According to a new survey, business leaders have used layoffs to head off lawsuits and avoid hurting employees’ feelings, among other reasons.

Technically, layoffs occur because a company is cost-cutting or restructuring, and not through the fault of an employee. Firing occurs because an employee is at fault. But while layoffs are technically supposed to be blameless, they are still bad for employees, bad for companies, and bad for communities. For example, one study found that layoffs can lead to increased criminal behavior.

Despite that, a new survey suggests companies continue to rely on layoffs—even when they aren’t necessary for cutting costs. Resume Builder polled 600 business leaders involved in termination decisions about their reasoning behind conducting layoffs. The highlights are depressing:

Most layoffs aren’t financially necessary: To begin with, 63% of respondents said their company had layoffs in the past year. Half of respondents said that over three quarters of the layoffs at their company in the past year weren’t necessary for cost-cutting.

Many layoffs are an excuse to fire employees: 80% of respondents said they used layoffs to terminate employees instead of firing them. And 27% of respondents said that over a quarter of the layoffs at their company were used to let go of people so leaders wouldn’t have to fire them.

Companies are afraid to fire people: About 62% of respondents said they used layoffs instead of firings to maintain company morale; 59% said it was to avoid wrongful termination claims; 54% said it was to avoid severance; and 38% said it was to avoid hurting employees’ feelings. And 78% said they wanted to fire the employees in question for poor performance; 46% said for violating company policy; and 45% said for attendance problems. About a third of respondents (31%) said performance always influences their decisions about who gets laid off, while 51% said performance often influences their decisions.

“A disturbing trend is emerging where organizations reduce their workforce under false pretenses,” said Resume Builder’s chief career advisor Stacie Haller. “Many companies implement strict return-to-office (RTO) policies to indirectly encourage employees to leave voluntarily, thus avoiding the need for layoffs or terminations . . . Such practices contribute to the growing erosion of trust between employers and employees.”

Fast Company

Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigned on Monday and fled the country, multiple sources said, as more people were killed in some of the worst violence since the birth of the South Asian nation more than five decades ago.

Army chief General Waker-Us-Zaman said in a televised address that Hasina 76, had left the country and that an interim government would be formed.

Media reports said she had flown in a military helicopter with her sister and was headed to India. The CNN News 18 television channel said she had landed in Agartala, the capital of India's northeastern state of Tripura.

Reuters could not immediately verify the reports.

Television visuals showed thousands of people pouring into the streets of the capital Dhaka in jubilation and shouting slogans. Thousands also stormed Hasina's official residence 'Ganabhaban', shouting slogans, pumping fists and showing victory signs.

Television visuals showed crowds in the drawing rooms of the residence, and some people could be seen carrying away televisions, chairs and tables from what was one of the most protected buildings in the country.

"She has fled the country, fled the country," some shouted.

Protesters in Dhaka also climbed atop a large statue of independence leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Hasina's father, and began chiselling away at the head with an axe, the visuals showed.

Student activists had called for a march to the capital Dhaka on Monday in defiance of a nationwide curfew to press Hasina to resign, a day after deadly clashes across the country killed nearly 100 people. About 150 people were killed in protests last month.

On Monday, at least six people were killed in clashes between police and protesters in the Jatrabari and Dhaka Medical College areas on Monday, the Daily Star newspaper reported. Reuters could not immediately verify the report.

Bangladesh has been engulfed by protests and violence that began last month after student groups demanded scrapping of a controversial quota system in government jobs.

That escalated into a campaign to seek the ouster of Hasina, who won a fourth straight term in January in an election boycotted by the opposition.

According to reports, the “safe place” Sheikh Hasina is headed to is its giant neighbour – India.

Over the years, India has been her biggest ally and this has worked well for both countries.

Bangladesh shares borders with a number of north-eastern Indian states – many of which have grappled with militancy over decades, and a friendly regime in Dhaka helps with that.

