Opinion
The Trinity of State Decay (I): The Mirage and the Shadow
The Sunday Stew
Nigeria state decay warning highlights governance gaps, shadow control, and worsening insecurity across affected regions
By MAX AMUCHIE
A nation does not declare its own decline. It performs normalcy — until the performance can no longer hold.
What follows is not an announcement, but a pattern — visible to those willing to look beyond the performance.
Also read: The Insecurity Triad: Money, Land and Mind — The Capstone
Last week, this column offered the definitive articulation of The Insecurity Triad — the convergent system through which kidnapping finances violence, banditry governs territory, and terrorism reshapes the ideological order.
It also made a promise: that the Trinity of State Decay would follow as the macro-diagnostic lens—the theory that explains not merely what the Triad does, but why it is structurally possible—why the state does not stop it. Why, in important senses, the state cannot.
This is that column.
One clarification before we proceed. Last week I referred to the first element of this Trinity as the Administrative Mirage. The more precise term — and the one this framework now canonises — is the Institutional Mirage.
The distinction is deliberate and consequential. “Administrative” suggests a failure of management: the wrong people, the wrong processes, the wrong execution.
That is a recoverable condition. “Institutional” names something far graver — the failure of the very structures through which legitimate authority is constituted and expressed.
That is not a management problem. It is a structural mutation. The precision matters because the diagnosis must be exact. A misnamed illness invites the wrong cure.
The Trinity of State Decay holds that Nigeria’s crisis is not simply one of state weakness or failure in the traditional sense.
It is a decoupling — a splitting of reality into two rival orders: the Institutional Mirage, which performs sovereignty without possessing it, and the Shadow Order, which possesses sovereignty without performing it.
Between them operates The Insecurity Triad — the operational framework through which organised violence is produced, financed, and sustained.
These three elements are not sequential. They are simultaneous. They are mutually constitutive.
And together, they describe not a country in crisis, but a country in transformation — toward something that no existing framework has yet fully named.
This is the core claim.
Now let’s look at elements of the Trinity.
The first is the Institutional Mirage.
The Nigerian state exists. This is not in dispute. It issues passports, signs treaties, seats delegates at the African Union and the United Nations, dispatches ambassadors, and convenes legislative sessions.
It possesses, in the language of international relations, juridical sovereignty — the legal right to rule, recognised by the community of nations.
What it increasingly does not possess is empirical sovereignty — the actual capacity to rule: to protect its citizens, enforce its laws, secure its borders, and deliver the basic functions through which a state justifies its claim to authority over people and territory.
This gap — between the legal right and the practical capacity — is the Institutional Mirage. It is not a gap born of poverty alone, nor of incompetence alone, though either or both may be present. It is structural.
The Mirage is maintained by two interlocking performances.
The first is the performance of governance. Summits are convened. Committees are inaugurated. Security councils meet. Declarations are issued.
Each of these acts reassures the urban elite — and the international community — that a system exists, that the state is functional, that the problem is being managed.
Fifty kilometres outside a state capital, farmers are fleeing their fields. Villages are being renamed by gunmen. Communities are learning that no one is coming.
The performance is not cynical in a simple sense. In many cases, the actors within it believe in what they are doing. But belief in process is not the same as process producing outcomes.
Governance is replaced by the ritual of governance — the meeting held in place of the action, the declaration issued in place of the protection, the committee inaugurated in place of the problem solved. The ritual is maintained because it is the last remaining evidence that the state is real.
The second is the façade of presence. The motorcades, the grand secretariats, the uniformed officials at checkpoints — these constitute a thin crust of visible authority.
They are not nothing. But they are concentrated in spaces where the state was never truly absent: the capital, the commercial city, the airport corridor.
In the spaces where the state is most needed — the rural northwest, the insurgency-ridden northeast, the contested middle belt — the façade does not reach. There, the absence is not symbolic. It is territorial.
The Institutional Mirage, then, is the structural condition in which a state maintains the international performance of sovereignty while progressively losing the domestic substance of it. It is not collapse. It is something more insidious — the appearance of function in the presence of dysfunction.
A state that has collapsed is visible in its collapse. A Mirage state is invisible in its decay precisely because the performance continues.
And it is the Mirage — not mere weakness — that creates the condition for what comes next.
This logic produces a structural split in sovereignty. If the Mirage is the performance of authority, the Shadow is its possession.
