Opinion
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE LEADERS OF THE PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
By Chris Osa Nehikhare
For the Sake of Our History. For the Sake of Our Future.
To the Esteemed Leaders of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP.
I write not in anger, but in pain.
Not in rebellion, but in loyalty.
Not in despair, but in hope.
For nearly three decades, our great party has stood as a pillar in Nigeria’s democratic journey. From the dawn of the Fourth Republic in 1999, when we produced President Olusegun Obasanjo, to the stabilizing years of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, and the transformative administration of President Goodluck Jonathan, the PDP was not merely a political party — it was a national movement.
We built institutions.
We strengthened democratic culture. We handed over power peacefully in 2015 — a feat that etched our name in gold in Africa’s democratic history.
Today, however, that same party is bleeding.
For the past three years, we have watched with heartbreak as internal quarrels, endless litigation, suspensions, counter-suspensions, and ego-driven battles have reduced a once-formidable political machine into a spectacle.
We, the ordinary members — the grassroots mobilizers, the polling unit warriors, the faithful who defend the party in marketplaces, campuses, streets, and online spaces — have become the butt of jokes.
Yet we stayed.
When some of those we gave mandates to abandoned us, we stayed.
When factions rose and multiplied, we stayed.
When public confidence waned, we defended the indefensible.
When loyalty became unfashionable, we remained committed.
But let it be said clearly: our loyalty has been tested. Severely.
Just days ago, the President assented to a new Electoral Act that will guide the next general elections. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) stands at the brink of releasing a revised timetable. The nation is preparing. Political actors are strategizing. Coalitions are forming.
And we?
We are still fighting ourselves.
This is not sustainable.
Leadership is not merely about titles secured through litigation; it is about responsibility to millions whose political destinies are tied to the decisions taken in conference rooms and courtrooms.
We therefore make this passionate appeal:
Whoever the Appeal Court declares as the legitimate leader of our party must be immediately recognized and supported by all. No parallel structures. No shadow leadership. No ego-driven resistance.
The time for war within must end.
The time for preparation must begin.
If we fail to unite now, we risk not only electoral defeat we risk political irrelevance. And history will not be kind to those who presided over the decline of the very platform that once governed Nigeria for sixteen years.
Our history is illustrious.
Our structures remain the most widespread in the country.
Our membership base is deep and organic.
But history alone cannot win elections. Unity can. Preparation can. Discipline can.
We ask our leaders:
Do not toy with the future of faithful members who have invested years of their lives, resources, and reputations in this party. Do not mortgage the destiny of young aspirants, women leaders, ward executives, and party elders who still believe in the ideals of the PDP.
If the quarrels continue, what message are we sending to the Nigerian people?
If litigation becomes our primary strategy, what campaign shall we run?
If we cannot manage ourselves, how do we convince Nigerians we can manage a nation?
This is a defining moment.
Let us close ranks.
Let us respect the rule of law.
Let us rally behind one leadership.
Let us immediately commence reconciliation, restructuring, mobilization, and preparation for the general elections.
Except, of course, there is no desire for us — the organic supporters and committed members across the country — to participate meaningfully in the coming elections.
It hurts to even suggest that possibility.
But our pain must be heard.
We remain PDP.
We remain loyal.
We remain hopeful.
Now we ask our leaders to remain responsible.
History is watching.
Nigeria is watching.
And the faithful are waiting.
For the sake of our past.
For the sake of our future.
Signed,
Chris Osa Nehikhare
A Loyal and Concerned Member
On behalf of countless faithful across the federation
By Richard Ikiebe
Lately, Abuja has embarked on signing or deepening defence partnerships with the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, India, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and now Türkiye, often within overlapping time frames and against a backdrop of unrelenting insecurity. On paper, this looks like strategic diversification. But given Nigeria’s weak institutions and fragmented loyalties, these multi-power deals risk multiplying internal vulnerabilities rather than delivering autonomy.
In international relations, hedging is meant to be a sophisticated strategy. Middle powers cultivate ties with rival blocs at the same time, securing trade, weapons, intelligence and diplomatic cover from each without fully joining any camp. Done well, hedging buys room to manoeuvre in a fluid world.
However, successful hedging demands a coherent centre. It assumes the state has a clear hierarchy of national interests, reasonably disciplined security institutions, and a political class that can resist turning every external relationship into a patronage asset. Nigeria does not enjoy those conditions. The federation remains riven by sharp regional, ethnic and religious cleavages. Security agencies are still deeply exposed to politicisation, often shaped by “loyalty clubs” and patron-client networks rather than by doctrine.
