News
US President-Elect, Joseph R. Biden Jr, Shaped By Tragedy, Tradition
Thirty-three years ago, he was the fast-talking junior senator from Delaware with a chip on his shoulder, desperate to prove his gravitas during a brief, ill-fated presidential run.
The next time around, in 2008, he was the seasoned foreign policy hand and veteran lawmaker who strained to capture the imagination of Democratic presidential primary voters.
As he weighed a third attempt at the presidency last year, many Democrats feared he was too late. Too old, too moderate, too meandering to excite ascendant voices in his party, too rooted in the more civil politics of the past to nimbly handle Donald Trump.
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. ran anyway. He ran as a grieving father who connected with a country in pain. As a relative centrist who emphasized character, stability and belief in bipartisanship over the particulars of a policy agenda. As a flawed, uneven campaigner whose vulnerabilities were ultimately drowned out by his opponent’s outsize weaknesses, and eclipsed by the seismic issues at stake, as the nation confronted the ravages of a deadly pandemic.
In many ways, he ran as the politician he has always been. And for one extraordinary election, that was enough.
“They’re not so much saying, ‘I’m investing in Joe Biden because of his philosophy,’” said former Senator William S. Cohen, Republican of Maine, who served with Mr. Biden and supported him this year. “They’re invested in Joe Biden because of him, of who they see as being a human being.”
Mr. Biden’s victory on Saturday is the culmination of a career that began in the Nixon era and spanned a half-century of political and social upheaval. But if the country, the political parties and Washington have changed since Mr. Biden, now 77, arrived in the Senate as a 30-year-old widower in 1973, some of his attitudes — about governing and about his fellow Americans — have hardly changed at all.
He still reveres institutions, defiantly champions compromise and sees politics more in terms of relationships than ideology. He has insisted that with Mr. Trump out of office, Republicans will have an “epiphany” about working with Democrats — a view that elides the fact that Republicans were rarely interested in working with the Obama administration when Mr. Biden was vice president.
Those beliefs, coupled with his reputation as an empathetic and experienced leader, made Mr. Biden acceptable to a broad coalition of Americans this year, including independents and some moderate Republicans.
Now, Mr. Biden’s convictions about how to unite the country and move forward will be tested as never before.
He will take the helm of a nation devastated by a health crisis, reeling from an economic downturn and divided over virtually every major political matter of the day, from how and even whether to confront climate change and racial injustice, to baseless questions from some of Mr. Trump’s supporters about the very legitimacy of free and fair election results.
His first priority, Mr. Biden has said, will be to bring the coronavirus under control, as he also works to invest in infrastructure and to promote economic growth. Mr. Biden has released a series of policy plans around all of those issues, and has made clear that a national emergency calls for urgent and ambitious action.
But the president-elect, a 36-year veteran of the Senate who has never embraced the most far-reaching progressive proposals, is also well aware that the partisan makeup of Washington may limit the scope of his agenda. He is unlikely to press for rapid, transformational change of institutions like the Supreme Court or to embrace the boldest proposals in the Green New Deal.
Yet for all of his instincts for consensus-building, he will face enormous and conflicting pressures when he returns to Washington.
Progressives who papered over their differences with Mr. Biden in the name of defeating Mr. Trump will quickly turn to fighting for their priorities, which may not always align with Mr. Biden’s goals or timeline.
“Where the progressive energy will really turn angry is if we see Biden really compromising on core principles,” warned Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Even his closest allies believe there are elements of his long record that should be reconsidered from the White House, including the legacy of the crime bills passed during his tenure in the Senate. Mr. Biden for years served as a tough-on-crime Democrat, and he has sometimes struggled to account for his leading role in the 1994 crime bill, which many experts now associate with mass incarceration.
“He needs to put together a commission or a committee to study the 1986 and 1994 crime bills,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking Black official in Congress, describing mass incarceration as an unintended consequence. “We’ve got to rectify.”
And Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the powerful Republican leader, has a relationship with Mr. Biden — but he is unlikely to be moved by encomiums to bipartisanship and civility.
“Joe is a peacemaker — he’s always tried to get along with Republicans,” said Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat and the former Senate majority leader.
But he was skeptical that Republican leaders in Congress would feel similarly about curbing divisiveness in Washington.
“I just hope Joe’s right and I’m wrong,” he said, “but I don’t see that coming to an end.”
Mr. Biden was a mediocre student with big ambitions, a gregarious young football player from an Irish Catholic family who overcame a stutter and dreamed of running for president.
