X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk, has agreed to settle a lawsuit from President Donald Trump over censorship allegations following the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

Forbes reported the settlement fee as $10 million.

After the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, X, then known as Twitter, permanently suspended his @realDonaldTrump account, while Meta banned him from Facebook and Instagram for two years.

Trump sued the platforms for being unfairly censored.

X is the second major social media platform to mend the legal fracture with Trump.

Last month, Trump signed a settlement agreement to end Meta’s lawsuit.

Meta is reported to pay roughly $25 million – of which $22 million would go toward a fund for Trump’s presidential library.

Since Trump won the election, tech leaders have worked to score points with the US president whom they were previously vocal against during his first term.

At the time, Musk had described Trump as “unfit” to run the United States, however, the tech billionaire now leads a new federal agency –under the US president — dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The world’s richest man also played a significant role in Trump’s campaign leading to him winning the presidential election.

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive officer (CEO), did not endorse Trump in the leadup to the election but Meta donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.

Musk and Zuckerberg were among several tech billionaires present during Trump’s inauguration last month.

[TheCable]

Many years ago, when my son was completing paperwork for a job with the Lagos State government, he was required to fill out a form that included his State of Origin. He paused.

It had been marked a compulsory field, and he wanted to know if not filling it would affect his chances. I said it would. He replied that he wouldn’t fill it, even if it meant losing the job. It didn’t make sense to him that his chances might come down solely not to his competence, merit, or the fact that he was born in Lagos, where he has resided all his life – but to the state where he is from.

He didn’t fill it and didn’t get the job, though I cannot remember if there were other reasons. Nigeria is the only country I know where a citizen or resident is compulsorily required to fill out their state of origin and local government and provide details of their forbears to the fourth and fifth generation as a basis for getting a job or contract.

In the beginning

It’s mainly a public sector thing – the sector that has been our blessing and bane. In its original form, “state representation,” apart from being a core unit of the federation, was also supposed to be a form of affirmative action. It was supposed to be a tool to encourage fair representation and protection, especially for ethnic minorities. The colonial government laid the foundation with the Sir Henry Willink Commission in 1957 to examine the agitation of minorities on the eve of Nigeria’s independence.

But like all good things politicians touch, they have managed to debase it. It’s convenient to argue that it was not politicians but the military that started it. States have been created five times since former Head of State General Yakubu Gowon created 12 from the four regions in 1967 to weaken Biafra.

But Gowon did it at the behest of politicians, as has every other military leader after him, including military President Ibrahim Babangida, who loved it so much he did it twice.

Growing obsession

Nigeria has since grown from 12 to 36 states. Former Head of State General Sani Abacha delivered the last set of sextuplets of states in 1996. Yet, the urge for more has not only become a national pastime. It is perhaps the next single biggest obsession of politicians after “budget padding”, a practice that permits lawmakers to inflate the annual appropriation bill to gratify themselves.

All 10 National Assemblies since 1999 have never failed to mention and pursue the creation of more states. Committees on state creation have travelled the country at substantial public expense, selling new states as the snake oil to “marginalised” communities.

At the end of such jamborees, including the collection of tonnes of memos that only feed the public a false hope, the politicians leave expectant communities high and dry until the following memo collection by a new set of politicians who lie to themselves that state creation is the medicine for social injustice. Not exactly true.

Not a joking matter

State creation is a serious business. For example, the request for a new state in Nigeria must be supported by at least two-thirds of the representatives from the area, from the councils to the state and National Assembly.

That’s the first step. After that, it must undergo a referendum that must be ratified by a simple majority of all the states in the federation and by a simple majority of members of the National Assembly. Military governments in the country created states without much resistance because of their unitary command and control structure. Even at that, deadly disputes among splintered states lingered and still linger on for years.

The assets-sharing dispute between Kano and Jigawa States lasted 18 years, while the boundary dispute between Cross River and Akwa Ibom continues after 38 years, with many lives lost. The Oyo-Osun post-state creation clashes rank high on the violent dispute ladder, stoking agitation for the creation of the New Oyo State. The case between Bauchi and Plateau remained a low-intensity dispute that later morphed into ethnoreligious clashes.

States abroad

It’s not for nothing that none of the world’s most prominent federations, such as India, the US, Canada, or Brazil, has created a new state in the last 50 years. This is not because of a lack of demand or because these countries have no ethnic minorities who feel endangered. Instead, they are evolving ways of managing their diversity that reduce the salience of statism as a basis for social justice, such as prioritising merit and competence.  

Agitation for more states remains a recurring problem in Nigeria because politicians have managed to frame it as perhaps the most viable route to development – the channel connecting neglected communities to Abuja’s drunken sailors.

Many governors have praised state creation not necessarily for the opportunities they have created from the exercise by looking inwards but because of their access to Abuja’s monthly pie. For being a state, however miserably governed, Nigerian states are entitled to 26.72 percent of the monthly revenue from the federation account, which can run into billions of naira. Among politicians, the lust for a share of this pie or monthly allocation is at the heart of the relentless demand for new states.

Making it 67?

The House of Representatives’ bill to create 31 additional states to bring the number to 67 is a joke. As far as demands for new states go, the most rigorous effort in the last 20 years was in 2014, when President Goodluck Jonathan’s government set up the National Conference to discuss mainly structural issues facing the country.

The conference recommended 18 additional states to bring the number to 54. The main arguments were the arbitrariness in previous exercises by the military. In the case of the South East, the point was made that the region has remained maliciously underserved in political representation, making it look like a continuation of Nigeria’s Civil War by other means.

