•Beijing calls US tariffs intimidation

•EU offers zero-for-zero tariff

•Global market continues to plunge

United States of America President, Donald Trump, has threatened to impose additional 50 per cent tariff on Beijing if it does not withdraw its 34 per cent retaliatory tariffs on Washington.

China, the second largest economy in the world, had reacted swiftly to the import tax announced by Trump last week, slamming Washington with 34 per cent tariff even as the rest of the countries continued to weigh their next move, opting either to negotiate or put their retaliatory tariffs forward. 

If the extra 50 per cent tax is implemented, that would bring the total import tax on China to 104 percent, roughly doubling the cost for companies bringing their goods from China to US in less than a month.

In a similar move, President Trump had threatened to hit alcohol from Europe with a 200 percent tax and also place a 50 percent tariff on Canada’s steel and aluminium “if they team up to work against American’s interest”.

However, both sides reached a kind of concessions  and the hikes never materialised. 

As the clash between both countries (US and China) rages on, Beijing has described Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” as intimidation, stressing that threats and pressure are not the right way to deal with China.

The Spokesperson for Chinese Foreign Ministry,  Lin Jian, speaking during a press conference stated that the tariffs are typical unilateralism and protectionism and economic bullying, adding that U.S. tariffs in the name of reciprocity only served its interest at the expense of other countries.

Jian, therefore, urged countries to jointly oppose all forms of unilateralism and protectionism and safeguard the international system and the multilateral trading system, according to the United Nations and World Trade Organisation values, respectively.

“The abuse of tariffs by the United States is tantamount to depriving countries, especially those in the Global South, of their right to development,” said, citing a widening gap between the rich and poor in each country and less developed countries suffering a greater impact.

“All countries should uphold consultation, joint construction and sharing, and genuine multilateralism”, he said.

Meanwhile, the European Commission, said it has offered a zero-for-zero tariff deal to the US to avert a trade war with Trump as the EU ministers agreed to prioritise negotiations, while striking back with targeted countermeasures next week.

The 27-nation bloc faces 25 percent import tariffs on steel and aluminium and cars and broader tariffs of 20 percent from Wednesday, April 9, for almost all other goods under Trump’s policy to hit countries Trump believes impose high barriers on U.S. imports.

Ministers overseeing trade in the bloc met in Luxembourg yesterday to debate the EU’s response and discuss relations with China where many agreed that the priority was to launch negotiations to remove Trump’s tariffs, rather than fight them.

This is even the stock markets around the US, Europe and Asia have continued to plunge on the back of the tariff war. In US, major markets continued to slump with the Dow Jones falling by 4.4 percent at mid-day, the S&P 500 lost 4.7 percent while the Nasdaq fell by five percent.

In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng Index closed down 13.22 percent, marking a 28-year low for the exchange.

In Taiwan, a 9.7 percent drop at close resulted in a record low for Taipei’s TAIEX index

In Europe, the UK’s FTSE 100 index fell to its lowest level in a year, dropping by nearly six percent, while Germany’s Dax plunged almost 10 percent at the start of trading yesterday.

This comes as the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, said tariffs, which are a tax on imports, are a “huge challenge.”

Trump’s officials have continued to be dismissive the impact of the tariff war on the global economy and stock markets.

Peter Navarro,Trump’s trade adviser, said that the administration has been seeing a “beautiful situation” with the stock market and prices since the tariffs were introduced and advised businesses not to panic about what they are seeing on the stock market.

According to him, “any discussion of recession seems silly.”

It was during the latter part of the 1960s – around 1968 or 1969. There was no mobile phone, no social media. There was the ubiquitous radio that provided news daily. In certain households television was also available.

Despite the absence of social media, people were well-informed about events and people. For example, we were aware that there was a young commissioner in the government of Western State under Governor Adeyinka Adebayo. The young man was known simply as Olunloyo. 

He was said to be a talented mathematician. As commissioner for education, he would visit secondary schools and assess their operations. He would reprimand school principals and teachers who were underperforming. He would give instructions on what should be done to improve the school. He would leave as quickly as he appeared. Sometimes, they said, he would drive his vehicle himself to events.

The rumours and stories were many. We were young and happy to know that there was someone at the top who was acting differently from the usual politicians who went around in obvious luxury. The politicians would be accompanied by lorry loads of supporters. The politicians would dance and make lengthy speeches. Once their visits ended and they left, all their promises would disappear with them. Increasingly, the military officers who had replaced the politicians at the time were looking and acting in the traditional mode of political leaders.

