General
Biafra Sets the Alarm Clock at Midnight, Time to Wake Up
By Kester Kenn Klomegah
Over the years, high profiled politicians, academics and human rights groups have been talking about the armed attacks with its devastating effects on the economy in the Igbo-dominated South-Eastern States of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Nigeria gained its independence in October 1960. Since then, it has strongly witnessed the sharp division of Nigeria into three regions – North, West and East – and this factor has further exacerbated the well-developed economic, political, and social differences among ethnic groups.
The Igbo-dominated Eastern States have been struggling for peace and freedom necessary for development since the Civil War ended in 1970.
That was fought between the Government of Nigeria and the State of Biafra from July 1967 to January 1970. The Igbo leadership could no longer coexist with the Northern-dominated Federal Government. The Eastern River States are devastated, millions of the population deeply impoverished while resources remained untapped.
In this interview taken by Kester Kenn Klomegah, for instance, Professor Nathaniel Aniekwu, Secretary at the Alaigho Development Foundation [ADF] in Nigeria, vehemently argues that 50 years after the civil war, the growing threats and frequent attacks by northern ethnic groups and the deepening pitfalls in the federal governance system have negatively affected the development of Biafra.
The Alaigho Development Foundation is a registered NGO with the key aims of addressing development issues in Igboland, and further fight for justice, civil rights and good governance in Nigeria.
Here are the interview excerpts:
How would you argue that 50years after the Civil War [1967 to 1970], growing threats and frequent attacks by ethnic groups have affected the development, particularly in the Eastern States of Nigeria?
It is not rocket science that capital [money] is a coward and, therefore, does not go where there is insecurity. The Biafra/Nigeria Civil war never really ended. What happened 50 years ago was a transition of the war from open shooting battles to economic strangulation war which has translated into asymmetric herdsmen/terrorist-based war.
The initial morphed face of the war started in 1970 and was aimed at strangulating the region through infrastructural/economic deprivation. The federal government policy of offering 20 pounds in return for any amount of wealth deposits an Igbo person had in the bank, especially in the face of the 3Rs [Reconciliation, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction] program of re-establishing the region was not accidental. This was quickly followed by the Nigeria Enterprises Promotion Decree of 1972, which had as one of its main objectives to promote Nigerian indigenous enterprises with a view to increasing indigenous equity participation in the national economy. We were supposed to acquire this equity with the balance of the 20 pounds after feeding.
The current phase of the war is the herdsmen/terrorist-based war, which is aimed at destroying our agricultural base and make us completely dependent and then overrun and take over our ancestral lands. These are all orchestrated by the same people who could not wipe us out on the battlefields. The world community continuously watches the large-scale atrocities committed in the country.
As long as these wars are going on, Nigeria cannot know peace and, therefore, no real progress. The Eastern region is totally out of the equation from the pieces of evidence of our realities. Any progress in the Eastern region must be homegrown and organic. This is the real essence of the ADF’s “Aku ruo’ulo” program. Only the desperate and degenerate Chinese will have the temerity to want to invest in Nigeria, but with conditions that make it better for you to live without their investments.
How would you assess the overall economic development of the Biafra States?
The Biafra States are faring very well given the numerous and insurmountable challenges thrown at them. We have almost no federal presence in the region, no infrastructure, receive the least budget allocations and have the least representation in all the arms of the federal government. This is what has accounted for this current phase of the war. Ndigbos have indomitable spirits and cannot be rendered null and void economically, as long as they are alive.
The Government is, therefore, on their Plan C, which is physical annihilation and possessing their homelands. All economic indices show that in spite of the war against them, marginalization and exclusion from participation in the governance of Nigeria, the Biafra States continue to be very competitive and are very far from being worse off among the Nigerian States.
Do you think it could have been different if the Southeast or the River States were not under the administration of the Federal Government of Nigeria?
I don’t think so, I know it. If they will let us be, even with all the deprivations and infrastructural neglect in place, Ndigbo will grow very quickly to become the go-to place for business. Our detractors know this much and that is what bothers them the most.
What are the economic potentials, especially for foreign investment?
The prognosis is very poor. Nobody goes for a swim in the desert. Only desperate investors still consider Nigeria as an investment destination for the earlier mentioned reasons. Although Nigeria is very richly endowed with natural and human resources, it has quickly lost all its shining advantages.
Moreover, whatever remains had been made in the past, has been squandered, especially as they seek to exclude Biafras from participation in political governance. They failed to deploy the appropriate resources, especially manpower, the broad-minded people who can guide and manage the development of the country, simply because most of them come from the Biafra States.
Under the current circumstances, how can the government make it easier to attract foreign investment to the region?
The bus has already left the station. The trust has been breached and the centre can no longer hold. As a Christian, I believe that nothing is impossible with God. But we are not God. We have squandered a lot of goodwill, which all developmental programs required.