A fundamental difference between the conference’s recommendation and others before and after it is the suggestion for six equipotent zones (with the same number of states), which would form the basis of the federating units with the centre. The conference further recommended that each zone could create more states if it deemed desirable and could finance it.

An unlikely adventure

There was no final agreement. “My experience at the conference,” Chief Ajibola Ogunshola, one of the members representing the South West, wrote in a paper in 2017, “suggests that it is highly unlikely that the establishment of zonal governments now or in the near future can be achieved through voluntary, peaceful negotiations.”

It’s even more unlikely now that the Federal Government is almost broke and only four of the 36 existing states are solvent. A 2023 report by the public sector transparency watchdog, BudgIT, said 32 states relied on Federal Allocation for at least 55 percent of their monthly revenue.

What matters

Are politicians genuinely interested in social justice, inclusiveness and development for their communities? They must look beyond the random creation of new states, quotas, privileges and other forms of affirmative action, often a disincentive to merit, resourcefulness and innovation.

States are not in short supply, yet because of primordial greed, the campaign for more will not abate until each of Nigeria’s 350 ethnic nationalities has one. Politicians know the difference between greed and necessity but will not dare to make the right choice. They earn a living by feeding their communities false hope.

The Managing Director of the Financial Derivatives Company Limited (FDC), Mr. Bismarck Rewane, likened Nigeria to a morgue of abandoned projects last week. He could not have been more apt. “Easy to start and easier to kill,” was Rewane’s way of describing the way public policies and mega projects are initiated in Nigeria before they are then abandoned. He said the novel idea of highway concessioning has become a nightmare that stalls “N11.54 trillion in private investment” in the country. Instructively, Rewane’s intervention came on the same day ‘LEADERSHIP’ newspaper published a report on how infrastructural projects worth hundreds of billions of naira have been abandoned by past and current governors in no fewer than 29 of the 36 states.

While interested readers can access the report, (https://leadership.ng/29-states-abandon-270-multi-billion-naira-projects/), the issue of abandoned projects and the implications for the future of our country is one I have addressed on this page several times. My last intervention, ‘Squandermania Nigeria Unlimited’ on 15th September 2022, followed a report credited to then Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Director-General, Bashir Jamoh, that years after taking delivery of a floating dock constructed with the whooping sum of N50 billion (about N500 billion by today’s exchange rate), it had not been put to use due to bureaucratic bottlenecks. “Now, as we are talking, I am just coming back from Abuja to get the consent and agreement of the people that will give us the location where we can place the floating dock. Up till now, we have not got a location,” Jamoh lamented. “And then, the other thing is that it has been there since 2018, nobody has worked on it, started it or tested it.”

Considering what I discovered yesterday about that scandalous floating dock affair, I want to excerpt from the column before making my concluding point:

============================================================== 

Dry docking is a term used when the ship is brought to dry land for submerged sections to be repaired, cleaned or inspected. There are only three functioning shipyards in Nigeria where minimal repairs of cabotage vessels of 500 tonnes are carried out. Two of these—Starzs Shipyard and Niger Benue Shipyard—are privately owned. The other, Nigerdock Limited, was originally 100 per cent owned by the federal government but was privatized following the demise of the Nigerian National Shipping Line (NNSL). That story is already well-documented.  

At its peak, Nigerdock had 29 vessels. Today, Nigeria’s flag administration is essentially dead and we no longer have a single ocean-going vessel. Our shipyards can barely repair cabotage vessels, forcing international shipping companies to other smaller African countries in order to retain their safety classification and insurance, as specified by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). In fact, we currently depend on Ghana, Senegal, South Africa etc. to dry-dock all ocean-going vessels doing business in Nigerian waters. That explains why it’s almost criminal that a prime asset (measuring 125 metres by 35 metres, with three in-built cranes, transformers, and a number of ancillary facilities) meant to fill that gap could be allowed to waste for years. Now marooned at a Naval Dockyard, the floating dry Dock was envisioned to, and has capacity for, employing hundreds of Nigerians. It would also have served as a hub to train students in our Maritime tertiary institutions. 

For those who may not be conversant with maritime matters, ships are required to dry dock at least twice every five years to retain their seaworthiness. With an average of 5,000 ships calling on our ports annually, in addition to 400 active coastal vessels and several fishing trawlers, it is estimated that Nigeria could save up to N350 billion annually (more than a trillion Naira in today’s value) while also earning millions of dollars in the process. The maritime sector, like the oil and gas industry, holds considerable prospects for the development of our economy. But it is also being grossly mismanaged. Meanwhile, it costs more than $1million to tow vessels out of Nigeria for repairs when the cost of dry-docking itself (for which the floating dry dock was conceived) is approximately $400,000. This is a compelling story of lost opportunity, not to mention the cost of doing business in Nigeria. Of course, it is not surprising that we have ended up in this situation because those who conceive and execute projects in our country are usually more concerned about transactional details that benefit them than the more important consideration of public good.  

