Kano Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II has expressed strong criticism towards the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the leadership of President Bola Tinubu for carrying out a policy that they had previously vehemently opposed.

During a recent address, Emir Sanusi highlighted the underlying motives behind the former president’s decision to reverse the subsidy removal, a major policy change that stirred considerable debate among stakeholders and citizens alike.

Sanusi, who previously served as the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), provided insight into the bold decision made by former President Goodluck Jonathan in 2011 to eliminate fuel subsidies.

He argued that Jonathan’s actions should be recognized and praised, as they were aimed at addressing the country’s economic challenges and promoting fiscal responsibility. Sanusi emphasized the long-term benefits of that decision, suggesting that it was a courageous move necessary for Nigeria’s financial stability.

The monarch, who was the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in 2011 when former President Goodluck Jonathan first removed the fuel subsidy, noted that the ex-president should be given the credit for taking the bold step then, even though Tinubu and some APC leaders staged protests then.

Why Jonathan reversed subsidy removal
According to Sanusi, Jonathan did not return the subsidy because of Tinubu and other APC chieftains’ protests, but because of the activities of Boko Haram. He explained that su!cide bombers are everywhere, and if protesters are bombed and 200 people die, the debate would no longer be about fuel subsidy.

Sanusi’s revelation has started generating mixed reactions from concerned Nigerians. Below are some of their reactions:
“Nah! I disagree with his highness on this. How do you take a subsidy lid off what you don’t produce? A product whose price is solely determined by international prices? All hell would have broken loose on Nigerians.”

Advertisement

JagabanWarrior commends Sanusi’s position:
“Sanusi made valid points — leadership is about timing and courage. Today, President Tinubu has taken that tough but necessary step to remove subsidy, not for politics, but for Nigeria’s long-term stability and progress.”

Menelik accused the former CBN governor:
“This man still lied that $20bn was missing from the NNPC. That was another loaded weapon for APC propaganda. They knew it was a lie but went to town with it nevertheless.”

Oloyede also faulted Sanusi’s claim:
“He himself was part of the people who contributed to that failure. Did they come out to sensitise the public at the time? Was he not the same person who told us $20b was moved from the CBN without accountability?”

Oluwole Ojekunle alleged subsidy fraud under Jonatha:
“I have said it many times, there was no subsidy during Jonathan; it was just subsidy fraud. Sannusi, a CBN governor, couldn’t conduct a simple analysis. If 1 $ was sold for #150 and a barrel was sold for $100 under Jonathan, its # value = 15k naira/barrel. How much would 1 litre cost if 150 litres are found in a barrel?”

Various considerations must be taken into account regarding the ongoing legal proceedings of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), who is currently facing terrorism charges in the Federal High Court in Abuja.

On Monday, Kanu stated that he would not present a defense in his terrorism trial, asserting that the charges brought against him lack validity.

The leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) told the judge, James Omotosho, that he had reviewed the case of the prosecution and found it was not worth defending.

Kanu, who is being tried for his violence-inciting campaigns for the independence of Nigeria’s South-east and parts of neighbouring states as Biafra, said there was no valid charge against him in the first place, rendering his defence unnecessary.

Considering that Kanu was not represented by a lawyer, the judge advised him to consult with legal experts. Although the prosecution insisted that the IPOB leader already made his choice not to enter a defence, the judge postponed proceedings till 4 November to enable the IPOB leader to take his final decision.

CONSEQUENCES

If Kanu is found guilty, he risks spending a lifetime jail sentence or worse of, death!

Advertisement

For the offence of terrorism, Section 4 of the Terrorism Prevention Act states that: (1) A person who knowingly, in any manner, solicits or renders support for (a) an act of terrorism; or (b) a proscribed organisation or an internationally suspected terrorist group. an offence under this Act and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a maximum term of 20 years.

(2) without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, where death results from any terrorist act the penalty shall be death sentence.

For the offence of treason/treasonable felony, Section 37 and Section 41 of the Criminal Code Act prescribes either life imprisonment or a death sentence.

The recent revocation of Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka’s visa has ignited a vibrant and urgent dialogue about the measures implemented by the U.S. to limit the flow of migrants, particularly from the diverse and rich landscapes of Africa.

