By Habib Aruna

Pa Anthony Enahoro, the late great nationalist who symbolically moved the motion for the country’s independence in 1956 agreed to be interviewed by this writer shortly after he came back from exile. By that time, maximum military dictator, General Sani Abacha had died, in a manner that is still controversial, and General Abdulsalami Abubakar had successfully organized a transition programme that led to the emergence of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo as the first President of the current democratic dispensation.

So, Enahoro and other activists who were in exile, like Professor Wole Soyinka, Dan Suleiman, Dr. Kayode Fayemi were implored to come back home by the military regime. Enahoro, in the course of our interview, told me about an incident that happened in Ondo in the then Western Region. He said when the nationalists were going round the country to argue for a case for independence they had a stop at a town in Ondo and he was approached by an elderly man, who asked him if the country was indeed ready for independence.

Enahoro said he was shocked and surprised by the question coming from the old man and wanted to find out what prompted the skepticism. He said the man answered that from the look of things he was not too sure that Nigeria was ready to be freed from British rule and that we should give the colonialists more years in the country so that Nigerians will be fully ready to take over. Pa Enahoro said many years after independence, the old man’s concerns and doubts about the readiness of the country for self-rule always agitates his mind whenever he looks at the state of things in the country. From political instability to an economy that is still largely dependent on a single commodity export for the elusive foreign exchange.

There is no doubt that situation in the country has gotten worse and degenerated than that cool evening at Enahoro GRA, Ikeja residence, just few months after the birth of this dispensation, when the great nationalist and Esan High Chief was lamenting to this writer about the worsening state of the nation. Of course, he should be concerned because this was not the country he and other founding fathers dreamed of when they forced the British to lower the Union Jack at the Independence Square, now known as Tafawa Balewa Square.

Even though not all First Republic politicians wanted independence in 1960 for obvious reasons, North and South were divided, it was nonetheless granted by the British, but after the country was structured in a way that favoured them, both politically and economically. The parliamentary system we practiced was inherited from Westminster, while the economy was meant to produce raw materials for their industries in the United Kingdom. And even though politicians in the First Republic were more nationalistic, patriotic and less corrupt, it was cut short in 1966 by a military coup.

The military ruled for more than 13 years and within that period, more states were created from the four regions, the period witnessed oil boom that was wasted because of lack of pragmatism and foresight by our leaders, who were more concerned about what to do with the petro-dollars than building lasting infrastructure and diversifying the economy so that we will be less dependent on oil. The military were forced to go back to the barracks in 1979 when the Second Republic was born. The Parliamentary system was however replaced with the more costly Presidential system. And even though some of the politicians like Chief Obafemi Awolowo and his United Party of Nigeria (UPN) governors were more prudent, progressive and visionary, politicians in the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) were careless and living like there will be no tomorrow and spending irresponsibly.

At that time, it was evident that the country was going down the slope. The economy that still relies on one major commodity was now increasingly becoming monolithic and vulnerable to vagaries in the world market; corruption was at the highest level without accountability; hospitals became mere dispensaries, we had decaying infrastructure and general lack of effective leadership. It was therefore not a surprise that Khaki boys again took over in 1983. Then in August 1985, power exchanged hands between General Muhammadu Buhari and General Ibrahim Babangida.

Even so, the Babangida regime took the country for a ride with its endless transition programme. It was during this transition that the June 12 presidential election was held. An election widely regarded as the freest and fairest in the unenviable political history of the country. After the election and Chief Moshood Abiola, the candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was heading to victory, the military suddenly annulled the result. The annulment threw the country into an endless crisis, leading to the death of hundreds of Nigerians, imprisonment of dozens of others, while many went into forced exile. In the process, Abacha died and Abiola, the winner of June 12 elections also died in detention.

The Obasanjo administration that came in the aftermath failed to cure the ills that he met on ground and still failed, before he left office, to put the country on a sound footing for growth and development. It will be recalled that the military and their civilian counterparts did not hide their disposition to install Obasanjo as the new helmsman. The late Admiral Mike Akhigbe, who was the vice to Abdulsalami, was indeed sent to Lagos to meet senior journalists a few weeks after they took over. Akhigbe told the media executives that the military was interested in the transition. He said their desire was to see ‘Obasanjo as Nigeria’s own Mandela’.

The assumption was that with his vast experience, exposure, influence, and history, Obasanjo has the capacity to change the country for the better. Every nation at a critical juncture of its history needs a strong, visionary and selfless leader who will make sure that enduring institutions and templates are planted to secure the future of the country.

It is doubtful if that was done. Instead, what we see are ruling elites who are more parasitic, capricious and insensitive to the plight of Nigerians. Hence, at 66 Nigerians cannot, with the benefit of hindsight, be pumping champagne. It has absolutely been a case of arrested development. We are not where we should be as a nation!

