Home Blog Page 20

When Safety Becomes an Afterthought: Who Pays the Price?

By
Angel Gimalo
-
0

Behind every safety regulation is a human life.

A worker who leaves home in the morning expects to return to family. A child entering a school should be protected from preventable danger. A passenger boarding a vehicle should be able to trust that basic safety standards have been considered.

Safety, therefore, cannot simply be a checklist, a policy document or a requirement to satisfy regulators. Safety Concerns

It is about people.

And when safety becomes an afterthought, people often pay the price.

Also Read This: Nigerian Safety Investigation Bureau

At the 2026 International Natural Conference and World Safety Organization Awards, held in Lagos on September 10 and 11, one message stood out: safety must move from information to action.

The keynote speaker, Comrade Felix Osamwonyi Osagiede, emphasised the importance of moving from collecting data to actually using it.

That point deserves serious attention.

Organisations can collect accident reports, inspection records, hazard assessments and incident statistics. But data sitting in a file cannot prevent the next accident.

The real value of safety data begins when it is analysed, understood and translated into decisions.

If an organisation repeatedly records the same workplace hazard but does nothing about it, the problem is no longer a lack of information.

It is a failure to act.

This is one of the biggest challenges facing safety culture today.

Too often, action comes after an incident rather than before it. A building is inspected after it collapses. A safety procedure is reviewed after someone is injured. A warning is taken seriously after a tragedy.

But prevention should not require a tragedy to become a priority.

The event’s panel discussion also highlighted the importance of stronger safety systems, risk management and collaboration among professionals and organisations.

These conversations matter because safety is not the responsibility of one safety officer.

It involves employers, government agencies, regulators, workers, schools, transport operators, construction companies, communities and individuals.

Everyone has a role.

The investiture of new first-tier members at the event was another reminder that professional commitment must translate into practical responsibility.

Joining a safety organisation should mean more than receiving a title or certificate. It should represent a commitment to protecting lives and promoting standards wherever safety decisions are made.

And this is where the conversation must move beyond conferences.

Nigeria does not need more safety slogans if unsafe practices continue after the cameras are gone.

We need systems that identify risks before they become disasters.

We need organisations that listen to safety professionals.

We need regulators that enforce standards.

We need employers that understand that cutting safety costs can ultimately cost far more.

Most importantly, we need a culture in which every preventable accident is treated as a warning rather than simply another statistic.

Because behind every number is a person.

Behind every incident report is a family.

Behind every workplace injury is a life potentially changed forever.

The question, therefore, is not whether we have enough safety rules.

The question is whether we are taking those rules seriously enough to save lives.

The challenge before Nigeria is to move from reactive safety to preventive safety — from collecting information after something goes wrong to using information to ensure it does not go wrong in the first place.

Safety should never be what we think about after the accident.

It should be what we think about before it.

Because when safety becomes an afterthought, the price is rarely paid by the policy makers who ignored the warning.

It is paid by the worker who does not return home, the child exposed to danger, the family left behind and the community forced to live with a tragedy that could have been prevented.

Safety is not an expense. It is an investment in human life.

And no investment is more important.

Dangote Refinery IPO Live Now: Africa’s Biggest-Ever Share Sale Is Open to Nigerians

By
webmaster
-
0

The book is open. This morning, 14 September 2026, the Dangote Petroleum Refinery launched the largest initial public offering in African history — and for the first time, an ordinary Nigerian can, in principle, own a slice of Africa’s biggest oil refinery.

Nigerian billionaire Aliko Dangote launched the largest share sale yet with the initial public offering of ‌his oil refinery, targeting the general public to raise as much as $2.1 billion for its expansion.

Dangote, Africa’s richest man, has marketed the offer of a roughly 3% stake as a “people’s IPO,” saying it is about giving ordinary Nigerians the opportunity to participate in the success of the plant.

The numbers at a glance

  
Share price₦525 per ordinary share
Shares on offer4.1 billion ordinary shares
Target proceeds~₦2.15 trillion (~$1.63bn)
Reported minimum subscription10 shares — ₦5,250
Subscription opens14 September 2026
PurposeA $14.3bn expansion that would roughly double refining capacity

Nigeria’s Securities and Exchange Commission approved the offer earlier this month (Reuters), and the market did not hesitate. Premium Times reports that billions of naira were subscribed within minutes of the book opening — a signal of appetite that has rarely been seen on the Nigerian Exchange.

Why this matters beyond the ticker

Nigeria has exported crude and imported refined products for decades. A fully operating, fully Nigerian-owned refinery changes the arithmetic of the biggest line item in every Nigerian household budget: fuel. Ownership is the next layer of that story. If millions of citizens hold equity in the asset that supplies their petrol, the politics of pricing, transparency and dividends change with it.

The uncomfortable question

Framed as an “IPO for the people,” the offer has drawn a sharp counter-reading. Deutsche Welle reports that for most Nigerians, the minimum ticket is out of practical reach — not because ₦5,250 is large in absolute terms, but because the household with ₦5,250 of discretionary cash after food and school fees is a minority household.

The offer’s motivation, DW argues, is equally straightforward: $14.3bn is a very large cheque, and continental retail capital is cheaper and more durable than any single lender’s. Both things can be true at once. This is genuinely historic and structurally exclusive. Report it that way.

What to watch next

  1. Final subscription figures — oversubscription ratios will drive the next news cycle.
  2. The closing date — sources currently differ, with 9 October and 14 October both reported. Confirm before publishing a fixed deadline.
  3. Listing date on the NSE and the secondary-market pop or flop that follows.
  4. Dividend policy language in the final prospectus.
  5. Expansion milestones — capacity, throughput, and export bookings.

FAQ

How much is a Dangote Refinery share? ₦525 per ordinary share in this offering.

What is the minimum I need? Reported at 10 shares, or ₦5,250. Verify against the final SEC-approved prospectus before acting.

Is this the biggest IPO in Africa? By the terms reported by AP, Bloomberg and Reuters, yes — Africa’s largest share sale to date.

⚠️ Editorial compliance note: add a one-line disclaimer — “This article is news reporting, not investment advice. Readers should consult the final prospectus and a licensed adviser before subscribing.” This materially reduces regulatory and liability risk on financial content.

Map Resize: The Hour Africa Got Its Dimension Back

By
Angel Gimalo
-
0

For 457 years, one map has shaped how generations of people around the world visualised the size of continents.

The Mercator projection, introduced in 1569, became one of the world’s most widely recognised maps. Originally designed primarily for navigation, its method of projecting the spherical Earth onto a flat surface makes landmasses closer to the poles appear significantly larger than they actually are.

The result? Greenland can appear comparable in size to Africa on some versions of the map, even though Africa is approximately 14 times larger.

But on September 4, 2026, the conversation about how the world is represented on maps took a new turn.

A United Nations resolution aimed at promoting a more accurate representation of continental landmasses was supported by 164 countries. The United States voted against it, while six countries abstained.

The development has triggered a much bigger conversation: Can changing the map change how the world sees Africa?

Also Read: AFRICA FUNDING G20

Africa Was Never Small

The physical size of Africa has not changed.

