A presidential aspirant of one of the two mainstream political parties in the United States of America has just lost the nomination to his opponent in a keenly contested presidential primary. Thinking that the combination of both men would make a formidable team in the looming presidential election, the loser was asked whether, if contacted, he would accept to be running mate to the winner of the party flag. His response was terse: "I hate all vices, including the vice presidency"!

In most countries, especially in a democracy, the vice president is seen as the Number Two man; although I think this should not be so, especially where the three arms of government - the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary - are deemed equal and co-terminus according to the theory of separation of powers as propounded by Baron de Montesquieu. One arm should not be Number One and Number Two at the same time. If the Executive claims the Number One slot, then, the Legislature and Judiciary should share the Number Two and Number Three slots as the head of the other two arms of government. The vice president heads no arm of government. He becomes relevant only when the president is not available. But this is an argument for another day!

Whoever it was that likened the vice president or deputy governor to a vehicle's spare tyre is closer to the point. Spare tyres are irrelevant when the actual tyres are in active service. What is a spare? A dictionary definition says it is "an extra tyre carried in a motor vehicle for use in case of a puncture" In the event of no puncture, then, the spare tyre is of no relevance but is a burden that occupies space that could otherwise have been converted to more beneficial use. Little wonder, then, that many motor vehicles these days have devised the means of tucking the spare tyre away in compartments that would not use up space needed for more useful purposes.

Are "spare tyres" similarly of little or no use in a political setting? The answer is yes and no. In the United States, there is the saying that the vice president is to be seen and not heard. In other words, the Number Two must not hug, share or struggle for the limelight with the boss. When the mother elephant trumpets, the baby must keep quiet! Any errant baby elephant that trumpets when the mother trumpets will get a knock on the head to silence it! Like John the Baptist, the forerunner, said in the scriptures that he must decrease for Jesus Christ to increase, the vice president or deputy governor is to promote his or her boss rather than attempt, like Lucifer did with God, to set up his or her own throne and contest power with or undermine the boss.

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) invests the president and governors with immense powers, such that their vice is left virtually at their mercy. They can empower them; they can also emasculate them. Even where the Constitution vests the vice president with the headship of the National Economic Council, he still can only effectively function in this office at the pleasure of the president.

This, however, is not to say that the position of vice president or deputy governor is totally irrelevant. For the purpose of contesting elections, no one can be deemed duly elected as president or governor without having a duly elected vice or deputy. Where the election of a vice or deputy is voided, the election of the president or governor stands similarly voided. I think this is what the African-American politician and civil rights activist, Rev. Jesse Jackson, means when he said a bird needs two wings to fly.

Our history is replete with strong deputies who even took the shine off the boss. Chief Obafemi Awolowo was a strong deputy to Gen. Yakubu Gowon. When Gowon, in 1974, declared 1976, the date he had earlier set for the return to civilian rule, as unrealistic and Awo left his cabinet, he was toppled on July 29, 1975 while attending an OAU meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Gen. Murtala Muhammed was a strong leader; his deputy, Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, was not seen, not to talk of being heard. But when Obasanjo himself became the Head of State as a result of the assassination of Murtala on February 13, 1976, his deputy, Gen. Musa Yar'adua, was not only a very strong deputy, he was the de facto ruler while Obasanjo was a mere figurehead Head of State.

The country's first civilian president, Alhaji Shehu Shagari and his vice, Dr. Alex Ekwueme, were both captives of their party, the National Party of NIgeria (NPN). The party chairman, Meridith Adisa Akinloye, and Umaru Dikko, of the rice and cement armada fame, were, perhaps, even more powerful than Shagari and Ekwueme.

Buhari as military dictator (1983 - 1985) was not as powerful as his deputy, Tunde Idiagbon. Buhari is said characteristically to enjoy the plums of office while someone else does all the job for him. So, Idiagbon was famously regarded as Buhari's brain box in Buhari's first coming as the country's leader.

Ibrahim Babangida was his own man. He marginalized his deputy, Commodore Ebitu Ukiwu, who was forced to resign and was replaced by pliant and fawning Augustus Aikhomu. Sani Abacha, like Babangida, was his own man. Efforts by his deputy, Gen. Oladipo Diya, to wield some influence led to his being entangled in allegations of a coup plot. Diya barely escaped with his life.