From my investigation, this story began on 23rd October 2013 under President Goodluck Jonathan when the Federal Executive Council (FEC) approved the contract for the “Construction of Ship Building Facility and Dockyard: Maritime Equipment and Structures, Ancillary Buildings and Electro-Mechanical Works and Facilities (Package 1) at Okerenkoko, Delta State for the sum of N40,243,702,763.38.” The contract period was 36 months effective from the date of receiving the first payment of 15 per cent mobilisation which translated to N6,036,555,414.49. “The balance payment shall be based upon the following modes: 65 per cent of the total contract sum shall be paid by irrevocable confirmed Letters of Credit (LC) to enable your Company import heavy duty equipment required for the project which includes Water Treatment Pipes; Powerhouse and Services; Travel Lift; Landing Modular Jetties; Modular Floating Dock and Cradle Set; and Quay Crane…”   

If we consider that the exchange rate in 2013 was N159 to a dollar, it is easy to understand the current value of this project, especially as it was paid in dollars. I have no idea why the contract exceeded its timeframe by more than a year or the rationale for increasing the cost by 25 percent. But on 29th May 2018, the company wrote to notify NIMASA that “following successful inspections by Manufacturer (Damen Shipyards), Lloyds officials, Debaj Engineering Company ltd (NIMASA consultants), the Modular Floating Dock (MFDd NIMASA, IMO 9785639) is heading to Lagos, Nigeria as per the communicated program of works and our previous notification letter.”   

After highlighting other technical details, the company then listed pending operational matters: “We kindly request NIMASA to notify the concern (sic) authorities regarding the arrival of OSPREY and the offloading of MFDd NIMASA in Lagos. We kindly request a resolution of the subject of location including access to the proposed site in Apapa, Lagos in order to proceed with civil and mechanical works for the mooring of the Floating Dock. Also be reminded that the existing old and faulty NPA floating dock should be moved/relocated in order to allow mooring of the new NIMASA Modular Floating dock; Registration of the Nigeria Flag for MFDd NIMASA, IMO 9785639; Obtaining waiver of custom duties for the modular floating dock and Obtaining Insurance for the floating dock.”   

The Floating Dock arrived in Nigeria in 2018, but what should be earning us revenue has become another huge burden. When we eventually decide to put it to use, we may also be talking of turn around maintenance running into billions of Naira. In fact, the Association of Marine Engineers and Surveyors (AMES) raised the alarm last year (2021) that the dry Dock had been removed from the Lloyd’s Registers Class because it could not be surveyed for three years. This raises several pertinent questions. Why did the federal government embark on such an expensive and highly technical project without a firm decision on where the Dry Dock would berth? Should NIMASA, a regulatory agency, take on the role of operator which the purchase of the floating Dry Dock implies? Why do public officials continue to promote ideas doomed to fail and, in this instance, not backed by the enabling law? And how are we sure we have not already created another monument to waste? Like Ajaokuta, most of the software in the computer-driven floating dock may have become obsolete according to some experts. 

The only rational explanation I can find online on this sordid affair was one provided by a former NIMASA Executive Director, Operations, Rotimi Fashakin (now of blessed memory). He told reporters in Lagos that berthing the dock at the permanent site of the Nigerian Maritime University, Okerenkoko, as was originally conceptualized, could not be done due to insecurity. “Initially when the floating dock was acquired, the design was for it to berth in Delta State. But even at that time, there were a lot of reports advising to the contrary”, explained Fashakin who added that the contract preceded the Buhari administration. “A dock is supposed to serve the shipping community as a commercial facility, but which company or vessel would be bold enough to travel to Delta State given the insecurity? When the dock landed in Nigeria, there were various state governments that requested for it, all these are on record. When it came in, we thought of many ideas, but this is a government asset and not something you can just give to an operator. NIMASA is a regulator and not an operator, so giving the dock to an operator also needs to go through the bureaucracy of government.”   

The fact that a regulator was trying to play in the same league with operators should have been clear to NIMASA before initiating the idea. But like most government contracts, we pay first and think later. The more information one obtains on this matter, and I have spoken to many stakeholders, the more despondent you become about our country – even if some of us refuse to give up hope. The greater concern is that this is not an isolated problem. Our national landscape is strewn with projects that were not well-conceived and have become liabilities after hundreds of billions of Naira had been invested in them.

In 2015, the then Chartered Institute of Project Management of Nigeria (CIPMN) president, Victoria Okoronkwo, estimated abandoned projects in Nigeria at N12 trillion. If we use the exchange rate at the time these projects were conceived and expenditures incurred, we should have an idea of the billions of dollars we are throwing away. Listing the projects by geopolitical zone, Okoronkwo said the South-east has 15,000; Southwest, 10,000; Southsouth, 11,000; Northwest, 6,000; Northcentral, 7,000: North-east, 5,000 and Abuja, 2,000. I have no doubt that hundreds of others have been added to the list since then…

ENDNOTE:

More than two years after that column, the NIMASA Managing Director who succeeded Jamoh is still talking about how they will put the drydock to use. “The initial plan for the floating dock was not the right one. We are going to put the Modular Floating Dock to very good use so that once it’s in operation; it will benefit the economy, seafarers, and NIMASA itself,” Dayo Mobereola said last August. “We need to place the modular floating dock in an appropriate location. It is just a matter of time; we will soon get that done.”

From my findings in recent days, even though the expensive drydock has been moved to Nigerdock, it is still idle almost seven years after it arrived in Nigeria! This extraordinary level of waste and mismanagement of scarce resources speaks volumes about the lack of accountability in a country that has now been appropriately dubbed a ‘morgue of abandoned projects.’

Enough said!

The question of whether former U.S. President Donald Trump, or any American leader, should reconsider U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding to Africa is a pressing one. This is not because Africa does not need financial aid, but rather because much of the aid intended for development and poverty alleviation ends up in the pockets of corrupt leaders and their cronies. The cycle of looting has become an institutionalized plague, depriving millions of Africans of the much-needed benefits that such funding is meant to provide. If USAID funding is being squandered through corruption, then the question arises: Should the U.S. continue providing financial assistance to Africa under such conditions?