What has changed is the way that size can be visually represented.

The Equal Earth projection offers a more accurate comparison of continental areas, allowing viewers to better understand Africa’s actual geographical scale.

Africa covers more than 30 million square kilometres and is the world’s second-largest continent by both land area and population.

Yet, generations of students have grown up looking at maps where Africa appears visually smaller than it really is.

That difference may seem like a technical issue, but maps are not simply drawings.

They influence what people learn, what they imagine and how they understand the world.

More Than a Map

The debate surrounding the map has therefore moved beyond geography.

Supporters of efforts to promote more accurate maps argue that visual representation can influence perceptions of Africa’s importance, potential and place in the international system.

For young Africans especially, seeing the continent represented more accurately could provide a different understanding of its geographical scale.

Africa’s size is remarkable. Its landmass could accommodate the United States, China, India and several European countries combined.

Yet the continent is often discussed internationally through narratives of poverty, conflict and underdevelopment.

A more accurate map will not solve those challenges.

It will not create jobs, improve infrastructure or transform economies.

But it can challenge one particular misconception: the idea that Africa is somehow geographically small or marginal.

164 Countries Say Yes

The overwhelming support for the UN resolution has also introduced a geopolitical dimension to the debate.

With 164 countries voting in favour, the United States voting against and six countries abstaining, the outcome demonstrated broad international support for the proposal.

The disagreement also raises questions about how international institutions approach cartography and whether changing established representations should be considered a priority.

For Africa, however, the significance may lie beyond the vote itself.

It is an opportunity to ask why the continent has historically been represented in particular ways — and who gets to define the images through which the world understands Africa.

Can a Map Change a Mindset?

A map cannot change Africa’s economic or political reality.

But the images people repeatedly see can influence the assumptions they develop.

For generations, the Mercator projection has been used in classrooms, books, media and digital platforms around the world. Its distortions were never intended to diminish Africa; they were a consequence of the mathematical requirements of the projection.

Nevertheless, the visual effect remains.

Correcting the map therefore offers an opportunity to correct a perception.

And perhaps that is why the debate has resonated beyond geography.

It raises a larger question about representation: If Africa can challenge the way it is drawn on the map, what other misconceptions should it challenge?

Africa Must Also Represent Itself

The responsibility cannot rest entirely with international institutions.

African governments, educators, journalists, filmmakers, writers and media organisations also have a role to play in presenting a more complete picture of the continent.

Africa must tell its own stories — about its history, innovation, culture, cities, businesses, people and possibilities.

The continent should not only demand that the world see Africa accurately.

It must also ensure that Africa accurately represents itself.

The map may be changing, but the bigger challenge is changing the mindset surrounding it.

Africa was never small.

Its landmass has always been enormous. Its history has always been significant. Its people have always been diverse. And its potential has never been limited by the size assigned to it on a classroom wall.

The question now is not simply how big Africa is.

The question is: What will Africa do with the space, resources and potential it has always possessed?

The Hour Africa Got Its Dimension Back

For 457 years, one map has shaped how generations of people around the world visualised the size of continents.

The Mercator projection, introduced in 1569, became one of the world’s most widely recognised maps. Originally designed primarily for navigation, its method of projecting the spherical Earth onto a flat surface makes landmasses closer to the poles appear significantly larger than they actually are.

The result? Greenland can appear comparable in size to Africa on some versions of the map, even though Africa is approximately 14 times larger.

But on September 4, 2026, the conversation about how the world is represented on maps took a new turn.

A United Nations resolution aimed at promoting a more accurate representation of continental landmasses was supported by 164 countries. The United States voted against it, while six countries abstained.

The development has triggered a much bigger conversation: Can changing the map change how the world sees Africa?

Africa Was Never Small

The physical size of Africa has not changed.

What has changed is the way that size can be visually represented.

The Equal Earth projection offers a more accurate comparison of continental areas, allowing viewers to better understand Africa’s actual geographical scale.

Africa covers more than 30 million square kilometres and is the world’s second-largest continent by both land area and population.

Yet, generations of students have grown up looking at maps where Africa appears visually smaller than it really is.

That difference may seem like a technical issue, but maps are not simply drawings.

They influence what people learn, what they imagine and how they understand the world.

More Than a Map

The debate surrounding the map has therefore moved beyond geography.

Supporters of efforts to promote more accurate maps argue that visual representation can influence perceptions of Africa’s importance, potential and place in the international system.

For young Africans especially, seeing the continent represented more accurately could provide a different understanding of its geographical scale.

Africa’s size is remarkable. Its landmass could accommodate the United States, China, India and several European countries combined.

Yet the continent is often discussed internationally through narratives of poverty, conflict and underdevelopment.

A more accurate map will not solve those challenges.

It will not create jobs, improve infrastructure or transform economies.

But it can challenge one particular misconception: the idea that Africa is somehow geographically small or marginal.

164 Countries Say Yes

The overwhelming support for the UN resolution has also introduced a geopolitical dimension to the debate.

With 164 countries voting in favour, the United States voting against and six countries abstaining, the outcome demonstrated broad international support for the proposal.

The disagreement also raises questions about how international institutions approach cartography and whether changing established representations should be considered a priority.

For Africa, however, the significance may lie beyond the vote itself.

It is an opportunity to ask why the continent has historically been represented in particular ways — and who gets to define the images through which the world understands Africa.

Can a Map Change a Mindset?

A map cannot change Africa’s economic or political reality.

But the images people repeatedly see can influence the assumptions they develop.

For generations, the Mercator projection has been used in classrooms, books, media and digital platforms around the world. Its distortions were never intended to diminish Africa; they were a consequence of the mathematical requirements of the projection.

Nevertheless, the visual effect remains.

Correcting the map therefore offers an opportunity to correct a perception.

And perhaps that is why the debate has resonated beyond geography.

It raises a larger question about representation: If Africa can challenge the way it is drawn on the map, what other misconceptions should it challenge?

Africa Must Also Represent Itself

The responsibility cannot rest entirely with international institutions.

African governments, educators, journalists, filmmakers, writers and media organisations also have a role to play in presenting a more complete picture of the continent.

Africa must tell its own stories — about its history, innovation, culture, cities, businesses, people and possibilities.

The continent should not only demand that the world see Africa accurately.

It must also ensure that Africa accurately represents itself.

The map may be changing, but the bigger challenge is changing the mindset surrounding it.

Africa was never small.

Its landmass has always been enormous. Its history has always been significant. Its people have always been diverse. And its potential has never been limited by the size assigned to it on a classroom wall.

The question now is not simply how big Africa is.

The question is: What will Africa do with the space, resources and potential it has always possessed?

Trump Says U.S. Could Stay in Iran and ‘Keep the Oil’

By
Yemisi Lanre-Idowu
-
0

The U.S. president says Washington could remain engaged in Iran instead of leaving after the war, drawing comparisons with a controversial oil arrangement involving Venezuela.

U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested that the United States could remain in Iran after the current war and potentially benefit from the country’s oil resources, raising fresh questions about Washington’s long-term objectives in the conflict.

