Instant payments in Nigeria's banking sector reached N566.39 trillion in the first seven months of 2024, according to the Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS).

In July alone, instant payments surged to N89.50 trillion, a 12.45 percent increase (N9.91 trillion) from the N79.5 trillion recorded in June. This also marked an 89 percent year-on-year growth compared to N47.38 trillion in July 2023.

The total value of instant payments for 2024 so far brings the overall electronic transaction volume to N566.39 trillion. For context, in 2023, the country processed N600 trillion in electronic transactions.

In July, instant payment transaction volume rose by 4 percent, reaching 907.34 billion, compared to 871.66 billion in June. Year-on-year, the volume grew by 22 percent, up from 743.15 billion in July 2023. Additionally, cashless transactions surged to N238.61 trillion in July, a 4.6 percent increase from June’s N228.11 trillion.

A total of 27.56 billion transactions were completed through electronic payment channels in July. NIBSS also reported that point-of-sale (PoS) transactions hit 97.8 billion, with a transaction value of N1 trillion.

The Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA) says Coca-Cola’s promise of a $1 billion investment in Nigeria is a hollow pledge.

In a statement on Wednesday signed by Robert Egbe, CAPPA’s media and communication officer, the non-governmental organisation (NGO) said Coca-Cola’s latest investment promise was made to the previous administration under President Muhammadu Buhari, but nothing came of it.

On September 19, Coca-Cola announced a $1 billion investment pledge to Nigeria over a period of five years.

According to CAPPA, the government has embraced the company’s latest pledge with undue fanfare, whereas their presence is allegedly harmful to Nigerians.

“It is a matter of grave concern that the news is once again awash with Coca-Cola’s promise of a $1 billion investment in Nigeria. This is the second time in three years that the company has made this hollow pledge to different ruling governments, and yet it failed to deliver the first time around,” CAPPA said.

“Despite the company’s failure to honour its previous commitment, the government of the day has not only embraced the company’s latest pledge with undue fanfare but also quickly risen to defend its dubious track record of dangling promises that never materialise with evidence.”

‘COCA-COLA USING INVESTMENT RHETORIC TO CLEAN UP POOR IMAGE’

CAPPA accused the company of using investment rhetoric to clean up its “dirty image,” marked by “multiple dishonest trade practices,” as recently revealed by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).

“While the government may claim that Coca-Cola couldn’t fulfil its earlier commitment due to a ‘challenging business environment,’ the disturbing truth remains that, beyond its woeful record of unmet financial pledges, Coca-Cola’s presence in Nigeria has been defined more than anything else by its persistent onslaught against public health and regulatory infractions,” CAPPA said.

“In 2017, a Lagos High Court issued a damning judgement against the company, revealing that its products were unfit for consumption as they contain high levels of sunset yellow and benzoic acid which, according to European and American food and drug agencies, can form the carcinogen benzene when combined with ascorbic acid (Vitamin C).

“On this ground, the court mandated the company to place warning labels on its beverages, advising consumers against combining their intake with Vitamin C. But to this day, the corporation has refused to comply with this directive.

“This contempt and disregard for public health and judicial authority should ordinarily disqualify the company from receiving any form of state endorsement, let alone at the highest level of government.

“Moreover, barely two months ago, in July 2024, the FCCPC found Coca-Cola guilty of deceptive trade practices as usual. The Commission’s investigation, which began in 2019, revealed that the company had engaged in false and harmful marketing practices on multiple occasions that could mislead customers.

“For instance, the company had provided false information to the FCCPC in violation of the Commission’s rules and had also deceived consumers by dishonestly selling its ‘Less Sugar’ variant as identical to the original Coca-Cola product.

“Yet, despite being found guilty of violating multiple consumer protection laws and advised to apply remedies and clear product labelling, Coca-Cola has failed to take meaningful steps to correct its actions, further demonstrating its penchant for undermining regulatory interventions.

“To be clear, this promise-fail-promise tactic of Coca-Cola, including its operational character of disregard for national regulations, is not accidental. It is straight out of the big food industry playbook to interfere, undermine, and dilute pro-public health and consumer protection policies.

“Sadly, by endorsing Coca-Cola’s shady investment only months after the FCCPC indicted it, the Nigerian government is not only setting itself up as an image launderer for a dirty corporation but also, unbelievably, undermining and embarrassing its own regulatory authority,” the CAPPA statement said.

According to Akinbode Oluwafemi, executive director, CAPPA, the Nigerian government must ask itself what it truly stands to gain by endorsing the firm.

“The question the Nigerian government must ask itself in light of all this is what truly it stands to gain by endorsing a multinational corporation with a dark history of non-compliance, and whose products are even actively contributing to a public health crisis in the country?” he said.

“Sugar-sweetened beverages, like many of Coca-Cola’s products under such a category, are well known and documented contributors to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes, obesity, and heart disease, and other associated health conditions that are already straining Nigeria’s healthcare system and economy.

