This time eight years ago, Nigerians still basking in the euphoria of having a martinet president began to ascribe all kinds of wonderful happenstances to his body language. So excited were the supporters of former President Muhammadu Buhari about the country’s potential under him that they attributed some magicality to otherwise routine happenings. Civil servants resume work at 8 am as expected of them? It was Buhari’s body language that motivated them to their newfound sense of responsibility. Did the electricity company supply power for 18 hours a day instead of their habitual six hours? Yes, that must be Buhari’s body language generating more megawatts. You somehow managed to drive through Lagos without your entire day expended in the soul-crushing traffic? Thanks to Buhari’s body language, hallelujah!

While it lasted, Buhari’s body was like the shadow of Apostle Paul in the Bible. It cured the sick! So great was the illusion that a president’s mere body language can change the norms of a beleaguered nation that some clowns even campaigned that Buhari should be allowed to suspend the constitution just so that the constraints of democratic principles would not incommode his supposed quest to give Nigeria the much-needed moral renewal. Looking back at the abuse of power that characterised his tenure, one cannot but be grateful to those who never mortgaged their common sense to give Buhari any freer hand to operate. Imagine yielding to the shoddy thinking that reduced the creativity of leadership to the mystique of body language instead of the rational processes of policymaking, outcomes assessments, and regular revisions.

Bringing up this recent past is to remind us that, at the inaugural phase of a leadership era, people generally get frenzied on their expectations of a new beginning that every whiff of air that passes under their nostrils is taken as a fresh breath. For instance, it is only three weeks into a new era. Nobody has yet seen any material impact of his policies on anyone’s lives, but some brown nosers are already declaring Bola Tinubu to be the best president Nigeria has ever had. Like Buhari’s body language, another leader whose aura will solve problems is being deified.

It is also troubling how, due to the same euphoria, some economic decisions are being cheered on as necessary pain. They are passing off hard decisions as a matter of “suffer now, enjoy later” without considering enough that one must survive before enjoying Eldorado.

To an extent, there is a basis for the heightened expectations. Tinubu has managed to pull off certain economic decisions like the fuel subsidy removal that his predecessors could not push through. Previous governments, composed of unreconstructed welfarists and miseducated socialists, insisted on those policies even as they enervated the economy. The fuel subsidies not only failed to benefit people as promised, but also subjected them to emotional blackmail. Every failure of the government was blamed on the insistence of the already impoverished to consume cheap petrol. Tinubu took advantage of the transition phase of the government to make some of these changes.

Within the same block of time, they have also announced the removal of the subsidies on electricity tariff and their plans to introduce VAT on diesel. All these supposed harsh measures are coming in the wake of Nigerians’ survival of Buhari’s nightmarish years, including a misconceived naira redesign policy that declined their purchasing power. Tinubu also signed the Student Loan Bill, an indication that the cost of post-secondary education will shoot up. And who knows what is next. Is it that the government considers the patience of the impoverished infinitely elastic, or is there a deliberate tactic to push people off the edge?

Perhaps they do not know what it means to be poor. Last week, I wrote on how the provision of the Student Loan Bill demonstrates that the government’s indices for calibrating poverty are incoherent and faulty. They expect a person (or their family) to live on a paltry <N42,000 monthly to be considered poor enough for the loan. Yet, such a person is still expected to provide at least two guarantors “each of whom must either be a civil servant of at least level 12, a lawyer with at least 10 years post-call experience, or a judicial officer, or a justice of peace.” If you are that poor, it is also improbable you will have ready access to those people who will sign off your loans. The ideas being expressed through policies so far betray an inchoate understanding of what constitutes poverty in Nigeria. At the rate people are being stretched, they will be crushed before their poverty is cured.

We heard versions of “suffer now, enjoy later” under Buhari too. We truly suffered, yes, but did anyone eventually enjoy the promised benefits? Some of the Buhari policies we were told to quietly swallow so that everything good could come were ultimately reversed when they failed their mission. Those ideas that were vociferously defended by supposed analysts who insisted we have had it too good for so long had to be eventually dissolved without achieving much. We should not have to go through that all over again and within the same period too. Nigerians like to talk so much about how we do not learn from our history because the history curriculum has been withdrawn from schools. Yet, we have customarily repeated the same history that unfolded before their very eyes.

We should be savvier this time round. Instead of merely praising a government for making decisions that have yet to translate into a better life, we should be asking why we should suffer any more than we have done. The whole idea of “suffer now and enjoy later” has been the story of our Nigerian lives. Suffer is, in fact, what we have been doing all our Nigerian lives. That is why our religious houses are always full of people begging God—who has grown indifferent—to alleviate our suffering. There is hardly anyone of us whose Nigerian lives is not wrapped up in suffering and expectations of when it finally ends. Yet, hardly anything good ever comes from suffering. It does not always get better; people just get used to the conditions. Some even assume they are privy to some higher truth because they are in pain. Prolonged suffering could become the reality of life to the point that any slight deviation is attributed to some magical force. That is why those who refrigerators saw 18-hour electricity under Buhari quickly attributed it to the miracle of his body language.

People should not be cajoled into accepting suffering based on the expectation that some bright future has been lit at the end of the tunnel. What if one dies inside the tunnel? If there will be a positive end to this, we will have to demand it. The government should be made to communicate where this is leading. To what end is all the suffering? Interestingly, there has been more analysis of the effects of Tinubu’s policies done by social media influencers than communication from government strategists. There should be an idea of where all of these are going, the government’s own share of the sacrifices, and how to cushion the effects of its policies. By that, I do not mean sending the vice president to go and distribute another ten thousand naira per person in the marketplaces.