Nature, it is said, abhors a vacuum. So does political geography.
In the spaces the Institutional Mirage vacates — or never truly occupied — a Shadow Order has emerged. It is essential to be precise about what this means, because “shadow” can imply something furtive, marginal, illegal-but-minor.
What has emerged in Nigeria is none of these things. It is a rival sovereignty: a structured, territorial, self-financing order that governs populations, extracts resources, adjudicates disputes, and in some regions commands greater practical authority than the formal state.
The Shadow Order is not a consequence of criminals filling a gap. It is the relocation of authority from the centre — the loss of its monopoly on the power to protect, to tax, to name, and to decide. It expresses itself in two particularly revealing ways.
The Promotional Negotiation. When the formal state sits across a table from bandits — or terrorists, or both — to negotiate ceasefires, ransom arrangements, or “peace deals,” something precise and devastating is occurring. It is not diplomacy. It is an act of transactional sovereignty.
The state, by negotiating, elevates the criminal from a subject of the law — someone to be prosecuted, dismantled, defeated — to a stakeholder of the land: someone whose compliance must be purchased or secured, whose demands have standing, whose survival the state has implicitly agreed to manage rather than end.
This is what might be called the Psychology of the Table. The population watching these negotiations does not see a state managing a crisis. It sees a state that has conceded the terms of its own authority.
The lesson absorbed is not that the state is not working but that the Shadow holds leverage the state does not.
Every negotiation of this kind is a quiet transfer of legitimacy — conducted in public or in the forest, often celebrated as pragmatism, and devastating in its long-term structural and political consequences.
The Constitutional Erasure. This is the most precise and the most devastating expression of Shadow sovereignty — and it is almost entirely unreported as what it actually is.
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, is not merely a legal document. It is a sovereign map.
It names — by schedule — 36 states of the Federation and their capitals, the Federal Capital Territory, and 774 local governments and their headquarters.
Each entry is a sovereign seal: evidence that the state has claimed, recognised, and accepted responsibility for that space and the people within it.
When armed groups — or rival sovereign invaders — drive ancestral owners from their land and rename the villages, they are not merely committing displacement and violence.
They are conducting a violent amendment of the Constitution. They are erasing the state’s map and drawing their own. They are performing, through force, the counter-constitutional act of renaming the republic.
This is where the work of Frantz Fanon becomes indispensable — not as a borrowed abstraction, but as a precise analytical tool.
Fanon, in The Wretched of the Earth and Black Skin, White Masks, argues that naming is sovereignty: that the coloniser’s first act of domination is not the gun but the renaming — the erasure of indigenous identity through the imposition of a new lexicon of place, person, and possibility.
But renaming is not the only instrument of this counter-constitutional act. Rival sovereign invaders — terrorists and armed groups operating under ideological banners — go further. They hoist their own flags, their own insignia over the communities they seize.
This is not mere symbolism. It is a territorial declaration — the physical assertion that the Nigerian state’s sovereign seal over that space has been revoked and replaced.
Where the Constitution places a community under the authority of the Federal Republic, the hoisted flag of a rival order places it under a different authority entirely. The flag is the constitutional amendment made visible.
What is occurring in Nigeria’s conflict zones is precisely inverted and internalised colonisation, in which armed non-state actors perform the naming rituals and hoisting of flags of sovereignty over populations that the formal state can no longer protect.
The Shadow Order, in this sense, does not merely fill the space the state vacates.
It governs it, on its own terms, by its own logic, with its own map — and it marks that governance in the oldest sovereign language there is: the name of the land.
But how exactly does the Mirage create the conditions for the Shadow to thrive? And what is the engine that locks them together in a loop the state seems unable to break? A country still named on paper, but being renamed in practice.
Also Read: The Insecurity Triad: Money, Land and Mind — The Capstone
Part II follows next week — where the Trinity of State Decay receives its definitive formulation.
Don’t miss it.
Trust is Sacred. Stay Seasoned.
By Ehi Braimah,
When I wrote in April about “Beyond oil: Niger Delta attracts investments for economic growth and development,” the central argument was straightforward: Niger Delta must begin to look beyond crude oil and deliberately position itself as a diversified investment destination.
Also read: Otu Urges FAAN to Upgrade Calabar Airport Ahead of AfSNET
At the time, the Niger Delta Economic and Investment Summit (NDEIS) was scheduled for May. The summit, with the theme, “Driving investment, innovation, and industrial growth in the Niger Delta,” was subsequently postponed, but the additional preparation time has arguably made the event even more significant.