Frankly speaking, only a dedicated team of experts can possibly do a lot, if all the impediments on our paths are removed, the trust deficit reversed, religion seizes to be so dominant in our decision-making process, the herdsmen/terrorists reign in, ethnicity seizes to be criteria for appointments and recognitions.
Furthermore, if the ethnic nationalities will come together and decide on the form and degree of association they will have in a restructured Nigeria, and the level of authority that should reside at the centre: if we shall confess and repent from our sins and seek forgiveness, then perhaps, we stand a chance of reversing the damage.
There are still a lot of challenges in achieving all that you have said above, but do you see any possibilities for national integration and a new leadership paradigm?
National integration is a very clear possibility, especially for The Biafra States. In fact, it is our only hope. Remember that Nigeria is made of many unwilling nations fused into the entity called Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN). These nations have their inalienable right of association and with whomsoever they chose. These nations must choose their paths of integration.
For Ndigbo, not only that internal cohesion is imperative but also integrating into a union of the agreed is paramount. Leadership is very critical in attaining these objectives and this is where the paradigm shift is called for. Leadership must be looked from the point of view of the governed, at the micro-level of the society. A leadership that is organic and evolves from the people. Not a leadership foisted on the people by a band of degenerates.
A leadership paradigm shift is needed to look at the Igbo man as he is, what his essence is and then, try and appeal to that essence. Being Republican in his core essence means that you cannot lead him the same way you lead the Yorubas nor Hausas. A leadership that achieves this will have followership similar to what we had with Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe in the first republic or the followership General Odumegwu Ojukwu had during the war.
Note that the followership was so strong that during the war. Professor M. A. C. Odu and Ishiozo Mbu Amohuru went into the Nigerian territory, hijacked an aircraft and flew it down to Biafra. Such was the level of risks and sacrifices they could make.
Please note carefully that when the same General Ojukwu joined the NPN upon his return from exile, Ndigbo unfollowed him, because he no longer represented their aspirations. That is the Igbo man. Seen from this perspective, the Igbo man is very easy to lead as long as you the leader is ready to be transparent and represent their aspirations.
Does that mean there are weaknesses in the Federal System of Governance?
I am usually very wary of stereotyping. By my professional training, I seek for solutions where there are problems. I do not believe in looking for problems to fit into pre-existing solutions. I don’t really care too much what you call the system that works: federal system, unitary system, monarchical system, et cetera.
I don’t know if there is anything wrong with the federal system, but problems can arise as a result of the application of systems that are not suitable to the Nigerian environment. Obviously, the federal system of government is not working in Nigerian given the unique nature of the Nigerian political space. We must, therefore, return to the solution domain, seek long-term solutions that are organic [homegrown] and suitable to our environment.
What do you have to say about the next elections of the State Governors and the President?
I believe the forthcoming elections will be business as usual. There is nothing in the horizon that makes me think it will be different. The problems with election is part of the structuring problems bedevilling Nigeria, and unless Nigeria restructures, nothing will change. However, we are waiting when Nigeria will hit “Ground Zero”, then restructuring will become inevitable.
By Adedapo Adesanya
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged all 19 presidential candidates announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to publish details of their assets and liabilities ahead of the 2027 elections.
The group also urged the candidates’ spouses, and where applicable, their unmarried children under 18, to do the same.
It further advised the candidates to disclose the legitimate sources of their significant assets and publicly reject vote-buying and electoral bribery before and during the election.
The organisation called on the candidates to instruct their parties, campaign organisations, agents and supporters not to offer or distribute money, gifts or other material inducements in exchange for votes.
The presidential candidates are President Bola Tinubu (APC), Mr Atiku Abubakar (ADC), Mr Peter Obi (NDC), Senator Sandy Onor (PDP), Mr Omoyele Sowore (AAC), Mr Donald Duke (PRP), Mrs Okwori Ada Elizabeth Frederick (NDP), Mr Chukwu Anita Zugwai (YPP), Mr Rufai Adekunle Omoaje (AA), and Mr Adenuga Sunday (Boot Party).
Others are Mr Memeh Samuel (DLA), Mr Nwanyanwu Daniel Danerechukwu (ZLP), Mr Okereke Sunday Chibuzor (LP), Mr Okereke Iken Esther (NRM), Mr Abbas-Bin Aliyu (ADP), Mr Dikwa Suleiman Mohammed (NNPP), Mr Adebayo Adewole Ebenezer (SDP), Mr Seyi Makinde (APM), and Mr Yusuf Kabiru (APP).
In an open letter to the candidates dated August 8, 2026, and signed by SERAP Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation urged them to “go beyond the bare legal minimum and voluntarily embrace higher standards of transparency, accountability and integrity in seeking Nigeria’s highest elected office.”