Although he was in the military government, Olunloyo was said to be different. He was radical. He was impatient with the politics, convoy of vehicles, supporters, the dancing and speeches. Well, this was the image that many in my generation had of Olunloyo in the 1960s.

Almost 15 years later, I was face-to-face with Dr. Victor Omololu Olunloyo one early morning at his home at Oke Ado, Ibadan. 

“Which media organisation are you from?” he asked.

“Me, sir?”

“Yes. You.”

“I am from NAN – News Agency of Nigeria.”

“You don’t have to spell out NAN to me. You think that I don’t know NAN? Ori e o daa. (silly person).” And he laughed. “I like your appearance…smart…tie and nice shirt.”

“Thank you, sir.” I felt good. NAN journalists were required to maintain a smart and formal appearance, conduct themselves in a professional manner, and never accept any form of renumerations or kickbacks from any news source, organization or person. 

Olunloyo was the gubernatorial candidate of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) for Oyo State. I was assigned to cover his and the party’s campaign that was to commence at the time.

The political landscape in 1983 was particularly dynamic. Olunloyo was aiming to unseat the popular incumbent Governor, Bola Ige, known for is eloquence, and a close-ally of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the leader of the Unity Party of Nigeria, the leading opposition party. 

At that time the NPN was led by President Shehu Shagari who held power over federal institutions and security forces which they deployed effectively for the campaign. Conversely, Ige and UPN had a robust party structure in Oyo State, and a long tradition of ruling the state. The state media was effective and highly capable, and firmly under the control of the UPN.

Almost every day, Olunloyo embarked on political campaigns, accompanied with a retinue of vehicles carrying NPN leaders, notably Chief Adisa Akinloye, Chief Richard Akinjide, Chief Lamidi Adedibu, and party cadres. They would travel to towns, villages and small settlements in Oyo State to canvass for votes, visit local leaders and make promises. The reporter’s duty was to file news stories, write feature articles and generally reflect back to the public what happened in the various places.

Olunloyo loved to tell stories. When he was not on the road or campaigning, it was a delight to listen to him. Especially when his party leaders were not in the room, he would lambast every party, including his own. He often recounted tales of corrupt politicians, and how Nigerians were being deprived of their rights, particularly rights to economic development. 

One day, we, the media representatives, were gathered as usual in the spacious living area of Olunloyo’s residence. He was telling us stories about how people wanted the NPN in power. How NPN, his party, would triumph in Oyo, Iwo, Iseyin etc. and how Ibadan people would vote himself as their son. A fellow reporter had his notebook out and was scribbling away, capturing the revealing assertions and claims of Olunloyo.  

Suddenly, without any prior indication, Olunloyo got up from his chair and seized the reporter’s notebook. He tore it to pieces while saying: “Oniko kuko. O ti le ko ikokuko ju. O ri e o da. (You write all kinds of nonsense. You write too much nonsense. Silly.)”

The he sat down and continued his story as if nothing had happened. The reporter continued to cover the NPN campaign throughout the period with no further incident. Olunloyo did not stop either to provide journalists with information about everything that interested him, including his calculations of how Nigeria could have a democratic government in the long run.

On another day, I arrived early at Olunloyo’s house, ahead of my colleagues. It was not unusual. He had just finished breakfast and he offered me tea.

“No, sir. I have already had breakfast.”

“You NAN people… always proper,” he joked.

“Thank you, sir.”

Then he asked me if I thought that he would be the next governor of Oyo State. I was already familiar with Olunloyo. He did not appreciate pretext or flattery. I gave it to him straight, and told him what I heard around town and my own perspective. 

“I do not see yet how you will win this election, sir,” I concluded

“Really?” he queried further.

“This is how I see it,” I held on to my position.

He gazed at me longer than he normally did, and then he said: “Bunmi, listen carefully. There has never been a free and fair election in Nigeria. Go and check the records, go through history. Do the analysis of campaigns, voting, returns and everything involved. This election will not be different.”

I nodded respectfully. I did not quite understand what he meant at the time. In some of our previous conversations, Olunloyo would say things that left me puzzled anyways.

At the end of voting in that election, Olunloyo was victorious and assumed office as governor of Oyo State. He served from October 1983 to December 1983 when General Muhammadu Buhari took over Nigeria in a military coup. 

When Olunloyo was declared governor, I was no longer in Ibadan to ask him the question – what made his calculations work as he had predicted?

May his lively, brilliant and vibrant soul rest in peace.

Makinwa is the CEO of AUNIQUEI Communication for Leadership.