“As such, while the company’s promises of an economic investment may sound appealing, the potential gains pale in comparison to the long-term public health costs and injury that the consumption of its products inflicts on the Nigerian population, as with elsewhere across the world.”

‘SUPPORTING COCA-COLA THREATENS EFFECTIVENESS OF SSB TAX’

Oluwafemi said Coca-Cola’s public support threatens the effectiveness of the sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) tax, which is crucial for saving lives.

“The SSB tax is a vital public health policy that must not be undermined by the sneaky tactics of Coca-Cola to infiltrate public health discussions and weaken enforcement of pro-public health laws through its calculated friendships with state authorities,” CAPPA said.

“The Nigerian state must reconsider its fawning over Coca-Cola, as its snug relationship with the corporation while simultaneously enforcing a pro-public health tax sends mixed signals.

“This kind of messaging is not only dangerous but also threatens the effectiveness of the SSB tax, which is crucial for saving lives.

“Even more so, the government’s fraternisation with the company despite its disrespect for national rules of engagement only serves to embolden the company’s exploitative practices in Nigeria without fear of accountability.

“President Tinubu’s administration has an obligation to protect Nigerians, not act as a cheerleader for companies with a proven history of unethical behaviour.

“We, therefore, call on the government to prioritise the interests of Nigerians by shunning questionable associations with corporate lawbreakers and adversaries of public health.”

Akinbode urge the state to defend public health without scruples and consider genuine ethical investments that rank the well-being of Nigerians over empty promises and profit-driven deception.

On July 1, CAPPA urged the federal government to increase taxes on sugar-sweetened products to protect the health of Nigerians.

The Cable

The Federal Government has raised the monthly allowance for National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) members from N33,000 to N77,000, effective July 2024. The announcement was made Wednesday through a statement posted on the NYSC's official Facebook page.

According to the statement, "The Federal Government has approved the increment of Corps Members’ monthly allowance to Seventy-Seven Thousand Naira (N77,000) with effect from July 2024." This adjustment follows the enactment of the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Act 2024.

The approval was conveyed in a letter from the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission, dated September 25, 2024, and signed by the Commission's Chairman, Ekpo Nta. The increment follows an earlier advocacy visit made by NYSC Director General, YD Ahmed, to the Commission, where he requested an improved welfare package for corps members.

Ahmed expressed gratitude to the Federal Government, stating that the increase would provide much-needed relief to corps members, boost their morale, and encourage them to contribute even more in service to the nation.

Hezbollah's tunnels and flexible command weather Israel's deadly blows

Hezbollah's flexible chain of command, together with its extensive tunnel network and a vast arsenal of missiles and weapons it has bolstered over the past year, is helping it weather unprecedented Israeli strikes, three sources familiar with the Lebanese militant group's operations said.

Israel's assault on Hezbollah over the past week, including the targeting of senior commanders and the detonation of booby-trapped pagers and walkie-talkies, has left the powerful Lebanese Shiite militant group and political party reeling.

On Friday, Israel killed the commander who founded and led the group's elite Radwan force, Ibrahim Aqil. And since Monday, Lebanon's deadliest day of violence in decades, the health ministry says more than 560 people, among them 50 children, have died in air barrages.

The Israeli military chief of staff Herzi Halevi said on Sunday that Aqil's death had shaken the organisation. Israel says its strikes have also destroyed thousands of Hezbollah rockets and shells.

But two of the sources familiar with Hezbollah operations said the group swiftly appointed replacements for Aqil and other senior figures killed in Friday's airstrike in Beirut's southern suburbs. Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in an Aug. 1 speech that the group quickly fills gaps whenever a leader is killed.

A fourth source, a Hezbollah official, said the attack on communication devices put 1,500 fighters out of commission because of their injuries, with many having been blinded or had their hands blown off.

While that is a major blow, it represents a fraction of Hezbollah's strength, which a report for the U.S. Congress on Friday put at 40,000-50,000 fighters. Nasrallah has said the group has 100,000 fighters.

Since October, when Hezbollah began firing at Israel in October in support of its ally Hamas in Gaza, it has redeployed fighters to frontline areas in the south, including some from Syria, the three sources said.

It has also been bringing rockets into Lebanon at a fast pace, anticipating a drawn-out conflict, the sources said, adding that the group sought to avoid all out war.

Hezbollah's main supporter and weapons supplier is Iran. The group is the most powerful faction in Tehran's "Axis of Resistance" of allied irregular forces across the Middle East. Many of its weapons are Iranian, Russian or Chinese models.

The sources, who all asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, did not provide details of the weapons or where they were bought.

Hezbollah's media office did not reply to requests for comment for this story.

Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King's College London, said that while Hezbollah operations had been disrupted by the past week's attacks, the group's networked organisational structure helped make it an extremely resilient force.

"This is the most formidable enemy Israel has ever faced on the battlefield, not because of numbers and tech but in terms of resilience."

