“The hunger march is a universal S.O.S.” – Wole Soyinka, 4 August, 2024

“While you are there demonstrating, we will be here eating.” – Godswill Obot Akpanio, Senate president, 31 July, 2024

“That distribution undo excess and each man have enough.” – William Shakespeare, King Lear

Egeremiti is a term, a figure of speech in Yoruba rhetoric for any experience, act or utterance that is so wondrous – in a good or evil sense – that it is close to being an epiphany. As I read the names of so many living and departed comrades, friends and colleagues on the 2025 National Honours list, I was so moved that a thrill ran down my spine as I muttered, “egeremiti, egeremiti” silently to myself. So big, so unprecedented, is this “egeremiti” wonder in the list that no other national honours list like it exists or had ever occurred in either colonial or post-independent Nigeria. My sense is that this wondrous wonder has taken the Nigerian Left, as well as the much larger community of progressive and pro-democracy patriots by such surprise that most of us/them are still wondering what to make of it, especially the living recipients of the honours.

In particular, they/we are wondering how the departed comrades and colleagues whose names are on the list would have reacted. “How would Gani have reacted?” Festus Iyayi? Balarabe Musa? Chima Ubani? The persons on the list – both living and dead – were/are so driven by solidarity with the poor, hungry and oppressed of the land that they would have thought twice before accepting honours from any government that has the cloud of great mistreatment of the hungry, poor and oppressed masses hanging over its head like a halo. And indeed, this is the central dilemma or egeremiti contradiction of the president’s 2025 Honours List. On the one hand, it is without precedent in its celebration of past and present heroes of the struggles for social justice and democracy in our country. But on the other hand, it is closely tied to a humongous sweeping under the carpet of the harsh and unforgiving economic and monetary policies of the government of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (BAT) toward the toiling and suffering masses. Thus, to accept and applaud the list seems like endorsing these policies.

I deem it very necessary to repeat this observation: no National Honours list has ever been so closely tied to the economic and administrative policies of a president and his administration. This is so important that it easily overshadows the fact that BAT himself has in the past been in the forefront of the struggles for democracy in our country. Let me put this in another formulation: there is the amazing list and there is the excessive praise for and justification of the harsh and unforgiving policies of BAT; thus, the list is the tail that is wagging the dog of the praise and justification of the policies. Comrades and compatriots, please check and recheck paragraphs 27-48 of the president’s Democracy Day speech for yourselves to see whether or not I am making a false or exaggerated claim here. In these paragraphs, BAT is not just crowing that his harsh economic policies are working, he is boasting that no policies of any other administration have worked better for Nigerians in all parts of the country. Egeremiti!

Hunger of a kind that an overwhelming majority of Nigerians have never seen or experienced is stalking the land due to the policies of his administration, but BAT is boasting that under his administration, things are improving and improving and improving. All the five or six coeval generations of Nigerians alive now are experiencing forms and degrees of poverty and impoverishment that no generation has ever experienced in the modern history of the country; but the president is saying the things you are seeing and feeling are not happening; don’t be fooled by what you are feeling and seeing. This brings to my mind a widely popular joke of the late African American ace comedian, Richard Pryor. “If your wife catches you stark naked on top of your lover, deny it. If she refuses to believe you, deny it even more vigorously. And if she continues to disbelieve you, ask her “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?!” BAT, in his Democracy Day speech, asks Nigerians, “who are you going to believe, my statistics about how good things are or your empty, hungry and growling bellies?”

Not in the Democracy Day speech itself but in other contexts, the president has bragged extensively about how it has taken courage for him to stick unwaveringly to his economic and fiscal policies. I beg to differ. What courage do you show in imposing on the poor and the powerless sacrifices that you have not dared to ask of the rich and powerful? Thus, even as BAT has imposed draconian policies on scores of millions of poor, hungry Nigerians, he has not imposed any curtailment on official and unofficial access of the rich and the powerful to the wealth of the nation. This brings to my mind the parable of Joseph pertaining to ten fat cows followed by ten lean cows in the book of Genesis.