Gen Abdulsalami Abubakar and his deputy, Mike Akhigbe, were birds of a feather - drab! The only eventful events of their tenure were that MKO Abiola, winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential elections judged free and fair by all, died in their custody; they released some detained persons and also handed over power to a civilian government on May 29, 1999.

In his second coming as Nigeria's leader, Obasanjo, in his first term of office, literally ceded effective power to his deputy, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, who leveraged it to feather his nest. Atiku nearly pulled the rug off Obasanjo's feet but the wily old fox fought back and had Atiku's back to the wall during his second term. Nevertheless, Atiku was a strong deputy.

Umaru Yar'Adua was a strong-willed leader but ill-health got the better part of him. Both as vice president and as president, Goodluck Jonathan was a weak leader. Jonathan and his vice, Namandi Sambo, were birds of a feather - colourless!

In Buhari's second coming as NIgeria's leader, he was an absentee president who abdicated power to a cabal of family members and friends to run the country aground while serving ethnic, religious and regional interests. Buhari's vice, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, was a passenger in the corridors of power. At best, he only improved on his curriculum vitae!

It is too early to say what kind of leader President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will make. As the governor of Lagos State, he was a strong governor who saw off two deputy governors before finishing his second term with the third. Will he make a strong president? For now, the answer blows in the wind. The confidence he found to announce that fuel subsidy is gone in his inaugural address to the nation must now be brought to bear in vital sectors of the country's national life: rampaging insecurity, runaway inflation and virtual economic collapse, the fight against corruption, and the need to call his predecessor to account for his atrocious tenure.

Tinubu's vice, Kashim Shettima, was a strong governor in Borno but is yet to carve a niche for himself as the country's Number Two. What did he bring into this government, if I may ask? What is his forte? Is it security? Is it the economy? Is it bridge-building and fire-fighting? I have not seen much of Shettima's contributions to the Tinubu presidency.

Tinubu is engulfed on many fronts. He appears to me as the only one fighting the fires. Exasperated, I think, his wife, Oluremi, joined the fray the other day in Bauchi, gallantly vowing to die fighting on the side of her husband. Where are the key members of the Tinubu administration and in which area are they lifting up Tinubu's hands, like biblical Aaron and Hur did unto Moses?

Although Tinubu has passed a vote of confidence in his Chief of Staff, all we hear from some circles are stories of scandals, more scandals and still more scandals! The office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation is powerful; a Northern Christian occupies it. Has that resulted in his ability to wall in his constituency around the president?

The greatest challenge of the country today is insecurity - which is gulping money that otherwise should have been put to productive ventures, which is destroying critical infrastructure, which is driving farmers from the farm and students/pupils from school, which is creating millions of internally-displaced persons, which daily leads to the killing and maiming of the innocent, which breeds kidnapping for ransom, etc.

Yet, the National Security Adviser is from the same North. The MInister of Defence is from the same North. The Chief of Defence Staff is from the same North. The Chief of Air Staff is from the same North. We can go on and on! What have all these people brought to the table?

Opinion is divided as to the actual role of the vice president in the Boko Haram debacle but what cannot be denied is that he has a wealth of experience when the topic of discussion is insurgency. How has he brought that experience to bear since May 29, 2023?

Is there a grand design to continually bleed this country for some people to daily smile to the bank? Is there a plot to make the country ungovernable for a southern President? A scantily-concealed scorched-earth policy to unhing this President may be afoot. Who is for and who is against needs to be unraveled.

There have been a few writeups and commentaries on the above subject lately, and it is quite amusing how an event that represents a classic case of the familiar boardroom coup, in the form of the hostile takeover of a bank from its previous owners several years ago, is now suddenly being criminalised. The acquiring parties in the transaction have been dubbed "political thieves" in one instance and projected in similar uncomplimentary epithets in several other instances.

We may not approve of it, all right, but without going into the specifics of the institution and personalities involved in the case at hand, hostile takeovers are widely accepted forms of acquiring businesses. They also do occur with something of uncommon regularity the world over, every now and then.

