Isaiah says: “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.  But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4-5).

“Who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” (Acts 8:34).

This is certainly a prophecy about Jesus. But it also refers to believers in general. I used to assume messianic scriptures were exclusively about Christ. Until one day, the Lord spoke one (Isaiah 49:1-3) directly to me. The scripture jumped off the page of the bible and hit me in the face. I thought: “But this is talking about Jesus.”  But the Lord said: “Femi, it is also talking about you.” 

Messianic Man

God says: “My righteous servant shall make many to be counted righteous before God, for He shall bear all their sins.” (Isaiah 53:11). Is it right to say this also applies to somebody other than Jesus? Can anyone but Jesus bear the sins of others? 

Contrary to popular Christian thinking, the answer is yes.  Moses, for example, was a burden-bearer for Israel. He even complained to the Lord that he needed helpers: “Why have I not found favor in your sight, so that you lay the burden of all this people upon me? Have I conceived all this people? I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me.” (Numbers 11:11,14). 

God required Ezekiel to bear the sins of Israel and Judah: “Lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself. You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah.” (Ezekiel 4:3-6).

Paul also bore the burden of Israel’s sins: “I have great heaviness and continual pain in my heart. For I myself was wishing to be accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” (Romans 9:1-3). 

In the Old Testament and under the Law of Moses, sin-bearing was the sole responsibility of the priests and the prophets.  Thus, Moses chided the sons of Aaron: “Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, since it is most holy, and (God) has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before Jehovah?” (Leviticus 10:17). 

However, in the New Testament, believers are burden-bearers because Jesus has made us all “priests to our God.” (Revelation 5:10).Therefore, Paul says: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfill the Law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:2).

Sin-bearers

Burdens are loads that weigh us down and impede our movement. Sickness is also a burden. It is sometimes so heavy; it keeps us bedridden. We also carry burdens as a result of adverse situations and circumstances. Thus, we may be burdened by unemployment, the death of a loved one, or loneliness.

But whether we fully realise it or not, sin is our big burden. Sin represents the breakdown in the machinery of our soul that, like a car, has to be removed and replaced for us to function properly according to the will of God.

Man is not created to carry heavy burdens alone.  Today, we have man-made machinery designed to carry heavy physical loads.  But no such man-made machinery exists spiritually.  God is the principal spiritual burden-bearer we have.  The psalmist says: “Praise be to the Lord, to God our Savior, who daily bears our burdens.” (Psalm 68:19).

The promise of God to Israel says: “Even to old age I am He; and to gray hairs I will bear you. I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.” (Isaiah 46:3-4). 

Jesus makes a similar promise to all who believe in Him: “Come to me all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30). 

However, when we sin, we end up with burdens that are not from God. Thus, God laments a nation: “Full of sin, a people weighted down with crime, a generation of evil-doers, false-hearted children: they have gone away from the Lord, they have no respect for the Holy One of Israel, their hearts are turned back from Him.” (Isaiah 1:4) 

God suffers and is deeply grieved by our sinsbecause in all our affliction God is afflicted. (Isaiah 63:9).  He wants us to be anxious about nothing, and to cast all our cares upon Him. (1 Peter 5:7).  But our sins are not the burden He wants to carry for us.  On the contrary, He says of them: “They are a heavy burden I am tired of carrying.” (Isaiah 1:14). 

Jesus ever lives to make intercession for us. (Hebrews 7:25).  His burden-bearing task was not just fulfilled on the cross: but yesterday and today and forever. Before Calvary, Jesus healed all who were sick: “so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, ‘He took on Himself our weaknesses and bore our sicknesses.’” (Matthew 8:16-17).

 Sin-bearing Christians

But it is important to know that the burden of sin is not only carried by the sinner.  It is also carried by the righteous, who are required to intercede for sinners. It is carried by the sinner’s loved ones and even the innocent. For instance, drunk drivers kill innocent bystanders. Rapists impregnate their victims and give them sexually transmitted diseases.

True children of God are sin and burden-bearers. We labour daily in prayer for sinners. Jesus says: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.” (Matthew 5:4).  We mourn the transgressions we decry; frustrated in the knowledge that few will believe our report. 

God is looking for believers to stand in the gap for the sins of the land. (Ezekiel 22:30).Beloved, let Him find you. Be that sin-bearing servant who refuses to give God peace until He establishes His righteousness in the earth. (Isaiah 62:7).

Burden of Sickness

I was praying in the middle of the night about a message I was scheduled to deliver at a lunch-hour fellowship in the afternoon. Suddenly, I was gripped with a searing pain in my back. As I crouched on the floor, I continued praying. I knew instinctively the pain did not belong to me: it belonged to someone else who would surely be at the fellowship that day.

After delivering my message, I told my audience the Lord wants me to pray for “someone” suffering from severe back pain. Three people were healed on that day because the Lord caused me to bear their sickness the night before. He put their sickness on me. I entered into their pain, and He healed them.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; www.femiaribisala.com

We can expect to face a growing number of setbacks, distractions, and challenges in our increasingly chaotic world. That's why we need resilience more than ever.