In his interpretation of this dream of the Pharaoh, Joseph sees ten fat cows followed by ten lean cows as a long period of abundance that are then followed by ten years of harrowing famine and hardship. He therefore recommended that in the years of plenty, the people should gather and store much of the bounteous harvests, so that they will have some provisions in store to protect people in the years of famine. The important point here is that the Pharaoh and the elite, together with the whole population, fast and sacrifice together in the lean years. In Tinubu’s Nigeria, only the people are asked to fast and sacrifice, while for the president, the state governors and the honorables of the National Assembly, it is ten fat cows followed by another ten fat cows. Listen to Godswill Obot Akpabio, president of the Senate: “While you are there demonstrating, we will be here eating”. The orgies of “eating” by the ruling class in Tinubu’s Nigeria far surpasses all past and previous records, and this is within two years only!

I must come to the conclusion of this comment. Here, I am thinking of the pertinence of another parable: that of the frog in a slowly boiling pot of water. If the water in the pot is really, really boiling slowly, the frog barely notices that anything is wrong, almost close to boiling point. And then, of course, total and utter destruction and catastrophe for the frog. We must revise this parable in order to apply it to Tinubu’s Nigeria. Here, long, long before the boiling point, the catastrophe is already happening and there are over two hundred million frogs in a whole lake of boiling water. Long before many of them succumb to catastrophe, they suffer horribly. They shout to the king of froglake and his courtiers but because their own part of the lake isn’t boiling at all, they don’t know what the SOS call is about. That is why there is not even a single mention of hunger in Tinubu’s Democracy Day speech. But Akpabio heard the SOS calls in the hunger strikes of last year clearly, and as utterly despicable as it is, his response is more “honest” than of the president’s total blindness and deafness to the hunger.

I suggest that at the root of the president’s indifference to the hunger is a legitimation crisis that did not start with his administration but has deepened immeasurably in (only) two years of his presidency. A legitimation crisis, according to a book of the same title published by the late German Marxist sociologist and philosopher, Jurgen Habermas in 1973, is not the same thing as a crisis of legitimacy. In a crisis of legitimacy, only a president or prime minister and/or his or her administration is under a suspicion of illegitimacy that is wide and deep in the collective mind of the public. A legitimation crisis is a hundred times worse than this because it affects all the institutions and organs of the state and public affairs: the executive, the legislative, the bar and the bench, the security apparatus, together with monopoly of the means of force and terror. In a legitimation crisis, they are all not working smoothly and efficiently – or indeed they have completely collapsed. So pervasive is the resultant barbarism that only isolated and private acts of courage, compassion and decency remain to make life livable and solidarity still sustainable among families and communities across the nation itself. But barbarism pervades among the people, as it does among the rulers from whom it originated. Neuroses and alienation, criminality and life-wrecking values and ritual beliefs and acts become so common as to be quite banal. Please, read Wole Soyinka’s 620-page novel, Chronicles from the Land of the Happiest People on Earth published in 2022 and you will see the barbarism of legitimation crisis in our country, as it has never been given literary expression before.

My deep worry about the egeremiti combination of the positive and the negative in the president’s Democracy Day speech, as I have suggested earlier in this comment, is that it has thrown confusion and irresoluteness into the ranks of the regular opposition, as well as the much wider circle of the Nigerian Left, progressives and patriotic democrats. We must admit that this is a strategic master stroke, a vintage Tinubu gambit intended for 2027, for his own political survival. But remember, comrades and compatriots, Tinubu said emilokan not awalokan, we progressives and democrats throughout the country! The president can still pull back from his hunger games and transfixed befuddlement about what to do about the banditry and terrorism going on both in the heartland and the peripheries of the whole country. But will he, can he?

Epilogue

Three days ago, almost immediately after I completed the first draft of this comment, information came to me that a very close, lifelong friend of mine had jokingly “complained” to guests in his house about the absence of my name on the 2025 National Honours List. Since I neither harbour this complaint nor asked anyone to make it on my behalf, I was so shocked and annoyed on hearing it that it effectively delayed my release of this comment by more than two days. Now, I wish to make the following clarification about my attitude toward national honours and awards from the Nigerian state in general; a clarification that I thought I would never have cause to make public in my lifetime.

