Philip Shaibu, Director-General and Chief Executive Officer of the National Institute for Sports (NIS), used a media interactive session this week to tackle a governance issue that has lingered since late 2024: the National Sports Commission (NSC) is operating with only two officials and without a formally constituted board, a setup Shaibu says contravenes the law that created the commission.
“You can’t run the commission without a board,” Shaibu said. “That is what the law demands. It’s the same logic as a government without a parliament—there have to be checks and balances.”
His comments have sparked renewed discussion about the structural integrity of Nigeria’s sports oversight system, with multiple voices across the sector weighing in on the implications.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu appointed Mallam Shehu Dikko as Chairman of the NSC on October 23, 2024, following the removal of the Federal Ministry of Sports Development. Three weeks later, on November 14, Bukola Olapade was named Director-General of the commission. Since then, the NSC has allegedly been managed by the two appointees without a board, a state of affairs that stakeholders describe in different terms—including illegal, structurally flawed, and harmful to the long-term development of sports.
The NSC Act, signed by President Muhammadu Buhari in 2023 during his final days in office, is reported to provide for a board of roughly 17 members. However, no further board appointments have been made in the seven months since Dikko and Olapade took charge.
Efforts to get a response from NSC Chairman Mallam Shehu Dikko on the concerns raised by stakeholders were unsuccessful. He reportedly acknowledged receiving the message, but said he was occupied and would “talk later,” without addressing the specific points raised. The lack of direct engagement has drawn particular attention because, even as those concerns increase, the commission continues to function without a board.
For Dr Steve Olarinoye, a retired NSC Deputy Director with long institutional experience, the present arrangement is without precedent in the commission’s history.
“This is about the first time the NSC will be without a board in the history of the commission in this country,” Olarinoye told NationSports. “If we are not going to lie to ourselves, things have not been working too well with how sports is being managed. The idea of a commission is to reduce bureaucracy, but doing that without a board becomes autocracy, and that is not good for sports administration.”
He added that historically, board membership has reflected all six geopolitical zones and included representatives from relevant professional bodies, which broadened perspectives and strengthened the institutional base.
“The board’s composition usually covers all the six geographical, political zones and representatives of other professional bodies, which brings diversified ideas,” Olarinoye said. “Without the board, there is also no room for checks and balances on the executives.”
Fan Ndubuoke, a former national president of the Sports Writers Association of Nigeria (SWAN), was among the most direct critics. Speaking at a workshop hosted by Imo SWAN in Owerri in April, Ndubuoke said the NSC, as currently structured, amounts to a sports administration “Ponzi” arrangement.
“The NSC functions more like improvisation than like a statutory institution with clear responsibilities, defined powers and enforceable accountability,” Ndubuoke said.
He accused the Federal Government of repeating a pattern of renaming and restructuring without addressing core questions about the legal basis of sports governance. He warned that where an institution lacks legal clarity, it becomes an easy target for manipulation.
“Policies keep changing with political winds, and appointments are made based on sentiment,” Ndubuoke said. “Public funds are spent without oversight. Money moves from government budgets into the hands of a small group of officials and their associates, while athletes, coaches and grassroots programmes receive far less.”
Ndubuoke also directed attention to the media, urging journalists to handle a landscape full of pressures and to resist any drift from professional excellence toward political patronage—an issue he identified as one of the biggest contributors to declining creativity in sports reporting.
The legal questions nobody is answering
Mazi Ikeddy Isiguzo, a former chairman of the Vanguard Editorial Board and one of Nigeria’s most respected journalists, raised the legal concerns even more sharply, pointing to multiple gaps that he said have never been answered publicly.
“Look at the absurdities about the NSC,” Isiguzo said, noting that he began covering sports in 1978 with The Punch. “Which law establishes a commission run by two men? When were they screened? When were they sworn in? Under what name does the National Assembly approve funding for the NSC?”
He then questioned the sporting consequences of those unanswered issues. “How do these alleged illegalities affect sports administration? Does it take two years to put an NSC in place? What was the NSC meant to achieve? How was it supposed to be achieved? Is it achieving it?”
Isiguzo also criticized what he described as institutional complicity. He noted that Olapade, the Director-General, is a lawyer yet is participating in what he called an illegality. He argued that National Assembly committees on sports have a major role in directing public funds toward a body he described as legally undefined, and he also took aim at media practitioners who have labeled the NSC “legal” without probing whether the Act that created it ever envisaged a two-person structure.
“Ask them whether the legal instrument that established it said it should be a two-man commission,” Isiguzo said.