Speaking during a visit to Ireland on Sunday, Trump said the United States would eventually leave Iran unless Washington decided to stay and “keep the oil,” comparing the possibility with the U.S. approach to Venezuela.

The comments come as escalating tensions in the Middle East continue to shake global oil markets, with concerns growing over attacks on energy infrastructure and disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes.

Trump nevertheless maintained that he expects the Iran war to end this year.

Trump: ‘We’ll ultimately get out of Iran’— or stay for the oil

Trump said Washington would ultimately withdraw from Iran unless it decided that remaining in the country and benefiting from its oil resources was in America’s interest.

His remarks introduced a potentially significant new dimension to the U.S. administration’s stated objectives in the conflict.

Trump compared the idea to a U.S. oil arrangement involving Venezuela, saying revenues generated from that deal had already more than covered the cost of the war.

The comments are likely to intensify debate over whether the United States’ goals in Iran extend beyond military and security objectives to include the country’s enormous energy resources.

Trump did not announce a formal policy to seize or control Iranian oil.

Instead, he presented staying in Iran and benefiting from its oil as one possible outcome.

Why Iran’s oil matters

Iran is one of the world’s major oil-producing countries and holds some of the largest proven petroleum reserves globally.

Its energy resources have long been at the centre of tensions between Tehran and Washington.

Any disruption to Iranian oil exports can have consequences beyond Iran itself, particularly when global markets are already under pressure.

The current crisis has added another layer of uncertainty.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies normally passes, has experienced a major decline in shipping activity amid attacks and security concerns.

That has pushed energy traders to closely monitor every development involving Iran and the wider Gulf region.

Oil prices are already under pressure

The geopolitical uncertainty has already contributed to a sharp rise in crude prices.

Oil prices moved above $100 a barrel last week for the first time since July as concerns over Middle Eastern supply intensified.

Markets were also bracing for further increases following an attack on a major Saudi oil pipeline.

The combination of disrupted shipping through Hormuz, attacks on energy infrastructure and uncertainty surrounding Iran’s future oil exports has created a potentially dangerous situation for global energy markets.

For consumers, sustained high crude prices can eventually translate into higher costs for petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, transportation and goods.

Trump says gasoline prices will fall

Despite the current pressure on energy markets, Trump said gasoline prices would fall sharply once the Iran war ends.

Speaking in Ireland, he said the price of gasoline would “drop like a rock” after the conflict.

But exactly how quickly that could happen would depend on several factors, including the restoration of oil flows, the security of shipping routes, global demand and the extent of any damage to regional energy infrastructure.

If disruptions continue, lower prices could prove more difficult to achieve.

Trump claims Iran wants talks

Trump also repeated his claim that Iran has been seeking negotiations.

He said Tehran was “calling constantly” to discuss peace.

Iran has previously rejected similar claims from Washington.

Trump said he would only accept what he described as the “right deal”, making clear that he was unwilling to accept an agreement he considered inadequate.

The president has also continued to predict that the war could end before the end of 2026, potentially around the time of the U.S. midterm elections in November.

What would a post-war oil mean?

Trump’s comparison with Venezuela raises a major question:

Could oil become part of the price of ending the Iran conflict?

Iran’s oil industry is strategically important not only to Tehran but to the global energy market.

A deal that allows greater access to Iranian crude could potentially increase global supply and put downward pressure on prices.

But any arrangement involving U.S. control, access to or revenues from Iranian oil would likely face major political, legal and geopolitical questions.

It could also become a major source of tension between Washington and Tehran.

Trump’s remarks reference an oil agreement involving the United States and Venezuela announced in August.

The administration has portrayed the arrangement as part of a broader effort to secure access to Venezuela’s vast oil resources.

Trump’s claim that Venezuelan oil revenues have “paid for the war many times” highlights the importance he places on energy resources as part of U.S. foreign policy.

Applying a similar model to Iran, however, would be considerably more complicated.

Iran is not Venezuela.

Tehran has a long history of confrontation with Washington, while the current conflict is unfolding amid heightened tensions across the Middle East.

Strait of Hormuz Crisis Deepens as Iran Talks Stall, Oil Prices Surge Above $100

By
Yemisi Lanre-Idowu
-
0

Diplomatic efforts to reopen the world’s most important oil chokepoint have stumbled, while attacks on shipping and Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure threaten to put millions more barrels of global supply at risk.

Diplomacy aimed at easing the crisis around the Strait of Hormuz has hit a major setback, raising fresh fears over global oil supplies as attacks across the Middle East continue to disrupt two of the world’s most important energy corridors.

A meeting between Iran and Gulf Arab states, expected to take place in Oman, has been postponed as negotiators struggle to reach a regional consensus on a proposal for managing shipping through the strategic waterway.

The development comes as oil prices have climbed above $100 a barrel, while shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has fallen sharply.

For the global economy, the stakes are enormous.

The Strait normally carries roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies, making any prolonged disruption a potential threat to fuel prices, inflation, transportation and economic growth around the world.

Why the strait of hormuz matters

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman that connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea.

Despite its relatively small size, it is one of the world’s most strategically important energy routes.

Before the current conflict, approximately 20% of global oil supplies passed through the strait.

That means even a partial disruption can have consequences far beyond the Middle East.

Fewer ships crossing the waterway means less oil reaching international markets.

Reduced supply can push prices higher.

Higher crude prices can then translate into more expensive petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, transportation and manufactured goods.

And eventually, consumers around the world can feel the impact.

Diplomacy hits a wall

There had been hopes that Oman could help broker an arrangement between Iran and Gulf states to protect shipping through the strait.

But those hopes weakened after Oman’s Foreign Minister, Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, announced that the scheduled regional meeting had been postponed in the interests of reaching consensus.

Iran also confirmed the postponement, saying it was made jointly with Oman after requests from some regional countries.

The delay comes at a particularly sensitive moment.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has reportedly said that even if Tehran reaches an agreement with Oman, Iran will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz until the United States meets its demands.

That means the diplomatic route to restoring normal shipping remains uncertain.

Shipping through hormuz falls

The uncertainty is already showing up in shipping data.

Preliminary ship-tracking information indicates that commodity vessel traffic through the Strait of Hormuz fell to single-digit transits per day over the weekend.

That is significantly below the recent 10-day average of about 14 vessels per day.

The figures may not capture vessels that have switched off their tracking systems to avoid detection, but the broader trend points to a severely disrupted shipping corridor.

The latest incident involved a vessel that was struck by a projectile while travelling through the strait, according to the British maritime security agency UKMTO.

A fire broke out and the crew was evacuated.

Iran also reported that an Iranian commercial vessel was struck off its coast, killing one person and injuring four crew members.

Saudi pipeline adds to the pressure

The crisis is not confined to the Strait of Hormuz.

Saudi Arabia has shut down its 1,200-kilometre East-West pipeline, which provides an alternative route for moving oil to the Red Sea without using the Strait of Hormuz.

That development has removed an important safety valve for Gulf oil exports.