Resilience is one of six "mental muscles" that make up mental strength, or the ability to productively regulate your emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. It's essential for success but tricky to cultivate. 

The good news is that, as I share in my new book "The Mentally Strong Leader," anyone can build habits for greater resilience and fortitude.

Part of my research on mental strength included developing a self-assessment that allows you gauge where you are when it comes to each of the six muscles, and understand what you can do to level up. 

Here's a mini-assessment focused on fortitude: If you can answer "always" to these seven questions, you're already more resilient than most. 

1. Do you see adversity as an opportunity rather than a threat?

If you view any setback as a threat — to your goals, identity, or reputation — you focus on everything that could go wrong. Your anxiety often feeds on itself, making it even harder to navigate your way out of a difficult circumstance. 

But if you view the setback as a challenge that tests your skills in a good way and as an opportunity to explore, learn, grow, or achieve more than you thought possible, it's dramatically more productive. 

For example, during COVID, I saw a microbrewery turn a major setback (having to temporarily close) into an opportunity to have their employees spend time in the community on a variety of volunteer projects. Instead of sitting idle, they built bonds in their neighborhood. 

2. Are you flexible when it comes to solving problems?

Resilience demands problem-solving skills. But a rigid approach to problem-solving fuels frustration, not fortitude. A flexible mindset is a must. 

As I share in "The Mentally Strong Leader," you need three specific types of flexibility: 

Intellectual flexibility, which means keeping an open mind, considering "outside-the-box" solutions, and being open to having your assumptions challenged

Emotional flexibility, which means not getting too attached to a possible solution or letting your emotions drive you to make rash decisions

Dispositional flexibility, which means having fun with the problem-solving process while improvising and experimenting as needed

3. Do you balance reality with hope, even in adversity?

The most resilient leaders I've worked for all shared one superpower: the ability to balance reality and hope. 

I've had managers who only communicated the reality of an adverse situation. They were depressing. I've had managers who only communicated optimism. They were out of touch. 

The best managers I've had were realistic about the circumstances at hand, but operated with an undertone of hope. They successfully navigated through big obstacles when others failed.

4. When facing a setback, do you focus on what you still have versus what you lost?

Adversity often makes us feel as though we've lost something, like time, money, support, or confidence. But highly resilient people concentrate on what they still have to be thankful for when setbacks arise. 

When you focus on working with what you have versus bemoaning what you don't, you can do what needs to be done rather than getting stuck ruminating on what you've lost and what else could go wrong.

5. Do you avoid getting stuck thinking, 'It's not fair'?

Fixating on how unfair your circumstances are can paralyze you, leaving you with the capacity only for anger, not action. Getting stuck in "it's not fair" can lead to a victim mentality, which erodes resilience. You learn to believe you're helpless or powerless. You're not. 

Resilient people don't think, "Why me?" They think, "Why not me?" As in, "Why can't I be the one who courageously rises above these circumstances?" 

Own your part in the circumstance you're in, commit to learn and grow from it, and be willing to change your situation rather than just wishing it would change. 

6. Do you avoid exaggerating how painful a setback really is? 

"Catastrophizing" makes mountains out of molehills. It frazzles you instead of focusing you. It distorts the situation instead of defusing it.

Resilience comes from being realistic about the true impact of the circumstance without minimizing or exaggerating. It means compartmentalizing any truly negative effect so it doesn't bleed over into other parts of your job or life. 

7. Are you compassionate with yourself when you make mistakes?

Staying resilient is hard enough. Why make it harder by beating yourself up when you stumble? 

When adversity strikes, pay attention to what you feel about yourself. Instead of judging yourself, name the emotion. For example: "I feel like a failure right now." 

When you name it, the sensation begins to lose its hold over you and becomes something specific you can address. It's something you're experiencing, not who you are. You feel like a failure. That doesn't mean you are a failure.

Be kind to yourself. Talk to yourself like you would a friend in need. And remember that you're bigger than any mistake. 

CNBC

As the 2024 Edo State governorship election kicks off today, all eyes are on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and security agencies to ensure a credible and peaceful process. This follows concerns over violence, political tension, and allegations of vote-rigging that have marred past elections in the state.

The election, which features 16 candidates, has been largely framed as a contest between three main contenders: Asuerinme Ighodalo of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC), and Olumide Akpata of the Labour Party (LP). However, the political atmosphere has been tense, with accusations of electoral malpractice and violence already casting a shadow over the proceedings.

Controversies and Allegations

The PDP has raised alarm over the arrest of its members and claimed that the APC is using "Federal Might" to manipulate the election in its favor. The PDP also accused Edo’s Commissioner of Police, Nemi Iwo, and the INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner, Onuoha Anugbum, of bias, calling for their removal. Conversely, the APC has demanded justice for the killing of a police officer attached to their candidate, Okpebholo, and claimed that the suspects remain at large, posing further security risks.

Frontline election monitoring group, Yiaga Africa, has expressed fears of potential violence, particularly in eight local government areas (LGAs) identified as hot spots. These include Ikpoba/Okha, Oredo, Egor, and Esan South East, where there have been reports of political thuggery and the use of armed groups to disrupt the election process.