In the meantime, he settled for school politics, serving as class president at his Catholic high school and adopting an approachable manner that he would deploy decades later on the campaign trail.
“The joke was, if Joe stood next to a light pole, he’d strike up a conversation,” said Bob Markel, a childhood friend of Mr. Biden’s. “You were talking to him for 20 seconds, he’d put out his hand and say, ‘Joe Biden.’”
He came from a line of politically engaged Pennsylvanians on his mother’s side, with a great-grandfather who served as a state senator. His father was a dignified man who had struggled financially, “a student of history with an unyielding sense of justice,” Mr. Biden said in his eulogy. Joseph R. Biden Sr., who moved the family from Scranton, Pa., to Delaware when Mr. Biden was 10, shaped his son’s moral compass and instilled in him a strong sense of identity; his story looms large in Mr. Biden’s efforts today to connect with working-class Americans.
Mr. Biden enrolled at the University of Delaware, where he threw himself into politics as freshman class president. He participated in the occasional high jinks, though even then he was fairly conservative in his personal manner.
“It’s the same style that I think we’ve seen since he was a teenager,” Mr. Markel said. “That moderation can be seen when he was in his teens. He was a fun-loving guy, certainly outgoing, but he didn’t do crazy things.”
For all of his political ambitions, he was at a remove from the antiwar activism taking hold among his peers in the caldron of the 1960s, and he was not one for protesting. After graduating from law school, he followed a path into institutional Democratic politics: young lawyer, part-time public defender and rising star within the Delaware party establishment.
At the end of that decade, party elders suggested he try his hand at a seat on the New Castle County Council.
“I spent most of my time in heavily Democratic precincts,” Mr. Biden recalled, describing the race in a memoir. “But I also spent a great deal of time going door to door in the middle-class neighborhoods like the one I grew up in. They were overwhelmingly Republican in 1970, but I knew how to talk to them.”
At the age of 30, Mr. Biden was moving swiftly in his political career. But personally, he was a broken man.
In a day, he had gone from a married father of three who won a startling victory in the 1972 Senate race to a widower with two toddlers in the hospital after a car crash killed his wife, Neilia, and their baby daughter, Naomi.
For months, he struggled to adjust to the Senate job he had wanted so badly.
Decades later, one of his surviving sons, Beau, would die of brain cancer. Mr. Biden, by then vice president, would be shattered anew.
Yet those staggering personal losses, friends say, shaped Mr. Biden’s uncommon ability to empathize — perhaps his greatest strength.
On the campaign trail, he never spoke with deeper authority than when he promised a grieving voter that one day, the memory of a loved one would bring a smile before a tear. His skill at connecting with voters in pain, allies say, uniquely prepared him to run for president amid a pandemic that has killed more than 237,000 people in the United States and upended the lives of many others on Mr. Trump’s watch.
“He understood the emotional trauma that Trump has inflicted on the country in a way that most of the other candidates didn’t,” said Shailagh Murray, who was a top aide to Mr. Biden as vice president.
After the 1972 accident, Mr. Biden slowly began rebuilding his life, later marrying Jill Jacobs and having a daughter, Ashley.
And eventually, he settled into Washington, too, where his early instincts for bipartisanship and working within the system were reinforced by mentors like Mike Mansfield, the longtime Senate majority leader.
Mr. Biden rose to lead the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. He advanced signature policy achievements like the Violence Against Women Act and an assault weapons ban, and he developed relationships with leaders around the world. He torpedoed the nomination of Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court, a setback that some Republicans remain bitter about to this day, and championed the confirmation of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
His tenure in the Senate is also associated with what many Americans see as the mistreatment of Anita Hill before his committee during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas; with his vote for the Iraq war and his opposition to busing; and with his leading efforts on the 1994 crime bill that troubled some voters throughout the campaign.
As he navigated Congress, Mr. Biden built relationships with similarly consensus-minded Republicans like Senators Bob Dole, Arlen Specter and John McCain.
But Mr. Biden, who has said he was motivated to run for office in part by a belief in civil rights, was also willing to work with even the most virulent segregationist senators. And perhaps, the most controversial speech he has given was his eulogy for Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.
“At least there was some civility,” Mr. Biden said at a fund-raiser in June 2019, citing James O. Eastland of Mississippi and Herman E. Talmadge of Georgia. “We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done.”
Under fire, Mr. Biden ultimately expressed regret for the way he invoked segregationist former colleagues.
