The nation is still mourning the 25 people who died in the Nigerian Air Force aircraft crash at Igbokoda, Ondo State, even as three days official mourning declared by the federal government has elapsed. Grief would continue to remain in the homes of victims’ families, colleagues, friends, and well-wishers.

That, being duly acknowledged, there is a critical question that must be addressed and situated appropriately, so as not to be caught in the labyrinth of unprofessional and global embarrassment going forward. And this, the government cannot afford to ignore: How did an aircraft that ultimately had 25 people on board become an aircraft carrying 32 in the official public information chain?

On Monday, October 5, after Nigerian Air Force aircraft NAF 931 lost contact with Air Traffic Control at about 9:13 a.m. while flying from Benin to Lagos, the Aviation Minister, Festus Keyamo, announced that preliminary information indicated 25 passengers and seven crew members, totaling 32 people were aboard, even as he clarified that the control and regulation of military aircraft were outside the authority of the Ministry of Aviation and the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority.

But as much as that clarification was correct yet the public had been misinformed as the information lacked verification and factuality. It also entered the wider government communication system and was subsequently echoed at the Presidential level.

Then, on Tuesday, the Nigerian Air Force provided the verified figure to be 20 passengers and five crew members making 25 people in all. The Service also confirmed that there were no survivors and released the identities of those aboard. That is not a trivial discrepancy
as a difference of seven human beings
in an aircraft disaster represents a human being, a family, a friend, a colleague and a community.

It is important to note that the global community has moved beyond “say something first”. International aviation practice recognises that speed matters after an accident but accuracy matters the most.

The International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) guidance on accident communication says authorities should provide information that is “verified, timely, consistent, transparent and truthful”, while avoiding speculation. It also recommends clearly identifying who communicates with government officials, families, the media and other stakeholders.

And that is the lesson Nigeria should take seriously. Crisis communication is not a race to see which government institution speaks first. It is a system for ensuring that the right institution speaks with the right information at the right time.

ICAO’s guidance further recommends consistency of information across stakeholder groups so that different government channels do not create conflicting versions of the same event.
And this principle was precisely what was missing in the 32-versus-25 episode.

This is not to turn the tragic occurrence against the Aviation Minister rather to situate what the information architecture should be at various material occurrences.

The information was made available to him through the civil aviation system. Air Traffic Control knew when contact with the aircraft was lost and the Ministry had a legitimate role in reporting that development and supporting the emergency response.

There is no doubt that civilian agencies can provide essential assistance, such as; track the aircraft, provide radar information, coordinate emergency services and support search-and-rescue operations, but assistance is not ownership, and access to one part of the information chain does not confer authority over the entire chain.

The aircraft in question belongs to the Nigerian Air Force, including its manifest, crew records, passenger records, mission details and operational status. Hence, all these should have ultimately be verified by the Nigerian Air Force before they become definitive government facts.

Another lesson that Nigeria must learn is that the first constituency in an aviation tragedy is not the television audience, social media, nor political leadership, but the families of victims.

ICAO has repeatedly emphasised the importance of timely, accurate and compassionate communication with victims’ families. Its current framework places growing emphasis on national family-assistance systems and accurate information throughout the aftermath of an accident. This is why casualty figures must be treated with extraordinary care.

Imagine a family member seeing an official government statement saying that 32 people were aboard an aircraft and desperately wondering whether their relative was among them.

Imagine another family being told that their loved one was on the aircraft, only to discover later that the manifest had been wrong.

Imagine the emotional consequences of government being unable to provide one authoritative answer about who was actually on its own aircraft.
That is beyond public-relations but a humanitarian problem.

The Service was right not to rush into announcing fatalities while search-and-rescue operations were continuing. It was equally right to exercise caution before releasing names, particularly where next-of-kin notification was concerned.

Modern aviation safety increasingly recognises that public confidence depends not only on the eventual investigation but also on how information is managed immediately after an accident.

ICAO’s recent guidance stresses the need for timely, verified factual information and measures to strengthen confidence in accident investigations.

The United Kingdom, for example, has a formal military aviation safety structure through its Defence Safety Authority and Service Inquiry system, with investigations intended not merely to establish what happened but to produce recommendations that improve defence safety.