When you pile complex, overlapping military partnerships on top of a jaundiced domestic terrain, what you get is a crowded and inflamed marketplace in which foreign and domestic actors bargain over influence with contaminated information.
The recent pattern is revealing. With Washington, Nigeria has moved into a new phase of security cooperation: advanced air platforms, intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance support, kinetic assistance against extremist camps, and a growing noncombat troop presence focused on training, coordination and operational support.
London has formalised a Security and Defence Partnership with Abuja on doctrine, special operations, maritime awareness and joint planning. Paris, too, is embedding itself through operational training and intelligence cooperation in the Sahel and Lake Chad basins.
At the same time, China has stepped in as a defence-industrial partner, promising technology transfer and local production of ammunition and advanced equipment. Moscow maintains a framework for training and equipment supply, while Riyadh has concluded a renewable defence memorandum covering training, logistics, counter-terrorism and intelligence.
New Delhi and Islamabad both court Abuja with staff talks, courses and high-level visits. For its part, Türkiye has upgraded its role from arms supplier to full-spectrum partner with Nigeria, combining drones, helicopters and naval platforms with special forces training and real-time intelligence.
Add ECOWAS, the African Union, the UN and smaller bilateral channels, and Nigeria’s security ecosystem is now densely populated with external actors, many of whom are rivals among themselves and carry their own regional agendas.
From Abuja’s official podium, this is sold as diversification and a strengthening of “defence architecture.” However, from the vantage point of a fragile bureaucracy, it looks more like a multi-layered web, too complex for the state to see, let alone control.
In its current fragile state, Abuja risks overestimating its capacity to juggle many rival interests at once. Great powers can absorb shocks and play multi-board games; a state with weak institutions and contested loyalties cannot.
When external hedging meets internal fragmentation, rival domestic factions increasingly hitch their loyalties to different external partners. One elite unit becomes the Americans’ partner of choice; another cluster is drawn to Russian or Chinese interests; religious and cultural affinities pull others toward Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Türkiye; while historic and educational ties still make British links the default home for another group.
Over time, these alignments risk consolidating Nigeria into a patchwork of “mini-Nigerias,” divided along old ethno-regional and religious fault lines. But the greatest risk would appear in information and intelligence sharing.
What was designed to widen access to intelligence, military equipment and expertise risks degenerating into counter-hedging platforms. Trust dies in the hands of competing layers of interests, and doubts about Nigeria’s ability to prevent leaks of valuable information multiply. Gradually, partners stop treating Nigeria as a trusted ally and instead see her as a contested space to be monitored and managed.
The Horn of Africa offers a cautionary story. Over the past decade, states around the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden have welcomed bases, training missions and facilities from almost every major military actor: the US, China, European navies, Gulf states, Türkiye and others.
It is instructive that external militarisation has not stabilised the region. Parts of Somalia, for example, saw courting foreign interest as a route to de facto independence and recognition. Neighbouring nations and distant powers alike treated ports, coastal enclaves and airfields as instruments in larger rivalries.
Although Nigeria is vastly different from the Horn of Africa, the logic is uncomfortably familiar. When many external actors plug into a fragile political-security ecosystem, they amplify fractures and turn domestic disputes into wildfires.
Certainly, Nigeria should have partners. Isolation is neither realistic nor desirable. Strong, coherent middle-power states can hedge because they possess the institutional spine to decide who does what, where, and on whose terms. Weak, divided states hedge at their peril. For Nigeria today, multiplying security deals without first consolidating doctrine, professionalising institutions and building a minimal national consensus risks crossing that line.
Nigeria’s leadership like to speak of strategic autonomy, but sovereignty is not the ability to sign more MoUs than your neighbours. It is the ability to say “yes” and “no” from a position of internal strength. Abuja must now invest seriously in developing its own strength and its multi-power security systems. Diplomacy will remain a dangerous overexposure when we invite the world into our house while our foundations are still visibly cracked.
Dr Richard Ikiebe is a Media and Management Consultant, Teacher and Chairman, Board of BusinessDay Newspaper.
By AVM (Rtd.) Akugbe Iyamu, MNSA, fsi
The world is now confronting unavoidable planetary emergencies. No nation, institution, or individual can excuse themselves from the chain of actions and inactions that have led to extreme weather events and accelerating climate change.
The planet is no longer a self-justifying resource to be created, consumed, and pillaged without restoration. Earth can not sustain endless extraction without deliberate renewal. The extreme weather conditions of 2026 have marked a turning point — a ferment of reckoning — demanding that humanity lead planetary restoration with courage and conviction.
Planets do not degrade themselves. People degrade the planet. Every delay in restoration deepens the damage — economically, socially, and environmentally.