When Professor Emeritus Niyi Osundare was awarded the Nigerian National Order of Merit in the year 2014, I was the first person – as he told me – that he gave the news. After congratulating him very warmly, I then quietly informed him that I would not be making my congratulation public. He was, of course, stunned by this information, but before he could put his surprise into words, I gave him my reason: I had been asked many times to allow my name to be considered for the same award but had politely declined the invitation. I had told the colleagues who approached me with the request that since I would reject the award if it was ever given to me by any administration in our country, it would be unfair and hypocritical of me to allow my name to be considered, knowing this unshakable personal attitude of mine to the award.

Niyi, of course, asked me to explain the basis of this attitude: sadly but firmly, I had reached the conclusion that there was unlikely to be any president, any administration in the remaining portion of my lifetime, whose rule I could support and respect enough for me to receive an award or accolade from him/it. I think that among all my very, very close friends, next to Edwin Madunagu, Niyi Osundare knows more than anyone else the depths from which my moral convictions and ideological assumptions come. So he said to me, “BJ, I accept and respect your personal stand on this matter, but as my views about the issue are different from yours, I am going to accept the award.” To this, I quickly responded that not only did I not expect him to reject the award because of my position, but I went on to assure him that I would never make my position public because I realise how our differences could be used as a wedge with which to create divisions between us by the megaphones and media foot soldiers of our ruling class and their administrations. To this day, I have rigorously kept faith with that promise. To what I said to Niyi on that day in 2014, I should perhaps add a further clarification.

In the immediate aftermath of the tragic “Ali Must Go” demonstrations of 1978, Edwin Madunagu and myself began a massive project of information, documentation and explanation to which we gave the project title of “the making and unmaking of Nigeria”. But within a year of starting the project, we found out that beginning with the “Ali Must Go” crisis” itself, “making” almost completely disappeared from the experience of our country, “unmaking” becoming the overwhelming reality – or unreality. There were, first, three military dictatorships; they were followed by three PDP administrations that were themselves followed by two APC administrations, all without exception contributing to the headlong “unmaking” of our peoples’ hopes, aspirations and happiness. It was in that context that I made the decision that I would never accept any award or accolade from any president or administration. It is a measure of the depth of my despair that I think this is likely to last for the rest of my lifetime.

Oluwaniyi Osundare, okunrin ogun, now that I seem to have broken that promise never to make this decision public knowledge, I hope that you do realise that circumstances beyond my control dealt me a hand that I could not ignore. The person who jocularly made the complaint about the absence of my name in the unprecedented 2025 national honours list is someone who I can trust with my life; he intended no harm. But I did not ask anyone to complain on my behalf about the absence of my name on the list o! Egbin! Tufia!

** Biodun Jeyifo is the foundation National President of ASUU and, with the late Festus Iyayi of revered memory, was ASUU’s representative on the National Executive Council(NEC) of the NLC under the presidency of Comrade Hassan Sumonu. BJ, as he is widely known, is also Emeritus Professor of English at Cornell University and Emeritus Professor of Comparative Literature and African and African American Studies at Harvard University. He divides his time between Oke-Bola, Ibadan and Cambridge, Massachusetts.

PT

A Kenyan high court has ruled that the 2021 abduction and rendition of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), from Nairobi to Nigeria was unlawful, unconstitutional, and a gross violation of his fundamental rights.

Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice E.C. Mwita held that the Kenyan government failed in its constitutional duty to protect Kanu—who lawfully entered Kenya—and instead collaborated with external agents in a covert operation that led to his illegal detention and transfer.

The court found that Kanu’s abduction, incommunicado detention, torture, and denial of food, water, medication, and legal access amounted to serious breaches of his rights under Kenya’s Constitution. Mwita declared that Kanu’s rights to due process, security, and freedom of movement were flagrantly violated.

The judge awarded Kanu general damages of Kshs 10 million (approximately N110 million) and ordered Kenya’s Attorney General to pay both the compensation and the costs of the litigation.

