Conflicting reports have emerged over the appointment of Muhammed Babangida as Chairman of the Bank of Agriculture (BOA), with two contradictory statements creating uncertainty about his acceptance of the role.
On Monday, a press statement attributed to Babangida firmly asserted that he had accepted the appointment, expressing deep gratitude to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, for the trust reposed in him.
The statement went further to dismiss as false and malicious the reports suggesting that he had rejected the appointment, describing them as a “deliberate attempt to mislead the public and tarnish the image of the Tinubu administration.”
“We wish to clarify that Muhammed gratefully accepts the appointment as Chairman of the Bank of Agriculture… and extends his sincere appreciation to President Tinubu,” the statement read in part.
The release concluded with a vow to identify and hold accountable those allegedly spreading misinformation, urging Nigerians to verify information through credible sources.
However, in a separate communication, also credited to Babangida, he appeared to decline the appointment, stating: “After careful reflection and consultation, I have decided, with utmost respect, to decline the appointment. This decision was not made lightly. It stems from a convergence of personal and professional considerations…”
In a letter Muhammed Babangida personally signed on his letter head and titled, “Re: Declining Appointment as Chairman, Bank of Agriculture”, Babangida’s son acknowledged the honour of being considered, but stressed that the demands of the position would require a level of commitment that he could not presently offer.
The letter dated July 21, 2025, Muhammed stated, “I remain fully committed to the vision of a prosperous and self-sufficient Nigeria under your leadership”, pledging support in other capacities.
The conflicting statements have sparked confusion among observers and the public, raising questions about the authenticity of either communication and whether the initial acceptance or the subsequent rejection reflects Babangida’s true position.
As of press time, neither the Presidency nor the Bank of Agriculture had issued a clarification regarding the development.
Meanwhile, calls are growing for an official response to clear the air on Babangida’s status and the leadership direction of the BOA.