POWERFUL MISSILES

Fighting has escalated this week. Israel killed another top Hezbollah commander, Ibrahim Qubaisi, on Tuesday. For its part, Hezbollah has shown its capacity to continue operations, firing hundreds of rockets towards Israel in ever deeper attacks.

On Wednesday, Hezbollah said it had targeted an Israeli intelligence base near Tel Aviv, more than 100 km (60 miles) from the border. Warning sirens sounded in Tel Aviv as a single surface-to-surface missile was interceptedby air defence systems, the Israeli military said.

The group has yet to say whether it has launched any of its most potent, precision-guided rockets, such as the Fateh-110, an Iranian-made ballistic missile with a range of 250-300 km (341.75 miles). Hezbollah's Fateh-110 have a 450-500 kg warhead, according to a 2018 paper published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Hezbollah's rocket attacks are possible because the chain of command has kept functioning despite the group suffering a brief spell of disarray after the pagers and radios detonated, one of the sources, a senior security official, said.

The three sources said Hezbollah's ability to communicate is underpinned by a dedicated, fixed-line telephone network - which it has described as critical to its communications and continues to work - as well as by other devices.

Many of its fighters were carrying older models of pagers, for example, that were unaffected by last week's attack.

Reuters could not independently verify the information. Most injuries from the exploding pagers were in Beirut, far from the front.

Hezbollah stepped up the use of pagers after banning its fighters from using cellphones on the battlefield in February, in response to commanders being killed in strikes.

If the chain of command breaks, frontline fighters are trained to operate in small, independent clusters comprised of a few villages near the border, capable of fighting Israeli forces for long periods, the senior source added.

That is precisely what happened in 2006, during the last war between Hezbollah and Israel, when the group's fighters held out for weeks, some in frontline villages invaded by Israel.

Israel says it has escalated attacks to degrade Hezbollah's capabilities and make it safe for tens of thousands of displaced Israelis to return to their homes near the Lebanon border, which they fled when Hezbollah began firing rockets on Oct. 8.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has said it prefers to reach a negotiated agreement that would see Hezbollah withdraw from the border region but stands ready to continue its bombing campaign if Hezbollah refuses, and does not rule out any military options.

Hezbollah's resilience means the fighting has raised fears of a protracted war that could suck in the U.S., Israel's close ally, and Iran - especially if Israel launches, and gets bogged down in, a ground offensive in southern Lebanon.

Israel's military did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian warned on Monday of "irreversible" consequences of a full blown war in the Middle East. A U.S. State Department official said Washington disagreed with Israel's strategy of escalation and sought to reduce tensions.

UNDERGROUND ARSENAL

In what two of the sources said was an indication of how well some of Hezbollah's weapons are hidden, on Sunday rockets were launched from areas of southern Lebanon that had been targeted by Israel shortly before, the two sources said.

Hezbollah is believed to have an underground arsenal and last month published footage that appeared to show its fighters driving trucks with rocket launchers through tunnels. The sources did not specify if the rockets fired on Sunday were launched from underground.

Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said Monday's barrage had destroyed tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets and munitions.

Israel's military said long-range cruise missiles, rockets with warheads capable of carrying 100kg of explosives, short-range rockets, and explosive UAVs were all struck on Monday.

Reuters could not independently verify the military claims.

Boaz Shapira a researcher at Alma, an Israeli think tank that specializes in Hezbollah, said Israel had yet to target strategic sites such as long-range missiles and drone sites.

"I don't think we are anywhere near finishing this," Shapira said.

Hezbollah's arsenal is believed to comprise some 150,000 rockets, the U.S. Congress report said. Krieg said its most powerful, long-range ballistic missiles were kept below ground.

Hezbollah has spent years building a tunnel network that by Israeli estimates extends for hundreds of kilometres. The Israeli military said Monday's air strikes hit Hezbollah missile launch sites hidden under homes in southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah has said it does not place military infrastructure near civilians. Hezbollah has issued no statement on the impact of Israel's strikes since Monday.

TUNNELS

The group's arsenal and tunnels have expanded since the 2006 war, especially precision guidance systems, leader Nasrallah has said. Hezbollah officials have said the group has used a small part of the arsenal in fighting over the past year.

Israeli officials have said Hezbollah's military infrastructure is tightly meshed into the villages and communities of southern Lebanon, with ammunition and missile launcher pads stored in houses throughout the area. Israel has been pounding some of those villages for months to degrade Hezbollah's capabilities.

Confirmed details on the tunnel network remain scarce.

A 2021 report by Alma, an Israeli think tank that specializes in Hezbollah, said Iran and North Korea both helped build up the network of tunnels in the aftermath of the 2006 war.

Israel has already struggled to root out Hamas commanders and self-reliant fighting units from the tunnels criss-crossing Gaza.

"It is one of our biggest challenges in Gaza, and it is certainly something we could meet in Lebanon," said Carmit Valensi, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, a think-tank.