During her time in power, Hasina clamped down on anti-India militant groups in Bangladesh, winning friends in Delhi. She has also given transit rights to India to make sure goods from its mainland make it to those states.

Hasina, who forged close ties with India ever since she was first elected in 1996, has always justified Dhaka’s close relationship with Delhi.

During a visit to India in 2022, she reminded people of Bangladesh how India, its government, people and armed forces had helped the country during the independence war in 1971.

But her closeness to Delhi – and India’s backing of her - has been criticised by the opposition parties and activists who say India should be backing the people of Bangladesh and not a particular party.

Reuters/BBC

As the nationwide #EndBadGovernance protests in Nigeria entered their fourth day, tensions continued to escalate across multiple states, with demonstrators defying government appeals and curfews to voice their frustration over economic hardship and poor governance.

Key Developments:

1. Continued Protests Despite Presidential Address:

   - President Bola Tinubu delivered a nationwide broadcast on Sunday, acknowledging protesters' concerns and calling for an end to demonstrations.

   - Despite this, protesters in several states, including Kano and Lagos, vowed to continue their actions.

   - In Kano, hundreds of protesters took to the streets, some carrying Russian flags and chanting anti-government slogans.

2. Government Response:

   - The Plateau State government imposed a 24-hour curfew on Jos/Bukuru metropolis due to reported looting and violence.

   - Edo State Governor Godwin Obaseki blamed federal government policies for the hardship, while outlining local measures to alleviate suffering.

3. Violence and Security Concerns:

   - Reports of clashes between protesters and security forces continued.

   - In Jos, criminal elements allegedly looted shops and restaurants.

   - The International Press Centre (IPC) condemned attacks on journalists covering the protests, citing incidents in Abuja and Borno State.

4. Protest Strategies:

   - In Edo State, protesters held a church service on the street as part of their demonstration.

   - In Lagos, organizers announced plans to continue protests at Gani Fawehinmi Freedom Park on Monday.

5. Political Reactions:

   - Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar criticized the Tinubu administration, calling it a "failure on all fronts" and describing the President's address as hollow.

6. Human Interest:

   - In Lagos, the protests have been marked by poignant symbols of suffering. Morufat Sikiru, an elderly woman, became a focal point at the protest ground along Kudirat Abiola Way in Ikeja. Carrying an empty pot, she lamented the severe hunger and economic distress affecting her and many others. Her actions drew both sympathy and skepticism, with some offering financial help and others questioning her motives. Despite receiving an offer of N500,000 from singer Oxlade, Sikiru expressed her intention to continue protesting until there is a significant improvement in the economy.

Analysis:

The continuation of protests despite the presidential address indicates deep-seated frustration among Nigerians over economic conditions and governance issues. The government's mixed response, combining dialogue offers with curfews and force in some areas, has so far failed to quell the unrest. The involvement of various demographics, from youth to the elderly, underscores the widespread nature of discontent.

The protests have also revealed potential vulnerabilities in government communication, as evidenced by the premature leak of the President's speech. This has been seized upon by opposition figures to further criticize the administration's competence.

The nationwide protests have highlighted widespread discontent with economic conditions and governance. Despite calls for suspension and violent crackdowns in some areas, the demonstrations continue, driven by the populace's demand for substantial change. The coming days will likely see further developments as protesters persist in their efforts to #EndBadGovernance and seek relief from economic hardships.

As Nigeria grapples with widespread protests and economic turmoil, President Bola Tinubu's address yesterday Sunday August 4th to the nation was a stark reminder of the disconnect between leadership and the citizenry. The president's speech, delivered after three days of intense demonstrations, failed to address the core issues that have driven Nigerians to the streets in desperation and anger.

The protests, which began on August 1st, were sparked by a perfect storm of economic hardships: the removal of fuel subsidies, the drastic devaluation of the Naira, and the resulting spike in the cost of living. Nigerians, already struggling under the weight of these policies, took to the streets demanding not just the restoration of subsidies, but also calling for an end to government waste, corruption, and mismanagement.