The Leading Candidates

Asuerinme Ighodalo, the PDP’s candidate, is a 64-year-old lawyer and businessman with a background in corporate law and finance. His campaign has focused on economic reforms for Edo, leveraging his expertise to promise job creation and development.

APC's Monday Okpebholo, currently serving as a senator for Edo Central District, has campaigned on a platform of governance reform despite being embroiled in a legal case concerning the falsification of his date of birth. His popularity has been bolstered by endorsements from high-profile figures, including Nollywood actress Mercy Johnson-Okojie.

Labour Party’s Olumide Akpata, a former president of the Nigerian Bar Association, has built a reputation as a reformer. His campaign is rooted in transparency and leadership, drawing on his extensive legal experience.

Security and Electoral Integrity

In light of past controversies, there are widespread concerns about INEC’s ability to conduct a free and fair election. Allegations of collusion between the electoral body and political actors have been a recurring issue, with past elections in Edo and other states often criticized for logistical failures, late arrival of materials, and vote tampering.

Yiaga Africa has also warned of vote-buying and the use of intimidation tactics to suppress voter turnout. The security situation remains volatile, with fears that political thugs may disrupt voting in certain areas.

As the polls open, Nigerians will be watching closely to see whether INEC and the police can maintain order and ensure that the election truly reflects the will of the people. Whether today’s election marks a step forward for democracy in Edo State or repeats the chaotic scenes of the past will soon be revealed.

Nigeria’s local currency, the naira, is among the 10 worst-performing currencies in the world, Bloomberg is reporting.

According to a report by the publication, out of the 10 worst-performing currencies, five are from Africa, including the Zambian kwacha, the Angolan kwanza and the naira.

The drop in the performance of the African currencies was linked to economic challenges, unstable commodity prices, inflationary pressures, and a lack of dollar liquidity.

Also, Bloomberg said the poor performance is due to many African economies depending on oil exports, so they are vulnerable to declines in price.

Commenting on the data, Keonethebe Bosigo, portfolio manager at Mazi Asset Management, said oil prices are not the only issue, even though it is a major factor.

Bosigo said poor currency management and imbalances are “the real culprits”.

Speaking on the performance of the naira, the portfolio manager said oil prices are a factor, “but the real issue is that the naira wasn’t allowed to adjust, which led to its overvaluation and a subsequent loss of confidence in the currency”.

On his part, Irmgard Erasmus, an economist at Oxford Economics, said the naira continues to “face significant pressure despite reforms aimed at liberalising the current account”. 

“The naira remains undervalued relative to its long-term neutral value due to ongoing issues around liquidity and dollar supply,” Erasmus said. 

“Although Nigeria has made inroads toward current account liberalisation since the Tinubu victory in 2023, hard-currency supply challenges persist while tightening regulations on the banking sector and BDC operators contribute to risk aversion.”

The economist added that declining Brent crude prices have only exacerbated the problem, but improved dollar liquidity could help the naira recover over time.

“The government’s slow pace of reforms, combined with haphazard monetary policies, continues to keep the currency in undervalued territory,” he added.

‘NAIRA SHOULD BE TRADING AROUND N1,100/$’

Erasmus also said the naira should be trading closer to N1,100 per dollar in the absence of distortions, compared to Thursday’s close of N1,544/$. 

He, however, said without significant policy changes and improved dollar liquidity, the outlook for the naira remains fragile.

On June 14, 2023,  the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) officially unified the multiple FX rate systems, collapsing all FX windows into the investors’ and exporters’ (I&E) window.

The policy resulted in the depreciation of the local currency and caused significant levels of volatility in the FX market.

At the close of trading on Friday, data from FMDQ Securities, a platform that oversees official foreign exchange trading in Nigeria, showed that the naira traded at N1,541 per dollar.

The Cable

The Central Bank of Nigeria says it has temporarily withdrawn the Monetary, Credit, Foreign Trade, And Exchange Policy Guidelines For Fiscal Years 2024 – 2025 document published on Tuesday, September 17, 2024.

It said the revocation of the document is to minimise the risk of any further misrepresentation or misinterpretation, resulting in confusion among stakeholders.

It disclosed this in a new statement published on its website on Friday. The new release was however not signed by any CBN official.

On Tuesday, excerpts of the policy documents stated that the bank will sustain Ways and Means Advances to the Federal Government at a five per cent limit for the fiscal years 2024-2025, contrary to a bill passed by the National Assembly which raised the maximum borrowing percentage in the Act from five per cent to 10 per cent.

Another controversial excerpt was the reinstatement of the cybersecurity levy, which was suspended earlier this year due to serious public backlash.

But refuting these claims, the CBN said the guidelines were misunderstood by some outlets as new policies when, they are a compilation of previously issued policies and directives effective until December 31, 2023.

It also noted that some policies mentioned in the guidelines have been revised or replaced by newer updates.