From September 15 – 17, 2026, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, will host what promises to be a defining conversation about the economic future of Nigeria’s Niger Delta region comprising nine states: Abia, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Imo, Ondo, and Rivers.
The venue is the Obi Wali International Conference Centre, an appropriate setting for a summit that seeks to bring together government, business, investors, development institutions, financial institutions, professionals, entrepreneurs and other stakeholders around one overriding objective: transforming the enormous economic potential of the Niger Delta into sustainable investment and jobs.
This is not intended to be another talk shop. The organisers of the summit, the Niger Delta Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Trade, Mines and Agriculture (NDCCITMA), have positioned NDEIS as a structured investment marketplace designed to connect global capital with bankable projects and supportive public policy.
The summit’s stated ambition is substantial: more than 1,000 delegates, over 100 exhibitors, at least 30 bankable projects in the Deal Room and a target of up to $50 billion in investment commitments.
Those are ambitious numbers, but ambition is precisely what a region as strategically important as the Niger Delta requires.
Ambassador Idaere Gogo-Ogan, NDCCITMA chairman and convener of the summit, framed the ambition plainly during a pre-summit media briefing held earlier in March. “The region is ready to deliver 500,000 new jobs, inclusive of investment drive and wealth creation,” he said, describing the summit as a platform to deliberate on “investment mobilisation, enterprise growth, industrial expansion, and regional coordination.”
A gathering of influential Nigerians and global investors
The summit is expected to attract a formidable gathering of political leaders, captains of industry, investors, development partners, regulators, financial institutions, academics, professionals and entrepreneurs.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is expected to declare the summit open, adding a significant federal dimension to an event whose focus is regional economic transformation.
The Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, is expected to serve as Chief Host, while the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) is a key institutional partner.
The participation of the governors of the Niger Delta states is particularly important. The region’s economic future cannot be addressed successfully by any single state acting alone.
The governors therefore have an opportunity to use the summit to demonstrate that the Niger Delta can move from competition among states to strategic economic collaboration.
For investors, the message should be clear: the region is open for business.
The Niger Delta has traditionally been identified overwhelmingly with oil and gas. Yet, its economic possibilities extend much further.
The summit has identified seven strategic sectors: agro-industrial development and food security; blue economy and marine industries; oil, gas and energy transition; manufacturing, industrialisation and special economic zones; tourism, culture and the creative economy; digital economy, innovation and human capital; and access to finance and investment capital.
These sectors represent the bridge between the Niger Delta of yesterday and the Niger Delta of tomorrow.
A keynote speech with a powerful message
One of the major attractions of the summit will be the keynote address by Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede, CFR, Chairman of Access Holdings Plc. Mr. Aig-Imoukhuede’s profile is particularly relevant to the investment conversation.
He is an investor, banker and philanthropist whose career has spanned banking, finance, investment, insurance, technology, real estate and energy.
As former Group Managing Director of Access Bank, he played a major role in transforming the institution into one of Nigeria’s leading banks.
His keynote will therefore go beyond rhetoric. The Niger Delta region and other summit participants will be hearing directly from an expert who understands capital, risk, entrepreneurship, corporate governance and the difficult process of turning opportunities into investment propositions.
The central question should be: how does the Niger Delta move from possessing resources to creating investable assets?
That distinction is critical. Investors do not invest merely because a region has resources; they invest where there are bankable projects, credible institutions, predictable policies, infrastructure, security, competent human capital and reasonable prospects of return on investment.
From conference hall to Deal Room
Perhaps the most important feature of NDEIS is its Deal Room. This is where the summit can distinguish itself from conventional conferences with opportunities for access to markets, technology and capital.
A successful summit should not be measured only by the quality of speeches delivered or the number of dignitaries who attend. Its ultimate test should be what happens after the speeches.
Did investors meet project promoters? Were projects subjected to serious investment scrutiny? How were financing conversations initiated? Were memoranda of understanding signed? Did companies commit capital? Did governments provide investment incentives?
The planned Deal Room has witnessed increased interest from participants and investors with over 30 investment-ready projects received to date, and it clearly provides an opportunity to answer those questions. If properly managed, it could become the engine room of the summit.