Tinubu's address, however, seemed to exist in a parallel reality. While he spoke at length about various initiatives and economic figures, he failed to directly confront the immediate concerns of the protesters. The speech was heavy on self-congratulation and light on concrete solutions to the pressing issues at hand.

Perhaps most troubling was the president's failure to address the reported excesses of security forces during the protests. The loss of lives in several states should have warranted a clear condemnation of unnecessary violence and a commitment to protecting citizens' right to peaceful protest. Instead, the president's words seemed to prioritize public order over addressing the root causes of the unrest.

The economic policies that Tinubu doubled down on in his speech are the very ones that have pushed many Nigerians to the brink. While long-term economic reforms may be necessary, the immediate impact on the population cannot be ignored. The president's unwillingness to consider any adjustments or offer immediate relief measures demonstrates a concerning rigidity in the face of widespread suffering.

Furthermore, the speech lacked any concessions to the protesters. In a time of crisis, leadership often requires the humility to acknowledge missteps and the flexibility to adjust course. Tinubu's address offered neither, instead presenting a narrative of steady progress that stands in stark contrast to the reality experienced by most Nigerians.

As the nation moves forward, it is clear that more than words are needed to bridge the growing divide between the government and its people. The president and his administration must take concrete steps to address the immediate economic hardships facing Nigerians, ensure the protection of peaceful protesters, and open genuine dialogues with citizens and opposition voices.

The coming days and weeks will be crucial in determining whether Nigeria can find a path towards stability and shared prosperity. For now, Tinubu's address has done little to quell the unrest or inspire confidence in his administration's ability to navigate these turbulent times. The onus remains on the government to demonstrate that it truly hears and understands the cries of its people, and is willing to take meaningful action in response.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The total inflows into the Nigerian Autonomous Foreign Exchange Market (NAFEM) declined to a five-month low of $1.92 billion in July, representing a 4.4% month-on-month decrease from the $2.01 billion recorded in June, data from FMDQ revealed at the weekend.

This drop was largely due to a significant reduction in foreign inflows, which fell by 51.4% month-on-month to $243.30 million from $500.20 million in June. The decrease in foreign inflows was driven by weaker foreign portfolio investments, which declined by 58.8%, and other corporate inflows, which dropped by 32.1%, despite a substantial rebound in foreign direct investments (FDIs) which surged by 1,705.9%.

The weak foreign inflows can be attributed to limited foreign investor participation in the domestic market, which is influenced by concerns over currency conversion and market risks associated with tight foreign exchange (FX) liquidity and the volatility of the naira. In contrast, domestic participation in the market increased significantly, growing by 77% as per the Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGX)’s report for June.

According to the NGX’s Domestic and Foreign Portfolio Investment Report, total transactions executed between the current and prior month (May 2024) revealed that total domestic transactions increased by 17.85% from N231.10 billion in May 2024 to N272.36 billion in June 2024. However, total foreign transactions decreased by 33.87% from N124.28 billion (about $83.78 million) to N82.19 billion (about $55.88 million) between May 2024 and June 2024.

Hence, inflows from local sources (87.4% of total transaction value) increased by 11.1% m/m to $1.68 billion (June: $1.51 billion) supported by larger inflows from the CBN (+348.1% m/m) and individuals (+12.3% m/m) segments, while inflows from non-bank corporates (-6.9% m/m) and exporters (-4.5% m/m) declined.

Reacting to the development, financial experts noted that over the short term, they expect FX liquidity conditions to remain frail, mainly due to weak CBN intervention, adding that amid FX liquidity concerns, the elevated global interest rates and geopolitical uncertainties may keep foreign inflows subdued in the near term.

Sun

Palestinian kills two people in stabbing attack in Israel

A Palestinian attacker killed two people and wounded two others in a stabbing spree in central Israel on Sunday before being shot dead by police, Israeli authorities said.

