Lack of Political Will to do the Needful as Bane of Good Governance in Nigeria:AUO and US Plaidoyers
Bola A. Akinterinwa
The culture of always doing the needful is not part of political governance in Nigeria, whereas seeking to always do the needful is precisely what is godly. Not doing what is needful is sinful. As told in the Holy Bible in James 4:17, ‘whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is a sin.’ This is an omission of duty that is sinful. It is not different from the Parable of Jesus Christ in the context of the Good Samaritan: the priest and the Levite knew quite well that they should provide assistance to the injured man on the road but they simply passed by, ignoring the injured, while the Samaritan stopped to help and historically became the Good Samaritan. Thus, it is better not to have an understanding of what is good and be free from sin of omission than having knowledge and then be guilty of hindering the Will of God. In fact, Genesis 4:7 also says that God told Cain about his sin of omission thus: ‘if you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door.’ Is sin not couching at the door steps of the Government of Nigeria as of today?
In Nigeria, there is lack of political will to always do the needful, not because Government has little or no knowledge of the good things to be done but because of officious selfishness. Government does nothing in the face of needful things. As a result of this, political governance has been largely predicated on sin of omission, and which, in the eyes of God, is not acceptable. Not until the Government and people of Nigeria accept to do what is good, God’s favour will continue to be far-fetched and things cannot but also continue to fall apart in Nigeria.
This is precisely the critical message given by Professor Bode Ayorinde, Pro-Chancellor of the Achievers University, Owo (AUO), and the conditionality reportedly given by the United States to Nigeria in order to avoid a gun-a-blazing intervention in Nigeria.
AUO’s Message: Show Political Will
The Achievers University, Owo (AUO), in the words of the outgoing Chancellor of the AUO, Rt. Hon. Yakubu Dogara, CFR, at the 15th Convocation and 18th Anniversary of the University on Saturday, 13th December, 2025, “was founded on an audacious vision to produce graduates not only of unmatched academic competence but of moral fortitude, ingenuity, and the courage to transform society.’ As such, the Chancellor called on all the 2025 graduands ‘to uphold the noble name of the University, to be unwavering ambassadors of integrity in a society in desperate need of principled leadership, to innovate in a rapidly evolving world, and to provide solutions to the pressing challenges facing our nation and the world.’
There are two points of emphasis in this statement: the need for the graduands to have the determination or political will to be unwavering ambassadors of integrity and a principled leader. Secondly, the Chancellor wants the graduands to be innovator and solution provider in a constantly evolving world. This translates to preparing the graduands to begin to evolve the culture of showing political will to do what is good, to do what is needful. True, political will is yet to exist. At the level of current political governance, the challenge is that there is lack of political will to do what is good and needful. The interlocution of the Pro-Chancellor, Professor Bode Ayorinde, is particularly noteworthy and thought-provoking in this regard.
In his speech, entitled “Rethinking Taxation in the Education Sector: Why Educational Institutions Should Not be Taxed,” Professor Ayorinde drew attention to the counter-productive implications of the 2025 Nigerian tax reforms. As he put it, ‘2% of the development levy as it is described goes to TETFUND, an organisation that, since inception, has restricted and continues to restrict its funding activities to public higher institutions only. By this development, students of private institutions are to be taxed in order to fund public institutions.’
Professor Ayorinde sees this development as unfair and has given five reasons to justify the unacceptability of the taxation of private institutions in a polity that is claiming fairness and justice. As further posited, ‘education should never be taxed. Instead, it should be supported, subsidised, and incentivised as a critical sector for national transformation..’ for reasons not far-fetched: education is a public good and not a business enterprise to be taxed; private universities are established not for profit-making in the commercial sense, but to complement government efforts and to help close the admission gap; private higher institutions shoulder responsibilities that government itself cannot meet.’ Consequently, in the eyes of Professor Ayorinde, ‘to tax education therefore is to stop scholarship and free tuition in some of our programme and to increase the tuition of fast-selling programmes, thereby stopping many aspiring students yearning for knowledge from accessing quality education.’
Under normal circumstance, this type of plaidoyer is self-explanatory because of the very convincing negative implications of having to tax private higher educational institutions. For instance, both public and private educational institutions are producing graduates for the public service. Both graduates will indiscriminately join the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC). Many privately-trained graduates meet their fiancés or life partners during the NYSC year. All tertiary institutions are required to engage in research and development and with emphasis on technology creativity. It is, at best, very myopic not to consider how to promote competitiveness between and among public and private tertiary institutions for purposes of national development. If there is any good reason to tax tertiary institutions, it should not be selective and discriminatory.
This is why the plaidoyer of Professor Ayorinde is quite commendable. It is also for the same reason that all tertiary institutions, public and private, should unite to prioritise national educational interest, to promote education as a uniting factor for a true nation-building. If education is universally treated non-taxable, why is that of Nigeria different? How do we reconcile seeking world-class universities and at the same time denying them support? As rightly pointed out by Professor Ayorinde, ‘education generates public value, Universities produce engineers, doctors, teachers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and leaders… Taxing education will discourage investment in education, investors interested in establishing schools… Also, taxing education will contradict National Development Goals. No nation can industrialise without investing heavily in education. Taxation undermines research, innovation, and knowledge production.’