Even when all kinds of subsidies were in place, Nigeria was not altogether a pleasant experience. The country takes and takes from you, leaving you drained of all virtue. Taking subsidies away based on the myth of some future enjoyment is a tacit indictment that you—rather than a government that lacks imagination—are why the country is so dysfunctional.

 

Punch

The best of the best fail. It's how you respond that leads to success.

In a recent interview, I was asked to reflect on the last decade of my company, Cloud for Good, and share what I would have changed along my journey. After a brief moment of reflection, I realized there was only one true answer: nothing. Don't get me wrong, I've made plenty of decisions that didn't work out. I've started lines of business that had to be ended prematurely, implemented thrown or revised procedures and made my share of wrong hires. But the truth is I don't view these momentary moments of adversity as failures — they are teaching and learning moments.

My company would not be in the position it is today if not for these mistakes, and I know I wouldn't be the person I am today without those bumps in the road.

Taking steps to success

Shortly after NBA superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo's team, the Milwaukee Bucks, were eliminated from the 2023 playoffs, a reporter asked him if he viewed the season as a failure. Coming into the season, the Bucks were projected to be one of the season's top contenders, and the team entered the playoffs as the top seed in the Eastern Conference. The Miami Heat would go on to defeat the Bucks in the first round of the playoffs, marking only the sixth time in NBA history an #8 seed defeated a #1 seed. Historical precedent and significance aside, Antetokounmpo was taken aback by the very question.

"Every year, you work towards something," the NBA star said. "It's not a failure. It's steps to success."

As entrepreneurs, we know all the buzzwords, self-help, and business development terms associated with this mindset. "Fail forward," "Fail fast, fail often," etc. It's true that to succeed, we must be open to truly failing, but we must consider these terms carefully and understand potential ramifications before failing for failure's sake.

As Antetokounmpo suggests, iteration is the key to truly growing and succeeding. Finding success requires opening oneself up to the possibility of failure. Still, the central conceit of this mindset is that mistakes will be learned from, perspective will be granted, and we, as entrepreneurs, will become better prepared to face our challenges with each passing challenge.

However, all of this is easier said than done, so let me share with you a few of the most important lessons I've learned on my journey to success.

Maintain an even keel

I'm a big believer in celebrating success, but I also believe in the virtue of humility. Much in the way that we must acknowledge failure without letting it demoralize us, we must also do the same for success and not let short gains go to our heads and cloud our judgment. By staying humble, you can ensure that successes are followed by properly acknowledging the teamwork or sacrifice that made that success possible.

It also becomes easier to view failures or setbacks as learning opportunitieswhen you zoom out and understand that ups and downs, wins and losses, are all part of the cyclical game we play. Don't get too down on yourself if things don't work out as planned. Just figure out what went wrong and do the work to establish a better path forward. Likewise, don't become self-aggrandizing after a few wins, as the pendulum might swing to the other end before you know it.

Accept change, expect improbability

My experience is based in the technology field, which is continuously refining and evolving. In my line of business, those that succeed are those that are most prepared for the next update, or the next big product launch, to come around and drastically alter the realities of our daily working lives. While tech does move faster than many other industries, the fact remains that every single industry will eventually weed out those beholden to routines and old ways of thinking.

Failure should always precipitate change. When failure strikes, you are doing yourself a disservice if you aren't looking to refine or reinvent the thought processes that preceded the failure. Embracing change and understanding that the implausible can and will happen allows us to protect our mental health and encourage progressive development in our thinking. Sometimes the best things we can do is reflect on the changes we didn't see coming so that when the next round of acceleration arrives, our mental states will be better prepared to adjust accordingly.

Build a team worth relying on

One of the quickest ways to assure destruction is believing you have all the answers. While it's true that entrepreneurs must have the self-confidence and self-reliance necessary to forge their own path, it would be foolish to think success is found entirely independently. The most successful people have the most well-built teams comprised of diverse thought leaders unafraid of telling you "no" or "maybe there's a better way to do this."

Teams are there to help filter ideas, provide feedback and help create new paths forward when failure inevitably strikes. Learn to cherish the brainstorming sessions where 10, 50 and 100 ideas are thrown around in search of the one winning idea. Prepare for the meetings that need another meeting and maybe another after that. Good ideas win when the right people gather around the table. Those you allow into your inner circle will have had their fair share of failures too, and they will be the trust advisors you seek as a result of growing from those failures.

Understand that highs and lows shouldn't distract you from daily consistency. Change is a certainty worth preparing for, and no one truly succeeds on their own. Failure often goes hand in hand with ambition. Remember this the next time a product launch goes awry, a promising new hire turns out to be a poor fit, or your next quarter's earnings projections fall short.

If you're built for the long haul, failure won't stop you, but handling failure, the wrong way just might.

 

Entrepreneur

We are urgently working to deliver more for people and the planet. Multiple, overlapping shocks have strained countries’ ability to address hunger, poverty, and inequality, build resilience and invest in their futures. Debt vulnerabilities in low- and middle-income countries present a major hurdle to their economic recovery, and to their ability to make critical long-term investments.

We are urgently working to fight poverty and inequalities. An estimated 120 million people have been pushed into extreme poverty in the last three years and we are still far from achieving our United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs) by 2030. We should thus place people at the centre of our strategy to increase human welfare everywhere on the globe.

We want a system that better addresses development needs and vulnerabilities, now heightened by climate risks, which could further weaken countries’ ability to eliminate poverty and achieve inclusive economic growth. Climate change will generate larger and more frequent disasters, and disproportionately affect the poorest, most vulnerable populations around the world. These challenges cross borders and pose existential risks to societies and economies.

We want our system to deliver more for the planet. The transition to a net zero world and the goals of the Paris agreement present an opportunity for this generation to unlock a new era of sustainable global economic growth. We believe that just ecological transitions that leave no one behind can be a powerful force for alleviating poverty and supporting inclusive and sustainable development. This requires long-term investment everywhere to ensure that all countries are able to seize this opportunity. Inspired by the historic Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, we also need new economic models which recognise the immense value of nature for humanity.