Hostile takeovers refer to the acquisition of targeted corporations, often against the express or tacit wishes and preferences of their existing board and management. Plus, they are perfectly legal and effectively regulated, with adequate provisions to deal with errant behaviour on either side. They are distinct from friendly takeovers, in which the two parties to the transaction mutually agree to cooperate towards the same result.

Often accomplished by stealth, a hostile takeover takes place when an acquiring entity, also described as the acquirer or aggressor, desires to attain full control of the target company by way of the surreptitious acquisition of a significant enough quantum of its shares from existing shareholders. More often than not, that is achieved without the prior knowledge, sanction, and/or cooperation of the target company's existing management and/or owners, who are subsequently bought out in the end.

It is imperative to stress at this point that the entire setting around the hostile takeover undertaking is centered around the application of the willing-buyer, willing-seller principle; between and amongst holders of the target company's stocks and potential investors desirous of acquiring same, and it is achieved through the instrumentality of the appropriate medium for the trading of the stocks. 

Through such legal stock transactions, the stake of the original owners or majority shareholders gradually gets diluted as the shares exchange hands and new buyers are brought in; a process that can be accomplished within a relatively short time span or over an extended period from start to finish. Once the aggressor has acquired a reasonable enough proportion of shares to trigger a takeover, the deed is as good as done.

Of course, in all probability, the target company would view a hostile takeover as nothing short of a brazen assault or an undesirable invasion aimed at undermining the independence and effective control of its existing management team. And rightly so too. Conversely, advocates and/or supporters of hostile takeovers would argue that they help stimulate and promote impactful positive changes and improvements in the acquired entity. These can manifest in the form of improved corporate governance practices, along with enhanced operational efficiencies and increased shareholder value in the acquired entity.

Now, we may not approve of the methods employed in the case of Access Bank acquisition well over two decades ago today, for example, and that is fine. But the next logical and honest question we should all ask ourselves is whether or not the acquisition and subsequent takeover of the bank from its initial promoters has achieved the above-stated objectives. 

And a dispassionate response to that question should necessarily take into consideration the current standing of the bank in the industry, vis-a-vis the state it was prior to the acquisition, while also not losing sight of the fact that many of the bank’s contemporaries established at or about the same time with it have since gone under.

It is also worthy of note that the same or similar hostile takeover practices that some of the writeups in reference actively seek to criminalise are still happening, both in the nation's financial services industry and in other critical sectors of the economy even as we speak. 

Indeed, the latest of such takeovers occurred just recently when Femi Otedola effectively took over as Chair of First Bank of Nigeria (FBN) Holdings Plc in a similar fashion, by virtue of his becoming the largest shareholder of the bank through his direct and indirect holdings. Another instance, albeit a failed one, would be that of the attempted takeover of Transcorp Plc, with investments in the Hospitality, Power, and Oil & Gas Sectors, also by the same investor not long ago. This was, however, promptly resolved amicably through negotiations between the two parties, in the overall best interest of the organisation.

Other notable examples of hostile takeovers from across the world include: the acquisition of Time Warner by America Online Inc. (AOL), regarded as the biggest and one of the most aggressive takeover bids to date; InBev’s acquisition of Anheuser - Busch, maker of Budweiser in mid-2008; the acquisition of PeopleSoft by Oracle towards the end of 2004; that of RBS and ABN Amro in October 2007; and Kraft Foods’ takeover of Cadbury, amongst several others.

Of course, there are several initiative-taking and reactive defensive strategies out there that can be employed to guard against hostile takeovers and/or respond to them, which the original promoters of Access Bank obviously failed to take advantage of at the time. but that is an entirely different discussion for another day.

Abdullahi Usman

He travels like a bird

With wings that take him far But his feathers fall everywhere And settle like a scar

When he lands he’s worshipped

A king upon a throne

But they don’t know the consequence For he doesn’t let it show

His children miss him dearly Those feathers which he dropped Heartbeat, heartbeats all over Heartbroken he is naught

A brick atop a ceiling

A drop outside a glass

We know outside he means something But when is his entrance?

...