This controversy has opened the floodgates to discussions surrounding the broader implications of immigration policies and their impact on individuals seeking new opportunities and refuge.

Soyinka explained on Tuesday that he shunned an invitation by the US embassy for a visa re-interview in September because he was not comfortable with the September 11 date fixed for the exercise.

September 11 became a symbolic date in the US after the September 11, 2021, devastating terror attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City and other locations.

Soyinka, who described himself as superstitious, said he found it odd that the embassy would choose September 11 for his visa re-interview.

The world-acclaimed writer gave the explanation during a media parley, titled “Unending Saga: Idi Amin in Whiteface” which was held at Kongi’s Harvest Gallery, Freedom Park, Lagos Island.

At the gathering, Soyinka disclosed that the US embassy had revoked his visa, saying the media parley was necessary to let those expecting him in the US to know that he had been “banned”.

Advertisement

Soyinka, who is a vocal critic of the US President Donald Trump, said he got the notice of his visa revocation in a letter dated October 23, 2025, and wondered what could have led to it.

In the letter, the US Consulate stated that the Nobel laureate’s non-immigrant visa “has been revoked pursuant to the authority contained in the U.S. Department of State regulations 22 CFR 41.122 and is no longer valid for application for entry into the United States. Additional information became available after the visa below was issued. This revocation refers only to the visa listed below.”

The Consulate further requested Soyinka to bring his visa to the Lagos embassy “for physical cancellation,” a request the Nobel laureate described as humorous, asking if anyone in the audience would volunteer to deliver it to the embassy on his behalf.

“If you have plans to travel to the United States, you must apply again to re-establish your qualifications for a new non-immigrant visa,” the letter, issued by the NIV Section of the Consulate, added.

Soyinka’s B1/B2 visa was issued on April 2, 2024, in Lagos, according to the letter.

Soyinka said the media parley was necessary so that people expecting him in the US would know that he had been “banned”.

“It is necessary for me to hold this press conference so that people in the United States who are expecting me for this event or that event do not waste their time. I have no visa; I am banned, obviously, from the United States. And if you want to see me, you know where to find me,” the 91-year-old author, playwright, and poet told journalists at the upper chamber of the art gallery.

Advertisement

Soyinka expressed surprise over the development, saying, “I’ve started looking back—have I ever misbehaved toward the United States of America? Do I have a history? Have I been convicted? Have I gone against the law anywhere?”

He, however, noted that the development would not affect his relationship with US citizens.

“I assured them that both he and his staff are given permanent visas anytime they want to visit the Autonomous Republic of Ijegba, situated in Abeokuta. There will be no reciprocal conduct from my principalities,” Soyinka said, making reference to a recent conversation he had with the US ambassador in Lagos over the revocation.

When asked if he would be willing to travel to the United States in the near future, Soyinka responded in the affirmative but ruled out the possibility of him making the move to seek his visa reinstatement.

According to him, given his age and contributions to the U.S., he owes the country nothing and vice versa.

“How old am I now? What am I looking for anywhere? Like I said, I have nothing against the American citizens. Human beings live there — friends, families, and colleagues. There are a lot of art productions going on there, and there are philosophers. There are remarkable beings in that place.

“So, if circumstances change, yes (I will), and (if) I were invited. But I won’t make the effort myself. I won’t take the initiative myself because there is nothing I’m looking for there. I’ve been responsible for the creation of some institutions in that place. I’ve given as much as I’ve taken from that place. They owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing.”

Advertisement

On September 10, 2025, Soyinka told PM News that he would not honour an invitation by the U.S. Consulate in Nigeria for a visa re-interview, which was scheduled for Thursday, September 11.

Making reference to the invitation on Tuesday, Soyinka said he did not honour the invitation because, on one hand, he had a problem with the date, and on the other hand, he was not interested.

He said, “I don’t know if any of you read the statement I made when I received a letter asking me to bring back my passport because certain facts may have come out since the visa was issued.

“And I was given a date to report to their consulate with my passport. I declined the invitation. First of all, I didn’t like the date. Everybody knows what happened on that date, 9/11, many years ago, so it is rather unfortunate that they picked that date. So I said, ‘Sorry, I’m superstitious; I’m not coming on that day.’ And ultimately, I made it clear I was not going to apply for another date to bring in my passport. So I travelled out.

