Princewill ODIDI

THREE TYPES OF NIGERIA

There is a Nigeria we know today.

There is a Nigeria we desire to see.

There is a Nigeria that exists because it was deliberately designed to function the way it does.

And unfortunately, there is a Nigeria we may never see, or one that will be extremely difficult to achieve, unless we first understand the difference between these these three Nigerias.

The Nigeria we know today is the Nigeria of enormous potential but disappointing outcomes. A country blessed with human talent, natural resources, fertile land and entrepreneurial energy, yet struggling with poverty, unemployment, corruption, insecurity, weak institutions and failing public services. The Nigeria we know today
Is a Nigeria where brilliant young people graduate without jobs, where citizens provide their own electricity, water and security, and where people sometimes succeed not because the system works, but because they have learned how to survive despite the system. This is the Nigeria that humanity cannot understand.

2, Then there is the Nigeria we desire to see.

This is the Nigeria we constantly talk about, a Nigeria where electricity works, hospitals function, schools provide quality education, roads are maintained, elections are credible and public officials are accountable. We imagine a Nigeria where merit matters more than connections, where your ethnicity does not determine your opportunities, where a police officer respects the law, where politicians fear the consequences of stealing public money, and where a child born into a poor family can still rise through education and hard work. Almost every Nigerian desires some version of this country. But desire alone does not produce nations. This particular Nigeria, some call it the new Nigeria, but in reality it is a far dream. A people are a reflection of thier society.

3. There is also the Nigeria that exists because it was designed to be so.

This is perhaps the most uncomfortable Nigeria to discuss. Many things we describe simply as corruption, incompetence or bad leadership are sustained by structures, incentives and political arrangements that reproduce the same outcomes repeatedly. These structures have designed a system that makes Nigeria almost ungovernable. These structures makes political office extremely expensive to obtain, and those who finance elections expect returns, contracts that are never executed. In this Nigeria by design, appointments are treated as political rewards, merit becomes secondary. In this Nigeria by design you find people who defend corrupt leaders because they share their ethnicity, religion, region or political party, in the Nigeria by design, accountability becomes difficult. Everyone looks for money, and integrity does not matter.

In this Nigeria by design, institutions depend more on the personality of whoever occupies an office than on established rules, every election becomes a search for a messiah, but the system appears to be stronger than the best messiah that comes on board. Until we change this design, this nigeria will continue to outlive every generation.

In this Nigeria by design, replacing one individual or president does not necessarily change the outcome because the incentives that produced the previous behavior that makes us this way, those incentives remain.

4. This brings us to the Nigeria that will be very difficult to see.

The Nigeria of our dreams will remain difficult to achieve if we want the benefits of a developed society without accepting the discipline required to build one. If we want the Nigeria like the developed world then we have think and do things the right way. We have to learn to condemn evil, theft of public money, we have to stop celebrating criminals, truth is you cannot eat your cake and still have it. We cannot demand accountable leaders while celebrating unexplained wealth.

We cannot condemn corruption nationally while practicing favoritism locally. We cannot demand merit in government while insisting that appointments must first satisfy ethnic, religious and political interests. We cannot continue to promote sycophancy while merit is disregarded.

We cannot complain about bad politicians while collecting money to vote for them. And we cannot build strong institutions if every generation continues searching for one extraordinary individual to rescue the country. The greatest struggle for Nigeria, therefore, may not simply be who becomes President. The deeper struggle is how to transform the Nigeria that has been designed to reproduce dysfunction into the Nigeria we desire to see.

That requires more than elections. It requires more than prayer, it requires more than wishful thinking, It requires institutional reform, political restructuring, civic responsibility, cultural change, accountability and, most importantly, a change in the incentives that reward bad behavior.

Until then, we will continue living between two Nigerias, the Nigeria that is, and the Nigeria that could be. And the distance between them will not be closed by hope alone.

It will be closed by changing the structures, institutions, incentives, and ultimately the behaviors, that keep producing the Nigeria we already know.

All fingers are not the same, maybe our was intentionally designed to be short, but we and we alone can choose to make the short finger useless or make it the most important of the bunch.

Good morning Africa!

WHY I BELIEVE REAL CHANGE IN NIGERIA WILL HAVE TO START WITH A STRONG LEADER, NOT FROM A PERFECT LEADER OR MR NICE!