August 3, 2019

The day we saw him last Though far across the water His freedom was still cast

Myself upon a couch

My Brother sprawled on chair

My Mother’s words reached high-pitched points Now finally aware

I imagined it with handcuffs Peaceful from respect

A man who fought for his people Not needing to object

And then I saw the truth An act of tyranny

A look into the harsh abuse

 Now everyone would see ...

His laugh came with an accent

His heritage so clear

We loved the way he said his words The way he wore his hair

We poked fun at him often For things a father has

His funny, big round tummy His passion for bad dance

He gave the greatest hugs

A man with a big heart

That beat for everyone he knew — I’ve known him less apart

I hope once more I’ll see him

That his wings land him home

His crown thorns grow unbearable His window dew drops foam

In recent years, the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics has sparked a debate about the revolutionary impact of the nascent technology and the potential for these technologies to replace humans, in many areas such as politicians and bureaucrats in government. The idea of unbiased algorithms generating robots that are free from the shortcomings of incompetence and corruption associated with some of these professionals has become of particular interest to me, because of the fact that a country as blessed as Nigeria, had been brought to a near comatose state of economic depression, as a result of past incompetent and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.

Now as an AI scholar and enthusiast, it is clear to some of us in that space and field of studies and research, that with AI's proven ability to perform tasks with close to zero margin of error, it begs the question: Can robotic AI perform better than politicians and bureaucrats?

Governments around the world have faced numerous cases of incompetence, social and financial scandals, and corruption among their leaders. Transparency International and other socio-political watchdogs have consistently ranked countries based on their perceived levels of corruption and governance effectiveness. From presidents and prime ministers to state governors and parliamentarians, the list of officials charged with corruption and misappropriation of public funds is extensive. Could a leader programmed with AI be the solution to this pervasive issue?

The efficiency and productivity of AI in various tasks have been well-documented. From drug discovery to the cure of diseases that have long eluded human researchers, AI has shown its capacity to outperform humans in many areas. For example, AI has consistently defeated world champions in games like chess and Go, showcasing its superiority in strategic decision-making and problem-solving capabilities.

In the case of Nigeria and the challenges that the country currently faces, have been as a result of prolonged economic crimes against the sovereignty by men and women who have been charged with the administration of the country’s resources for several decades in the past. Clear examples abound in nearly every field of the country, in critical sectors of the economy and overall development. The bureaucracy has long been fraught with endemic bribery and corruption, inefficiency and ineffectiveness in nearly all aspects of our national life- ranging from the civil service, Ports Authority Administration, Customs, Police, Immigration, Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and crude oil theft, allegedly by humans who were put in charge of running and protecting the main national asset, the Central Bank of Nigeria (that became a Bureau De Change for a few), and dabbled into all manner of unrelated functions of a Central Bank, and almost all agencies of government are immersed in misappropriation of public funds and resources.

Considering these advancements in technology, the idea of using AI in governance is not far-fetched. International organizations such as the United Nations, ASEAN Union, African Union,BRICS and other regional blocs should initiate discussions on the potential applications of AI in leadership roles. By leveraging algorithms to create effective and efficient systems for both public and private sector leaders, could AI help address some of the longstanding challenges facing humanity, such as wars, conflicts, hunger, diseases, climate change, nuclear proliferation and corruption?

The use of AI in governance on the other hand, however, raises some important ethical and practical considerations. While AI may offer solutions to some of the problems plaguing governments worldwide, there are concerns about accountability, transparency, and the potential for bias in AI decision-making. How can we ensure that AI-driven leadership is fair and equitable for all members of society? What safeguards need to be put in place to prevent abuse of power by AI systems? That is the reason that every country or economic bloc, come up with a Regulatory Framework for the application of AI. The USA, China, UK, and the European Union (EU), have already led with that initiative of creating regulations around the use of AI. (In my publication: “The Need for the Creation of a Regulatory Framework for AI” published in the National Diploma Newspaper; I had called on the Federal Government of Nigeria to establish an AI regulatory framework and authority)

One potential benefit of AI in governance is its ability to analyze vast amounts of data, through Generative AI (GAI), Machine Learning (ML), and Large Language Models (LLM), quickly and accurately. By processing information from various sources, AI systems can provide insights that human leaders may overlook. This data-driven approach to decision-making could lead to more informed policies and strategies, potentially improving the overall effectiveness of government operations.