Saudi oil buyers and traders told Reuters that the kingdom currently has enough oil stored at its Red Sea port of Yanbu to maintain exports for only about five to seven days if the pipeline remains offline.

If the pipeline remains shut for longer, as much as 4% of global oil supply could be placed at additional risk.

That would come on top of the millions of barrels already affected by the disruption to shipping through Hormuz.

Oil prices are already responding

Global oil markets have reacted sharply to the growing supply concerns.

Crude prices jumped more than 3% on Monday, after attacks on Saudi Arabia, the pipeline disruption and further incidents involving shipping in the Gulf.

Oil had already climbed above $100 a barrel last week for the first time since July.

The pressure is also being felt downstream.

U.S. retail diesel prices rose above $6.20 per gallon, setting another record.

The longer the disruption continues, the greater the potential impact on global energy markets.

Why this matters to ordinary consumers

The Strait of Hormuz may be thousands of kilometres away from most consumers, but an extended disruption could eventually reach household budgets.

Higher crude prices can raise the cost of:

  • Petrol and diesel
  • Aviation fuel
  • Shipping and freight
  • Food transportation
  • Manufacturing
  • Electricity generation in some markets
  • Consumer goods

For countries that import petroleum products, the consequences can be particularly severe.

Higher international crude prices can increase import costs, put pressure on currencies and worsen inflation.

For businesses, more expensive energy means higher operating costs.

For households, it can mean higher transportation and food bills.

A crisis in a narrow waterway can therefore become a cost-of-living crisis thousands of kilometres away.

The other chokepoint: bab el-mandeb

At the same time, the Bab El-Mandeb Strait — the strategic gateway connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden — is also facing renewed instability.

Iran-aligned Houthi rebels in Yemen have continued attacks in the region while advancing along parts of the Red Sea coast.

The Houthis have also claimed attacks against Saudi military targets.

Their activity creates another threat to international shipping.

Together, Hormuz and Bab El-Mandeb represent two critical gateways for global energy and commercial trade.

Disruption at both could significantly increase shipping costs and pressure already-fragile supply chains.

Saudi arabia seeks help

The growing Houthi threat has also put Saudi Arabia in a difficult position.

Three sources told Reuters that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday and requested military assistance against the Houthis.

For now, Washington reportedly offered intelligence support rather than direct military involvement.

The dilemma for the United States is complicated.

Washington wants to protect its Saudi ally and international shipping routes, but deeper military involvement risks opening another front in an already expanding regional conflict.

Trump says he wants a deal

President Trump has maintained that he expects the Iran conflict to end this year.

During a weekend trip to Ireland, he reiterated that position and suggested that the war could potentially conclude after the U.S. midterm elections in November.

Trump has also said Iran has been repeatedly seeking talks.

But Tehran’s position remains firm: the Strait of Hormuz will not fully reopen until the United States meets its demands.

That leaves diplomacy facing a difficult test.

What happens if hormuz stays closed?

The biggest concern is duration.

A short disruption could create a temporary shock in oil markets.

A prolonged closure could be much more damaging.

The longer ships remain unable or unwilling to pass through Hormuz, the greater the pressure on available global oil inventories.

If alternative supply routes cannot compensate, prices could rise further.

Higher energy costs could then feed into inflation, transportation and manufacturing — creating a ripple effect across the global economy.

And if the Saudi pipeline remains offline at the same time, the pressure could become even greater.

Healthcare and the 2027 Vote: From Promises to Accountability and Solutions

By
Angel Gimalo
-
0

As Nigeria moves closer to the 2027 general elections, healthcare is increasingly becoming a critical part of the national conversation.

The debate goes beyond the need to build more hospitals or provide more medicines. It raises fundamental questions about how healthcare is funded, who delivers services, how citizens are protected from the financial burden of illness and, ultimately, who should be held accountable when the system fails.

The conversation follows an earlier discussion on healthcare as both an economic and political issue, and the need for political parties and candidates to move beyond broad campaign promises to clear, measurable health commitments.

But even when politicians make those commitments, another set of questions remains: Who will pay? Who will deliver? Who will manage the resources? And who will hold government accountable?

Also read this: Basic Health Care Provision Fund

Who Pays, Who Delivers and Who Is Accountable?

Nigeria’s healthcare system continues to face significant funding pressures. Government resources are limited, external assistance is becoming less predictable, while households continue to shoulder a substantial portion of healthcare costs.

The challenge, however, is not simply about how much money is allocated to healthcare.

It is also about how those funds are managed, where they go, what they produce and whether Nigerians can see tangible improvements in the services they receive.

This makes healthcare accountability an important issue ahead of the 2027 elections.

Citizens need to be able to determine whether increased healthcare allocations are translating into functioning hospitals, available medicines, adequate equipment, stronger primary healthcare services and better health outcomes.

Political leaders may therefore need to be judged not only by the size of their healthcare budgets, but also by measurable results.

For voters, the important questions should include: What was promised? How much was budgeted? What was delivered? And who is responsible when commitments are not met?

Health Insurance and the Cost of Falling Sick

For millions of Nigerian families, illness can quickly become a financial crisis.

When patients have to pay directly for consultations, medicines, diagnostic tests and treatment, the cost of healthcare can place significant pressure on household finances.

This is where health insurance becomes increasingly important.

Rather than waiting until a person becomes sick and then finding the money to pay for treatment, a functional health insurance system can provide financial protection and make healthcare costs more predictable.

Yet expanding insurance coverage remains a major challenge.

The question is not simply how to get more Nigerians enrolled, but how to ensure that insurance coverage actually provides access to medicines, tests, doctors and quality treatment when people need them.

As the 2027 elections approach, health insurance could therefore become an important area where voters demand specific commitments from political candidates.

Candidates could be asked to set measurable targets for expanding coverage, improving the quality of insured services and reducing the financial burden on households.

Ten Statistics That Show the Scale of Nigeria’s Healthcare Challenge

Recent health data highlights the scale of the issues facing Nigeria’s healthcare system.

72% — Household out-of-pocket payments accounted for about 72% of Nigeria’s current health expenditure in 2023.

$61.60 — Nigeria’s health expenditure per capita was $61.60 in 2023.

3.9% — Total health expenditure represented about 3.9% of Nigeria’s GDP in 2023.

110 deaths — Nigeria recorded an under-five mortality rate of 110 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2024.

41 deaths — Neonatal mortality stood at 41 deaths per 1,000 live births in the 2024 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

46% — Only 46% of births were attended by skilled health personnel, according to the 2024 NDHS.

63% — Antenatal care coverage stood at 63% in the 2024 NDHS.

15% — Modern contraceptive use among currently married women was 15% in 2024, up from 12% in 2018.

₦299 billion — The Basic Health Care Provision Fund was projected to rise to almost ₦299 billion in 2026, compared with ₦131.5 billion in 2024.

Nearly 60% — Nigeria’s 2025 federal health budget increased by nearly 60%, according to the Federal Government.

Taken together, these figures illustrate why healthcare is more than a social-sector issue. It affects household finances, maternal and child survival, productivity and the broader development of the country.

From Promises to Solutions

The healthcare conversation must ultimately move beyond identifying problems.

