diverse ethnic nationalities.
However, it must be stressed that, the cosmological bond that binds an Okpe to a fellow Okpe is not the same that binds the Urhobo people. For example, when an Okpe addresses another Okpe as “omizu mẹ,” the salutation carries a more profound sociological and historical significance than the Urhobo’s “omoni.” By addressing an Okpe as “omizu mẹ,” the speaker is evoking a deep spiritual bond with his/her fellow Okpe citizen that underlines their common ancestry as the children of Prince Okpe. This is absent in the Urhobo, for example. Therefore, we challenge Mr. Gbemre and his cohorts to provide historical evidences to their claim that “Okpe is Urhobo” and that we share the same ancestry and language.
DISCUSSING THE ISSUE
Mr. Gbemre’s contribution to the debate on the restoration of Okpe as a distinct ethnic nationality is so banal that it is shameful to even consider it as a “contribution”. But, since that is the best he can offer we will include it in our response. He writes:
“I have observed the inciting utterances of one Prof Igho Natufe and gullible cheering fans at an anniversary of the Okpe Union in Lagos, where he chose to resurrect the reckless insult he has been leading some lunatic fringes within Okpe to smear the larger Urhobo nation in the name of fighting for Okpe as an ethnic nationality independent of Urhobo nation.” For him and his cohorts, the demand for the recognition of Okpe as a distinct ethnic nationality is a “reckless insult” by “some lunatic fringes within Okpe to smear the larger Urhobo nation”.
This is reminiscent of the dark days of colonialism and apartheid in the colonies and South Africa, as European colonialists and the white racist regime of South Africa reacted to the demand for independence by Africans. Perhaps the next action Mr. Gbemre and his cohorts will contemplate is to employ guns and dogs to truncate Okpe’s agitation for independence.
His defense that “Okpe is Urhobo” is just to say that “Okpe is not a tribe. Okpe is one of the kingdoms or clans of the Urhobo tribe or ethnic nationality. The Okpes were under the Western Urhobo Division in the past”. This is a gross falsification of History. Firstly, we challenge Mr. Gbemre and his cohorts to provide historical evidences to their claim that “Okpe is Urhobo” and that we share the same ancestry and language. Secondly, they should educate us on the establishment of the “Western Urhobo Division”.
Was it a division established through a bilateral agreement between the Okpe and the Urhobo? Or was it a division imposed by the British Colonial Government?
It is important to point out one remarkable move by the Okpe people before the Independence of Nigeria. Between 1953 and 1954, the Okpe Union (supported by HRM Esezi II, the Orodje of Okpe Kingdom) wrote to the Western Regional Government in Ibadan that the Okpe Area of Western Urhobo Division should be joined with Sapele Municipality to form an Okpe Division.
Though the application did not scale through because of the consideration of the power balance of the Delta Province in the estimation of the then Premier of the Western Region, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the move was a strong indication of the resolve of the Okpe people that they have always been a distinct ethnic nationality.
DISTRACTING FROM THE ISSUE
In his diatribe, Mr. Gbemre wondered into territories unrelated to the Okpe Union’s advocacy for the recognition of Okpe as a distinct ethnic nationality. In his attempt to prove to his readers that he knew me, he demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of me. Let us review his piteous references to me, as his subject of enquiry. He wrote:
“For an insight into this deep seated hate campaign, this mischievous Professor Natufe was elected with the identity, Igho Natufe by Urhobo Historical Society (UHS) as Vice President until 2004 when he was forced to resign after his attack on Urhobo prominent personalities, including Chief Benjamin Okumagba and others in a London Event during his presentation”. If Mr. Gbemre had conducted a thorough research on the UHS, he would have discovered that it has no positions of “President” and “Vice President”, but Chair and Deputy Chair.