We are convinced that poverty reduction and protection of the planet are converging objectives. We must prioritise just and inclusive transitions to ensure that the poor and most vulnerable can fully reap the benefits of this opportunity, rather than disproportionally bearing the cost. We recognise that countries may need to pursue diverse transition paths in line with the 1.5C limit depending on their national circumstances. There will be no transition if there is no solidarity, economic opportunities, or sustainable growth to finance it.

We, leaders of diverse economies from every corner of the world, are united in our determination to forge a new global consensus. We will use the Paris Summit for a New Global Financing Pact on June 22-23 as a decisive political moment to recover development gains lost in recent years and to accelerate progress towards the SDGs, including just transitions. We are clear on our strategy: development and climate commitments should be fulfilled and, in line with the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, we recognise that we need to leverage all sources of finance, including official development assistance, domestic resources and private investment.

Delivering on that consensus should start with existing financial commitments. Collective climate-finance goals must be met in 2023. Our total global ambition of $100bn (£78bn) of voluntary contributions for countries most in need, through a rechannelling of special drawing rights or equivalent budget contributions, should also be reached.

No country should have to wait years for debt relief. We need greater and more timely cooperation on debt, for both low- and middle-income countries. This starts with a swift conclusion of solutions for debt-distressed countries.

A top priority is to continue ambitious reform of our system of multilateral development banks, building on the existing momentum. We are asking development banks to take responsible steps to do much more with existing resources and to increase financing capacity and private capital mobilisation, based on clear targets and strategies in terms of private finance contribution and domestic resource mobilisation. These financial resources are essential, but this reform is about far more than money. It should deliver a more effective operational model, based on a country-led approach. We also need our development banks to work together as an ecosystem, closely with other public agencies and streamlined vertical funds – and, where appropriate, with philanthropists, sovereign wealth funds, private finance and civil society – to deliver the greatest impact.

Technology, skills, sustainability, and public and private investment will be at the core of our partnerships, to promote voluntary technology transfer, a free flow of scientific and technological talents, and contribute to an inclusive, open, fair and non-discriminatory economy. We will promote an agenda of sustainable and inclusive investment in developing and emerging economies, based on local economic value added and local transformation, such as fertiliser value chains. This comprehensive approach will require new metrics to update our accountability instruments.

Public finance will remain essential to achieving our goals. We should start with strengthening our instruments (the International Development Association, the International Monetary Fund’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust and Resilience and Sustainability Trust, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the Green Climate Fund, and other concessional windows of our banks, as well as the Global Shield against Climate Risks). But we acknowledge that meeting our development and climate goals, including the fight against hunger, poverty, and inequality; adapting to climate change; and averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage, will require new, innovative, and sustainable sources of finance, such as debt buy-backs, engagement from sectors that prosper thanks to globalisation, and more trusted carbon- and biodiversity-credit markets.

Increasing resilience through a comprehensive suite of financial instruments is a priority. We need a stronger global safety net, based on prearranged approaches, to adapt and mitigate the impacts of climate change, especially when disasters hit. This implies climate and other disaster-resilient deferral mechanisms, insurance nets and emergency-response financing, including a more sustainable financing model of humanitarian aid.

Achieving our development goals, including climate mitigation, will also depend on scaling up private capital flows. This requires enhanced mobilisation of the private sector with its financial resources and its innovative strength, as promoted by the G20 Compact with Africa. This also requires improving the business environment, implementing common standards and adequate capacity building, and reducing perceived risks, such as in foreign exchange and credit markets. This may require public support, as well as sharing reliable data. Overall, our system needs to lower the cost of capital for sustainable development, including through the green transition in developing and emerging economies.

Our work together is all about solidarity and collective action, to reduce the challenges facing developing countries and to fulfil our global agenda. We will continue to press for progress, leveraging other important events, including the G20 summits in India and Brazil, the SDG summit and the COPs, starting with Cop28 in the United Arab Emirates this year. In all of our upcoming international works and negotiations, we will seek to advance concrete actions that deliver on the promise of the SDGs, for our prosperity, people, and planet.

** Emmanuel Macron is president of France. Mia Mottley is prime minister of Barbados. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is president of Brazil. Ursula von der Leyen is president of the European Commission. Charles Michel is president of the European Council. Olaf Scholz is chancellor of Germany. Fumio Kishida is prime minister of Japan. William Ruto is president of Kenya. Macky Sall is president of Senegal. Cyril Ramaphosa is president of South Africa. Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan is president of the United Arab Emirates. Rishi Sunak is prime minister of the UK. Joe Biden is president of the US

British High Commissioner to Nigeria, Richard Montgomery, said, on Wednesday, that the number of Nigerians travelling to the United Kingdom via study route had multiplied five times in the last three years.

Montgomery explained that his country’s decision banning international students from bringing family members with them to the UK starting 2024 was to avoid overburdening the country’s housing infrastructure and to control the inflow of migrants.

“Many more students are trying to bring their dependents with them…but it’s not always possible to find the housing and services to meet all the needs of all our existing student population…we’ll have to manage our migration in and out of the UK,” Montgomery told State House correspondents on Wednesday on emerging from a closed-door meeting with Vice President Kashim Shettima, at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.

Wednesday’s meeting comes one month after the new British envoy to Nigeria handed his letter of credence to former President Muhammadu Buhari on May 18.

On May 23, the UK Home Office said international students, including Nigerians, would no longer be able to bring family members with them to the UK starting January 2024.

It also announced that overseas students would be stopped from switching from the student visa route to a work visa until their studies have been completed.