1. Only a strong leader can change Nigeria, not a nice leader, he does not really need to be very educated, but someone who can look the other way and instill discipline on Nigerians. Those old enough can remember a certain Tunde Idiagbon in 1983. That type of leader can instill real discipline, fix the institutions and return Nigeria to structural and systemic change.

People often say, “Nigeria needs strong institutions, not strong leaders.”

2. I agree that Nigeria needs strong institutions. But here is the question, Who will build those strong institutions? Institutions don’t fall from heaven. People build them. And when a system has been weak for decades, it usually takes strong and determined leadership to begin changing it.

3. Nigeria’s problem is deeper than having bad leaders. We have developed a system where corruption is often rewarded, connections can matter more than competence, ethnic loyalty can be stronger than national interest, and people who steal public money can return home and receive titles and celebrations.

4. In such a system, simply electing a “nice person” may not be enough. Nigeria needs a strong leader. Not a dictator. Not someone who arrests everybody who disagrees with him. Not someone who destroys the courts, controls the media or rigs elections. I mean a strong democratically elected leader who is disciplined enough to confront the powerful people benefiting from the present system, even when those people are his friends, party members, ministers or relatives.

5. Because the people benefiting from Nigeria’s problems will not voluntarily give up their benefits. That is why change will require political courage.

Look at Ghana.
Jerry Rawlings emerged when Ghana was facing serious corruption, economic problems and political instability. He came through military intervention, which I am not advocating, and his early rule remains controversial. But Rawlings pushed discipline, accountability and responsibility. Ghana eventually returned to constitutional government, and peaceful transfer of political power gradually became a stronger part of Ghanaian political culture.

6. Look at Singapore.
Lee Kuan Yew did not inherit the disciplined and relatively corruption-free Singapore we know today. His government helped create it. Corruption was confronted. Merit was rewarded. Government workers were expected to perform. Laws were enforced and education was taken seriously. Eventually, what government consistently enforced became part of society’s expectations.

7. Look at Malaysia.
Malaysia did not simply tell its citizens to become productive. Government invested in education, industries, roads and infrastructure and created an environment where people and businesses could become more productive.

8. And look at China.
When Deng Xiaoping began major economic reforms in 1978, China was still largely poor and rural. Leadership changed the system. The government opened parts of the economy, attracted investment, built infrastructure and encouraged manufacturing. Then society began changing with it. Farmers became entrepreneurs. Villages became manufacturing centers. Millions acquired new skills. Families invested heavily in education.

9. The lesson is simple. Sometimes you have to change the system before you can expect the people to change. And this is particularly important for Nigeria.

10. If stealing government money makes you wealthy and respected, people will continue stealing. If political connections are more valuable than competence, people will pursue connections.
If election rigging produces political power, politicians will continue rigging. If breaking the law has no consequences, lawlessness becomes normal.

11. But imagine a Nigerian President who says” It doesn’t matter whether you are my minister, governor, party chairman, friend or relative. If you steal public money, you will face the law.” Imagine that message being enforced, not for six months, but consistently.

13. Imagine appointments based more on competence. Imagine contracts becoming more transparent. Imagine civil servants knowing that performance matters. Imagine politicians knowing that election results cannot simply be manipulated. Imagine Nigerians knowing that the same law applies to the poor man and the powerful politician. Do this consistently for twenty or thirty years and you may eventually produce a different society.

14. That is why I believe change in Nigeria must begin with strong leadership. Our institutions are presently not strong enough to reform themselves. Many of the people who should reform the system are benefiting from the weaknesses of the system.

15Something has to break that cycle. And historically, that often begins when determined leadership changes the incentives. Leadership shapes institutions. Institutions shape behavior.
Behavior repeated over time becomes culture.
Culture eventually shapes the next generation.

16. But there is an important warning. Nigeria does not need a strongman. There is a difference between a strong leader and a strongman. A strongman weakens institutions so that everybody depends on him. A strong leader uses his power to build institutions so strong that eventually the country no longer depends on him.
That is the kind of strength Nigeria needs.

17. A President strong enough to confront corruption. Strong enough to offend powerful interests. Strong enough to discipline his own political allies. Strong enough to insist on merit. Strong enough to enforce the law. But also disciplined enough to respect the Constitution, tolerate criticism and eventually leave office. So when people say, “Nigeria needs strong institutions, not strong leaders,” my response is,
Yes, we need strong institutions. But in our present condition, we may first need strong, disciplined and transformational leadership capable of building them.