Without any iota of exaggeration, the USAID Mission is a noble intention thwarted by corruption.  For the sake of clarity, USAID was established with the goal of promoting economic development, democracy, and humanitarian assistance around the world. In Africa, the agency has played a critical role in addressing poverty, healthcare crises, and infrastructural development. From funding malaria and HIV/AIDS prevention programs to providing relief during famines and pandemics, USAID has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for millions.

However, despite these noble intentions, the impact of USAID funding has often been diluted by systemic corruption. Instead of ensuring that these resources reach the people who need them most, corrupt government officials, bureaucrats, and elites siphon off large portions of the funds, enriching themselves while leaving the masses in abject poverty. Transparency International and other anti-corruption watchdogs have repeatedly exposed shocking cases of embezzlement, with some African leaders stashing stolen funds in offshore accounts or investing in luxurious properties abroad.

At this juncture, it is expedient to throw insight into how African leaders squander USAID funds. This is as there are numerous documented instances of aid money being misappropriated or misused by African governments.

For instance, several African countries receive millions of dollars annually from USAID to fight diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. However, reports have shown that funds meant for purchasing medical equipment and drugs are often mismanaged or embezzled, leading to a lack of essential medicines in public hospitals.

In a similar vein, infrastructure projects funded by international aid are frequently over-inflated or never completed. Corrupt officials often award contracts to bogus companies, diverting large sums into personal accounts while leaving roads, hospitals, and schools in decrepit conditions.

In fact, some leaders and their associates set up dubious non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to access foreign aid, only to divert the funds for personal use. These organizations exist merely on paper, while the funds are channeled into private businesses and real estate ventures.

Even when USAID funds are disbursed, they are often distributed through corrupt networks, with money reaching only those with political connections. Many public service projects are executed based on favoritism, rather than need-based assessments.

Given the foregoing insights, it is not an exaggeration to opine that the human cost of corruption in this context is colossal.  This is as the looting of aid funds is not just an economic crime, it is a moral and humanitarian crisis and the effects are dire.

For instance it has resulted to poverty and unemployment. The reason for the foregoing cannot be farfetched as given the development funds being stolen, millions remain trapped in poverty, with little hope for economic empowerment. Worse still, youth unemployment rates continue to soar, creating fertile ground for crime, violence, and migration crises.

In a similar vein, it engenders poor healthcare and education. In fact, the inability to channel funds into the health and education sectors has left many Africans without access to quality medical care or proper schooling. Many hospitals lack basic medical supplies, and classrooms are overcrowded with underpaid teachers struggling to educate future generations.

Also in a similar vein is the political instability the malfeasance leads to. This is as corruption leads to frustration, social unrest, and in some cases, violent uprisings. Citizens who feel betrayed by their governments often turn to protests or even armed conflicts, further destabilizing already fragile states.

Given the foregoing, the question on everyone lips, and asking no one in particular is, “Should the U.S. Withdraw Aid?”

To answer the foregoing question, it is expedient to opine that given these grim realities, it is understandable why Trump and other American policymakers might question the wisdom of continuing USAID funding in Africa. After all, why should American taxpayers’ money be funneled into a system that enriches corrupt elites rather than addressing the actual needs of the people?

Yet, a complete withdrawal of USAID funding could also have catastrophic consequences. Millions rely on this aid for food, healthcare, and emergency relief. Cutting off funding could worsen hunger crises, increase disease outbreaks, and further entrench poverty. Instead of outright discontinuation, a more effective strategy would be to implement stricter monitoring and accountability measures.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is salient to suggest that reforming the aid distribution from USAID is the way forward.

Therefore, to ensure that USAID funds serve their intended purpose, the U.S. government, in collaboration with African institutions, should adopt measures that cut across direct funding to credible NGOs, adoption of stringent accountability mechanism, adoption of empowerment over handouts, collaboration with Civil Society and Whistleblowers and promotion of good governance.

Explanatorily put, rather than routing funds through corrupt governments, USAID should work directly with reputable NGOs and grassroots organizations that have a proven track record of accountability.

In a similar vein, USAID should enhance its auditing systems to track every dollar spent. Any country found to be mismanaging funds should face sanctions, including suspension of aid until reforms are made.

Still in a similar vein, instead of just giving aid, USAID should prioritize economic empowerment programs that create jobs and support local enterprises. Initiatives that provide skills training, entrepreneurship support, and microfinance opportunities can help Africans build self-sustaining economies.

Besides, civil society groups and investigative journalists should be empowered to expose corruption. USAID should establish partnerships with these watchdog organizations to identify and eliminate fraudulent activities.

Again, the U.S. can leverage aid as a tool to push for governance reforms. Only countries that demonstrate progress in fighting corruption and upholding democracy should continue receiving full aid packages.

Without a doubt, the debate over USAID funding in Africa is not about whether Africa needs help, it does. The real question is whether aid can be delivered in a way that ensures it benefits ordinary people rather than enriching corrupt leaders. While Trump and other policymakers may have valid concerns about aid mismanagement, an outright withdrawal of USAID funding would do more harm than good. Instead, a more stringent, accountable, and reform-driven approach must be adopted to curb corruption and ensure that aid fulfills its purpose of improving lives.

Ultimately, the fate of Africa rests in the hands of its leaders. If African governments refuse to tackle corruption, then no amount of foreign aid will be enough to lift the continent out of poverty. African citizens, civil society organizations, and international partners must hold their leaders accountable to ensure that development funds serve their rightful purpose. Only then can the vision of a prosperous Africa become a reality.