“The constitution is clear that the Bill of Rights binds not only state organs but every person within Kenya,” Mwita said. “The covert operation to abduct and forcibly remove Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya was executed with the knowledge and complicity of the government. By doing so without following due process, the government violated the constitution, the rule of law, and Kanu’s fundamental freedoms.”

In his declarations, Mwita ruled that Kanu’s abduction and forced transfer to Nigeria breached Kenya’s laws and constitution. He stressed that authorities failed to produce Kanu in court within 24 hours of his arrest as required, and instead facilitated an illegal foreign rendition.

The case was brought by Kingsley Kanu, Nnamdi Kanu’s brother, who named Kenya’s cabinet secretary for interior, director of immigration services, director of criminal investigations, the police officer in charge of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, and the attorney general as respondents.

Background

Kanu has remained in the custody of Nigeria’s Department of State Services (DSS) since he was seized in Kenya and flown to Nigeria in 2021, where he faces charges bordering on treasonable felony. Although granted bail in 2017, his bail was later revoked after he failed to appear in court, leading to a bench warrant for his arrest.

In April 2022, a Nigerian court struck out eight of the 15 charges against him. By October 2022, the Court of Appeal quashed the remaining charges and ordered his release. However, the ruling was stayed after the federal government appealed to the Supreme Court, keeping Kanu in detention.

Nigeria’s appeal to foreign investors continued to wane in the first quarter of 2025, with new Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) data revealing significant drops in both foreign direct investment and portfolio inflows during the three-month period.

The CBN’s latest Balance of Payments report shows foreign direct investment plummeted by 19.35 percent to $250 million in Q1 2025, down from $310 million recorded in the final quarter of 2024. This decline reflects ongoing challenges in attracting long-term foreign capital to Nigeria’s economy.

Financial Account Performance

The country’s overall financial account balance contracted to $7.58 billion in Q1 2025 from $7.82 billion in the previous quarter. The CBN attributed this decline to substantial reductions in both portfolio investment and other investment liabilities flowing into the country.

The most dramatic shift occurred in portfolio investment activity, which experienced what the central bank described as a “record net divestment” of $5.03 billion during the quarter. This massive outflow suggests foreign investors continued pulling funds from Nigerian securities markets and other short-term investments.

Capital Flight Intensifies

Other investment liabilities saw an even more severe reversal, recording outflows of $4.32 billion in Q1 2025. Meanwhile, other investment assets showed Nigerian entities investing $1.31 billion abroad, compared to a $1.54 billion reversal in the previous quarter.

The trend of capital flight extended to Nigerian investments overseas, with direct investment assets showing a reversal of $550 million in Q1 2025. Portfolio assets recorded outflows of $480 million as Nigerian investors moved funds to foreign markets during the review period.

External Reserves Under Pressure

Nigeria’s external reserves faced significant pressure during the quarter, declining by $2.37 billion to $37.82 billion in March 2025, down from $40.19 billion at the end of December 2024. This substantial three-month drop represents nearly 6 percent of the country’s foreign currency buffers and highlights the challenges facing the naira and Nigeria’s external sector.

The combined decline in foreign investment inflows and shrinking external reserves underscores the mounting economic pressures facing Nigeria as it struggles to maintain investor confidence amid ongoing macroeconomic challenges.

Battling to survive, Hamas faces defiant clans and doubts over Iran

Short of commanders, deprived of much of its tunnel network and unsure of support from its ally Iran, Hamas is battling to survive in Gaza in the face of rebellious local clans and relentless Israeli military pressure.

Hamas fighters are operating autonomously under orders to hold out as long as possible but the Islamist group is struggling to maintain its grip as Israel openly backs tribes opposing it, three sources close to Hamas said.

With a humanitarian crisis in Gaza intensifying international pressure for a ceasefire, Hamas badly needs a pause in the fighting, one of the people said.

Not only would a ceasefire offer respite to weary Gazans, who are growing increasingly critical of Hamas, but it would also allow the Islamist group to crush rogue elements, including some clans and looters who have been stealing aid, the person said.

To counter the immediate threat, Hamas has sent some of its top fighters to kill one rebellious leader, Yasser Abu Shabab, but so far he has remained beyond their reach in the Rafah area held by Israeli troops, according to two Hamas sources and two other sources familiar with the situation.

