Cover StoryOpinionPolitics

Bukola Saraki: Nigeria’s Emerging Political Surprise

3 Mins read

As the curtains fall on the past, Saraki emerges as Nigeria’s political surprise, a testament to the unpredictability of Nigerian politics. His story is a reminder that in the theater of politics, the final act is never truly written until the last vote is cast, the last gavel is struck, and the last battle is won.

By James Ezema

In the intricate tapestry of Nigerian politics, few threads are as colorful and resilient as that of Dr. Bukola Saraki, a man whose political narrative reads like a best-selling thriller.

From his early days in the political arena to his recent Supreme Court victory, Saraki has been a figure of intrigue, controversy, and surprise. Let’s unravel the story of Nigeria’s emerging political enigma.

Like a prologue to a Political Genesis, Saraki’s foray into politics began with a gubernatorial victory in Kwara State, where he served two terms and set the stage for his national prominence.

His tenure was marked by initiatives aimed at economic and healthcare reforms, which laid the groundwork for his political ascent.

In his national political thriller, the “Act I” was the Senate Presidency Saga. The plot thickened when Saraki, in a move akin to a grandmaster’s chess play, secured the Senate presidency in 2015. This victory, however, came with its share of legal skirmishes, including charges of forgery and conspiracy, all of which he overcame, proving not just his political acumen but also his rare resilience.

What could be considered as “Act II” is the Legal Labyrinth as Saraki’s journey through Nigeria’s legal labyrinth has been fraught with battles that would daunt the faint-hearted. From allegations of false asset declaration to the infamous ‘Paris Club Fraud’ case, he navigated through the judicial maze with the finesse of a seasoned barrister, culminating in a series of acquittals that solidified his reputation as a legal Houdini.

The Climax — Supreme Court Exoneration! 

The crescendo of Saraki’s legal symphony was reached with the Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of Melrose General Services Limited, linked to him, in an alleged N3.5 billion fraud case. This landmark victory not only cleared his name but also highlighted the need for judicial independence and the dangers of politicizing anti-corruption agencies.

The Future Unfolds! 

Today, Saraki stands at a crossroads, with his political and legal battles behind him and the horizon of Nigerian politics ahead. His recent victory has not only vindicated him but also positioned him as a phoenix rising from the ashes of political and legal strife.

Nigeria’s Emerging Political Surprise

As the curtains fall on the past, Saraki emerges as Nigeria’s political surprise, a testament to the unpredictability of Nigerian politics. His story is a reminder that in the theater of politics, the final act is never truly written until the last vote is cast, the last gavel is struck, and the last battle is won.

It will be safe to conclude that Saraki’s tale is far from over. As he continues to navigate the waters of Nigerian politics, one thing is certain: he will remain a figure to watch, a political surprise that keeps on surprising.

After Dr. Bukola Saraki’s significant Supreme Court victory, predicting his next steps and strategic moves will be difficult.

However, a political rehabilitation may not be out of place as Saraki may seek to restore his political image and leverage his victory to reaffirm his integrity and commitment to public service.

It may ripe for policy advocacy as he might focus on advocating for policies that prevent the misuse of anti-corruption agencies for political purposes, ensuring that these institutions operate with impartiality and independence.

More like it, future ambitions could unfold because considering his past interest in the presidency, Saraki might rekindle his political ambitions, possibly eyeing a future electoral position or even the presidency, using his recent legal victory as a springboard to regain public trust and support.

Saraki could champion legal reforms to strengthen the judiciary’s independence and ensure that legal proceedings are not influenced by political agendas.

Better public engagement may be in the offing as engaging with the public and civil society organizations to build a coalition for change and reform could be a key focus, aiming to address issues like unemployment, youth empowerment, and economic development, which align with his previous concerns.

Like the fish and the waters, with his history of party politics and the dynamic nature of Nigerian politics, Saraki might also consider strategic alliances within his current party or explore new political partnerships.

Whatever the future unfolds, it’s clear that Saraki’s path forward will be closely watched by both supporters and critics alike, as his actions will have implications for the broader political landscape in Nigeria and there could more surprises.

Ezema is a journalist, a political strategist and the President/Executive Coordinator of the Not Too Young To Perform (NTYTP), a young people-driven pro-democracy and leadership development advocacy group. He writes from Abuja and can be reached via email:  jamesezema@gmail.com or WhatsApp: 08035823617

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com