THE POLICEMAN OF THE WORLD

As I watched Sec. of State, Antony Blinken, speak this evening so eloquently as he asked for balanced aid assistance to be provided for Ukraine and Israel, I could not but wonder how much of all that eloquence was politics and how much was just talk which we all agree is cheap. Right from the day of that incident on October 7 when Hamas fighters “casually strolled” over a “protected” border, I have wondered how much of what we are told on the news is true and how much is doctored information to elicit certain reactions from us.

How does a nation that is facing its own internal crisis; from an increasing wave of drug use amongst idle and generally laid-back youths who feel they are “entitled”, to a mind-boggling increase in gun violence and orgies of mass shootings by lone gunmen due to lax gun laws and a black community that is largely repressed, and several decades after the so-called laws that granted black citizens equal rights as their “white” counterpart, yet there are more black men in US prisons than anywhere else in the world.

How does such a nation still go about simply “dashing” its commonwealth to other nations who do not contribute to its citizen’s welfare nor can these nations be said to have the best interests US citizens at heart?

The monies being given away as economic and financial aid to these wars can be used to provide succor to American citizens who are facing economic downturns especially black neighborhoods, who are in dire need of financial aids.

WHY IS CHARITY NEVER BEGINNING AT HOME FOR AMERICANS??

Do the lives of the ordinary American citizens too not matter as much or more than those who are getting these aids? My question may be naive when looked at in the contexts of international politics and the role of the United States in world affairs but I think at this time, the average American citizen is weary of the role of the International Policeman of the world being played by the US. Charity must start at home for the American citizens and one can only pray this charity starts soon.

Everyone eventually gets what’s going to come to them as a result of their actions Hamas attacked the nation of Israel fully having knowledge of the consequences of their actions. Israel as a sovereign nation also has a right to defend and protect itself within the confines of international law that guides the conduct of war. Refugees must be protected and cared for.

You cannot stop the consequences of your action from becoming consequential to you yourself. This is the truth. However, American citizens must demand a more balanced and responsible approach to the conduct of international politics from their own government.

The stories and photographs from both the incident of October 7 and the consequences of that attack and it’s aftermath is painful to see. Man is proving to be the only animal that kills for pleasure. SAD!!!

THEO JOHN PHILLIPS
CEO
GOLDFIRE NIGERIA LIMITED

Given the momentum that had built up in the lead-up to the Supreme Court’s ruling on whether President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s mandate as the authentic winner of the February 25 elections was pyrrhic or confirmed, it ultimately turned out to be much ado about nothing.
This is because the Chicago State University (CSU) certificate which the election petitioners alleged was forged by the ruling APC candidate for the 2023 presidential election, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, which had been presented as a silver bullet of sorts, proved to be nothing but a farce.
The reason for this lies either in omission or commission by the attorneys of Wazirin Atiku Abubakar, the PDP presidential candidate, in the United States of America, USA who, according to Justice Inyang John Okoro, failed to exercise due diligence by not validating the deposition made by CSU registrar, Mr. Caleb Westberg, in the USA so that it could be considered valid evidence in Nigerian courts.
In the reckoning of Tinubu’s attorneys and as affirmed by the Supreme Court it needed to be signed or certified by the court that authorized it,but that did not happen.