Krieg said that unlike Gaza, where most tunnels are manually dug into a sandy soil, the tunnels in Lebanon had been dug deep in mountain rock. "They are far less accessible than in Gaza and even less easy to destroy."

Reuters

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Russia expands category of states subjected to nuclear deterrence — Putin

The proposed updated Russian nuclear doctrine expands the list of states and military unions subject to nuclear deterrence, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

"The draft document expands the category of states and military unions subject to nuclear deterrence. It updates the list of military threats that require nuclear deterrence measures for their neutralization," Putin said during the Russian Security Council meeting on nuclear deterrence.

The head of state noted that the modern military and political situation is changing rapidly, and Russia must take it into consideration, including the emergence of new sources of military threats and risks for Russia and its allies.

"It is important to predict the development of the situation and to adapt the strategic planning document in accordance with the current reality," the president added.

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Putin issues nuclear warning to the West over strikes on Russia from Ukraine

Putin warns West over nuclear powers supporting strikes

Russia is changing its nuclear doctrine, Putin says

Says conventional attack could lead to nuclear response

Ukraine says Russia has only nuclear blackmail left

President Vladimir Putin warned the West on Wednesday that Russia could use nuclear weapons if it was struck with conventional missiles, and that Moscow would consider any assault on it supported by a nuclear power to be a joint attack.

The decision to change Russia's official nuclear doctrine is the Kremlin's answer to deliberations in the United States and Britain about whether or not to give Ukraine permission to fire conventional Western missiles into Russia.

Putin, opening a meeting of Russia's Security Council, said that the changes were in response to a swiftly changing global landscape which had thrown up new threats and risks for Russia.

The 71-year-old Kremlin chief, the primary decision-maker on Russia's vast nuclear arsenal, said he wanted to underscore one key change in particular.

"It is proposed that aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, be considered as their joint attack on the Russian Federation," Putin said.

"The conditions for Russia's transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly fixed," Putin said, adding that Moscow would consider such a move if it detected the start of a massive launch of missiles, aircraft or drones against it.

Russia reserved the right to also use nuclear weapons if it or ally Belarus were the subject of aggression, including by conventional weapons, Putin said.

Putin said the clarifications were carefully calibrated and commensurate with the modern military threats facing Russia - confirmation that the nuclear doctrine was changing.

Russia's current published nuclear doctrine, set out in a 2020 decree by Putin, says Russia may use nuclear weapons in case of a nuclear attack by an enemy or a conventional attack that threatens the existence of the state.

The innovations outlined by Putin include a widening of the threats under which Russia would consider a nuclear strike, the inclusion of ally Belarus under the nuclear umbrella and the idea that a rival nuclear power supporting a conventional strike on Russia would also be considered to be attacking it.

The United States in 2022 was so concerned about the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia that it warned Putin over the consequences of using such weapons, according to Central Intelligence Agency Director Bill Burns.

CONFRONTATION

The 2-1/2-year-old Ukraine war has triggered the gravest confrontation between Russia and the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - considered to be the closest the two Cold War superpowers came to intentional nuclear war.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has been urging Kyiv's allies for months to let Ukraine fire Western missiles, including long-range U.S. ATACMS and British Storm Shadows, deep into Russia to limit Moscow's ability to launch attacks.

With Ukraine losing key towns to gradually advancing Russian forces in the country's east, the war is entering what Russian officials say is the most dangerous phase to date.

Zelenskiy has urged the West to cross and disregard Russia's so-called "red lines", and some Western allies have urged the United States to do just that, though Putin's Russia, which controls just under one-fifth of Ukrainian territory, has warned that the West and Ukraine are risking a global war.

"Russia no longer has any instruments to intimidate the world apart from nuclear blackmail," Andriy Yermak, Zelenskiy's chief of staff, said in response to Putin's remarks. "These instruments will not work."

Putin, who casts the West as a decadent aggressor, and U.S. President Joe Biden, who casts Russia as a corrupt autocracy and Putin as a killer, have both warned that a direct Russia-NATO confrontation could escalate into World War Three. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has also warned of the risk of nuclear war.

Russia is the world's largest nuclear power. Together, Russia and the U.S. control 88% of the world's nuclear warheads.

In his remarks to Russia's Security Council, a type of modern-day politburo of Putin's most powerful officials including influential hawks, Putin said that work on amendments on changing the doctrine had been going on for the past year.

"The nuclear triad remains the most important guarantee of ensuring the security of our state and citizens, an instrument for maintaining strategic parity and balance of power in the world," Putin said.

Russia, he said, would consider using nuclear weapons "upon receiving reliable information about the massive launch of aerospace attack vehicles and their crossing of our state border, meaning strategic or tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic and other aircraft."