Exhibitions that tell the Niger Delta story
The exhibition component is equally important. With more than 100 exhibitors expected, the summit provides an opportunity for companies, states, government agencies, SMEs and entrepreneurs to showcase what the Niger Delta can produce.
The exhibition floor in an air-conditioned marquee will tell a compelling story: that beyond crude oil, there are agricultural products, manufacturing enterprises, technology companies, tourism assets, creative industries, maritime businesses, energy opportunities and innovative young entrepreneurs.
This is where the summit’s investment narrative becomes tangible. An investor should be able to walk through the exhibition arena and see opportunities rather than merely hear about them from a podium.
The intellectual architecture
The quality of the summit will also depend on its panelists, moderators and rapporteurs.
The organisers have assembled speakers from government, business, finance, academia, energy, maritime industries, technology, law, investment promotion and other sectors.
The published speaker list includes senior figures such as NDDC Chairman Chiedu Ebie, NDDC Managing Director/CEO Dr. Samuel Ogbuku, SEC Director-General Emomotimi Agama, and Renaissance Africa Energy Company CEO Tony Attah.
Others include Rivers State Investment Promotion Agency Director-General Chamberlain Peterside, former NDDC Managing Director Timi Alaibe, former University of Port Harcourt Vice Chancellor Professor Joseph Ajienka, Starzs Marine & Engineering Limited Chairman Greg Ogbeifun, and several other experts.
The moderators have an equally important responsibility. A good moderator must move a panel beyond prepared speeches and polite exchanges.
The hard questions must be asked: what exactly are the investment opportunities? Who will finance them? What are the risks? What incentives are available? What reforms are required? How will investors repatriate profits? What happens to host communities? How will environmental sustainability be guaranteed?
The rapporteurs, meanwhile, have the responsibility of capturing the substance of the conversations and translating them into actionable recommendations. That is how a summit becomes a roadmap.
The media must tell the story
A summit of this magnitude also deserves substantial media coverage. The media should not merely report who attended and who spoke; it should tell the larger story of an economically strategic region attempting to redefine itself.
There would be sustained coverage before, during and after the summit across television, radio, newspapers, digital platforms and social media.
Interviews, special reports, investment stories, business features, photographs, short videos, social-media content and post-event analysis are also planned to ensure that the conversation does not disappear when delegates leave Port Harcourt.
Indeed, the summit presents an opportunity to change the narrative about the Niger Delta – from a region predominantly associated with oil, environmental degradation and conflict to a region increasingly associated with enterprise, investment, innovation and economic opportunity. That narrative shift is itself an investment asset.
The importance of end-to-end event management
For a summit of this scale, content and execution matter. A world-class summit requires an end-to-end event management experience: delegate registration and accreditation, protocol, airport arrivals and departures, transportation, accommodation, venue management, stage production, branding, exhibition management, audiovisual production, security, hospitality, media operations, digital engagement, networking, VIP management and post-event reporting.
Every touchpoint is crucial. The experience of a foreign investor arriving at the airport, being received, transported to the hotel, accredited at the venue, guided through the exhibition, introduced to relevant project promoters and followed up after the summit can influence his or her perception of the region.
World-class events are therefore not defined only by beautiful stages and impressive speeches, but also by a seamless execution. Official summit consultants are: Dr. Tony Epelle, CEO of Samuelson Advisory Partners & coordinating consultant; Ono Akpe, CEO of Red Sapphire; Donald Okudu, CEO of Mesh Ads, and Ehi Braimah, CEO of Neo Media & Marketing
A summit that must produce results
The Convener and organisers deserve commendation for placing investment at the centre of the conversation, but expectations must remain high.
The Niger Delta has hosted numerous conferences and stakeholder meetings over the years. What the region needs now is not another declaration of intent – it needs implementation.
NDEIS provides an opportunity to create a pipeline of projects, facilitate investment partnerships, strengthen public-private collaboration and establish measurable commitments.
The summit’s ambition of attracting up to $50 billion in investment commitments is bold.
But the real measure of success will be the quality of investments eventually deployed, the jobs created, businesses established, infrastructure delivered and value retained within the region.
The Niger Delta is too important to Nigeria’s economy to remain defined by its oil wealth alone.
It is home to a large population, an extensive coastline and waterways, vast agricultural possibilities, significant energy resources, a vibrant culture and enormous human capital. The region’s transformation therefore has implications far beyond the nine states.