Nigeria faces limited resources and several competing national priorities. The challenge is therefore not simply to demand more money for healthcare, but to determine where available resources should be directed to achieve the greatest impact.

One priority is strengthening primary healthcare.

For many Nigerians, primary healthcare centres are the first point of contact with the health system. Improving their staffing, equipment, medicines and capacity could reduce pressure on secondary and tertiary hospitals while bringing essential services closer to communities.

Another priority is reducing the financial burden on patients.

Expanding effective health insurance, improving coverage and ensuring that insured patients actually receive quality services could help protect families from the economic consequences of illness.

Accountability is another critical part of the equation.

Government health commitments should be measurable enough for citizens, civil society organisations and the media to monitor.

Rather than simply promising to “improve healthcare,” political candidates could specify the number of facilities they intend to upgrade, the coverage targets they intend to achieve, the number of healthcare workers they plan to recruit or retain and the timelines for delivering those commitments.

That would give voters something concrete against which to measure performance.

What Should Voters Demand in 2027?

As political parties and candidates prepare for the 2027 elections, healthcare could become a test of whether campaign rhetoric can translate into measurable policy.

Voters should be asking candidates simple but important questions:

What exactly will you do?

How will you fund it?

When will you deliver it?

How will Nigerians measure your progress?

And what happens if you fail to meet your commitments?

Healthcare professionals, civil society organisations and the media also have a role to play in keeping these commitments in the public domain beyond election season.

A promise made during a campaign should not disappear once the votes have been counted.

The Bigger Picture

Healthcare is not only about hospitals, doctors and medicines.

It is about whether a family can afford to seek treatment without falling into financial hardship.

It is about whether mothers can give birth safely, whether children can access basic healthcare and whether Nigerians, regardless of where they live or what they earn, can obtain quality medical attention when they need it.

As Nigeria approaches 2027, the healthcare debate should therefore move from general promises to specific commitments, from commitments to implementation and from implementation to accountability.

The country does not simply need more campaign promises.

It needs priorities, sustainable funding, effective implementation and systems that allow citizens to see whether public resources are producing public value.

The 2027 elections provide an opportunity to make healthcare a measurable political issue — one where voters can judge leaders not by what they say on the campaign trail, but by what they actually deliver.

The ultimate question is no longer simply whether healthcare will be discussed during the elections.

It is whether Nigerians will demand enough from political leaders to make healthcare performance a condition for earning and retaining public trust.

The Essential ₦17 Trillion Issue Behind Nigeria’s Abandoned Buildings

By
Angel Gimalo
-
0

Across Nigeria, thousands of buildings remain unfinished or unused.

Moreover, billions of naira are invested, and many opportunities are lost, alongside unrealised development.

Some were designed to become homes, hospitals, schools, markets, hotels, offices and shopping complexes. Additionally, others began as government projects, private investments or community developments.

When construction stops, projects are left to deteriorate.

Moreover, the consequences extend beyond concrete and blocks.

There is money invested. Additionally, jobs were expected to be created. Furthermore, businesses were expected to operate. Moreover, families could have occupied homes. Finally, communities could have benefited from completed infrastructure.

In April 2026, stakeholders again raised concerns over Nigeria’s more than 56,000 abandoned projects.

Moreover, they described the situation as evidence of a serious disconnect between national plans, budgets and actual outcomes.

Moreover, industry reports have put the estimated value of these abandoned projects at more than ₦17 trillion.

Indeed, the scale of the problem becomes even more striking.

When compared with Nigeria’s housing crisis, it stands out.

The Federal Government’s National Housing Data Technical Committee reported that Nigeria’s validated housing deficit stood at 14.925 million housing units.

Additionally, the figure pertains to 2025.

This raises a critical question.

Moreover, how can a country facing a shortage of millions of homes have unfinished buildings and projects scattered across cities?

Why Do Projects Become Abandoned?

Project abandonment in Nigeria has been linked to several factors, including inadequate funding, poor planning, inflation, political transitions, contractual disputes, corruption, land-related litigation and weak institutional structures.

Government projects can also become vulnerable when administrations change and incoming governments choose to prioritise different projects.

The result can be a structure that has consumed significant public funds but remains incomplete.

Among the long-stalled or abandoned projects that have attracted public attention over the years are the Old Federal Government Secretariat Complex in Ikoyi, the Oluwalogbon Tower in Victoria Island, the former Le Méridien Towers/Luxury Collection Hotel development in Ikoyi, the NSITF or former National Provident Fund Building at Iyana Era, and several federal properties around Lagos Island and Marina.

Other well-known examples include the Suleja International Hotel in Niger State, Bayelsa Tower Hotel, the Abuja Millennium Tower and the Ajaokuta Steel Complex in Kogi State.

The National Stadium in Surulere, Lagos, also spent years in a state of deterioration before rehabilitation efforts. It is, however, more accurately described today as a previously neglected or derelict facility undergoing rehabilitation rather than simply an abandoned project.

The bigger issue is not merely the existence of these structures, but what their abandonment says about Nigeria’s approach to planning, financing and completing development projects.

When Investment Becomes a Liability

The problem is not limited to government projects.

Across Nigerian cities, unfinished residential buildings, estates, hotels, commercial properties and office developments can remain untouched for years.

For private investors, an abandoned property can quickly move from being an investment opportunity to becoming a financial liability.

Construction costs can rise significantly while a project remains dormant. Building materials can deteriorate, legal disputes can emerge, ownership may become unclear, and changes in the surrounding neighbourhood can affect the property’s original commercial value.

Yet, some abandoned structures may still have significant economic potential.

With proper due diligence, legal verification, financing and rehabilitation, unfinished buildings could potentially be converted into homes, offices, business hubs, hotels, commercial spaces or other productive assets.

This creates another important question for Nigeria: Should the country be looking more seriously at recovering existing structures instead of constantly starting new ones?

The Numbers Behind the Problem

Nigeria has been reported to have more than 56,000 abandoned projects nationwide, a figure again cited by stakeholders in April 2026.

The estimated value of these abandoned projects has been put at more than ₦17 trillion in professional and project-management reports.

At the same time, Nigeria’s validated housing deficit for 2025 stands at 14.925 million units, according to the Federal Government’s latest housing data.

Additional 2026 reports have placed the number of structurally defective or substandard homes at about 15.2 million. This figure is sometimes discussed alongside the official housing deficit to illustrate the broader housing challenge, but it should not be confused with the official deficit figure.

When the two figures are combined, some officials have described Nigeria’s effective housing shortage as approaching 28 million units. This should be understood as an effective shortage estimate rather than the country’s official housing-deficit figure.

The Federal Government says its latest housing data was developed from multiple validated sources and is intended to provide a stronger basis for housing policy, investment and planning.

From Abandonment to Asset

One possible solution is the creation of a comprehensive national register of abandoned public projects.

Such a register could document the location of each project, its original cost, contractor, amount already spent, current condition and reason for abandonment.

An independent audit could also be required before additional public funds are committed to reviving stalled projects.