Generals Olusegun Obasanjo, Ibrahim Babangida, Sani Abacha, and Muhammadu Buhari are Nigeria’s most anti-democratic, anti-federalism, and anti-people rulers since independence. The addition to that roll is President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Obasanjo, as military head of state, standardised the tradition of wastage, the destruction of the public service, the pillaging of the economy, the mass killing of students, and the imposition of a anti-democracy and anti-federal constitution on Nigerians.

With the exception of Abacha, these rulers oversaw the legalised plundering of Nigeria’s commonwealth in the guise of ‘privatisation’. They also handed over the country to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB). In fact, Obasanjo and Babangida dressed these Western financial institutions in colourful Nigerian attires, and handed over the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank of Nigeria, amongst others, to their staff. Tinubu handed over Nigeria’s brain to them.

These rulers inherited the DNA of their father, who invaded and colonised Nigeria. With independence, their father indigenised himself as a Nigerian, married different women, and gave birth to different children. Like their father, they are extremely deceptive, divisive, unforgiving, domineering, and parasitic. They are also anti-democracy, anti-federalism, and anti-development.

Just as their father shot his way to power, so did Obasanjo, Babangida, and Abacha. Tinubu ‘shot’ his way to power with ‘his’ money, in an election rigging match refereed by the Independent National Electoral Commission.

They all claim affinity with democracy but practiced or are practising authoritarianism. They strive to lure the hungry Nigerian mass to sleep by administering on them anaesthetics called palliatives. This soon wears off and the pains return. Maybe the only exception was Abacha, who has been described as: “a man of few words and deadly action”!

Babangida imposed the destructive and deadly International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank’s neoliberalism, even after the society had rejected it. Students, in fact, demonstrated their desire to sacrifice for the development of Nigeria, when they sang: “We like amm (two times)/We we like Nigeria/We like am pass IMF/We like am pass World Bank/n Everything dey for Nigeria/Make we join hands to make Nigeria better/Make we join hands to make Nigeria greater!”

The Babangida action set Nigeria on the path of never-ending crises. Nevertheless, he created, amongst others, the National Directorate of Employment in 1986, to advance vocational training and skills acquisition, rural empowerment and, by extension, employment generation. He also established the Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure in 1986, aimed at mobilising, supporting, and developing rural communities to promote food production, and raise the standard of living of the rural dwellers.

The Babangida administration introduced the Better Life for Rural Women programme in 1987, designed for the improvement of the lives and social statuses of local women. It equally established the Peoples’ Bank of Nigeria in 1989, to provide credit facilities to small traders and businesses, who could not meet the stringent requirements of orthodox commercial banks.

When the the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) organised and led national protests against neoliberalism, he provided “SAP Relief” packages to Nigerian workers; created 62,000 jobs for the unemployed; gave “SAP Relief” buses to higher institutions; and provided N20 million grant to federal universities, amongst others.

Unlike his immediate predecessor and successors who glorified IMF and WB, Abacha had a mind of his own, and was, indeed, uncompromising, stubborn, aggressive, and deadly in pursuing his agenda. He denied some Western officials visas, blatantly rejected some of their policies, and retaliated against some of their sanctions.

He inherited an economy with an inflation rate of 87 per cent, negative growth rate of -1.5 per cent, and an interest rate flying at around 25 per cent. Oil price was $18 per barrel, and a debt of $30 billion. But, Abacha succeeded in increasing Nigeria’s foreign exchange reserves from $494 million by mid-1993 to $9.6 billion by mid-1997. He reduced Nigeria’s external debts from $36 billion in 1993 to $27 billion by 1997.

Between 1993 and 1995, Abacha grew the agricultural sector at a rate of 7.2 per cent, and, by 5.6 per cent from 1995 to 1997. Agriculture’s contribution to GDP was 32.4 per cent in 1993 and 34.6 per cent in 1997. He maintained a stable exchange rate of N22/$1 for five years, and reduced inflation from 54 per cent to below 10 per cent. The pump price of petrol was stabilised for five years at N11.

Abacha continued with most of Babangida’s social programmes. He also established the Family Support Programme, aimed at providing healthcare service delivery, dealing with women’s fertility issues, child care, and balanced diet for rural families. He established the Family Economic Advancement Programme, charged with providing a platform for accessing credit for agricultural production and processing. It was also aimed at upgrading small and medium enterprises through the formation of local cooperative societies.

Doubtlessly, the Babangida and Abacha social security programmes did not sustainably tackle the problems, but, at least, they showed some concern about the social problems their neoliberal policies created. They had the working poor and vulnerable Nigerians in their dictionaries.

Buhari, for now, remains the most disastrous ruler Nigeria has ever had. He significantly increased the country’s national public debt profile from approximately $63.7 billion in 2015 to $113.42 billion by June 2023. He increased the inflation rate from 15.70 per cent in 2016 to 22.8 per cent in June 2023. In 2016, agriculture contributed 25.23 per cent to the GDP, this increased by less than 1 per cent in September 2023.