The stabbings took place during morning rush hour in the city of Holon, near Tel Aviv. The attacker stabbed people near a gas station and a park, Israel's ambulance service said.

Two senior citizens, a man and woman, were killed and two other people were wounded and rushed to hospital, medical officials said.

"The terrorist was quickly neutralized by one of our officers at the scene and prevented him from carrying out an even worse attack," police spokesperson Eli Levi said on Israel's Channel 12.

A police statement said police were present in force at the scene and were "conducting extensive searches with a helicopter and additional resources".

The Islamist group Hamas, which is at war with Israel in Gaza, said in a statement that the stabbing attack was a "natural response" to Israeli attacks on Palestinians and to the assassination of the group's leader, Ismail Haniyeh, last week in Tehran.

However, it stopped short of claiming responsibility for Sunday's attack.

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine finally deploying US-made F-16 fighter jets, Zelenskiy says

Ukrainian pilots have started flying F-16s for operations within the nation, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Sunday, confirming the long-awaited arrival of the U.S.-made fighter jets more than 29 months after Russia's invasion.

The Ukrainian leader announced the use of F-16s, which Kyiv has long lobbied for, as he met military pilots at an air base flanked by two of the jets, with two more flying overhead.

"F-16s are in Ukraine. We did it. I am proud of our guys who are mastering these jets and have already started using them for our country," Zelenskiy said at a location that authorities asked Reuters not to disclose for security reasons.

Ukraine's top commander, Oleksandr Syrskyi welcomed the arrival of the jets and thanked the president and other officials for working "24/7" to secure them. Their arrival, he said, would save the lives of Ukrainian soldiers.

"This means that more of the occupiers will be destroyed," Syrskyi wrote on Facebook. "It means a greater number of downed missiles and aircraft used by the Russian criminals to attack Ukrainian cities." The arrival of the jets is a milestone for Ukraine, though it remains unclear how many are available and how much of an impact they will have in enhancing air defences and on the battlefield.

Russia has been targeting bases that may house them and vowed to shoot them down.

Built by Lockheed Martin, the F-16s had been on Ukraine's wish list for a long time because of their destructive power and global availability. They are equipped with a 20mm cannon and can carry bombs, rockets and missiles.

'NEW STAGE'

Talking to reporters on the tarmac of an airfield, Zelenskiy said Ukraine still did not have enough pilots trained to use the F-16s or enough of the jets themselves.

"The positive thing is that we are expecting additional F-16s ... many guys are now training," he said.

It was important, he said, that Kyiv's allies found ways to expand training programmes and opportunities for both Ukrainian pilots and engineering teams.

Ukraine has previously relied on an ageing fleet of Soviet-era warplanes that are outgunned by Russia's more advanced and far more numerous fleet.

Russia has used that edge to conduct regular long-range missile strikes on targets across Ukraine and also to pound Ukrainian frontline positions with thousands of guided bombs, supporting its forces that are slowly advancing in the east.

"This is the new stage of development of the air force of Ukraine's armed forces," Zelenskiy said.

"We did a lot for Ukrainian forces to transition to a new aviation standard, the Western combat aviation," he added, citing hundreds of meetings and unrelenting diplomacy to obtain the F-16s.

"We often heard 'it is impossible' as an answer, but we still made our ambition, our defensive need, possible," he said.

It remains unclear what missiles the jets are equipped with. A longer range of missile would allow them to have a greater battlefield impact, military analysts say.

Zelenskiy said he also hoped to lobby allied neighbouring countries to help intercept Russian missiles being launched at Ukraine through conversations at the Ukraine-NATO Council platform.

"This is another tool, and I want to try it, so that NATO countries can talk to Ukraine about the possibility of a small coalition of neighbouring countries shooting down enemy missiles," he said.

"I think this decision is probably difficult for our partners. They are always afraid of excessive escalation, but we are fighting that."