If the essence of government is the security of life and properties of citizens, President Tinubu must take responsibility for last week’s massacre of over 65 innocent Nigerians in Bokkos, Plateau State. This is not just because the buck stops at his desk or even because of what former vice president, Atiku Abubakar described as: “The failure of Bola Tinubu’s security architecture which has now become an endemic nationwide phenomenon …” Nigerians are proud of their military’s heroic battle with insurgents in the last two years compared to preceding eight years of daily harvest of death when Buhari from commander in chief became ‘mourner in chief’. As a mark of their faith in the military, survivors of last week dastardly act who spoke to the press have nothing but praises for the military’s heroic confrontation with the marauders.

But the buck stops at the president table because of the choices he made. President Tinubu understands the historical antecedent of the quest for self-actualization by different Nigerian groups especially the Ijaw of south-south and the people of the Middle Belt region that at different times after independence embarked on insurrection that had to be suppressed by the Nigerian military. He is aware of the confiscation and sharing of Hausa land among Uthman Dan Fodio’s 12 Fulani kinsmen and one Hausa appointed as emirs following Uthman Dan Fodio Jihad of 1803-1808; the decision to hold on to the land despite the 1903 Frederick Lugard’s “the power once exercised by the defeated caliphate had reverted to the British” after sacking of Sokoto Sunni Muslim and Herbert Macaulay’s 1908 successful campaign against the Hausa Land Ordinance. The president understands the quest for distributive justice without which a nation decays.

President Tinubu, more than anyone else, understands the issues at stake because he spent 20 years preparing for his job. That was the source of his confidence when on the eve of the 2023 election, he declared without restraint ‘emi l’okan’ (it is my turn). 

And if there was anything he forgot, Nigerian stakeholders especially the leaders of ethnic nationalities, the real owners of Nigeria, the Afenifere, Ohaneze, MDF etc. were on hand to remind him that  Nigeria needs “a restructured Nigeria with constituent parts having power over law and order, education and public information; a restructured Nigeria where there is freedom and justice for all; a restructured Nigeria that protects the right of indigenes as enshrined in the UN charter;  a restructured Nigeria that puts an end to an orgy of killing of helpless women and children at night in the Middle Belt region by unidentified herdsmen”.

The president also had the privilege of hosting the ‘Patriots’, a group of credible Nigerian stakeholders led by Pa Emeka Anyaoku, the former Commonwealth Secretary General.

The president while not disagreeing with these Nigerian patriots who want the best for our nation said he would like to first pursue his economic agenda to bring prosperity to all Nigerians. But many have warned that it would amount to putting the cart before the horse since our problem is politics and not economics. Prosperity for all, will not resolve the national question neither will it eliminate peoples’ desires to have control over their lives, their culture and education of their children.

If short-sighted opponents of federal arrangement that have often benefited from our tragedy cannot see how the social system ended centuries of intertribal wars in Europe, it cannot be lost on them how nations like Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and Netherlands that currently top the list of the ‘happiest nations in the world’ only yesterday took control of their lives after negotiating peaceful federal arrangement.

Tragically, today as it was in 1951/52, we are still being haunted by the national question. It was the resistance of Yoruba to attempt by newly emergent Igbo leaders of Lagos urban immigrants to take over the west in the name of democracy, the newly imported god that earned the Yoruba the bastion of tribalism in Nigeria and fraudulently promoted by otherwise enlightened Igbo intellectuals including Chinua Achebe, a Nigerian ‘sun’ (apologies to Saro Wiwa).

From 1999, leading Igbo politicians and intellectuals including Kalu Uzor Kalu and Obiageli Ezekwesili sold the idea of ‘citizenship’ as answer to the national question even when it was obvious to the Yoruba whose First Eepublic leading NCNC leader, TOS Benson, could not secure a plot of land from Governor Sam Mbakwe to erect a building to bury his Igbo first wife and who today knows it will be an impossible task to get a market stall in Onitsha market.

In 2023, some Igbo elements in Lagos openly canvassed for Lagos governor of Delta origin on account of their population and business investments in Lagos. In fact, Peter Obi who left Anambra like a war-ravaged state after two terms as governor attempted to impose an untested candidate on Lagos. The natural reaction from Yoruba discriminatory voters, who unlike the Igbo don’t exhibit herd behaviour while voting, was to mobilise for their performing Yoruba son. With propaganda and manipulation of the social media, some Yoruba were labelled anti-democrats with their names presented for sanctions to the US administration and the UN which incidentally has clause in its charter for the protection of indigenous groups.