For private properties, government could explore incentives such as tax relief, concessional financing and public-private partnerships to encourage credible investors to rehabilitate abandoned developments.

Such an approach could potentially create jobs, increase housing supply, revive commercial districts and recover value from investments that would otherwise continue to deteriorate.

However, rehabilitation would need to be supported by strong legal and financial due diligence. A property that appears abandoned may still be subject to ownership disputes, outstanding debts, litigation, planning restrictions or other legal complications.

A Question of Governance

The problem of abandoned projects ultimately goes beyond construction.

It raises questions about how projects are selected, budgeted, awarded, monitored and evaluated.

If public funds are committed to a project without a realistic financing and completion plan, the country risks creating another unfinished structure.

If contracts are repeatedly awarded without effective monitoring, accountability becomes difficult.

And when completed projects are not properly maintained, even successful investments can eventually become neglected assets.

The challenge, therefore, is not simply to build more.

It is to plan better, finance realistically, monitor effectively and complete projects that have already consumed public and private resources.

Can Nigeria Afford to Keep Building and Abandoning?

An abandoned building may appear to be nothing more than a structure that stopped growing.

But behind its walls are decisions, investments, promises, jobs, businesses, families and opportunities that never materialised.

For a country dealing with an officially validated housing deficit of almost 15 million units, the continued existence of thousands of unfinished projects presents a significant development contradiction.

The question Nigeria must confront is whether every solution has to begin with building something new.

Could some of the country’s existing abandoned structures be recovered, redesigned and put back into productive use?

The answer could help determine whether these buildings remain monuments to wasted opportunities or become part of the solution to Nigeria’s housing, infrastructure and economic challenges.

Development is not measured simply by the number of projects announced.

It is measured by how many are completed, put to use and sustained.

For Nigeria, the ₦17 trillion question may therefore not only be how much has been lost to abandoned projects, but how much of that value can still be recovered.

Russia Strikes Ukrainian Train Near Poland Border After Boris Johnson, European Officials Pass Through

By
Yemisi Lanre-Idowu
-
0
Russia attack Ukraine Train

No casualties were reported after a Russian drone struck a train engine at Yahodyn, just 2km from Poland, raising fresh concerns about the widening risks of the war.

A Russian drone has struck a Ukrainian passenger train near the Ukraine-Poland border, shortly after former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and senior European security officials travelled through the same railway corridor.

The strike occurred at Yahodyn, around 2km (1.2 miles) from the Polish border, according to Ukrainian and Polish authorities.

No casualties were reported.

The drone hit the train’s engine, forcing passengers to evacuate. Ukraine’s state railway company, Ukrzaliznytsia, said the passengers were ordered to leave the train about 15 minutes before the attack.

The incident has nevertheless raised fresh questions about Russia’s targeting of Ukraine’s railway infrastructure — and whether the war is moving dangerously close to NATO territory.

Did Russia target a diplomatic train?

One of the most sensitive elements of the incident is the timing.

Johnson and several senior European national security officials had travelled along the same railway line after attending the Yalta European Strategy (YES) conference in Kyiv.

The officials were returning from Kyiv when the Russian strike occurred.

Ukrzaliznytsia said the diplomatic train had departed the station earlier than expected because of changes to the timetable amid continuing threats of Russian attacks.

The railway operator added that it was “quite possible” the diplomatic train itself may have been the intended target.

There is, however, no independent confirmation that Russia deliberately targeted the diplomatic train.

Moscow said its forces had struck railway infrastructure in western Ukraine.

That distinction is significant as the incident is likely to become part of a wider debate over whether Russia is deliberately escalating attacks against targets close to NATO territory.

A narrow escape

Former CIA director David Petraeus, who was aboard another train at Yahodyn when the strike occurred, described the incident as terrifying.

Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, who also attended the Kyiv conference, said passengers on his train were instructed to prepare for evacuation after the train stopped.

The passengers were later told the danger had passed.

The train continued its journey and safely reached Dorohusk, the Polish border station.

Johnson later commented on the attack, questioning what he described as the logic behind striking a stationary Ukrainian locomotive so close to the Polish border.

He called for Ukraine’s allies to provide additional air-defence systems capable of intercepting Russian missiles and drones.

Why the location matters

Yahodyn’s location makes the incident particularly sensitive.

The railway station sits only about 2km from Poland, a member of both the European Union and NATO.

A Russian strike inside Ukraine is not, by itself, an attack on NATO territory.

But attacks occurring increasingly close to a NATO member’s border create additional risks of miscalculation, debris crossing borders or accidental escalation.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said the attack amounted to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “terror” knocking on the doors of the EU and NATO, and called for tougher sanctions against Moscow.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk convened an emergency meeting following the incident.

Tusk warned that Russia’s actions were escalating and moving increasingly closer to Poland’s border.

Russia’s growing focus on railways

The attack is also significant because Ukraine’s railway system remains critical to the country’s survival during the war.

With Ukrainian airspace closed to civilian aviation since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, trains have become the main means of long-distance travel for millions of Ukrainians.

Russia has increasingly targeted railway infrastructure, including trains, depots and other transport facilities.

Earlier incidents have included attacks on passenger trains and railway facilities, with casualties among passengers and railway workers.

Ukrainian officials argue that such attacks are intended not only to damage infrastructure but also to disrupt civilian movement and essential supply chains.

A vulnerable lifeline

Ukraine’s railway network has become much more than a transportation system.

It carries civilians fleeing dangerous areas.

It moves humanitarian supplies.

It transports military personnel and equipment.

It connects cities whose airports remain closed.

And it provides one of the few reliable ways for foreign diplomats and international officials to travel into and out of Ukraine.

That makes the railway network a strategically important part of the country’s wartime infrastructure.

Repeated attacks therefore have consequences far beyond damaged locomotives or railway tracks.

The war is closer to Europe’s door

The Yahodyn strike comes amid growing European concerns about Russian military activity and alleged acts of sabotage beyond Ukraine.

European governments have recently raised concerns over suspected Russian involvement in drone incidents, fires and other unexplained events across the continent — allegations Moscow has repeatedly denied.

At the same time, Russia has accused Ukraine of carrying out attacks against transport infrastructure and other targets.

The result is an increasingly tense security environment stretching from the battlefield in Ukraine into neighbouring European countries.

What happens next?

The immediate question is whether the Yahodyn strike was simply another attack on Ukrainian railway infrastructure or whether the presence of senior European officials on the same route points to a more deliberate escalation.

There is currently no public evidence proving that Boris Johnson or the other European officials were specifically targeted.

But the proximity to Poland, the timing of the strike and the presence of high-profile European figures have inevitably intensified concerns.

For Ukraine’s allies, the incident reinforces their argument that Kyiv needs stronger air defences.

For Poland and other NATO members, it is another reminder of how quickly Russia’s war can create security risks along Europe’s borders.

And for millions of Ukrainians who depend on trains every day, it is another warning that even the country’s vital civilian transport network is increasingly exposed.

₦7,000 to ₦15,000: How Nigeria’s Floods Are Quietly Emptying Your Food Budget

By
Yemisi Lanre-Idowu
-
0

Mrs. Ada arrived at the market determined to stick to her budget.

