Opinion

As DSS Confronts Sowore’s ‘Scorched-Earth’ Strategy

Published

5 months ago

September 18, 2025

By Lewis Chukwuma

Arguably the poster-boy of Nigeria’s activism ecosystem, online publisher of SaharaReporters and rambunctious politician, Omoyele Sowore, has probably earned his epaulets, tracking his nimble interventions and a wide swathe of comic escapades he has scripted in the last two decades, often laced with quaint rhetorical violence.

But has the fire-eating activist derailed currently? Has he weaponized freedom of expression! Though he has never publicly claimed to be a candidate for sainthood awaiting final Papal proclamation, Sowore would appear to have goofed in his recent unfortunate and curious virulent attack on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. On his “X” handle page on August 25, 2025, Sowore had spawned a storm by calling out President Tinubu as a criminal.

In consequence, the Department of State Services (DSS) on Tuesday initiated legal action against Omoyele Sowore for allegedly making false claim against the person of President Bola Tinubu by referring to him as a criminal. The suit filed before a Federal High Court in Abuja, trailed refusal of the defendants to pull down the said false and misleading message, as requested by the DSS.

It could be recalled that earlier the security agency had threatened legal action against X, formerly known as Twitter and Facebook, for offering their platforms to Sowore, who in a post called the Nigerian President a “criminal.” In the separate letters to the social media platforms, the DSS had requested that the false statement against the president be pulled down or it would initiate legal action.
Defendants in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/484/2025, include; Sowore, Meta (Facebook) Incorp and X Incorp. In the five-count charge, the DSS is alleging that Sowore, the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) in 2019 and 2023, and convener of the #RevolutionNow protest against the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, contravened the provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024.

Following the filing of the charge, Sowore is expected to be arraigned soon. One of the five-count charges read: “That you, Omoyele Sowore, adult, male on or about the 25th day of August, 2025, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did use your official X handle page, @Yele Sowore, to send out a message/tweet as:
“THIS CRIMINAL @ OFFICIAL PBAT ACTUALLY WENT TO BRAZIL TO STATE THAT THERE IS NO MORE CORRUPTION UNDER HIS REGIME IN NIGERIA. WHAT AUDACITY TO LIE SHAMELESSLY!,” which you know the said message to be false but posted it for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order in the country, especially among individuals, who hold divergent views on the personality of the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu (GCFR) and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 24 (1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act, 2024.

However, in a counter-suit, Sowore also took the DSS, social media giant Meta (owners of Facebook), and X Corp (formerly Twitter) to the Federal High Court in Abuja over what he described as a coordinated attempt to silence him and suppress free speech in Nigeria.

According to a statement issued by his lead counsel, Tope Temokun, on Tuesday Sowore filed two fundamental human rights enforcement suits, challenging what his legal team called “unconstitutional censorship” and attempts by state agencies to influence global tech platforms to restrict citizens’ speech. Temokun stressed that the suits were not just about Sowore personally but about the principle of free expression for all Nigerians. It is interesting that Sowore is now seeking refuge in the same judicial system he has, time and again, labelled “corrupt.” There’s literally no judge in Nigeria that Sowore has not denigrated, including past and serving judicial officers at the highest level. Well, that is a matter for another day.

Three instances, for the purpose of this analysis, illustrate that unlimited free speech doesn’t exist – even in well-known liberal democracies.

Freedom of expression is not absolute and must be balanced against other fundamental rights. Such include the right to privacy, honor, and reputation. Making speeches that incites hatred, constitutes libel or slander, or causes serious offense may not be protected under freedom of expression. Nothing perhaps better conveys the weight of the consequences of freedom of expression than in the small East African country called Rwanda. Under the guise of freedom of expression, in April 1994, a seemingly harmless broadcast by one person was made on radio. This broadcast triggered the start of 100 days of genocide that left more than one million people dead.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. For instance, you can’t, banking on freedom of expression, say something that will cause other people harm- or kill them. One can’t, for instance, under the guise of freedom of expression, barge into a crowded hall and yell “Fire!” In the same vein, one cannot under the guise of exercising his or her freedom of expression scream “I have a bomb” on an airplane.