By Ehi Braimah

Conversations during economic summits on Africa clearly indicate that governments alone cannot transform Africa’s economic fortunes. While African countries bet on foreign investment, or depend on borrowing and aid, a thinking still rooted in our colonial history, something more fundamental is taking place across the continent: the capacity of young Africans to create businesses, jobs and solutions to problems around them.

This significant shift by young Africans, demonstrating their capacity to innovate and launch businesses of their own, leads us to Africapitalism, the economic philosophy associated with Nigerian entrepreneur and philanthropist Tony Elumelu. The philosophy is simple: Africans must play a central role in creating Africa’s economic prosperity. At its heart is the belief that Africa’s private sector can drive economic and social development by creating long-term economic value and social wealth on the continent.

The Tony Elumelu Foundation (TEF) has translated this philosophy into an ambitious entrepreneurship programme that identifies, trains, mentors and provides seed capital to young African entrepreneurs. The idea is simple but potentially transformational: give young Africans the tools and capital to build sustainable businesses, rather than waiting for them to find employment in economies that cannot create enough jobs.

In terms of scale and impact, the numbers behind TEF’s entrepreneurship intervention are substantial. The story of Ms. Theresa Oluwagbemi which I am about to tell is not an isolated case, but part of an entrepreneurship ecosystem. Since the launch of its flagship Entrepreneurship Programme in 2015, TEF has empowered more than 27,000 entrepreneurs across 54 African countries, while more than 2.5 million Africans have accessed business-management training through TEFConnect. In addition, more than US$100 million in seed capital has been disbursed so far to selected entrepreneurs.

According to TEF’s latest figures, businesses supported through the programme have collectively generated more than US$4.2 billion in revenue and created more than 1.5 million direct and indirect jobs. TEF also reports that it has lifted 2.1 million Africans above the poverty line and positively affected more than four million African households.

The programme’s reach is also demonstrated by the extraordinary demand for it. In 2026 alone, TEF received more than 265,000 applications from young Africans across the continent before selecting a cohort of 3,200 beneficiaries – up from 1,000 beneficiaries when the programme was launched 11 years ago – with 51 percent being women.

Supported by his wife, Awele, Tony Elumelu took TEF to a new level, building partnership with major development institutions, governments and global foundations to scale the programme. These partners include the European Union, UNDP, ADB, International Committee of the Red Cross, United States African Development Foundation, Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States; German Development Finance Institution (DEG), German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), Google, UNICEF Generation Unlimited, IKEA Foundation, the UAE Office of Development Affairs, and Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foundation, among others.

I have had the privilege of experiencing the Africapitalism philosophy from the other side of the table as a mentor in the Tony Elumelu Entrepreneurship Programme. Last year, I was assigned to mentor Theresa Ouwagbemi, a young Nigerian entrepreneur whose journey provides a compelling illustration of how relatively modest catalytic capital can unlock economic activity.

Theresa studied Mass Communication at the Federal University, Oye-Ekiti, graduating with a second-class upper division, but her entrepreneurial journey began before graduation. She started producing and selling liquid soap on a very small scale, primarily to students and lecturers in her university. Like many young entrepreneurs, she had an idea and the determination to pursue it, but lacked the resources to take the business to the next level.

Then came TEF.

Theresa heard about the programme through a mentor who encouraged her to apply. She knew the selection process was competitive; nevertheless, she submitted her application, including her business pitch and proposal. When the email announcing her selection arrived, it became, in her words, “one of the best days of my life.”

That moment was more than an emotional milestone – it marked the beginning of a significant transition in her entrepreneurial journey. She received the $5,000 seed grant in January, 2026, alongside access to the programme’s masterclass and mentorship. The combination is important. Capital without knowledge can be wasted, just as knowledge without capital can remain theoretical.

Her business, “Boom Liquid Wash”, began to acquire the capacity to serve a wider market. Before the grant, Theresa’s business was constrained by the limited equipment available to her. She had to turn down some contracts because she lacked the production capacity required to fulfil them.

The grant changed that equation. With the money, she acquired basic equipment needed for production. Her customer base expanded beyond students and lecturers to include restaurants, office owners, other businesses and individual consumers. This is where the broader significance of Africapitalism becomes evident.

The US$5,000 did not simply become money in Theresa’s bank account; it became productive capital. It was converted into equipment, production capacity, customers and business relationships. It enabled 23-year-old Theresa to accept opportunities that were previously beyond her reach. That is the multiplier effect that entrepreneurship can produce.

