Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, a former Defence Minister and son of Nigeria's first military Head of State, Maj. Gen. Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, comments onDANIEL AYANTOYE Regarding Nigeria's classification as a Country of Particular Concern, the postponement in appointing ambassadors, the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, and other domestic matters
AsA former Defense Minister, what is your evaluation of the country's security situation?
Nigeria's security situation showcases both valor and disorder. Our military has demonstrated great courage, yet they are engaged in a conflict that is no longer solely about warfare. Insecurity in the nation extends beyond bullets and explosions; it involves poverty, unfairness, and poor leadership. We are dealing with a mixed threat; rebellion combined with robbery, political interference, and societal decline. Until governmental strategies tackle the underlying issues—unemployment, disparity, despair, and more—our soldiers will keep trying to put out fires without water. Security isn't gained just through weapons. It is established through fairness, learning, and chances. If you can get citizens to trust the system once more, you decrease the number of people ready to oppose it.
I also believe that the application of technology and artificial intelligence has become essential in all areas of the country's functioning. AI is a powerful force. Whether it benefits or harms Nigeria depends on our approach. AI has the potential to transform agriculture, healthcare, and governance. Picture using predictive technology to monitor floods, identify cheating in exams, or track electoral fraud—this is genuine advancement. However, we need to get our people ready for this change. AI without proper human development could increase inequality. We should teach our young people not just to use technology but to develop it. We should be exporting Nigerian innovation rather than always bringing in solutions from elsewhere. Technology should support humanity, not take its place.
U.S. President Donald Trump has recently designated Nigeria as a Country of Special Concern due to reported violations of religious freedom. What are the implications for the nation and its global relations?
Under the United States International Religious Freedom Act, a "Country of Particular Concern" refers to a nation that is considered to have committed or allowed serious violations of religious freedom. As stated by the US President, the reasons include repeated attacks on Christian communities, alleged lack of accountability for perpetrators, and perceived shortcomings in safeguarding citizens' religious rights. This designation is not a punishment but a policy tool aimed at highlighting significant issues. At its core, the intention is to encourage discussion and necessary changes, not to isolate a country. This label is more than just a title; it serves as a diplomatic warning. It indicates that Nigeria's governance, human rights, and rule of law are being closely examined. It reflects a concern from the global community that Nigeria may not be fulfilling its constitutional and human rights commitments. When the US makes such a declaration, other countries quietly observe. Investors, donors, and international partners start to reassess our reliability. But beyond reputation, it represents a moral criticism. It shows that there is a fundamental problem in how we manage diversity, disagreement, and faith. What concerns me most is that it implies an increasing belief that the country allows impunity in cases of religious or ethnic violence. One of our main challenges is the clear inability to control perception and sustain active diplomatic relations. When a country as large as Nigeria has no ambassador in Washington during these discussions, it demonstrates institutional neglect. We must treat our citizens with the same respect we expect from the world. Diplomacy starts within our own borders. If we lose moral authority, no amount of foreign policy skill can make up for that.
Could this have been avoided?
This label could have been entirely avoided. Early signs were clear. Advocacy groups in Washington had previously alleged that Nigeria showed religious favoritism. Active diplomacy, top-level visits, explanations, and interaction with the U.S. Congress could have lessened the outcome. Unfortunately, we responded only after the harm had occurred.
What measures should the nation implement to address or improve this situation?
To change this situation, we need to start with meaningful diplomatic discussions, supported by tangible domestic changes. First, appoint ambassadors to Washington and the United Nations, as well as other high-level missions, choosing respected individuals who have a deep understanding across regions. Interact with the U.S. Congress and the State Department. Demonstrate real progress, not just propaganda, in protecting interfaith relations, delivering justice for those affected by violence, and promoting community healing. Create an inter-gubernatorial task force to tackle religious freedom and reform of the justice system. Nigeria's foreign policy should showcase ethical values within the country. The global community respects countries that acknowledge and fix their shortcomings, rather than those that ignore them. In diplomacy, remaining silent comes at a high price.
Is the existence or non-existence of ambassadors truly significant in this situation?
Ambassadors are not just symbolic representatives; they serve as national guardians who foresee, understand, and shape the policies of the host country. Without their presence, advocacy groups take control of the conversation. The CPC result is what occurs when a nation surrenders its own narrative to others. Nigeria has highly educated diplomats serving as chargés d'affaires, yet many meetings and access to certain officials are only granted to ambassadors. Contrary to the opinion held by some members of the National Assembly, not everyone is suitable for an ambassadorial role, which is why thorough evaluation is necessary. The recent incident involving the UK ambassador to the US serves as a reminder. We must ensure that ambassadors appointed to foreign countries undergo a realistic vetting and screening process.
There are increasing worries regarding the trial of the head of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu. What is your opinion on this matter?
The case of Nnamdi Kanu has taken on a more symbolic significance than a legal one. It reflects the broader frustration of a population feeling ignored. Protests flourish when communication breaks down. If we continue to address political dissatisfaction with force instead of empathy, we only increase bitterness. My stance is clear: the Federal Government needs to demonstrate both strength and equity. Justice must not only be administered but also perceived as such.
Do you believe that freeing Kanu would resolve the crisis in the South-East?
What is required at this moment is leadership, rather than mere legalism. Freeing Kanu under the terms of a national dialogue might create an opportunity for reconciliation, rather than disorder. As a younger sibling from my late mother's side, I wish for Kanu's release and to be reunited with his family in the UK. I am taken aback by the slow pace of the UK Labour government in advocating for him. Perhaps they may soon address the issue.