Additionally, AI could help streamline bureaucratic processes and reduce inefficiencies in government agencies. By automating routine tasks and optimizing resource allocation, AI systems could free up human officials to focus on more strategic and high-level responsibilities. This could lead to a more agile and responsive government that is better equipped to address the needs of its citizens.

However, the integration of AI into governance is not without its challenges. One major concern is the potential for AI systems to perpetuate existing biases and discrimination. If AI algorithms are trained on data that reflects historical inequalities, they may inadvertently reinforce these biases in their decision-making processes. To prevent this, it is essential to develop AI systems that are transparent, accountable, and regularly audited for fairness.

Another challenge is the risk of AI systems being manipulated or hacked to serve malicious purposes, such as rigging elections, and population head counts in national census. Ensuring the security and integrity of AI systems in governance will be crucial to preventing unauthorized access and manipulation of sensitive government data. Strong cybersecurity measures and robust oversight mechanisms will be necessary to safeguard AI-driven governance systems from external threats.
There is also this notion that the implementation of AI would lead to job losses. The answer is Yes and No. For the proponents of job losses; they are right to the extent of the types and manning of jobs. And for those who say No, that AI would not lead to job losses par say, they argue that in enhancing productivity and efficiency, it would create greater opportunities in the economic value chain, that would need workers to retrain in new fields that would be needed as a result of AI applications to business.

In conclusion, the debate over whether robotic AI can outperform human politicians and bureaucrats is complex and multifaceted. While AI has demonstrated impressive capabilities in various domains, the integration of AI into governance poses unique challenges and considerations. By engaging in thoughtful discussions and collaboration, national, international organizations and governments can explore the potential benefits of AI in leadership roles while addressing the ethical and practical concerns associated with this technology. The future of AI in governance is uncertain, but with careful planning and strategic implementation, it has the potential to revolutionize the way we approach governance and decision-making on a global scale. For me, it is clear that the benefits of an AI-fuel governance system, far outweighs its perceived drawbacks.

Sonny Iroche: A 2022/2023 Senior Academic Visitor at the African Studies Centre of the University of Oxford.

Now a 2024 Post Graduate Student in “Artificial Intelligence for Business” at the Saïd Business School. University of Oxford

Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Ezenwo Wike, has bemoaned persons he said are notoriously making Guinness Book of Records as pretenders.

Wike said this in Port Harcourt at the 60th birthday celebration of the national vice chairman (South-South) of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Chief Victor Giadom.

The former Rivers State governor stated that Giadom was not a pretender and was not fashioned like some persons, who failed to reveal their true identities as snakes.

He said, „Even though we were of different parties, Victor had never gone on television to abuse any of his friends. He doesn‘t allow politics to be a wedge between him and his friends. He plays politics and still remains with you.

Victor is someone, who will tell you he will be with you and he will be with you. Victor is not a pretender. He is not one of those who have made the Guinness Book of Records as pretenders.

 There are those, who had made Guinness Book of Records by pretending. Nobody knew that they were snakes.

“Victor is not an ungrateful person. He is not an ingrate. He remembers those who stood by him and who will stand by him. When I was Chief of Staff, Victor became the chairman of Gokana Local Government. He left us and went to the other side.

Wike emphasized that he remained a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) despite that his loyalists, who are members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, had joined the APC.

The FCT minister, who stated that as a PDP member, he had defeated Giadom many times in elections, said their political differences would not stop him from identifying with the APC national vice chairman.

He said: „He belongs to the APC, I belong to the PDP. I am a member of PDP even though my Assembly members are APC but I am a good member of PDP. I have come here to identify with him. I have defeated him but it doesn‘t mean I shouldn‘t come and celebrate with him.“

[Leadership]

The military high command has denied reports that troops went on a reprisal attack after the killing of 16 soldiers in the Okuama community in Delta State. 

Daily Trust had reported how an army commander, two majors, one captain and 12 soldiers were killed in Okuama.