In his announcement of the judgment on October 26, Justice Okoro, representing his six colleagues, namely Uwani Abba-Aji, Lawal Saulawa, Garba Ibrahim, Adamu Jairo, Tijani Abubakar, and Emmanuel Agim, maintained a restrained and respectful demeanor.
But that did not stop the eminent jurist from expressing his surprise at the negligence displayed by the senior members of the bar who were representing the former vice president, Atiku Abubakar, the runner-up in the presidential contest. In his ruling , they had presented a rather inadequate document from the United States and wanted it admitted when it was clearly out of time to submit new evidence based on the provisions in the Electoral Act 2022. Here is how the learned jurist put it:” l wonder how the appellants planned to use the Chicago documents from Chicago university “
What’s even more concerning to Justice Okoro, was their unreasonable demands in their other pleas because many of their requests were time-barred, as they fell outside the timeframe specified by the 1999 Constitution and the 2022 Electoral Act for such claims to be considered by the apex court when they were not presented or considered at the lower court .
The knowledgeable jurist proceeded to delineate the legal challenges as follows:
Supreme Court section 22 can not be activated after 180 days which elapsed on September 17. And the Electoral Act 2022 prohibits amendment of the pleas 21 days after the filling of a petition .
Initially, the Supreme Court faced a dilemma regarding how to convince Nigerians of its fairness and steadfastness in determining the legitimate winner of the 2023 presidential election.
This was due to the highly charged political atmosphere in Nigeria, saturated with insinuations, speculations, and outright disinformation, which had rendered the political landscape toxic, stifling, and volatile.
That stems from the fact that opposition parties and election deniers had engaged in potent psychological warfare, creating much tension such that any misstep or verbal slip could trigger a social crisis.
However, the remarkable transparency displayed by My Lordships in revealing the winner, along with the comprehensive explanation of their decision based on objective legal principles and a commitment to equitable justice, managed to quell the political turbulence that had been brewing for the past eight months since the presidential election took place on February 25.
Justice Okoro literally ended the anxiety that had gripped politically conscious Nigerians since the 25 February presidential polls which is eight (8) months ago this way:
“Atiku and Obi failed to prove that there was non compliance in the February 25,2023 presidential election…their witnesses were collation officers not polling agents.It is the agents that can attest to any anomaly in an election because they were the ones who witnessed election at polling units. The testaments of their witnesses were mere hearsay. The below court is right in its decision. The findings of the lower court can not be faulted “
The judge was so brutally frank, so clear and unambiguous in his pronouncements that there was no wriggle room for election deniers to twist the judgement.
The judgement of the Supreme Court this time is so transparent that it was unlike in the past when it got into trouble with Nigerians and attracted opprobrium to itself owing to verdicts in the past that were so opaque. Some of such are the decisions to award the governorship of Rivers state to Mr Rotimi Amaechi in 2007 when he did not campaign and his name was not on the ballot. Although the decision may be in accordance with the laws of our land , it was puzzling to most Nigerians because the Supreme Court failed to justify the legalese behind the decision. Equally perplexing was the award of the governorship of lmo state to incumbent governor, Senator Hope Uzodinma in 2020. That too was intriguing because the Independent Electoral Commission, INEC had placed him in the fourth position with three other contestants ahead of him. But relying on legal principles that defy logic, number four (4) became number one (1) with no explanation.
It was unsurprising that the two (2) referenced judgements became the butt of jokes in the political space. There were similar rulings by the Supreme Court in the current dispensation with the immediate past senate president Ahmed Lawan and current senate president Godswill Akpabio which generated public odium towards the Supreme Court and the benefactors of the rulings. Perhaps if the verdicts were explained in the way that the PEPT and Supreme Court decision to validate President Tinubu’s elections was done by adducing the legal principles and authorities relied on, the resentment could have been avoided. And that window is still open.
Arising from the above , through numerous media Interventions particularly in my article titled:”PEPT Verdict From Points Of View Of Emotions And Intimidation “published in this column on 19 September ,one has been in the forefront of imploring our courts, particularly the Supreme Court to explain to the masses how they arrive at their decisions because they deserve to know, more so because the court system which is the third arm of government, owe the masses that duty. It is in a situation where there is no clear explanations that the populace becomes vulnerable to exploitation by mischief makers. And that had been the case in the past, but currently not the situation because rigorous efforts were made by both the PEPT and Supreme Court to carry the masses along.
So it is gratifying that the reason that we are currently experiencing calm after the storm over a bitterly contested presidential election is that the Supreme Court jurists heeded our humble advice by putting themselves through the rigor of explaining the granular details to anxious Nigerians, hence most of them have acquiesced with the verdict of the just concluded 2023 elections without further rancor.
One is never in a more challenging situation than when confronted with a dilemma where taking action leads to condemnation and inaction leads to the same fate. This implies that regardless of your actions, be it moving or not moving, you would face equal condemnation.
The assertion above is a consequence of an increasingly restless public that had been inundated with disinformation and misinformation from the opposing parties in the 2023 Nigerian presidential election struggle.
And it is the predicament that the justices of the Nigerian Supreme Court had found themselves in on the 26th of October, last Wednesday when they had to announce that they were prepared to give the verdict of the appeal filed by both Wazirin Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the PDP, and Mr. Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the LP, against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the candidate of the ruling APC.
By way of putting things in context ,it may be recalled that the Supreme Court served as the appeal court for the presidential election that took place on February 25 ,of which victory was on the 1st day of March awarded by the Independent Electoral Commission, INEC, to Asiwaju Bola Tinubu as he was declared the winner of the presidential contest.
Thereafter the Court faced a dilemma stemming from the ruling of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) on September 6 which affirmed lNEC’s declaration of Asiwaju Tinubu as the president-elect against the contention and petition filed by the presidential candidates of the main opposition parties,the PDP, LP, and APM.
The five-man panel, led by Justice Haruna Tsammami and comprising Steven Adah, Mondurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Moses Ago, and Abba Mohamed, ruled that the petitions lacked merit and upheld the victory of the APC candidate in the February 25 election.
Unsatisfied with this decision, the three candidates sought further adjudication by taking their appeal to the Supreme Court. Among numerous reasons, the PDP based its case on the necessity for the Supreme Court to consider new evidence.
This new evidence alleged that Mr. Tinubu falsely claimed to have attended Chicago State University, CSU, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America (USA), while in reality, according to his accusers he presented a forged certificate to that effect INEC, thereby violating the Electoral Act of 2022.
The case took place on Monday, October 23rd. Subsequently, the apex court reserved its judgment, which it did not disclose at that time. The court later provided notice for the judgment date on the 25th and it was to hold within 24 hours on the 26th.
Following this,many observers of the court proceedings speculated about when the verdict would be announced because they were mindful that November 6th was the deadline, as per the 60-day provision in the Electoral Act 2022, for the verdict on the presidential election appeal to be concluded since the PEPT judgement was given on the 6th of September.
The Supreme Court found itself in a dilemma due to the petitioners’ supporters filling the political landscape with all manners of claims. The election deniers were asserting that, apart from the evidence obtained through the court-compelled deposition by the CSU registrar, Mr. Caleb Westberg, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States also possessed an incriminating report on the APC candidate, President Tinubu. They further alleged that the FBI had been compelled by the Freedom of Information (FOI) rule to release this report to the public in October.
It was such an antithesis that the claim turned out to be mere hoopla. Instead, the reality is that the opposition, in collaboration with some activists, filed a lawsuit against the FBI in a US court to obtain reports on President Tinubu. And the court, on Tuesday, October 25, ruled against their request.
Prior to this, supporters of the opposition parties had been confidently claiming that the ‘bombshell’ FBI report, when combined with the CSU discovery and deposition, would enable them to remove President Tinubu from Aso Rock Villa and replace him with their candidate.
Therefore, if the Supreme Court were to deliver a verdict before the highly anticipated FBI report arrived, it might be perceived as influenced by President Tinubu.
In the event that the verdict is issued shortly after the much-anticipated FBI report, which has turned out to be a disappointment, the Supreme Court could still have been seen as under the influence of President Tinubu, particularly if it failed to consider the new evidence regarding the alleged forged certificate that had to be put in the crucible of truth through a court order leading to the deposition provided by CSU regarding President Tinubu’s academic records.
Typically,the political atmosphere in Nigeria is marked by an exceptionally high level of toxicity. This was vividly illustrated by a baseless accusation that then-president-elect Tinubu had clandestinely met with the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Kayode Ariwoola, in London, UK. This accusation lacked any supporting evidence and was promptly refuted by both Asiwaju Tinubu and CJN Ariwoola.
Prior to placing their faith in a fictitious FBI report, the opposition had contended that the Supreme Court should not solely rely on technicalities that grant the judges the discretion to decide whether to admit new evidence or reject the evidence presented by the first runner-up petitioner.
Ordinarily, at the appellate level, litigants are not permitted to introduce new evidence after 21 days of filling . However, the Electoral Act of 2022 includes a provision that allows for the admission of new evidence under specific circumstances. But not when it is outside the 180 day when election litigation must be wrapped up and 21 days within which amendments of petitions can be accommodated which applied to the case a issue.
The opposition parties erudite attorneys had contended that the court should not rigidly enforce its rules, including technicalities like disallowing the introduction of new evidence. They argued that to do so and prevent them from presenting their substantial evidence would be unfair.
This was puzzling to me, as these same opposition parties lawyers had previously asserted that the reason they rejected the declaration of President Tinubu as winner was based on the claim that INEC had failed to follow its rules and processes such as passing the election result through BVAS and IReV as it had promised which incidentally is not in breach of any statute as it is not mandatory to do so,but failure to keep a promise which at best is a moral issue . It is unphantomable to me that the same lawyers were making the case for the Supreme Court not to follow its own rules, the provisions in the electoral Act 2022 and the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria as amended . It appeared to me like they were blowing hot and cold at the same time.
Having failed to persuade the PEPT panelists with their claim, which was centered on technicalities (BVAS and IReV) not being utilized, and as the eminent jurists concluded that their petition lacked merit, as the referenced technological
platforms are officially not collation tools, they had to resort to relying on another technicality which is that President Tinubu presented a forged certificate.
To have its way,the opposition appeared to have attempted to influence the judiciary by invoking the power of manipulating public sentiment through misinformation and disinformation, which they had weaponized.
It is as if they aimed to intimidate the judges by inciting public outrage against them, alleging that they relied excessively on technicalities when declaring that the petition lacked merit due to insufficient evidence supporting their claims of election rigging.
In my view, the opposition’s rejection or resistance to the use of technicalities is comparable to insisting that football match officials should not employ the new technology, known as Video Assistance Referee,VAR, to determine infractions such as penalties or goals during a tournament.
This strikes me as quite a good comparison because VAR has significantly enhanced the clarity of officiating in football games. Previously, football tournaments were marred by highly controversial rulings from referees, often leading to riots among spectators who disagreed with the officials’ decisions, resulting in violent confrontations and loss of lives.
By and large the introduction of VAR has effectively addressed the issue of human error by referees and linesmen. In the same manner observing the rules and regulations set out as the guardrails in the dispensation of Justice in society as contained statutes book is sacrosanct.
The key point being made here is that observing technicalities and adhering to the rules are crucial in any game, whether it’s in the realm of politics or football.
The Supreme Court must have taken into consideration the consequences of jettisoning its own rules and swaying to public opinion which is emotion driven.
So, why would anyone choose to employ the strategy of pressuring the Supreme Court through a meticulously orchestrated public uproar driven by the opposition, with the aim of compelling the apex court to deviate from the strict application of its own rules and regulations clearly expressed in the Electoral Act of 2022 when determining a matter as crucial as the presidency of Nigeria? Such a notion would perplex any rational individual.
It wasn’t until the day of the judgment, when Justice Inyang John Okoro explicitly pointed out that the petitioners’ legal team must have been well aware of the impossibility of having their requests granted, as it would have amounted to a violation of the rules outlined in the Electoral Act of 2022, that I realized the possibility that the petitioners may have been complicit in the psychological warfare waged in the media against the judiciary, particularly targeting the judges in both the appeal court and Supreme Court.
Having lost the February 25 presidential elections by receiving fewer votes than the winner, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, the resort of the opposition PDP and its candidate, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, to a sudden claim that the APC flag bearer Tinubu submitted a forged academic certificate to INEC raised the question of whether or not they were relying on technicalities to deny the rightful winner of his victory.
