news
How I Stopped Kingibe, Abba Kyari, Rufai Abubakar From Stealing $44m-Former Acting D-G, NIA
Immediate past Acting Director-General (D-G) of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Mr Mohammed Dauda, has disclosed that he fought off attempts by Messrs. Babagana Kingibe, former Secretary to the Government of the Federation and his protégé and incumbent D-G of the NIA, Mr. Rufai Abubakar and Abba Kyari, President Muhammadu Buhari’s Chief of Staff to steal $44million NIA intervention fund. The disclosure was made in a brief to the House of Representatives Committee on National Security and Intelligence.
In the brief, exclusively obtained by SaharaReporters, Mr. Dauda said he assumed office as Acting D-G on November 6 2017, following a brief meeting with Mr. Kyari at the Presidential Villa. The Chief of Staff, he said, conveyed the President’s directive to him that he should function in an acting capacity while waiting for further directives. 
On leaving the Presidential Villa, Mr. Dauda said he headed straight to have a meeting with Mr. Arab Yadam who was D-G in an acting capacity but was retiring. The meeting, he said, dwelt on what the retiring Acting D-G did in the seven months during which he ran the agency. The briefing, said Mr. Dauda, comprised his administrative, operational and technical duties, all of which were highly confidential. Mr. Yadam also gave his successor the picture of the agency’s financial position, which included $44million he informed was part of the intervention fund that brought the Ikoyi apartment cash scandal.
After the briefing, Mr. Yadam introduced Mr. Dauda to Brigadier-General Mohammed Ja’afaru, the Acting Director of Finance and Administration (DFA) who briefed him on the nature of the agency’s assignments. Among these are the daily operations of the accounts for both domestic and foreign management. The Acting DFA also told Mr. Dauda that the $44million in his custody, which was not part of the agency’s budgetary allocation, should not be touched because it had become an exhibit in an ongoing case. The purpose of the disclosure, Mr. Dauda said, was for his information.
Not long after Mr. Dauda assumed office, the Presidential Review Panel (PRP) headed by Mr. Kingibe started its assignment within NIA. The agency provided the members of the panel with office space, accommodation, food and other logistics. Aside from Mr. Kingibe, other members include Mr. Albert K. Horsfall, a former D-G of the State Security Service; Mr. Olaniyi Oladeji, Mr. ZY Ibrahim both former DGs of the NIA and the current DG of NIA, Mr. Abubakar, who was PRP Secretary.
After the maiden meeting with the panel, said Mr. Dauda, Mr. Kingibe called him to advise that in his own interest, he should cooperate with them fully and avoid being close with Buhari’s National Security Adviser, Babagana Monguno, Mr. Kingibe also disclosed that they had presidential powers to overrule previous instructions or directives issued by the NSA.
“I was instructed to channel all our activities, contacts, concerns and complaints through the Office of the Chief of Staff Abba Kyari only,” said Mr. Dauda.
He said the instructions left him in discomfort, as they contradict all the provisions of the agency’s instruments. Not wanting to start on a confrontational note, he kept away from the NSA as instructed.
According to him, things went on smoothly untilKingibe and Abubakar kept pressuring him for money. Mr. Dauda said he explained that the agency’s dollar account was low because of the difficulty in sourcing dollars from the Central Bank of Nigeria following the crises that arose from the Ikoyi money scandal. However, the replied that the $44m in the custody of the Acting DFA belongs to the agency and that the DFA had no power to stop Mr. Dauda from spending the money. They added that since the crisis had blown over, Mr. Dauda should go and tell Brigadier-General Jafa’aru to return to his job in the army. He was advised to write to the National Security Adviser to withdraw him or ask the NIA security department to stop him from entering the premises of the agency.
Mr. Dauda said the pressure was huge, but he felt if Brigadier-General Jafa’aru left, he might not be able to resist further pressure from the desperate Kingibe led gang.
“They kept insisting that they had the mandate of the President and that the President had directed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to hands off the money and that it was legitimately ours. They verbally queried me on the logic of keeping the money as an exhibit since there was no case pending in court. Ambassador Kingibe told me that he was the one who, through the Chief of Staff drafted the memo that the President assented to, instructing the EFCC to hands off our case (Ikoyi cash . scandal) just to convince me that there are no more encumbrances on the money,” stated Mr. Dauda.