The decision has been greeted with mixed reactions from international students, schools, and some British lawmakers, who argued that the regulation would aggravate labour shortages in critical sectors, such as health care and threaten the country’s global standing as a top destination for international talents.

But in response to a question from our correspondent, the British High Commissioner gave reasons for the regulation, saying, “I think there are two issues here. The first is, it’s not always possible to find the housing and services to meet all the needs of all our existing student population.”

“And second, reasonable people would accept that we have to manage our visitor numbers and we’ll have to manage our migration in and out of the UK just as the Nigerian government would do.”

Montgomery revealed that “the number of Nigerian students coming to the UK has increased fivefold in the last three years,” noting that “It is a fantastic success story for our universities and we are really delighted that so many Nigerians are coming to the UK.”

He, however, said, “That issue was not raised in the meeting (with the Vice President) just now. But I would like to put the media debate about it in a broader context.

“Last year (2022), for example, the UK granted three million new visas, of which 325,000 were to Nigerians.

“Nigerian visitors constitute over 10 per cent of the people coming to London and the UK.

“It’s a fantastic success story for our universities. And we are really delighted that so many Nigerians are coming to the UK.”

The British envoy revealed that his discussions with the VP highlighted the current policy direction of the Bola Tinubu administration, which, he said, was being warmly received by UK investors.

“As I discussed with His Excellency, the big economic decisions being taken by this government are really important and are being noticed around the world: the removal of subsidy, the exchange rate reform, all of that create a much better investment environment.

“I was in London last week; I was briefing my ministers, but I was also talking to British business in finance, banking and investment sectors. They are all responding very positively to these first decisions,” Montgomery stated.

The discussions also featured areas of assistance by the British government to cushion the effects of the discontinuance of petroleum subsidy, which has spelt “tough times” for Nigerians.

“We know that there are tough times that are going on at the moment, inflation and unemployment.

“The Vice President and I also touched on some of the measures that might be possible to cushion the blow of some of these economic pressures.

“But I think the big issue is that these reforms help put Nigeria on a higher growth path; they will attract more investments and the United Kingdom and the city of London see Nigeria as a big opportunity going forward.

“I will be doing my part to try to boost those, enhance trade and investment,” he noted.

 

Punch

Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, on Wednesday, tendered tons of electoral documents, including Permanent Voter Cards (PVC) records before the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja.

In furtherance of his suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s victory in the 25 February presidential election, Obi, through his lawyer, Livy Uzoukwu, presented certified true copies (CTCs) of documents detailing the total number of registered voters and PVCs.

Uzoukwu said the electoral documents were from the 32 states of the federation.

He further listed other documents to include – CTCs of supplementary INEC Results Viewing report regarding three local government areas of Benue State, two LGAs of Cross River State, 13 LGAs of Lagos State and one council area of Gombe State.

The lawyer also tendered a certificate of compliance concerning the conduct of the presidential poll in Edo State.

Kemi Pinheiro, who represented INEC at the proceedings, did not oppose its admissibility.

But the legal teams of Tinubu and the APC kicked against its admissibility.

Wole Olanipekun and Lateef Fagbemi, who represented Tinubu and the APC, respectively, promised to give reasons for their objections in their final arguments in the suit.

More witnesses

At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, one of Obi’s lawyers, Patrick Ikwueto, led more witnesses to prove his client’s case against the president.

The eighth witness, Chubuike Ugwuoke, mounted the box, where he adopted his witness statement on oath.

Ugwuoke, a cyber security expert, was subpoenaed to testify before the five-member panel of the court chaired by Haruna Tsammani.

He tendered a press statement that was issued by INEC before the general elections.

The press statement issued in November 2022 by Festus Okoye on behalf of INEC debunked an “alleged plot to abandon transmission of polling unit results to IReV portal.”

“The claim is patently false,” Okoye said in the statement, assuring Nigerians that “the Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) and INEC Results Viewing (IReV) (portal) have come to stay for Voter accreditation and uploading of polling units results in real-time in Nigeria.”

Okoye, an INEC commissioner in charge of voter education, explained that the IReV is one of the innovations introduced by the electoral umpire to guarantee electoral integrity and credibility in Nigeria.

But during the 25 February presidential election, INEC failed to transmit polling station results in real-time as promised electronically.

Its inability to comply with the said electoral guidelines forms one of the grounds for Obi and other petitioners’ suits to overturn Tinubu’s victory.

Also, Ugwuoke presented a report called “Meta data.”

But INEC, APC and Tinubu objected to the admissibility of the document, promising to provide reasons in support of their objection.

The respondents’ lawyers urged the court to defer Ugwuoke’s cross-examination until Thursday, which the court granted.

Thereafter, Obi’s ninth witness, Onoja Sunday, mounted the witness box.

Sunday, a staff member at Women & Child Rescue Initiative, a not-for-profit organisation, adopted his witness statement and presented his staff identity card to the court.

Under cross-examination by Abubakar Mahmoud, INEC’s lawyer, Sunday said he was not a political party member.

But while being cross-examined by Emmanuel Ukala, a lawyer in Tinubu’s legal team, the witness said he was subpoenaed in his capacity using his permanent residential address.

Recalling his observation during the polls, Sunday said electoral officials failed to upload the presidential election results to the IReV portal.

Kefas Iya, the 10th petitioner’s witness, said he worked as a member of the ad-hoc staff during the presidential election.

Iya, a civil servant, told the court that he supervised 24 polling stations in his Ward at Madagali LGA in Adamawa State.

He said INEC officials could not upload the presidential election results from the polling units.

Iya said the PDP presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, won the presidential election in Adamawa, his home state.

The court adjourned the hearing in the case until Thursday.

