Connect with us

Broadcasting

Broadcaster Calls out Lai Mohammed, Describes Him as Minister of NBC Affairs

Published

on

Lai Mohammed, information minister
Kindly share this post

By Adelanwa Olajubu

I have followed the affairs of the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) over the past two decades, because of the role it plays in regulating broadcasting in our country.

 

I believe NBC came at the right time, when President Babangida deregulated the industry during the 1990s. I am one of the beneficiaries of the system.

 

Advertisement

I served in the Cross River State Radio in Calabar, in the early nineties, and I have worked on and off, in several broadcasting stations since then.

 

I am one of those who believe that NBC is a force for good in our climate. It is there to ensure that broadcasters behave ethically, and in order to ensure a tranquil environment in our country, with its several fault lines that opportunists can exploit to cause disaffection.

 

That was why many of us applauded NBC early last year, when it closed down Ekiti state radio and television, after the elections. Former Governor, Ayo Fayose wanted to cause mayhem, by trying to announce his own results. I

Advertisement

 

t wold have been a repeat of the sad experience of the old Ondo state, in the 1983 elections, which resulted in the loss of several lives and the destruction of property. NBC’s quick intervention saved many lives in Ekiti state.

 

Because I follow keenly developments in and around the NBC, I have been worried about the manner that the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Muhammed, is gradually turning himself into the Minister of NBC Affairs, since his recent re-appointment.

 

Advertisement

Hardly has a day passed, that he won’t mention something related to the work of the regulatory commission. It is almost as if the NBC does not have a Board in place, or the organization no longer have a Director General.

 

What is the basis of Alhaji Lai Muhammed’s compulsive obsession with that organization? I have read the story of the Committee that he has set up to implement reforms in the NBC.

 

And while no one can fault the fact that every public institution needs reformation to meet growing exigencies; what might cause problem is when plans for reform, become an avenue to pursue a personal agenda.

Advertisement

 

For instance, all broadcasting industry insiders know that Alhaji Lai Muhammed does not have a good relationship with the NBC Director General, Mr. Ishaq Modibbo Kawu.

 

So when the Minister of Information appointed a Director working under the NBC DG to head a reform implementation committee, a lot of eye brows were raised by watchers.

 

Advertisement

Why did Alhaji Lai Muhammed make such an appointment? Did he do so in consultation with the DG or inspite of the DG? What role did the Minister assign to the Board of the NBC, which by law is supposed to be directing any reform in the institution?

 

Did he carry them along or was he actually behaving like a Sole Administrator of the NBC, which is not in the Act setting up the Commission?

 

How does the Minister justify the fact that his implementation committee is filled with licensees of the Commission? What type of reform can licensees impose on their regulatory agency, that can be fair?

Advertisement

 

Didn’t the Minister give this a good thought, before putting together his implementation team? And did he not expect that a backlash was going to come from the Board of the Commission, given the clear place that they occupy within the ambits of the law, the Act, which sets up the Commission?

 

In his heart can he convince himself that he did not disrespect the Board, and especially the Chairman, a two-time Minister, and a leading politician in his own right too?

 

Advertisement

What exactly is the crime that the NBC Director General has committed against the Minister, that he seems so bent on not only undermining his authority but also seeming to want to prematurely end his tenure at the NBC? For those of us looking from outside, the feeling was that as people from the same state, who were in the same political camp, to end the Saraki reign in Kwara, their relationship would be made beneficial for their state and Nigeria.

 

It doesn’t seem to be so. My question for Alhaji Lai Muhammed is that, if you get the Director General out of the NBC, would you ever be allowed to appoint another Kwaran in his place? Or you cannot be bothered with such niceties, because all you want is to terminate your Kwara man’s tenure?

 

And is the Minister even thinking of the negatives that some of his pronouncements are logging for the Buhari administration? When he openly says that he would regulate social media, who is he speaking for really? Is it a coincidence that the Vice President responded to him, that it was not a proper thing to think of regulating or controlling social media?