Still, no dice. He claimed that Kingibe and others kept pressuring and threatening that if he did not get rid of the Brigadier-General, he would have regrets. Mr. Dauda said he had no reason to get the man out and he actually enjoyed working with him. His refusal to do as they wished, he said, this prompted Messrs. Kingibe and Abubakar to tell him at a meeting that he was refusing presidential orders to bar the Brigadier-General from the NIA premises. They warned him that there might be consequences if he remained adamant. At one of the meetings, explained Mr. Dauda, Mr. Horsfall advised him to ignore any suggestion that could cause confrontation between him and the NSA and advised his colleagues on the panel to put it as part of their recommendations to the President since they had his mandate, so he could order the NSA to remove the Acting DFA from the NSA.
The pressure on him for money, the former Acting D-G said, intensified.
“They wanted money for medical treatment or holidays abroad for their families and girlfriends. I met and gave a lady Ambassador Kingibe simply introduced to me as “Angela” money twice at the car park of the Hilton Hotel. Once $50,000 and the second time $20,000, which apparently did not impress him. Even the current DG NIA once called me on WhatsApp, just like Amb. Kingibe always does and said that his Oga was traveling to London for medical check-up and he suggested that I should find something for him as a sign of good will. So, I reluctantly gave him $50,000 against my will, a decision that made me sad throughout the day,” he said. He added that Mr. Kingibe collected over $200,000 from him during the time he headed the PRP. Mr. Dauda said he was always using the President’s name to squeeze cash out of the NIA. They also undermined the Office of the National Security Adviser.
On December 20 2017, said the former Acting DG, Mr. Kingibe asked the current DG NIA to tell him to meet them at home located at 59 Nelson Mandela Street, Asokoro, Abuja. He was asked to come alone. At the meeting, he was told of his refusal to cooperate with them and they had brought him there to warn that the Acting DFA was conspiring with some people to steal the $44million in their safe. He was warned that he would be held liable if he did not stop their plan.
“They told me that their Committee had completed their assignment and that their recommendations were so generous to the DG NIA. They said they recommended the appointment of two Deputy Directors-General and watered down their powers enough so that they will not be in a position to pose any threat to him as the DG,” wrote Mr. Dauda.
They then suggested that it was his turn to do something in return as he was likely to get the President’s nod as the substantive DG only if he could immediately make $2million available.
“I told them it was not going to be possible as the only money available was the $44million and I didn’t know how to approach the Acting DFA. They also told me at the meeting that if I can’t sack the DFA, they would send someone to do it soon. That was my last communication with them until I heard of my removal from office on Wednesday 11 January on Channels Television around 8 pm,’ said Mr. Dauda.
The next day, he advised the NSA to look at the possibility of evacuating the money from the NIA, an advice the NSA heeded. The money was moved and taken to the Office of the NSA.
Later that night, Mr. Dauda said he received a call from the Mr. Abubakar, who requested for a meeting with him and the staff who worked with him at 10pm. Mr. Abubakar said the meeting was ordered by Mr. Kyari. The meeting was eventually moved to the next day after Mr. Dauda protested that it was too late. At the meeting the next day, an enraged Mr. Abubakar said the Presidency blamed him for not taking over immediately thereby giving room for the money to be taken away and warned that Mr. Dauda would be held responsible.
When he finished, Mr. Dauda said he told him no money was missing and that he approved the transfer so the money could be safe.
“I told him that if there was no ulterior motive, the apprehension was unfounded. I also warned him to mind his language as I have always been his senior in this service,” Mr. Dauda stated.
He equally stated that his life is being threatened by the Kingibe gang and requested immediate protection for him and his family. Mr. Abubakar, he said, has already shown his hand with a letter requesting Mr. Dauda to return official vehicles in his possession. He has also received another letter restricting his movement on the claim that the agency was investigating leakage of sensitive information.
“These are acts meant to cow and intimidate me into submission and there are also attempts to bundle me out of my official quarters through extra-legal means and also to withdraw my security details, thereby impacting my security,” he said.
He called on the House Committee not to allow the Kingibe gang to subvert the rule of law by bullying him into submission.
news
Taiwan in the Crossfire of History, Law, and Power: A Feature Analysis of Competing Claims and the One-China Question
By Michael Olukayode
The status of Taiwan remains one of the most enduring and strategically sensitive disputes in modern international relations — a question where history, law, identity, and geopolitics collide without easy resolution. It is not merely a territorial disagreement between Beijing and Taipei; it is a layered contest over legitimacy, sovereignty, and the meaning of statehood in a shifting global order.
Across recent scholarly salons and policy interventions in Africa and beyond — particularly the Abuja media salon hosted by the China General Chamber of Commerce in Nigeria — a striking convergence has emerged around the One-China Principle, even as interpretations of its implications remain sharply contested.