Worried by the need to balance freedom of expression with hate speech the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, in May 2019, said, it was the duty of all to keep “hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”

Something remarkable recently happened in the n the UK that granted us independence. In the wake of the shooting to death in the US of President Trump’s supporter, Charlie Kirk, President-elect of Oxford University Student Union, George Abaraonye, made a post on a Whatsapp chat group mocking Kirk’s death. He also reportedly made a similar post on Instagram. Posted Abaronye, “Charlie Kirk got shot loool” – an elongated version of the phrase ‘lol’ which means ‘laughing out loud’. The post appeared to welcome the incident. Upon realizing the backlash his comment on the shooting which – by the way- happened thousands of miles away in the US generated, Abaronye quickly deleted the post and apologized. The school authorities would have none of that. Oxford University insists Abaronye will be punished, saying free speech cannot and will not come at the expense of violence, intimidation or hate.

In a statement posted on X late on Thursday, the Oxford Union said it “unequivocally condemns the reported words and sentiments” expressed by Mr. Abaraonye, who was elected as the society’s new president in June.

It is interesting to note that, even though Kirk was killed in faraway America, comments by a student in the UK were still considered offensive. The implications is that in the UK, as in everywhere, sometimes free speech has consequences.

In the US, in September 2022, Uju Anya, an associate professor of applied linguistics at Carnegie Mellon University, tweeted that the reign of Queen Elizabeth II was a period of suffering and colonization for many, a sentiment she also extended to the wealth amassed by individuals like Jeff Bezos.

“I heard the chief monarch of a thieving, raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating,” she tweeted. Bezos responded to Anya’s tweet, which led to widespread public discussion and support for Anya from a large community of faculty and students.

Interestingly, without informing Anya, Twitter pulled down her tweet. It would be interesting to know why Twitter quickly pulled down Professor Anya’s tweet on Queen Elizabeth, the late Head of State of the United Kingdom, but has failed to pull down Sowore’s post on Tinubu, the sitting President of Nigeria.

Even Prof. Anya’s school, Carnegie Mellon, joined the fray by releasing a statement condemning her tweets. The ivory tower described her tweets as “offensive and objectionable.” Stressed the school, “We do not condone the offensive and objectionable messages posted by Uju Anya today on her personal social media account. Freedom of expression is core to the mission of higher education; however, the views she shared absolutely do not represent the values of the institution, nor the standards of discourse we seek to foster.”

In another case that is likely to stretch the freedom of expression to its limit, just this week, US President Donald Trump sued the New York Times, four of its reporters, and publisher Penguin Random House for at least $15 billion over alleged defamation and libel. Trump’s suit cites a series of New York Times articles, an editorial prior to the 2024 presidential election, which said he was unfit for office, and a 2024 book published by Penguin titled “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success”.

“Defendants maliciously published the Book and the Articles knowing that these publications were filled with repugnant distortions and fabrications about President Trump,” Trump’s lawyers said in the filing lodged in the U.S. District Court, Middle District Florida, on Monday, September 15, 2025. The publications have harmed Trump’s business and personal reputation, thereby causing massive economic damage to his brand value and significant damage to his future financial prospects, Trump’s lawyers said in the filing.

“The harm to the value of TMTG (Trump Media and Technology Group) stock is one example of how the Defendants’ defamation has injured President Trump,” said his lawyers, citing “a precipitous decline in the stock price.”

“Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times. The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear and defame me for far too long, and that stops NOW.” Trump said earlier on Monday in a post on his social media platform Truth Social. There is more.

Like Trump, Tinubu, aside being a politician and Nigeria’s president, is an accomplished businessman and is believed to have business interests spanning several countries.

In the same US, in response to the threats to peace and security that arise from violent extremism, many states have adopted legislation to counter extremism and/or terrorism.

These laws aim to stem violence resulting from extremist beliefs and counter the
underlying ideology. In other words, Americans have come to realize that people cannot be allowed to hide behind the pillar of freedom of expression to promote religious extremism.

From the jungles of Guyana in the late 1980s where self-styled Reverend Jim Jones of the notorious Peoples Temple died alongside nearly 1000 cult members, to Osama bin Laden, instances abound where people have exploited freedom of expression to violently change the world.