Is it that Government is unaware of the foregoing valid points? Is it that Government does not know that privately-owned tertiary institutions contribute in no small measure to GDP? Government does know but the political will to do what is right is just not there. This is why Government is on daily basis engaging in sinful acts as if it is drinking holy water.
Grosso modo, lack of political will is a frequent occurrence in international relations and the reasons are also not far-fetched. For instance, Nigeria took active part in the debate on funding of containment of the impact of climate change during the COP held in Copenhagen. It was Nigeria’s Chief Ojo Maduekwe, then Foreign Minister, that led the debate on behalf of Africa. Even though pledges were freely made to meaningfully contribute to the funding, powerful industry lobbies, economic costs, conscious delays in the implementation of global agreements have made the fulfilment of the pledges impossible.
Also in Nigeria, and in Brazil where there are anti-corruption efforts and laws passed, there is lack of political will to enforce doing what is needful. The same is true at the level of humanitarian crises. Many are the calls for greater integration within regional organisations but member states refuse to implement inclusive policies for refugees and displaced persons. They are treated more as a temporary burden.
Without any whiff of doubt, lack of political will can be largely predicated by many factors: leaders focus on immediate political gains to the detriment of long-term, costly reforms. There is no disputing the fact that powerful groups often resist changes that threaten their influence or wealth. Conflict of interest between national and global interests is another major reason for lack of political will to do what is good and needful.
For instance, while President Donald Trump’s policy of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ have the potential to undermine international cooperation, the policy of first protecting national sovereignty in any Member State of the UN cannot but also be to the detriment of colonial exploitation of national resources by other former colonial masters. Why should France accept collaboration with anyone in this regard, and why should the Alliance of Sahel States accept to be closely associated with France and its western allies?
In Nigeria, and without doubt, lack of political will to fund education at the level of private tertiary institutions is largely a resultant of limited intellection, analytical myopia, and unnecessary political chicanery. True enough, the TETFund replaced the Education Tax Act Cap.E4 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and the Education Trust Fund Act No. 17, 2003. As such, the TETFUND (Tertiary Education Trust Fund) has been charged with imposing, managing and disbursing tax to public tertiary institutions in Nigeria. It is within the context of its responsibility that it has called for submission of papers for the TETFAIR 2026. The deadline for submission was December 1, 2025 and the eligibility for participation was restricted to lecturers, researchers or technologists from a TETFund Beneficiary University, Polytechnic or College of Education. If it is not intellection myopia, how can Government believe that research and development inquiry can be rightly limited to public institutions? There are private universities that are internationally rated higher than public universities. Research is better carried out collaboratively as a joint venture by public and private universities. If private institutions are taxed and the taxes are to be diverted to promotion of research in the same private institutions by way of policy direction, it can be more sagacious, creative and productive.
US Plaidoyers: Fight Terror or Guns-a-blazing Intervention
Americans have clearly made the lack of political will to do the needful in Nigeria a new issue in Nigeria’s foreign policy. This is made crystal clear when Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, led a ten-man Nigerian delegation to Washington, United States. The delegation was made up of Bianca Ojukwu, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs; Kayode Egbetokun, Inspector Generl of Police; Chief Lateef Olasunkanmi Fagbemi, SAN, Attorney-General of the Federation; General Olufemi Olatunbosun Oluyede, Chief of Defence staff; Lt. Gen. EAP Undiendeye, Chief of Defence Intelligence; Ms Idayat Hassan, Special Adviser to ONSA; Ambassador Ibrahim Babani, Director of Foreign Relations, ONSA; Ambassador Nuru Biu, Acting CDA, Embassy of Nigeria; and Paul Alabi of the Political and Economic Section, Embassy of Nigeria.
The purpose of the meeting was to go and argue contrarily to the allegations of genocide against Christians in Nigeria. Mallam Ribadu and his team first met with Congressman Riley M. Moore and the meeting reportedly allowed for a frank, honest, and productive discussion. The delegation also met with the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, at the Pentagon on November 20, 2025. Discussion focused on how to stop the violence against Christians in Nigeria and the need for Nigeria to demonstrate commitment and take urgent action to stop the violence.
Two points are noteworthy in the position of the United States at the meetings. The first is the point by Congressman Riley that the United States is ‘ready to work cooperatively with the Nigerians to help their nation combat the terrorism perpetrated by Boko Haram, ISWAP, and Fulani militants against their population, specifically Christians in the Northeast and Middle Belt regions of Nigeria. Put differently, the United States has the readiness to assist Nigeria. The second point is the nature of the readiness. As Riley put it, ‘President Trump and Congress are united and serious in our (United States) resolve to end the violence against Christians and disrupt and destroy terrorist groups within Nigeria.’ He therefore urged ‘the Nigerians to work with us in cooperation and coordination on this critical issue.’