The statement read, “The attention of the Central Bank of Nigeria has been drawn to certain instances of misinterpretation or misrepresentation of its biennial publication on Monetary, Credit, Foreign Trade, and Exchange Policy Guidelines published on September 17, 2024.

“In response, the CBN has temporarily withdrawn the document to minimise the risk of any further misrepresentation. As is stated explicitly in the document to guide stakeholders, the CBN reiterates that the publication is a compilation of previously issued policies and guidelines issued by the bank up to a cut-off date, typically December 31 of the relevant year.

“As in all previous editions, the current document is intended to achieve the following objectives: A single reference source for the ease and convenience of stakeholders. A valid compilation of policies, directives, and guidelines for adjudication in conflict situations involving stakeholders.”

The bank noted that as a compendium of previously issued policies and guidelines, the provisions apply only to the extent that there have been no updates or revisions to the guidelines and policies contained therein. This, it said, is stated explicitly in the document to guide stakeholders.

“In line with prior editions, the most recent publication (January 2024) contains policies and guidelines issued by the bank up to December 31, 2023, some of which will remain relevant during the period 2024 – 2025,” the bank stated.

Continuing, the statement noted that, “In the light of these clarifications, we ask stakeholders to note the following: Some recent media publications referencing aspects of the guidelines refer to policy positions of the bank issued prior to December 31, 2023, which have changed in the light of revisions and updates in 2024. One example is the Cyber Security Levy, which was suspended in May 2024, superseding the circular reported in the guidelines.

“Certain technical aspects of the guidelines have been widely misreported and

misrepresented. For example, reports have mistakenly sought to link the fuel subsidy removal to external reserves. Such reports essentially missed the analytical basis for the original statement, which was intended to observe a potential risk that was to be mitigated by policy. More recently, policies of the bank around the naira exchange rate and those of the fiscal authorities have positively altered the outlook of the subject in question.

“In summary, the guidelines must primarily be viewed as a record of policies, circulars and directives issued by the bank up to the end of 2023. They are not new directives and should not be reported as such.

“The bank will continue to provide clear monetary policy direction and advice for the overall good of the economy. We urge all stakeholders to seek clarification of information about the Bank before publishing,” the statement concluded.

Punch

Top Hezbollah commander among 14 killed in Israeli strike on Beirut

Israel killed a top Hezbollah commander and other senior figures in the Lebanese movement in an airstrike on Beirut on Friday, vowing to press on with a new military campaign until it is able to secure the area around the Lebanese border.

The Israeli military and a security source in Lebanon said Ibrahim Aqil had been killed with other senior members of an elite Hezbollah unit in the airstrike, sharply escalating the year-long conflict between Israel and the Iran-backed group.

Hezbollah confirmed Aqil's death in a statement just after midnight that called him "one of its top leaders," without providing details of how he died.

In a later statement summarising Aqil's biography, Hezbollah said he was killed in Beirut's southern suburbs of Dahiyeh in what it called a "treacherous Israeli assassination".

Lebanon's health ministry said at least 14 people died in the strike and the toll was expected to climb as rescue teams worked through the night. It was not immediately known whether the toll included Aqil and other Hezbollah commanders.

Earlier, the ministry said at least 66 people were injured, nine of whom were in critical condition.

A second security source said at least six other Hezbollah commanders died when multiple missiles slammed into the opening of a building's garage. The explosion tore into the building's lower levels as Aqil met other commanders inside.

Witnesses reported hearing a loud whistling and several consecutive blasts at the time of the strike.

In a brief statement carried by Israeli media, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's goals were clear and its actions spoke for themselves.

Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, who said this week that Israel is launching a new phase of war on the northern border, posted on X: "The sequence of actions in the new phase will continue until our goal is achieved: the safe return of the residents of the north to their homes."

Tens of thousands of people have been evacuated from homes on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border since Hezbollah began rocketing Israel in October in sympathy with Palestinians in the nearly year-old Israeli war against Hamas in Gaza.

Israel, which last fought an all-out war against Hezbollah 18 years ago, has said it will use force if necessary to ensure its citizens can return to northern Israel.

The Israeli military described Aqil as the acting commander of the Radwan special forces unit, and said it had killed him along with around 10 other senior commanders as they met. Aqil sat on Hezbollah's top military council, sources in Lebanon told Reuters.

The strike inflicted another blow on Hezbollah after two days of attacks in which pagers and walkie-talkies used by its members exploded, killing 37 people and wounding thousands. Those attacks were widely believed to have been carried out by Israel, which has neither confirmed nor denied its involvement.

Local broadcasters showed groups of people gathered near the site, and reported they were searching for missing people, most of them children. Drones were still flying over Beirut's southern suburbs hours after the strike.

"We are not afraid, but we want a solution. We cannot continue with the country like this," said Alain Feghali, a resident of Beirut who spoke to Reuters. "War? I don't know if it started or not, but nothing is reassuring. It is clear that the two sides will not stop."

The U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon, Jeanine-Hennis Plasschaert, said Friday's strike in a densely populated area of Beirut's southern suburbs was part of "an extremely dangerous cycle of violence with devastating consequences. This must stop now."