In any case, the Supreme Court justices,in their wisdom, demonstrated that the appeal would lead to a regression to the pre-Electoral Act 2022 era, marked by endless litigation of election matters in courts for several years, thereby disrupting governance. This decision was based on the multiple legal hurdles outlined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, and the Electoral Act 2022 .
They succinctly articulated the contraventions in such a clear manner that it became readily apparent to everyone that the petitioners had spectacularly failed to meet the criteria required for the much-vaunted evidence from Chicago State University (CSU) to be admitted in the ongoing appellate case.
This situation is not unique, as all the other pleas according to the ruling also breached the regulations set forth in the Electoral Act of 2022, specifically regarding the 21-day and 180-day time frames for amending a petition and the conclusion of election petitions in court .
This rule, a refinement of the former electoral act, addressed the issue where, in the years following previous elections, most of those elected, including presidents, legislators, and governors, remained entangled in court cases, sometimes enduring throughout their four-year terms in political office.
At the conclusion of the 2023 election, there are valuable lessons to be gleaned. Firstly, the Electoral Act of 2022 recommends itself for further refinement. It should either mandate that election results must be processed through BVAS/IReV or clarify that these technological tools cannot replace the original Form EC 8 used for recording election results.
Secondly, the Electoral Act of 2022 has brought about significant improvements, notably the requirement that elections and related litigations must be concluded within 180 days.
However, a future enhancement to our country’s electoral process could be achieved by incorporating the condition that winners would only be sworn into office after the litigation is over which should be within the 180 days window for concluding all court cases.
Otherwise it could decide to extend the litigation window beyond the current 180 days to perhaps 210 days to give ample for the accommodation of both litigation and swearing into office of the ultimate winners . Basically this would mean that INEC-declared winners would not assume office until the extended litigation period is completed. It is one of the conditions that the opposition candidates, particularly LP vice presidential candidate, senator Datti Baba-Ahmed were clamoring for.
In the US, it take’s between 73 to 79 days from when a president is elected to when he is sworn into office on January 20 or 21 if 20 falls on a Sunday.
Thirdly, it’s noteworthy that leading countries in the world, such as the US, UK, and France amongst others , do not require minimum educational qualifications for their presidents, unlike our country where the minimum requirement is first school leaving certificate, it’s equivalent or even being deemed to be literate by the electoral umpire .
This makes it remarkable how the issue of a certificate has turned politically aware Nigerians into makeshift lawyers, with impromptu ‘courts’ sprouting up in various corners of our nation, including marketplaces, beneath bridges, motor parks, places of worship, and barbershops, all to pass judgment on the legitimacy of President Tinubu’s degree certificate from CSU.
It’s important to remember that the political landscape had remained relatively stable until the main opposition candidate, Wazirin Atiku Abubakar of the PDP, began to question the validity of President Tinubu’s credentials following his defeat in the polls, making an otherwise a pre-election matter a post-election development.
The PDP candidate had subsequently through a court process acquired a discovery and deposition from the CSU regarding the academic records and the authenticity, or lack thereof, of the certificate presented to INEC.
Keeping in mind that then ruling APC’s flag bearer, Bola Tinubu, had previously stated that the original copy went missing during the struggle to remove the military from political governance and return power to democracy advocates, with the ex lagos state governor Tinubu leading the charge, it was surprising that the enquiry was not front loaded to save the nation the anguish and anxiety that we were subjected to while the legal battle in the US ragged on.
As President Tinubu’s lawyers had emphasized well before his announcement to run for the presidential contest last year, he had misplaced the original copy of his certificate during his persecution by the then-ruling military junta under the leadership of Gen. Sani Abacha,(1943-1998) who served as the military head of state in Nigeria, 1993-1998.
Consequently, he had obtained a replacement copy of his certificate which he had declared missing along with other personal belongings.
Incidentally,former lagos state governor Tinubu had accomplished all of this through an affidavit that he had previously submitted to a competent court of law several years before 2022 when he entered the race for Aso Rock Villa.
In response to candidate Asiwaju Tinubu’s assertion, Wazirin Atiku Abubakar refuted the claims by alleging that his certificate was forged, and he had not attended CSU.
After an extensive legal battle that extended from Nigeria to the United States, it became evident that the highly-touted deposition from the CSU registrar had not been properly registered in the United States, as it should have been, as such it did not meet the criteria for being accepted as admissible evidence in Nigeria.
This could be attributed to either negligence or a lack of coordination between the U.S. lawyers Ms Angela Liu representing the petitioner, and the Nigerian legal team , which comprised of some of Nigeria’s brightest legal minds.
Several popular aphorisms hold true in this context: “what it is,is what it is,” “practice makes perfect,” and “Rome was not built in a day.”
The fourth demand by the petitioners, which the Supreme Court dismissed , pertains to the Federal Capital Territory,FCT.
Going by the ruling of the apex court ,we now understand that the FCT is not politically unique in the way the LP and its candidate, Mr. Obi, had argued. They had contended that President Tinubu did not meet the criteria to be declared president because he did not secure a 2/3 majority of votes cast in the FCT which the LP won.
When they settle down to work, I firmly believe that the 10th National Assembly (NASS) will incorporate these rulings into the anticipated new rules governing elections in Nigeria , commonly referred to as the Electoral Act.
In conclusion, Nigeria is actively constructing its own democratic foundation through unwavering persistence and consistency. This endeavor resembles the building of Rome, where each brick represents a policy crafted based on our collective experience. The ultimate aim is to cultivate a robust democratic culture within a reasonable timeframe.
In simpler terms, we are diligently learning from our mistakes and embracing the lessons derived from rectifying past political errors and addressing observed shortcomings. As we navigate the intricate realm of politics, our societal landscape is gradually taking shape, inching closer towards the realization of an egalitarian society that we all aspire to create.
In its 24th consecutive year of practice since 1999, marking the return of multi-party democracy to our country, Nigeria’s political evolution is commendable. That is because Democracy in Nigeria is rapidly transitioning from being merely an event to becoming a deeply ingrained culture, following the military’s interference in politics in 1966 and usupation of political power over an extensive period,beginning a mere three years after gaining independence from British colonial rule.
Before 1999, a period that spans barely two and a half decades till date , military rule had become the norm in our nation. Now, as the intense political battle waged by the presidential candidates of the first and second runners-up, Wazirin Atiku Abubakar of the PDP and Mr. Peter Obi of the LP, subsides, it is doubtless that there has been a positive side to the legal wrangling as it has enriched our political experience by deepening it in many respects .
Since the Supreme Court has had the final say , it is now time for our nation to heal.
It is quite commendable that, despite the prior exchange of vitriol and the resultant acrimony among supporters of the three main political parties in the race, which transformed what was traditionally a two-horse race in Nigeria into a three-horse race due to the unexpected success of the LP and it’s presidential flag bearer Mr Peter Obi, whose electoral fortunes were boosted by former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s influence as the wind beneath the sail of the LP.
Although the polarizing political dogfight that defined the 2023 general elections campaign had created considerable tension in the country, however the verdict was delivered and accepted by the candidates and their supporters with equanimity and a spirit of sportsmanship.
This positive turn of events can largely be attributed to the adept manner in which the eminent jurists in the Supreme Court conducted the trial. They went above and beyond regular call of duty to rigorously explain their decisions based on points of law, making them comprehensible even to those not well-versed in legalese.
Justice Nyang John Okoro’s explanation in the judgment, which emphasized that ruling otherwise would reverse the electoral changes introduced by the Electoral Act of 2022, resonated with all the candidates, parties, and their supporters. This resonance is responsible for the relative peace and tranquility that have greeted the judgment. In any case most Nigerians have come to the realization that the failure of the PDP , LP or NNPP to achieve victory at the polls is not necessarily because lNEC rigged for APC as some had alleged or that the Appeal Court and Supreme Court judges might have been bribed by the ruling party and its presidential candidate Tinubu. Such assumptions have been proven to be pedantic and mainly shadow chasing.
The reality is that the PDP which is the only party that had the good chance of successfully challlenging the APC was the architect of its own misfortune as it was wracked by an internal schism that it failed to manage in the manner that the APC did not allow the cracks on the wall of the party degenerate into wide gulfs that could have led to its collapse. Bluntly put, PDP’s failure at the polls is a combination of multiple factors including the poor management of its internal crisis arising from jettisoning its presidential power rotation formula that favored an lgbo candidate,but the ticket was given to another Hausa/Fulani as flag bearer after president Buhari’s reign which did not seat well with some PDP faithfuls and a pitfall which APC cleverly avoided. Also Pussy-footing with the choice of its vice presidential candidate which did not truly balance the ethnic calculus of the nation and the inability of the leadership to assuage the anger of the five (5) aggrieved PDP governors who remained in the party with the sole mission to destroy it even after its splintering into three PDP, LP and NNPP had left hemorrhaging supporters profusely.
The party had enough time to mend the cracks during the run up to the general elections last year, but it failed to do so.
Consequently there was a manifestation at the polls of the wise crack: A house divided can not stand”.
It is such an irony that the leader of the main opposition PDP, former vice president Atiku Abubakar was fondly referred to as the UNIFIER by his supporters,whereas in reality the party was in total disunity as it was being dismembered by the actions and inactions of itsleadership.
And the former president of Nigeria on the platform of the PDP, 1999-2007 Chief Olusegun Obasanjo who had in anger publicly torn his membership card of PDP signifying and symbolizing his parting of ways with the party that gave him the opportunity to be president of Nigeria twice (1999-2007) is manifestly the chief architect and prime culprit of the demise of PDP and her presidential candidate, Wazirin Atiku Abubakar at the polls. The assertion above is underscored by the fact that he is the wind beneath the sail of LP that took away most of PDP’s in the south-east, and south -south, while it also gave the NNPP the impetus to deny the main opposition PDP of votes in north-west as the new party funded by another PDP alumni garnered over one million votes in that axis that should have been in PDP’s kitty.
Deservingly, President Tinubu is currently riding the wave of his triumph, as evidenced by a trending video clip on social media. In the video, he can be seen quipping to his staff, including his spokesperson, Ajuri Ngelali, who was present in his Aso Rock Villa office, that their jobs are now guaranteed following the Supreme Court victory for him.
Despite the jubilation, the administration must be mindful of the extensive work that still needs to be accomplished. As such, it must not indulge excessively in celebrating this victory.
Instead,President Tinubu
should endeavor to justify his victory with further positive policy actions aimed at relieving the substantial burden currently being borne by countless Nigerians who have been identified in a recent government authorized research /study as multi-dimensionally impoverished. Although it is a situation inherited by the incumbent administration from its predecessor, former President Mohammadu Buhari (2015–2023), and exacerbated by by president Tinubu’s twin policies of subsidies removal on petrol pump price and the naira exchange rate with foreign currencies,Mr President must do all he can to pull Nigerians out of the current unprecedented misery by harnessing all the resources available as well as inviting the opposition parties to join him in the arduous task of nation building. And Commendably he seems to already be on that mission as can be gleaned from his victory speech: “We are all members of one household, and this moment demands that we continue to work and build our country together”
It is in that spirit that one expects that the president would redouble efforts to ease the burden on the masses which he has already commenced with direct cash payments to the poorest of the poor which he has increased the amount to be disbursed from N8,000 that was initially earmarked to N25,000.
Another imminent development that could significantly reduce the hardship being endured by the masses is the anticipated income from the proposed securitization of the federal government’s investment in the Nigerian Liquified Natural Gas (NLNG) with which Mr Wale Edun,finance and coordinating minister of the economy has baited the breathe of Nigerians by promising during a recent parley with the media that the funds to be in flowed into the treasury shortly would be applied in reflating our ailing economy. For the reason of clarity, the NLNG which is a natural gas company is a joint venture, with our country holding a 49% equity stake and international oil companies owning the controlling 51% equity.
Throughout the years, NLNG has proven to be a lucrative asset for our country. Its success can be attributed to its management’s independence from government interference, in stark contrast to the Nigerian National Petroleum Company, NNPC Ltd. The latter has been plagued by corruption and inefficiency, primarily due to the bureaucratic nature of its government involvement, rendering it a breeding ground for financial misconduct.
It is expected that the $7 billion to be sourced from the NLNG and the $3 billion loan from Qatar, making up the promised $10 billion that Mr. Edun pledged to inject into the economy to alleviate the pressure on the naira/dollar exchange rate, which has spurred galloping inflation, will come into fruition in the nearest future.
Should this transpire, on an optimistic note, Nigerians will soon find relief as they patiently await the renewed hope that President Tinubu pledged during his political campaign and has continuously vowed to fulfill. This hope, which the electorate has been waiting since they they trooped to the polling booths to vote for him eight months ago , should at this point in time be within their reach. So president Tinubu’ must ride the wave of the current affirmation of his victory at the polls and validation of his mandate by the apex court of our land to do more to lead more Nigerians into prosperity and justify the confidence reposed in him.