Advertisement

 

Is Alhaji Lai Muhammed not helping to reinforce the discourse about President Buhari, being anti-press freedom? Is that the type of negative image that the country’s Minister of Information should be reinforcing, in his over enthusiastic statements, that all come within the whole scenario about his seeming takeover of the NBC? And what is the story that he peddles about issuing a new “National Broadcasting Code”?

 

The last time I checked, there is a Nigeria Broadcasting Code, which the NBC and the industry work on and is used as the instrument to regulate the broadcasting industry. Who will Alhaji Lai Muhammed use his own “National Broadcasting Code” to regulate? How will he produce such an instrument? Didn’t the NBC release a 6th edition of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code a few months ago? And from what we know, the Code is produced once every four to five years. So how is Alhaji Lai Muhammed going to bring out his own “National Broadcasting Code”, to take the place of the legitimate Nigeria Broadcasting Code?

 

Advertisement

A lot seems to be happening. And most of these are coming from the pursuit of a personal, and a not too hidden, agenda, by the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Muhammed.

 

It is so clear, that the more he states that he got presidential approval for his actions, the more hollow it sounds. Presidential approval cannot be a fig leaf to hide a putrid, personal agenda, which might end up destroying the institution, than reforming it.

 

Alhaji Lai Muhammed is believed to rely on a tiny coterie of individuals, who have personal scores to settle, and have all bunched together to cause as much upheavals as possible in the affairs of the National Broadcasting Commission.

Advertisement

 

One of the jokes that someone made at the just concluded BON Congress in Lagos, was to ask when Alhaji Lai Muhammed would move his table and chair into the premises of the National Broadcasting Commission, to complete his takeover of the institution.

 

What is shameful in all that is happening, is that those who can call Minister Lai Muhammed to order, have maintained an unusual silence, as he continues his relentless pursuit of a personal agenda, at the NBC, through a most controversial NBC reform implementation committee.

 

Advertisement

Surely, President Muhammadu Buhari did not appoint Alhaji Lai Muhammed as a Minister of NBC Affairs. He should live to the oath that he swore to, never to use the position to pursue a personal agenda, because there is so much palpable personal vendetta seeping through all his actions at the National Broadcasting Commission. Nigeria will be the loser, if Alhaji Lai Muhammed is allowed to see through his personal vendetta at the NBC.

 

Adelanwa Olajubu, a broadcaster, is from Idanre, Ondo State.

 

 

Advertisement

 

 

 

 

Advertisement

Kindly share this post

Nigeria CommunicationsWeek believes that technology makes life more exciting and helps improve the lives of people around Nigeria and indeed the world. So since 2007, we have devoted our energy to independent reportage of technology and how they affect lives.

Broadcasting

From Scarcity to Scale: What Africa Can Learn from India’s Agricultural Transformation 

