Headline

‘Sins‘ Of Sacked Ministers

Published

11 months ago

October 26, 2024

Editor

It is no longer news that President Bola Tinubu has sacked six ministers in a major cabinet reshuffle. The reasons he rejigged his team for the third time, technically, since he was sworn in on May 29, 2023, are raising dust in the polity.

Fresh insights on why the ministers were relieved of their duties emerged last night. Although, the Presidency said the ministers were axed based on the expectations of Nigerians, sources told Saturday Vanguard some of the ministers, apart from performing below expectations, had also become an embarrassment to the Tinubu Administration.

“The conducts of some of the ministers were antithetical to President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda. They were pitting the President against the masses and subjecting Nigeria to ridicule before the international community. How can a minister work against the President’s anti-corruption crusade and hope to remain in the cabinet? The sack was long overdue,” a close ally of the President told Saturday Vanguard.

Sacked ministers

The ministers shown the exit door on Wednesday were Mrs Uju Kenedy Ohanenye, Women Affairs; Lola Ade-John, Tourism; Prof Tahir Mamman, Education; Abdullahi Mohammed Gwarzo, State, Housing and Urban Devt; and Dr. Jamila Bio Ibrahim, Youth Devt. Betta Edu, Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, who had earlier been suspended was left in the cooler.

Tinubu’s too earlier cabinet reshuffles

Tinubu raised dust with the way he went about forming his cabinet. To beat the 60-day time frame provided by the law, he first sent the names of 28 ministerial nominees to the Senate for screening and confirmation. While the senators were screening the first nominees he sent another 19 making 47. He, thereafter, made the first reshuffle by withdrawing the name of one of the nominees, Maryam Shetty, who went to the Senate for the screening not knowing that she had been dropped. He sent two more nominees including Festus Keyamo. Thus Tinubu sent 48 names for confirmation of which 45 were cleared.

Reshuffling cabinet before swearing-in

Tinubu also did the unimaginable by reshuffling his cabinet before swearing in the ministers he had earlier assigned portfolios.

A day before the swearing-in, President Tinubu adjusted the portfolios of four ministers-designate.

Those affected were former Osun State Governor Adegboyega Oyetola, who was to be sworn in as minister of Marine and Blue Economy. House of Representatives member Olubuni Tunji-Ojo, initially assigned to the ministry, took charge of the Ministry of Interior.

Alhaji Saidu Alkali, formerly assigned to the Interior Ministry, was sent to the Ministry of Transportation from where Oyetola was moved.

Mr Abubakar Momoh, who was earlier assigned Minister of Youth, took the oath of office as Minister of Niger Delta Development.

Two other ministers-designate, Heineken Lokpobiri and Ekperikpe Ekpo, had their portfolios adjusted as ministers of state in the Ministry of Petroleum Resources.

Betta Edu

President Tinubu suspended Betta Edu on January 8, 2024, after several groups and individuals demanded an unfettered probe of the leaked memo by the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation, instructing the Accountant-General of the Federation, Dr Oluwatoyin Madein, to pay N585m into the private bank account of a project accountant in her ministry, Bridget Oniyelu.

The minister claimed that the N585m payment was meant for vulnerable groups in Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Ogun, and Lagos states, and described the allegations against her as baseless.

The Media Assistant to the Minister, Rasheed Olarenwaju, said in a statement that it was legal within the civil service for such payments to be made into private accounts of staff members, especially project accountants.

Her claims did not move the President. She remained out of the cabinet.

Tahir Mamman

As Education minister, Mamman’s controversial 18-year limit for writing senior school certificate examinations and admission into tertiary institutions, which described as an “unforgivable sin.’

The National Co-ordinator of the Education for Accelerated Development, EDAD, Dr. Livinus ia Mbaonu, described Mamman’s sack as ”long overdue” because ”Mamman was on a mission to reverse the gains made in the education sector in recent times,” underscoring the urgency of his removal.

The EDAD listed 10 critical reasons for the minister’s dismissal, depicting a pattern of mismanagement and misinformation.