Those who truly love our country know that adopting any variant of federal arrangement we operated in the first republic will allow state governors take control of their states, provide security through state and community policing, defend their states against mindless killers described by ex-governors Masari  and El Rufai as ‘disgruntled immigrant Fulani herdsmen’, and of course have death sentence clause in their state statutes to take care of importers of killer fake drugs devastating our urban centres.

There are other reasons why the president must take responsibility for the Bokkos massacre. The president’s policy since assuming office has been about appeasement of elements responsible for mindless killing of Nigerians as against pursuit of justice for victims. Mindless killings have therefore continued because criminals hardly get sanctioned for their heinous crimes.

As Garba Shehu, President Buhari’s senior media adviser puts it in his July 21, 2020 statement ‘the problem in Southern Kaduna is an evil combination of politically-motivated banditry, revenge killings and mutual violence by criminal gangs acting on ethnic and religious grounds’. Echoing this point was Sa’ad Abubakar, Sultan of Sokoto, who at a meeting of the Northern Traditional Rulers Council (NTRC) and Northern States Governors’ Forum (NSGF) insisted that violence has continued to thrive in northern Nigeria and Middle Belt because ‘no one is punished for the criminal doings they commit’.

Wole Soyinka, in one of his messages to Buhari while in office had also said: “Crimes against our humanity have been committed, and restitution must be made. Nothing less will restore confidence in government, and reassure the people of its integrity, its commitment to equity in internal relationships and the rightful custodianship of ancient resources”.

To many of us the governed who do not know the challenges of government, the least the president could have done upon assumption of power, was to return those forcefully uprooted from their ancestral land back to their homes , if necessary, protected by our soldiers instead of being abandoned in IDP camps.

Since no one is above the law , the Emir of Kano Sanusi Lamido Sanusi who openly encouraged herdsmen in Benue to disobey Benue State anti-open grazing laws, Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, which encouraged his mostly foreign Fulani herdsmen to reject modern grazing methods while insisting that open grazing is part of Fulani culture, its Secretary- General, Saleh Al- Hassan  who haughtily insists herders can graze in Nigeria since herders ‘do not recognize international boundaries’; Bala Mohammed, Bauchi State governor  and Abubakar Malami, former Attorney General of the Federation who publicly promoted the invasion of reserved forests in the south by armed immigrants Fulani herdsmen should have been questioned in the interest of justice.

And finally, with the near unanimity of all the 36 states on state and community policing, Nigerians don’t believe the president needed two years to appease the hegemonic power in the north that see state and local policing as threat to their stranglehold on power.

Political enemies of the president insist if he could mobilise the National Assembly in 24 hours to support his Rivers State Emergency declaration, he must take full responsibility for the Bokkos massacre which they believe could have been averted with state and community policing.

A peek into Canadian, Mexican, Chinese, European, Japanese, and Korean media platforms reveals palpable angst, driven by strong expressions of nationalistic passion against the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and his administration. Citizens of these countries are expressing indignation due to the ongoing trade war—especially regarding the 10% across-the-board tariff on imports from 180 countries and, in some cases, additional tariffs of up to 54% on imported vehicles and other goods into the US from around 60 nations.

The tariffs took effect on April 2, a date President Trump has dubbed Liberation Day—drawing a parallel to July 4, 1776, when the original 13 American colonies declared independence from Britain after a brutal war.

In line with America’s foundational respect for freedom of speech and association, it’s remarkable—and indeed ironic—that, unlike other nations whose media are responding with patriotic fervor, the American media have not rallied behind their president. Instead of pushing back against foreign hostility, the highly vibrant US media have joined the global chorus in criticizing President Trump’s “America First” policies. In some quarters, they are even vilifying or outright demonizing their own president.

Such is the potency of free speech in the United States—a feature perhaps best captured by the concept of American Exceptionalism.

Despite a tumbling stock market and widespread protests fueled by fears of inflation and an impending recession—as predicted by anti-Trump politicians—President Trump appears unperturbed by the tumultuous effects his tariff policies are having on US trading partners. In fact, he has threatened to raise tariffs even further if Canada and European countries attempt to collude against the US. Although this has yet to happen, China—arguably the hardest hit—has retaliated with a 34% tariff on US imports.