Back home in Nigeria, through the lens of Boko Haram, we have witnessed and are still witnessing the harm that can become the lot of a nation when people are allowed to hide behind the pillar of freedom of expression to say anything they deem fit
We also are witnesses to the consequences of allowing people like Nnamdi Kanu and Simon Ekpa run their mouths. After all, aren’t they entitled to enjoy their freedom of expression? That Finland, a first world country that is over 8,500 km away from Nigeria, waived Ekpa ‘s freedom of expression and convicted him, shows that such freedoms have consequences.
Specifically, the the court said Ekpa exploited his extensive following on social media between August 2021 and November 2024 to promote violence and encourage unrest in the Southeast. In other words, his freedom of expression became a tool to unleash terror.

For context, democracy would lose its defining egalitarianism if it foreclosed the free expression of viewpoints by its adherents – including often seeming unreasonable perspectives by forces that seek to diminish and divide. But there is a caveat. Absolute freedom exists only in Utopia, certainly not in the real world. It should never be wielded like a cudgel. What played out from last week speaks to the consequence of pushing the much-touted freedom of expression to the extreme. As always, there are consequence. Both in Nigeria and abroad.

Despite democracy’s leniency, those that, in contrast, enlist intellectual pretensions to push often illogical, flawed, antagonistic positions that misinform, diminish and obfuscate certainly deserve to be confronted and faulted.
The DSS is Nigeria’s primary domestic intelligence agency, which plays a critical role in national security and intelligence gathering. Its main responsibilities are within Nigeria and include counter-intelligence, medical intelligence, economic intelligence, internal security, counter-terrorism, and surveillance as well as investigating some other types of serious crimes against the state.
It is also charged with the protection of senior government officials, particularly the president, vice president, state governors and visiting heads of state and governments with their respective families. In effect, any threat to the president – physical or psychological – as in this case, requires a specific action by the agency. To act otherwise would be shirking its responsibility, putting the President- and Nigeria- at risk. This is the line the DSS is towing, albeit, in a civil manner.
By its operational mandate, the DSS could easily have chosen to move roughshod against mischief and crises entrepreneurs who have wrongly opted to game the agency’s civility. But instructively, the DSS, under the administration of the new Director-General, Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi, is towing a different engagement strategy with those who misalign with its objectives.

Plucky Funke Egbemode, a former president of the Nigerian Guild of Editors, NGE, recently aptly captured the persona of the DSS boss: “This new Sheriff is a thoroughbred secret cop who rose through the ranks, not a politician or political appointee who got lucky.”

For good measure she added: “Ajayi started as a rookie, and after three decades-plus of service, he’s here determined to restore the dignity of the service. The mask must stay on and the masquerade must stay in the grove unless there is reason for it to visit the people.” In effect, this ‘masquerade’ visits people or organisations for specific reasons – assuredly not picnics.

Certainly, the matter between Sowore and the DSS is no picnic!

*Chukwuma wrote from Jos

Opinion

No More Pipeline Vandalism in The Niger Delta, But…

Published

2 weeks ago

January 21, 2026

Daily Mirror

APPRAISING MILITARY RESOLVE AND THE PATH TO SUSTAINABLE OIL SECURITY

By Aaron Mike Odeh

On a recent media assessment visit by the Director, Defence Media Operations, Major General Michael E Onoja on the 20 January 2026, the General Officer Commanding (GOC), 6 Division of the Nigerian Army and Commander Land Component Operation DELTA SAFE, Major General Emmanuel Emeka, stated that there will be “no more pipeline vandalism in the Niger Delta” indicating a strong affirmation of military resolve and institutional confidence in the ongoing operations within Nigeria’s most economically strategic region.
Far from being a casual statement, the pronouncement reflects the operational posture, command clarity, and renewed determination of the Nigerian Armed Forces (AFN) under the leadership of General Olufemi Oluyede. It signals a clear message: the era of unchecked sabotage of national economic assets is being decisively confronted.