Reuters spoke to 16 sources including people close to Hamas, Israeli security sources and diplomats who painted a picture of a severely weakened group, retaining some sway and operational capacity in Gaza despite its setbacks, but facing stiff challenges.

Hamas is still capable of landing blows: it killed seven Israeli soldiers in an attack in southern Gaza on Tuesday. But three diplomats in the Middle East said intelligence assessments showed it had lost its centralised command and control and was reduced to limited, surprise attacks.

An Israeli military official estimated Israel had killed 20,000 or more Hamas fighters and destroyed or rendered unusable hundreds of miles of tunnels under the coastal strip. Much of Gaza has been turned to rubble in 20 months of conflict.

One Israeli security source said the average age of Hamas fighters was "getting lower by the day". Israeli security sources say Hamas is recruiting from hundreds of thousands of impoverished, unemployed, displaced young men.

Hamas does not disclose how many of its fighters have died.

"They're hiding because they are being instantly hit by planes but they appear here and there, organising queues in front of bakeries, protecting aid trucks, or punishing criminals," said Essam, 57 a construction worker in Gaza City.

"They're not like before the war, but they exist."

Asked for comment for this story, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said the group was working for an agreement to end the war with Israel but "surrender is not an option".

Hamas remained committed to negotiations and was "ready to release all prisoners at once", he said, referring to Israeli hostages, but it wanted the killing to stop and Israel to withdraw.

'IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD'

Hamas is a shadow of the group that attacked Israel in 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking another 251 hostage, according to Israeli tallies. Israel's offensive has killed more than 56,000 people, according to Gaza health authorities.

The damage inflicted by Israel is unlike anything Hamas has suffered since its creation, with most of its top military commanders in Gaza killed. Founded in 1987, Hamas had gradually established itself as the main rival of the Fatah faction led by President Mahmoud Abbas and finally seized Gaza from his control in 2007.

With a U.S.-brokered truce in the Iran-Israel war holding, attention has switched back to the possibility of a Gaza deal that might end the conflict and release the remaining hostages.

One of the people close to Hamas told Reuters it would welcome a truce, even for a couple of months, to confront the local clans that are gaining influence.

But he said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's terms for ending the war - including Hamas leaders leaving Gaza - would amount to total defeat, and Hamas would never surrender.

"We keep the faith, but in reality it doesn't look good," the source said.

Yezid Sayigh, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, said he believed Hamas was simply trying to survive. That was not just a physical challenge of holding out militarily, he said, but above all a political one.

"They face being eliminated on the ground in Gaza if the war doesn't stop, but they also face being erased from any governing formula that ends the war in Gaza (if such a thing can be found)," he wrote in response to Reuters' questions.

Palestinian tribes have emerged as part of Israel's strategy to counter Hamas. Netanyahu has said publicly that Israel has been arming clans that oppose Hamas, but has not said which.

One of the most prominent challenges has come from Abu Shabab, a Palestinian Bedouin based in the Rafah area, which is under Israeli control.

Hamas wants Abu Shabab captured, dead or alive, accusing him of collaboration with Israel and planning attacks on the Islamist group, three Hamas sources told Reuters.

Abu Shabab controls eastern Rafah and his group is believed to have freedom of movement in the wider Rafah area. Images on their Facebook page show their armed men organising the entry of aid trucks from the Kerem Shalom crossing.

Announcements by his group indicate that it is trying to build an independent administration in the area, though they deny trying to become a governing authority. The group has called on people from Rafah now in other areas of Gaza to return home, promising food and shelter.

In response to Reuters' questions, Abu Shabab's group denied getting support from Israel or contacts with the Israeli army, describing itself as a popular force protecting humanitarian aid from looting by escorting aid trucks.

It accused Hamas of violence and muzzling dissent.

A Hamas security official said the Palestinian security services would "strike with an iron fist to uproot the gangs of the collaborator Yasser Abu Shabab", saying they would show no mercy or hesitation and accusing him of being part of "an effort to create chaos and lawlessness".

Not all of Gaza's clans are at odds with Hamas, however.