He further displayed a gross lack of knowledge of his supposed subject by stating that:
“After his sack as UHS Vice President, he deleted “Igho” from his name and resorted to bearing Omajuwa as first name then. Just recently, same “Igho” he discarded has become his second name. He is now known as O. Igho Natufe, deliberately veiling Omajuwa, his Itsekiri identity”. I challenge Mr. Gbemre to provide his evidence of when I allegedly “deleted Igho” from my names and “just recently” restored Igho. It is very shameful of him to knowingly engage in such a misinformation. If he had taken the pain to consult the UHS website (http://www.waado.org/EditManageCom.html), he would have known that my name has always been O. Igho Natufe as listed in the Editorial & Management Committee and Officers’ columns. I am very proud of my role during my tenure in the UHS. It is interesting that Mr. Gbemre is obsessed with me bearing an Itsekiri name. In case he and his cohorts are unaware, my maternal grandfather was an Itsekiri (from Obotagharenda) while my maternal grandmother was an Urhobo (from Okpara Inland).
My paternal grandparents were both Okpe (from Sapele and Amuokpe, respectively). My paternal grandfather had four wives: three Okpes and one Urhobo (from Orogun). For his information, three of the four children (my uncles and an aunt) from the Urhobo wife were given Itsekiri names, including Uncle Dr. Victor Amoma Natufe, the current Most Senior Okakuro of the Okpe Kingdom. There are hundreds of thousands of Okpe and Urhobo that bear Itsekiri names, irrespective of whether they have blood relationships or not with the Itsekiri. We have Okpe families that bear Itsekiri names, including Okakuro Onoriode Temiagin, whose surname was in fact changed from Ofotokun. I wonder why Mr. Gbemre has a headache with Okpe nationals bearing Itsekiri names. He should be concerned with the number of Urhobo nationals that bear Itsekiri names.
Unable to discuss the historical, political and cultural roots of the rationale for the recognition of Okpe as a distinct ethnic nationality, Mr. Gbemre resorted to attacking certain political leaders he described as “political power brokers and political jobbers” that are “beautified with chieftaincy titles” in Okpe Kingdom. Now he, a non-Okpe wants to dictate to the Okpe Monarchy on the prospective candidates suitable for chieftaincy titles in Okpe Kingdom.
He claims without any proof that: “Igho and Natufe are pure Urhobo names.
The name ‘OREROKPE’ which is the ancestral headquarters of Okpe Kingdom/Clan is Urhobo language/name meaning the Town of Okpe”. He obviously does not know that Igho, for example, belongs to the Edoid group of languages, including the Bini, Esan, Isoko, Okpe, and Urhobo ethnic nationalities, respectively.
Similarly, Orerokpe is an Okpe name or expression just as there is “OREDO” in Benin. Given his knowledge on the origins of names, we expect him to also declare “Okoro” as a name exclusive to the Urhobo. He should also confirm that “Zik” is an Urhobo name.
RESOLVING THE ISSUE
In addition to the fact that the Okpe people have their distinct ancestry, history and language (which Urhobo people do not understand at all), the world view of the Okpe people has always been that they are a distinct people. This is reflected in how they name products indigenous to them. Their own food, pomade, soap, medicine, etc are named with the word or description “Okpe” at the end.
Despite his condemnation of the agitation for Okpe independence from the Urhobo appellation, it is significant to note that Mr. Gbemre also recognized the right of Okpe Nation to extricate itself from the false Urhobo nationality. He agreed that “Okpe has right to even ask to be a state of its own in the Nigerian federation. Nothing wrong with that”….
IN LIEU OF A CONCLUSION
The study of ethnic relations in Nigeria or ethnic relations in any Nigerian state, including Delta State is fundamentally a study in international relations anchored on the principles of peaceful coexistence and good neighbourliness.
Adherence to these principles is imperative for the system or sub-system to function harmoniously. While competition between the ethnic nationalities helps to spur societal development, it is vital that inter-ethnic competition does not lead to a breakdown of the system. Thus, each component of the system in Delta State, listed in alphabetical order, Aniocha, Ika, Ijaw, Isoko, Itsekiri, Ndosumili, Oshumili, Okpe, Ukwuani, and Urhobo are required to adhere to the principles of peaceful coexistence and good neighbourliness while promoting their respective nationality interests.