18. Singapore, Ghana, Malaysia and China all have different histories and political systems. We should not copy them blindly. But they demonstrate something important. Societies can change when leadership changes the rules, institutions and incentives that shape people’s behavior. The greatest Nigerian President will therefore not be the one who becomes more powerful than Nigeria. It will be the President who uses the enormous power of his office to build a Nigeria whose institutions eventually become more powerful than the President himself.

So here is the question for everyone, among the three major contenders, Obi, Atiku and Tinubu who truly fits this description? Be objective in your assessment.

WHY OSUN IS DIFFERENT FROM A GENERAL ELECTION

Adeleke won because the whole country had its eyes on Osun. Too many people were watching, INEC, security agencies, journalists, observers, political parties and ordinary Nigerians. When only one state is voting, every suspicious movement can become national news within minutes. That makes manipulation much more difficult.

And Adeleke’s victory was bigger than Adeleke himself. To many voters, it became a referendum on Tinubu and his policies. People were not only voting for a governor; many were expressing their frustration with the direction of the country.

But don’t assume that what happened in Osun will automatically happen during a presidential election.

Osun, Anambra and Bayelsa have off-cycle governorship elections. When they vote, national attention and much of the electoral machinery can be concentrated on one state.

A general election is completely different.

Now INEC is conducting elections across 36 states and the FCT at the same time. Security is stretched. Observers are spread across the country. Journalists cannot be everywhere. Party agents are dealing with thousands of locations simultaneously.

That is where the real danger lies.

It is easier to watch one room than to watch thousands of rooms at the same time.

So the real lesson from Osun is not simply that Adeleke won.

The lesson is that when Nigerians are watching closely, when votes are protected and when electoral officials know the whole country is watching them, manipulation becomes much harder.

The question for 2027 is therefore simple:

Can we put the same eyes that watched Osun on every polling unit, every collation centre and every result across Nigeria?

That is where the real battle for credible elections will be fought.

Nigerias only hope for change and possibly the good life is if we can maintain credible elections. Let the people decide who they want not the courts.

The only action that can rescue Nigeria and guarantee us a good future is the conduct of free and fair and credible elections. If we can ever achieve that, the right people will join politics and run for office and every other thing will take shape!

WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO LIE TO OURSELVES

1. We have built a nation based on lies. We prefer to be told lies and hope on impossibilities than hearing the truth. This is main reason politicians and pastors take advantage of our gullibilities.

2. When I say that Nigeria may not change, even in another thousand years, if we continue to organize ourselves exactly the way we do today, I am not wishing failure on Nigeria. I am asking a simple question: Where will the change come from if the same behavior that created the problem is constantly rewarded?

3. How do we expect change when a public official steals money meant for schools and hospitals, and instead of rejecting him, we celebrate him, give him traditional titles, reserve front-row seats for him in churches and mosques, and eventually elect him to the Senate?

4. You give a man 100 bags of rice to distribute to his community. He keeps 70 for himself and distributes 30. Instead of asking what happened to the remaining 70 bags, people gather around him, dancing and thanking him for his “generosity.”

5. Think about the contradiction. He has stolen 70 bags belonging to the people, yet the people are praising him for giving them 30 bags that also belong to them. That small example explains much of our national tragedy.

6. The same politicians who participate in ruining the country and emptying the treasury will tomorrow take a tiny fraction of what belongs to the people, organize a “charity” event, distribute rice, motorcycles, sewing machines or a few scholarships, and we will gather with drums, cameras and traditional rulers to sing their praises.

7. We sometimes celebrate politicians for giving us back crumbs from what was taken from our own table. How do we expect change when unexplained wealth attracts more respect than honest labor? How do we expect change when ethnicity is sometimes more important to us than integrity? A politician can steal from the public, but once he is “our son,” “our brother,” or “our candidate,” many suddenly become lawyers defending what they would condemn if another ethnic group did it.

8. How do we expect accountability when questioning a leader is interpreted as disrespect? The person asking, “What happened to our money?” becomes the troublemaker, while the person who took the money receives a chieftaincy title. This is the abnormality I am talking about. Nigeria is enormously blessed. We have oil, gas, fertile land, minerals, intelligent people, entrepreneurs and an enormous population capable of creating wealth.

9. We have so much that we can afford to waste billions through corruption, abandoned projects, inflated contracts and political extravagance, and somehow the country continues moving. Yet in that same country, some mothers still give birth at home under desperate conditions, sometimes relying on crude materials such as plantain leaves because proper healthcare is unavailable or unaffordable.