Nigeria should be moving in the same direction of clear command responsibility, professional investigation, disciplined communication and lessons that are actually implemented.

The tragedy must therefore not end with a condolence register, a national mourning period and promises of investigation. There must be a transparent examination of what happened, including the aircraft’s technical condition, maintenance history, operational circumstances, crew factors, weather, flight procedures, air traffic information, emergency response and every other relevant factor.

The difference between 32 and 25 should therefore not become another fleeting controversy that disappears from public attention.

It should become a lesson in how a serious government communicates during a national emergency.

We should not wait for another aircraft to disappear from radar before establishing who speaks, what they can say, how quickly they must say it, and how information is verified.

We, at Disclosure News, suggest that the government set up a military aviation crisis-communication protocol that can be activated immediately after an accident.

It should designate the lead spokesperson; establish verification procedures for manifests and casualty figures; create a single government information desk; protect next-of-kin notification; provide scheduled updates; distinguish confirmed facts from preliminary information; and ensure that every government institution communicates the same verified facts.

The Nigerian Air Force, for its part, must ensure that it can rapidly reconcile its aircraft manifest and assert information leadership when an accident involving its aircraft occurs.

The Presidency and other ministries must equally resist the temptation to amplify preliminary information simply because it is available, because in a crisis, being first is not the same as being right.

Nigeria is once again approaching a critical moment in its democratic journey. As preparations intensify for the 2027 general election, the attention of millions of Nigerians is naturally turning to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the institution entrusted with organising and conducting elections.

The expectations are enormous, and rightly so.

Elections are not merely dates on the political calendar. They are the principal means through which citizens choose those who will exercise political authority on their behalf. When elections are credible, peaceful and transparent, democracy is strengthened. When they are marred by administrative failures, violence, manipulation or a lack of confidence in the process, public faith in democratic institutions suffers.

INEC therefore has a responsibility that goes beyond conducting another election. It must protect the integrity of the electoral process and demonstrate, through its actions, that every eligible Nigerian’s vote matters.

The Commission has already commenced preparations for 2027. It has released a timetable and schedule of activities, while also working on voter registration and the cleaning of the voters’ register. INEC has acknowledged concerns surrounding duplicate registrations, inaccurate records and other anomalies and has announced a nationwide voter-revalidation exercise.
These are important steps. But preparations must not stop at announcements. The real test will be implementation.

A Credible Register Is Fundamental

One of the most important responsibilities before INEC is ensuring that the voters’ register is accurate, inclusive and credible. A questionable register can undermine an election before voting even begins.

The Commission must therefore ensure that voter registration and revalidation are accessible to eligible Nigerians, including people in rural communities and other areas where access to registration facilities may be difficult. At the same time, efforts to remove duplicates and other irregularities must be transparent and carefully conducted so that legitimate voters are not inadvertently disenfranchised.

The objective should be simple: every eligible citizen who wishes to vote should have a genuine opportunity to do so, while the integrity of the register is protected from abuse.

Technology Must Serve the Voter

Nigeria has invested heavily in electoral technology, including the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the electronic transmission of results. INEC’s current guidelines also provide for electronic transmission and collation procedures involving the IReV platform.
Technology, however, cannot be treated as a substitute for sound administration.

INEC must ensure that electoral technology is properly tested long before election day. Election officials must be adequately trained, equipment must be functional, and contingency arrangements must exist for technical failures.

Most importantly, the Commission should communicate clearly with voters about what the technology does and what it does not do. Public understanding is essential to preventing rumours and misinformation from undermining confidence in the process.

Election Logistics Must Improve

Few things damage confidence in an election more quickly than polling units opening late, election materials arriving after voting has commenced, missing officials or inadequate arrangements for voters.

INEC itself has recognised the importance of examining logistics, staff performance, voter sensitisation and communication gaps well before election day.

This is an area where preparation must be exceptionally rigorous.
Election materials should reach their destinations on time. Polling officials must know their responsibilities. Backup plans should exist for transportation, communication, technology and other foreseeable disruptions.

A country as large and diverse as Nigeria cannot afford to approach election logistics as an afterthought.