CONTEXTUALISING THE GOC’S DECLARATION
Statements of this magnitude from a serving GOC carry both symbolic and operational weight. They are rooted in firsthand command experience, intelligence assessments, and measurable gains on the ground. In this regard, Major General Emmanuel Emeka’s assertion should be understood as a projection of confidence derived from sustained military engagement, improved coordination with sister security agencies, and enhanced operational discipline within the 6 Division’s area of responsibility.
The Niger Delta has long posed complex security challenges due to its difficult terrain, extensive pipeline networks, and the activities of organised criminal syndicates. Against this backdrop, the GOC’s declaration underscores a belief that the Nigerian Armed Forces has reached a level of operational advantage sufficient to deter, disrupt, and dismantle pipeline vandalism networks.
OPERATIONAL GAINS AND MILITARY PROFESSIONALISM
Under Major General Emmanuel Emeka’s command, the 6 Division has intensified patrols, improved intelligence-led operations, and sustained pressure on illegal refining camps and crude oil theft routes. These efforts align with the Federal Government’s strategic objective of securing oil infrastructure as a matter of national economic security.
The GOC’s statement therefore reflects not mere optimism, but a professional assessment of the division’s growing capacity to dominate the operational environment. It also reinforces the Nigerian Armed Forces constitutional role as a stabilising force, committed to safeguarding national assets in support of economic recovery and investor confidence.

THE “BUT”: BEYOND KINETIC SUCCESS
While commending the resolve and achievements of the 6 Division, it is equally important to situate the declaration within a broader national framework. The “but” in the statement should not be interpreted as doubt or contradiction; rather, it represents an acknowledgment of the multifaceted nature of pipeline security in the Niger Delta.
Pipeline vandalism has historically been sustained not only by criminal intent, but also by socioeconomic pressures, environmental degradation, and the absence of alternative livelihoods in some host communities. Military success, while indispensable, achieves greater durability when complemented by effective civil governance, economic inclusion, and community trust-building.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER
One of the strengths of recent military operations in the Niger Delta has been improved civil-military relations. The success of the Armed Forces is closely tied to cooperation from local communities, traditional institutions, and credible stakeholders.
Sustainable pipeline security is most effective when host communities become partners in protection rather than passive observers. The GOC’s declaration implicitly places responsibility on all stakeholders—government agencies, oil companies, community leaders, and youths—to consolidate the gains made by the Armed Forces.

INSTITUTIONAL SYNERGY AND NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
The efforts of the 6 Division do not exist in isolation. They form part of a wider national security ecosystem involving regulatory agencies, intelligence services, law enforcement bodies, and policy institutions. The GOC’s confidence should therefore inspire complementary actions across these sectors.
Oil companies must uphold environmental standards and transparent community engagement. Regulatory bodies must enforce accountability. Development agencies must deliver visible dividends of peace. These non-military actions reinforce the security umbrella provided by the Nigerian Armed Forces.

LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGIC MESSAGING
Major General Emmanuel Emeka’s statement also serves as strategic communication—boosting troop morale, reassuring investors, and reinforcing public confidence in the Armed Forces of Nigeria. Such leadership messaging is essential in shaping national narratives around security, discipline, and state authority.
By articulating a firm stance against pipeline vandalism, the GOC is not only commanding troops, but shaping expectations and setting benchmarks for operational success.

CONCLUSION
The declaration that there will be “no more pipeline vandalism in the Niger Delta” should be seen as a reflection of strengthened military capacity, improved leadership focus, and renewed institutional confidence under Major General Emmanuel Emeka, GOC 6 Division of the Armed Forces.
The Nigerian Armed Forces has demonstrated readiness to secure critical national assets. The task ahead is to consolidate these gains through sustained operations, inter-agency synergy, and socio-economic interventions that address underlying vulnerabilities.
In this context, the GOC’s statement stands as both an assurance and a call to collective national responsibility—one that deserves commendation, support, and strategic follow-through.

Aaron Mike Odeh, a Public Affairs Analyst Media Consultant and Community Development Advocator wrote from Post Army Housing Estate Kurudu Abuja

Opinion

Appraising NUPRC’s New Tempo

Published

3 weeks ago

January 16, 2026

Daily Mirror

By Grace Ameh

As a woman who has spent years admiring the quiet strength of sisters carving paths in Nigeria’s demanding energy sector, my heart swelled with genuine joy the moment Chief Mrs. Oritsemeyiwa Eyesan’s appointment as Commission Chief Executive of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission was announced.

Here stands a remarkable daughter of the Niger Delta, graceful yet fiercely determined, becoming the first woman to lead our nation’s upstream regulator. Her rise feels deeply personal, like watching a beloved sister finally claim the spotlight she has long deserved.