In my view, these developments are reshaping the global trade ecosystem. As countries seek alternative trade partners to avoid the constraints of trading with the US on Trump’s terms, they may carve out entirely new trade pathways. Thus, the net effect of President Trump’s sweeping tariff hikes—targeting both allies and rivals—can be likened to the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory, the leading explanation for the origin and evolution of the universe, posits that the universe began as an infinitely hot and dense singularity about 13 billion years ago. According to its proponents, this singularity expanded rapidly, cooling and giving rise to subatomic particles, atoms, stars, and galaxies. The universe, they say, is still expanding—accelerated by the mysterious force known as dark energy.

President Trump’s “bang” can be seen through a similar lens: an explosive policy shift—rooted in an unconventional America First ideology—that has disrupted all previous global trade arrangements. Like a singularity, his approach is transforming the established order, replacing it with an untested but highly consequential framework. Though unproven in the modern era, it already appears to be generating seismic changes across the global economy.

Trump is leveraging tariffs as a strategy to boost job creation and repatriate manufacturing to the US. He also views them as a tool to generate revenue to reduce the national budget deficit, which stands at a staggering $36 trillion and continues to grow.

Given the global upheaval triggered by this astronomical tariff increase, it is difficult to find a better metaphor for Trump’s trade policy than the Big Bang. The ripple effects are so powerful that fear has gripped not only North and South American neighbors, but also Europeans, Asians, Arabs, and Africans—on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The only country that might remain untouched or unaffected by the far-reaching Trump effect is one operating in complete autarky—such as the reclusive regime of Kim Jong Un in North Korea.

While the Big Bang theory provides a comprehensive explanation for the origins of the universe, many unanswered questions remain—such as what caused the universe to begin expanding in the first place, and what is the true nature of dark matter and dark energy.
Similarly, what explains President Trump’s determination to upend the old world order remains an enigma to his opponents. At this point, not even his staunchest devotees can convincingly argue that his motives are purely patriotic, driven by the Make America Great Again (MAGA) ideology with the primary aim of correcting trade imbalances and closing the deficit gap that has led to a massive budget shortfall.

Of course, as is typical in opposition politics, Trump’s high tariffs and efforts to reduce the size of the US government—driven by the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DoGE) under the leadership of Elon Musk, the world’s richest man—are being framed as a gambit to cut taxes for billionaires. That narrative seems to have resonated, as Americans have taken to the streets in protest, in ways that suggest resistance to what former President Joe Biden described as an “oligarchic regime,” citing the number of billionaires in Trump’s cabinet.

The reality, however, is that Trump’s “bang” is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It affects different countries and regions in different ways.

Starting with Africa, where aid is critically needed to manage persistent social and public health challenges like HIV/AIDS, the suspension of USAID funding by President Trump is deeply concerning. USAID has been a vital source of funding for health and humanitarian initiatives, and its absence poses a significant threat. This is especially so because many African leaders have practically abdicated their responsibilities in this area, relying heavily on donor countries—led by the US—to provide for their citizens.

With USAID funding now cut off, many African countries are left scrambling to fill the gap. In Nigeria, the government has made an extra-budgetary provision of $200 million for healthcare services, while the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has injected almost $200 million into the foreign exchange (FX) market to help cushion the volatility and uncertainty resulting from the tariff hikes.

In Europe, the 25% tariff imposed on vehicles and alcoholic beverages—particularly from France and Scotland—poses a massive economic challenge. Many European economies are either already in recession or teetering on the brink. Even more alarming is the US threat to withdraw from its heavy financial commitment to NATO, coupled with demands that member nations pay up their dues. This creates a sense of vulnerability, especially as fears rise that Vladimir Putin may turn his attention to another European country after Ukraine.

From my perspective, the European Union’s support for Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine is less about altruism and more about self-interest—the first rule of nature. This is evidenced by the show of unity by European leaders around Zelensky after he was snubbed at the White House by President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. This strategic interest is also why Europe is now planning to set up a joint European military force as an alternative to NATO—an initiative already underway. But given the current economic strain on European economies, is the formation of a standing European force feaseable?

Regarding the high tariffs, Europe appears to have adopted a measured response, likely in line with the counsel of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Hence it seems to have adopted a studied approach.

The Arab world is also not left out. President Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” mantra means that the US will reduce its dependence on oil imports from countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman. Instead of preserving strategic oil reserves, the US will now focus on domestic drilling. Trump’s rationale appears to be that if fossil fuels are eventually being phased out due to the rise of Electric Vehicles (EVs), then it makes sense to exploit the existing oil reserves before combustion-engine vehicles become obsolete.

In any case, Trump has never embraced climate change in the way it is currently framed. The world is alarmed that he has once again pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accord, after former President Biden had rejoined during his administration. With oil prices crashing due to the tariff shock, an OPEC strategy meeting may soon be on the horizon.