On Thursday, a tribal alliance said its men had protected aid trucks from looters in northern Gaza. Sources close to Hamas said the group had approved of the alliance's involvement.

Israel said Hamas fighters had in fact commandeered the trucks, which both the clans and Hamas denied.

IRAN UNCERTAINTY

Palestinian analyst Akram Attallah said the emergence of Abu Shabab was a result of the weakness of Hamas, though he expected him to fail ultimately because Palestinians broadly reject any hint of collaboration with Israel.

Nevertheless, regardless of how small Abu Shabab's group is, the fact Hamas has an enemy from the same culture was dangerous, he said. "It remains a threat until it is dealt with."

Israel's bombing campaign against Iran has added to the uncertainties facing Hamas. Tehran's backing for Hamas played a big part in developing its armed wing into a force capable of shooting missiles deep into Israel.

While both Iran and Israel have claimed victory, Netanyahu on Sunday indicated the Israeli campaign against Tehran had further strengthened his hand in Gaza, saying it would "help us expedite our victory and the release of all our hostages".

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that great progress was being made on Gaza, adding that the strike on Iran would help get the hostages released.

A Palestinian official close to Hamas said the group was weighing the risk of diminished Iranian backing, anticipating "the impact will be on the shape of funding and the expertise Iran used to give to the resistance and Hamas".

One target of Israel's campaign in Iran was a Revolutionary Guards officer who oversaw coordination with Hamas. Israel said Saeed Izadi, whose death it announced on Saturday, was the driving force behind the Iran-Hamas axis.

Hamas extended condolences to Iran on Thursday, calling Izadi a friend who was directly responsible for ties with "the leadership of the Palestinian resistance".

A source from an Iran-backed group in the region said Izadi helped develop Hamas capabilities, including how to carry out complex attacks, including rocket launches, infiltration operations, and drones.

Asked about how the Israeli campaign against Iran might affect its support for Hamas, Abu Zuhri said Iran was a large and powerful country that would not be defeated.

Reuters

Kathy & Ross Petras

Rude people are, sadly, all around us. We deal with them at work, in stores and restaurants, on airplanes and public transit, even at home. They get in our faces and yell. They blame us for things they’ve done. They make everything unpleasant.

Luckily, handling rudeness is not hard as you might think. There are several tactics: addressing the rudeness; setting clear boundaries of what you will and won’t put up with; shifting the conversation away from the negative; and, probably most important, staying calm and cool.

As language and communication experts, here are the phrases that calmly demand respect and put rude people in their place.

1. ‘You seem frustrated. Is something wrong?’

This is a classic redirection tactic. You’re centering the conversation on the other person, not you.

Sometimes people just need a little reminder that they’re actually acting out about something completely different than the matter at hand. And often, getting the opportunity to reflect upon this or talk about it changes the entire situation.

Similar phrases: 

• “Are you going through something right now that’s affecting you like this?”
• “Are you having a problem? Do you want to talk about it?”
• “Have I done something to upset you?”

2. ‘I’m surprised you feel comfortable saying things like that.’

Addressing someone’s rudeness head on is a key component to dealing effectively with incivility. By using this phrase, you’re telling the speaker that what they’re saying is unacceptable, and that perhaps they need to reassess their words. 

Research studies discovered that reminding someone that they’re being rude can make them realize they need to correct their behavior.

Similar phrases:

• “Are you listening to yourself here?”
• “Do you realize what you’re saying, and how you’re saying it?”
• “Are you aware that you’re coming across as harsh and abrasive?”

3. ‘Could you repeat that?’

This is similar to the previous phrase, except you’re not saying it straight out — you’re implying that you don’t like what they just said.

Phrases like this stop the conversation in its tracks and force the speaker to rethink what they’re saying, while also making it clear that you won’t allow it to continue.

Similar phrases:

• “Why are you using those words [or that tone] with me?”
• “How you’re talking [or what you’re saying] isn’t very helpful.”
• “Can you lower your voice [or change your attitude]?”

4. ‘How can we focus instead on making this work well for the both of us?’

This is an example of setting boundaries, a main aspect of coping with rudeness. You’re calmly letting the person know you refuse to continue with the current situation, and you’re redirecting the negative energy onto a positive path.