 

PT

Allied Peoples Movement (APM) has closed its case against President Bola Tinubu’s election, after calling one witness to support its petition.

Chichi Ojei, APM’s candidate, had scored 25,961 votes during the February 25 presidential election.

The party is contending that Tinubu was improperly sponsored by the All Progressives Congress (APC) since he nominated Kashim Shettima as his vice-presidential candidate for the election.

It claims that at the time Shettima accepted to be APC’s vice-presidential candidate, he was still the party’s candidate for Borno central senatorial district.

At the court session on Wednesday, the party called its sole witness, Aisha Abubakar, APM’s assistant welfare officer.

Led in evidence by Gideon Idiagbonya, APM counsel, Abubakar adopted her witness statement on oath.

Under cross-examination by Kemi Pinheiro, INEC lawyer, the witness admitted that she could not confirm when the electoral commission received the notice of substitution of the candidate for Borno central.

Lateef Fagbemi, APC’s lawyer, presented a certified true copy of a supreme court judgement which dismissed a suit filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against Shettima’s alleged dual nomination.

Abubakar confirmed the authenticity of the apex court’s verdict and it was subsequently admitted in evidence despite an objection by the APM’s lawyer.

SUIT ADJOURNED TO JULY

On his part, Wole Olanipekun, Tinubu and Shettima’s counsel, made the witness read several relevant paragraphs of the supreme court verdict.

The excerpts of the court’s judgment were to establish the frivolity of the petition challenging Tinubu’s election on the grounds of double nomination.

After listening to all parties in the suit, Haruna Tsammani, chairman of the panel, ordered the respondents to file their final written addresses within 10 days from Wednesday.

He ordered the APM to file its written address within seven days after the respondents’ filing.

The court then adjourned further hearing in the suit to July 14.

Meanwhile, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) could not proceed with its petition due to shortage of time. Consequently, the court adjourned the hearing to Thursday.

 

The Cable

Suspected terrorists who attacked Chisu village in Mangu Local Government of Plateau State, on Tuesday night, burnt 11 persons to death.

The victims were said to have run to a house in the village for safety after they heard sporadic gunshots in the community around 11 pm but the assailants pursued them to the place and set the house on fire leading to their death.

A resident of the Chisu community who escaped the attack, Michael Bulus, confirmed the death of the villagers to our correspondent in Jos on Wednesday.

According to Bulus, the terrorists also burnt a church along Mangu-Bokkos Road and other properties before making their escape.

Bulus said, “On Tuesday, terrorists attacked Chisu village of Mangu Local government at about 11:00 pm. 

“When the terrorists arrived in the community, there were sporadic gunshots, and the people started running. Some of them ran to a house belonging to a community leader. Unfortunately, the house was set ablaze by the terrorists, and 11 burnt-dead bodies were later discovered this morning (Wednesday).

“The COCIN Regional Church Council Bwai along Mangu Bokkos road in the local government was also burnt by the terrorists along with other  houses, vehicles, and tricycles before they fled the community.”

Plateau State Police Command spokesperson, Alabo Alfred, did not pick up his calls when contacted on the incident.

But sources at the command headquarters in Jos confirmed that more security operatives had been deployed to the affected community following reports.

 

Punch

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Ukrainian troops understand they don’t stand a chance against Russian forces — Putin

Ukraine’s troops understand that they don’t stand a chance against heroic and courageous fighters of the Russian Armed Forces, President Vladimir Putin emphasized on Wednesday.

"Thanks to the courage and heroism of our fighters, thanks to the commanders’ readiness to repel any aggressive actions against Russia, I believe, the enemy doesn’t stand a chance. They understand that and this is why they have stalled now," Putin said at the meeting with military college graduates, answering a question from reporter Pavel Zarubin.

"Ukrainian forces began [the counteroffensive] on June 4, engaging strategic reserves. Curiously, we currently observe certain lull at this moment," the president said, adding that "this is due to the enemy suffering serious casualties in personnel and in vehicles."

According to the president, "there are individual elements of hostilities going on: shelling, reconnaissance-in-force."

"But, I repeat, there is currently no active offensive," Putin added.

Meanwhile, he noted: "As of today, we see that the enemy’s offensive potential has not been depleted yet; the enemy has reserves and it thinks where and how to use them."

Speaking about the destroyed Western vehicles, Putin underscored that these numbers keep growing.

"How much - that would require a look at the numbers. The total as of last night was 245 tanks and 678 armored vehicles of various types. Of course, that includes Leopards, French wheeled vehicles, US-made armored vehicles - everything," the president said. "They burn quite well."

** Counteroffensive not going well – Zelensky

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has admitted that the long-promised counteroffensive against Russian forces has not delivered the results that some Western observers expected. Amid mounting losses, Zelensky insisted that he would not discuss peace with Moscow.

“Some people believe this is a Hollywood movie and expect results now. It’s not,”he told the BBC on Wednesday, admitting that advances by Ukrainian troops have been “slower than desired.”

“Whatever some might want, including attempts to pressure us, with all due respect, we will advance on the battlefield the way we deem best,” he added.

Ukraine’s counteroffensive began on June 4 with a failed attack on Russian positions near Donetsk, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. Wave after wave of attacks followed along the Donetsk and Zaporozhye sectors of the front line, all of which Russian forces have managed to withstand while destroying hundreds of Western-supplied tanks and armored vehicles, and taking thousands of Ukrainian troops out of action, according to the ministry.

While Zelensky told the BBC that his forces have managed to capture eight villages, Ukrainian troops have yet to penetrate even the first of Russia’s multi-layered defensive lines. With a warren of trenches, minefields, and fortifications in their path and Russian artillery and air support operating freely, Ukraine has lost 7,500 men and 30% of its Western-supplied tanks and armored vehicles, the Kremlin estimated last Wednesday.