Independence Must Be Demonstrated

INEC’s independence is not merely a constitutional description; it must be visible in the Commission’s conduct.
The Commission must apply electoral rules consistently to all political parties and candidates, regardless of their influence, resources or political connections. Where violations occur, the appropriate legal provisions should be applied transparently and fairly.
At the same time, INEC must communicate its decisions promptly and clearly. Silence in the face of controversy creates room for speculation, while inconsistent communication can deepen public suspicion.

An independent electoral commission must be seen to belong to no political party and to serve no political interest other than the lawful expression of the people’s choice.

Security and the Protection of Voters
INEC cannot conduct a credible election without adequate security. Citizens should be able to go to polling units without fear or intimidation.
INEC has already stressed the importance of sustained security engagement as the country approaches the 2027 elections, recognising that citizens must feel safe to participate in the electoral process.

Security agencies therefore have a complementary responsibility. Their role should be to protect voters, election officials and electoral materials while remaining professional and politically neutral.

The presence of security personnel must reassure voters, not intimidate them.
Political Parties Must Also Do Their Part
While INEC carries the principal responsibility for administering the election, political parties and candidates also have obligations.

Parties must respect the electoral timetable, conduct their activities within the law, discourage violence and educate their supporters on peaceful participation. Candidates must accept that democracy involves competition under rules rather than politics without limits.

INEC should equally continue engaging political parties, civil society organisations, the media and other stakeholders. Such engagement can help identify problems early rather than waiting until election day.

The Media and Citizens Have Roles Too
A credible election requires an informed electorate.
The media must resist the temptation to become an instrument for spreading unverified claims, inflammatory rhetoric or misinformation. Citizens, for their part, should verify electoral information through credible sources before sharing it.

INEC has a statutory responsibility to conduct voter and civic education and to promote knowledge of democratic electoral processes.
That responsibility should receive sustained attention throughout the electoral cycle, particularly in communities where misinformation can easily create confusion.

INEC Must Learn From the Past
Every election provides lessons. The proper response to shortcomings identified in previous elections is not denial but institutional learning.
INEC should conduct continuous reviews of its systems, identify weaknesses and correct them before 2027. Staff performance, logistics, technology, voter education, result management and communication should all be subjected to rigorous internal scrutiny.

The Commission’s own leadership has acknowledged that progress does not mean perfection and has called for weaknesses to be addressed before election day rather than on its eve.
That approach should become the guiding principle of the preparations.
Conclusion: The Time to Earn Trust Is Now

The 2027 general election should not be treated as another routine electoral exercise. It is an opportunity to deepen Nigerians’ confidence in democracy and strengthen the institutions upon which democratic governance depends.
INEC must therefore live up to its responsibility—not through promises alone, but through meticulous planning, impartial enforcement of electoral rules, transparent communication, credible voter registration, reliable technology, efficient logistics and effective collaboration with relevant stakeholders.

The Commission should remember that its credibility will ultimately be judged not by the elegance of its plans but by the experience of the ordinary Nigerian at the polling unit.

Every voter who is able to register without discrimination, every polling unit that opens on time, every ballot that is properly accounted for, every result that is transparently handled and every citizen who can vote without intimidation represents a step toward a stronger democracy.

Nigeria deserves an election in which the rules are clear, the process is transparent and the people’s votes are treated with the seriousness they deserve.

INEC must begin earning that confidence now—long before Nigerians arrive at the polling units in 2027.

Nigeria’s recurring flooding crisis has once again exposed a painful weakness in the country’s approach to disaster management. Every rainy season brings warnings from government agencies, predictions of vulnerable communities and appeals to residents to prepare. Yet, when the waters rise, the country is repeatedly confronted with flooded homes, destroyed roads, displaced families, damaged farms and disrupted businesses.

The situation in 2026 is particularly troubling. The Federal Government recently warned communities in 24 states and the Federal Capital Territory of possible flooding between September 27 and October 10, following forecasts of heavy rainfall, rising river levels, saturated soil and increased surface runoff.

The warning should not be treated as another routine seasonal announcement. It is a call for urgent action.

Nigeria already possesses considerable information about where flooding is likely to occur. The Nigeria Hydrological Services Agency identified 14,118 communities in 266 Local Government Areas across 33 states and the FCT as being at high risk of flooding in 2026. � The problem, therefore, is increasingly not a lack of warning. It is the failure to consistently translate warnings into preventive action.