The Historical Fault Line: 1949 and the Birth of Two Political Realities
The modern Taiwan question originates in the Chinese Civil War, which ended in 1949 with the Communist Party of China establishing the People’s Republic of China on the mainland while the defeated Kuomintang (KMT) government retreated to Taiwan.
As Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim forcefully stated at the Abuja salon:
“Taiwan is not a sovereign entity, it has no independence and it is not a member of the United Nations.”
From Beijing’s perspective, this was not the creation of two states but the continuation of one China under different administrations.
This position aligns with the broader Chinese narrative repeatedly emphasized in diplomatic discourse, including the categorical assertion that:
“Taiwan has never been a country, was never one in the past, and will never be one in the future.”
Taiwan, however, evolved in a very different direction. Over decades, it developed into a functioning democratic polity with its own political institutions, elections, military structure, and constitutional governance.
This divergence produces what scholars describe as a central paradox: a de facto state operating with constrained de jure recognition, facing a sovereign claim from a rising global power.
The Legal Architecture: UN Resolution 2758 and Competing Interpretations
A cornerstone of Beijing’s argument is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, which restored China’s seat at the United Nations in 1971.
At the Abuja salon, Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim insisted:
“This resolution has explicitly established… that there is only one seat for China in the United Nations, leaving no room for ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’.”
From this perspective, Taiwan is not a separate subject of international law but part of China whose representation is subsumed under Beijing.
Taiwan and its supporters contest this interpretation, arguing that Resolution 2758 addresses representation — not sovereignty — leaving Taiwan’s political status deliberately unresolved.
This legal ambiguity has become what many scholars now describe as structured uncertainty, sustaining diplomatic flexibility while preventing formal resolution.
Beijing’s Position: Sovereignty, Reunification, and Historical Mission
China’s position is rooted in sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national rejuvenation.
As reiterated by President Xi Jinping:
“The great tide of compatriots on both sides of the strait becoming closer, more connected and coming together will not change. This is the verdict of history.”
In Chinese official discourse, reunification is not framed as a negotiable issue but as a historical inevitability tied to national revival.
This perspective was reinforced in Abuja by African analysts who align with Beijing’s framing of sovereignty as non-negotiable, with Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim emphasizing that Africa’s diplomatic alignment reflects a global consensus increasingly anchored in the One-China Principle.
Taiwan’s Position: Democracy, Identity, and De Facto Sovereignty
Taiwan’s position rests on lived political reality and democratic self-governance.
While officially still called the Republic of China, Taiwan functions as an independent political system with its own elections, judiciary, military, and constitution.
Its leadership under President Lai Ching-te emphasizes Taiwan’s distinct political identity and rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims.
From Beijing’s perspective, this is framed as separatism. From Taiwan’s perspective, it is democratic self-determination.
The result is a deeply entrenched ideological divide: territorial integrity versus political identity.
Strategic Ambiguity and Global Power Politics
A critical dimension of the Taiwan issue is the role of external powers, particularly the United States.
Washington’s policy of strategic ambiguity — recognizing the One-China framework while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan — is widely seen as both stabilizing and contradictory.
At the Abuja salon, Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim and other speakers framed external engagement with Taiwan as part of what they described as “separatist encouragement,” while emphasizing African alignment with Beijing’s position.
Africa’s Diplomatic Alignment and the One-China Consensus
A recurring theme in Abuja was overwhelming African diplomatic alignment with Beijing.
As multiple presenters emphasized:
“As of May 2026, 53 out of 54 African nations adhere to the One-China policy.”
The only exception remains Eswatini.
At the salon, Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim argued that this position reflects historical continuity in African diplomacy:
“African nations have consistently stood with China on issues concerning its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Dr. Segun Showunmi, who is an Ace Public affairs analyst and social impact expert, with experience in governance, policy and civic engagement added that this alignment is not merely political but developmental:
“That consistency created trust and in international politics, trust often translates into investment, infrastructure, and strategic cooperation.”
The Abuja Diplomatic Intervention: China’s Official Position
A defining moment of the salon came from the representative of the Chinese state — the Counsellor of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Nigeria, Ms.Dong Hairong— who reiterated Beijing’s formal position in unambiguous terms:
“There is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.”
This intervention anchored the entire discussion within the framework of Chinese sovereignty doctrine and reinforced that diplomatic relations with China are premised on acceptance of the One-China Principle.
⸻
Prof. Sam Amadi: Strategic Ambiguity as Diplomatic Reality
Professor Sam Amadi, a policy strategist and law and governance expert, Director, Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts,
introduced a more analytical framing, arguing that global practice is defined not by clarity but by managed contradiction.
He stated:
“The One-China principle and One-China policy are clear, but difficult to operationalise.”
