Nigeria’s Leadership: The Deepening Cracks – We Cannot Continue Like This
It all began with Tigran Gambaryan, a financial crime expert, an investigator with years of experience in tracking illicit transactions. He was not a politician, not an activist—just a professional in his field. He came to Nigeria in what should have been a routine engagement, a business trip to discuss regulatory matters involving Binance. What happened next, however, would unravel into a much larger crisis—one that would expose fractures deep within Nigeria’s leadership, governance, and institutional integrity.
From the moment he set foot in Nigeria, Gambaryan became a witness to a system operating behind closed doors—where financial negotiations blurred into security proceedings, where law enforcement took on the role of deal-making, and where state power appeared to be wielded not in the interest of justice, but as a tool of leverage. When he spoke up about what he saw—claims of billion-dollar payout demands, staged security interrogations, and pressure to violate international privacy laws—he was not met with rebuttals based on facts. Instead, the response was intimidation, denial, and dismissal.
This is where the world began to take notice. What should have been a straightforward business-government engagement turned into a diplomatic incident. The United States government stepped in, and under its influence, Tigran Gambaryan was freed—a move that underscored the weight of international intervention in Nigeria’s internal affairs. Visa restrictions were imposed on Nigerian officials, sending a clear message that actions have repercussions beyond domestic control. Foreign investors reevaluated their positions, hesitant to engage with a system increasingly seen as unpredictable. And, most recently, Canada’s rejection of a visa for Nigeria’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) served as yet another warning: these consequences were not fleeting, and they were certainly not going away.
A Leadership That Sees Consequences as an Attack
Nigeria’s leadership, spanning multiple administrations, has long followed a predictable pattern when confronted with serious allegations. The first response is usually outright denial, an attempt to dismiss concerns as baseless or exaggerated. When denial proves insufficient, the strategy shifts to deflection—blaming external forces, political opponents, or perceived enemies. If scrutiny persists, intimidation often follows, discouraging further inquiry through legal threats or political pressure. This is not about any single administration, nor is it solely a reflection of the Tinubu government; rather, it is a deeply embedded cycle that has defined Nigeria’s leadership for decades. The problem is systemic, rooted in a governance culture that resists accountability and prioritizes self-preservation over meaningful reform.
But see what just happened
Canada denied a visa to Nigeria’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), a move that would have been unthinkable in the past. This was not a small incident, nor was it a simple bureaucratic oversight. It was a message, a quiet but firm statement:
“We see what is happening. We are taking note. And we are adjusting our approach.”
Even within Nigeria’s leadership, there was visible concern. The Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, openly questioned what this meant for the average Nigerian. If those at the highest levels of power are now facing these diplomatic hurdles, what does it say about the country’s standing? What does it mean for its citizens who do not have the protection of high office?
These are the moments that demand reflection. But rather than pause to consider why international confidence is eroding, the response has been one of deflection—insisting that the problem lies not in governance but in the scrutiny itself. A government that reacts to consequences with hostility rather than introspection is a government that risks pushing itself further into isolation.
The Role of the National Security Adviser: Influence Over Integrity?
The National Security Adviser (NSA) is one of the most critical roles in any government. It requires strategic thinking, discretion, and above all, a focus on national stability. But what happens when that role becomes entangled in matters beyond security—when it is drawn into financial negotiations and power struggles?
According to Gambaryan’s claims, troubling allegations link Nigeria’s NSA, Nuhu Ribadu, to:
Billion-dollar payout discussions, allegedly for political financing.
Efforts to use international legal firms to broker financial settlements, only for these efforts to collapse under scrutiny.
A handling of the Binance controversy that strained relations with major international partners.
The results of these decisions did not go unnoticed:
The United States imposed restrictions on Nigerian officials, limiting diplomatic mobility.
A planned meeting between President Tinubu and President Biden quietly faded from the agenda.
Investor confidence in Nigeria’s financial governance took another hit.
These are not abstract consequences. They are real shifts that affect Nigeria’s influence on the global stage. And yet, rather than reassess its approach, the leadership appears to believe that frustration and defiance will change the outcome. But influence is not something demanded—it is something earned.
The DSS: A Question of Priorities
The Department of State Services (DSS) is entrusted with safeguarding national security, intelligence gathering, and counterterrorism efforts—responsibilities that demand the highest levels of professionalism, discretion, and integrity. However, the allegations stemming from the Binance case have cast a troubling shadow over the agency’s conduct, raising serious concerns about how intelligence operations are being deployed.
With a new Chief now leading the DSS, there is an urgent need to restore credibility and accountability within the agency. He must ensure that those officers allegedly involved in any misconduct, including coercive tactics, staged interrogations, and undue financial pressure, are thoroughly investigated and held responsible. The DSS cannot afford to be perceived as an institution where abuses of power go unchecked. If it is to regain public and international trust, the new leadership must demonstrate a commitment to professionalism, discipline, and ethical intelligence practices.
A failure to address these concerns will only deepen Nigeria’s credibility crisis on the global stage. The world is watching, and decisive corrective action must be taken before the damage becomes irreversible.
According to Gambaryan, the handling of the case involved:
The creation of a staged interrogation environment, including the use of non-operational cameras. Na wa oo
Pressured negotiations that were presented as official investigations.