China, currently celebrated as the world’s foremost manufacturing hub and the second-largest economy, has borne the brunt of Trump’s trade war. The 54% tariff imposed on goods ranging from vehicles to washing machines has essentially locked China out of the US market. These items were previously taxed at 10–25%, but after Trump’s April 2 Rose Garden announcement, the tariff soared to 54%. In response, China has imposed a 34% tariff on US exports. That has excerbated the chaos already wracking the global economy in the past couple of days.

The rationale behind these tariffs, according to Trump, is to bring manufacturing back to the US from Mexico, Canada, China, and Europe, where it had migrated due to what he deems as unfair trade practices. His strategy is designed to reverse this trend.

By understanding how President Trump’s influence is shaping events across Western, Asian, Middle Eastern (Arab), and African regions, we can better grasp the phenomenon—The Trump Effect—that I am likening to the Big Bang. Hopefully, this will encourage a more balanced perspective and lead to negotiations rather than a tit-for-tat trade war.

One irrefutable fact is that Trump is rewriting the global trade rulebook, and he is doing so by squelching globalization—a phenomenon that began between the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Placing this into historical context, the Silk Road and the Industrial Revolution—which began in Great Britain following the invention of the steam engine and the mechanical loom—kickstarted global trade by enabling mass production for markets beyond local demand.

In the modern era, global trade received a significant boost from the establishment of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1971, in Davos, Switzerland. Since then, global trade has been guided by the Davos Manifesto, which champions ethical entrepreneurship, responsible governance, and the neutral ideals of Swiss diplomacy—underpinning the spirit of globalization. A formal charter for this vision was adopted in 1973 and renewed in 2020.

History shows that global trade thrives when protected—and falters when it is not. For instance, trade in silk and spices between China and Rome during the first century BC flourished when protected by powerful empires. Once those empires declined, so did the trade routes and their prosperity.

Now, as President Trump—the leader of the current global hegemon—takes a protectionist stance, it is consistent with his past. He has long used tariffs as a tool for economic leverage. Even back in 1988, in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Trump,then a real estate mogul criticized China for what he saw as exploitation of the US economy.

Trump is not alone in this. A resurfaced video from 1996 shows Nancy Pelosi, then a Congresswoman from California, opposing a bill that would give China a special trade status. She argued against tariff exemptions for Chinese products—effectively advocating for the same policy Trump now champions.

In summary, the use of tariffs as a strategic tool in global trade has bipartisan roots in the US. What has changed is the scale and audacity of the Trump administration’s approach, which has sent shockwaves across the global economic landscape—earning it the moniker of a Big Bang moment in trade history.

So, Trump is literally echoing Pelosi’s sentiments with his current introduction of high tariffs. The only difference is that the tariff hike is not limited to China but has been extended to roughly 180 countries, with an estimated 60 nations significantly affected.

Even more interestingly, reports suggest that as recently as 2019, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was also on record proposing the use of tariffs as a defense against unfair trade practices—an argument now forming the basis of Trump’s ongoing global tariff war, which has placed the world on edge.

Experts familiar with the history and current application of tariffs reveal that about $400 billion worth of U.S. products were tariffed during Trump’s first term. In his current second term, projections suggest that up to $1 trillion worth of goods may fall under U.S. trade tariffs.

According to estimates by economists, approximately $3.3 billion worth of imports arrive in the U.S. annually.

President Trump is convinced that his high-tariff regime will generate more wealth for the United States through increased domestic production, which would, in turn, boost employment for working-class Americans. Another key objective is to create fairness in trade between the U.S. and its trading partners, whom Trump has accused of benefiting unfairly at America’s expense.

Ultimately, President Trump aims to use the proceeds from these high tariffs to help close the $36 trillion budget deficit currently facing the world’s largest and most powerful economy.

In light of this, Mr. Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade adviser, believes that high tariffs have the potential to generate over $6 trillion for the U.S. in the short term.

In all of this, my main concern and interest ly in how Africa can benefit from the reimagining of the global socioeconomic ecosystem, as President Trump upends the old world order.

With a 14% tariff now imposed by the U.S. on Nigerian goods and 10% across most of the 54 nations continent , Nigeria’s exports to the U.S.—valued at between $5–$6 billion (with oil and gas making up over 90% and non-oil/gas exports accounting for less than 10%)—are under threat.

Even among non-oil/gas exports, the bulk comprises raw materials such as urea/fertilizer, ammonia, flower plants, and cashew nuts, which make up about 8%.