Published

on

Kindly share this post

By Alice Ruhweza and Dr Purvi Mehta
Food security is often framed as a question of production. Yet at its core, it is about something far more fundamental: how societies organise themselves to ensure that food remains reliably available, accessible, and affordable. In that sense, food is not only a commodity. It is a public good, central to economic stability, social cohesion, and national resilience. Food sector also continues to remain the largest employment generator across developing countries.
India’s transformation from a food deficit nation to one of the world’s largest agricultural producers is frequently linked to the Green Revolution. Focusing too narrowly on that moment misses the broader lesson, aligning policy, institutions, markets, and science around a clear national objective. That alignment moved India from vulnerability to resilience, and increasingly to economic strength.
For Africa, the question is not whether that journey can be replicated. It is what can be learned from how it was built, and how those lessons inform a different context.
A transformation shaped by leadership and systems
India’s agricultural progress reflects decades of political commitment, public investment, and institutional development.
Scientific advances mattered, but so did procurement systems, rural infrastructure, financing mechanisms, farmer participation and research networks. These elements worked together to stabilise food supply and support rural livelihoods. Agriculture was treated as a national priority linked to economic and political stability.
Governments invested in increasing production and ensuring food systems delivered broader outcomes, including stability, price predictability, and social protection. Public grain reserves, price support mechanisms, and distribution systems built food security and underpinned national resilience.
Shared foundations, different realities
Agriculture plays a central role in India’s economy supporting a large workforce and remains closely tied to food security and economic stability. Africa shares structural similarities – agriculture remains central to livelihoods and large rural populations depend on it for income and stability.
The differences are equally significant. Africa’s agricultural systems are diverse, spanning multiple agroecology and climate conditions. Climate exposure is acute, markets fragmented and the pace of population growth faster. The pressure to generate jobs and economic opportunity is immediate. This is not a case of one region following another along a fixed path. It is a different starting point with different pressures. Africa must design its own pathway rather than replicate a historical model.
What the transformation journey reveals
India’s experience offers a set of principles about how transformation happens. First, transformation is built over time, requires sustained political commitment and consistent investment. Progress is cumulative and depends on alignment across multiple parts of the system.
Second, institutions matter as much as innovation. Research systems, extension services, market structures, and financing mechanisms all ensure that productivity gains translate into stable outcomes for farmers.
Third, agriculture must be treated as an economic system. Producing more food is one part of the equation. Markets, value chains, storage, and price realization determine farmers’ benefit. Fourth, food systems require public purpose. Left entirely to market forces, they may not deliver stability, equity, or resilience. Public policy ensures food systems serve broader societal goals.
Fifth, technology development is important, but the impact comes from how well the technology is disseminated and adopted. Affordability and access to technology optimizes the potential of technology.
Finally, inclusion must be deliberate. Even successful transformations can produce uneven outcomes unless access to resources and opportunities is designed to reach smallholders, women, and young people.
From productivity to farmer prosperity
The important shift for Africa is to move beyond a narrow focus on productivity towards a clearer focus on farmer prosperity. Agriculture remains the primary source of livelihood for millions, yet many farmers operate below viable economic thresholds, with limited access to markets, finance, and value addition opportunities.
The next phase of transformation must focus on converting agricultural activity into stable and growing incomes. This requires systems that connect production to markets, strengthen participation in value chains, and support farming as a viable economic enterprise.
Farmer prosperity is not simply a social ambition. It is an economic imperative. When farmers generate reliable incomes, they invest more, produce efficiently and participate fully in markets, strengthening economies and long-term development.
An evolving approach across Africa
Institutions such as AGRA work with governments, research systems, and private actors to strengthen these foundations. The emphasis is on aligning evidence, markets, finance, and policy for agricultural systems to function coherently and deliver measurable outcomes, shifting away from isolated interventions to coordinated efforts that link productivity, market access, and income growth.
Africa’s opportunity is different
Africa enters this moment with advantages such as digital connectivity is expanding, regional markets are growing, national and regional institutions are strengthening. Access to knowledge and technology is greater than ever before.
These conditions create the possibility not only to accelerate progress, but to design it differently. Climate resilience, diversification, and market participation can be integrated from the outset to build inclusive, adaptive and more sustainable food systems.
A new phase of agricultural transformation
India’s journey demonstrates large scale agricultural transformation is possible. It shows how it is built through leadership, institutions, and long-term commitment. Africa’s path will not be identical, but the ambition is similar: to ensure agriculture functions not only as a source of food, but as a driver of economic growth and stability.
The question is no longer whether transformation can happen. It’s whether leadership, systems, and partnerships will align to make it happen at scale.
Ms Ruhweza is the current AGRA President and Dr Mehta is an international development expert and advisor

Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

Broadcasting

BON Establishes Six Ad Hoc Committees to Modernize Broadcasting

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Broadcasting Organization of Nigeria (BON) has established six committees to help strengthen and modernize the country’s broadcasting industry.

The committees will focus on content creation, skills development, digital transformation, sustainability, policy and commercial opportunities

The initiative aims to support industry growth and improve collaboration between broadcasters, regulators and media experts

The official launch recently, was led by Tony Akiotu, president, BON and attended by media professionals, program directors, former journalists and heads of specialized media organizations.

The event brought together several prominent figures in Nigeria’s media industry, including veteran broadcaster and trainer Bimbo Oloyede, Tony Uyah of M4S TV, Kingsley Uranta of Channels Television, Ismael Sani of Platinum TV and Ibrahim Shehu of Trust TV.