He did not apologize for the instinct.
The stature Mr. Biden gained in the Senate did not always translate on the presidential campaign trail.
His 1988 race ended in humiliation amid a plagiarism controversy.
In 2008, Mr. Biden struggled to stand out in a talented and crowded field that included Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He dropped out after Iowa, after cementing his reputation for verbal gaffes by referring to Mr. Obama as “articulate and bright and clean.”
But as Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden was in many ways back in his element.
“Every time we had a trouble in the administration, who got sent to the Hill to settle it? Me,” Mr. Biden said at that 2019 fund-raiser. “Because I demonstrate respect for them.”
Sometimes that approach got him results — he helped secure three Republican votes for the economic stimulus bill in 2009, for example.
On other occasions — including a major gun control effort after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut — it ultimately did not.
Mr. Biden, like many of his fellow Democrats, was enraged by the Trump presidency and fearful about the corrosive effects of four more years of extraordinary divisiveness.
But he was also closely attuned to moderate, older Black primary voters and had carefully followed which Democrats won in the toughest districts in the 2018 midterm elections. As Mr. Biden mulled a third presidential bid, he was skeptical of tacking far to the left in response to Mr. Trump and his Republican allies. And he was convinced, based on his own experiences, that he could help find common ground.
“Through very difficult periods in the country’s history, he believes he has been able to bring people together,” said Mike Donilon, Mr. Biden’s chief strategist, citing the 2009 stimulus bill and his efforts on a sweeping health measure at the end of 2016. “Beyond the politics, there are also just fundamental judgments about how to treat people, how to talk to them.”
Throughout his campaign, Mr. Biden has championed that approach, sometimes with a touch of performative defensiveness.
“We need to revive the spirit of bipartisanship in this country,” he said in a speech in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, last month. “I’m accused of being naïve. I’m told, ‘Maybe, that’s the way things used to work, Joe, but they can’t work that way anymore.’”
“They can and they must if we’re going to get anything done,” he said.
Mr. Biden, of course, has a policy agenda too, one that he has addressed often in recent months.
He ran on a platform of expanding health care access through a public option, and promoting the middle class. He promised to tackle climate change and to combat racial injustice, acknowledging that America has “never lived up” to the promise that all Americans are created equal. After the pandemic hit, he grew increasingly open to more ambitious social and economic proposals.
But more than anything, he ran as himself, with all of the convictions and the flaws he has displayed over a half-century in public life.
There were the exaggerations and verbal blunders and the flashes of temper. He lost the first three contests, and his campaign was practically moribund when Black voters in South Carolina, who saw him as a familiar and reassuring figure in troubled times, rescued his bid.
“We know Joe,” Mr. Clyburn said as he endorsed Mr. Biden. “But most importantly, Joe knows us.”
And through those peaks and valleys, Mr. Biden hewed to one consistent message: that the turmoil of the Trump era was an existential threat to the character of the country — and that he was uniquely equipped to lower the nation’s temperature and try to bring the country together.
“Has the heart of this nation turned to stone?” Mr. Biden said recently, speaking in Warm Springs, Georgia. “I refuse to believe it. I know this country. I know our people. And I know we can unite and heal this nation.”
In some ways, it is a promise he has been preparing to make for his whole career.
This time around, a majority of American voters decided to believe him.
News
SERAP Drags FG To ECOWAS Court Over N78.8bn Cash Transfer
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has sued the Federal Government at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice over alleged diversion, irregular expenditure and failure to account for N78.8bn allocated to cash-transfer and social-protection programmes.
SERAP, in a statement released by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, yesterday, said the allegations involved the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, the National Cash Transfer Office and the National Social Safety Nets Coordinating Office.
The allegations were documented in the Auditor-General of the Federation’s 2024 Annual Report, published on August 7, 2026.
According to the report, the findings covered various periods between January 2023 and December 31, 2024.
In the suit, marked ECW/CCJ/APP/42/26 and filed last week, SERAP is seeking a declaration that the government’s failure to account for the funds violates Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.
The organisation is also asking the court to order the government to provide a comprehensive account of the questioned funds, investigate the alleged irregularities, recover any money improperly spent or diverted where established, and strengthen financial oversight of social-protection programmes.
SERAP argued that the alleged financial irregularities could undermine the rights of vulnerable Nigerians to social security and an adequate standard of living, including access to food, clothing and housing.