“When I came back — even before I came back — I got a letter from the ambassador. I wish to always stress that I have absolutely nothing against individual citizens. I have a continuing good relationship with members of the U.S. embassy.”

He continued, “So we arranged a call, and I explained. Again, he offered a special visit by me at the consulate, and they would ask a few questions about the possible facts that existed that they didn’t know about when this visa was issued. We spoke, and I said, ‘Shall I be equally frank with you? I’m not interested.’”

Best known as a playwright, Soyinka won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1986. He had lived abroad, primarily in the U.S., for a long time, where he held professorships at several universities, according to The Nobel Prize.

Advertisement

The PUNCH reported in July that the U.S. Department of State announced an update to its non-immigrant visa policy for Nigerian citizens.

According to a press release issued by the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, “most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas issued to citizens of Nigeria will be single-entry visas with a three-month validity period.”

However, the embassy clarified that “those U.S. non-immigrant visas issued before July 8, 2025, will retain their status and validity.”

In August, the U.S. Mission in Nigeria also issued a directive to visa applicants mandating the disclosure of all social media usernames and handles used over the past five years as part of the visa application process.

The directive, announced in a post on the Mission’s official X account, came as the U.S. Department of State reiterated its commitment to bolster national security through enhanced screening measures.

Proceedings in the terrorism trial of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, took a dramatic turn on Monday, as the trial judge resorted to begging the defendant “in the name of God Almighty to consult properly,” before proceeding to defend himself.

Noting that Kanu had earlier fired his lawyers and opted to defend himself, Justice James Omotosho stressed that he needed to consult legal experts because “this is not economics; this is criminal prosecution.”

“I am begging you in the name of God Almighty to consult properly,” the judge pleaded. “I am inclined to granting you the adjournment you seek.”

“I know you are educated, but you are not a lawyer. You need to consult experts in the field. Please make adequate consultation. This is not economics; this is criminal prosecution. Please, my brother, make adequate consultation. Criminal cases are not like other cases. I took the opportunity to explain to the defendant because he is not a lawyer,” the judge stressed.

Kanu is being prosecuted on seven counts of terrorism before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The court had on Friday adjourned till Monday for him to open his defence, after Kanu had submitted a list of 23 witnesses he intended to call.

Kanu said he needed an adjournment till Monday because his former legal team, led by a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), had yet to release his case file to him.

Advertisement

The IPOB leader expressed readiness to open his defence in a written application to the court, in which he indicated his intention to call witnesses and requested the issuance of witness summons.

Following his request, at the resumed sitting on Monday, the court reserved about five seats in the courtroom, each labelled “Summoned Witness,” in anticipation that Kanu would open his defence.

When the case was called, the Federal Government’s counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), announced his appearance, while Kanu identified himself by name and stated that he was representing himself.

Afterwards, Awomolo informed the court that the business of the day was for the defendant to open his defence.

Responding, Kanu, who initially sat in the dock, stood up and stated that he had gone through the case files and discovered that the charges were unlawful.

He argued that since the prosecution had failed to establish any case against him, there was no need to proceed with his defence.

“There is actually no charge against me,” he said.

Advertisement

Kanu further argued that there was no extant law in the country upon which the prosecution could premise its case.

“There is no case against me. If there is no case against me, it will be futile for me to enter any defence,” he added.

At that point, Justice Omotosho intervened and explained to Kanu that in a criminal trial, the defendant has three options after the prosecution closes its case.

He said the first option is for the defendant to make a no-case submission, and if the court overrules it, the defendant is required to enter a defence.

The judge added that where a defendant chooses not to open a defence, he may decide to rest on the prosecution’s case and file a written address, to which the prosecution will reply, after which the court will deliver its judgment.

After listening to the judge’s explanation, Kanu reiterated: “My position is that there is no charge against me. There is no need for me to enter a defence. What I am saying is that there is no case against me.”

Justice Omotosho then reminded him that he had earlier ruled on Kanu’s no-case submission and held that he had a case to answer, noting that the ruling still subsists.