She had written her list at home, carefully, the way millions of Nigerian women do every week. At the top was a basket of tomatoes. She had set aside ₦7,000 for it.

“How much is this?” she asked the seller.

“₦15,000 last,” the vendor replied.

Ada thought she had misheard. She told the seller she had bought the same quantity for ₦7,000 just one week earlier.

The seller laughed — not unkindly.

“Madam, aren’t you in this country? Are you not aware of the floods? There are no tomatoes in the market. You either buy it or excuse me.”

In that moment, Ada faced the decision now confronting households across Nigeria: buy less than her family needs, or quietly break into savings she had set aside for something else entirely.

Her experience is not a market anecdote. It is a macroeconomic event arriving through the back door.

The price rise is not imaginary. It is measured.

Before anyone dismisses this as a vendor’s exaggeration, consider what the data shows.

Nairobi, Kenya – February 6, 2014: Ripe fruits stacked at a local fruit and vegetable market on February 6, 2014. Nairobi, Kenya. The market is frequently visited by locals and tourists.

Fresh tomato prices surged 158.3 per cent year-on-year in August 2026 — among the sharpest single-commodity increases in Nigeria’s inflation figures this year.

Food inflation rose to 20.31 per cent year-on-year, and in April 2026 food inflation crossed above headline inflation for the first time — 16.06 per cent against 15.69 per cent. That crossover matters. It means food, the item Nigerian households cannot postpone buying, is now rising faster than everything else.

In Bauchi, tomato prices reportedly climbed more than 200 per cent in some markets, reaching ₦29,578 by June 2026.

Nigeria’s most beloved dish has become a benchmark of the squeeze. The cost of cooking jollof rice has surged roughly 400 per cent in a decade, driven by a combination of insecurity and flooding.

Ada’s ₦7,000 to ₦15,000 jump is not an outlier. It is the average, told through one woman’s basket.

Flooding is not only an environmental disaster

Floods are conventionally measured in the visible: collapsed buildings, submerged roads, displaced families, bodies recovered.

There is a second ledger, and almost nobody publishes it.

The economic cost.

When farmland is submerged, production falls. When roads are damaged, moving goods becomes dearer. When markets are disrupted, goods become scarce. And when supply collapses while demand stays flat, the consumer pays the difference — in cash, immediately, at the counter.

Households already stretched by fuel costs, exchange-rate pass-through and utility tariffs have no buffer left to absorb it.

The numbers behind the water

Nigeria does not experience flooding as an occasional event. It experiences it as an annual certainty.

2022 — one of the worst years on record. More than 600 people killed and over 1.5 million displaced. Economic damage has been estimated between approximately $3.8 billion and $9.1 billion, with a median estimate near $6.7 billion.

2024 — according to the 2026 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan, flooding displaced 1 million people and destroyed 1.3 million hectares of farmland.

2025 — Nigeria’s hydrological authorities reported approximately 1.4 million people displaced and around 440,000 hectares of farmland destroyed.

2026 — government assessments indicate more than 14,000 communities could face flooding this year. The Nigerian Meteorological Agency issued a probable flash flood risk alert covering the first dekad of September 2026, the peak window of the season.

And the flooding has not been abstract. In Lapai Local Government Area of Niger State, floods in the Muye and adjoining communities destroyed homes, fish ponds and vast tracts of farmland this season.

Behind each statistic: a farmer whose harvest was drowned before it could be sold. A trader whose stock was soaked. A family that rebuilt only to rebuild again. A business that lost three months of revenue.

How a drowned farm in Niger State becomes a ₦15,000 tomato in Lagos

This is the mechanism most consumers never see, and it is worth tracing step by step.

  1. A farmer loses a harvest — tomatoes, pepper, groundnut, whatever was ready for market.
  2. A wholesaler receives less produce from the same ordering pattern.
  3. Scarcity appears at the aggregation market — the Mile 12 effect. Fewer baskets, same queue of buyers.
  4. The wholesale price resets upward, not gradually but in a jump, because perishables have no stored buffer.
  5. The retailer pays more and must pass it on or close.
  6. Transport costs rise simultaneously, because damaged roads force longer routes, more fuel and more vehicle wear.
  7. Mrs. Ada is asked ₦15,000.

Notice what happened. She never saw water. Her street did not flood. Her state may not have flooded at all.

For her, flooding is not experienced as floodwater. It is experienced as a more expensive basket of food.

That is precisely why the flood problem feels distant to so many Nigerians — and precisely why it is not distant at all.

Transport pays the price too

Flooding damages roads, under-mines bridges and closes routes outright.

Drivers divert to longer alternatives, burning more fuel across more hours. Some communities become temporarily unreachable, meaning produce from them simply never arrives. Vehicles break down more often on waterlogged surfaces, and repairs are priced in imported parts at naira rates that have not helped anyone.

Every one of those costs is added to the price of the goods being carried.

Analysts have been blunt about the arithmetic: fuel price increases and floods are now compounding one another, and both land in the same place — the household food basket. A trucker’s extra litre of diesel is a buyer’s extra hundred naira.

Who is responsible?

This is the question that gets asked in the week after the water recedes, and forgotten by the week after that.

Government bears significant responsibility — through drainage systems, flood-control infrastructure, urban and regional planning, environmental regulation, land-use enforcement, flood forecasting, early-warning dissemination and emergency response.

The uncomfortable part is that the warnings exist. NiMet issues seasonal and dekad-level flood risk advisories. Government assessments have identified over 14,000 vulnerable communities. Funding has been allocated. The 2026 humanitarian plan anticipates the crisis in advance.

The gap is not knowledge. The gap is execution before the rain.

But flooding is not only a government failure. Human activity demonstrably worsens it: blocked drains, indiscriminate waste dumping, construction on waterways and floodplains, culverts built without capacity calculations, wetlands filled for real estate.

This is not an argument for blaming victims of floods. It is an argument for shared responsibility — and for the unglamorous, untelevised maintenance work that never attracts a ribbon-cutting ceremony but would have saved Ada ₦8,000 this week.

A disaster we keep repeating

Every rainy season, the script is performed again.

Water rises. Communities submerge. Homes, businesses and farmlands disappear. People are displaced. Prices climb. Politicians visit. Relief is distributed.

Then the water recedes, and so does attention.

Until the next rainy season.

Experts and policymakers have repeated the same recommendations for two decades: invest in prevention, not just rescue. The recurrence of the crisis is now the strongest evidence available about which of those two things Nigeria actually funds.

Are we doing enough before the water arrives? The honest answer, given a 14,000-community exposure list and an annual repetition of the same outcome, is no.

What would actually reduce the damage

Emergency rescue is necessary. It is also, on its own, an admission of failure.