10. Think about that contradiction. A country can lose billions to corruption and continue functioning, while somewhere a pregnant woman cannot access a properly equipped maternity clinic. A politician can travel in a convoy of expensive vehicles while the hospital in the community that elected him lacks basic equipment.

11. Millions can be spent on political ceremonies while children learn in classrooms without roofs.
Then, during Christmas or election season, the politician brings a few bags of rice to the same impoverished community, and everybody starts shouting, “Our leader is trying!” This is why Nigeria’s problem goes much deeper than simply replacing one President, governor or political party with another.

12. The political system reflects the society that sustains it. Politicians did not arrive from another planet. They came from our families, communities, churches, mosques, schools and villages. The values we tolerate in society eventually find their way into government. That is the uncomfortable part of the conversation. We want honest leaders, but sometimes celebrate dishonest wealth. We demand accountability from politicians we dislike while making excuses for politicians from our own ethnic group.

13. We condemn corruption in Abuja but sometimes practice smaller versions of the same corruption wherever we have authority. We complain about election rigging but may accept money to vote. Then after doing all these things, we sit down and ask, Why is Nigeria not changing?
A society cannot repeatedly reward the behavior destroying it and simultaneously expect transformation.

14. This is not an argument that Nigerians are biologically or inherently abnormal or wicked. No people are naturally condemned to failure. It is an argument that some of the norms and incentives we have normalized are deeply dysfunctional. And until those norms change, changing personalities at the top will produce only limited results.

15. That is why I refuse to manufacture false hope.
Hope without confronting reality becomes another form of deception. If we genuinely want a different Nigeria, then our solutions must begin with the Nigeria that actually exists, not the Nigeria we imagine exists. We must understand our ethnic divisions, patronage networks, weak institutions, celebration of unexplained wealth, political dependency and resistance to accountability. Then we must build institutions capable of functioning despite our weaknesses, rather than waiting for angels to become our leaders.

16. I sympathize deeply with those whom “Nigeria has happened to”people whose dreams, businesses, careers, families and sometimes lives have been damaged by a system they did not create. I wish optimism alone could fix it. But countries are not transformed by hope alone. They change when societies stop rewarding what is destroying them.

17. Until the thief becomes ashamed rather than celebrated, until public money is understood to belong to the public, until citizens demand institutions instead of handouts, and until integrity commands greater respect than stolen wealth, we may continue changing presidents, governors, parties and slogans while preserving the machinery producing the same failures.

The truth is sometimes uncomfortable, but truth be told, if we start acknowledging the truth, that is going to be the beginning of true change

It is weekend, stay focused!

WHY PETER OBI MAY NEED TO THINK BEYOND 2027: THE ROAD TO A SOUTH-EAST PRESIDENCY IN 2039

1. Politics is not only about winning the next election. Sometimes, the greatest political strategy is knowing when to contest, when to negotiate, when to build alliances and when to invest political capital for the future.

2. This is where I believe Peter Obi and the South-East should seriously study the political history of Bola Tinubu. He did not become President simply because he woke up one morning and announced that it was his turn.

3. Muhammadu Buhari had a powerful political base in the North, but repeatedly failed to win the presidency. Tinubu and other political forces helped construct the broader coalition that eventually brought Buhari to power in 2015.

4. Tinubu supported a Northerner. Buhari governed for eight years. When the presidency returned to the South in 2023, Tinubu could go back to important northern political actors and essentially argue. “ We stood with you when you needed us. Now stand with us.” That is political investment.
The South-East should learn from it.

5. If Peter Obi’s ultimate objective is not merely to become President personally, but to break the historical barrier preventing the South-East from producing a President, then he must think beyond one election. Suppose Tinubu completes his presidency in 2031 and power moves North. Under an informal rotational understanding, a northern President could serve from 2031 to 2039.

6. Then comes the critical moment. Power returns to the South in 2039. At that point, three southern zones could potentially make claims to Presidency. South-West, South-South and South-East. If South East aligns with South West now, then they will have a better case to make 2039 when power returns to the South. I think Soludo and Alex Oti understand this game.