Daily reports from Moscow have since added at least another 2,000 men to the casualty count, with Ukraine said to have lost over 1,000 soldiers and 20 tanks in a single day of fighting over the weekend.

Zelensky is reportedly under pressure to score some battlefield successes for his Western patrons, and he acknowledged to the BBC that “victories on the battlefield are necessary” to resolve the conflict in Kiev’s favor. However, he added that “no matter how far we advance in our counteroffensive, we will not agree to a frozen conflict because that is war, that is a prospectless development for Ukraine.”

Zelensky has repeatedly vowed to drive Russian troops out of the four formerly Ukrainian regions – Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye – that voted last year to join Russia. He also insists on reclaiming Crimea, which joined Russia after a referendum in 2014. American, British, and other NATO officials have backed his refusal to “freeze” the conflict, but many admit that Ukrainian forces could never hope to mount an attack on Crimea.

“Behind the scenes, many Western military analysts express serious doubts about the success of the Ukrainian adventure,” Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) chief Sergey Naryshkin said on Monday. “Without going into details, I’ll say that the tasks announced by the Kiev regime are assessed as unachievable” by foreign experts, he added.

 

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine offensive makes slow gains, Zelenskiy says; Putin sees 'lull'

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was quoted on Wednesday as saying progress in Ukraine's counteroffensive against Russian forces was "slower than desired", but Kyiv would not be pressured into speeding it up.

"Some people believe this is a Hollywood movie and expect results now. It's not," Britain's BBC quoted him as saying in an interview. "What's at stake is people's lives."

His adversary, Russian President Vladimir Putin, said Moscow had observed a "lull" in Ukraine's counteroffensive, which began early this month. Although Ukraine still had some offensive potential, Kyiv understood it had "no chance", Putin said in televised remarks.

Zelenskiy made a point in a separate video address of highlighting Ukraine's successes. He said troops were advancing on the southern front and holding defence lines in the east, long the focus of Russia's nearly 16-month-old campaign.

He specifically mentioned the Kupiansk area in the northeast, where military officials say Russian troops have been applying increasing pressure.

"In the Kupiansk sector, whatever the Russian terrorists might be planning, we are destroying the enemy. In the south, we are moving forward ... In the east, we are holding our defences," Zelenskiy said.

Ukraine says it has reclaimed eight villages in its long-awaited counteroffensive, its first substantial gains on the battlefield for seven months.

But Ukrainian forces have yet to push to the main defensive lines that Russia has had months to prepare. Kyiv is believed to have set aside 12 brigades of thousands of troops each, most of which have yet to join the fight.

Despite slow progress on the ground, Washington, one of Ukraine's most important allies, was reported to be campaigning for greater international support for Kyiv among countries that have so far not condemned Russia's invasion.

The Financial Times said White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan will travel to Denmark this weekend to meet with officials from India, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey and possibly China in a bid to broaden support for Ukraine.

ROCKET ATTACK

In the Ukrainian-held eastern town of Pokrovsk, west of the main front lines in Donetsk region, a Reuters correspondent on Wednesday heard a whistling sound followed by a powerful explosion that shook walls.

"The rocket flew right past us. The windows were blown out. A woman was wounded," said Serhiy, an elderly resident living close to a wide crater left by the blast.

Visibly shaken, gasping for air and with a quivering voice, he picked through debris in his badly damaged home. Neighbours stood outside. Some sobbed, others tried to calm frightened children.

Throughout the eastern half of Ukraine, air raid alerts sounded in the early hours of Thursday for more than an hour, and the military issued warnings of possible missile and drone attacks.

Officials and the military reported explosions in several places including Kriviy Rih and Kremenchug in central Ukraine and Kharkiv in the east, but there were no immediate reports of strikes or casualties.

Ukraine's armed forces general staff earlier noted enemy offensive action in the Lyman sector in the east, where officials say Russian forces have become more active. There was Russian shelling throughout the east and in Zaporizhzhia region.

The BBC quoted Zelenskiy as saying the military push was difficult because 200,000 square km (77,220 square miles) of Ukrainian territory had been mined by Russian forces.

After a flurry of early gains, Kyiv has claimed to have captured only one additional village over the past week, the hamlet of Pyatikhatky.

Both Moscow and Kyiv have stepped up longer range attacks with missiles and drones in preparation the fighting at the front. Russia said on Wednesday it shot down drones that had reached the region surrounding Moscow. Kyiv never comments on reports of attacks inside Russia.

DONOR CONFERENCE

Zelenskiy's interview with Britain's public broadcaster coincided with a conference in London where allies were due to pledge billions of dollars in economic and reconstruction aid.

Washington offered $1.3 billion. Ukraine's Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said Kyiv was hoping for almost $7 billion from the event.

The West has already given Ukraine tens of billions of dollars worth of military equipment, including hundreds of tanks and armoured vehicles that form the core of the force available for its counteroffensive.

Some of Ukraine's supporters worry that Kyiv will have to show impressive results on the battlefield in coming weeks or risk political support waning in the West.

Nevertheless, Ukraine expects NATO to extend an invitation to join the military alliance with an "open date" at a July 11-12 summit in Vilnius, the Ukrainian president's chief of staff Andriy Yermak said.

"This can create a signal" and encourage Ukrainians, he told a webinar.

 

Tass/RT/Reuters

Fighting surges in Sudan's capital as three-day ceasefire expires

Heavy clashes broke out between rival military factions in several parts of Sudan's capital on Wednesday as a 72-hour ceasefire that saw several reports of violations expired, witnesses said.

Shortly before the truce ended at 6 a.m. (0400 GMT) fighting was reported in all three of the cities that make up the wider capital around the confluence of the Nile: Khartoum, Bahri and Omdurman.