In the annals of African Traditional Religion (ATR), traditional doctors, also known as herbalists or native doctors, were once venerated figures. They held a sacred duty as custodians of ancestral knowledge, healers, spiritual guides, and intermediaries between the living and the spirit world. Their roles were clearly defined by culture and tradition, and they operated within the boundaries of morality, integrity, and service to their communities. However, in contemporary times, an increasing number of native doctors have strayed from their noble callings and ventured into crime, bringing dishonor to an institution that once commanded the highest respect. This unfortunate development is what has prompted Anambra State Governor, Professor Charles Soludo, to take decisive action against rogue elements within the traditional medical system.

Rather than criticizing his efforts, Governor Soludo must be commended for this courageous step. Other states where native doctors have been linked to criminal activities should take a cue from his administration’s policies. If our ancestors could rise from their graves, they would undoubtedly express disappointment in how some of their revered spiritual heirs have become harbingers of terror instead of healers of the people.

Without a doubt, traditional doctors are custodians of African spirituality and healing.  Historically, traditional doctors were seen as pillars of African societies. Their primary responsibilities revolved around healing the sick using herbs, roots, and natural remedies. They were also spiritual mediators who provided guidance on matters such as marriage, fertility, protection from evil forces, and resolving disputes through divination and rituals. These spiritualists were deeply respected, often consulted by kings and elders before major decisions were made.

Additionally, native doctors played significant roles in fortifying warriors before battles, blessing farmlands to ensure bountiful harvests, and preserving cultural heritage through oral traditions. Their practices were guided by ethical principles passed down through generations. Unlike modern fraudulent practices, their work was rooted in the genuine service of humanity, often regulated by traditional councils and spiritual oversight bodies.

Regrettably, many of today’s so-called traditional doctors have abandoned their original roles. Some have resorted to heinous crimes, including human rituals, kidnapping, fraud, and other nefarious activities. There have been numerous reports of shrines doubling as criminal hideouts where victims are slaughtered in the name of money rituals. Innocent individuals have fallen prey to deceitful practitioners who exploit people’s desperation by promising them wealth, power, or revenge through dark means.

One of the most alarming trends is the rising cases of human sacrifice and organ harvesting orchestrated by fake native doctors. These crimes have tarnished the reputation of genuine traditional healers and have instilled fear rather than respect in the minds of the people. It is, therefore, not surprising that Governor Soludo has decided to clamp down on these elements that misuse the title of “native doctor” to perpetrate evil.

Without a doubt, Soludo’s action is a step in the right direction. This is as he has in response to the alarming rise of criminal activities linked to some traditional doctors, he has taken decisive steps to rid Anambra State of this menace. His administration has identified and shut down shrines used as criminal hideouts, while individuals linked to ritual killings, fraud, and other illegal activities have been arrested and prosecuted.

Some critics argue that this move is an attack on African traditions, but such claims are unfounded. Soludo’s crackdown is not targeted at genuine herbalists who practice in accordance with traditional ethics but rather at impostors who have turned their trade into a tool for crime. If anything, his actions should be seen as a purification process to restore dignity to the traditional healing profession.

In fact, instead of condemnation, the governor must be encouraged. A government that prioritizes the security of its people and the moral rejuvenation of society deserves support. However, the fight against criminality should not be selective, and no institution, whether traditional, religious, or modern, should be above the law.

The problem of criminal native doctors is not exclusive to Anambra State. Across Nigeria, several cases have been recorded where traditional shrines have served as fronts for criminal activities. From Ogun to Delta, from Kogi to Edo, the involvement of fake native doctors in violent crimes has become a national crisis.

In fact, state governments across Nigeria should take a cue from Soludo’s approach and implement similar measures to sanitize the practice of traditional healing. This includes setting up regulatory bodies that will work with traditional rulers heal operate, while those with criminal intentions are flushed out.

In fact,looking at the issue from the perspective of restoring the honor of traditional healing.  Beyond government intervention, there is an urgent need for cultural and religious leaders to reclaim the lost dignity of traditional medicine. Traditional councils and associations of native doctors must set up stringent ethical codes and ensure strict compliance. Native doctors should be certified by their respective traditional institutions, and anyone found engaging in illegal activities should be disowned and handed over to the authorities.

Moreover, the public must also be educated about the dangers of patronizing fraudulent spiritualists. Many people, driven by greed or desperation, seek the services of criminal native doctors, thereby encouraging their illegal activities. The awareness that true traditional healing does not involve human sacrifice, blood rituals, or illegal means should be emphasized in schools, religious institutions, and media platforms.

Governor Soludo’s crackdown on criminal native doctors is a necessary and commendable step in the fight against crime in Anambra State. The infiltration of criminal elements into the traditional healing sector has severely damaged its reputation, making this action long overdue. Our ancestors who upheld the sanctity of traditional medicine would be dismayed to see how some of their supposed successors have turned into criminals.

Rather than opposing Soludo’s move, other state governments must follow suit to rid Nigeria of this disturbing trend. Traditional councils, community leaders, and law enforcement agencies must work together to ensure that the traditional healing profession regains its lost honor. Only through such collective efforts can we preserve our heritage while ensuring the safety and well-being of our people.

Without mincing words, it is not a misnomer to opine that it is time to cleanse the land and return traditional healing to its rightful place of honor.

A Progressive Shift in Nigeria’s Education Policy

The recent decision by JAMB to allow candidates under 16 to be considered for tertiary education admission under strict conditions reflects a forward-thinking approach to educational policy in Nigeria. While the standard age remains 16, candidates who achieve an outstanding UTME score of 320 or above will now have the opportunity to prove their academic capability. This shift, supported by Minister of Education Olatunji Alausa and JAMB Registrar Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, recognizes the existence of gifted students who should not be held back by rigid age restrictions.