Beyond emergency relief

For too long, Nigeria’s response to flooding has been largely reactive. Government agencies arrive after disaster has struck, distribute food and household items, assess the damage and promise rehabilitation. While such assistance is necessary, it cannot substitute for prevention.

Recent flooding in Rivers State, for example, has already required NEMA to deploy a technical team and relief materials to affected communities. Such interventions are commendable, but they raise a larger question: how much of the resources devoted to post-disaster relief could have been saved if adequate drainage, flood-control infrastructure, land-use planning and early evacuation systems had been put in place beforehand?

Nigeria must move from a culture of emergency response to a culture of prevention. Poor drainage and indiscriminate development
Flooding is not caused by rainfall alone.

In many Nigerian cities, blocked drainage channels, indiscriminate dumping of refuse, construction on waterways and wetlands, inadequate storm-water infrastructure and poor urban planning dramatically worsen the effects of heavy rainfall.

A recent assessment in Calabar, for instance, found that blockage of a drainage channel contributed to serious flooding that damaged homes, vehicles and other property.

This is a reminder that some flooding disasters are partly man-made.
State and local governments must therefore enforce planning and environmental regulations without fear or favour. Developers who build on floodplains and waterways must be held accountable. Residents must also understand that throwing refuse into drainage channels is not a harmless habit; it can turn heavy rainfall into a neighbourhood disaster.
The human and economic cost
Flooding is much more than water entering homes. It destroys livelihoods.
Farmers lose crops and livestock. Traders lose merchandise. Small businesses are forced to close. Children miss school. Roads and bridges are damaged, while displaced families are pushed into temporary shelters and precarious living conditions.
Nigeria has already suffered enormous economic losses from recent flooding. Estimates cited in 2026 put losses from the 2024 and 2025 flooding episodes at about N13 trillion, covering damage to houses, infrastructure, agriculture and small businesses.

A country struggling with unemployment, food insecurity and high living costs simply cannot afford to continue rebuilding what could have been protected in the first place.

Early warnings must become early action

There is some encouraging movement. NEMA activated a National Emergency Operations Centre in August to improve monitoring, data collection and coordination of the country’s 2026 flood response. The Federal Government has also called for a shift from reactive response to proactive preparedness and early action.

These initiatives should be strengthened rather than allowed to become bureaucratic exercises.

When an area is identified as being at critical risk, authorities should not wait for residents to become stranded before acting. Evacuation centres should be prepared in advance. Emergency boats, ambulances and rescue equipment should be positioned close to vulnerable communities. Drainage systems should be cleared before heavy rainfall. Schools and public buildings that may serve as temporary shelters should be identified and equipped.
Most importantly, flood warnings must reach ordinary citizens in languages and formats they understand.

A national responsibility

The Federal Government cannot fight flooding alone. State and local governments have crucial responsibilities, particularly in drainage maintenance, urban planning, waste management and enforcement of building regulations.

Traditional rulers, community leaders, religious organisations, civil society groups and the media also have important roles to play in educating communities and disseminating warnings.

Citizens, for their part, must take official warnings seriously, avoid building or trading on waterways, keep drainage channels free of refuse and evacuate when authorities issue credible evacuation orders.

The time for another warning is over
Nigeria has enough experience, data and warnings to know that flooding is no longer an occasional disaster. It is a recurring national challenge that requires sustained investment and planning.

The country must therefore rethink the use of ecological and disaster-management funds. Money should be directed not merely toward feeding victims after disasters but toward flood-control infrastructure, resilient roads and bridges, drainage systems, river monitoring, watershed management, emergency shelters and community preparedness.
The recurring question should no longer be “Where has flooding occurred?” It should be “What did we do before the flood arrived?”

Nigeria cannot continue to count its losses every rainy season and call that disaster management. The Federal, state and local governments must turn flood forecasts into immediate preventive measures, enforce environmental and planning laws, strengthen early-warning systems and make accountability central to the management of disaster funds.

The water may be rising, but so too must Nigeria’s determination to prevent avoidable loss of life and property. This is the moment to act—not after the flood, but before it.