He further revealed that in a private discussion with Dikko not long after he first wrote about the matter, the NSC chairman acknowledged that the 2023 Act did not replace the 1971 National Sports Commission Act. Isiguzo said Dikko also indicated that the proposed board of about 17 members was considered too large. Dikko reportedly preferred a smaller board of around 11 members, modeled on the Nigerian Communications Commission, with Executive Directors for each of the six geopolitical zones and space for stakeholders.
“In simple terms,” Isiguzo said, “Dikko was appointed to redesign the law that he was appointed under.”
Isiguzo also pointed to what he described as an odd episode involving the NNPC. During a delegation visit in November 2024, the corporation’s Chief Corporate Communications Officer reportedly addressed Dikko three times in an official press release as the “Minister of Sports”—a title he said does not exist and was never corrected publicly.
Structural defect with real consequences
Beyond the legal debate, many stakeholders are focusing on what the absence of a board means in practical terms for sports development in Nigeria.
Social activist and Chairman of the Advocacy for Nigeria Football Reform Concepts (ANFRC), Harrison Jalla, put the argument plainly.
“The NSC without a board is structurally defective. The board is the heartbeat of every commission. Nowhere in the world except Nigeria do only two men run a commission,” Jalla said. “Even if the Chairman and the DG are trying their best, the commission will keep operating like a headless chicken until a board is formed.”
“This is a statutory requirement the country cannot simply ignore,” he continued. “We often choose to do the wrong things in Nigerian sports. President Tinubu can only make a real difference when the NSC board is properly constituted in line with the Act.”
A veteran administrator with more than three decades of experience across continental and global sporting bodies—speaking on condition of anonymity—offered a detailed view of what a properly constituted board could deliver.
“A board will be more effective and produce clearer results,” he said. “Members can be assigned responsibilities across various sports, and performance can be measured against budget allocation, supervision and training. Each sport, or groups of sports, can be overseen directly by board members. The chairman would also be able to track how each sport is performing. With the right structure, the NSC can have proper departmental arrangements where results are monitored and failures can be corrected quickly.”
Demand for the board on competence
Daniel Igali, former President of the Nigeria Wrestling Federation (NWF) and Bayelsa State Commissioner for Sports, added both authority and a balanced tone to the discussion. While he said the return of the NSC under the current administration was broadly welcome—because sports governance should be more technical and institutional than political—he insisted the current structure has clear limits.
“No serious institution should rely only on the Chairman and Director-General for a long stretch,” Igali said. “Regardless of their experience or hard work, a board is required for balance, policy direction, accountability and broader stakeholder input. Sports touch athletes, federations, schools, the private sector, international relations, infrastructure and even employment. That means you need a wide-ranging governance structure to handle all of that properly.”
He cautioned that prolonged operation without a board can centralise decisions in a risky way and erode the kind of institutional continuity Nigerian sports has historically struggled with.
“One of the biggest problems Nigerian sports has faced over the years is inconsistency,” Igali said. “Every leadership brings its own direction and priorities. A functional board supports continuity and helps safeguard long-term planning.”
While urging fairness toward the current leadership—given the extensive challenges they inherited across federations, funding, facilities and athlete welfare—Igali argued that the more important task is strengthening the institution itself rather than focusing only on individuals.
He then issued a warning about what kind of people should make up any future board, calling for proven expertise across a wide range of areas.
“The board should include people with proven expertise in federation administration, athlete welfare, sports law, finance and marketing, grassroots and school sports development, coaching and high performance systems, infrastructure management, sports medicine and anti-doping,” Igali said. “It should also include individuals who understand international sports politics and governance.”
“If the board is filled mainly with political appointees who lack understanding of the sports ecosystem, the same cycle of inefficiency and instability will continue,” he added. “But if credible professionals with competence are appointed, the NSC can become the strong institutional engine Nigerian sports has lacked for many years.”
FIFA, IOC and CAF have boards, why not the NSC?
Arguments for a board can also be supported by the example of major sports organisations around the world. FIFA governs global football through an executive council. The International Olympic Committee oversees world sport with a full board and multiple commissions. Confederation of African Football, the International Table Tennis Federation, World Athletics—along with other bodies of varying size—operate with governing boards that enable shared decision-making, assign responsibility, and ensure accountability to stakeholders.
If institutions at that scale consider a governing board indispensable, Nigerian sports stakeholders are now asking a direct question: why should the NSC—which is meant to oversee the sports sector of Africa’s most populous country—be treated differently?
Emeka Obasi, a comparative historian, author and a pioneer board member of the Nigerian National Sports Hall of Fame, argued that removing the Sports Ministry created an accountability gap that a board alone might not fully correct.
“I disagree with scrapping the Sports Ministry,” Obasi said. “Without taking anything away from those running the NSC, I believe it would have been better to have Shehu Dikko as Sports Minister and Bukola Olapade as Sports Commission Director-General. Even as a parastatal under the ministry, the NSC board would still add significant value to sports development.”
