I have been around this game for a long time. Over the last 30 years, basketball has taken me far and wide. I have seen how systems are organized, governed, funded, and sustained. I have been exposed to development frameworks built on long-term thinking, shared responsibility, and measurable outcomes. So forgive me when I ask certain questions.
They do not come from ignorance, but from experience. Aside from the Olympics and NBA, there is no level of basketball in Nigeria, that I have not participated in, worked with, or been part of in one form or another. In recent years, I deliberately chose to step away from Nigerian basketball — not out of bitterness, but clarity. At this point, I am entitled to say: I have seen it all, and I have heard it all. Which brings me to the uncomfortable questions we continue to avoid.
First: No matter the outcome of the NBBF elections—if they even take place—we will still wake up the next day with the same responsibility: to develop basketball for Nigeria and its stakeholders. So the honest question is this: will the election, or whoever emerges, fix the structural problems of Nigerian basketball? History suggests otherwise.
Second: What we currently practice is what I call optics-driven or political basketball. Yes, there are camps, clinics, tournaments, scholarships, and “giving back” initiatives. But we have failed to clearly articulate what kind of basketball system we want to run, how its components connect, and how value flows through it. What we have instead is entitlement, value extraction, sponsorship dependency, subsidies, and what Nigerians call stomach infrastructure. In plain terms, this is a charity-based system. Charity does not build ecosystems. So how exactly is this model expected to grow in a way that delivers real value to the majority of stakeholders?
Third: Aside from a few individuals experimenting with equipment and technology over the past three decades, our basketball culture has been built on expectations, noise, and visibility campaigns that are expensive, outlandish, and largely unproductive. Visibility without structure is not development. So how do we turn noise into systems, and hope into institutions?
Fourth: Government and its appointed administrators have mandates and agendas that are known only to them. The recurring assumption that we can somehow compel these actors to execute what stakeholders believe is best for the sport ignores political reality. The real question is not what should they do, but why do we believe they will? Finally: We operate in a country where systems rarely reform themselves. Electricity remains unreliable. Security is uncertain. Public institutions serve themselves more than citizens. Yet, against all evidence, we continue to believe that the same structures that failed us will suddenly save us — that audacity of hope will override decades of proof. So I ask plainly: how do we expect the same system that broke Nigerian basketball to fix it?
I may sound negative. I may appear obstinate. But this is not pessimism — it is honesty. Do the research, speak to those who have actually built functioning systems. The truth is simple and unavoidable: the only way to build a working basketball system is for the people most affected by its failure to fix it themselves. I am here. I have been here. I remain available for those bold enough to have this conversation seriously. Everything else is noise.