Sudan's army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have been battling each other for more than two months, wreaking destruction on the capital, triggering widespread violence in the western region of Darfur and causing more than 2.5 million people to flee their homes.

Attacks by militias linked to the RSF in the western city of El Geneina have been described by local and foreign observers as ethnic cleansing.

Witnesses said army aircraft carried out air strikes in Bahri and the RSF responded with anti-aircraft fire. Smoke could be seen rising from the industrial area.

Witnesses also reported artillery fire and heavy clashes in Omdurman and ground fighting in southern Khartoum.

Residents also reported clashes near the army headquarters in the city of Dalanj in South Kordofan, where the SPLM-N led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, a large rebel force that is not clearly aligned with either of the factions, has been mobilising.

In a statement, the Sudanese army accused al-Hilu of violating a ceasefire agreement, and said it had sustained several losses.

The RSF also attacked a separate army camp in another part of the city on Wednesday, witnesses said.

In Nyala, one of Sudan's largest cities and the capital of South Darfur, the army and the RSF clashed in the centre and northern districts of the city for the second day after a period of calm, said one local activist, amid a power blackout.

The ceasefire was the latest of several truce deals brokered by Saudi Arabia and the United States at talks in Jeddah.

As with previous ceasefires, there were reports of violations by both sides.

Late on Tuesday, both factions blamed the other for a large fire at the intelligence headquarters, which is housed in a defence compound in central Khartoum that has been fought over since the fighting erupted on April 15.

Saudi Arabia and the U.S. said that if the warring factions failed to observe the ceasefire they would consider adjourning the Jeddah talks, which critics have questioned as ineffective.

The conflict in Sudan erupted amid disputes over internationally backed plans for a transition away from military rule following a coup in 2021 and four years after long-ruling autocrat Omar al-Bashir was ousted during a popular uprising.

 

Reuters

On Saturday, 25 February, Nigeria conducted an election for the position of President, which was widely regarded as the most fiercely contested in the country since 1999. On 1 March, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Bola Tinubu, candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), as the winner and President-elect. On 29 May, the Chief Justice of Nigeria swore him in as the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces and 16th president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

While the reaction of the international community was mixed, the two major opposition parties, the Peoples Democratic Party and the Labour Party, took their dissatisfaction to the Presidential Election Petitions Court in Abuja in petitions challenging the announced outcome of the presidential election.

Their core argument revolves around the President-Elect’s alleged failure to secure “not less than 25% of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of the States of the Federation, AND the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja,” as mandated by the constitution [capitals added]. They contend that this constitutional requirement was not met in the election.

The challenge to the 25 February presidential election results has revived a well-known constitutional dilemma around the intended meaning of the phrase “and FCT” in the aforementioned constitutional clause, as distinct from “including FCT” or “plus FCT.” While there may be disagreement on the precise interpretation, it seems generally agreed that the intention was not to exclude the FCT from the constitutional requirement.

If indeed the framers of the constitution intended “and FCT” to mean “plus FCT” or “FCT specifically,” the opposition would be justified in challenging INEC’s declaration of an APC victory. If the interpretation leans towards “including FCT,” then INEC’s result would fulfill the specific constitutional requirement, especially considering that the 1999 Constitution also acknowledges that the FCT can be treated as a state.

If the former, then this raises the fundamental question of why the framers of the 1999 Constitution would grant such a special right or privileged status to citizens of Abuja and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) that voters in other administrative units in the country do not enjoy.

To unravel the ‘and FCT’ conundrum, it is important to examine what the founding fathers of the 1999 Constitution, all military personnel, had in mind when they decided earlier, in 1976, to build a new capital city on virgin land and set it up as a special federal capital territory. This article analyses the historical context and the public policy considerations that drove the establishment of Abuja as a FCT, in order to inform the ongoing national debate and decision-making concerning the 2023 Presidential Election Petition process.

The Founding Fathers of the FCT/Abuja

Among the various reasons identified for the decision to construct Abuja, two factors stand out prominently. First, there was the notion of “national pride.” As Africa’s most populous country and one of the wealthiest, due to its abundant natural resources (further bolstered by the oil boom and petrodollars of the 1970s), Nigeria was seen by both its citizens and the international community as the “black giant” of Africa and potentially a global leader.

The military, as the founding fathers of Abuja in the mid-1970s, believed that Nigeria was destined for greatness. They aspired to build an ultramodern city that would rival Western capitals and serve as a source of national pride and symbol of modernity for black people worldwide. A new capital city in Abuja deliberately located inland and distinct from the congested and traffic-heavy urban landscape of Lagos, the military believed, would establish a modern and prestigious metropolis, simultaneously banishing the conspicuous remnants of British colonial influence in Nigeria. This reinforced the notion of a new, independent Nigeria that had firmly arrived as a legitimate member of the “Newer World.”

The second significant motivation behind the military’s choice of Abuja was the concept of an administrative framework known as the FCT. Beyond the evident fact that the FCT does not possess the typical characteristics of a Nigerian state, lacking an elected governor but instead having an appointed minister of the FCT, there is a less known yet crucial aspect of “national unity and ethnic neutrality“.

As I wrote years ago, “It is common knowledge that Nigeria is a multi-ethnic country…and that the country has been riffed by ethnic rivalry from its inception. Lagos, obviously, is a Yoruba land and with such a lop-sided ethnic mix (Yoruba, 72.2%; Igbo,15.4%; Edo, 3.17%; and Hausa, 2.05% in 1963), it was felt that the city, as capital, is inimical to the spirit of national unity, as it could never be a place where all Nigerians could lay claim to every available right, privilege and resource on an equal footing. This could only be achieved in a sort of no-man’s land where no one ethnic group predominated.”