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine targets Donbass cities with Western-supplied missiles

Ukrainian forces targeted several locations in Donbass with Western-supplied missiles on Sunday, including the city of Lugansk, according to the local authorities.

Lugansk, the capital of Russia’s Lugansk People’s Republic, was hit with at least eight ATACMS and four Storm Shadow missiles, regional head Leonid Pasechnik said in a Telegram post, adding that warehouses containing fuel tanks and residential areas were hit. He said air defense systems were able to partially repel the attack, intercepting at least four missiles, with the debris causing small fires on the outskirts of the city.

Imagery circulating online shows a thick plume of black smoke rising from what is said to be a fuel warehouse. No official information has yet been provided on any possible casualties. 

Russia’s ambassador-at-large for Ukrainian crimes, Rodion Miroshnik, wrote in a Telegram post that the Ukrainian military had probably attempted a “massive comprehensive strike”on Lugansk, but that air defenses worked well to repel it.

The acting head of the city, Yana Pashchenko, said several private residential buildings had been hit and that some roofs and outer walls had suffered shrapnel damage. She did not specify whether any residents had been injured.

Powerful explosions resulting from Ukrainian shelling were also heard in Donetsk and Makeyevka in the Donetsk People’s Republic, according to reporters on site. Footage circulating online of a large cloud of smoke and dust being propelled into the air purports to show a large explosion in Donetsk.

Kiev’s forces have repeatedly used long-range missiles supplied by their Western handlers to launch indiscriminate strikes on Russian territory. In June, for instance, Ukraine fired five ATACMS missiles on Lugansk, four of which were successfully intercepted. However, one missile made it through and heavily damaged a high-rise residential building, killing at least four civilians and injuring more than 20.

Reuters/RT

115 years ago, in 1909, Walter Egerton, the barrister-turned-colonial administrator, and then governor, introduced the Sedition Ordinance into the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. This drew a sharp response from Christopher Sapara Williams, Nigeria’s first lawyer, the son of an Egba mother and an Ijesha father, who challenged the Ordinance, describing it with considerable prescience as “a thing incompatible with the character of the Yoruba people, and (which) has no place in their constitution…. Hyper-sensitive officials may come tomorrow who will see sedition in every criticism and crime in every mass meeting.”

Sapara Williams was Nigeria’s first articulate defender of civic dissent. The promulgation of the Sedition Ordinance was one of the fallouts of the Lagos Water Riots of 1908. The antecedents go back to the encounter between Lagos and colonial England. As the countries of Imperial Europe concluded their carve up of Africa in Berlin in February 1885, Oba Dosunmu of Lagos died, and was succeeded by his son, Oba Oyekan 1.

At the death of Oyekan 1 on 30 September 1900, a fierce succession battle ensued. Sapara Williams was one of the lawyers instructed by the parties to the dispute. When the dust settled, his client, Adamaja, lost to the eventual winner and Oba Dosunmu’s grand-son, Eshugbayi Eleko, who ascended the throne in 1901, but this did not becloud his clarity of principles on the rights of the peoples of the territory to protest. Unlike the supporters of Nigeria’s ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), Williams’ views on the right to protest did not depend on the ethnicity of the person in power.

That was one of the most tumultuous periods in the history of Lagos and it coincided with a most intense period in the colonial territorial consolidation that would ultimately result in the notion of Nigeria. An inevitable conflict between the colonists and dissenting natives revolved around two issues: racial segregation, which privileged whites; and free expression, which patronised the native populations. Over one century later, these same issues – discrimination and freedom of expression – continue to plague and define governance in Nigeria.

Williams was implacable in his support of the right to protest. Long after his untimely death in 1915, his position remained a source of inspiration to the Eleko and people of Lagos, in an even more consequential dispute over the control of traditional lands in the colony. This issue ended up before the highest court with jurisdiction over the territory in the case of Amodu Tijani, decided by the Privy Council in July 1921. The Eleko rallied behind the Idejo Chiefs, led by Amodu Tijani, the Oluwa of Lagos, who had the support of Herbert Macaulay, grandson of the first African Anglican Bishop, Michael Ajayi Crowther, and a veteran dissenter.