Demands for vast amounts of personal user data from all Nigerians, allegedly for monitoring financial movements.
If true, this raises profound questions:
If intelligence operations are being used for leverage rather than protection, what does that mean for security?
If foreign businesses can be subjected to these methods, what happens to everyday Nigerians?
If institutions can be used for financial or political influence, what does that say about the priorities of leadership?
These are the kinds of concerns that require clarity. But rather than provide reassurance, silence has been the response. Yet, silence does not prevent the world from watching, nor does it stop trust from eroding.
The House of Representatives: Serving the Public or Private Interests?
A nation’s legislature exists to uphold democracy, create laws that serve the people, and ensure government accountability. When those entrusted with these responsibilities become entangled in ethical concerns, however, it shakes public confidence and places the very foundation of democracy under scrutiny. Allegations of lawmakers engaging in questionable financial dealings, particularly in a case as high-profile as Binance, only heighten concerns about whether legislative authority is being misused for personal gain rather than public service.
According to reports, three lawmakers were allegedly involved in soliciting a $150 million cryptocurrency-related payment from Binance. Tigran Gambaryan specifically pointed to a meeting in January 2024, reportedly arranged under the leadership of Ginger Obinna Onwusibe, with the presence of lawmakers Peter Akpanke and Philip Agbese, alongside a third unidentified member. These claims, whether fully substantiated or not, raise a serious ethical and legal dilemma—one that cannot simply be brushed aside.
The Speaker of the House must take decisive action to ensure that these allegations are not ignored or casually dismissed. Those implicated should be subjected to thorough investigation, with a commitment to transparency rather than the usual cycle of denial and counter-accusations. Let those involved deny as they always do, but the facts remain. Deflection will not erase the growing public skepticism, nor will silence restore the credibility of an institution expected to be a pillar of democracy.
If these allegations are false, let the truth emerge through an open and independent inquiry. But if they hold weight, then those responsible must be held accountable. The reputation of Nigeria’s legislature—and its commitment to serving the people—rests on how this matter is handled.
Rather than an outright dismissal of these claims, the immediate response was to demand proof—a reaction that, instead of quelling concerns, only deepens them. In well-functioning democracies, serious allegations are met with transparency, independent inquiries, and accountability. However, when lawmakers respond not with urgency but with counter-accusations and deflections, it only reinforces public skepticism and further erodes trust in institutions.
If Nigeria is to restore confidence in its legislative body, the Speaker must ensure that these allegations are not swept under the rug. Ignoring them will not make them disappear, and silence will not convince the world that nothing happened. The handling of this situation will determine whether leadership is committed to integrity or merely continuing the cycle of evasion.
A Judiciary Under Scrutiny and the Weaponization of Law
The legal system is the backbone of any functioning democracy, ensuring that laws are applied fairly and that justice is not for sale. But when the judiciary itself begins to be seen as an extension of political and financial interests, trust collapses.
Defamation and cybercrime laws have been weaponized to silence journalists and critics.
The police, instead of acting as neutral enforcers of the law, are often seen as carrying out selective enforcement.
The judiciary, rather than being a place of fairness, has been described as a marketplace where outcomes are influenced by financial and political power.
These are not simply governance failures; they are symptoms of a deeper dysfunction—one that threatens the integrity of the nation itself.
What Comes Next? A Choice Between Isolation and Reform
The consequences of this governance style are no longer distant possibilities—they are unfolding in real time. If current patterns continue:
Visa restrictions could expand, affecting more officials and institutions. Now, fear don catch them ooo
Foreign investment will shrink, as businesses seek more predictable and stable environments.
Diplomatic relations will continue to shift, with allies engaging more cautiously or reducing involvement.
More cases of internal misconduct will surface, further eroding trust in leadership.
For years, the assumption has been that the world will tolerate Nigeria’s governance approach without consequence. That assumption is being tested.
Control Is an Illusion—Accountability Is the Only Option
Nigeria’s leadership stands at a crossroads: continue down the path of deflection and isolation or begin the difficult work of credibility restoration.
Which path will it take? That is a question only those in power can answer. But as history has shown, the longer the denial lasts, the heavier the consequences become.
Painfully, we cannot continue like this.
Prof John Egbeazien Oshodi
Oshodi Open Door, also known as Oshodi Open Door Public Training (OOPDT, pronounced opidt), is a public awareness initiative promoting transparency, accountability, and integrity in Africa through educational articles and resources at [email protected], and offers specialized Timely Response Solutions (TRS) training at minimal or no cost.
John Egbeazien Oshodi is an American psychologist, educator, and author. Born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, he is the son of a 37-year veteran of the Nigeria Police Force. Professor Oshodi is an expert in cross-cultural psychology, forensic/clinical psychology, police and prison science, and social justice.
He has made significant contributions to forensic psychology, introducing it to Nigeria in 2011 through the National Universities Commission (NUC) and Nasarawa State University. Professor Oshodi has taught at several institutions, including Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, and Nova Southeastern University.
Currently, he serves as a government consultant for forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and practices as a clinical and forensic psychologist. He also holds virtual faculty roles at Walden University and other institutions. Professor Oshodi has authored numerous publications and founded the Psychoafricalysis theory in psychology.