Theresa’s story also demonstrates why entrepreneurship development cannot be reduced to simply handing young people money. The TEF model helps entrepreneurs to develop the knowledge, resilience and connections required to survive in a difficult business environment, and Nigeria’s business environment can be difficult.

Theresa recalls an occasion when the price of chemicals used in her production increased by more than 60 per cent. For a small business, such a sudden increase in input costs can threaten profitability and customer relationships. How do you explain to customers that your costs have suddenly risen? How do you protect your margins without losing your market? How do you keep going when the economics of your business appear to be changing overnight?

These are not theoretical questions for young African entrepreneurs; they are everyday realities.
We discussed these challenges and Theresa learned to adapt. Her entrepreneurial experience has also exposed her to opportunities and people she might not otherwise have encountered. While she was still a student, for example, she produced souvenirs for the Dean of her department.

More importantly, entrepreneurship has sharpened her ability to identify problems and develop tailored solutions. That is another important dimension of Africapitalism: the entrepreneur is not merely a beneficiary of economic development, but becomes an agent of economic development.

Theresa’s customers are beneficiaries because they have access to locally produced products. Her suppliers also benefit from demand, and the businesses that buy her products benefit from reliable supply. As “Boom Liquid Wash” grows, its economic footprint can grow with it. Multiply Theresa’s experience by thousands of entrepreneurs across Africa and the significance becomes much larger.

This is why the Tony Elumelu Entrepreneurship Programme is important beyond the individual entrepreneurs who receive the grants. The real ambition is to create an ecosystem in which African entrepreneurs thrive, solve African problems, build African businesses and create economic value within African economies.

Africa has no shortage of entrepreneurial energy. What it often lacks is the capital, infrastructure, market access, knowledge and institutional support required to turn entrepreneurial ideas into sustainable businesses. The intervention of catalytic capital can therefore be significant, but money alone does not guarantee success.

Theresa has learned some hard lessons. One is particularly memorable: never sell on credit. Her experience reflects one of the perennial challenges facing small businesses: cash flow. A small business may have customers and make sales on paper but still struggle if customers do not pay promptly.

Her second lesson is perhaps even more important: entrepreneurship is not a smooth journey.
There will be setbacks, unexpected costs, disappointments and moments of discouragement. My advice to Theresa and other young entrepreneurs is to look back at what they have achieved and remember what motivated them to start in the first place.

That resilience is essential to building businesses that can survive beyond the initial intervention.
Theresa is currently undertaking her National Youth Service Corps programme in Enugu, in Eastern Nigeria. She describes her experience in Enugu as beautiful, saying she has met amazing people and visited beautiful places.

But NYSC is only another chapter in her journey; her ambition is much bigger. She wants to grow “Boom Liquid Wash” into a business that meets global standards. She plans to gain additional exposure by interning with companies that represent the blueprint she wants for her own business. She also plans to pursue an MBA because, in her words, building a global business requires “a global mindset, experience and exposure.”

This is precisely the kind of ambition that programmes such as TEF seek to nurture. There is an important lesson here for Africa: development should not only be measured by the amount of money injected into an economy; it should also be measured by the productive capacity that such capital creates.

The money should create a business, acquire customers, and enable increase in production. In addition, the entrepreneur should acquire new skills; the enterprise should become capable of accepting larger contracts, while creating opportunities for others, contributing to the economic value within the community and, ultimately, within the African economy.

This is the type of value chain that makes the Africapitalism conversation particularly relevant. Tony Elumelu’s intervention is premised on the idea that the African private sector can be an engine of development. Rather than viewing philanthropy simply as the distribution of resources, Africapitalism seeks to connect enterprise, investment, economic empowerment and social impact.

Theresa’s story illustrates this connection at the micro level. Her production capacity grew and her customer based expanded with bigger ambitions. The next challenge for her is sustainability.

The ultimate test of any entrepreneurship programme is what happens after the grant. Can businesses survive? Can they scale and create jobs? Can they attract additional capital? Can they become suppliers to larger companies? Can they expand across borders? Theresa appears determined to pursue that journey. Her aspiration to build a global-standard business is significant because Africa needs businesses that can grow, compete, innovate, export and create wealth.

The continent’s enormous youth population makes this even more urgent. Millions of young Africans will enter the labour market in the coming years, but no government can employ everyone. Sustainable private enterprises must therefore become an increasingly important part of the solution. This is where Africapitalism intersects with Africa’s development challenge. The goal is not capitalism for its own sake; it is the deployment of private enterprise and capital to generate both economic and social value.

Theresa’s journey from a small student-based liquid soap business to a growing enterprise with customers beyond her immediate environment may appear modest against the scale of Africa’s economic challenges, but transformation often begins at this level – one young African entrepreneur who moves from dependency to enterprise. That is how impact multiplies.