Advertisement

Together, they are expected to help drive innovation and support the growth of Nigeria’s broadcasting sector.

According to Akiotu, the committees are intended both to help shape industry policy and to provide a forum for dialogue between BON and broadcasting experts.

Akiotu said the ad hoc committees were intended to strengthen BON’s work and ensure that the umbrella body for Nigeria’s broadcasters played a more direct and meaningful role in developing the country’s broadcasting sector.

The six committees reflect the sector’s main priorities. The first focuses on collaboration and innovation to promote content creation.

The second is dedicated to training and talent development, while the third focuses on industry sustainability by improving the sector’s long-term financial viability.

Advertisement

A fourth committee will focus on digital transformation and work with the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) on regulatory issues.

The remaining two committees will oversee public policy advocacy and the development of sports and commercial rights to help broadcasters increase revenue and attract more investment. Together, the committees are expected to guide BON’s efforts to modernize and strengthen Nigeria’s broadcasting industry.

The committees, chaired by members of BON’s General Assembly and supported by the organization’s Secretariat, have an initial 12-month mandate that may be renewed if necessary.

They are required to submit a progress report within three months and implement approved recommendations within the following six months.

The arrangement is intended to ensure close oversight and the timely implementation of their work.

Advertisement

Akiotu also reminded committee members that Nigeria pioneered television broadcasting in Africa and urged them to carry out their work with greater effectiveness and efficiency.

Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

Broadcasting

NELFUND Investigates 34 Universities Over Students’ Missing Tuition Refunds

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) says it is investigating about 34 tertiary institutions over allegations that they failed to refund students whose tuition fees were paid twice under the Federal Government’s student loan scheme.

The Managing Director of NELFUND, Mr Akintunde Sawyerr, disclosed this during an interview on Arise Television.

Sawyerr said the agency had deployed a five-member investigative team, including operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and internal auditors, to examine the allegations.

According to him, the investigation was prompted by numerous complaints received from affected students.

“As of right now, there are 34 institutions that we are looking at closely with respect to this issue,” he said.

Advertisement

Sawyerr explained that the double payment issue arose because President Bola Tinubu directed that the student loan scheme commence in the middle of an academic session instead of at the beginning.

He said the decision compelled many students to pay their tuition fees to meet registration deadlines while awaiting approval of their loan applications.

“What happened is that a lot of schools got double payment; some from the students and some from us,” he said.

“The refund process is entirely out of our hands. It is the recipient of the double payments that is obliged to make refunds to the students.”

The NELFUND boss noted that many students had borrowed money from family members, friends and other sources to pay their tuition with the expectation of receiving refunds once the loans were disbursed.

Advertisement

He said while some institutions had promptly refunded affected students, others had failed to do so.

“Some have been very good at this. Others haven’t been so good at it,” Sawyerr said.

“I reserve judgement on the intentionality around it because, for some of them, they just didn’t have the process to make refunds.”

Sawyerr disclosed that NELFUND was exploring a tokenised payment system that would enable students to authorise tuition payments directly to their institutions, thereby reducing the likelihood of duplicate payments.

He said the agency deliberately chose not to disburse tuition loans directly to students to minimise the risk of fund diversion.

Advertisement

“Paying the funds to the students could really lead to the temptation for them to divert and do other things,” he said.

The managing director, however, acknowledged that NELFUND lacked the statutory powers to compel institutions to refund students or prosecute officials found culpable.

He added that many frustrated students had submitted complaints not only to NELFUND but also to anti-corruption agencies, including the EFCC and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).

Sawyerr also expressed concern over increases in tuition fees by some institutions following the introduction of the student loan scheme.

He said NELFUND had declined to pay institutions that increased their tuition fees beyond acceptable levels.

Advertisement

“Some schools, because they get paid easily, started to put up their fees. We refused, point blank, to pay institutions who had hiked their fees beyond a certain level,” he said.

He reaffirmed the agency’s commitment to investigating every reported irregularity and strengthening the implementation of the student loan programme through continuous monitoring and internal reviews.

Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

Trending