Magnus Onyibe,an entrepreneur,public policy analyst ,author,democracy advocate,development strategist,alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,Tufts University, Massachusetts,USA and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.
To continue with this conversation and more ,please visit www.magnum.ng

“Three people were stranded on a desert island and had no food. One was a chemist, the second a physicist and the third an economist. A can of baked beans floated ashore. The chemist suggested that they rub two sticks together to start a fire which would then cause combustion to burst the can open. The physicist calculated a trajectory that would likely break the can open. The economist countered, ‘Assume we have a can opener.'”

In a country like Nigeria, the decision to remove the petrol subsidy should not have been solely centered around economic rationality. Energy security, particularly in the form of affordable petrol and gasoline, plays a crucial role in driving economic growth and development. However, the repercussions of such a decision extend far beyond the realm of economics. The removal of the subsidy, while economically justifiable in some respects, is poised to trigger inflation, increase the cost of living, hinder business operations, escalate poverty, and potentially stall economic prosperity.

The move to eliminate the petrol subsidy is reminiscent of a delicate chemistry experiment. The economic rationale behind the decision may seem compelling, especially when viewed through the lens of fiscal responsibility. It promises to reduce the burden on the nation’s treasury, allowing for the reallocation of funds toward other pressing needs, such as infrastructure and education. In theory, this should promote economic growth.