Prof. Ishaq Oloyede: A Leader in Modern Educational Reform

JAMB Registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, deserves commendation for spearheading this progressive reform. During a recent meeting with key education stakeholders, including Chief External Examiners, Chief Technical Advisors, and members of the Equal Opportunity Group, Oloyede confirmed the new policy and its rationale. He emphasized that while the 16-year benchmark remains the standard, candidates under this age may be considered under strict conditions if they demonstrate exceptional academic ability. His balanced approach acknowledges the importance of maturity in higher education while ensuring that truly gifted students are given the opportunity to excel.

The Failure of Former Minister Tahir Mamman’s Rigid Age Policy

The decision follows the recent reversal of the mandatory 18-year admission age policy introduced by former Minister of Education, Tahir Mamman. His policy, rather than being a strategic educational reform, was an outdated, rigid barrier to progress that ignored the realities of intellectual diversity. It failed to account for the existence of young prodigies whose cognitive development and academic prowess surpass those of their peers. Instead of fostering an environment where merit and excellence determine educational progression, Mamman’s policy shackled Nigeria’s most brilliant minds to an arbitrary number.

What If America Had Followed Tahir Mamman’s Backward Policy?

Had America followed such a backward, anti-meritocratic approach, a talent like Moro Ojomo might never have emerged. Born in Lagos, Nigeria, Ojomo moved to the U.S. at the age of eight and, by 16, had enrolled at the University of Texas. If the American education system had imposed the same rigid age restrictions that Mamman championed, Ojomo’s development—both academically and athletically—could have been halted before it even began. Instead, the United States recognized his talent, allowing him to thrive in a system that values ability over bureaucracy.

Moro Ojomo: A Testament to the Power of Early Recognition

Ojomo’s success is proof that rigid policies like Mamman’s do more harm than good. He redshirted as a freshman but played in three late-season games, showing that he was more than ready despite his young age. He was a four-time first-team Academic All-Big 12 honoree, proving that intelligence and discipline can flourish when given the right opportunity. By his fifth-year senior season, he had recorded career highs with 32 tackles, 5.5 tackles for loss, and three sacks before declaring for the 2023 NFL Draft. Over five seasons, he played in 50 games, accumulating 95 tackles and five sacks. His intelligence on the field is so pronounced that some say he predicts plays before they happen.

Most recently, Ojomo was part of the Philadelphia Eagles’ historic Super Bowl victory over the Kansas City Chiefs. This moment was a culmination of years of dedication, discipline, and—most importantly—an education system that did not stifle his potential with bureaucratic restrictions. Had America followed the regressive thinking of Nigeria’s former Minister of Education, Ojomo’s name might never have been known beyond Lagos. His dream, like those of many talented Nigerians, would have been buried under the weight of an archaic policy.

A Wake-Up Call for Nigeria: Stop Suppressing Talent

This is the stark lesson for Nigeria: If the country continues to allow individuals like Tahir Mamman to dictate rigid, outdated policies, it will continue to stifle its brightest minds. Nigeria cannot afford to be a nation that actively suppresses its own future. The education system must be designed to elevate talent, not restrict it.

Prof. Oloyede’s leadership in ensuring that JAMB remains adaptable and responsive to academic excellence deserves praise. His stance reflects modern educational thinking, where policies must be flexible enough to accommodate outstanding students who defy conventional timelines. By introducing a performance-based exception rather than a blanket rule, Oloyede has struck a balance between structure and opportunity. He understands that intelligence and readiness should determine eligibility, not an arbitrary age threshold that ignores real-world diversity in learning ability.

A Call for Systemic Educational Reform in Nigeria

The decision by JAMB signals a progressive shift, one that should be further strengthened by institutional frameworks that support young, high-achieving students. Nigeria has many gifted individuals, and by recognizing them early, the country can cultivate a new generation of scholars, innovators, and professionals who will contribute significantly to national and global development. If America had taken the same outdated approach as Tahir Mamman, talents like Moro Ojomo might have been lost. It is time for Nigeria to fully embrace meritocracy and stop letting bureaucratic rigidity stifle its best and brightest minds.

Nations That Prioritize Talent Thrive—Nigeria Must Follow Suit

The reversal of Mamman’s policy should be seen not just as a victory for educational reform, but as an urgent signal that Nigeria must rethink the way it approaches talent development. Countries that excel prioritize talent and create pathways for success. Nigeria, with its abundance of gifted individuals, must not allow outdated policies to stand in the way of greatness.

Morotoluwa Ojomo is living proof of what is possible when talent is nurtured rather than suppressed. The future belongs to nations that recognize, support, and empower their best and brightest. Nigeria must choose to be one of them. Bureaucracy must no longer be a weapon against progress. Instead, Nigeria must build a system where the exceptional are recognized, supported, and propelled toward success—not trapped by arbitrary barriers.

The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) has strongly condemned the reported assault of a lecturer by a student at Nnamdi Azikiwe University (UNIZIK) over a TikTok recording.

In a statement issued in Ibadan on Wednesday, NANS Senate President, Babatunde Akinteye, reaffirmed the association’s commitment to advocating for students’ rights while emphasising the importance of discipline, respect for authority and adherence to institutional regulations.