The strike marked the second time in less than two months that Israel has targeted a leading Hezbollah military commander in Beirut. In July, an Israeli airstrike killed Fuad Shukr, the group's top military commander.

Aqil had a $7-million bounty on his head from the United States over his link to the deadly bombing of Marines in Lebanon in 1983, according to the U.S. State Department website.

The Israeli military said Aqil had been head of Hezbollah operations since 2004 and was responsible for a plan to launch a raid on northern Israel, similar to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on Oct. 7 that triggered the war in Gaza.

"The Hezbollah commanders we eliminated today had been planning their ‘October 7th’ on the northern border for years," Israeli army chief General Herzi Halevi said.

"We reached them, and we will reach anyone who threatens the security of Israel's citizens."

RUBBLE AND BURNT-OUT CARS

The Israeli military reported warning sirens in northern Israel following the Beirut strike, and Israeli media reported heavy rocket fire there.

Hezbollah said it twice fired Katyusha rockets at what it described as the main intelligence headquarters in northern Israel "which is responsible for assassinations".

White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said he was not aware of any Israeli notification to the United States before the Beirut strike, adding Americans were strongly urged not to travel to Lebanon, or to leave if they were there.

However he added that, "war is not inevitable ... and we're going to continue to do everything we can to try to prevent it."

The current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, ignited by the Gaza war, has intensified significantly this week.

On Thursday night, the Israeli military carried out its most intensive airstrikes in southern Lebanon since the conflict erupted almost a year ago.

The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is the worst since they fought a war in 2006. Tens of thousands of people have had to leave homes on both sides of the border.

While the conflict has largely been contained to areas at or near the frontier, this week's escalation has heightened concerns that it could widen and further intensify.

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine bans official use of Telegram app over fears of Russian spying

Ukraine has banned use of the Telegram messaging app on official devices used by government officials, military personnel and critical workers because it believes its enemy Russia can spy on both messages and users, a top security body said on Friday.

The National Security and Defence Council announced the restrictions after Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine's GUR military intelligence agency, presented the council with evidence of Russian special services' ability to snoop on the platform, it said in a statement.

But Andriy Kovalenko, head of the security council's centre on countering disinformation, posted on Telegram that the restrictions apply only to official devices, not personal phones.

Telegram is heavily used in both Ukraine and Russia and has become a critical source of information since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

But Ukrainian security officials have repeatedly voiced concerns about its use during the war.

Based in Dubai, Telegram was founded by Russian-born Pavel Durov, who left Russia in 2014 after refusing to comply with demands to shut down opposition communities on his social media platform VKontakte, which he has sold.

Durov was arrested upon landing in France in August as part of an investigation into crimes related to child pornography, drug trafficking and fraudulent transactions on Telegram.

The Security Council statement said Budanov had provided evidence that Russian special services could access Telegram messages, including deleted ones, as well as users' personal data.

"I have always supported and continue to support freedom of speech, but the issue of Telegram is not a matter of freedom of speech, it is a matter of national security," Budanov said in his own statement.

After the decision was announced, Telegram issued a statement saying it had never disclosed anyone's data or the contents of any message.

"Telegram has never provided any messaging data to any country, including Russia. Deleted messages are deleted forever and are technically impossible to recover," Telegram said.

It said every instance of what it described as "leaked messages" had been proven to be "the result of a compromised device, whether through confiscation or malware".

According to the Telemetrio database, about 33,000 Telegram channels are active in Ukraine.

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who sits on the security council, as well as military commanders and regional and city officials all regularly publish updates on the war and report important decisions on Telegram.

Ukrainian media have estimated that 75% of Ukrainians use the app for communication and found that 72% saw it as a key source of information as of the end of last year.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

US to delay Ukraine aid over shortages – CNN

The weapons stockpile shortages will likely force Washington to delay the shipments of promised military aid to Ukraine, CNN reported on Friday, citing two US officials familiar with the matter.

The report comes as Kiev has been asking foreign backers to speed up the delivery of arms and to lift the remaining restrictions on the use of longer-range missiles for strikes deep into Russia territory.

According to the Pentagon, the US has $5.9 billion left in the special congressionally approved mechanism (PDA) aimed at fast-tracking aid for Kiev. However, the aid packages have been getting smaller in recent times as the weapons stocks are dwindling, CNN said.

The currently available PDA is set to expire within the next two weeks since the House of Representatives failed to pass an extension on Wednesday. The White House may be forced to charge its approach, “announcing large military aid packages that will take months to deliver,” as opposed to smaller shipments, the channel said.

Washington believes Kiev will need at least half a billion worth of PDA per month throughout fiscal year 2025, CNN report, citing a senior White House official.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Western officials warned Kiev that “a full Ukrainian victory” would require immense resources that neither the US nor Europe cannot provide.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is expected to present his new “victory plan” to US President Joe Biden next week. The success of the plan would “directly depend on the approval and support of the United States,”Zelensky said.

Ukrainian commanders and politicians have repeatedly blamed the delays in weapons deliveries for battlefield losses and the failure to hold off Russian offensives.