The statement party read, “The funds were intended to benefit over 3.2 million households across 35 states, whose access to financial assistance has been affected by the allegations made by the Auditor-General.”
The suit, filed by SERAP’s lawyers, Kolawole Oluwadare and Kehinde Oyewumi, stated that the government’s failure to investigate the allegations and recover any improperly spent funds violated its obligations to protect vulnerable households.
“The failure to investigate the N78.8 billion cash-transfer scandal, account for the questioned funds and recover any unlawfully spent amounts violates Nigeria’s obligations to protect the human rights of vulnerable households,” the suit partly read.
The organisation said it instituted the case to protect affected households and ensure accountability for public funds allocated for their benefit.
“SERAP brings this public-interest case to protect the interests of affected households and ensure accountability for public funds allocated for their benefit,” it stated.
The organisation maintained that cash-transfer programmes could help address extreme poverty and enable vulnerable people to meet their basic needs, but argued that the government had a duty to ensure the funds were properly managed.
“The right to social security cannot be effectively realised merely by establishing a formal cash-transfer programme where the State fails to maintain reasonable systems for identifying beneficiaries, maintaining records, reconciling disbursements, monitoring expenditure, investigating irregularities and remedying losses,” the statement further stated.
According to SERAP, the Auditor-General questioned approximately N33.751bn reportedly transferred to more than 3.2 million households across 35 states in 2023, noting that adequate records to verify the payments and reconcile beneficiary records were not provided.
The report also identified N36.744bn in payments allegedly made without prepayment audits, N4.616bn in unsupported expenditures, N350.182m for enrolment, N89.511m for store purchases and N17.422m in diesel advances.
SERAP said the suit was brought under Article 9(4) of the ECOWAS Court Protocol to protect affected households and ensure accountability for public funds intended for social protection.
“The issue is whether the government has discharged its obligations under applicable human-rights treaties to safeguard resources allocated for social protection, investigate documented financial irregularities, provide effective remedies and ensure that those resources are applied for their intended purposes,” it stated.
The organisation also cited the constitutional responsibility of the Auditor-General to audit and report on the public accounts of the Federation and the offices and agencies of the Federal Government, describing the findings in the annual report as important official records of public expenditure.
It relied on Articles 1 and 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, arguing that the government had obligations to give effect to protected rights and ensure that failures in administering social-protection programmes did not result in discriminatory exclusion or unequal access to benefits.
“The Nigerian government has the obligation to take effective measures to prevent and address corruption and related misuse of public resources. The government has failed to take appropriate measures in response to the allegations made by the Auditor-General”, the statement added.
SERAP said it had previously urged President Bola Tinubu and relevant authorities to account for the questioned funds, publish audit records, investigate irregular expenditures, recover any funds unlawfully spent or diverted and take appropriate action against those responsible.
Following the publication of the Auditor-General’s report, the organisation issued a public statement and sent a letter dated September 5, 2026, requesting action on the findings. It also sought payment and beneficiary records, verification documents and an explanation for the missing REMITA records.
“The deadline given to the government to address the Auditor-General’s findings had elapsed without adequate action,” it stated.
The organisation further cited Articles 1 and 21 of the African Charter, alongside Article 9 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, as requiring effective measures to protect rights and resources, promote transparent public financial management, investigate irregularities and recover public funds where losses or improper expenditure were established.
SERAP also relied on the works of legal scholar Kolawole Olaniyan, including Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa, published by Hart Publishing in 2014, and Ownership of Proceeds of Corruption in International Law, published by Oxford University Press in 2023. It said the publications provided persuasive academic authority on corruption’s effects on human rights, public resources, accountability and international legal remedies.
“SERAP accordingly submits that the Auditor-General’s findings cannot be treated merely as administrative irregularities where public funds allocated for social protection may have been lost, improperly spent or left unaccounted for, and the government fails to take effective corrective action,” the statement added.
SERAP is asking the court to direct the government to conduct an independent, prompt and effective investigation into the identified irregularities, recover public funds improperly spent, diverted or lost where established, and take appropriate legal or administrative action against those found responsible, in accordance with due process.
It also wants the government to strengthen financial accountability, beneficiary verification, auditing, reconciliation and oversight mechanisms to prevent a recurrence of the alleged irregularities and ensure that eligible vulnerable households receive their intended benefits.
The organisation is further seeking an order restraining the government from administering or disbursing cash-transfer and social-protection funds without adequate accountability and oversight mechanisms, as well as appropriate remedies for any established adverse effects on beneficiaries’ protected rights.