Some worry that the events of 1966 might happen again, which some refer to as an "Igbo coup" where your father was killed during a counter-coup. Aren't you worried about this?
History should be examined with honesty, not feelings. On January 15, 1966, it was not an "Igbo coup." It was a coup that occurred in Nigeria, carried out by Nigerians, against corruption and political instability. Claiming it was an Igbo coup is misleading, as some of the officers involved were Igbo. This perspective was used to create division and support cycles of retaliation. My father, Maj. Gen. J.T.U. Aguiyi-Ironsi, did not participate in the January 15 plot; he became Head of State through constitutional means, not through a conspiracy. Nevertheless, he gave his life for his belief in a united Nigeria.
Were you resentful about the event on July 29, 1966, which took your father's life?
No. Resentment is unhelpful. What I hold is a belief that Nigeria needs to learn from her history to prevent it from happening again. These tragic incidents remind us that unity without fairness is weak, and fairness without truth is unattainable. My father told me in Ibadan before he was taken away not to seek vengeance. I follow my father's advice. As the renowned Sarduana once stated, we should respect our differences. The most appropriate way to honor all those who lost their lives in 1966 on both sides is not through revenge, but through reform and restructuring.
What do you believe your father's most significant teaching was?
His most important lesson is straightforward: Leadership is about service, not about being in a position of power. My father stood by the principles of discipline, loyalty, and unity until his last breath. He refused to split the country, even if it could have saved his life. He imagined a Nigeria where talent and ability would be more important than ethnic background, and where justice would take precedence over authority. That vision is still incomplete. However, I believe it can still be achieved if we have the bravery to honestly face our past and govern the present with fairness. The greatest honor we can give him and all the patriots of his era is to create a nation that truly deserves their sacrifice. Sixty years after my father's tragic passing, Nigeria continues to deal with many of the same issues that troubled his time—issues concerning unity, justice, leadership, and direction. I am speaking now not only because of remembrance, but because staying silent can lead to being part of the problem. We are at a crucial moment—politically, morally, and historically. If those who understand Nigeria’s history and systems stay quiet, then those who don't will shape our narrative. Therefore, this discussion is both personal and patriotic. My father's legacy demands unity; my conscience demands truth.
Ethnic distrust continues to shape the nation's political landscape. How would you characterize the mutual suspicions between the main tribes?
First and foremost, President Tinubu is my leader, and I offer him my complete support. I stand against any form of hate speech. The situation in Nigeria does not stem from hatred; rather, it reflects deep-seated historical pain that has never been adequately addressed. During every election cycle, political figures take advantage of these old wounds to gain votes, only to leave them untouched once the polls are over, allowing the issues to resurface again. The Yoruba do not harbor animosity toward the Igbo, nor does the North hold grudges against the South. What we face is a lack of justice, not an absence of love. Undoubtedly, the Igbo people do not hate Nigeria. However, they are concerned that the country has not shown them fair treatment in return. The Igbo have contributed significantly to the nation, serving and sacrificing for its development. They have invested in all parts of Nigeria and still believe in its potential. Yet, love cannot endure indefinitely without justice. What the Igbo people, and indeed all Nigerian groups, desire is fairness, inclusion, and respect. When equality becomes the basis of governance, distrust will naturally fade away. Genuine unity will be achieved when no child in Kano, Enugu, or Ibadan feels like a stranger in their own homeland. Until that time, our national anthem will remain just a song, not yet a reality. Our current state of origin policy should also include clear residency requirements of 15 years and birth registration. In addition, I believe it's essential to emphasize the importance of increasing women's participation in politics. This step could make a significant difference.
What makes you believe that?
It is both essential and long overdue. Women are not mere political accessories; they are key contributors to national development. Empowering women in politics is not driven by sympathy; it is about enhancing productivity. Nations that involve women in governance tend to achieve better social and economic advancements. They constitute half of our population, yet their input remains minimal in decision-making processes. Reserved seats are not acts of charity; they are a matter of justice. Nigeria should take lessons from Rwanda, Ethiopia, and certain Western democracies that have implemented legislative representation to create equity. Although reserved seats may not be the ideal solution, they serve as a crucial first step toward rectifying years of exclusion. Beyond quotas, we must transform our political culture to stop discouraging women who aspire to lead. When Nigerian women fully engage in politics, our democracy will grow stronger. Some critics claim that leadership should be earned, not reserved. For me, this is an argument rooted in privilege. When a system is biased, fairness requires adjustment. You cannot discuss "merit" in a system created and dominated by men. Gender quotas are temporary measures aimed at achieving balance, and once inclusivity becomes natural, the policy can adapt. It is very important for political parties to stop merely talking about gender inclusion. They must revise their constitutions to ensure at least 35% representation in both elected and appointed positions. Women have demonstrated capability—within the Foreign Service, civil service, academia, and business. What they need is access, not permission. In this context, I would like to honor a pioneer, the late Prof. Joy Ogwu, our leading former Minister of Foreign Affairs and a prominent figure at the United Nations as Nigeria's Permanent Representative.
Nigeria is highly religious, but corruption and unfairness still exist. Why hasn't religion led to better moral behavior in society?
Religion has turned into a ritualistic practice instead of a transformative force. We speak loudly in prayer but act recklessly in life. There are more places of worship than industrial facilities, more religious leaders than educators, and still, corruption is widespread. Genuine belief shapes personality, not just numbers. Until our spiritual practices are evident in how we care for the impoverished, the vulnerable, and the country's resources, we will continue to fool ourselves. God is not impressed by the grandeur of our churches but by the honesty of our inner selves.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.Syndigate.info).