The sins included Mamman’s role in ”providing misinformation leading to diplomatic conflict,” which strained relations between Nigeria, Benin Republic, and Togo.

His claims about the accreditation of universities in Benin were inaccurate. He stated that only three institutions were accredited when over 50 hold this status, a move that hurt many Nigerian students in the affected countries.

Mamman was also accused of mishandling foreign students’ participation in the National Youth Service Corps, NYSC scheme, causing thousands to be denied entry into the programme.

Age limit policy for universities

The EDAD cited conflicts among major educational bodies, including the National Board for Technical Education, NBTE, and the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board , JAMB, as a consequence of Mamman’s leadership.

Other ‘sins’ included inefficiencies in the accreditation processes, a controversial 18-year minimum age policy for university admissions that resulted in lawsuits, and alleged lack of cooperation with fellow officials, which contributed to operational inefficiencies within the Ministry.

Uju Kennedy Ohanenye

Uju Kennedy-Ohanenye, since her assumption of office on August 20, 2020, was arguably one of the most controversial ministers.

Her ‘sins’ included disrupting two ongoing events, which had guests and participants in attendance, because the events were not approved by her ministry.

The former minister, also engaged in an exchange of words with the House of Representatives Committee on Women Affairs and Social Development, over the alleged diversion of N1.5 billion meant for payment of contractors.

During an investigative hearing by the House of Representatives committee, to probe the N1.5 billion, which was said to be expended by the Ministry of Women Affairs, the minister, at a stage, flared up, saying that only 30 per cent of the N1.5 billion was paid to the ministry, but she could not give an account of how the money was spent because according to her, the First Lady, Remi Tinubu, had told her to mind her business.

The former Women’s Affairs minister slammed a lawsuit against the speaker of the Niger State House of Assembly, Abdulmalik Sarkindaji, following his announcement to marry off 100 orphaned girls in his state. She petitioned the Inspector-General of Police, IGP, on the issue.

After criticisms from stakeholders, the minister withdrew the charge against the speaker.

Threats to sue the United Nation

On October 16, Uju Kennedy vowed to sue the Anthonio Guterres-led United Nations for allegedly not releasing funds meant for Nigeria. She added that the UN had failed to provide her ministry with the necessary records, which would in turn attract legal action on or before November 15, if the situation remained the same.

Her allegations generated disbelief and criticism from various quarters, including the UN, which denied any wrongdoing and challenged her to provide evidence.

Some civil society groups questioned her motive and accused her of being ignorant of the UN’s operations and protocols.

She was in the eye of the storm following the University of Calabar sexual harassment allegations, that indicted the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Professor Cyril Ndifon and led to his suspension on August 17 2023. The former minister had in a leaked video/audio threatened to jail the female law students of the university. A host of groups accused her of taking sides with Professor Ndifon, despite her mandate to protect the rights of women in the country.

Source: Vanguard

Headline

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti Is Dead

Published

4 hours ago

September 23, 2025

Editor

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdulaziz, has died at the age of 82.

According to a statement from the Royal Court, the revered cleric passed away on Tuesday morning.

Born in Mecca in November 1943, Sheikh Abdulaziz rose to become one of the most influential religious authorities in the Kingdom.

He served as head of the General Presidency of Scholarly Research and Ifta, as well as the Supreme Council of the Muslim World League.

Headline

Antitrust Trial: US Asks Court To Break Up Google’s Ad Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year, following a similar government demand to split up its empire that was shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.

Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

According to filings, the US government will argue that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations. The DOJ will also ask that after the divestitures are complete, Google be banned from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

“We’ve said from the start that DOJ’s case misunderstands how digital advertising works and ignores how the landscape has dramatically evolved, with increasing competition and new entrants,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.

Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

This remedy phase of the US trial follows a first trial that found Google operated an illegal monopoly. It is expected to last about a week, with the court set to meet again for closing arguments a few weeks later.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.

Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.

Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

AFP

Headline

Google Faces Court Battle Over Breakup Of Ad Tech Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year after the California-based tech juggernaut saw a similar government demand to split up its empire shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.
Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.
Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.
Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.
Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.