However, when we shift our focus from the economic laboratory to the real world, the repercussions of such a decision become glaringly apparent. To better understand the potential fallout, we can draw a lesson from Germany’s recent deliberations. The German Economy Minister, Robert Habeck, has championed an energy subsidy scheme, recognizing the detrimental impact that soaring energy prices can have on industries. He warns that without state support, Germany’s industry may wither away, as companies seek solace in countries with lower energy prices, such as France or the United States.

The German proposal includes tax cuts for energy-intensive industries and the expansion of existing subsidies to alleviate the costs imposed by the EU’s emission-trading system. While these ideas are controversial, as they may be seen as undermining fair competition within the EU’s single market, they reflect the acknowledgment that energy prices can significantly affect a nation’s economic landscape.

Nigeria is not exempt from these dynamics. Removing the petrol subsidy may appear economically prudent on paper, but the practical implications could be dire. Such a decision would inevitably lead to inflation, elevate the cost of living, burden businesses with higher operational costs, exacerbate poverty, and potentially derail the nation’s economic prosperity.

Inflation, the silent predator, emerges as a grave concern when subsidies are lifted. Renowned economist Milton Friedman once noted, “Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation.” With the removal of the subsidy, the prices of essential goods and services, including transportation, will skyrocket. This, in turn, will drive up the general price level, leaving ordinary Nigerians to grapple with reduced purchasing power.

The cost of living, already a source of concern for many Nigerians, is set to rise. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith aptly stated, “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.” In Nigeria, it’s not a matter of forecasting but rather a matter of acknowledging the harsh realities that will unfold as a result of this decision. The cost of basic necessities like food, healthcare, and education will become increasingly burdensome, placing additional strains on the already stretched family budgets.

Moreover, the cost of doing business in Nigeria will surge, creating a formidable obstacle to economic growth. Nigerian businesses, both small and large, are already grappling with numerous challenges, including erratic power supply, inadequate infrastructure, and a burdensome regulatory environment. Removing the petrol subsidy would be akin to adding fuel to an already raging fire, as the increased energy costs would cascade through the supply chain, making goods and services more expensive and hindering competitiveness.

Furthermore, the decision to remove the petrol subsidy has the potential to push more Nigerians below the poverty line. According to World Bank estimates, Nigeria is home to over 80 million people living in extreme poverty. These individuals subsist on less than $1.90 per day. The sudden rise in living costs and the increasing vulnerability of businesses may lead to job losses and decreased income for the already impoverished, thereby widening the chasm of inequality.

As the British economist John Maynard Keynes once wisely said, “In the long run, we are all dead.” The long-term consequences of this decision should not be underestimated. While removing the petrol subsidy may appear to offer short-term economic gains, it threatens the nation’s long-term economic prosperity. It is imperative to strike a balance between immediate fiscal responsibility and the broader social and economic implications of such a move.

Nigeria’s socio-economic landscape is a delicate ecosystem, where one decision ripples through every aspect of life. It’s not just about numbers on a balance sheet; it’s about the livelihoods of millions of Nigerians. Nigerian Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka once remarked, “A tiger does not proclaim his tigritude; he pounces.” In this case, Nigeria’s policymakers must tread cautiously, for the repercussions of their actions may indeed be felt with the ferocity of a tiger’s pounce.

The removal of the petrol subsidy, while economically rational, does not account for the intricate interplay of factors that shape the Nigerian experience. It is not merely an economic experiment; it is a policy that will directly impact the lives of ordinary Nigerians. As we dissect the decision, it becomes evident that economic rationality alone cannot provide the answers to the complex challenges that lie ahead.

It is, therefore, imperative that Nigeria’s leaders consider not just the economic implications of their decisions but also the human cost. As the influential economist Amartya Sen has emphasized, development should be viewed as the expansion of the real freedoms that people enjoy. It is not enough to focus solely on the fiscal bottom line; true development encompasses the well-being of the populace.

The petrol subsidy, despite its economic burden, has served as a lifeline for many Nigerians, particularly those in vulnerable economic positions. The removal of this subsidy, as advocated by President Bola Tinubu, necessitates a comprehensive strategy to mitigate the adverse effects. In the words of renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz, “The neoliberal experiment – lower taxes on the rich, deregulation, privatization – has been a spectacular failure.”

A comprehensive approach to subsidy removal should encompass targeted social safety nets, investment in alternative energy sources, and structural reforms aimed at reducing the cost of governance. Only by addressing the human cost and implementing these measures can Nigeria navigate the turbulent waters of subsidy removal while safeguarding the well-being of its citizens.

In conclusion, the decision to remove the petrol subsidy in Nigeria should not have been centered solely around economic rationality. While the economic argument for removal may appear compelling, the consequences extend far beyond the balance sheet. The ripple effect of subsidy removal will manifest as inflation, an increased cost of living, higher business operational costs, heightened poverty, and a potential hindrance to economic prosperity.

As Nigeria grapples with this pivotal decision, the words of the renowned economist John Maynard Keynes serve as a stark reminder, “In the long run, we are all dead.” It is crucial to strike a balance between fiscal responsibility and the broader social and economic implications of this decision. Nigeria’s leaders must consider the human cost and adopt a comprehensive approach to subsidy removal, one that safeguards the well-being of its citizens while pursuing sustainable economic growth.

In the labyrinth of economic policy and development, the question of government involvement in business is an ever-relevant conundrum. Should governments be in business, and if so, in what capacity? For a nation like Nigeria, at the precipice of pivotal economic transformation, these inquiries hold the key to unlocking its immense potential. Pragmatic economists have long grappled with these issues, offering insights that transcend borders and span generations. As President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his economic team steer Nigeria toward a brighter future, it is vital to consider the multifaceted roles government can play: regulating, influencing, stewarding, and promoting.

In the realm of regulation, government acts as the guardian of fairness, justice, and economic integrity. Efficient markets rely on regulatory frameworks that protect consumers, prevent exploitation, and ensure a level playing field for businesses. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith aptly noted, “The market system makes everyone an instrument and no one an end.” Nigeria’s experience in the financial sector regulation exemplifies this principle. Following the banking crisis of 2009, the Central Bank of Nigeria, under the leadership of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, intervened decisively to regulate the industry, strengthening its foundation and restoring public trust.

President Tinubu’s government must continue this vigilant stewardship. In the banking sector and beyond, strict but flexible regulation should be maintained, always adapting to the evolving economic landscape. After all, without well-enforced rules, private sector players may exploit loopholes to the detriment of the nation. Nigeria’s economic resurgence hinges on regulatory oversight that ensures transparency, sound corporate governance, and market stability.

In the art of influence, government can be a conductor, orchestrating an economic symphony. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen reminds us, “Development can be seen as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy.” By using its influence, the government can steer the nation towards a path of inclusive growth. Historically, we’ve seen how Singapore, under the visionary leadership of Lee Kuan Yew, leveraged state influence to promote industrialization and economic diversification. It was not just a spectator but a choreographer, directing investments and strategies that elevated the nation to its present stature.

Nigeria, too, can leverage its influence to bolster key industries. The government can strategically align with private enterprises to stimulate growth, especially in areas like agriculture, technology, and renewable energy. This requires a clear vision and sustained commitment. By engaging in public-private partnerships and providing incentives for investment, the government can be a catalyst for innovation, employment, and wealth creation.

In stewardship, the government acts as a prudent caretaker of national assets. Nigeria’s vast oil reserves, often dubbed a “curse,” have the potential to be a blessing if managed with wisdom and integrity. The Norwegian experience offers a compelling case study. Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, guided by a strict set of ethical and investment principles, has grown into one of the world’s largest and most sustainable wealth funds. This exemplifies how government can steward national resources responsibly.

President Tinubu’s government should consider a similar approach, implementing a transparent and disciplined management framework for Nigeria’s oil wealth. By doing so, Nigeria can transform its resource wealth into a long-term source of national prosperity. The government should embrace good governance principles, ensure transparency, and insulate the fund from political interference to prevent resource curse.

In promotion, government can act as a catalyst for development. Economic historian Alexander Gerschenkron recognized that some nations may require an active government to compensate for structural disadvantages. The East Asian Tigers, such as South Korea and Taiwan, exemplify this by fostering economic growth through strategic state-led industrialization policies. They actively promoted and protected nascent industries, ultimately paving the way for rapid industrial development.

For Nigeria, it is imperative to acknowledge that in the global arena, competition is fierce. The government can play a crucial role in promoting local industries, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Initiatives that provide support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), streamline bureaucratic processes, and enhance access to finance can catapult the nation into a new era of economic vibrancy.

Yet, it is essential to strike a balance, for an overly involved government can stifle innovation and breed inefficiency. Thus, the government must act judiciously, avoiding excessive intervention while providing the necessary tools and infrastructure for businesses to flourish independently.

President Tinubu and his economic team must navigate the intricate web of government involvement in business, treading the path with a pragmatic and strategic approach. The role of the government is not static; it adapts to the needs and circumstances of the nation. Timing is crucial, and the government must be prepared to step back when the private sector can take the reins effectively.

To understand the nuanced relationship between government and business, one must consider the context of emerging markets like Nigeria. The nation is not devoid of success stories. The telecommunications industry, with companies like MTN and Airtel, stands as a testament to how government regulation, coupled with private sector innovation, can revolutionize an industry and improve the lives of millions. The Nigerian government must nurture such success stories and seek to replicate them across various sectors.

In conclusion, the question of government involvement in business is not one of a categorical “yes” or “no.” Instead, it is a question of how, when, and to what extent. As President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his economic team chart a new course for Nigeria’s economy, they must heed the wisdom of pragmatic economists and the experiences of nations that have grappled with similar questions.

The government’s roles of regulating, influencing, stewarding, and promoting are not mutually exclusive but should be executed in harmony. The government can be a guide, a guardian, a caretaker, and a catalyst for the nation’s economic development. The key is to find the right balance, adapting to the specific needs and circumstances of Nigeria.

President Tinubu’s government should be pragmatic, flexible, and forward-thinking, aiming to create an environment where businesses can thrive while safeguarding the interests of the nation and its people. With strategic government involvement, Nigeria can unlock its immense potential and pave the way for a brighter economic future.