Dr. Solomon Edebiri, NDCCITMA secretary and local organising committee chairman, says the summit is a “strategic initiative designed to reposition the Niger Delta as a competitive hub for investment, enterprise development, and sustainable industrialisation.” While the world knows the Delta for oil and gas, its real legacy, he argued, rests on a “wealth of diverse and largely untapped opportunities” that the gathering aims to unlock.
As Port Harcourt prepares to welcome delegates, development partners and experts from Nigeria and beyond, the Niger Delta Economic and Investment Summit represents an opportunity to begin a new chapter.
The challenge is to convert conversations into commitments, enhancing access to markets and technology, deployment of capital and achieving productive economic activities.
Also read: Otu Urges FAAN to Upgrade Calabar Airport Ahead of AfSNET
That is the real meaning of Beyond Oil. And it explains why the Niger Delta Economic and Investment Summit in Port Harcourt could become a historic moment – not simply because of the VIPs who attend, but because of the investment decisions and economic partnerships that emerge from it.
The Niger Delta region is ready to tell a new story.
By Ehi Braimah and Victor Ojelabi,
At 16, Arnold Faranpojo had already completed his secondary education, earned impressive examination results and begun charting a path towards an international future.
Also read: Victor Ojelabi’s Watch Impresses at Rotary RYLA 2026
But his participation in the Rotary Youth Exchange Programme, facilitated by Rotary International District 9111 during the tenure of then District Governor Henry Akinyele, would take his education beyond the classroom, giving him an experience that would reshape his outlook on life, culture, independence and the world.
Born in Lagos on 28 July 2009, Arnold is the second of three boys in the Faranpojo family. Although his roots are in Ile-Ife, Osun State, he grew up in Lagos, where he completed his secondary education at Nigerian Navy Secondary School, Abeokuta.
He graduated in 2025 with his WAEC and NECO certificates and recorded an impressive 319 in the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board examination the same year.
Rather than immediately proceeding into university, however, Arnold embarked on an 11-month Rotary Youth Exchange experience in Germany, an opportunity he describes as one of the most memorable chapters of his young life.
A Family’s Leap of Faith
News of Arnold’s selection was met with excitement in the Faranpojo household, although it also came with understandable concerns.
For his parents, sending their son away for almost a year was a major decision. For his two brothers, the prospect of having the middle child away from home was initially unsettling.
“Knowing that the middle man of the three boys was going to be away for a year was at first unsettling with uncertainties,” the family recalled. “But with some clarification and explanation, the news was later greeted with faith and hopes for better things.”
For Arnold himself, the selection brought a mixture of gratitude, excitement and pride.
“It was a very exciting and memorable moment for me,” he said. “I felt extremely grateful, excited and proud because it was an opportunity to experience a completely different country and culture.”
His parents shared his excitement and were proud of the opportunity, even as they recognised that their son was about to take a significant step towards independence.
Arnold is the son of Rev. Alexander Faranpojo mni, a business consultant, clergyman and member of the National Institute.
He is the founding pastor of Virtues Christian Centre in Lagos and London and president of Virtues Life Foundation, an organisation focused on humanities, societies and governance.
His mother, Pastor Mrs Funmilola Faranpojo, is also a business consultant with interests in educational advancement and international agency services.
She serves alongside her husband in ministry and has close to two decades of experience spanning banking and human capital development. She holds a postgraduate qualification in Human Resources from the University of Winnipeg.
Together, they have supported Arnold and his brothers while encouraging their educational and personal development.
Eleven Months That Changed Everything
Arnold spent approximately 11 months in Germany, living and studying in Wuppertal and attending Wilhelm Dörpfeld Gymnasium.
The experience exposed him to an education system different from the one he had known in Nigeria, while also placing him in an environment where communication, adaptation and independence became part of everyday life.
“Everything was different — the language, culture, school system, food and daily lifestyle,” Arnold recalled of his initial experience.
The early days were challenging. Adjusting to a new country, learning to communicate in another language and understanding unfamiliar social and educational systems required patience.
But gradually, the unfamiliar became familiar.
Arnold improved his German language skills, became more comfortable communicating with people and learnt to navigate daily life with increasing independence.
Beyond Wuppertal, the exchange opened the door to travel and cultural discovery. He visited Düsseldorf, Cologne, Dortmund, Hamburg, Berlin and Munich, as well as Paris in France.
Each journey offered a different perspective, allowing him to experience new cities, cultures and ways of life.