It is disappointing that value-added or processed exports from Nigeria to the U.S. are so minuscule—just 2%.

Despite this low figure, the imposition of a 14% tariff on Nigerian goods—despite the trade balance favoring the U.S.—should serve as a wake-up call for Nigeria, and indeed all of Africa, to begin adding value to their exports. If non-oil exports, facing a 10% tariff, are to be competitive in the U.S. market, they must move up the value chain.

The dominance of raw materials in Nigeria’s exports reflects the country’s continuing role as a supplier of raw materials to the industrialized nations of Europe, North America, and Asia. Among the six continents, only South America and the Arab world have yet to fully exploit Africa as a raw material source and dumping ground for finished products. So, for too long Africa has remained the weeping child as it has held the wrong end of the stick and it must make strategic and intentional efforts to change the negative narrative.
What the Trump tariffs spells in my mind is deglobalization as economic trade and investments between countries go on decline. But the global tariff war is also an opportunity for the continent to reposition herself on the global stage by taking a collective stance on how African countries can trade amongst themselves who to trade with in global south or west and even Asia based on her terms not the Berlin, Germany type of framework and agreement when she was not at the table when her resources were being shared as war spoils amongst Europeans who transformed from African slave traders into colonialists exploiting the resources of the continent.
Although, stocks have been crashing worldwide since the hike in tariffs by Trump it may be recalled that stock prices also rose sharply upon the innauguration of Trump on 20th January and has fallen therafter. Similarly, the stocks that have tanked globally in the past few days may rise again once clarity is achieved. With barely 100 days into his four (4) years tenure those projecting that President Trump and the Republican party may be punished by the electorate during mid -term elections that comes up 100 days shy of two (2) years, may be too hasty in their judgement.
That is because in politics a lot could still happen in the lifespan of Trump’s administration which is still 100 days shy of the 730 days(two years ) tenure to change course if the reciprocal high tariffs imposition on trading partners does not pan out well with high inflation wrecking the economy or unemployement rising astronomically to the point that US economy stagnates or goes into recession as being predicted by those against Trump’s unorthodox policies.
In the event that the unique approach defies the logic of economists, Trump may turnout to be the a hero of the new world order.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy aadvocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

The call for zero transaction charges by commercial banks in Nigeria has grown louder, following Sterling Bank’s recent announcement to eliminate fees on mobile and online transfers.

This move, unveiled on April 1, has reignited discussions about financial inclusion and customer-centric banking practices while raising questions about the sustainability of such measures in a revenue-driven industry.

Sterling Bank’s policy eliminates charges for online transfers conducted through its mobile app, as well as fees for ATM card issuance.

Despite initial skepticism due to the announcement coinciding with April Fools’ Day, many customers have since confirmed that they were not debited for mobile transfer charges. The policy has been described by stakeholders as a potentially game-changing development in Nigeria’s financial ecosystem.

The current landscape of banking charges  

Nigerian banks currently levy a variety of charges for transactions, which include N10 for transfers below N5,000, N25 for transfers between N5,001 and N50,000, and N50 for transfers above N50,000. There is also an additional 7.5% VAT on transaction fees.

These fees have generated significant revenue for banks. For example, in 2024, Zenith Bank earned N80.05 billion from electronic transaction charges, a 54.51% increase compared to the N51.8 billion recorded in 2023.

Similarly, United Bank for Africa (UBA) generated N284.7 billion from electronic business transactions in 2024, representing an 85.9% growth in its e-transaction revenue when compared with the N157.1 billion recorded by the bank in 2023.

GTCO Plc also recorded N56 billion in electronic-related fees, alongside substantial earnings from account maintenance charges and forex commissions.

While these revenues are crucial to banks’ operations, they often impose a heavy financial burden on customers, many of whom frown upon the charges.

Sterling Bank’s zero-charge policy has sparked a renewed push for more customer-friendly banking practices.

Customer Perspectives: Zero Charges vs. Service Quality

The debate over zero charges versus service quality has revealed differing customer priorities.

A customer from Benin City, Kiki, prefers zero charges despite experiencing poor customer service.

“Many people will stand in the queue for a long time waiting to be attended to, but you will see bank staff eating, walking about, or even gossiping among themselves. Their customer service is so poor that it can force a loyal customer to close their account,” she told Nairametrics.   

“However, that small amount, when deducted, reduces the round figure in your balance. I’d rather have zero charges than better service.”  