Advertisement

Kanu subsequently applied for a week’s adjournment to enable him to file a written address in support of his argument that no valid charge was pending against him, claiming he was being subjected to an unnecessary trial.

He said: “I need a week to file a written address to the effect that there is no charge against me. If there is no extant law in Nigeria on which the charge could stand, there cannot be a case. You must please release me today or grant bail.”

Responding, Awomolo said that based on the defendant’s statement and the option he had taken, the court should adjourn for judgment.

“I take it that the defendant has said he is not putting in any defence because there is no valid charge against him,” Awomolo submitted.

“I want to submit that this position is conclusive of the defendant’s defence. I know that he took a plea to counts against him and pleaded not guilty. We led evidence, and he cross-examined our witnesses. Now that he says he has no defence, the case has been brought to a close,” the prosecution added.

Awomolo noted that at this stage, there was only one option for the defendant, adding that if Kanu’s objection was to be treated as his defence, the prosecution would respond, and the court would subsequently deliver its judgment.

He explained that Kanu’s current position implied that he had opted to address the court on points of law as his defence.

Advertisement

In his intervention, Justice Omotosho observed that the defendant was not entirely saying he had no defence, but rather that the charge against him could not stand.

He said: “That is also a form of defence. In that case, he will have to put that down in a written submission, which will be served on the prosecution, who will then respond.”

The judge then advised Kanu to consult experts before deciding on how to proceed.

“There is a need for you (Kanu) to consult people who are knowledgeable in criminal prosecution to advise you on how to proceed,” the judge said.

“I am begging you in the name of God Almighty to consult properly. I am inclined to granting you the adjournment you seek.

“I know you are educated, but you are not a lawyer. You need to consult experts in the field. Please make adequate consultation. This is not economics; this is criminal prosecution. Please, my brother, make adequate consultation. Criminal cases are not like other cases. I took the opportunity to explain to the defendant because he is not a lawyer,” Justice Omotosho added.

The trial judge said he has a duty to explain to the defendant the consequences of his decision not to enter a defence.

Advertisement

He added that after Kanu dismissed his legal team, the court had considered referring the case to the Legal Aid Council or any lawyer willing to take it pro bono, but Kanu declined, insisting that he would defend himself.

“Even at that, I still have a duty to explain the consequences of his option to him because he is not a lawyer. Please, make consultation,” the judge said.

The court granted Kanu four days from Monday to file his written address and serve the prosecution to enable it to file its reply.

Justice Omotosho then adjourned the matter till November 4, 5, and 6 for either the adoption of written addresses or for Kanu to open his defence, should he decide to change his mind.

When examining the contrasting characteristics of influential leaders such as Cameroon’s Paul Biya and Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who is poised for re-election in 2027, it’s essential to consider not only their age differences but also the myriad of personal attributes that may often go unnoticed.

Paul Biya, the current President of Cameroon, at the age of 92, has once again secured his position through the polls, marking his eighth consecutive term in office.

In the recent elections, he garnered an impressive 53.7 percent of the votes, as confirmed by the official results released by the Constitutional Council on Monday.

Biya’s lengthy tenure and political prowess have shaped the socio-political landscape of Cameroon, highlighting both his enduring influence and the complexities surrounding his continued leadership.

In contrast, Tinubu, with his own political aspirations, embodies a different vision for the future of Nigeria as he navigates the challenges and opportunities of his campaign ahead of the 2027 elections.

Paul Biya has been the President of Cameroon since 1982, making him only the second leader to govern the country since it gained independence from France in 1960. Recently, he secured another term that could extend his time in office until 2032, and notably, he has never lost an election.

Under Biya’s leadership, Cameroon has experienced a highly centralized political system characterized by stringent measures to suppress opposition. His administration is known for rotating loyalists into significant positions and maintaining strict control over state institutions.

Advertisement

In contrast, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the 73-year-old current President of Nigeria, is recognized as one of the most influential political figures globally. He earned the presidency after serving as a kingmaker in Nigerian politics.

Like Biya, Tinubu has a record of electoral success, having never lost an election throughout his political career. His victory in the 2023 presidential election came despite various challenges.