The deceased officers and soldiers were from 181 Amphibious Batallion in Bomadi Local Government Area of Delta.

Chief of Defence Staff, General Christopher Musa, had directed the immediate investigation and arrest of those involved in the heinous crime.

Days after the order, residents of the Okuama community fled to neighbouring Ughelli for fear of reprisal by soldiers.

The Director of Defence Media Operations, Edward Buba, yesterday said the armed forces being a disciplined force complies with its rules of engagement, laws of armed conflict and respect for human rights. 

He said, “The ugly incident in the Okuama community in Delta State is indicative of the dangers our gallant troops experience to secure our nation. 

“The military assures that there would be measured responses and injurious consequences for the perpetrators of these dastardly acts. 

“Nevertheless, the armed forces being a disciplined force that complies with rules of engagement, laws of armed conflict and the respect for human rights would be tempered by these provisions. We would not be led by emotions but by the rule of law. 

“It is against this background that the military debunks all claims that the military embarked on reprisal attacks in the Okuama community after the incident. The community was deserted even before troops arrived at the scene. 

“Importantly, those involved in peddling this misinformation, disinformation and fake news that the military had embarked on reprisal attacks on the community following the incident, should desist from further dishonouring our fallen heroes.” 

The senior military officer urged community leaders, elders and even the people of Delta State to assist investigation to identify the perpetrators of the dastardly act so that they can be held accountable for their actions.

11 killed, houses razed in Bayelsa

Meanwhile, troops of the Nigerian Army have reportedly invaded the Igbomotoru community in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State, razing houses and allegedly killing about 11 people. 

Soldiers in five gunboats reportedly stormed the community and razed houses suspected to be the hideout of a militant leader said to be involved in the killing of the military men who were on a rescue mission in Delta.

A source said immediately the troops stormed the Bayelsa community, they opened fire on some residents relaxing at the jetty before proceeding to set ablaze the three buildings suspected to be the hideout of the said militant leader.

He said the community had been able to recover 11 corpses from the attack, while still searching for others.

He said, “The military invasion has affected the people gravely. Lives have been lost; properties have been destroyed. Even after the attack, I am sure that life in the community will never be the same.

“I am appealing to the federal and state governments to as a matter of urgency intervene in this matter. We do not have a hand in whatever transpired in Delta State. The international community should come to our aid.”

When contacted on the phone, the spokesman for Operation Delta Safe (OPDS) headquarters, Major Adenegan Ojo, terminated the call after hearing it was a journalist who called.

He, however, refused to answer subsequent phone calls.

Fish out killers of soldiers, Senate tells security forces  

The Senate has asked security forces to fish out the killers of 16 military personnel in the Okuama community. 

The Senate, in a statement on Monday by its spokesman, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, described the killings as a perfidious height of a barbaric and heinous crime.  

He said, “The Senate leadership and all distinguished senators of the 10th Senate condemn this attack and convey their deepest condolences to the Chief of Defence Staff, Chief of Army Staff, the Nigerian Army, officers and men of Operation Delta Safe as well as the families of all the personnel who have lost their lives. 

“We consequently support the president; the Commander of the Nigerian Armed Forces, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s charge to the security authorities to smoke out the undesirable outlaws who put off the glowing lights of those promising officers and men.” 

Killing of soldiers unacceptable – Kwara Gov 

 Kwara State Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq on Monday condemned the deadly attack on soldiers in Delta State, describing it as “unacceptable”. 

 AbdulRazaq spoke in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital, when he received participants of the Strategic Management and Policy Studies Course 6/23 from the Nigerian Army Resource Centre on a courtesy visit. 

The governor, who chairs the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF), sympathised with the federal government over the incident and praised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for his swift action and the directive to fish out the perpetrators. 

Also, the Director General of the Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution (IPCR), Dr Joseph Ochogwu, said the attack on soldiers in Delta State portrayed Nigeria in a bad light.

The DG, in a statement yesterday, also demanded a thorough investigation into the killings, adding that for a country to lose 16 officers and men when it is not at war is unacceptable.

The IPCR boss noted that all that the security personnel needed was commendation for their patriotic effort to secure the nation in this trying time. 