In recent years, we’ve witnessed a striking increase in extreme weather events worldwide. We’ve observed snowfall in regions that were once considered desert landscapes. A notable example of this transformation unfolded in California, USA, where devastating wildfires and extensive flooding have left communities grappling with the consequences. On a global scale, our climate has undergone significant and unexpected shifts. It has become increasingly challenging to distinguish between the four distinct seasons of winter, spring, summer, and autumn, which used to be easily identifiable markers of the passing year. This is primarily because these seasons have become less sharply defined, with overlapping occurrences that can lead to winter-like conditions during what should be the gentle embrace of spring, and vice versa. These changes in our climate are not merely statistics or abstract data; they are very real and are profoundly impacting our lives and the environment we inhabit. As we bear witness to these transformations, it is clear that we must take collective action to understand, mitigate, and adapt to the evolving climate in order to ensure a better future for all. Climate change is universally acknowledged as the most significant issue of our time, and we stand at a pivotal moment in history. It becomes apparent when we observe the shifting weather patterns that imperil our food production and the rising sea levels that intensify the threat of catastrophic flooding. It’s crucial to recognize that the impacts of climate change extend globally and are of an unprecedented magnitude. Expert studies confirm that, while climate change may not be entirely preventable, it can be mitigated. To avert the most severe repercussions, the world must strive to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050, or ideally even sooner. In essence, this means that we should balance the carbon emissions released into the atmosphere with the amount that is removed. At this juncture, I invite you to explore Gordon Brown’s innovative strategy to combat climate change, a topic expected to dominate discussions at the upcoming COP28 event scheduled for next month in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Before delving into the formula, it’s essential to first grasp the gravity of the climate change crisis that currently looms over our world. Understanding the scale of this challenge is crucial to appreciating why climate issues have taken center stage, even overshadowing evolving conflicts in Europe (such as Russia/Ukraine) and the Middle East (like Israel/Hamas). These conflicts have, in recent times , posed a significant threat to global peace. Scientists are sounding a compelling alarm, emphasizing the undeniable reality that our world has already experienced a warming of 1.1 degrees Celsius compared to the pre-industrial era. This warming trend has given rise to a multitude of extreme weather events, each unfolding in unique ways across different regions of the globe. Take, for instance, the devastating wildfire that recently swept through Maui, a picturesque tourist destination in Hawaii. Tragically, this inferno claimed the lives of 55 individuals. It is believed that the ferocity of this wildfire was stoked by the twin factors of rising temperatures and prolonged drought – clear manifestations of the impacts of climate change. Similarly, we witnessed a tropical storm wreaking havoc in California, an event so remarkable that scientists noted it as the first occurrence of its kind in 84 years. Furthermore, the recent flooding in New York City claimed the lives of approximately 13 residents. In the wake of these heart-wrenching catastrophes, our collective response to the climate crisis has reached a new level of urgency, far surpassing the concern that prevailed just a decade ago. It is a stark reminder that the time for meaningful action is now, as our world grapples with the consequences of a changing climate. In an interesting twist of belief, it is widely held that Exxon Mobil’s internal research accurately foresaw the consequences of burning fossil fuels on our planet’s temperature. This belief, however, faces staunch denial from the oil and gas giant. Exxon Mobil has consistently refuted these allegations, asserting, “This issue has arisen on multiple occasions in recent years, and on each occasion, our response remains unswerving: those who claim that ‘Exxon Knew’ have drawn incorrect conclusions.” This dissenting perspective doesn’t align with the findings of two prominent climate scientists, Naomi Oreskes, a professor specializing in the history of science at Harvard University, and Geoffrey Supran, an associate professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami. Their collaborative report has provided an unprecedented quantification of Exxon’s awareness. Their research illuminates that the combustion of Exxon’s fossil fuel products is projected to contribute to a warming of approximately 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, thus bringing a human touch to the ongoing climate debate. In the face of overwhelming evidence, energy companies, despite the substantial profits they derive from activities leading to emissions responsible for climate change, have been criticized for minimizing their role in global warming. Some experts draw parallels between this situation and the tobacco industry’s prolonged denial of the link between smoking and lung cancer, a stance they maintained until the evidence became impossible to refute. Regardless of one’s perspective, the failure to address the urgent implications of climate change in a timely manner has led to severe consequences for humanity. We now grapple with the devastating fallout of our inaction. It is perhaps these very considerations that led Mr. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (2007-2010), to formulate a distinctive approach to combat the looming climate crisis. Remarkably, Gordon Brown’s initiative places the responsibility for addressing climate change squarely on the shoulders of nations heavily reliant on fossil fuel energy. He contends that these countries Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Norway, United Arab Emirates, UAE are primarily responsible for the alarming rise in global temperatures. He describes these nations as “petro-states” and highlights their staggering profits in recent years due to soaring oil prices. In 2022, the five wealthiest petro-states, which include Kuwait, saw their oil revenues double. Supporting his argument with data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), Gordon Brown notes that global revenues from oil and gas surged from $1.5 trillion (£1.2 trillion) before the COVID-19 pandemic to an unprecedented $4 trillion (£3.3 trillion). This dramatic increase underscores the urgent need to address the impact of these industries on our planet. In a notable address, Mr. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and current United Nations Climate Ambassador, shed light on the remarkable profits amassed by energy companies. These companies, unfortunately, bear a significant responsibility for environmental pollution, which, in turn, contributes to the growing prevalence of extreme weather conditions. Mr. Brown put forth a thoughtful proposition: that these energy giants ought to contribute a modest portion (3%) of their substantial wealth towards supporting developing nations in dealing with the repercussions of severe weather events. This suggestion emerges from a profound concern for the human impact of climate change. To grasp the enormity of these figures, consider this: $4 trillion is a sum 20 times larger than the entire global aid budget. It is a financial magnitude that surpasses even the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United Kingdom. These energy-producing nations, however, have made no meaningful efforts to deserve this unprecedented windfall. Such a staggering transfer of wealth from impoverished to affluent nations stands as one of the most substantial disparities in recent history. It is essential that we address this inequity to ensure a more equitable and humane world. The acceptance of the former UK Prime Minister’s proposal by the relevant stakeholders remains uncertain, and clarity on this matter may only emerge during the upcoming climate change conference COP 28 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, scheduled for next month in November. In the meantime, it is noteworthy that Mr. Brown’s endeavor to safeguard our planet from the dire consequences of climate change bears a striking resemblance to the African nations’ call for reparations from the Western world. These reparations are sought in response to the historical harm inflicted on the African continent through the transatlantic slave trade. Regrettably, progress in addressing this demand has been slow, possibly due to a reluctance within the Western world to embrace the concept of reparations.Africa has long pursued a path of appealing to the moral conscience of the Western world in its quest for reparations. An appeal is being directed towards the nations of Europe and North America, which, for a period spanning six centuries, harnessed the labor of enslaved Africans. This dark chapter in history not only depleted the African continent of its precious natural resources but also tore away its resilient young men and productive maidens from their homeland, forcing them into a life of toil in the Caribbean and the Americas on sugarcane and cotton plantations. It’s undeniable that much of the affluence found in the European and North American nations today traces its roots back to this historical exploitation. The paradox lies in the fact that, presently, countless Africans embark on perilous journeys, often braving the treacherous Mediterranean Sea in fragile boats and traversing the unforgiving Sahara Desert in a desperate bid to reach the very lands that were forged through the relentless sweat and toil of their enslaved ancestors. Regrettably, individuals in slavery find themselves devoid of basic rights, rendering them unable to stake a claim on the lands that, in the eyes of Africans, brim with promise and prosperity. This yearning to migrate to these fertile lands is driven by a deep human desire for a better life. It presents a profound irony and paradox that the descendants of the same Africans who were forcibly transported to Europe and the Americas as slaves, against their will, are now met with barriers in their quest for entry. Their desperation pushes them to seek illegal routes into Europe and North America, fraught with considerable risks, often culminating in tragic loss of life. These African youths, the inheritors of a legacy that contributed to the foundations of wealth in these renowned countries, embark on journeys in search of the fabled “land flowing with milk and honey.” Sadly, they encounter rejection at the hands of immigration authorities and face a multitude of formidable obstacles, including imposing walls, as they reach the borders of these nations. Even when individuals successfully reach their intended destinations through irregular pathways, such as the perilous Mediterranean Sea and the unforgiving Sahara Desert – which are alternative routes exploited by human traffickers – they must grapple with evading barriers erected by authorities to obstruct their entry. Throughout history, Africa has endured the plundering of its resources, a practice that persists today through unjust trade dealings. Despite ongoing calls for reparations from the descendants of those who oppressed them, these pleas have fallen on deaf ears. It perplexes me deeply that those responsible for the abhorrent transgression of treating Africans as commodities have not recognized the need for restitution. One effective way to begin making amends is to invest in initiatives like establishing factories in African countries, which can generate employment opportunities for the multitude of unemployed young people on the continent. Unemployment primarily drives the motivation for individuals to seek migration. China implemented a strategic approach aimed at curbing migration from rural areas to urban regions or to Hong Kong by establishing factories in the hinterland and along the coastlines with Hong Kong to stem migration. If a similar endeavor is replicated in Africa,it would be driven by a desire to create a positive impact beyond mere financial gains. Rather than focusing solely on profit for the factories , these factories to be established in Africa by the industrialized world should be founded with a profound commitment to addressing social issues. This approach would mark a departure from the centuries-old tradition of providing aid to Africa, and instead, embrace the principle encapsulated in the slogan, “Africa needs trade, not aid.” In a remarkable turn of events, former United Kingdom Prime Minister Mr. Gordon Brown has taken a unique approach to address the urgent need to safeguard our planet. His initiative involves urging nations that have profited significantly from fossil fuel exploitation to allocate resources for the benefit of African countries. These nations have not contributed to environmental degradation but are, regrettably, suffering the consequences of climate change resulting from emissions by industrialized economies. To complement Mr. Brown’s commendable efforts in managing climate change is my proposal for the industrialized world to establish factories in Africa for the production of essential goods from abundant local resources in Africa. Adjunct to that is another aspect that deserves consideration. It involves addressing the historical injustices stemming from the devastating effects of the slave trade. To do this, Western nations, to whom many African countries owe substantial financial debts, could provide debt relief through international institutions like the World Bank, IMF, and the Paris Club. This step would go a long way in acknowledging and rectifying the immeasurable losses experienced by African nations. The central idea is that urging industrialized nations, particularly the primary beneficiaries of fossil fuel exploration, to establish funds for climate change mitigation in vulnerable African countries can be likened to Africa’s historical appeal to Europe and North America for reparations due to the devastating impacts of the abhorrent slave trade conducted over centuries. However, the former US Secretary of State and current UN climate envoy, John Kerry, seems to resist this proposition. This became evident when he recently addressed US lawmakers, categorically stating that the United States would not, “under any circumstances,” provide reparations to developing nations grappling with climate change-induced disasters. Kerry’s stance emerged during his discussions with parliamentarians as part of his preparations for the forthcoming climate conference set to convene in Dubai, UAE. His refusal to entertain the idea of reparations reflects a contentious issue at the heart of the global climate debate. At the previous year’s conference, COP27, hosted in Egypt, an important consensus emerged involving over 200 nations. This landmark agreement was aimed at establishing a fund dedicated to addressing loss and damage caused by the adverse impacts of climate change. The primary source of funding for this endeavor would primarily come from developed nations, with the intention of subsequently disbursing these funds to those nations by deemed “particularly vulnerable.” As we anticipate the forthcoming UN climate conference, COP28, scheduled for November in the vibrant city of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), global leaders have a pivotal opportunity to elaborate on the practical implementation of this Loss And Damage Fund agreement. As reported by BBC’s insightful journalist, Oliver Snow, it’s critical to acknowledge the plight of developing nations, which are disproportionately affected by the adverse consequences of climate change. These nations have been advocating for a system of assured compensation from developed countries. They assert that historical emissions of greenhouse gases, predominantly attributable to developed nations, bear responsibility for the current state of climate change. In light of this, the demand for compensation is an earnest appeal rooted in the principles of equity and shared responsibility. In his report, he highlighted the growing recognition among wealthier nations of the pressing need to contribute more substantial financial resources to tackle the climate crisis. However, the term “reparations” has sparked controversy, with some considering it a divisive label. At the same time, developing nations assert that the financial targets aimed at addressing climate change fall short of what is required. To illustrate, data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reveals that in 2013, only $52.4 billion had been raised for this cause. By 2015, this figure had decreased to $44.6 billion. Nonetheless, in 2016, funding showed signs of a resurgence, reaching $58.5 billion, and it continued to climb to $94.5 billion in 2022, with a projection that it would breach the $100 billion threshold in the current year. In a move that redefined the agenda for COP28 in Dubai, UAE, Mr. Gordon Brown took a bold stance by holding accountable the energy giants who amassed substantial wealth through oil and gas exploration. Notably, he singled out nations like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Norway and Kuwait. This pivotal action marked a shift towards addressing climate change in a more compassionate and inclusive manner. Moreover, I have introduced an additional dimension to the discussion. Beyond the oil-producing countries previously highlighted by Mr. Brown, we must also recognize the responsibility of industrialized nations, which have historically been the leading contributors to environmental pollution. These countries have perpetuated high emissions since the Industrial Revolution, spanning from the 18th to the 19th century. To promote a more humane and equitable approach to climate change, they should seriously contemplate offsetting the burdens borne by vulnerable nations impacted by this global crisis. Understanding why many African countries are burdened by debt is straightforward. Historically, these nations fell into a vicious cycle due to a series of unfortunate events. First, they were ruthlessly exploited by slave merchants who abducted their young and able-bodied men and women. Later, these regions were subjected to colonial rule, which continued to exploit their abundant natural resources. Consequently, Africa found itself devoid of the essential economic foundations necessary to elevate itself towards the growth and prosperity it so rightfully deserves. A poignant example illustrating the stunted growth of the African continent, attributed to the historical injustices imposed by Western powers, can be found in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Presently, this nation bears the scars of relentless mineral exploitation, rendering it a near-barren landscape. Nigerian President Bola Tinubu brought into sharp focus the harrowing reality facing the people of Congo in particular. His message, delivered at the 78th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, USA, last September, urged world leaders to direct their attention to the suffering endured by Africa due to the overwhelming influence of global superpowers and affluent nations. This call for empathy underscores the urgent need for international cooperation and support. “In the aftermath of the Second World War, nations gathered in an attempt to rebuild their war-torn societies. A new global system was born, and this great body, the United Nations, was established as a symbol and protector of the aspirations and finest ideals of humankind. Nations saw that it was in their own interests to help others exit the rubble and wasteland of war. Reliable and significant assistance allowed countries emaciated by war to grow into strong and productive societies. The period was a high water mark for trust in global institutions and the belief that humanity had learned the necessary lessons to move forward in global solidarity and harmony. Today and for several decades, Africa has been asking for the same level of political commitment and devotion to resources that described the Marshall Plan. We realize that the underlying conditions and causes of the economic challenges facing today’s Africa are significantly different from those of post-war Europe. We are not asking for identical programs and actions. What we seek is an equally firm commitment to partnership. We seek enhanced international cooperation with African nations to achieve the 2030 agenda and Sustainable Development Goals”. President Tinubu’s recent speech, deeply rooted in African interests, gains significant significance due to his role as the current ECOWAS chairman. Many have regarded this address as one of the most profound and far-reaching ever delivered by an African leader. It conveyed a powerful message to Western nations, urging them to reconsider their actions without resorting to arrogance and to acknowledge that the time has come to end the prolonged oppression Africa has endured. In my perspective, one transformative step that could foster forgiveness within Africa toward Europeans and North Americans for the historical exploitation of the continent is a sincere commitment to debt relief and the establishment of industrial facilities within Africa, either in place of or as a complementary form of reparations. This approach holds the potential to lay the foundation for a more harmonious and cooperative relationship between the continents, fostering goodwill and mutual understanding. One of the key avenues through which Africa can attain self-reliance, rather than persistently functioning as a net exporter of raw materials at significantly reduced prices while serving as a colossal importer of finished goods at inflated costs, is an aspect that has consistently subjected Africans to perpetual financial strain. The income of many Africans consistently fails to align with their expenditures, often exemplified by the act of exporting raw materials for paltry returns while incurring exorbitant expenses on imports. It’s a lamentable fact, as substantiated by available research, that Africa presently accounts for a mere 2 percent of global trade. This statistic is particularly astonishing when one considers the immense wealth of resources available across the continent, which encompasses a rich array of commodities, including oil, gas, diamonds, gold, cobalt, lithium,uranium, and a diverse range of agricultural products such as coffee, tea, and cocoa. This dearth in global trade representation is indeed disheartening given Africa’s abundance of valuable assets. Amid the ongoing power struggle between the United States and China, it is essential to consider the profound impact of the past and acknowledge the importance of empathy. Denying Africa reparations for the immense suffering it endured during the era of the transatlantic slave trade only perpetuates the negative emotions that this dehumanizing experience has left in the hearts of many Africans for generations. Regrettably, this denial has created a growing divide between Africa and Europe/America, akin to the unyielding strength of the Rock of Gibraltar. Rather than fostering reconciliation and understanding, it has the potential to harden the hearts of Africans against their former Western colonizers. In stark contrast to the reluctance of Europe and North America to address the issue of reparations for the slave trade, China, as the world’s second-largest economy, is pursuing a different path. Through its Belt and Road initiative, China is actively engaging with and winning the hearts and minds of a substantial portion of the African and Middle Eastern populations. This approach offers a refreshing perspective on international relations, focusing on building bridges and fostering mutual respect, rather than perpetuating historical wounds. It comes as no shock that the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) foresees China swiftly surpassing the European Union (EU) as Africa’s primary trading partner. This prediction is substantiated by the remarkable 35% surge in trade between the continent and Africa, reaching a substantial $354 billion in 2021. Such a development underscores China’s growing prominence as a key player in fostering human connections through commerce on the African continent. The surge in economic interactions between China and Africa is being greatly propelled by the optimistic approach and vision of the Chinese Premier, Xi Jinping. During his recent speech at the 10th anniversary celebration of the Belt and Road initiative, held in China, Premier Xi used a compelling and heartfelt narrative to showcase China’s strong commitment to partnership. “Belt and Road cooperation is based on the principles of planning together, building together, and benefiting together. It transcends differences between civilizations, cultures, social systems, and stages of development. It has opened up a new path for exchanges among countries and established a new framework for international cooperation. Indeed, the BRI represents humanity’s joint pursuit of development for all.” The Chinese premier,Xi Jinping continued by stating: “We have learned that win-win cooperation is the sure way to success in launching major initiatives that benefit all. When countries embrace cooperation and act in concert, a deep chasm can be turned into a thoroughfare, land-locked countries can become land-linked, and a place of underdevelopment can be transformed into a land of prosperity. Countries taking the lead in economic development should lend a hand to their partners who are yet to catch up.We should all treat each other as friends and partners, respect and support each other, and help each other succeed. As the saying goes, when you give roses to others, their fragrance lingers on your hand. In other words, helping others is also helping oneself. Viewing others’ development as a threat or taking economic interdependence as a risk will not make one’s own life better or speed up one’s development.”. This sharp contrast in approach between Africa and the Western world demands the attention of Africans in the West. In the midst of this, it is essential to note that the Jewish community, who endured the horrors of the Holocaust under the Nazi regime during the Third Reich in Germany, began receiving reparations as early as 1952. Remarkably, these payments are still ongoing, with an impressive sum of over €80 billion euros disbursed to Jewish victims as of the previous year. This begs the question: If Germany can acknowledge its historical wrongdoing and offer reparations to the Jewish community, then why is there a reluctance among European and North American nations, including Germany itself, which played a significant role in the African slave trade, to extend similar restitution to Africa? As the old adage suggests, what benefits one should benefit all. It’s heartening to see some of the invaluable treasures, pillaged by European adventurers during the exploitation of entire continents, returning to their rightful homes as a gesture of moral responsibility. However, it’s equally crucial to consider financial compensation as a means to mend the wounds and bring closure to the haunting chapter of history. The question that currently looms is why the Western world, with a particular focus on the United States, as exemplified by Mr. John Kerry’s testimony before the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, appears hesitant to provide reparations to Africa for the historical injustice of enslavement. As we approach the upcoming climate conference, COP28, set to take place in Dubai, UAE this November, it presents a significant opportunity for the Western powers, often characterized as the industrialized world, to reassess their position regarding the financial reparations and restitution that have been fervently advocated for by African nations over the years. This moment calls for a compassionate reevaluation of the historical wrongs and the moral responsibility that comes with them. Former British Prime Minister Apart from Gordon Brown’s proposed formula, suggesting that energy companies and nations that have greatly profited from fossil fuel exploration could consider setting aside part of their profits (3%) for the climate remediation fund, developed nations should consider investing in Africa. This investment would not primarily focus on generating profits, but rather on creating job opportunities on the continent. The goal? To address the issue of African citizens seeking better prospects abroad and to extend a helping hand. Additionally, the idea of Western countries forgiving a substantial portion, if not the entirety, of the debt owed by African nations presents an opportunity for the developed world to rectify past shortcomings. In essence, these propositions offer a humane approach to global issues and a chance for the developed world to make positive changes. As the upcoming COP28 forum draws near, there is a growing sense of anticipation regarding the West’s willingness to seize the opportunity to initiate positive change, especially for the continent of Africa, which has borne the brunt of climate-related disasters. This hinges on whether the Western world can shift its stance on providing financial support to Africa, which has thus far been marked by inflexibility. The world watches with bated breath, hopeful that reason will triumph over self-interest during COP28. This momentous event holds the potential to redefine the relationship between industrialized nations and Africa, transcending historical inequalities and fostering a more equitable and compassionate global approach. Men and women of goodwill from every corner of the globe eagerly await this pivotal juncture, yearning for a future where humanity’s collective welfare takes precedence over individual agendas. Magnus Onyibe,an entrepreneur,public policy analyst ,author,democracy advocate,development strategist,alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,Tufts University, Massachusetts,USA and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria. To continue with this conversation and more ,please visit www.magnum.ng