Moscow, meanwhile, has stated that no amount of Western aid would stop its troops in Ukraine.

Reuters/RT

As is the case with most Nigerian things these days, the subject of this article has to do with petrol. And in commencing it, I am struck by the choice words of the real estate and automobile content creator, Ola of Lagos, as he markets multimillion naira assets saying “just.” He could go “for just N350 million, you can get so and so for yourself,” or, and this one stood out in my opinion, “for just N17 billion!” He rarely fails to intersperse his commentary with the famous catchphrase “It’s plenty!” or “I will not be poor in my life.” Why have I chosen to go this route, you ask? It is because ridiculous as these statements are for properties at those price points, they apply uncannily to Nigeria’s current economy.

Like me, you must have seen comparisons of fuel prices in Nigeria with those in neighbouring or far-flung countries. The astronomical figures in these locations are then leveraged to coax Nigerians into a false sense of stability about things not being as bad as they are elsewhere and, if anything, how little we pay to procure fuel. In an alternate sense, the premium motor spirit is sold for “just” N1,000 to the unrealistically statistical minds that are those of government planners and to the masses; these figures are stark reminders of their deepening poverty.

“I will not be poor in my life.”

According to the National Bureau of Statistics, Nigeria’s Multidimensional Poverty Index, 63 per cent, translates to 133 million Nigerians who are multidimensionally poor. Put differently, well over half of the population suffers shortfalls in access to healthcare, food, shelter, and education, among other amenities. This is as reports variously indicate that more than eighty million Nigerians are in extreme poverty; that is, they live below the internationally acknowledged poverty line of less than $1.90 a day. Converted to naira at current rates, that amounts to a little over three thousand naira. Were one to take an ultimately incorrect approach to analysing this data, the ability to spend three thousand per day should amount to an expenditure of ninety thousand naira a month. This amount is significantly higher than the new minimum wage. On the flip side, analyzing this through the lenses of current living costs will put that amount on par with a variety of expenses ranging from a single measure of rice to three litres of fuel or even the entirety of transport fare expended in one day of transit in a state like Lagos. All these compared to figures as recent as just before the Tinubu administration.

Just N1,000!

Succinctly put, it is hardly the bare minimum for surviving. Yet, against this backdrop, the most consistent story in the news has been the issue of fuel prices. When it is not a novel twist in the seemingly unending showdown between Dangote Refinery and the Federal Government, it is the lapses of the NNPCL in preventing queues at filling stations. A third wheel in these controversies is the seesaw-like relationship between the infamous market dynamics governing the state’s attitude towards implementing or removing fuel subsidies and the entitled nature of the citizenry’s perception of subsidies. To understand things better, we must journey back into the seasons and settings of each facet of this conversation.

This takes us down the rabbit hole of fuel prices, international fluctuations and subsidies in the Nigerian market. Since Nigeria submitted itself to the notoriety of its curse, oil became a central determinant of the health of the Nigerian economy. Its scarcity predates increases in the prices of commodities and, consequently, instability in its politics. This is a natural order since it is elementary economics for the cost of production to influence purchase costs for the end user. However, these impacts should ordinarily be milder in an ecosystem with low import dependency and substantial manufacturing capacity. Where there is some degree of imports, which is inherently unavoidable in the grand economic scheme, a steady inflow of foreign exchange should equally serve to mitigate the imbalance occasioned by hefty quantities of local currency chasing scarce dollars. Nigeria defies this logic as it is, first and foremost, an imports-based economy, a bearing that unfortunately extends to its exploitation of oil.

Different authors reflect on the history of fuel price increases in Nigeria from 1973. I will focus on the same periods, too. The 1970s coincided with a decline in the exploitation of alternate commodities in favour of oil. Before this period, hydrocarbons accounted for less than 2 per cent of national exports and generated around N66 million in revenue in 1970. Enter the anti-west energy embargoes of the Arab states in 1973 and the astronomical surge in oil prices, the country was immediately exposed to a generous trough of foreign exchange than it had previously been familiar with. With oil now seeming like the goose with the finest golden eggs, other revenue sources, such as agriculture, were abandoned to a sharp recession in the shadows. The same year coincided with an increase in Nigeria’s pump price from 6 kobo to 8.45 kobo under the stewardship of the Yakubu Gowon administration. In 1976, Murtala Muhammed followed this with an increase to 9 kobo per litre. He was succeeded by the rise two years later to 15.3 kobo per litre under Obasanjo, then 20 kobo per litre under Shagari. It is instructive to note that the Obasanjo-led military administration instituted the Price Control Act in 1977, achieving the dual purpose of making it illegal to sell certain products, such as petrol, above the regulated price and institutionalizing the subsidy regime as we now know it.