“We are calling for a thorough investigation into the incident and urge the military to remain very professional at all times no matter the provocation,” he said.

How slain soldiers were ambushed – Ex-General

Major General Cecil Esekhaigbe (rtd) has narrated how the soldiers and officers who were murdered in the Okuama community of Ughelli South Local Government Area of Delta State, were ambushed.

Speaking when he was featured as a guest on Channels Television, on Monday, Esekhaigbe said the soldiers went to the coastal community to find out why their colleagues who were on a peacekeeping mission to the village were held hostage.

He said, “Now, don’t forget you called it a peace mission; the mindset of these officers and men was to go and find out what the problems were and to find out why their men were kept behind. 

“So, their mind was not to go and fight and that is what we must understand. So, they were not going with the mentality of going for an attack, if they, even as few as they were, they would not have been able to surround and dastardly murder them the way they did.

“So, what played out here is that they fell into an ambush because these militia groups have sophisticated weapons and when you are ambushed, no matter how sophisticated you are, you will have the consequences of an ambush. That calls to mind the need for training and retraining because you must know the local environment in which you are operating.”

Army unveils identities of fallen heroes 

In a statement on Monday, the Nigerian Army unveiled the identities of the 16 fallen heroes.

They are: 

AH Ali Lieutenant Colonel (Commanding officer, 181 Amphibious Battalion)

SD Shafa Major

DE Obi Major

1. Zakari Captain

Yahaya Saidu Staff Sergeant

Yahaya Danbaba Corporal

Kabiru Bashir Corporal

Bulus Haruna Lance Corporal

Sole Opeyemi Lance Corporal

Bello Anas Lance Corporal

Hamman Peter Lance Corporal

Ibrahim Abdullahi Lance Corporal

Alhaji Isah Private

Clement Francis Private

Abubakar Ali Private

Ibrahim Adamu Private

Adamu Ibrahim Private

[DailyTrust]

FIFA President, Gianni Infantino has expressed his displeasure with the violence that took place after Sunday’s Turkish Super Lig game between Trabzonspor and Fenerbahce.

Infantino took to his social media to condemn such behaviour and urged authorities to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.

He emphasised the need for football players’ safety and stated that violence, both on and off the pitch, has no place in football or the broader society.

Following Fenerbahce’s 3-2 victory, a group of Trabzonspor fans invaded the field, leading to altercations between players from both teams, including Michy Batshuayi, Bright Osayi-Samuel, and Jayden Oosterwolde.

Infantino’s statement strongly condemned the actions of these fans and called for a thorough investigation.

The statement partly read: “The violence witnessed after the Turkish Süper Lig match between Trabzonspor and Fenerbahçe is absolutely unacceptable – on or off the field, it has no place in our sport or society.

“I call on the relevant authorities to ensure that this is respected at all levels and for the perpetrators of the shocking events in Trabzon to be held accountable for their actions.”

[DailyPost]

Senior and junior workers of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) yesterday issued a seven-day ultimatum to the Federal Government to reverse the presidential directive on automatic deduction of 50 per cent from its internally generated revenue (IGR) or they would shut the ports.

This was contained in a letter signed by the Senior Staff Association of Statutory Corporation and Government Owned Companies (SSASCGOC) and Maritime Workers’ Union of Nigeria (MWUN).

In the letter, the workers sought urgent reversal of the policy, insisting that if not curtailed, it would lead to irreversible industrial action and closure of the business at the ports.

The letter reads in part: “We wish to reiterate our position as stated in our letter reference above thus:

“The NPA, as the employer of workers who are our members, is self-funded and receives zero allocation from the government budget. This means that it needs to retain most, if not all, of the funds it generates in order to be able to continue to effectively discharge its duties, which include constant dredging of our Port; regular maintenance of our Quay aprons; maintenance of Ports, Jetties, and Terminals; manpower development and discharge of corporate social responsibilities (CSR).

“Without prejudice to the intentions behind the formation of policies to raise revenue for the Federal Government, it must be said that it is not advisable to introduce extractive policies to self-funding specialised entities as they will be subjected to unnecessary hardship and avoidable disruption of processes due to the revenue disruptions.’’

[TheNation]