He further explained:
“What we have today is strategic ambiguity… meaning they acknowledge, but at the same time, they engage.”
For Amadi, the central question for Africa is not ideological but practical:
“Should we foreclose ambiguity and advance a straight One-China principle, which will exclude all kinds of trade and engagement with Taiwan?”
His conclusion favored diplomatic exclusivity with calibrated economic engagement.
Strategic Realism: Why the Status Quo Persists
Despite rhetorical intensity, the Taiwan issue persists in its unresolved form due to structural constraints:
* China cannot accept formal separation without undermining sovereignty doctrine
* Taiwan cannot accept reunification without losing political autonomy
* The United States benefits strategically from ambiguity
* African states largely align diplomatically with Beijing while prioritizing development ties
As Professor Amadi summarized:
“We acknowledge these principles, but we go back there and also deal with Taiwan in trade… using strategic ambiguity.”
Conclusion: History as Contest, Diplomacy as Equilibrium
The Abuja salon underscored a broader truth about the Taiwan question: it is not merely a territorial dispute but a global governance dilemma.
On one side stands China’s categorical assertion, echoed in Abuja:
“There is only one China.”
On the other stands Taiwan’s democratic identity and de facto autonomy.
Between them lies a global system that simultaneously enforces principle and tolerates ambiguity.
As reflected across the Abuja interventions, including those of Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, Dr. Segun Showunmi, Prof. Sam Amadi, and the Chinese diplomatic Counsellor, the Taiwan question endures not because it lacks answers — but because every available answer carries strategic consequences the world is unwilling to fully accept.
And so Taiwan remains what it has become in the 21st century: not only a territorial dispute, but a permanent stress test of international order itself.
……..APM Terminals pledges $600m
Speaking during a panel session at the ongoing Africa CEO Forum, President Tinubu attributed the inflow to reforms aimed at improving transparency, efficiency, and investor confidence in the country.
He said his administration’s policies were positioning Nigeria as an open and competitive destination for investment.
“In Nigeria, we’ve attracted nearly $20 billion in direct investment this year because we are efficient, transparent, and open for business,” President Tinubu said.
He said that Nigeria would no longer permit the export of raw minerals without local value addition, noting that the country possesses the capacity to manufacture products such as electric vehicle batteries from its mineral resources.
He said: “With our metals, we can produce batteries for cars. The private sector brings capital and expertise, but government must de-risk and create the enabling environment. That partnership is how Africa moves forward”.
He also canvassed for stronger economic integration across the continent, urging African countries to move beyond rhetoric and fully activate the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
According to him, Africa needs to put its money where its mouth is and build a new relationship with its own resources.
“We have the African Continental Free Trade Area—it must not sit on the shelf. It needs to be activated properly through collaboration and effective use of resources, not by working in silos,” President Tinubu said.
He advocated an “Africa First” approach to development, insisting that African resources should primarily benefit the continent through local processing and manufacturing.
“We don’t want scavengers and extractors. We want partners who process and manufacture locally,” President Tinubu said.
Speaking on industrialisation, President Tinubu cited the success of the Dangote Refinery as proof that Africa could undertake large-scale projects with the right support framework.
According to him, Nigeria overcame years of dependence on imported petroleum products after supporting the establishment of the refinery through policy backing, credit support, and licensing approvals.
He said: “Today Nigeria is a net exporter of PMS, aviation fuel, and other products. Dangote is supplying aviation fuel across Africa and to European airlines”.
He also called for reforms to intra-African trade and financial systems, questioning the continent’s reliance on foreign currencies for trade transactions.
In Rwanda, Tinubu pitches Nigerian business case to Africa
Tinubu appoints Laniyi DG of Women Development Centre
“If you produce in Nigeria, you can trade in naira. Why should African trade depend on dollars? That adds cost and instability,” President Tinubu said.
He proposed the establishment of an African commodity exchange platform that would enable direct trade among the continent’s 54 countries.
On the issue of mobilising African capital for development, President Tinubu said governments must create stable legal and policy environments capable of attracting long-term investment.
He said: “Capital is cowardly. It needs transparency, accountability, and stability”.
He also advocated the creation of an African credit rating agency, arguing that existing global rating institutions do not adequately understand African markets and risks.
“The big American agencies dominate 95 per cent of the market, but they don’t understand our risks and opportunities,” President Tinubu said.
He noted that in addressing Africa’s digital infrastructure deficit, Nigeria is laying 19,000 kilometres of fibre optic cables nationwide to expand connectivity and support the digital economy.
“That’s how we bring lessons to children, connect families, and enable traders,” President Tinubu said.