Similar phrases:

• “Can we address this more productively?”
• “Let’s stop with the negativity and focus on finding a solution.”
• “Why don’t we continue this when we can be respectful of one another?”

5. ‘I see your point.’

Saying that you understand what someone is saying in spite of the manner in which they’re saying it defuses the situation by acknowledging them.

Often a big cause of rudeness, especially in the workplace, is the fear of not being noticed or paid attention to. The simple “I see your point” gets past that obstacle.

Similar phrases:

• “I’m glad you’re sharing your perspective with me.”
• “That’s definitely a way of looking at it.”
• “I hear you.”

6. ‘I can tell you’re upset about something. Could you explain the issue more calmly to me?’

Here’s another “I acknowledge you” statement, with an added “stay cool.” You’re inviting the person to continue speaking, but (and this is important) stressing that the conversation can’t continue the way it began. It’s boundary-setting and defusing at the same time.

Similar phrases:

• “Let’s reset the tone a bit so I can really focus on what you’re saying, not on how you’re saying it.”
• “I know you’re frustrated, but we can work through this if you dial it down a notch.”
• “It’s clear this is important to you, but let’s step back and take it slowly.”

7. ‘Please stop.’

This very simple request can stop rude behavior or conversation in its tracks. The key, though, is saying it quietly and politely. Matching rudeness with rudeness only escalates things.

Similar phrases:

• “Don’t say [or do] that, please.”
• “Could you quiet down?”
• “Please give me a chance to speak.”

If all else fails, say nothing or walk away

That’s right. Saying nothing at all, and just looking at the other person in silence, can sometimes be the most effective method of shutting down aggressiveness or rudeness. It’s difficult for someone to amp up the situation when there’s nothing to fight back against. 

Finally, if you feel your anger rising and can tell that you’re about to fight fire with fire, it’s best to physically remove yourself. This way, instead of escalating the situation, you’re giving yourself — and possibly the other person — the time and space to cool down.

CNBC

Nigeria has been ranked the 12th poorest country in the world by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 2025 — a damning indicator of the deepening poverty crisis in Africa’s most populous nation.

According to new data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), published by Visual Capitalist, Nigeria’s GDP per capita stands at just $807, placing it among the bottom 15 of the 50 poorest countries surveyed globally. This stark figure underscores the widening gulf between the country’s economic potential and the lived realities of its citizens.

Despite boasting one of the largest economies in Africa by total GDP, Nigeria’s low per capita income reveals how wealth is concentrated among a few, while tens of millions struggle daily to survive. The ranking confirms what many Nigerians already feel: that economic growth has not translated into improved living conditions for the majority.

Nigeria’s dismal position comes amid rising inflation, surging food prices, and record unemployment. The country’s minimum wage remains at ₦70,000 (about $45/month), while basic necessities like food, transport, and housing have become unaffordable for many.

“Chronic conflict, fragile institutions, and limited industrial bases continue to suppress income growth in many of them,” Visual Capitalist noted, referring to the nations at the bottom of the ranking, “even as the global economy rebounds after the pandemic.”

South Sudan ranked as the world’s poorest country with a GDP per capita of $251, followed by Yemen, Burundi, the Central African Republic, and Malawi. Other African nations such as Madagascar, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, and Niger also feature prominently on the list.

The report further highlights Africa’s marginalisation in global economic output. Despite accounting for 19% of the world’s population, the continent represents only 3% of global GDP, currently estimated at $113 trillion.

India, though the world’s fourth-largest economy by total GDP, also appears on the list, ranking 50th with a GDP per capita of $2,878 — showing that scale alone doesn’t ensure widespread prosperity.

Nigeria’s descent into the ranks of the world’s poorest by individual income levels raises urgent questions about leadership, economic management, and the nation’s future. With over 133 million people living in multidimensional poverty — according to earlier government and World Bank data — the country faces a ticking social and economic time bomb.

As poverty deepens, the need for inclusive growth, accountable governance, and genuine structural reform becomes ever more critical — not just to improve Nigeria’s global standing, but to deliver hope to its citizens.