While Biya’s governance style has allowed him to remain in power for an extended period, Tinubu’s democratic principles suggest that he may not have the same opportunity to govern beyond 2031, even if he wins the 2027 election.

Nevertheless, his political approach also includes efforts to manage opposition, rotating loyalists into essential roles, and exercising control over state institutions.

The Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors (NARD) has listed 19 demands which it described as minimum expectations required to avert a total and indefinite nationwide strike scheduled to commence on Saturday.

According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), the President, Dr Muhammad Suleiman, stated this on Monday in Abuja at a media conference while presenting the resolutions of NARD’s Extraordinary National Executive Council (NEC) meeting.

The meeting followed the expiration of its 30-day ultimatum to the Federal Government.

He said the association had exercised patience for too long in the face of government’s inaction, warning that doctors have already begun ward rounds and patient handover ahead of the planned industrial action.

According to him, the outstanding payments and welfare issues affect not only resident doctors but all categories of health professionals, including administrative staff.

Suleiman said the government currently owes doctors and other health workers across the country an estimated N38 billion in accumulated allowances, some dating back more than 10 years.

He said, “There are allowances of over two years, some for 18 months, seven months, four months and even 10 years. There has also been a failure to review the basic salary of doctors in this country for 16 years.”

Advertisement

He noted that the association had suspended a five-day warning strike in September and extended its earlier ultimatum by 30 days to allow government address the demands, but the grace period had since elapsed without meaningful action.

“The Federal Government has failed to demonstrate the political will necessary to address the legitimate concerns of Nigerian resident doctors,” he said.

Suleiman explained that the 19-point demand presented by NARD represents the minimum action expected from government to prevent a total collapse of service delivery in the country’s public health system.

Among the demands, he said, are the immediate payment of outstanding 25-35 per cent Consolidated Medical Salary Structure (CONMESS) arrears and 2024 accoutrement allowance to doctors, as well as other pending financial entitlements owed to health workers.

The NEC also demanded the immediate reinstatement of five resident doctors unjustly terminated from the Federal Teaching Hospital, Lokoja, with full payment of all outstanding salaries and allowances for the period of their disengagement.

He said the association further called on the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare to develop and implement a humane “working-hours policy” for doctors in line with international best practices to safeguard both physician well-being and patient safety.

The NEC urged government to grant chief executives of hospitals greater autonomy to employ and replace doctors who exit the system through immediate implementation of the one-for-one replacement policy, to reduce excessive workload and burnout.

Advertisement

It also demanded urgent upgrade and maintenance of infrastructure and medical equipment in all healthcare facilities nationwide to improve the quality of service delivery and training for resident doctors.

Suleiman said NARD demanded the immediate commencement of specialist allowance payments to all doctors, inclusion of medical and dental house officers in the civil service scheme with full entitlements, and correction of all entry-level placements of doctors.

He said the NEC also called for decentralisation of promotion processes, payment of arrears resulting from those corrections, and expedited conclusion of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Committee’s work on the long-overdue review of CONMESS and other professional allowances.

“The NEC further demands the immediate release and implementation of corrected tables of professional allowances and clear enforcement of relativity between CONMESS and CONHESS salary structures,” he added.

Other issues highlighted include the payment of accrued promotion arrears owed to medical officers, reversal of the practice of creating consultant cadres for non-medical personnel, and the abolition of casualisation of doctors, insisting that all locum staff must be regularised in accordance with public service rules.

Suleiman also noted that the association is demanding uniform implementation of all CONMESS circulars across federal, state, and private health institutions, and the immediate clearance of outstanding salary arrears owed to doctors in several centres.

He said NARD was also insisting on the immediate implementation of special pension benefits as earlier agreed between the Federal Government and the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA).

Advertisement

Following the failure of government to meet these demands, Suleiman said, “NARD hereby declares a total, comprehensive and indefinite strike commencing at 12:00 a.m. on Saturday. All resident doctors in federal and state tertiary health institutions nationwide are directed to withdraw their services completely and indefinitely until the Federal Government and affected state governments demonstrate genuine commitment to addressing our demands,” he added.

The NARD president appealed to President Bola Tinubu to personally intervene to prevent the strike and address the lingering issues affecting doctors and the health sector.