He added that Africa must invest beyond basic telecommunications and build full digital infrastructure systems, including data processing, storage, artificial intelligence, and e-commerce capabilities.
He said: “We need to fund Africa’s shift from basic telecoms to AI and e-commerce”.
He further expressed optimism that the AfCFTA would eventually boost intra-African trade, despite political and structural barriers currently slowing integration efforts.
He said: “Pan-Africanism can’t remain a slogan. It has to be lived”.
He also urged African leaders to strengthen regional alliances and economic cooperation in response to global economic shocks and geopolitical uncertainties.
“If Europe can build alliances and move forward, so can we. Africa has everything we need here. What we require is good policy and the will to act.
“We don’t want our children dying at sea trying to reach elsewhere. We have the resources. We just need to help each other and push together. That is the only way to build an inclusive and prosperous Africa,” President Tinubu said
Femi Gbajabiamila, Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, has disclosed that he almost lost his position last year due to the alleged involvement of actor-turned-politician Desmond Elliot in the political crisis that rocked the Lagos State House of Assembly during the speakership tussle involving Mudashiru Obasa.
Speaking in a video widely circulating on social media on Thursday, Gbajabiamila narrated how Tinubu summoned him to his residence in Abuja at the height of the Obasa impeachment saga.
According to the CoS, the president confronted him over intelligence reports linking Elliot, who represents Surulere Constituency I in the Lagos State House of Assembly, to efforts to destabilise the state legislature.
“I almost lost my job as Chief of Staff last year because of Desmond Elliot. Mr. President called me to his house in Abuja during the Lagos Speaker Obasa saga. He said, ‘I hear this Desmond is your boy, the one we gave you,’ and I said, ‘Yes, sir.’ He is one of the people causing problems in the Lagos House of Assembly,” Gbajabiamila stated.
Gbajabiamila further revealed that he had to defend Elliot against the allegations.
“Immediately I said to Mr. President, no, no, no. Desmond is not part of them.
“I haven’t even spoken to him. I didn’t know whether he was part of that. I said, no, he’s not part of them.”
According to him, Tinubu said, “I’m telling you from intelligence that he is part of them. Go and tell him to retrace his steps. This is what Mr. President told me. I said, yes, sir.”
He said he called the lawmaker to inform him of the development.
“I called him. That’s what I told him. Just like the President, this is what he said.
“If you are one of these people, if you are part of them, get out of there.”
He added that the Director-General of the Department of State Services also contacted him regarding his and Elliot’s alleged involvement.
“Three days later, the Director General of DSS called me and said there’s a problem. Your name is being mentioned all over the place.
“That you are the one behind, you are supporting Desmond in this event. Of course, the President will not believe that Desmond would do such a thing and I will not know what it sounds like.
“I told the DSS, I’m going to have to talk to Desmond.”
“I told him, I’m going to have to talk to Desmond. He has not done anything. I called him again.”
The Chief of Staff said he asked Elliot to issue a statement vindicating himself of the allegation, which he allegedly did not till date.
The Obasa impeachment saga erupted on January 13, 2025, when a majority of the Lagos State House of Assembly impeached the long-serving Speaker while he was vacationing in the United States.
Lawmakers accused him of gross misconduct, abuse of office, high-handedness, poor leadership, persistent lateness to sessions, and alleged financial impropriety/mismanagement of Assembly funds.
His deputy, Mojisola Meranda, was immediately elected as the new Speaker, becoming the first female to occupy the position.
Obasa rejected the impeachment as illegal and unconstitutional, insisting due process was not followed.
The crisis triggered weeks of tension, court cases, parallel claims to leadership, and interventions by APC national leaders and Tinubu.
It was eventually resolved when Meranda resigned, paving the way for Obasa’s reinstatement as Speaker.
The incident comes amid growing resistance to the lawmaker’s bid for a fourth term in the Lagos State House of Assembly.
-
news6 years agoUPDATE: #ENDSARS: CCTV footage of Lekki shootings intact – Says Sanwo – Olu
-
lifestyle6 years agoFormer Miss World: Mixed reactions trail Agbani Darego’s looks
-
health5 years agoChairman Agege LG, Ganiyu Egunjobi Receives Covid-19 Vaccines
-
lifestyle5 years agoObateru: Celebrating a Quintessential PR Man at 60
-
health6 years agoUPDATE : Nigeria Records 790 new cases of COVID-19
-
health6 years agoBREAKING: Nigeria confirms 663 new cases of COVID-19
-
entertainment1 year agoAshny Set for Valentine Special and new Album ‘ Femme Fatale’
-
news12 months agoBREAKING: Tinubu swears in new NNPCL Board