As prices rose under successive administrations, so did consumption. Between 1977 and 1981, consumption rose by 30 per cent due to higher incomes and growing industrial application of hydrocarbons. Subsequently, consumption data would swing back and forth between high and low moments depending on the tenor of the market at any given time. Between 1986 and 1992, the military government of Ibrahim Babangida increased pump prices a total of five times, winding up at N3.25 by the twilight of his administration after much furore. His increases were notably driven by the conditions set by economic reforms advanced by Bretton Woods institutions to which Nigeria had subscribed. From that time onwards, different governments spearheaded the fuel price increases, all mainly under the theme of removing subsidies. Organized labour fiercely resisted them at varying points, as seen under the Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan administrations. These two contrasting standpoints led to the perpetuation of an arrangement that many economists attest was a positive leech on the purses of the Nigerian state. The need to subsidise in the first place was driven by the import dependency of what is, antithetically, one of the world’s largest crude producers. Lacking a functional refining capacity, the country relies on a round-tripping structure that sees oil exported raw and bought back as finished products for the local markets. The four state-owned refineries in Port Harcourt, Kaduna, and Warri lie moribund in the wake of Nigeria’s importation of nearly a hundred per cent of its refined product needs. To make matters worse, subsidy has not been the sole culprit in gulping up Nigeria’s scarce resources; its unproductive refining facilities have, too. Two thousand twenty estimates suggest that $25 billion has been expended on the four refineries in 25 years, with figures computed by the national assembly last year placing this at N11.35 trillion since 2010.

Such outrageous sums certainly demand that value be given and accountability be demonstrated. However, the national petroleum company has repeatedly reneged on its promises in recent years. On different occasions, Nigerians have been taken on a joyride by the abject dishonesty of state officials on the actual, realistic condition of these assets. December 2023 mainly saw the state curate a buffet of falsehood steeped in technical jargon to sway the emotions of long-suffering Nigerians. Debates about the implications of “mechanical completion” occupied the minds of many as the NNPC broadcast videos suggesting to the uninitiated masses that work on the Port Harcourt refinery was at an advanced stage. Nine months later, the rhetoric persists. Yet, mysterious as the affair has been, experts have posited that Nigeria’s refineries, while potentially one of Africa’s largest if fully utilized, are marred by myriad problems, top among which are dilapidated infrastructure made worse by decades of neglect. In the absence of functional refineries, product importation becomes the following line of action.

Given that this regime is vulnerable to the caprices of the international market, such as those witnessed in the 1970s, upticks in the prices of crude translate to higher subsidy commitments by the Nigerian government. For this reason, the energy crisis triggered by the Russia-Ukraine conflict forced Nigeria to pay an even higher subsidy bill, running into trillions of scarce naira. With increased local consumption also comes a jump in subsidy payments.

Analyses in past years have shown that the country’s regulatory habit towards pump prices has cost it dearly in terms of opportunities to develop human capital and invest in other sectors of the economy. In 2022, subsidy payments running into N4.3 trillion exceeded total healthcare, education and infrastructure funding by an excess of 800 billion naira, according to a PWC report. This subsisted despite the deregulation of kerosene and diesel, leaving both to control market forces. Contributing factors to the high level of subsidy include false entries to import petroleum without procuring the product and diversion of refined crude to the country’s neighbours in acts of arbitrage. Consequently, the expectation is that onshoring refining would prevent exposure to the downsides of importation, freeing up revenue and reducing the debt taken to fund subsidies. Neither of these would be possible without consensus from labour unions, which reflect a national sentiment that cheap fuel is a fundamental right. With government commitment to upscaling living conditions of the citizenry being next to non-existent, the most tangible way for ordinary Nigerians to access social benefits would be the black gold. Yet, paradoxically, the state is, for the same reason, handicapped from operating optimally. It is against this backdrop that the Dangote Refinery, globally acclaimed for its magnitude, appears to promise some redemption from the incompetence of the Nigerian state. With approximately $20 billion sunken into the Lekki Free Trade Zone grounds and a 650,000 bpd-capacity refinery stemming from it, it appeared to be the magic bullet to solving all our supply woes.

Not only is it right on home soil, but it would also save the government the headache of explaining over and over the mechanics of fuel pricing to a restive audience. Since what was most certainly a politicized inauguration in the final days of the Buhari leadership, the refinery has been able to do anything but relieve the burdens of the Nigerian people. In the last few months, it has appeared that both the complex and its regulators have been intent on displaying their public opinion manipulation talents in full glory. From accusations of monopoly and substandard quality to debates over supply-side challenges, the end feels distant for observers of this saga. So that we might avoid the pitfall of emotional illogic, we must understand the stances taken by either side. For Dangote, the nature of the oil business has its obstinate imperatives. He can compensate for the government’s failure to meet supply needs by importing from afield, but he cannot work the magic of reducing fuel prices unless he wishes to do so at his peril. On the NNPCL’s side, the case is a culmination of the problems it has contended with for decades now. It cannot simply guarantee a steady of crude to Lekki when its lines are consistently sabotaged by disgruntled locals in the Niger Delta. Neither can it compel producers to sell crude when the entire principle of sale and purchase depends on choice – and the provisions of the legislation.