“NANS has always been at the forefront of advocating for students’ rights, academic freedom, and a conducive learning environment. However, we equally uphold discipline, respect for authority, and adherence to the laws governing our institutions. It is in this light that we strongly condemn the reported incident at UNIZIK, where a student physically assaulted a lecturer over a TikTok recording,” Akinteye stated.

He described the student’s actions as unacceptable, stressing that universities should remain citadels of learning built on mutual respect. While acknowledging students’ rights to self-expression including social media use, he urged them to exercise such rights with responsibility and decorum.

Akinteye reiterated that NANS would not support any student who engages in unlawful behaviour, disrespects lecturers or tarnishes the image of the academic community.

“In light of this incident, we call on the management of UNIZIK to conduct a thorough and unbiased investigation to establish the facts of the case. Due diligence must be observed, and all parties involved should be given a fair hearing. However, if the student is found guilty, appropriate sanctions should be applied in line with the institution’s regulations to serve as a deterrent to others,” he added.

Akinteye further emphasised that academic environments must remain spaces of respect, learning and professional engagement.

[Opinion Nigeria]

Bitcoin’s correction below $96,000 has caused the cryptocurrency market to turn “pink.”

This most recent rally is by no means inconsequential, as retail and institutional data indicate waning demand.

Although the asset seems to be moving independently of the fundamentals of cryptocurrency, it is being influenced by an unpredictable macroeconomic environment.

Bitcoin is still gaining attention, even though trade tensions between the U.S. and China are causing market jitters. Derivative structures, sentiment indicators, and investment flows all suggest a rise in caution.

The announcement of new Chinese tariffs on the world’s largest economy weakened risk appetite. Bitcoin immediately lost the bullish momentum that was part of a larger trend of people fleeing to safer assets in the face of trade tensions.

Although Donald Trump’s response, which imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum, caused traditional markets to stabilize, the market swiftly recovered and regained confidence.

This political response also allowed Bitcoin to find some air. However, market fundamentals show that retail and institutional weakness indicators are present.

According to the data, institutional purchasing volumes are not impressive. $204 million was invested in Bitcoin ETFs in the U.S. between February 3 and February 7, compared to $742.3 million worth of Bitcoin purchased by Strategy during that time. A definite sign that leveraged traders are lowering their exposure is the sharp decline in futures premiums, which went from 11% in early February to 8%.

Investors are choosing safe-havens, as evidenced by yield declines in U.S. Treasury notes. This momentum has made the U.S. dollar index show strength, reflecting an increase in risk aversion in international markets.

The U.S. Fed’s latest signals also show less incentive to cut rates quickly, further putting Bitcoin bulls in jeopardy.

U.S. Economy Supports Fed’s Caution

“Overall, the economy is doing well,” Jerome Powell stated at his Senate hearing on Tuesday, February 11, 2025. As a result, he defended the Fed’s monetary policy wait-and-see approach. Even though inflation is higher than the 2 percent target, the Fed does not anticipate any more rate cuts in the near future.

• Monetary easing is anticipated to be restricted to 35 basis points by the end of the year.
• The dollar fell 0.17%, or 17 points, and is currently trading at 108 index points on the greenback index in response to this cautious approach.
• The spotlight now shifts to the inflation figures for January, scheduled to be unveiled on Wednesday.
• If these figures indicate persistently elevated inflation, they might prompt the Fed to prolong its stringent policy, curtailing any optimism surrounding a vigorous reduction in interest rates.

Powell will continue his hearing before the House of Representatives, posing a fresh challenge for the market, which will strive to adjust its forecasts concerning the U.S. monetary policy’s trajectory.

The market is also dealing with a fresh rise in protectionism. The threat of a trade war with the European Union has been reignited by Donald Trump’s announcement of a 25% increase in customs duties on steel and aluminum imports.

The foreign exchange market reacted to these announcements immediately. The Japanese yen lost ground against the dollar, dropping 0.3 percent to 152.0, while the euro increased 0.22% to $1.03. Investors are looking to safe-haven assets in this uncertain climate, especially gold, which is seeing a resurgence in interest.

Global markets are becoming more tense as the Fed maintains its position and the White House toughens its trade stance.

[Nairametrics]

The House of Representatives on Wednesday initiated deliberations on four tax reform bills submitted to the National Assembly in 2024 by President Bola Tinubu.

These bills, scheduled for a second reading, had been pending for six months since their transmission, following recommendations from the Taiwo Oyedele-led Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms.

The proposed legislation includes the Nigeria Tax Bill 2024, the Tax Administration Bill, the Nigeria Revenue Service Establishment Bill, and the Joint Revenue Board Establishment Bill.

However, the bills have stirred controversy, facing strong criticism and resistance from various quarters, including northern governors and opposition figures who have called for their withdrawal.

During Wednesday’s plenary, most lawmakers expressed support for the proposed reforms, but Sada Soli raised concerns about potential constitutional contradictions within some sections of the bills.

He particularly stressed the need for clear definitions on derivation to prevent ambiguity.

Soli remained optimistic that the committee assigned to review the bills would resolve any contentious issues before they are passed.

Additionally, some lawmakers highlighted the bill’s attempt to amend 40 existing acts, insisting that these amendments be laid before Parliament for proper scrutiny.

They also raised concerns about provisions related to multiple taxation on property transactions, which require both buyers and sellers to pay taxes.

More details to follow…

[NaijaNews]

Rather than argue over whether Nigeria has a transparent, global standard pricing mechanism for Premium Motor Spirit (PMS or petrol), maybe we should take a different view. Nigeria’s pricing mechanism is in transition and its current state may improve alongside living standards.

