Elewa, josie

What IF President Tinubu @officialABAT is actually the Nigerian Deng Xioaping, the one to lay the Foundation for Economic Prosperity via Market Liberalization Policies and Free Market Economy as we are experiencing with Reforms he's leading. Prosperity of Nigeria then would be

@Omojuwa JJ Omojuwa, the irony of recommending a book you appear to have reduced to its cover is almost too delicious to ignore. You brandish Yuen Yuen Ang's China's Gilded Age as though its title settles the argument. It doesn't. The book examines different forms of corruption, their economic consequences and the institutional conditions that shaped China's development. It does not establish that corruption is economically harmless or that governments should prioritise revenue collection while treating accountability as an afterthought. China's experience involved industrialisation, productive investment, infrastructure development, administrative capacity and institutional adaptation. Where is your evidence that Tinubu's revenue expansion is producing comparable outcomes for Nigerians? And this habit of dismissing critics as "Obidients" is particularly revealing. When you cannot answer an economic objection, you reach for a political label. When your analogy is challenged, you recommend a book. When your historical inconsistency is questioned, you question other people's intelligence. A bibliography is not an argument, Omojuwa. Neither is political name-calling a substitute for economic evidence. The question remains painfully simple: How does increased government revenue translate into improved living standards when corruption, waste and misallocation remain insufficiently addressed? You demanded accountability under Jonathan. Why should Tinubu receive a more accommodating standard? You cannot insult your way out of an economic argument, and you cannot read your way into intellectual consistency without first confronting your own contradictions. Next time, bring the argument, not merely the book cover.

RE: SENATOR ROCHAS OKOROCHA’S REMARKS ON PETER OBI’S SINGLE-TERM COVENANT We have reviewed Senator Rochas Okorocha’s comments on Channels Television’s Politics Today. We accept his description of Peter Obi as “a fantastic gentleman; clear in his head.” On the claim that a single term is “a four-year gambling,” we respectfully disagree. Section 135(2) of the 1999 Constitution provides that a President shall leave office after four years and may seek a further four years. In law, “may” is permissive, not mandatory. A single term is therefore constitutional. It is not a gamble. Nigeria already tested an eight-year tenure between 2015 and 2023. The result was rising inflation, a weakened naira, soaring public debt, widespread poverty, and insecurity across the country. That is the real balance sheet of prolonged tenure without performance. Peter Obi’s offer is a performance bond, not a gamble. He has pledged to serve one term, to be judged strictly by results, and to hand over power in 2031 in recognition that it is the turn of the North. This is sacrifice for national stability. Leadership is measured by impact, not duration. Nigeria’s problem has never been insufficient time. It has been the repeated failure to use time well. Mr. Obi proposes to reverse that culture: one term dedicated entirely to delivery. When a man entitled to eight years voluntarily chooses four and invites the nation to judge him by results, he is not gambling. He is sacrificing. This is not a gamble. It is a rescue mission with a deadline. Signed, Mallam Ibrahim Hussain Abdulkarim Director-General National Campaign Council Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) #VoteNDC #NigeriaWillBeOK

You mock the timeline of inflation, but you refuse to own the policy trigger. When you devalue the currency from ₦460 to over ₦1,300/+$ overnight without reserves or production buffers, imported inflation, soaring transport costs, and skyrocketing food prices are guaranteed.

My point is because NEITI typeset a document which sourced data from CBN, MinFin doesn't make their report any more credible than EFCCs analysis relying on similar sources. Only ifference is EFCC doesn't make periodic publications like NEITI. So, advance similar weight to both.

From the same primary sources you quote revenue numbers from. Because they don't fit your narrative, you tried to diminish the number claiming "it was inflation adjusted", "Brazil's annual budget", to "it came from the EFCC". The EFCC of 2000s is not the nonsense of today.

I quoted revenue numbers from an actual paper, you are quoting something an EFCC chairman said ONCE, never repeated, and NEVER for once broke down or revealed details. Attached is where I quoted my revenue numbers from, you are quoting a comment said once by Ribadu 🤣

From the same primary sources you quote revenue numbers from. Because they don't fit your narrative, you tried to diminish the number claiming "it was inflation adjusted", "Brazil's annual budget", to "it came from the EFCC". The EFCC of 2000s is not the nonsense of today.