Yet, for Arnold, the exchange was about much more than travelling.
He spent considerable time at school, participated in Rotary activities, built friendships with Germans and young people from other countries and learned how to interact with individuals from different backgrounds.
“Overall, the exchange helped me become more independent, adaptable, confident and open-minded,” he said.
More Than a Language
One of the most significant outcomes of Arnold’s exchange year was the development of his confidence.
Living away from his family required him to take greater responsibility for himself. Communicating in a foreign language pushed him outside his comfort zone, while interacting with people from different cultures broadened his understanding of the world.
By the end of the programme, Germany no longer felt like the completely unfamiliar environment he encountered when he first arrived.
“I had developed a strong appreciation for the country and its culture,” he said.
The experience also gave him something that cannot easily be measured by academic certificates: an international perspective.
For Arnold, learning German became part of a much larger lesson about communication, tolerance and adaptability.
“My exchange year taught me much more than just a new language,” he said. “It taught me how to adapt, communicate with different people, become independent, and appreciate different cultures.”
The strongest placement is immediately after the “More Than a Language” section and before “Building Towards the Future”. It creates a natural bridge from Arnold’s return to Nigeria into what comes next.
A Special Homecoming
Arnold’s return from Germany brought another memorable Rotary moment.
On 18 August 2026, he had the rare privilege of joining Rotary International President Olayinka Hakeem Babalola and other Rotary leaders at a special reception in Lagos held in Babalola’s honour.
The reception, jointly organised by Rotary International Districts 9111 and 9112 under District Governors Bukola Bakare and Layi Abidoye respectively, brought together Rotarians and other guests to celebrate Babalola’s historic leadership of the global service organisation.
Arnold did not attend the reception alone. His parents, Rev. Alexander Faranpojo mni and Pastor Mrs Funmilola Faranpojo, accompanied him, giving the family an opportunity to share another significant Rotary experience together following his return from Germany.
Babalola was full of praise for Arnold and the journey he had undertaken through the Rotary Youth Exchange Programme.
He noted that about 7,000 young people around the world are offered the opportunity to participate in Rotary Youth Exchange each year, placing Arnold’s experience within a global programme that enables young people to live in another country, experience different cultures and develop a broader understanding of the world.
For Arnold, meeting the Rotary International President so soon after returning from an 11-month exchange provided a fitting connection between the opportunity Rotary had given him abroad and the organisation’s leadership at home.
Babalola’s emergence as the second Nigerian and second African to serve as President of Rotary International also carried particular significance.
For a young Nigerian whose worldview had been broadened through a Rotary programme, his leadership offered another powerful example of how service, opportunity and exposure can transcend geographical boundaries.
Building Towards the Future
With his exchange year behind him, Arnold is now focused on the next stage of his journey.
He is continuing to improve his German language skills as he prepares for university, with plans to study Business Informatics (Wirtschaftsinformatik) in Germany.
The field sits at the intersection of business and technology, an area that aligns with Arnold’s growing interests and his ambitions for the future.
But his aspirations extend beyond technology and business.
He hopes to combine his interests in business, technology and fashion to create something that contributes positively to humanity.
His Rotary experience, he believes, will remain an important foundation as he pursues these ambitions.
Looking back on the opportunity, Arnold is clear about what the experience has given him: greater confidence, independence, adaptability and a broader understanding of the world.
It has also taught him not to be afraid of unfamiliar territory.
“I am very grateful for the opportunity and believe the experience will continue to influence my education, career, and personal development,” he said.
Also read: Victor Ojelabi’s Watch Impresses at Rotary RYLA 2026
And when asked what he would ultimately attribute the journey to, Arnold offered a simple but deeply personal conclusion:
“Everything was by the grace of God! I also thank Rotary for the life-changing opportunity.”
By Ehi Braimah
The dramatic encounter between Lere Olayinka, senior special assistant on public communication and social media to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and Arise News anchor Rufai Oseni on The Morning Show last Friday has generated considerable debate about journalism, the conduct of public officials and their spokespersons, and the boundaries of adversarial journalism. It was an unnecessary spectacle.
Also read: 2027 Election: Amaechi Warns Nigerians Against Voting for Tinubu
Lere Olayinka was invited to appear on the programme anchored by Dr Reuben Abati, Ayo Mairo-Ese and Rufai Oseni. Lere knew, or ought to have known, that all three anchors were part of the programme.