7. But imagine a completely different political landscape. Imagine that Peter Obi and the South-East had spent the previous decade building a genuine strategic partnership with the South-West. Instead of treating the South-West permanently as a political enemy, the South-East could say, “ We supported you when the presidency was in your region. Now that power has returned to the South, allow us to complete the circle.” That would be a far more powerful political argument than simply saying, “ It is our turn.”

8. Because politics remembers relationships more readily than grievances. This does not mean Obi must abandon opposition or stop criticizing Tinubu when government policies are wrong. Political cooperation is not political surrender. Obi could remain independent, continue advocating accountability and still recognize that the South-East needs strategic relationships beyond its traditional political base. The objective should be bigger than Tinubu. Bigger than Obi. Bigger than APC. Bigger than NDC.

9. The real question is this, What political architecture can finally produce a South-East President of Nigeria? And the uncomfortable truth is that the South-East cannot achieve that objective alone. Five South-Eastern states cannot elect a President by themselves. Emotion cannot elect a President. Social-media popularity cannot elect a President. Historical grievances cannot elect a President. Even having an excellent candidate is insufficient without a national coalition. Presidential power in Nigeria is coalition mathematics. This is the uncomfortable truth!

10. Instead of allowing the relationship between the South-East and South-West to become an endless competition over who should dominate southern politics, both regions could develop a strategic understanding, When your legitimate opportunity comes, we support you. When ours comes, you support us. That is how durable political coalitions are built.

11. There is another strategic advantage. If the South-East supports the South-West today, it becomes easier to ask the South-West to join it in supporting a northern candidate in 2031 who accepts that, after eight years, the presidency should return to the South, and preferably to the South-East, in 2039. Now you have something much bigger than an election alliance. You have created a 16-year political strategy. Only a political strategy can produce an Igbo presidency and nothing more!

12. Listen my Igbo brothers, 2027–2031, consolidate relationships with the South-West. 2031–2039, support a mutually acceptable northern coalition while negotiating an understanding about the next southern rotation. 2039, build a national coalition around a credible South-Eastern candidate. This is what we call dialectics in politics!

13. The South-East should therefore stop approaching the presidency simply as a question of justice. Yes, there is a legitimate argument about fairness. But justice without political strategy can remain an argument forever. The South-East must convert moral legitimacy into political leverage. Tinubu’s political history provides an important lesson. Sometimes the shortest road to your own political destination is helping someone else reach theirs first.

14. Peter Obi therefore has a larger choice to consider. Does he want to fight every presidential election as an individual candidate? Or does he want to become one of the architects of a political arrangement capable of finally producing a South-East President? Those are not necessarily the same objective. If the South-East genuinely wants the presidency when power returns to the South, then the work cannot begin in 2038. It must begin now. Build bridges now. Create partnerships now.
Reduce unnecessary ethnic political warfare now.
Invest political capital now.
Negotiate from strength now. Because political power is rarely given because a region has waited long enough.

15. Political power is negotiated, organized and won through coalitions. If 2039 is to become the South-East’s historic opportunity, then 2039 must be planned long before 2039. The South-East should not merely wait for its turn. It should strategically build the coalition that will make its turn possible.

16. Only those who understand the dialectics of ethnicity, coalition-building and the struggle for power in Nigerian politics will fully appreciate this argument. This is not about loving Tinubu or hating Peter Obi. It is not an endorsement of APC, nor is it an attack on the Labour Party. It is an attempt to examine power as power actually operates in Nigeria, not as we emotionally wish it operated.

Good morning Africa!

WE PUT TOO MUCH PRESSURE ON THE PRESIDENT, WHAT ABOUT THE GOVERNORS?

In Nigeria, almost everything is blamed on the President. We spend so much energy blaming the President and forget that the bulk of our problems would better be addressed by governors.

Bad roads? President.
Poor schools? President.
No healthcare? President.
Unemployment? President.

Yes, the President must be held accountable. But what about our governors and local government chairmen?

Every month, states and local governments receive considerable allocations from the Federation Account. States also generate billions internally through taxes, levies and other revenues.

So where is the money going? Investigate and check how much governors spend on just travels, it runs into billions, small infrastructure runs into billions, to change curtains In government house runs into millions, yet we spend all our energy on the president. I have no love or hate for the president, but truth be told, our anger and expectation of change solely on the president is misplaced.

Some state governments organize expensive conferences and summits and invite international statesmen and prominent personalities from abroad. Some spend only 24–48 hours, make a short speech, take pictures with government officials and huge dollars are paid. Go to that same state, schools have no ceilings, no roof and children sit on floors, yet we pay Whiteman millions for 15 minutes speech.