Planetary degradation is the systemic, anthropogenic erosion of Earth’s natural systems — including climate stability, biodiversity, and biogeochemical cycles — driven by overconsumption, pollution, and destructive land-use changes. It represents a breach of safe operating boundaries, such as climate equilibrium and biodiversity thresholds, threatening global stability and potentially the long-term habitability of our world.
Let it be clearly stated: as long as poverty, hunger, displacement, and inequality persist, environmental degradation will continue. Climate change is not isolated from social injustice; it is both a cause and a consequence of structural inequality. Extreme weather patterns are not random episodes — they are stories written by human choices.
A renewed learning process is therefore critical. Humanity must adopt a new attitude — one that prioritizes the greatest good for the greater majority rather than continuous global overconsumption. History has a symmetry: those who dominate in one era are eventually called to account in another.
For industrialized nations of the Global North, the most urgent transition is from the centrality of economic growth to the centrality of climate responsibility. Unrestrained economic expansion has fostered an illusion of indispensability — the belief that development must continue at any cost and that history pauses in their absence. It does not.
Those who once commanded the Industrial Revolution can no longer answer climate questions from the wings. Climate change has entered a cyclical phase where rhetoric meets record, posture meets proof. No matter how skillfully staged, subterfuge ultimately yields to institutional accountability and scientific evidence.
The global climate now stands at a decisive juncture. We are compelled to confront excessive planetary degradation with firm resolve. The choice before us will shape human survival and determine whether we restore collective confidence in our capacity to protect and renew the Earth.
The time for cautious rhetoric has passed. What is required now is structured action, equitable responsibility, and unwavering commitment to environmental restoration.
AVM (Rtd.) Akugbe Iyamu, MNSA, fsi
Consultant on Climate Change and Analyst on Environmental Policies
President, Association of Environmental Protection, and Climate Change Practitioners
By Amb. Anderson Osiebe
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has signed the Electoral Act Amendment Bill into law, setting off fresh legal and political conversations across Nigeria’s democratic space.
The development comes at a sensitive moment. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had already released the timetable and official notice for the 2027 General Election under the framework of the 2022 Electoral Act.
Now, the pressing question is: What does this new amendment mean for 2027?
A Question of Timing:
Under Section 24 of the 2022 Electoral Act, INEC is required to publish notice of election not later than 360 days before the election date. Once a date is officially declared, it can only be altered under extraordinary conditions such as natural disasters or serious threats to national security.
Since INEC has already fixed and announced the 2027 election date, legal experts argue that the process may already be legally anchored.
If that interpretation holds, the amendment may not disrupt the timetable already issued unless the new law contains explicit transitional clauses applying its provisions immediately to the 2027 cycle.
Retroactive or Prospective?
One of the key principles in legislative practice is that laws generally operate prospectively, not retroactively, unless clearly stated.
If the amendment does not expressly nullify or alter processes already activated under the previous Act, then:
1. The 2027 timetable may remain intact.
2. The 360-day notice requirement would still be calculated based on the already-declared date.
Only procedural adjustments not structural changes might be necessary.
However, if the new law significantly modifies timelines, result transmission processes, party primaries regulations, or dispute resolution mechanisms, INEC may need to realign aspects of its preparations to comply.
Legal and Political Implications:
This development could lead to:
1. Institutional Clarification:
INEC may issue an official statement clarifying whether the 2027 timetable stands unaffected.
2. Judicial Interpretation:
Political parties or civil society groups could approach the courts to seek interpretation of how the amendment applies to an already-declared election cycle.
3. Political Debate:
As 2027 approaches, electoral reforms often become politically charged. Any ambiguity may fuel suspicion among stakeholders.
What This Portends for 2027.
In practical terms, three scenarios are possible:
1. Continuity Scenario: The timetable remains unchanged, and the amendment applies fully only from the next electoral cycle after 2027.
2. Adjustment Scenario: Minor procedural updates are integrated without altering the election date.
3. Judicial Scenario: Courts intervene to determine the scope and application of the amended law.
For now, the declared election date remains the legal anchor. Unless altered under constitutionally permitted grounds, it provides stability to the process.
The Bigger Picture.
Electoral reforms are designed to strengthen democracy, not complicate it. The success of this amendment will depend on clarity, transparency, and faithful implementation.
As Nigeria moves steadily toward 2027, one thing is certain,
Legal certainty and institutional consistency will be critical in preserving public confidence in the electoral system.
Amb. Anderson Osiebe, Executive Director, HallowMace Foundation Africa writes from Abuja – Nigeria.
God bless Nigeria!