The just concluded March gubernatorial election in Lagos confirmed this fundamental truth about the Nigerian polity. In the weeks and months leading up to that election, the prevailing discourse revolved around the question of who the “real owners” or “indigenes” of Lagos are and which individuals or groups possess a more legitimate right to influence and shape the city-state’s future political trajectory.

The Strategic Location of Abuja — An Attempt To Make it equi-polity-distant For All

Thus, the founding fathers of Abuja in the 1970s and 1980s embarked on a social re-engineering endeavour with the goal of achieving three objectives related to national unity and cohesion. First, they aimed to strategically locate Abuja at the geographical heartland of the country. By doing so, they hoped that both government and development would be brought closer to the governed. This approach aimed to ensure that citizens from all parts of the country had relatively equal access to the capital city in terms of physical distance.

Additionally, it is worth noting that one of the underlying motivations for the establishment of Abuja was a desire to address the concerns of the northern elite for conducting the nation’s affairs from a capital that was not located so far away in the perceived hostile Southern region. (See Figure 1).

Figure 1: Centrality of FCT in terms of physical distance

The Question of Who Owns Abuja and Making It A Place For All, On Equal Footing?

Second, another key objective pursued by the military proponents of Abuja was to establish a territory that would provide equal rights and opportunities to all Nigerians, devoid of any specific regional or ethnic affiliation. To achieve this strategic objective, the military regime made a series of ‘deliberate and courageous decisions’ regarding the FCT.

They carefully selected a central area in Nigeria that had a relatively low population density and limited development. This selection was crucial in creating a neutral ground where every Nigerian would be treated equally and have the same rights. In response to this, the military government claimed full ownership of the entire FCT area, granting the Federal Government complete control over the land. Unlike in any of the other 36 states of Nigeria, the Federal Government possesses 100% monopoly control over the land in the FCT.

Third, and significantly, the military decided to compensate and physically relocate all indigenous populations from within the FCT. Approximately 600 villages predominantly inhabited by farmers and potters belonging to the Gbagyi or Gwari ethnic groups, had to be swiftly resettled between 1976 and 1991. Where relocation of the indigenes proved costly, the military government simply decided to excise those parts from the FCT, as can be observed by examining the map of the FCT (Figure 2), where one can notice a distinct “V” shape at the top. This cutout represents the removal of the present-day Suleja town and its sizable indigenous population from the FCT.

Figure 2: Map of FCT with a “V” shape to the top, showing excision of the town of Suleja

These rationales influenced the territory’s design and also played a pivotal role in its development as a distinct administrative unit.

Situating FCT/Abuja Within the Political and Democratic Framework of the New Nigeria

During the civilian administration of Shehu Shagari (1979-1983), significant construction work began in Abuja. However, the bold and visionary decisions to build Abuja, along with meticulous planning and the allocation of substantial resources for its groundbreaking and full-scale implementation, were made under Generals Murtala Mohammed and Olusegun Obasanjo (1975-1979). It can be argued that Abuja represents one of the most remarkable and ambitious endeavours in political and social re-engineering for nation-building undertaken by the Nigerian military. Subsequent military rulers – Muhammadu Buhari (1983-1985), Ibrahim Babangida (1985-1993), Sani Abacha (1993-1998), Abdulsalami Abubakar (1998-1999), and Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2007) – demonstrated increased commitment in terms of political support and financial resources allocated to the project.

Considering the foregoing historical context of the capital relocation, it is reasonable to assume that the military, while formulating the Nigerian Constitution of 1999, deemed it appropriate to uphold the same principles and institutionalise in the political fabric of the country the “broad official aims for the new capital,” including among others:

“To provide for a physical symbol of national unity, and of Nigeria as a symbol of Pan Africa unity; and

To provide a physical expression of the ideal constitutional democratic government.”

They had envisioned FCT/Abuja as a place where ethnic considerations would not dictate political power and where the genuine essence of Nigerian polity could emerge unhindered.

Conclusion – FCT/Abuja As Electorate-barometer of the Nation’s True Pulse and Spirit

It is hoped that this article has provided some insight into history on the FCT/Abuja that many Nigerians may not know, along with how this relates to the constitutional issue about the 25% threshold of voters in the FCT/Abuja. To understand this debate, one must decode the reasons behind its establishment and the great lengths to which successive Nigerian military rulers (1975-2007) went to create a special identity for the territory and enshrine it in the 1999 Constitution.

It is this article’s thesis that the outcome of the February presidential election in FCT/Abuja validates the foresight of the Generals who envisioned and implemented the FCT project as a deliberately designed “neutral microcosm” of Nigeria, where ethnicity did not trump all else — a kind of legitimising “litmus test” of the ability of an aspiring candidate for the highest office in the land to appeal to and garner threshold support from diverse segments of the population.

Until such a time that Nigerian political leaders can harness our rich multi-ethnic and cultural heritage into the positive force for change that it is, an emphasis on obtaining at least 25% of the votes in FCT/Abuja as a constitutional requirement may serve as a necessary barometer for both measuring and safeguarding the nation’s true political pulse in ideals of national unity and democracy.

As the only “ethnically neutral zone” of the country, with above average income, voter education and awareness, and security atmosphere relatively free from voter intimidation and vote suppression, it logically follows that the legitimacy of any individual aspiring to lead a diverse and significant country like Nigeria should be questioned, if they fail to garner at least 25% of the electoral votes from this special territory. The voice of people in the FCT must not be taken lightly (i.e., not among the 24 ‘states’ mandated by the constitution), or without factoring in its historical context and raison d’etre. For both the generals and civilians alike, FCT symbolizes true unity, representing a shared national identity about the progressive Nigeria everyone wants.

Erasmus Morah received a PhD from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, in 1990 with a dissertation on the establishment of Nigeria’s FCT.

 

PT