Dangote is first a businessman and, despite all his theatrics, must equally be seen as such. He has entered the arena of public opinion and swayed people to his side on what is a just cause. Still, he is also careful not to offend the interests of the masses, his ordinary but numerically capable allies. Thus, it is fair to join in the protests when top officials in the NMDPRA and NUPRC cannot seem to dedicate their jaws to positive speech concerning the project; it is also fair to ponder why NNPC is failing to meet its payment obligations to international suppliers despite a range of searing policies not least of which is the purported removal of subsidy. However, one can suspect deception when the CEO of the largest privately run refinery markets his fuel as being of top quality because of its pristine nature and plays a calculative back and forth in its public relations by doing everything but declaring its prices; it stops being fair. Just N800!

Interestingly, the victimhood embodied by the refinery was conducted while publicizing claims of marketers defying logic by patronizing more expensive international suppliers only for their prices to wind up more costly than anticipated. To be fair, the company has few choices given the purchase of its stocks from overseas. If it were to sell any cheaper, it would potentially invite the fraternal twin of the word’ profit.’ If it were also to adopt the naira as its currency of trade, it would expose itself to the uncertainties of a weak tender, making losses an ever-present risk.

So, in contrast to messy public feuds that we have seen play out, he must sell abroad if Nigerians will not buy and do business in dollars, a currency that has so far been responsible for many of the woes of ordinary citizens – except of course, the government develops frameworks like the naira-for-crude agreement. As these narratives unfold, one thing that must remain apex in the minds of all of us is the ongoing hardship. For the families who have now had to withdraw their children to schools within trekkable distance, forgo simple nutritional indulgences due to inflation, hike some or the entirety of their route to work daily, or pack up their businesses due to financial loss, these persistent twists by the elites are all just drama – one that they can neither afford nor enjoy the liberty to understand.

Could it be “Just for the masses”?

Toyin Falola, is a professor of History, University Distinguished Teaching Professor, and Jacob and Frances Sanger Mossiker Chair in the Humanities at The University of Texas at Austin.

A Pakistani father fearing for his daughter’s safety made her wear a surveillance camera on her head so he could keep an eye on her.

There is nothing a good parent won’t do to ensure their child’s safety! For example, one Pakistani man recently went viral on X (Twitter) for installing a surveillance camera on his young daughter’s head so he could monitor her activities throughout that day and make sure she was alright. In a viral video titled ‘Next Level Security’, the Pakistani woman is shown being interviewed while wearing a CCTV camera on her burka-covered head. Asked about the bizarre accessory, she said that it was his father’s idea, adding that she had nothing against it because she knew her parents were concerned about her safety.

The unidentified woman went on to say that the idea of wearing what we assume is a battery-powered camera when she goes out was inspired by the tragic death of a young woman in Karachi. Her father, whom she called her “personal security guard,” apparently told her that the surveillance camera would help him monitor her more closely, and she agreed to wear it.

Despite the obvious absurdity of the so-called security measure, the young woman claimed that the threat of violence against women in Karachi was very real, and her family had good reason to be concerned.

It’s unclear how the surveillance camera is being powered and how it can be accessed by the woman’s father, but even if both these issues were somehow resolved, many on social media pointed out that the camera wouldn’t be much use if someone attacked the young woman from behind. Then again, maybe her family is counting on the fact that the mere sight of a security camera would intimidate anyone with bad intentions.

Oddity Central

British consumer goods giant PZ Cussons Plc is contemplating a partial or complete withdrawal from its African operations, with Nigeria and Kenya as its primary manufacturing centers. This move comes as the latest in a series of multinational companies reconsidering their presence in Nigeria due to challenging economic conditions.

The potential exit was announced in a statement by PZ Cussons Nigeria, the local subsidiary, revealing that the parent company has "received a number of expressions of interest for our African business." This development follows the group's disappointing 2024 financial results, which saw a 39.7% drop in net profit, largely attributed to a 57% devaluation of the Nigerian naira against the British pound.

PZ Cussons' struggles in Nigeria mirror those of other multinational corporations that have recently departed or scaled back operations in the country. Notable examples include:

1. Procter & Gamble: The American consumer goods company announced its exit from Nigeria in December 2023, citing difficulties in the business environment.

2. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): The pharmaceutical giant revealed plans to end its prescription medicines and vaccine businesses in Nigeria in August 2023.

3. Unilever: In March 2023, Unilever announced it would separate its tea business in Nigeria and Ghana, following a global restructuring of its tea division.

4. Sanofi: The French pharmaceutical company disclosed its intention to exit Nigeria in April 2023, transferring its commercial operations to local partners.

These departures highlight the challenging business climate in Nigeria, characterized by currency volatility, regulatory uncertainties, and economic instability. The Nigerian division of PZ Cussons reported its first annual loss in years, amounting to N76 billion, primarily due to a staggering 3,000% increase in foreign exchange losses.

The potential exit of PZ Cussons from Nigeria would mark the end of a long-standing presence in the country, where it has been a household name for decades with popular brands such as Canoe, Premier Cool, and Devon Kings. The company currently holds a 73.3% stake in its Nigerian unit.

As multinational companies continue to reassess their operations in Nigeria, the government faces increasing pressure to address the economic challenges and create a more favorable business environment to retain foreign investment and attract new players to the market.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​