Not only did Buhari inflict much suffering and pain on Nigerians, he oversaw the gigantic depletion of our commonwealth, and the employment of ethnic and filial relations in running government businesses. His administration also saw banditry become an industry and, marked an increase in the abduction of school children, kidnapping, rape, desecration of worship places, sacking of villages, destruction of harvests, land seizure, and the killing of security officers by bandits and terrorists.

He had no clearly defined poverty alleviation or social investment programme, as the one ran by his Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs did not impact positively on society.

Tinubu, since May 2023, has been tirelessly striving to overtake Buhari’s disastrous performance. Under Buhari, Nigerians, at least, struggled strenuously to stay in business, buy petrol, pay electricity bills, and feed. His policies, as I wrote elsewhere, were: “bleeding the working and other vulnerable people by enthroning more hunger, poverty, illiteracy and diseases. It is destroying family and societal cohesion by increasing unemployment, straining relationships, delaying or aborting marriages, promoting single parenthood, and inflicting hardship on Nigerian children and youth.”

Tinubu runs a government of palliatives, which as I earlier noted, “enslaves, dehumanises and depersonalises the poor by promoting dependency on the witches/wizards, while discouraging innovation, encouraging laziness, eroding self-sufficiency, and destroying peoples’ initiatives to creatively and sustainably tackle their problems.”

With the increasing disastrous performances of Tinubu, it is no surprise that popular protests are gradually staging a comeback, and a section of the popular masses even think the country was better under military misrule. This longing is disastrous to our national psyche.

The solution lies not with this crop of politicians or their military allies. Not in what described as, “Soja go, Soja come.” The solution lies with us, the people, the society!

** Ahmed Aminu-Ramatu Yusuf worked as deputy director, Cabinet Affairs Office, The Presidency, and retired as General Manager (Administration), Nigerian Meteorological Agency, (NiMet). Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Chris Westfall

Passive-aggressive leaders specialize in hiding their true feelings, and making you question your own. Instead of taking a direct approach, and fostering clarity, passive aggressive leaders lack the courage (or the interpersonal skills) to confront workplace challenges. In a report from the Harvard Business Review, researchers identified passive-aggressive leadership as a key factor in low employee engagement and reduced organizational performance. PwC says that a passive-aggressive organizations will suffer from an inability to execute, experiencing ineffective decision making and an “information disconnect” - something that no one can afford in the age of AI. Rather than addressing issues head-on, and offering clear guidance, passive-aggressive leaders turn to sarcasm, dismissal, denial, ambiguity and other tactics that are found under the heading of “horrible communication strategies”.

As a communications coach to executives and entrepreneurs all over the world, I’ve seen the team-building challenges that passive-aggressive organizations face. Toxic leadership, as defined by Dr. Jean Lipman-Blumen in The Allure of Toxic Leaders, includes behaviors that destroy morale, damage relationships, and impede progress—qualities found in passive-aggressive leadership. Learning to eliminate passive-aggressive leadership, and how to respond to it, can transform your organization from the inside out. Consider these common passive-aggressive phrases:

1. “If you think that’s best, then go ahead.” The verbal equivalent of giving someone enough rope so that they can hang themselves, this phrase lets you know that you are on an island. On the surface, passive aggressive communication looks like support and agreement - but underneath, there’s a subtle disapproval from the leader. You are being set up to fail. The antidote for this kind of toxic leadership is to explore the idea of support, and what happens if this initiative goes sideways. Will your boss back you up? Or leave you stranded on a passive-aggressive island, where you are the only resident?
2. “Sure, I’ll get to that when I can.” Usually used as a response to your request for a promotion, new initiative or raise, this empty non-committal approach is another sign that you don’t have the support of your leader. The key here is to explore that timeline further - remembering that the passive-aggressive leader has more wishy-washy responses waiting for you, disguised as lame excuses or other covert responses. Try to stay neutral in the conversation, and seek out agreement around a realistic date for a response. Can you reach agreement around the importance of the initiative? What happens if approval isn’t granted or if a review doesn’t take place? Explore the costs of inaction from the entire team’s perspective.
3. “I didn’t realize that was such a priority for the team” Superficially, this statement looks like an acknowledgement of your priorities - but actually, your boss may be saying that your focus is out of whack. Or unimportant. Marlene Chism is the author of of From Conflict to Courage. In her work she suggests that employees can often disarm passive-aggressive leaders by seeking clarity through questions, which forces the leader to communicate more transparently. The question of focus begs more questions, to clarify the leader’s true expectations - not veiled disappointments.
4. “I’m sure you tried your best” - the passive-aggressive leader is the master of the backhanded compliment. Other examples include, “You look so much nicer when you smile,” which implies that you do not look nice - and also smells of sexism. By the way, why are we talking about how someone looks? Unless you are photographer trying to coax a particular expression, maybe it’s best not to comment on someone’s smile? Saying “I’m sure you tried your best”, after a recent failure, is not a compliment. It suggests that the effort was inadequate. Real leaders offer clear and constructive feedback, and have the courage to hold people accountable. The effective communicator gives feedback that fuels greater understanding, not some cryptic and disguised response...expecting your team to smile more while you hear it.
5. The Silent Treatment - passive aggressive individuals will hide their anger instead of expressing it directly, according to Psychology Today. Some subtle but insidious kinds of passive aggression are diminished eye contact, persistent forgetting, and ignoring the targeted individual during a group conversation. Silence when a response is warranted can be a sign of passive-aggressive behavior. Are you being ignored in group meetings, on Zoom, or in other situations? An objective third-party opinion can help make a difference, according to Berit Brogaard, PhD, a professor at the University of Miami. Someone (not you) that can give the leader a gentle nudge, and explore other options. However, if the passive-aggressive leader is not working with a coach (or open to feedback) don’t expect the silent treatment to stop anytime soon.