SERAP said candidates seeking Nigerians’ mandate to exercise constitutional powers over public finances, natural resources, appointments and security institutions should be willing to subject their personal financial affairs to reasonable public scrutiny before asking for votes.
“Nigerians should not be asked to choose between candidates on the basis of who can spend the most money. They should be able to choose on the basis of policies, competence, integrity, character and their vision for Nigeria,” the organisation said.
SERAP said voluntary pre-election disclosure would enable voters to assess potential conflicts of interest and significant sources of wealth, strengthen public confidence in the electoral process and provide a baseline against which future changes in assets could be assessed if a candidate is elected.
“The 2027 presidential election presents an opportunity for political leaders to show that public office is a public trust. Candidates who voluntarily disclose their assets and reject vote-buying can show that they are prepared to uphold the transparency and accountability they promise to deliver if elected,” it said.
The organisation also cited constitutional and international provisions in support of its call, noting that although the 1999 Constitution, as amended, does not expressly require presidential candidates to publish their asset declarations before an election, it embodies principles of transparency, accountability, integrity in public office and meaningful participation in government.
SERAP noted that the Constitution already requires elected public officers, including the President, to declare their assets and liabilities.
It cited Paragraph 11 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule, which requires public officers to submit declarations of their properties, assets and liabilities, including those of unmarried children under 18, as well as Section 140(1), which requires a person elected President to make the prescribed declaration before assuming the functions of office.
On vote-buying, the organisation said the persistent use of money, gifts and other inducements to influence voters was a major threat to electoral integrity.
“We are also concerned about the persistent use of money, gifts and other inducements to influence voters. Vote-buying directly undermines the constitutional principle that sovereignty belongs to the people,” it said.
SERAP cited Section 14(2)(a) of the Constitution, which provides that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria, as well as Section 125 of the Electoral Act 2026, which it said criminalises bribery and related conduct intended to procure the return of a person to elective office or the vote of an elector.
It added that vote-buying was particularly harmful amid poverty and economic hardship because it exploits economic vulnerability and risks turning a constitutional political right into a financial transaction.
It, therefore, urged the 19 presidential candidates to publish their assets and liabilities before the election, including relevant assets and liabilities of their spouses and unmarried children under 18, and disclose the legitimate sources of significant assets, including business interests, investments, real property, substantial gifts and inheritance, while protecting legitimate personal security and privacy.
The organisation also asked the candidates to commit to updating their public declarations if elected and explaining material increases in wealth; publicly reject vote-buying and electoral bribery; instruct their campaign organisations and political associates not to distribute money, gifts, food, transportation benefits or other material inducements in exchange for votes; report credible allegations of vote-buying involving their campaign organisations to the appropriate authorities; and sign and publish a public integrity pledge committing themselves, their parties and campaign organisations to peaceful, transparent, accountable and corruption-free elections.
“The choice before Nigerians in 2027 should be a choice based on ideas, policies, competence and integrity—not on who can spend the most money or conceal the most wealth,” it said.
**Tasks Board to Prioritise Improving Livelihoods of Nigerians
By Modupe Gbadeyanka
The newly inaugurated board of the Rural Electrification Agency (REA) has been advised to prioritise the well-being and economic progress of ordinary Nigerians in every decision it makes.
This charge was given by the Minister of Power, Mr Joseph Tegbe, when he inaugurated the board, which has the former Governor of Ekiti State, Mr Ayodele Fayose, as chairman, and Mr Abba Aliyu as its chief executive.
Mr Tegbe described the board’s constitution as consistent with President Bola Tinubu’s drive to strengthen governance and accountability across public institutions.
He further described the agency as an institution for expanding opportunity, noting that every mini-grid, solar home system and electrified market, school, health centre or farm represents an investment in human capital and economic inclusion.
He pointed to REA’s existing programmes, the Energising Education, Economies and Agriculture Programmes and the Africa Mini-Grids Programme, as evidence of that strategy at work, and noted that the Board, constituted under Section 130 of the Electricity Act, takes office at a defining moment for the organisation.
On governance, the Minister drew a clear line between the board’s non-executive role of strategic direction and oversight and management’s responsibility for day-to-day execution.
He noted that the board meets quarterly to review performance while management retains operational latitude between meetings, subject to full accountability.
Mr Tegbe commended Mr Fayose’s record as a former Governor of Ekiti State, assuring of the Ministry’s continued partnership and a description of electricity as an instrument of inclusion, opportunity and prosperity.
In his remarks, the board chairman described President Tinubu’s decision to appoint Mr Tegbe as a statement of seriousness rather than a routine appointment, a signal that the administration would settle for nothing less than a lasting solution to Nigeria’s power problem.