The NUPRC, as a young agency born from the transformative Petroleum Industry Act of 2021, has shouldered enormous responsibilities in a complex and evolving landscape—navigating fluctuating production levels amid global energy shifts, addressing delays in data dissemination that can affect investor planning, tackling the persistent menace of crude oil theft that impacts national revenue, and working to enhance transparency in licensing rounds and asset management for greater stakeholder confidence.

This institution emerged with bold ambitions to modernise regulation, attract investment, and optimise Nigeria’s hydrocarbon resources, yet it has operated in an environment marked by inherited challenges and the need for continuous adaptation to deliver on its mandate.

Then, in December 2025, President Bola Tinubu nominated Chief Mrs Eyesan as the first woman to lead NUPRC, a move swiftly confirmed by the Senate.

My spirit lifted immediately. Chief Eyesan’s journey inspires every woman dreaming big in this field. She holds a Bachelor of Education in Economics from the prestigious University of Benin, graduating in 1986 with a solid foundation in economic theory, market analysis, and project evaluation—skills that would prove invaluable in the complex world of energy finance and strategy.

Her academic grounding equipped her to navigate large-scale investments and regulatory frameworks with precision. Early in her career, she honed her financial acumen in banking, serving as Branch Manager at People’s Bank of Nigeria and later as Treasury Officer at Gulf Bank, before joining NNPC in 1992.

Over nearly 33 years, she rose steadily through roles in planning, procurement, corporate strategy, and sustainability, culminating as Executive Vice President, Upstream, until her retirement in November 2024. In that position, she oversaw strategic management of Nigeria’s upstream operations, led sustainability initiatives, strengthened financial discipline, and guided critical reforms aligned with the PIA.

Since assuming office, Chief Eyesan has brought a refreshing wave of purpose and collaboration to NUPRC. Her patriotic commitment shines brightly as she aligns the Commission’s work with President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda, emphasising increased crude oil production to enhance energy security and revenue, accelerated gas monetisation to advance the Decade of Gas vision, and robust transparency measures to rebuild investor trust.

I admire her focus on digitisation; she is thoughtfully integrating digital tools to improve operational efficiency, accountability, and ease of business, cutting through layers of bureaucracy that once slowed progress. Her leadership style feels deeply relatable—inclusive and engaging. With an open-door policy and regular town halls, she encourages staff input while forging stronger ties with stakeholders, labour unions, and professional bodies.

She champions environmentally sustainable practices, ensuring growth does not come at the cost of our land and waters. Her strategic vision unfolds organically: boosting crude reserves and output for economic stability, scaling gas utilisation for power generation and exports, fortifying regulations to attract long-term investments, nurturing technical expertise through partnerships and capacity building, and embedding digitisation hand-in-hand with transparency to foster dynamic, confidence-inspiring growth.

In these early weeks of January 2026, tangible steps are emerging. She has advanced the 2025 licensing round, scheduling a key pre-bid conference for January 14 in Lagos to draw fresh capital into exploration and development. Partnerships, such as deepened synergy with the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, highlight her collaborative spirit.

What touches me profoundly is how Chief Eyesan views challenges as opportunities. She inherited an agency needing revitalisation but approaches it with grace, strategy, and unyielding diligence—that workaholic patriotism we so admire in trailblazing women. Her experience positions her uniquely to resolve legacy issues, unlock stranded assets, and position NUPRC as Africa’s premier regulator.

Reflecting on this new era, sisterly pride overwhelms me. Chief Mrs. Oritsemeyiwa Eyesan is truly an Amazon—resilient, visionary, and devoted to Nigeria’s progress. In her capable hands, the upstream sector is not just recovering; it is poised to soar, delivering sustainable wealth for generations.

Dear sister, you embody the hope we renew daily. The light of your leadership illuminates our path forward, proving once again that when a woman of substance rises, the nation rises with her.

*Ameh an Oil and gas expert writes from Kaduna.

Opinion

FIFA World Cup: Counting the costs of Super Eagles missed opportunities

Published

1 month ago

December 29, 2025

Daily Mirror

By Victor Okoye

As the football world prepares for the expanded 48-team 2026 FIFA World Cup, Nigeria is facing the prospect of missing the global showpiece for the eighth time since its inception in 1930, a development that has drawn concern from football stakeholders and sports administrators in the country.