He accepted the invitation and entered the Arise News Abuja studio. He answered questions from Abati and Ayo. But when it became Rufai’s turn, Lere declared that he would not answer his questions because he regarded Rufai as an “enemy” and wanted to engage only with “reasonable human beings.” That was provocative and unacceptable.
A spokesperson for a public official does not have the luxury of selecting which journalist is sufficiently “reasonable” to ask questions.
Once a government spokesperson voluntarily accepts an invitation to a major television programme, he should expect difficult questions, including questions he may consider uncomfortable, hostile or unfair.
The proper response is to answer, challenge the premise of the question, correct the interviewer, or decline to answer a particular question for a legitimate reason.
What he should not do is attempt to determine which of the programme’s anchors is entitled to interview him.
Ayo Mairo-Ese was therefore right to intervene and terminate the interview. Her point was simple: Since you are aware there are three anchors on the programme and accept the invitation, you cannot subsequently decide that one of them is an “enemy” and therefore unworthy of your answers.
That episode should not, however, be used as an excuse to ignore the bigger issue raised by Rufai Oseni’s interviewing style.
What exactly is adversarial journalism?
Journalism is not public relations. A journalist is not expected to make a government official, politician or corporate executive comfortable.
Journalism’s fundamental responsibility is to seek the truth; interrogate power and provide citizens with information they need to make informed decisions. This is where adversarial journalism has an important role.
Adversarial journalism is essentially a style of reporting and interviewing that subjects people in positions of power to rigorous scrutiny.
It challenges claims, tests evidence, exposes contradictions and refuses to accept official explanations at face value. In a democracy, that is necessary.
Indeed, some of the most memorable television interviews around the world have been produced by journalists who refused to allow powerful guests to evade difficult questions.
They include Christianne Amanpour, Pierce Morgan, Jerry Paxman, James O’Brien, Andrew Neil, Kay Burnley, Megyn Kelly, Mehdi Hassan, Chris Wallace and Billy O’Reilly. Rufai Oseni belongs to that tradition. He is fearless and asks questions many journalists would hesitate to ask.
Rufai frequently challenges government officials and politicians on their claims, policies and records.
His preparation is obvious; his knowledge is substantial and his ability to connect seemingly unrelated issues can make for compelling viewing, thereby giving The Morning Show significant ranking. That explains his enormous fans and admirers.
.
But it also explains why he has become controversial. There is a thin but important line between aggressive journalism and combative journalism; between robust questioning and confrontation, and between holding power to account and becoming part of the story. That line must not be crossed.
Rufai’s greatest strength can also become his weakness
Rufai has developed a distinctive television personality. He is passionate, energetic, intellectually confident and unwilling to be intimidated.
Those qualities are assets, but television magnifies personality, and what works brilliantly on one occasion can become irritating when repeated too frequently.
The journalist must remain in control of the interview without appearing to be in a contest with the guest. This is particularly important when interviewing government officials. A tough interviewer should not necessarily be an angry interviewer.
In addition, a difficult question does not have to be delivered aggressively and using the cross-examination technique can be devastatingly effective when conducted calmly.
Sometimes, the most powerful television question is asked quietly. The objective is not to defeat the guest, but to extract information, expose contradictions and enable viewers to make their own judgments.
When the interviewer becomes visibly embroiled in an argument with the guest, the focus can shift from the substance of the interview to the personalities involved. That is dangerous. When the journalist becomes the news, there is a problem.
Lere was wrong — but Rufai should listen
It is important to separate the two issues. Lere Olayinka’s behaviour should be condemned.
His refusal to answer Rufai because he considers him an “enemy” was unprofessional. His subsequent decision to continue the confrontation on social media after leaving the studio only prolonged an unnecessary controversy. It was clearly an act of bad faith.
There is also no justification for repeatedly questioning Rufai’s professional competence because he studied Animal Science.
What is wrong with studying Animal Science, or History, Mathematics, Biochemistry, Psychology, Architecture, or Law? These are examples of courses offered in Nigerian universities and other places.
Journalism is a profession in which people acquire expertise through formal education, professional training and experience. A person’s first degree does not, by itself, determine whether he can become a competent journalist.
Rufai has clearly acquired considerable experience in broadcasting and journalism. But Lere’s provocation does not mean Rufai should ignore legitimate criticism of his style.