The ethnic mosaic of Delta State presents us an opportunity to construct and maintain a vibrant and successful multi-ethnic polity. The tendency of any ethnic nationality attempting to impose itself as a great power in Delta State or in any of the Senatorial Districts must not be allowed, as it is a recipe for a collapse of the system.
In the Delta Central Senatorial District which we, Okpe, share with the Urhobo, the policy of the Okpe Nation is strictly based on mutual respect, good neighbourliness, and peaceful coexistence.
This also informs Okpe Nation’s relationships with the other ethnic nationalities. Okpe Nation shall define its policy based on the principles of peaceful coexistence, and will never permit any other ethnic nationality to intrude in our policy formulation and implementation.
We firmly believe that it is only on the basis of this construct, and a strict adherence to it by all ethnic nationalities, that peace and development can be attained in Delta State.
We urge all ethnic nationalities in Delta State to collaborate with the Okpe Nation in building a stronger and peaceful Delta State.
Prof. O. Igho Natufe
President General, Okpe Union Worldwide
June 22, 2025
Featured
THE UNCOMMON FEAT: WHY TINUBU’S STATE POLICE REFORM IS THE ANTIDOTE TO DECADES OF INSECURITY
By Oto’ Drama, PhD.
FOR decades, the discourse on Nigeria’s security architecture has been trapped in a centralized bottleneck—a stranger-policing model where officers are often deployed to terrains they do not understand and cultures they do not share.
Today, that cycle is breaking. By activating the transition to State Police, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not merely fulfilling a campaign promise; he is steering the nation toward a techno-sovereign reality where security is as local as the threats it seeks to eliminate.
This uncommon feat by the President and the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Tunji Disu, deserves more than just applause—it requires a rigorous intellectual and technological blueprint to ensure it becomes the cornerstone of a new Nigerian regionalism.
The Logic of the Local: Why State Police is the Only Way Forward
The fundamental maxim of modern governance is that all politics is local, but security is even more so. In every hamlet, village, and urban ward, the residents know the visitors, the anomalies, and the shadows. A federal officer from a thousand miles away cannot navigate the intricate social fabric of a community as effectively as a son or daughter of that soil.
While critics fear the political manipulation of state police by governors, this concern—though valid—is outweighed by the catastrophic cost of the status quo. Centralization has not prevented abuse; it has only facilitated inefficiency. By shifting to a subnational model, we introduce proximity as a deterrent. When the police are part of the community, the social contract is renewed, and the wall of silence that often protects bandits and kidnappers begins to crumble.
To transition from a “force” to a “service,” Nigeria must adopt the tactics of the world’s most efficiently policed nations. These countries balance local autonomy with high-technology integration. For President Tinubu and IGP Disu to truly “reclaim the killing fields,” the new state police must not just be “men in uniforms” but nodes in a digital security grid.
Here are three world-class tactics to curtail insecurity.
Nigeria’s forests have become “blind spots.” State police should be equipped with long-range thermal drones integrated with geotagging software. This allows local units to map “heat signatures” in dense foliage, identifying kidnappers’ camps with surgical precision before a single boot hits the ground.
Secondly, is Bio-Digital Border & Community DNA.
Instead of static checkpoints, state police should utilize biometric mobile units. By enrolling local populations into a decentralized database, “strangers” or “infiltrators” in a locality are immediately flagged during routine community patrols. This is the ultimate Bio-Digital Bastion.
Thirdly, is Professional Neutrality via Federal Oversight. To prevent the feared “governor’s militia” syndrome, Nigeria should adopt the German Model:
State Operational Autonomy: States control recruitment, localized patrolling, and community intelligence. A “National Police Service Commission” (NPSC) must set the bar for training, weapon handling, and forensic standards, with the power to decertify any state unit that violates human rights or democratic norms.