“Almost every problem that has escalated can be traced back to a conversation that should have happened but didn’t,” Marlene Chism tells USA Today. Passive-aggressive communication is a subtle but harmful form of toxic leadership. It erodes trust, damages collaboration, and stifles productivity. Organizations that allow passive-aggressive behaviors to persist will see a drop in morale, creativity, and overall performance, according to HBR, PwC, and your own personal experience. Employees can protect themselves by addressing the behavior professionally, from a neutral place of inquiry and curiosity. Moreover, teams (and team leaders) can gain new insights from coaching programs, articles like this one, and individual guidance on leadership. Passive aggressive choices are a misuse of imagination for leaders that don’t see other options. It’s an old adage, but still true today: honesty is the best policy. And high-performing leaders understand how to enable that approach.

Forbes

Aliko Dangote’s recent call for the removal of the petrol subsidy, based on the specious comparison between fuel prices in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, is not only misleading but also reveals a deeply selfish agenda that disregards the economic realities of ordinary Nigerians. Dangote's attempt to justify a petrol price hike by claiming that fuel is cheaper in Nigeria than in Saudi Arabia, while ignoring the vast disparity in minimum wages between the two countries, is both disingenuous and dangerous.

While petrol may indeed be 60 percent cheaper in Nigeria than in Saudi Arabia, Dangote conveniently overlooks the fact that the minimum wage in Saudi Arabia is 26 times higher than in Nigeria. The average Nigerian worker earns the equivalent of just $42 per month, compared to $1,080 in Saudi Arabia. For Dangote to suggest that ordinary Nigerians, already burdened by inflation and economic hardship, can shoulder higher petrol prices without severe consequences is an affront to the very people whose daily struggles he has long exploited for profit.

Dangote's hypocrisy becomes even more glaring when one considers the immense subsidies and government support his business empire has enjoyed for decades. From pioneer status benefits and tax waivers to concessionary foreign exchange rates, Dangote has thrived on a system that has showered him with privileges far beyond the reach of ordinary Nigerians. Yet, this same man, who has built his fortune on the back of state largesse, now advocates for policies that will further impoverish millions, all while ensuring that his refinery profits at the expense of the people.

By pushing for the removal of subsidies, Dangote is essentially laying the groundwork for his refinery to sell petrol at prices even higher than those of imported fuel. This is not an act of patriotism or fiscal responsibility; it is a calculated move to protect his bottom line, no matter the cost to Nigeria's struggling citizens and small businesses. His advocacy for subsidy removal is not about helping the government save money—it’s about maximizing his profits under the guise of economic reform.

What Dangote fails to acknowledge is that much of his refinery’s output will be consumed by the very Nigerians he seeks to further burden with higher fuel prices. These are the same Nigerians who, in his hour of need, rallied to support him against the chokehold of the corrupt Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL). Yet now, Dangote seems willing to sacrifice their well-being for the sake of his own profit margins. This is not just morally wrong; it is a short-sighted business strategy that will ultimately backfire as the purchasing power of consumers is eroded.

Dangote’s argument that fuel smuggling and porous borders justify subsidy removal also rings hollow. The problems of smuggling and border control are the result of government inefficiencies and corruption—issues that should be addressed through better enforcement and regulation, not by punishing ordinary Nigerians with higher fuel prices.

In calling for the removal of petrol subsidies, Dangote is not only advocating for an anti-people policy but also revealing the depth of his greed. He appears willing to push millions of Nigerians further into poverty to protect his financial empire, all while hiding behind the rhetoric of economic reform. His disregard for the hardship faced by the average Nigerian is evident in his tone-deaf suggestion that the country follow the example of wealthier nations like Saudi Arabia, without considering the vast gulf in living standards.

Nigeria does need economic reform, but Dangote’s brand of reform—one that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor—is not the solution. The government must reject his self-serving calls for further subsidy removal and instead focus on policies that uplift the millions of ordinary Nigerians who continue to suffer under a broken system.