He called the Minister a technocrat whose technical depth and managerial competence have already produced a positive turning point for the sector, affirming that REA’s leadership was proud to work with him on that effort.
Airport sustainability is no longer a separate environmental project. It is becoming part of daily operational planning, procurement, infrastructure development, and airline partnership discussions. For many airports, the main pressure is to reduce emissions on the ground, improve airside efficiency, and prepare for stricter environmental expectations, while continuing to support aircraft reliably every day.
The challenge is that infrastructure does not change overnight.
Full electrification remains an important direction for aviation ground operations. Fixed 400 Hz power, electric ground support equipment, charging infrastructure, energy management systems, and cleaner stand concepts are all part of the future airport. But in practical terms, many airports are still working through phased investment plans. Grid capacity may be limited. Charging points may not yet cover all operational areas. Remote stands, maintenance zones, cargo aprons, and temporary operating areas may still depend on mobile equipment.
This is where the sustainability conversation needs to become more realistic.
Airports do not have to wait for a complete infrastructure transformation before reducing emissions. There are practical steps that can be taken now, especially in aircraft ground power. The key is to look at emissions reduction as a staged process, not a single final destination.
One of the first areas to assess is the age and efficiency of existing diesel ground power units. In many operations, older GPUs continue to provide essential support because they are mobile, familiar, and independent from fixed power systems. But older diesel platforms may no longer fit the expectations of modern airport sustainability strategies. They can become harder to justify in procurement discussions, environmental reporting, and long-term fleet planning.
Replacing outdated diesel equipment with lower-emission alternatives can be a meaningful step. A modern diesel GPU with Stage V / Tier 4 Final engine technology, for example, can help operators reduce the environmental impact of ground power while keeping the operational independence that many stands and service areas still require. This does not replace the need for electrification. It helps bridge the gap while infrastructure continues to develop.
That bridge matters because airside operations are rarely uniform.
A major hub may have fixed power at many contact stands, but still rely on mobile GPUs for remote aircraft positions, maintenance activities, irregular operations, or construction phases. A regional airport may not yet have the capital or grid capacity for large-scale electrification. An MRO facility may need mobile power that can move between aircraft, hangars, and outdoor working areas. A ground handler may need equipment that supports mixed aircraft types under high turnaround pressure.
For these environments, sustainability must work in real conditions. A solution that looks good in a strategy document but does not support the daily operating model will not last.
Decision-makers should therefore evaluate aircraft ground power through several practical questions. Where is fixed power available today? Where is it planned next? Which stands still require mobile equipment? How many hours do diesel GPUs operate per day? Which aircraft types are supported? Are units oversized, outdated, or difficult to position? Is the equipment aligned with current emissions standards? Can it support cleaner operation where grid power is available?
These questions often reveal that the best path is not a single equipment choice, but a balanced fleet strategy.
Fixed power should be used where infrastructure is mature and operationally reliable. Battery-powered equipment can be introduced where duty cycles, charging plans, and climate conditions are suitable. Lower-emission diesel and plug-in hybrid ground power units can support areas where independence, runtime, and flexibility remain critical. Together, these solutions allow airports to reduce emissions without weakening operational resilience.
Plug-in hybrid utility power functionality is especially relevant in this transition phase. When external utility power is available, the unit can operate with reduced fuel use. When it is not available, the same equipment can continue supporting aircraft independently. This gives airports and operators more flexibility as infrastructure develops stand by stand, rather than forcing a complete change before the airside environment is ready.
Compact design also plays a role in sustainable operations. Airports often focus on emissions, but space efficiency is part of the same discussion. Crowded aprons create movement challenges, increase operational friction, and affect safety. A compact mobile GPU that provides the required output without adding unnecessary equipment bulk can support cleaner, more organized, and more efficient aircraft servicing.
This is why modern ground power procurement should not be based only on output figures. Power rating matters, but so do emissions performance, footprint, maneuverability, serviceability, spare parts strategy, operating environment, and fit with future infrastructure plans. Airports need equipment that can serve today’s operation while remaining relevant as sustainability expectations continue to rise.
For a deeper look at how this transition applies to aircraft ground power, ElectroAir has outlined its view on lower-emission ground power and the practical role of modern mobile GPUs in supporting airport sustainability before full electrification is possible. The company’s ElectroAir APA-100 is one example of this approach, combining compact mobile design, Stage V / Tier 4 Final engine technology, and optional plug-in hybrid utility power for operators that need both reliability and a more future-conscious path.
The next stage of airport sustainability will be built through practical progress. Some changes will come from major infrastructure investment. Others will come from better equipment decisions, smarter fleet planning, and the replacement of outdated assets with more efficient alternatives.
For airports, the priority is not to choose between today’s operation and tomorrow’s goals. The priority is to connect them. Ground power is one of the places where that connection can already begin.