The real promise of Africapitalism lies not simply in the success of one Tony Elumelu entrepreneur, but in the possibility that thousands of entrepreneurs can become creators of value, employers of labour, innovators and contributors to Africa’s economic transformation.

Theresa’s story is therefore bigger than “Boom Liquid Wash” – it is a story about what happens when capital meets an idea, when mentorship meets ambition, and when opportunity meets determination. Perhaps that is one of the most powerful ways to understand Tony Elumelu’s vision for Africa: don’t just give young Africans a chance to find jobs; give them a chance to build businesses that create jobs, wealth and solutions for Africa.

That is Africapitalism in action.

Braimah is a PR specialist, marketing strategist, and publisher/editor-in-chief of Naija Times (www.ntm.ng) and Lagos Post (www.lagospost.ng). He is a strong advocate for African prosperity and can be reached through: [email protected]

By Tunde Rahman

To some, especially in the opposition camp, it may seem like a brewing political storm, but the brouhaha in Abuja over Nyesom Wike’s Rainbow Coalition and the Progressive Governors Forum’s pushback is not a crisis. It is a sign that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s political architecture for 2027 is active and working.

To fully grasp this, you must understand the President and why many see him as a master strategist.

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, has been unambiguous. He has not asked to join the All Progressives Congress. He has not asked the APC Governors for an alliance. As a People’s Democratic Party leader serving in an APC government, he is building a Rainbow Coalition- a platform of PDP, APC, and other party members whose sole mandate is to deliver votes for President Tinubu’s re-election.

In Rivers State, the APC itself has endorsed this model, perhaps because Wike controls both APC and PDP structures in the state. The APC in the state has laid bare a convincing premise for its embrace: all politics is local, and the coalition is needed to protect President Tinubu’s votes.

Many may dislike him for his guts, style and the controversies he seems to cultivate, but in my view, the FCT Minister is not weakening the APC. He is broadening Tinubu’s base beyond the APC, into places the APC cannot ordinarily reach the way he will do.

As former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Chibudom Nwuche, rightly called it, it is a “political masterstroke that is broadening the President’s support base”.

Conversely, the APC governors led by their Chairman, Senator Hope Uzodimma, have also declared that their commitment is “exclusively to all APC candidates”. They emphasised that they would not support any arrangement that undermines President Tinubu’s re-election.

They are right. As party leaders in their states, their job is to protect the APC ticket from Governor to House of Assembly. But they are worried that a coalition that helps President Tinubu at the top but fields PDP candidates against APC candidates at the bottom could confuse voters and put APC candidates in jeopardy.

That is a legitimate organisational concern. It is not anti-Tinubu. It is pro-party discipline. Both are right to want to protect their turfs and galvanise their respective interests. This is where President Tinubu’s genius comes in.

This situation can be aptly described as two legs of one body. The APC Governors are the first leg, the official party structure, delivering the party vote in 31 states. Wike’s Rainbow Coalition is the second leg, the extra-party structure, delivering votes from PDP strongholds, from Rivers to Oyo to parts of the North.

Does it imply the president shouldn’t care less about what fate befalls candidates of the APC at various levels? By no means! As the APC national leader, he should.

But President Tinubu does not need to choose between the APC Governors and Rainbow Coalition. He needs both. In 2023, he won in Rivers without Wike’s coalition structure fully formed as it is at present. In 2027, he will have both the Progressive Governors Forum and the Rainbow Coalition mobilising for him in different territories.

As Bolaji Adebiyi argued in an article in Thisday on Friday, Wike has demonstrated organisational capacity by fielding PDP candidates in 26 of the 28 states where elections will be held in January, even in several states where opposition parties like the African Democratic Congress and Nigeria Democratic Congress cannot field candidates. The essay noted that such an individual cannot be shoved aside. His support is as important and strategic as it was in 2023.

This rift will not hurt President Tinubu as the opposition may expect, because what matters is whether the coalition will deliver votes for the President. In my view, it can. Those hoping the disagreement will cause a political rift in the Villa should perish the thought.

The President is on vacation in France and is expected to broker a truce himself when he returns, because he is the only leader both sides listen to.
This is not a house divided. It is a big tent that allows mutual accommodation.

The APC Governors will run the official campaign. Wike will run the coalition campaign for non-APC voters who love the President and want him re-elected. Both tendencies report to the same Commander-in-Chief.

In the end, the Rainbow Coalition and the Progressive Governors Forum have one overriding mission: the election of President Tinubu for a second term. Both will have one communique and it will be titled “For Tinubu’s Reelection.” This is not brouhaha. It is a winning strategy.

*Rahman is Senior Special Assistant to President Tinubu on Media and Special Duties.