Throughout history and frequently in the contemporary era, conflicts have frequently arisen due to disputes over territory. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the current conflict between Israel and Gaza can also be primarily attributed to a territorial struggle.

On one side, the Israelis assert ownership of the land they currently inhabit, presenting it as their ancestral territory. Conversely, the Palestinians also stake their claim to the same land, contending that it has been inherited from their forebears.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate claims to the land based on their ancestral inheritance, though these claims originated in different eras separated by thousands of years. The ongoing destructive conflict between the two parties is primarily fueled by their differing perspectives on land entitlement.

This crisis, rooted in historical events dating back approximately four millennia, culminated in the last major conflict between these two sides in 2014. However, the most recent escalation was precipitated by Hamas, which initiated a surprise invasion of Israel on Saturday, October 7th. This invasion resulted in the tragic loss of over a thousand Israeli lives, including children, elderly individuals, and men, while approximately 150 others were taken hostage in Gaza.
In a retaliatory move, Israel initiated a military operation in Gaza, which serves as the headquarters for Hamas. As of the most recent update on the eighth day of the conflict, it is estimated that approximately 2,600 Gaza residents, including children, women, and the elderly, have tragically lost their lives due to actions carried out by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).

Before delving further into this matter and to provide context for a more comprehensive understanding, let me draw a parallel between the current crisis in Israel and Gaza and similar conflicts involving land and territorial disputes around the world, as this incident carries significant global implications.
Consider, for instance, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2021, now nearly two years ago, unless the conflict concludes before February of the coming year. Much like the ongoing Israeli/Gaza conflict spearheaded by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) against HAMAS, which fundamentally revolves around claims to the strip of land situated between Egypt and Israel, commonly known as the Gaza Strip, the Russian invasion of Ukraine primarily concerns territorial dominance.

Prior to the Russian incursion into Ukraine, a region that was once a part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) before the era of perestroika, under the leadership of President Mikhail Gorbachev, during which the Soviet Union experienced dissolution, Europe had not witnessed a major conflict since the Falklands War between the United Kingdom (UK) and Argentina on April 2, 1982.
The conflict began when Argentina initiated an occupation of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, located in the South Atlantic Ocean. These territories are claimed by the United Kingdom as part of its overseas holdings. Despite having their own local governance, these regions had been under British colonial rule since 1841 and were predominantly inhabited by British descendants.

Conversely, Argentina asserts its sovereignty over these lands, characterizing its actions as an effort to reclaim its territory. This raises a parallel to the ongoing Israel/Gaza conflict, where a dispute over ancestral land with the current occupiers shares similarities with the root cause of the conflict.

After a 74-day conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina, in which 649 Argentine soldiers tragically lost their lives and 255 British military personnel perished, Argentina surrendered the Falkland Islands to the UK precisely two months, one week, and five days after its forcible takeover.

In addition to the loss of lives on both sides, there were significant socioeconomic repercussions. On the Argentine side, the military government’s standing among citizens plummeted, and the defeat at the hands of the UK accelerated the collapse of the military regime. This defeat paved the way for the installation of a democratically elected government.

Conversely, the victory bolstered the position of the ruling party in the UK at the time, leading to its successful reelection.

The Falklands War took place in 1982, approximately four decades ago. Today, there is a pertinent parallel to be drawn between this historical conflict and the ongoing situation in the Middle East, where the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is engaged in hostilities with Hamas, the governing authority of the Gaza Strip.

In parallel to this, a contemporary conflict is unfolding between Russia and Ukraine, with the latter having been a part of the former Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) prior to its dissolution.

Much like the present conflict initiated by Israel against the Gaza Strip, led by Hamas, following an unexpected incursion into the Israeli-controlled portion of Gaza on October 7, resulting in a substantial loss of life, the Russia-Ukraine conflict revolves around territorial disputes and claims to ancestral lands.

Coincidentally, it was Russia that initiated the offensive against Ukraine, much like Hamas was the initial aggressor against Israel.

The ongoing conflict involving Russia’s assault on Ukraine, now spanning 18 months since its inception in February 2021, has generated significant global repercussions.

These consequences include elevated inflation resulting from food scarcity, particularly grains, a substantial portion of which originates from Ukraine. Additionally, energy shortages, such as natural gas, predominantly supplied by Russia to European nations, with a particular emphasis on Germany, have also become pronounced as a result of the conflict.

The global ramifications of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine have led to several significant issues, including the scarcity of bread and its sources and the prohibitive cost of this essential staple, primarily derived from wheat, for African nations and other regions in the Third World. The challenge arises from the constraints on wheat production and exportation out of Ukraine.

Furthermore, a shortage of diesel fuel has become prevalent in many African countries, notably Nigeria. This shortage stems from the ongoing war waged by Russia, a major supplier of diesel to the African continent. The consequences of this scarcity extend to a sharp increase in the prices of this critical resource used to power industrial facilities, compounding concerns for manufacturing enterprises worldwide.

Indeed, it is widely acknowledged that following the global COVID-19 pandemic, which profoundly impacted the world for approximately two years, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has emerged as a significant factor contributing to the current high inflation rates that are impeding economic growth and development in nations worldwide, regardless of their development status.

In light of this situation, there is a heightened sense of concern regarding the potential escalation of the conflict initiated about a week ago by Israel against Hamas in Gaza. This military action was undertaken in response to an attack by Hamas, which resulted in the loss of Israeli lives within a Gaza kibbutz and extended beyond the borders of both nations.
In addition to the significant loss of life, with the death toll surpassing 5,000 casualties on both sides in a mere eight-day period of the conflict, there is a looming risk of involvement from nations like Iran, which is steadily advancing its nuclear capabilities and actively supporting groups like Hamas. Furthermore, there is a potential for other regional players, including Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and others, to be drawn into the conflict, especially if it is framed as a religious war. This presents a clear and immediate threat.

To mitigate the potential escalation and prevent further strain on the global economy, already burdened by the adverse impacts of climate change, the United States of America (USA) is currently undertaking shuttle diplomacy efforts to engage key stakeholders in the region and promote de-escalation.
In pursuit of this objective, the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Anthony Blinken, undertook diplomatic missions to Israel, followed by visits to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, before returning to Israel. His primary aim was to engage in negotiations aimed at deescalating the ongoing crisis, a situation in which Israel teetered on the brink of launching a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip, governed by Hamas. Such an escalation could potentially result in severe, if not catastrophic, humanitarian consequences.

The current crisis in Israel and Gaza, which has elicited widespread international concern, is not a novel occurrence in this region. Geographically, Israel is situated along the eastern Mediterranean coast, sharing borders with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Historical records indicate the existence of Israel dating back to as early as 1000 BC, as documented in biblical accounts.
Over the years, Israel faced various adversities, most notably the Holocaust during Nazi Germany’s regime. This tumultuous period led to Israel’s displacement across multiple locations in the Middle East and Europe over several centuries. Eventually, Israel returned to its original ancestral homeland, as documented in biblical records.

Israel reclaimed its present location in 1948, following the conclusion of World War II. This relocation was facilitated under the auspices of the United Nations through UN Resolution 181.

Conversely, Palestine, which disputes Israel’s claim to the region, also regards it as its ancestral home. Historically, both Israel and Palestine have had valid claims to the land, but these claims emerged at different points in history.
The State of Israel was officially established on May 15, 1948, and gained admission to the United Nations. However, a Palestinian state was not concurrently established. Instead, the remaining territories of pre-1948 Palestine, namely the West Bank, which includes East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, were administered by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, from 1948 to 1967.