In fact, because Rufai has become such an influential media personality, he should welcome constructive criticism.
He has built something remarkable on The Morning Show. Alongside Reuben Abati, Ayo Mairo-Ese, Adefemi Akinsanya, Vimbai Muthihirin-Ekpenyong and Ojy Okpe, he has helped create a programme with a substantial audience and a loyal following.
The anchors bring different personalities, rich perspectives, nuamces and strengths to the programme. That diversity is part of its attraction to the station’s global audience, but influence comes with responsibility.
The danger of overreach
Rufai’s admirers appreciate his fearlessness, but his critics accuse him of overreach, excessive aggression and combativeness.
In truth, both perceptions can coexist. The fact that millions enjoy his style does not automatically make every aspect of it desirable. Equally, the fact that some viewers find him abrasive does not mean he should abandon his robust approach. The answer is moderation.
Rufai does not need to become a different journalist; he simply needs to refine the journalist he already is.
He should retain the probing questions, painstaking research, exceptional courage and intellectual rigour. But he can reduce the volume, the interruptions and the personal confrontations.
He can challenge without appearing hostile; disagree without appearing offended, and cross-examine his guests without turning the interview into a courtroom battle.
And he can allow a guest to finish speaking even when he knows the answer is evasive. That may actually make his questions more powerful.
There is a lesson here for public officials, too
Government spokespersons and politicians must also understand that the media environment has changed and should stop feeling entitled.
They cannot expect sympathetic interviews simply because they are government representatives.
A journalist’s job is not to protect a government official from difficult and probing questions. Public office is held in trust for the people, and those who communicate on behalf of public officials should expect scrutiny.
If a spokesperson believes an interviewer is biased, the appropriate response is to make that case publicly and professionally.
If a question is inaccurate, correct it, and if it is malicious, say so. But refusing to answer because the journalist is considered an “enemy” creates precisely the impression that the spokesperson has something to hide. It also denies viewers the opportunity to hear the government’s side of the argument.
The media must remain bigger than the personalities
The Lere-Rufai confrontation provides an important lesson for Nigerian journalism. Television news is not theatre, even though television is undoubtedly a performance medium. The personalities of anchors matter, but journalism matters more.
The Morning Show has become influential because it combines news, analysis, debate, interviews and entertainment.
Its anchors have built a community of viewers and, in some respects, a movement. That influence should be protected.
Rufai should therefore not interpret calls for moderation as an attempt to silence him.
On the contrary, the most influential journalists constantly evolve and adapt to the ever-changing media landscape. There is nothing wrong with being adversarial.
Democracy needs journalists who will challenge power, but adversarial journalism should be evidence-driven, persistent and fearless – not needlessly antagonistic.
The best interviewer is not necessarily the one who talks the loudest or wins the argument – it is the one who asks the question that the guest cannot escape. That is the Rufai Oseni I would like to see more often. Keep the courage, ask the difficult questions, blend facts and commentary, and continue to press for specifics.
Rufai should keep holding power to account, but at the same time moderate his style. That is precisely what your friends – not your enemies – should constantly tell you.
As for Lere Olayinka, he should remember an equally important principle: if you accept the microphone, you must also accept the questions. Public communication is not a menu from which you select only the questions you like.
Also read: 2027 Election: Amaechi Warns Nigerians Against Voting for Tinubu
Both journalism and public service demand accountability, and the media must hold power accountable. Journalists must also be accountable for how they exercise their power.
-
Politics2 years ago
13 Ondo Assembly Members Disown Endorsement of Aiyedatiwa
-
Politics2 years ago
APC Group, Ondo Govt, Quarrel Over Money for Endorsement
-
Trending News5 years agoStop unsavoury, inciting statements – DSS warns
-
Others5 years agoAdron Homes Celebrates 10 Years Of Housing Excellence
-
Humanity5 years agoPresident Buhari Commiserates With Ambassador Maureen Tamuno Over The Loss Of Her Father
-
Others7 years agoEX- CUSTOMS BOSS, IBRAHIM MERA’S DWINDLING FAME
-
Business2 years agoBigi Carbonated Soft Drinks Treats 40 Consumers to an Epic Easter Movie Hangout
-
Business2 years agoWema Bank Shines at Global SME Finance Forum Conference Awards 2024 …Awarded: • SME Financier of the Year (Africa) • Platinum Award for Best Financier for Women Entrepreneurs (Africa)