At government level:

  • Invest in drainage and flood-control infrastructure as a priority line, not a contingency
  • Enforce land-use rules against building on waterways, floodplains and drainage paths
  • Strengthen urban and regional planning and make it binding
  • Improve flood forecasting and, critically, translate alerts into action communities can understand and afford to act on
  • Fund prevention before the season, not only relief after it

At community and individual level:

  • Keep drainage channels clear — this is the cheapest flood control available
  • Stop dumping waste into canals and gutters
  • Refuse to build in or obstruct waterways
  • Take official warnings seriously and evacuate when instructed

At household level:

  • Expect perishable-price volatility during and after flood seasons and plan the weekly budget for it
  • Where possible, buy and preserve in season when prices collapse — the same tomatoes that will cost ₦15,000 are often unsellable at a fraction of that at harvest peak
  • Diversify sources rather than depending on one market

The objective should not simply be to rescue people after flooding. It should be to reduce the damage before the water arrives.

25 Years After 9/11: The Attack That Changed America

By
Ayomitunde Adeyemi
-
0
9/11 25 years on

NEW YORK — Twenty-five years ago, America watched in horror as four hijacked planes became weapons of mass destruction.

Two crashed into New York’s World Trade Center.

One struck the Pentagon.

A fourth came down in a Pennsylvania field after passengers fought back against the hijackers.

By the end of that day, 2,977 people had been killed.

But September 11, 2001, did not end when the towers fell. For the families who lost loved ones, the first responders who entered Ground Zero and the millions whose lives were transformed by what followed, 9/11 has never really been over.

On Friday, a quarter-century after the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history, America paused again to remember.

But this year’s anniversary carries a different weight. For the first time, an entire generation of Americans has reached adulthood without personal memories of the attacks.

They know 9/11 through photographs, documentaries, history lessons and the stories of parents and grandparents.

Yet they have inherited its consequences.

A day that changed America

The attacks killed people from different backgrounds, professions and nationalities. Office workers were trapped inside the World Trade Center.

Firefighters and police officers rushed toward the danger. Passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 fought back against their hijackers before the aircraft crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

At the Pentagon, military and civilian personnel were killed. The human toll was enormous.

But the consequences extended far beyond the nearly 3,000 people who died that morning. America’s response reshaped its foreign policy, national security system and domestic politics.

The United States launched the War on Terror. It invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq.

The Department of Homeland Security was created. Airport security was transformed. Intelligence and counterterrorism operations expanded. And America’s relationship with the wider world changed permanently.

The children of 9/11 are now adults

One of the most striking realities of the 25th anniversary is the passage of time. Millions of Americans alive today were not born when the planes struck. Others were too young to remember watching the towers collapse.

Yet the decisions made after 9/11 shaped the world in which they grew up. They inherited wars that lasted years. They grew up with heightened airport security and a dramatically changed approach to terrorism.They witnessed debates over immigration, surveillance, national security and civil liberties.

And they also inherited a society where the aftermath of 9/11 contributed to increased suspicion and discrimination against Muslim Americans and people from Muslim-majority countries.

The tragedy that initially produced an extraordinary wave of national unity therefore also exposed deep divisions that would persist for decades.

A FATHER’S NAME LIVES ON

For some families, remembering 9/11 is intensely personal.

Caroline Ogonowski is one of them. Her father, John Ogonowski, was the pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to strike the World Trade Center.

Twenty-five years later, she has become a mother herself. She recently visited her father’s grave with her baby — a child who carries his grandfather’s name.

The moment captures one of the most painful dimensions of the 9/11 legacy: The people who were killed did not get to meet the generations that came after them.

For families like Ogonowski’s, remembrance is therefore not simply about looking backward. It is about making sure that children who never knew the victims understand who they were. And why they must never be forgotten.

The heroes who didn’t come home

Among the most enduring images of 9/11 are firefighters, police officers and rescue workers running toward the burning towers while others ran away.

The FDNY lost 343 members on September 11 itself. But the death toll among first responders did not stop that day.

Thousands of emergency workers and others who worked around Ground Zero were exposed to dust, smoke and potentially toxic substances during the rescue and recovery operation.

Many later developed serious illnesses. Some have died decades after the attacks. The consequences are particularly stark within the New York Fire Department.

According to department records cited in the material surrounding this anniversary, more than 600 additional firefighters have died from illnesses linked to 9/11 since the attacks, including 26 in 2026 alone.

For these families, September 11 is therefore not simply an anniversary. It is a continuing story of illness, loss and unanswered questions.

The toxic legacy of ground zero

In the weeks and months after the towers collapsed, rescue and recovery workers operated in an environment filled with dust, smoke and debris.

Many were told at the time that the air was safe to breathe. Years later, some developed cancers, respiratory illnesses and other conditions associated with exposure at Ground Zero.

Patrick Whalen, a New York firefighter who spent months working at the site, was diagnosed with a rare cancer linked to toxic exposure in 2020.

He died the following year.

His experience reflects a painful reality: For some 9/11 responders, the rescue operation lasted decades.

The physical scars of the attacks were not limited to the buildings that collapsed. They were carried home by the people who survived them.

From unity to division

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Americans experienced an extraordinary period of grief and solidarity.

Flags appeared everywhere. Communities rallied around victims and first responders. But the aftermath also produced another legacy.

Muslim Americans and immigrants from Muslim-majority countries experienced increased discrimination and suspicion. The broader debate over terrorism, immigration, surveillance and national security became deeply political.

Twenty-five years later, those tensions have not disappeared. New York’s first Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani, was expected to join victims’ families and national leaders at the Manhattan memorial despite political pressure from some Republicans for him to stay away.

His participation underscores how much America itself has changed since 2001.

The wars that followed

Perhaps the biggest geopolitical legacy of 9/11 was the transformation of American foreign policy.

The United States went to war in Afghanistan weeks after the attacks. The conflict became America’s longest war.

Two years later, the U.S. invaded Iraq. The consequences extended across the Middle East and beyond, influencing international relations, migration, military spending and American politics for years.

The wars also came at an enormous human and financial cost. And public fatigue with America’s post-9/11 military interventions became an important part of the political environment that eventually helped propel Donald Trump to the presidency.

That history continues to shape American foreign policy today.

25 years later, what does 9/11 mean?

For someone born after September 11, 2001, the attacks are history. For a firefighter who lost colleagues, they are personal.

For a child who lost a parent, they are an absence that can never be filled. For a first responder battling a disease years later, they remain a physical reality.

For Muslim Americans who experienced discrimination in the aftermath, they represent a turning point. And for the United States, 9/11 remains one of the defining events of the 21st century.

It changed how Americans travelled. How governments approached terrorism. How wars were fought. How immigrants and minorities were perceived. How national security was understood. And how an entire generation understood the world.

The memory that refuses to fade

Twenty-five years later, the names are still read. The moments of silence are still observed. The photographs are still displayed.

The stories are still told. And a new generation is learning what happened from those who remember.

That may ultimately be the most important part of the anniversary. Because the towers can be rebuilt. The memorials can be constructed. The ceremonies can be repeated. But the people who were lost cannot be replaced.

September 11, 2001, lasted less than a day. Its consequences have lasted a quarter-century. And for many families, first responders and survivors, they are still unfolding.

Twenty-five years later, America is not only remembering where it was when the planes struck. It is confronting everything that happened afterward.

1...192021...2,682Page 20 of 2,682