The inauguration of the 8-member steering committee by IGP Disu is the first step in a marathon. We must encourage this administration to remain indomitable. The transition to state police is not just a return to regionalism; it is a return to common sense.
By empowering the states to secure their own lands, President Tinubu is providing the antidote to insecurity. It is time to move past the fear of abuse and embrace the power of localized, intelligent, and technologically-driven protection. Nigeria’s sovereignty starts at the grassroots.
Dr. Drama, PhD Counterterrorism contributed this piece via: Nigeriandrama@gmail.com
By Farooq A. Kperogi
I barely know Daniel Bwala. He came to the forefront of national media attention in 2022 because of his impassioned opposition to the choice of Kashim Shettima as Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s running mate. But beyond his public break from the APC, he came across to me as a voluble, ignorant and opportunistic careerist, not because of his stance on Tinubu’s choice of a Muslim running mate, but because of what struck me as his facileness and self-seeking obsessions.
His dramatic volte-face from being a virulent Tinubu critic to a fawning, vicious Tinubu battering ram has proven that my hunch about him was accurate.
Yet I felt sorry watching him eaten alive by Mehdi Hassan on Al Jazeera on Friday, March 6. He willingly participated in the detonation of what remained of his credibility before the world. In the process, he did incalculable reputational damage to the Tinubu government he is paid to protect.
What viewers saw on Mehdi Hasan’s Head to Head was the spectacle of a presidential spokesman arriving unarmed to a firefight he should have anticipated, then trying to fight back with nervous laughter, evasions, amnesia and the old Nigerian official fallback of whataboutery.
His evasiveness and prevarications were so unnervingly apparent that Hasan was compelled to say, “At the weekend, you put out a video to music of you and your team researching and prepping for this show and…now every time I ask you say you are not aware of that….what were you researching in that video…?”
The most striking thing about Bwala’s performance was not that he was challenged hard. Anyone who agrees to sit opposite Mehdi Hasan knows the interview will not be a tea party. The disgrace was that Bwala looked startled by facts he should have mastered before stepping into the studio.
On insecurity, on corruption, on Tinubu’s own words and even on his own prior statements, he oscillated between denial, deflection and the sort of desperate verbal stalling that makes a government look smaller than its critics claim it is.
The problem was not that Daniel Bwala appeared lazy or obviously unprepared. In fact, he looked prepared, even thoroughly rehearsed and robotic. He had the posture, the confidence and the choreographed mannerisms of a man who believed he had done his homework. But his carefully planned performances collapsed pitifully when they collided with Hasan’s hard, cold, indisputable facts.
Political wordplay can sometimes survive on friendly platforms or on Nigeria’s tame media spaces where assertion is mistaken for argument. It cannot survive a fact-driven, scorched-earthed, bare-knuckle, no-holds-barred interrogation.
Facts are facts. And Mehdi Hasan is a man of facts. He has the rare gift of making heavy, devastating facts sound almost light in conversation. That quality made Bwala’s evasions even more painful to watch.
The exchange over “context” illustrated this perfectly. When confronted with evidence that insecurity had worsened under the current administration, Bwala retreated to the mantra that “context matters.” Yet the context he invoked was little more than semantic fog and intentional, self-impressed verbal obfuscation.
Hasan, by contrast, used numbers and reports that any government spokesman worth the title should already know. The moment became absurd when Bwala insisted that the context of worsening statistics was that things were not getting worse. The dialogue is worth reproducing:
Hasan: You are failing. Amnesty International says you are failing at security. The numbers don’t lie.
Bwala: It’s unfortunate and as a government working day and night that situation. I don’t agree to [sic] the fact that it’s getting worse.
Hasan: How can it not get worse if more people die in one year than the previous year?
Bwala: Context matters.
Hasan: What’s the context?
Bwala: The context is not getting worse.
Hasan: What!
Bwala: Yes.
Hasan: The context is not getting worse?