The Super Eagles, who made their World Cup debut at USA 1994, have qualified for the finals six times but failed to reach the tournament on seven previous occasions.

Should Nigeria fail to qualify for the 2026 edition, it would mark the eight miss and a second consecutive absence, further highlighting the rising cost of non-participation in an era of unprecedented financial rewards.

Historically, missing the World Cup was largely a sporting setback. Financial incentives were modest in earlier tournaments.

In USA 1994, FIFA’s total prize money stood at about 62 million dollars, with champions Brazil earning roughly four million dollars.

France 1998 offered about 131 million dollars in total prize money, while winners received around six million dollars.

The figures rose steadily to 300 million dollars at Brazil 2014 and 440 million dollars at Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022.

However, FIFA’s recent review has significantly raised the stakes.

The FIFA Council has approved a record 727 million dollars financial package for the 2026 World Cup, to be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.

At an estimated exchange rate of 1,500 naira to the dollar, the total sum translates to about 1.09 trillion naira.

Of this amount, 655 million dollars (approximately 982.5 billion naira) will be shared as prize money among the 48 participating teams.

Champions will earn 50 million dollars, runners-up 33 million dollars, third place 29 million dollars and fourth place 27 million dollars.

Teams finishing between fifth and eighth will receive 19 million dollars, ninth to 16th are to receive 15 million dollars, 17th to 32nd will pocket 11 million dollars, while teams ranked 33rd to 48th will earn nine million dollars.

Each qualified nation will also receive 1.5 million dollars as preparation funds.

This guarantees every participating team a minimum of 10.5 million dollars — about 15.75 billion naira — before the tournament begins.

Nigeria’s 2026 qualification campaign ended in disappointment after the Super Eagles finished second behind South Africa in their group and lost the African playoff final to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) on penalties.

To date, no public official report has broken down the total operational costs or expenditure to prosecute the 2026 World Cup qualifying campaign (travel, allowances, camps, logistics) but there are concerns and scrutiny over Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) finances.

The scrutiny includes how funds received from FIFA and CAF have been used over the years following the House of Representatives move to probe more than 25 million dollars in FIFA/CAF grants given to the NFF between 2015 and 2025, citing accountability questions.

However, the NFF has petitioned FIFA over alleged player-eligibility breaches by DR Congo, a move that has reopened debate within the football community.

Reacting to the situation, former Super Eagles captain and 1994 AFCON winner, Mutiu Adepoju, described the possibility of another World Cup absence as “a huge setback”.

“Missing one World Cup is painful, but missing two in a row is unacceptable for a country like Nigeria. Beyond pride, the financial loss is enormous and affects football development at all levels,” Adepoju said.

Former NFF Technical Director, Austin Eguavoen, said qualification had become more critical than ever due to the new prize structure.

“In the past, the World Cup was more about exposure. Now, the money involved can change the entire football ecosystem. Missing out means missing an opportunity to invest in grassroots and infrastructure,” Eguavoen said.

Chairman of the Nigeria Premier Football League (NPFL), Gbenga Elegbeleye, said the impact would also be felt in the domestic league.

“When the national team is at the World Cup, it attracts attention to our league and players. Absence reduces visibility, sponsorship interest and confidence in the system,” Elegbeleye said.

Similarly, former Minister of Sports, Solomon Dalung, said Nigeria must treat World Cup qualification as a national project.

“The Super Eagles missing the World Cup repeatedly shows deeper administrative and structural issues. The financial consequences alone should force stakeholders to rethink planning and accountability,” Dalung said.

On the legal challenge before FIFA, NFF Secretary-General, Dr Mohammed Sanusi, confirmed that the matter was under review.

“We have submitted our petition and we are waiting for FIFA’s decision. The rules are clear on nationality and eligibility, and we believe the issues raised deserve careful consideration,” Sanusi said.

If FIFA rules in Nigeria’s favour, the Super Eagles could be reinstated into the intercontinental playoffs, restoring a pathway to qualification and access to guaranteed earnings of at least 15.75 billion naira.

Failure would confirm Nigeria’s eighth World Cup absence, with consequences ranging from lost revenue and reduced global visibility to diminished influence in international football.

With the 2026 World Cup set to deliver the highest financial rewards in FIFA history, stakeholders agree that Nigeria can no longer afford repeated absences from football’s biggest stage.