According to Britannica.com, the term “Palestine” has its origins in “Philistia,” a name coined by Greek historians to describe the region occupied by the Philistines during the 12th century BCE. This area was a small coastal enclave situated between what is now modern Tel Aviv-Yafo and Gaza.

Israel originally inhabited the land as far back as 1000 BC. However, the region witnessed successive conquests by various forces, including Christian inquisitors, ultimately leading to the displacement of the community known as the Tribe of Israel and their relocation to Europe.

While residing in Europe, the Israelites, commonly referred to as Jews, endured persecution at the hands of Nazi Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. This dark period witnessed the execution of approximately six million Jews through the utilization of gas chambers, as Hitler aimed to eradicate them, having unjustly labeled them as an inferior caste.

This tragic event marked the world’s initial major genocide following the Armenian genocide, perpetrated by Turkey against Armenians in the Baku region of present-day Azerbaijan in 1915.

Turkey has steadfastly refrained from acknowledging the historical event as genocide, a stance that persists to this day. However, it is worth noting that the United States, under the leadership of its 46th president, Joe Biden, recently took the significant step of officially recognizing this event as genocide, much to the dismay of Turkey.

In order to provide a comprehensive perspective and simplify the understanding for the general public, it would be beneficial to illustrate the Israeli-Palestinian, Gaza, and Hamas situations through real and practical events.

Efforts to foster peace between Israel and its neighboring nations have included the Madrid Conference in Spain in 1991, the Oslo Accord in Norway in 1993, and the Camp David Summit, which was orchestrated by the 42nd President of the United States, Mr. Bill Clinton.

The enduring issue at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict stems from a deep-seated mutual animosity. Notably, Hamas and Iran have publicly expressed their intent to obliterate Israel, while in response, Israel has made similar threats towards both Hamas and Iran, the latter being perceived as a key supporter of the former.

Israel has taken these threats seriously, as evident in its actions such as the Gaza siege and continuous vigilance regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Concurrently, the United States has undertaken the Abraham Accords as part of its recent diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. Spearheaded by Jared Kushner, son-in-law of former President Donald Trump, this initiative successfully brokered the restoration of business and diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, exemplified by the resumption of commercial airline flights between the two nations.

However, all the peace initiatives between the nation of Israel and the Palestinian territory have proven futile due to the profound emotional attachments that both conflicting parties maintain toward the same ancestral land.

The Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Vladimir Putin, is currently engaged in a military campaign against Ukraine with the objective of reclaiming the Russian-speaking and ethnically Russian parts of the region. This endeavor stems from the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) during the presidency of Mikhail Gorbachev from 1985 to 1991. The disintegration of the USSR was a carefully orchestrated process, taking place under the leadership of the 40th President of the United States, Mr. Ronald Reagan (1981–1989), and Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, who served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990.

During the tenure of the 44th President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, in 2014, Russia reasserted control over Crimea, a region originally part of Ukraine yet predominantly inhabited by Russian-speaking people. Despite the United States’ efforts, which included threats, it proved unsuccessful in preventing Mr. Putin from annexing Crimea, even though it had previously warned of taking action if Russia crossed the established red line by invading and occupying Crimea.

Similarly, the Palestinian territory, led by Hamas, aspires to reclaim historical sovereignty over land currently occupied by Israel, mirroring Putin’s yearning for the revival of the old Russian Empire. This situation bears resemblance to China’s pursuit of sovereignty over Taiwan. These are complex issues, but they are pivotal existential realities of our time.

Picture the Romans embarking on an ambitious quest to reestablish the ancient Roman Empire, extending their dominion from Greece to Spain, encompassing Italy, Germany, Belgium, France, Egypt, the United Kingdom, Libya, and Switzerland, among others. Similarly, envision Great Britain endeavoring to regain its former British Empire, spanning from Africa and the Caribbean to India and extending to Australia, Canada, and the United States.

To illustrate this point more vividly, reflect upon the Alafin of the historical Oyo Empire and the Shehu of Borno from the Kanem-Bornu Empire, both attempting to resurrect their empires that have risen and fallen over several millennia ago.

Would such endeavors not likely result in the type of chaos currently unfolding in Ukraine and Gaza?

It is within this context that we should consider the dire situation in the Middle East, as exemplified by the ongoing crisis in Israel and the Gaza Strip.

To underscore the profound connection humans hold with their ancestral territories, one can reflect on historical conflicts like the Life-Modakeke Wars in Yorubaland, the Aguleri-Umuleri Ethnic Struggles in Igbo Land, and the Jukuns-Tiv Conflicts in the Middle Belt of Nigeria.

These are just a few examples, not to mention the Fulani encroachment on farmlands across Nigeria, spanning from the desert regions in the north, inhabited by the Hausas, to the savannahs of the Middle Belt, the mangroves in the forests of the South-West, and the wetlands of the South-East and South-South that resulted in bloody clashes nationwide.

It is trite to state that the clashes between Fulani herdsmen and farmers have led to significant loss of life and property, occurring with alarming frequency, almost resembling an epidemic.

In light of these narratives, it becomes evident that territorial disputes rooted in ancestral ties are universally charged with intense emotions and often seem insurmountable. This is why the international community must approach this highly sensitive issue with the utmost caution to prevent the outbreak of a potential global conflict.

Magnus Onyibe,an entrepreneur,public policy analyst, author,democracy advocate,development strategist,alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng

In the ever-changing landscape of public finance, it is imperative for nations to adapt and evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century. In Nigeria, the Government has a crucial task at hand—to make informed decisions about allocating its budgets, even when facing limited information and tight time constraints. The traditional approach to public budgeting in Nigeria, though well-established, is no longer sufficient in the face of rising complexity and uncertainty. The solution lies in Anticipatory Public Budgeting (APB), a transformative concept that aligns financing decisions with long-term strategic objectives and bridges the gap between Nigeria’s long-term goals and its traditionally short-term financial tools. In this op-ed, we will explore the essence of APB, two contrasting definitions, and its potential to reinvent Nigeria’s approach to public finance while drawing inspiration from successful implementations in New Zealand and Singapore.

APB can be defined in two key ways, each offering unique insights into how it can reshape Nigeria’s public finance landscape. The first definition sees APB as a dynamic, forward-looking approach that integrates data-driven insights and predictive modelling to anticipate future budgetary requirements and challenges. This definition emphasizes the importance of data analytics, artificial intelligence, and forecasting tools in predicting financial needs accurately. By employing these advanced technologies, governments can plan more effectively and allocate resources where they are most needed, thereby enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending.

The second definition views APB as a strategic framework that emphasizes long-term planning and goal alignment. This definition underscores the importance of considering the nation’s overarching objectives, such as economic diversification, improved healthcare and education, and risk management, while budgeting. Instead of focusing solely on short-term fiscal concerns, APB encourages the Government to think strategically, identifying long-term challenges and opportunities and incorporating them into budgetary decisions. This strategic approach enables a more holistic and future-oriented public budgeting process, ensuring that resources are allocated to projects and initiatives that will yield lasting benefits for the nation.

In New Zealand, the implementation of APB has yielded substantial public value. The New Zealand Treasury’s Living Standards Framework, a key component of their APB approach, shifts the focus of public finance from a narrow perspective of economic growth to a more comprehensive understanding of well-being and sustainability. By emphasizing the well-being of its citizens, New Zealand has redirected its budgeting efforts toward improving the quality of life, fostering inclusivity, and addressing long-term challenges, such as climate change. This shift has allowed the Government to allocate resources more effectively, aligning its financial tools with the country’s long-term goals.

Singapore, on the other hand, offers a contrasting yet equally compelling example of APB’s success. The Singaporean Government, known for its long-term strategic planning, has effectively used APB to ensure its continued economic growth and prosperity. By proactively anticipating and addressing future challenges, such as technological disruption and aging demographics, Singapore has managed to stay ahead of the curve. Their approach to APB enables the Government to respond to both negative risks and positive opportunities, leading to a more resilient and innovative society.

So, why does Nigeria need Anticipatory Public Budgeting? The answer is multifaceted. Nigeria, like New Zealand and Singapore, faces a complex web of challenges and opportunities. Diversifying away from oil dependence, improving healthcare and education outcomes, and managing risks like pandemics or harnessing technological advancements are crucial objectives that require long-term thinking. APB can bridge the gap between these strategic goals and the often-short-term nature of traditional public budgeting in Nigeria.

Firstly, Nigeria needs APB to effectively address its economic diversification. The nation’s heavy reliance on oil revenue has proven to be a double-edged sword, leading to fiscal vulnerability in times of oil price volatility. Anticipatory Public Budgeting allows the Government to plan for economic diversification strategies and allocate resources to sectors that will contribute to long-term sustainability. This approach mitigates the risks associated with oil dependence and fosters a more stable and diversified economy.

Secondly, APB is essential for improving health and education outcomes in Nigeria. The country faces significant challenges in providing quality healthcare and education to its citizens. Anticipatory Public Budgeting can help identify areas in need of investment and allocate resources to initiatives that will lead to lasting improvements in these sectors. By adopting a strategic, long-term perspective, Nigeria can enhance the well-being and productivity of its population.

Lastly, APB equips Nigeria to manage both negative and positive risks effectively. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, highlighted the need for proactive risk management in public budgeting. With APB, the Government can anticipate and allocate resources to address such unforeseen challenges. Simultaneously, it can also seize positive opportunities, such as embracing new technological advancements to stimulate economic growth and innovation.

Anticipatory Public Budgeting offers a new vision of public finance in Nigeria, aligning its fiscal decisions with the nation’s long-term aspirations. By embracing the APB approach, Nigeria can unlock its potential for sustainable economic growth, improved well-being, and effective risk management. The government must transition from traditional, short-term budgeting to an approach that harnesses data-driven insights, long-term planning, and strategic vision. In doing so, Nigeria can embark on a journey to transform its public finance system into one that is better equipped to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. It is time for Nigeria to embrace Anticipatory Public Budgeting, unlocking its future potential and ensuring a prosperous and resilient nation for generations to come.