Bwala: The context is that it is not getting worse, because you, you see this is a water [sic], right?….
Forget, for now, Bwala’s inexcusably horrible grammar, especially for a lawyer, his tortured logic and his buffoonish articulation. That was some cringeworthy self-own.
The numbers he tried to wave away are not inventions of hostile foreigners with an anti-Nigerian agenda. Nigeria’s own National Human Rights Commission reported that at least 2,266 people were killed by bandits or insurgents in the first half of 2025 alone.
Conflict monitoring groups have recorded even higher totals for the full year. Amnesty International has repeatedly warned that violence has intensified since Tinubu assumed office. In other words, Hasan’s central point was merely a summary of documented reality.
This is what made Bwala’s performance so damaging. He was not merely disputing interpretations. He was disputing arithmetic. When a spokesman tells the world that things are not getting worse while credible datasets show that they are, he is insulting the intelligence of everyone listening, especially Nigerians who bury the dead, pay ransoms, withdraw their children from schools and avoid highways after dark.
But the interview’s most morally satisfying feature was Hasan’s methodical dismantling of Bwala’s denials about his own past words. Bwala tried the trite and tired Nigerian political trick of pretending that statements made in opposition exist in a separate moral universe from statements made in office. Hasan did not let him get away with it.
Bwala denied on air having said Tinubu and his camp created a militia and threatened him. Yet those remarks were widely reported during the 2023 campaign. He also denied saying that bullion vans seen at Tinubu’s Bourdillon residence were ostensibly for vote buying, despite the fact that the comments were carried by multiple Nigerian outlets at the time. So, when Bwala asked who said such things, the answer was brutally simple. Daniel Bwala said them.
The same pattern appeared on corruption. Tinubu did in fact proclaim at a public event that Nigeria had “no more corruption,” a line that was widely reported and widely mocked and that provoked Omoyele Sowore to call Tinubu a “criminal” for which he is being tried now.
Bwala’s attempt to rescue the statement by retroactively inventing a narrower meaning was not the contextual clarification he wanted it to be. It was out-and-out mendacity.
On the appointment of Abubakar Bagudu as minister of budget and economic planning, Bwala again reached for evasion. Yet the record is clear that Bagudu returned about $163 million linked to the Abacha loot investigations in a settlement with authorities. Whether or not one calls that a conviction, the public controversy around his appointment cannot honestly be dismissed as drunken rumor.
Then there is the overarching irony that electrified the interview. Bwala was confronted with the fossil record of his own mouth. Before joining Tinubu’s camp, he publicly attacked the same man over allegations of corruption, the drug forfeiture case in the United States and the bullion van episode. What Hasan exposed was the speed with which partisan appetite can digest prior conviction and call the indigestion growth.
Bwala’s performance mattered for a reason larger than one man’s embarrassment. It showed in concentrated form the disease afflicting Nigerian political communication.
Too many spokesmen believe their job is not to illuminate but to survive the segment. So, they deny what is documented, nervously laugh when cornered, compare Nigeria with unrelated countries, abuse the word “context” and hope that shamelessness can do the work preparation cannot.
Daniel Bwala went to London to defend the government. Instead, he displayed its worst habits: contempt for evidence, indifference to contradiction and the assumption that public memory is so short that a man can disown his own recorded words without consequence.
Mehdi Hasan did not disgrace him. Bwala did that himself. Hasan merely kept the receipts.
Kperogi holds a Ph.D. in Public Communication from Georgia State University (2011), an M.Sc. in Communication from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, and a B.A. in Mass Communication from Bayero University, Kano . He began his career as a journalist and news editor for Nigerian newspapers including the Daily Trust and the now-defunct New Nigerian . He also worked as a researcher and speechwriter in President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration from 2002 to 2004 . Kperogi writes a popular weekly political column, “Notes from Atlanta,” which currently appears in the Nigerian Tribune, and a language column, “Politics of Grammar” . He has authored several academic books, including “Glocal English: The Changing Face and Forms of Nigerian English in a Global World” (2015) and “Nigeria’s Digital Diaspora: Citizen Media, Democracy, and Participation” (2020), which won the 2021 CHOICE Outstanding Academic Title Award
Featured
DSS, THE WALIDA ABDULLAHI EPISODE, AND THE QUIET LEADERSHIP OF DG ADEOLA OLUWATOSIN AJAYI- OLUMIDE BAJULAIYE
The Department of State Services (DSS), also known as the State Security Service (SSS), remains one of the most misunderstood institutions within Nigeria’s security architecture.