Now listen, there is nothing wrong with organizing conferences or inviting international personalities if there is a measurable benefit to the people. But government must understand PRIORITIES.

Why spend huge public resources creating political spectacles when basic services are crying for attention? Sometimes we are forced to question if the African reasons.

We spend so much energy attacking whoever occupies A*o Rock that we sometimes forget that Nigeria is not governed from Abuja alone. In a federal system the powers of a president has limitations on how he can direct state governments.

Remember, Your governor has a budget.

Your governor receives federal allocations.

Your state collects taxes.

Your local government receives allocations.

Start asking questions.

How much did my state receive last month?

How much did it generate internally?

How much was spent?

What was it spent on?

What happened to our schools, hospitals, roads and communities?

We should monitor our governors with the same energy we use to monitor the President.

The President must account.
The Governor must account.
The Local Government Chairman must account.

Accountability should not stop in Abuja. Extend accountability to governors.

Before we blame the President for everything, ask your governor one simple question:

GOVERNOR, WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH OUR MONEY?

Previously, I had argued that Nigeria can never work another one thousand years irrespective of who leads the country. I had further argued that our system as presently organized cannot and can never produce the type of leader that can fix the country. In this piece I want to explain myself, and show that our present democratic structure has developed a system that makes governance impossible and furthermore that the core problem is the system and not who is the driver.

Listen, we often complain about bad leaders, corruption and poor governance in Nigeria. But sometimes we focus too much on the individuals and not enough on the structure that produces and protects them.

Every system behaves according to the incentives created by its structure.

If the structure rewards competence, transparency and accountability, it will gradually produce leaders and institutions that value good governance. But when the structure rewards corruption, political loyalty, ethnic connections, patronage and impunity, it will repeatedly produce a dysfunctional system.

This is why simply replacing one politician with another may not solve the problem.

A new president can enter office, but if he inherits institutions where appointments are based more on loyalty than competence, corruption will survive.

A new governor can promise change, but if public contracts remain opportunities to reward political supporters, the same system continues.

We can replace legislators, ministers, governors and local government chairmen, but if elections are extremely expensive and politicians must depend on wealthy sponsors to win, many elected officials will enter government already owing political debts.

That debt will eventually be paid with appointments, contracts, influence and access to public resources.

This is how structure produces behavior, behavior becomes culture, and culture eventually sustains the system.

The tragedy is that after many years, even good people entering a bad structure may discover that they must either adapt to the system, fight it at enormous personal cost, or be pushed aside by it.

That is why corruption should not be understood only as people stealing money. Corruption can become structural.

When citizens need connections to get what should be their rights, that is structural failure.

When politicians must distribute money to win elections, that is structural failure.

When government appointments are treated as rewards for political loyalty rather than public responsibility, that is structural failure.

When institutions are too weak to hold powerful people accountable, that is structural failure.

When public officials know that stealing billions may carry fewer consequences than challenging powerful political interests, the structure itself is teaching society the wrong lessons.

This explains why changing personalities without changing institutions often produces disappointment.

A bad structure can frustrate a good leader, while a strong structure can restrain a bad leader.

In countries with strong institutions, leaders are not necessarily better human beings. The difference is that the system places limits on what they can do. Institutions investigate. Courts intervene. Legislatures provide oversight. The media scrutinizes. Citizens demand accountability. Rules have consequences.

Nigeria therefore needs more than a search for a political messiah.

We need to ask deeper questions:

How are elections financed?
How independent are our institutions?
How are public officials appointed?
How are government contracts awarded?
How quickly are corruption cases prosecuted?
How much power is concentrated at the centre?
How financially independent are states and local governments?
What happens when powerful people break the law?

Until these structural questions are addressed, we may continue changing drivers while driving the same damaged vehicle.

Good governance is not produced by good intentions alone. It is produced by institutions that reward good behaviour and punish bad behaviour.

If corruption has become embedded in the structure, then fighting corruption requires more than arresting corrupt individuals. We must redesign the structure that makes corruption profitable, protects those who practise it and sometimes punishes those who refuse to participate.

Ultimately, the structure designs the system, the system shapes behaviour, and behaviour determines the quality of governance.

If we want a different Nigeria, we cannot only change the people operating the system.

We must change the structure that keeps producing the same results using a failed system

Princewill Odidi writes from Atlanta.