While that sounds very uncertain and many will find it harder to navigate, consider this, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted the price of crude oil will expectedly decline in 2025, with Brent Crude to average around $74 per barrel.

This projected decrease in global prices by EIA, will directly impact domestic petrol costs, meaning that consumers will likely see petrol price drop at the pump. Underscoring the generally known fact that the primary driver of domestic petrol prices is the global crude oil price, which is largely influenced by factors like supply and demand dynamics, geopolitical tensions, and OPEC production quotas.

We have seen that play out recently in Nigeria, when Dangote Refinery dropped its ex-depot price from N950 to N890, citing the ”positive outlook within the global energy and gas markets, as well as recent reduction in international crude oil prices.” Beyond these trends, fuel is priced on an import parity basis in Nigeria, which is consistent with the way it is priced in other African countries.

The play of the naira exchange rate also has an impact in pricing. Fluctuations seen in the exchange rates of the Naira in recent times have had a significant impact on the import and export of crude oil and refined products.
Depending on the direction it swings, procurement cost is impacted either negatively or positively which in turn reflects on the price the consumer pays at the pump.

Recall that the Petroleum Product Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA) determined the process of pricing the product before the passage of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA). The PPPRA utilized a pricing template to determine the open market price or the expected retail (pump) price for the product.
The template reflects the Free on Board (FOB) price in the originating market priced in $/mt. It is common knowledge that Nigeria references European petrol prices. Additionally, the template also reflects freight, lightering expense, Nigeria Port Authority (NPA) charge, Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency charge as well as retail margins, financing cost, jetty throughput charge and storage charge. The exchange rate would convert the USD components of this pricing framework into naira, while conversion factor for petrol would be used to convert the petrol pricing from tonnes to litres.

The import parity principle is the basis for petrol pricing as explained by Dr. Kaase Gbakon, an economists and data analytics expert, ”the FOB petrol price is Platts 10ppm Amsterdam-Rotterdam barge.”

Kasse suggested that ”the Premium would very likely include a transport element to mirror clean tanker freight between Europe and West Africa, build up from the loading gantry at the refinery which includes Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) charge, inspection charge, distribution costs, and a margin.”

He noted that pump prices differ across the country driven by the distribution cost, with locations farthest from Lagos (where the refinery, for instance, Dangote Refinery) is located, subject to a higher price.

In September 2024, NNPL Limited published a new price template which it explained was used to settle the petrol offtake from the Dangote Refinery, many analysts argued that the template did not provide as detailed a breakdown of its components as the PPPRA template did. Amidst that, is the disparity in the pricing template adopted by the Dangote Refinery versus that used by the NNPC Limited (NNPCL).

However, analysts were able to conclude from the templates that petrol price in the country is based on the import parity pricing principle, given that Dangote Refinery neither clarified the offtake price nor did it dispute the pricing principle published by the NNPCL.

Quality Vs Pricing:
Meanwhile, technology plays a crucial role in determining petrol quality, which directly impacts pricing. Producing high-quality petrol requires a more complex refining process to remove impurities and achieve the desired standards. Naturally, this increases production costs. Meeting global environmental regulations further adds to the expense, as stricter standards demand more advanced refining techniques.

The conversation on petrol quality resurfaced in 2024, fueled by crude oil shortages affecting local refineries and allegations that some marketers were luring consumers with lower prices—a debate initially sparked by Dangote Refinery. This coincided with the discovery in February 2024 that NNPCL had imported a significant batch of adulterated petrol into the country . Around the same time, the Petroleum Products Retail Outlets Owners Association of Nigeria (PETROAN) claimed its members could sell petrol at prices lower than those offered by Dangote Refinery to oil marketers.

When the $20 billion refinery Dangote refinery began production of fuel, its biggest constraint was accessing crude oil for its plant. Vexed by what it saw as sabotage, the controversial narrative suggested that oil majors were blocking the refinery’s access to locally produced crude and the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) was allowing petrol traders to import high-sulphur petrol thereby undermining its refinery. When PETROAN raised its own argument on pricing, Dangote responded by accusing them of importing substandard products which invariably will come cheaper.

The rift prompted an investigation by Nigerian law makers. A committee was set up in July 2024, to investigate alleged importation of dirtier petrol and the operation standards of the regulatory agencies.

The NMDPRA responded, saying that Dangote Refinery was barely 45% completed and unable to meet the country’s needs. Adding that petrol processed by the refinery is between 650 to 1200 parts per million of Sulphur, thus inferior to imported products.

Intriguingly, when members of the National Assembly visited the Dangote Refinery to investigate its claim on quality, tests result showed that Dangote Refinery’s diesel had a Sulphur content of 87.6 ppm, while two other samples taken showed Sulphur levels exceeding 1800 ppm and 2,000ppm, respectively. For context, the benchmark for Sulphur content for petrol imported into Nigeria is capped at 50 ppm. Whether the alleged ”inferior” petrol imported into the country is responsible for the frequent tweaking of its (Dangote) ex-depot price is yet to be determined, as the NMDPRA is yet to announce commencement of enforcing standards which it promised in 2024.

It is tough to find answers on what the appropriate price of fuel at the pump should be, given these chaotic, unpredictable and controversial circumstances. In longer term, a need for more investment in due diligence and supervision as well as enforcement will be needed to set the appropriate, recognizable process to determine who is complying on quality, pricing template, etc, processes investors could easily buy into and make bold investment decisions. Indeed, the process badly needs to be retooled for the economy to thrive and for the consumer to be at peace, but it could take a while.

~ Bamgbala, an energy enthusiast and social commentator, writes from Lagos.