No date has, however, been fixed for the hearing of the suit.
News
FG releases N38.93bn to upgrade 166 tertiary institutions
The Federal Government has released N38.93bn to 166 public tertiary institutions nationwide under the Needs Assessment Revitalisation Fund to address infrastructure deficits and improve teaching and learning facilities.
The intervention covers 79 universities, 46 polytechnics and 41 colleges of education, with universities receiving the largest share of the allocation.
The Federal Ministry of Finance disclosed this in a statement issued on Sunday by its Head of Media, Efe Ovuakporie, explaining that the funds would support approved projects in beneficiary institutions.
The statement read, “The Federal Government has disbursed N38.93bn to 166 public tertiary institutions nationwide under the Needs Assessment Revitalisation Fund.”
According to the ministry, the university component accounts for N28.5bn, while N5.8bn has been allocated to polytechnics and N4.7bn to colleges of education.
According to the ministry, the university component accounts for N28.5bn, while N5.8bn has been allocated to polytechnics and N4.7bn to colleges of education.
An analysis of the allocations by PUNCH Online showed that universities would receive approximately 73.2 per cent of the announced N38.93bn intervention, making them the largest beneficiaries.
Polytechnics would account for about 14.9 per cent, while colleges of education would receive approximately 12.1 per cent.
The ministry explained that the intervention was intended to address longstanding infrastructure challenges in public tertiary institutions and support the implementation of agreements reached between the Federal Government and the Academic Staff Union of Universities.
It stated, “The intervention forms part of the Federal Government’s efforts to address the needs of public universities and support the implementation of agreed measures under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Government and the Academic Staff Union of Universities.”
The Needs Assessment Revitalisation Fund is designed to support improvements in institutional infrastructure and other identified needs, particularly in public universities, where inadequate facilities have remained a recurring concern in negotiations between the government and academic unions.
The ministry said the latest disbursement would enable beneficiary institutions to begin new projects or continue previously approved interventions aimed at improving their operational capacity.
“The funds are expected to enable beneficiary institutions to commence or advance approved projects addressing critical infrastructure and other identified institutional needs, with the overall objective of strengthening the quality of tertiary education in Nigeria,” it added.
The government also emphasised the need for coordination among the Federal Ministry of Finance, Federal Ministry of Education and beneficiary institutions to ensure that the released funds produced measurable improvements.
It noted that effective collaboration would be necessary to translate the financial intervention into improved infrastructure, institutional capacity and learning conditions.
News
Senate Passes Bill For Establishment Of Federal University Of Agriculture In Rivers
The bill to approve the establishment of the Federal University of Agriculture, Emughan, Abua-Odual Local Government Area of Rivers State has passed third reading.
The Bill, titled “A Bill for an Act to Amend the Federal Universities of Agriculture Act, Cap. F22, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2024” was sponsored by Senator Ipalibo Harry Banigo representing Rivers West Senatorial District.
The bill seeks to amend the existing Federal Universities of Agriculture Act to provide for the establishment of the proposed institution in Emughan community in Rivers State.
The passage of the bill by the Senate marks a significant legislative milestone towards the establishment of the proposed university.
When established, the institution is expected to expand access to higher education, promote agricultural research and innovation, develop skilled manpower, and contribute to the economic growth of Rivers State and Nigeria at large.
According to a statement made available to The Tide, the bill, having passed the Third Reading in the Senate, will now proceed to the House of Representatives for concurrence as part of the legislative process towards its enactment into law.
The bill underscores Senator Banigo’s commitment to advancing educational opportunities and strengthening agricultural development in Rivers State.
By: Kevin Nengia
-
Education2 days agoFCE Yola Graduates 3,555 Teachers , Seeks Upgrade to University
-
Sports2 days agoNigerian Trio Target Titles At PFL Africa Finals
-
Niger Delta2 days agoDiri Restates Stance On Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway
-
Niger Delta2 days agoC’River, NUJ Pay Tribute To Late Guardian Editor
-
News2 days agoNDLEA Recovers Tons Of Illicit Drug Consignments In Nine States
-
Opinion2 days agoChecking Voter Apathy In Nigeria’s Electoral Process
-
Politics2 days ago2027: DICKSON’S EX-ALLY VOWS TO WORK AGAINST NDC INTEREST IN BAYELSA
-
Politics2 days ago2027: GROUP PLEDGES 40,000 SUPPORTERS FOR COALITION CANDIDATES IN RIVERS