For many Nigerians, the agency only comes into public focus during dramatic arrests or when politics dominates the conversation. Yet intelligence work is far deeper and far more complex than the moments that make the headlines.
At its core, the DSS is Nigeria’s primary domestic intelligence service. Its duty is not simply to arrest suspects but to prevent threats before they escalate into national crises. Terror networks, espionage activities, sabotage against government institutions, and plots capable of destabilising the country all fall within its operational radar.
Like many institutions in Nigeria, the DSS has faced its share of criticism. There have been allegations of political interference, controversial arrests and occasional heavy-handed operations. Such scrutiny is normal in a democracy where powerful institutions are expected to remain accountable.
However, the other side of the story—often overlooked—is the critical role intelligence plays in keeping the country stable.
Intelligence successes rarely trend on social media because when intelligence works, crises are prevented before they occur. And “nothing happened today” rarely qualifies as breaking news.
Over the years, the DSS has helped disrupt terror financing networks, track extremist recruiters and intercept plots that could have resulted in major national security incidents. The agency has also provided intelligence support in the fight against insurgent groups such as Boko Haram, assisting security forces in anticipating threats.
Under the leadership of the current Director-General, Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi, observers say the agency has focused increasingly on preventive intelligence, institutional reforms and improved collaboration with other security agencies.
Ajayi’s tenure has been associated with strengthening intelligence coordination among security institutions and placing greater emphasis on professionalism and lawful operations. Security analysts say the DSS has intensified efforts against kidnapping networks, arms trafficking rings and organised criminal syndicates threatening national security.
Another area where the current leadership has drawn attention is the effort to rebuild public confidence in the agency. In recent years, the DSS has demonstrated a willingness to review controversial cases, comply with court processes and engage more openly with stakeholders, including the media.
The recent episode involving Walida Abdullahi also illustrates the delicate balance intelligence agencies must maintain between national security responsibilities and public perception.
While details surrounding the matter sparked debate in public spaces, it also underscored how intelligence operations—often conducted quietly and based on sensitive information—can quickly become subjects of political or social interpretation once they enter the public domain.
For the DSS leadership, such situations represent the difficult terrain intelligence institutions must navigate: acting decisively when national security concerns arise while ensuring that operations remain within legal and professional boundaries.
Observers argue that the measured handling of such sensitive matters reflects the broader leadership approach of Ajayi—one that prioritises caution, institutional discipline and strategic restraint rather than dramatic publicity.
Beyond operational issues, the DSS under Ajayi has also sought to improve engagement with the media and civil society, a move many believe is necessary in building transparency without compromising intelligence confidentiality.
Ultimately, intelligence work remains one of the most paradoxical professions in public service.
When intelligence agencies succeed, the public rarely notices because crises are prevented before they happen. But when something goes wrong—or even appears controversial—everyone suddenly becomes an expert.
The DSS, like every intelligence service in the world, will continue to face criticism and scrutiny. That is part of democratic accountability.
Yet beyond the noise of politics and public perception, the agency remains a critical pillar in Nigeria’s internal security structure—often working quietly while the public sees only fragments of its work.
And if the current trajectory continues, the story of the DSS under DG Oluwatosin Ajayi may ultimately be defined not by the controversies that occasionally make headlines, but by the threats that never materialise.
Olumide Bajulaiye is the Publisher, Daily Dispatch Newspaper, writes from Abuja.