He said a properly constituted board that includes relevant stakeholders would ensure decisions follow thorough deliberation. He also argued that combining the experience of Dikko and Olapade with the exposure and oversight that credible board members—particularly those familiar with corporate endorsements—can bring would benefit Nigerian sports.
“Without a supervising ministry, I suspect those at the top may be treating sports unfairly,” Obasi said. “That could also explain the delay in constituting the NSC board. The NNPC is a parastatal under the Petroleum Ministry and it also has a board. Even though the GMD of NNPC is powerful, the minister does not stand anywhere near him. Yes, we need a board to supervise the NSC—and we also need a minister to attend Federal Executive Council meetings.”
‘Nobody is telling President Tinubu anything’
Ade Somefun, former Associate Editor (Sports) at the Tribune, offered one of the most emotionally charged viewpoints. He expressed frustration with an administration he described as operating without consultation, accountability, or a genuine commitment to development-focused programmes.
“Why can’t the government, in its wisdom, constitute the board for the NSC? They are just going on as they like,” Somefun said. “They act as if they are untouchable. There has been no consultation with anyone. You just wake up and announce where things are heading.”
He criticised the commission’s priorities, arguing that it is focused on chasing competition outcomes while neglecting the developmental systems required for sustained growth.
“All they care about is competing, but nothing about developmental programmes. I am not happy with the situation. That is the truth,” Somefun said.
Somefun also said he was disturbed by the apparent lack of anyone willing to give honest advice to the president about the situation.
“Unfortunately, nobody is telling President Bola Tinubu that it is an aberration to have the NSC operating without a board,” Somefun said. “The NOC has a board. The IOC, despite its size, has a board. So what is happening with the NSC? The president should urgently constitute a board for the NSC so that his sports reforms agenda can be completed.”
Shaibu, whose intervention drove the renewed urgency this week, arguably captured the broader stakes best—framing the matter not only as governance, but as a question of survival for Nigerian sport in global competition.
He stressed the need for real coordination between the NIS, the NSC and other government agencies, arguing that weak institutional structures undermine the combined effort needed to return Nigeria to the top of African and world sport.
“I am the DG of the National Institute for Sport. Dikko is the Chairman of the NSC. There must be synergy between both of us for us to reach where we want to go,” Shaibu said. “And as the DG of the National Institute for Sport, I have a mandate to keep policing the system. We cannot be in this system and allow things to go wrong. We have to confront the truth. What has happened to our sports? Why aren’t we where we should be? Why are we lagging behind other countries?”
Shaibu’s remarks also carried a politically significant element: he placed responsibility firmly on the individuals appointed to run the institutions. In what amounted to a public shift of blame, the NIS chief made clear that delivery rests with the appointees themselves—naming, among others, himself, Dikko and the NFF President, Ibrahim Gusau.
By drawing that boundary so clearly, Shaibu effectively sent a message that if Nigerian sports continues to struggle, if the NSC fails to meet its mandate, or if the Super Eagles miss another World Cup, accountability should point to the desks of the appointees rather than to Aso Rock.
“We must also listen to the stakeholders. The stakeholders are very important. We must listen to them,” Shaibu said, in comments that appeared aimed at fellow institutional heads as much as at the wider sports community.
However, that position clashes with the views of several other stakeholders who have directed their frustration straight at the president. Somefun, for example, said Tinubu personally bears responsibility for the current situation.
“Unfortunately, nobody is telling President Bola Tinubu that it is an aberration to have the NSC running without a board,” Somefun said. “The president should as a matter of urgency constitute a board for the NSC so that his reforms agenda for sports can be complete.”
Jalla similarly framed the remedy as a presidential responsibility. “President Tinubu can only create a positive impact in Nigerian sports when the NSC board is duly constituted in line with the act,” he said.
The disagreement between Shaibu’s institutional accountability framing and the argument for direct presidential accountability points to a deeper issue at the centre of the debate: who ultimately owns the failure of Nigerian sports governance? Is it the appointees running the commission without a board, or the president who appointed them and holds the power to complete the structure?
Shaibu’s public answer leans toward the former. Yet the stakeholders demanding urgent action from Tinubu suggest the two issues cannot be separated so easily.
What remains clear is Shaibu’s insistence on urgency and the dangers of continuing delay.
“We must also ensure that the board of the NSC is constituted. It is the law,” Shaibu said. “For me, we are ready to work. We are ready to ensure that Nigerian sports returns to the top position in Africa and the world. We cannot afford to miss another World Cup in the next three or four years. We must start now to do the right thing.”
Nearly two years after the NSC was reconstituted with only two officials at the helm, doing the right thing begins with a single decision that rests with President Tinubu: form the board, and do it properly.