It is high time that Nigeria's leaders recognized the difference between genuine reform and the corporate greed of oligarchs like Dangote, who are all too willing to sacrifice the common good for personal gain. In this case, further hike in petrol prices would not only hurt the people but also expose the country's leadership to accusations of complicity in perpetuating an exploitative system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. If Nigeria is to move forward, it must do so with policies that prioritize the needs of its people, not the profit margins of its billionaires.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has increased the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) from 26.75% to 27.25%, marking a 50 basis points hike. The MPR serves as the benchmark for interest rates in Nigeria, and the adjustment is aimed at further curbing the country’s persistently high inflation. The decision was announced by CBN Governor Olayemi Cardoso on Tuesday after the Monetary Policy Committee’s (MPC) 297th meeting in Abuja.

Cardoso explained that the rate hike is part of the CBN’s ongoing efforts to control inflationary pressures, even as Nigeria’s inflation rate slightly eased. According to data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), the inflation rate fell to 32.15% in August 2024, marking the second consecutive decline this year. Despite this, inflation remains a key concern for policymakers.

In addition to the MPR increase, the MPC retained the asymmetric corridor at +500 and -100 basis points around the MPR. The cash reserve ratio (CRR), the amount of funds banks must hold in reserve, was also raised from 45% to 50%, while the liquidity ratio was kept unchanged at 30%.

Cardoso noted that the committee acknowledged improvements in exchange rate stability, attributing this to the bank’s tight monetary policies. He stated that this stability would enhance confidence among economic actors, facilitating better long-term planning.

However, the governor cautioned that much more needs to be done to achieve the CBN’s objective of price stability. While headline inflation has moderated due to easing food prices, core inflation—driven by rising energy costs—remains stubbornly high. The MPC stressed the importance of continued collaboration with fiscal authorities to tackle the upward pressure on energy prices, a key driver of inflation.

Analysis of the Rate Hike

The CBN’s decision to raise the interest rate to 27.25% underscores its determination to rein in inflation, which has remained persistently high despite recent declines. The rate hike, alongside the increase in the cash reserve ratio to 50%, signals a more aggressive tightening stance aimed at reducing excess liquidity in the financial system. This approach is expected to make borrowing more expensive, thereby dampening consumer demand and reducing inflationary pressures.

However, the continued high levels of core inflation, particularly driven by energy costs, suggest that monetary policy alone may not be sufficient to address Nigeria’s inflation problem. The central bank’s tight monetary policies are having some impact, as evidenced by the improved exchange rate stability, but the inflationary impact of rising energy prices remains a critical challenge.

Furthermore, the CBN’s emphasis on closer collaboration with fiscal authorities is a recognition that structural issues—such as fuel and electricity costs—are major contributors to inflation. Without addressing these root causes, rate hikes may only have a limited effect in bringing inflation under control.

In the short term, the rate hike will likely slow economic activity as businesses and individuals face higher borrowing costs. This could dampen investment and consumption, potentially constraining growth. However, if inflation remains unchecked, it could further erode purchasing power and destabilize the economy. Thus, the CBN’s move represents a delicate balancing act: curbing inflation without stifling economic recovery.

Going forward, the effectiveness of this policy will depend heavily on how well it is complemented by fiscal measures that address Nigeria’s structural inflation drivers, particularly in the energy sector.

Airtel Nigeria has revealed that it spends N28 billion monthly on diesel to power its over 15,000 sites across the country. The telecom giant is set to embark on a sustainability drive aimed at reducing its reliance on diesel and lowering its carbon footprint.

Femi Adeniran, Airtel Nigeria’s Director of Corporate Communications and CSR, shared this during a media roundtable in Lagos. He noted that the company currently consumes 22 million litres of diesel each month, which contributes significantly to environmental degradation. However, collocation, a practice that allows telecom operators to share infrastructure, has helped reduce potential higher costs.

“We are committed to minimizing our environmental impact. Transitioning to grid power and solar energy will significantly cut down diesel consumption and mitigate climate change,” Adeniran said, adding that the company’s sustainability efforts will also contribute to Nigeria’s climate goals.

Harmanpreet Dhillon, Chief Technical Officer at Airtel Nigeria, highlighted the company’s shift towards using lithium-ion batteries over traditional ones. This move will help reduce Airtel's carbon footprint, as lithium-ion batteries are more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly.

Additionally, Dhillon explained that Airtel is adopting outdoor-operable telecom equipment that can withstand extreme conditions like heat, humidity, and dust without the need for indoor air-conditioned spaces. This will further lower power consumption, reducing reliance on diesel generators while boosting the adoption of solar power and lithium-ion battery technologies.

Kemi Ariyo, Airtel Nigeria’s Director of Information Technology, also shared that the company is set to introduce green technologies, starting with its data center, which is expected to be operational by 2027. This center will enhance the company’s operational capacity while supporting its sustainability objectives.

Airtel’s push towards greener energy solutions reflects the broader industry trend of adopting eco-friendly technologies to both cut costs and mitigate environmental impacts.