Conversely, another customer, Anthony, values efficiency and convenience over cost savings.

“I prefer paying charges for faster service. This is why many of us use PoS agents instead of waiting in banks with poor service.”  

However, zero charges could potentially attract more customers to banks, especially if combined with improved service delivery.

While infrastructure upgrades in 2024 disrupted services across major banks like Sterling Bank, Zenith Bank, and GTCO, such measures indicate the need for banks to balance modernization with seamless service delivery.

How sustainable is this?

Sterling Bank’s zero-charge policy has also drawn criticism, with some questioning its sustainability.

A senior management staff at a major bank suggested that Sterling’s announcement might be a marketing strategy aimed at gaining attention.

“I know they always have these advertising angles or promotional angles that create some sort of curiosity. I know them to be looking for relevance in this kind of stuff; they are notorious for things like that.”  

He referenced past controversial campaigns by the bank, such as its 2022 Easter message comparing the resurrection of Jesus Christ to rising Agege bread, which faced backlash for insensitivity.

In its Easter celebration messages in April 2022, the bank shared a post with the quote, “Like Agege Bread, He Rose” across its social media handles, but the message attracted widespread criticism from many Christians, including the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN).  

“They’re trying to be creative but are not even sensitive to the culture and the religion of their customers. I didn’t even take them seriously,” he said in a chat with Nairametrics.  

On the other hand, CEO of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise (CPPE), Muda Yusuf, views the zero-transfer-charge policy as a step toward promoting business sustainability.

Speaking with Nairametrics, he emphasized the importance of “compassionate capitalism,” urging businesses to support vulnerable segments of society, particularly in a challenging economic environment.

“If a business operates in an environment where citizens are groaning in poverty, it should learn to give away part of its profits, even if it could maximize them. This is what makes up business sustainability,” Yusuf stated.   

He expressed hope that other banks will take a cue from Sterling Bank.

What you should know  

Under its new policy, Sterling customers will enjoy free transfers for all local transactions conducted via the bank’s mobile app.

• This translates into significant savings, particularly for individuals and new small business owners who make frequent daily transfers.
• The move was met with widespread reaction across social media, placing pressure on industry peers to follow suit.
• As the financial sector grapples with balancing profitability and customer satisfaction, Sterling Bank’s initiative could set a precedent for more customer-focused banking practices.
• While the policy has sparked both praise and skepticism, its long-term impact will depend on whether other banks follow suit and how customers respond to this shift in the banking landscape.

[Nairametrics]

Nigerian award-winning singer, Oluwatobiloba Daniel Anidugbe, better known as Kizz Daniel, has claimed that with money comes problems.

Naija news reports that the ‘Woju’ crooner made this known in a post via X, stating that wealth does not automatically guarantee happiness.

He said many wealthy people experience sadness despite affluence and warned that financial wealth comes with hidden burdens.

The singer also cautioned against idolising money and the illusion of happiness on social media, which often masks loneliness, anxiety, or dissatisfaction.

Kizz Daniel said he still lives like a poor man every day, stating that money chases him instead of him chasing money.

He added that wealthy people do not tell others the truth about money because they want to feel superior.

He wrote, “Why when money cme, happiness dey always comot ? Forget all these fake love and fake happiness online ? the real happiness I’m talking about. So many people get money but they are sad.

“I still live like a poor man everyday ? na money dey chase me instead. Guys I’m not saying don’t chase money , I’m just saying with money comes problems. People wey get am no go tell una the truth cuz they want to feel superior.”

[NaijaNews]

A female driver of a Toyota Salon car sustained varying degrees of injuries after her vehicle fell off the Otedola Bridge outward the Lagos-Ibadan expressway in Lagos State on Monday morning.

It was gathered that the car with the registration number IKJ 126 BH had lost control while hitting another car in the process before it fell off the bridge and landed not far off a ditch under the bridge.

According to viral videos on social media, as at 9:02am emergency responders and security personnel were at the scene, working to determine the driver’s identity and the circumstances leading to the accident.

The Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA) confirmed the incident in a statement posted on its X (formerly Twitter) handle, noting that emergency responders were on the ground to manage the situation and ensure the free flow of traffic in the area.

The agency noted that the driver had been rescued and taken to the nearby hospital.

According to the statement, “Report of an accident of a car that fell from Otedola Bridge. The driver has been rescued and taken to the nearby hospital.

“There is backlog from Otedola Bridge to Berger inward Secretariat, but our officers are on scene managing the situation effectively.”

“Other officers are also on ground doing the needful,” LASTMA added.