Again, at the level of this second point, there are also two new issues. First is the extent to which the United States can really disrupt and destroy terrorist groups in Nigeria in light of the fact that all the terror groups operating in Nigeria are all internationally connected under the Al Qaeda. The main objective of the Al Qaeda is not simply limited to Nigeria but Africa as whole. Al Qaeda wants to Islamise the whole of Africa and eventually take control of the world. In other words, the US victory in Nigeria can only be limited and temporary in the first phase. If the terrorists are pushed out of Nigeria, the next challenge is the determination of where next. The terrorists have been chased away from Asia to Africa, beginning from the Sahel. If they chased out of West Africa, to where again will they go? This brings us to the second issue.
If terrorists are chased out of Nigeria, will the funders of terror move out of Nigeria? Will there still be the required political will to sustain a Nigeria free from boko haramists? And perhaps more notably, it has been insinuated in the United States that the truth about the outcome of the discussions between the US government officials and the Nigerian delegation have not been told to Nigerians, and by so doing, insinuating lack of political to inform. It is argued that the United States had actually requested for the release of one American offender serving a prison term in Nigeria. We are also told that the United States gave a three-month ultimatum, ending February 2026, during which the Government of Bola Ahmed Tinubu must throw Christian genocide to the garbage of history.
If the Tinubu has shown lack of political will to tell Nigerians what is said to constitute the truth concerning the US conditionality, we strongly believe that there is nothing wrong with that type of lack of political will. This is because security strategies are normally not discussed on media pages. However, this does not mean that the element of lack of political will can be easily wished away. As a matter of fact, in addition to the earlier points made on lack of political will in global governance, international political governance is fraught with lack of political will to do what is needful for humanity. Beginning with Nigeria’s National Assembly (NASS), there is no open record to suggest that Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, has ever been invited for hearing or for investigations on national security since 2023.
Whereas, the Nigerian delegation, which was led by Nuhu Ribadu, was ordinarily investigated by the US Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs. The hearing was not even done at the level of a committee. As clearly explicated by Chibuzo Okereke, Legislative and Policy Analyst, on Arise News last week, the hearing lasted for about four hours. A multimedia equipment was used that enabled testimonies to be given from various nooks and crannies of Nigeria and elsewhere. Thus, it is being argued that there is lack of political will at the level of the NASS.
In the same vein, political will was inexistent to stop the genocide in Bosnia in the 1990s and in Rwanda, in 1994. The same is true in addressing climate change in the context of Indonesia. It should be recalled here that the Indonesian Government made strenuous efforts to increase the production of coal and palm oil. Government not only made unfulfilled promises, but also ignored the concerns of the environmental activists and global climate goals. What about the unkept promises or inaction of the United Nations in ensuring human rights and indigenous rights?
As regards human rights, the UN Security Council has always shown inability to enforce international law in the Palestinian conflict largely as a result of non-preparedness to apply political will. And true enough regarding indigenous rights, many Governments have failed to repudiate colonial doctrines or protect indigenous land. One general and basic truth is that political elites fear the implications of having to lose power and the benefits inherent in it whenever development reforms are being considered. This is why it has always been difficult to have development reforms taking place. This is how and why there is always a conflict between stated goals and wishes, on the one hand, and actual actions, on the other.
For one reason or the other, excuses are often found to justify lack of political will to do the needful. One can imagine how the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union, as well as the Authority of Heads of States and Governments of the ECOWAS can be vigorously preaching the sermon of zero tolerance for unconstitutional change of government and at the same time engaging in the neutralisation of the same zero tolerance policy in the context of presidential succession in Chad following the demise of President Idris Déby at the war front. The Constitution of Chad requires the President of the National Assembly to succeed and organise fresh election within sixty days when there is a presidential vacuum. The AU and even France who came up with democratisation fever following the 1990 Franco-African Summit held in the coastal city of La Baule in southern France, shut her eyes not to see what is needful to be done.
As we already noted in the beginning, the culture of always doing the needful is not part of political governance in Nigeria, and that seeking to always do the needful is what is godly and not doing what is needful is sinful as told in the Holy Bible in James 4:17. In this regard, reasons for lack of political will to always do the needful can be a resultant from conflict of national or self-interest, incapacity, power dynamics and domestic constraints. This means that lack of politic will is not ordinarily the absence of desire to do the needful, but essentially the outcome of cost-benefit calculations by state actors who prefer to underscore immediate and tangible national gains to the detriment of collective global objectives. This is why the plaidoyers of Professor Bode Ayorinde of the Achievers University, Owo and those of the United States of President Donald Trump are particularly thought-provoking. The US has reportedly given Nigeria an ultimatum to comply regarding the release of an American citizen serving a prison term in Nigeria and putting an end to Christian genocide not later than February 2026. What should the Tinubu administration do? Professor Ayorinde does not want private tertiary educational institutions to pay tax. Should privately-owned tertiary institutions be made to pay tax? If they pay tax, why should public tertiary institutions be made to benefit from the taxes paid by private universities that are prevented from TETFUND? This year’s Christmas cannot but also be a time for more sober reflexion on US policy of guns-a blazing intervention and future of taxation in Nigeria.