For the hearing before the Privy Council in 1920, Macaulay travelled to London with the Oba’s Staff of Office in support of Tijani and the Chiefs. While in London, Macaulay issued a statement claiming that the Eleko was the King of over 17 million Nigerians and in possession of a territory more than three times that of Great Britain. Despite a healthy revenue of over £4 million, he claimed, the British had reneged on a treaty commitment to compensate the Eleko. Embarrassed at being publicly called duplicitous in this way, the British required the Eleko to disown Macaulay. He issued a public statement clarifying his position on Macaulay’s statement but declined to disown him through the Oba’s Bell Ringers, as required by the colonists.

Unable to secure the support of the popular Eleko, the colonists chose to head off rising tension by deposing him. On 6 August 1925, they issued an ordinance de-stooling him and, two days later, on 8 August they arrested and removed the Eleko into internal banishment in Oyo. In his place, they installed Oba Ibikunle Akitoye.

Akitoye’s rule lasted an uncomfortably brief three years, largely because he lacked the support of the people of Lagos. Indeed, in 1926, he suffered physical assault by his people. Supported by the elite and people of Lagos, the deposed Eleko took his case to the courts, fighting all the way to the Privy Council, which decided on 19 June 1928 in favour of his claim for leave for a writ of habeas corpus. This all but sealed the fate of Oba Akitoye, who is suspected to have facilitated his own earthly demise shortly thereafter.

Just as the Eleko was on his way to being reinstated in Lagos, the Aba Women’s Uprising took off in 1929. Like the “Lagos Water Riots”, it was also anchored on dissent over colonial taxation, in the foreground of what would become an incomplete colonial head count in 1931. The pivotal moments in the uprising of the women of the East actually covered the territories of what would today be known as the states of Abia, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, and Rivers States.

On 16 December, 1929, Adiaha Mary Edem, a formidable female trader, led a contingent of women from the Andoni, Ibibio, and Ogoni nations, as well as women from Opobo Town, to a meeting with the colonial officers at the Opobo Divisional Office. The purpose of the meeting was to address the concerns of the women over the new colonial tax proposals. In anticipation of the meeting, meanwhile, the Senior Divisional Officer (SDO) had arranged for the presence of well-armed soldiers from Calabar and Enugu, under the command of Captain J. Hill.

Egbert Udo Udoma – the son of Adiaha Edem – who grew up to become Chief Justice of Uganda and Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, testifies in his memoirs that around midday on the day, while he and his mates were still in school, they heard, “a loud report in the form of volleys being the sound of a discharge of rounds of gunfire by soldiers. It came as a shock to all of us at school when we were told that the soldiers had shot some of the women who held the meeting with the Divisional Officer.” One of the women killed on the day was his mother, Adiaha Edem. The reason for the massacre was that “at the meeting, the women had raised objection to the imposition of poll tax by the government. The SDO apparently did not like that; hence soldiers mowed down the women.”

20 years later, on 18 November 1949, the colonial authorities killed 21 miners and injured 51 others in Iva Valley, near Enugu. The most that came out of the inquiry that followed was the creation of the Ministry of Labour. Following the adoption of McPherson Constitution in 1951, Ladoke Akintola became Nigeria’s first Minister of Labour, as a direct result of the Iva Valley Massacre. In the period since then, organised labour has mostly been the biggest force of dissent and protest in Nigeria. That was at least until the onset of the digital revolution put the organisation of protests to scale within reach of everyone with a digital device.

It is beyond ironic that rights of protest secured with the heroic sacrifices of Nigerians under colonial bondage are now endangered over six decades after Independence at the hands of a government that trumpets its electoral legitimacy supposedly through the votes of the same Nigerians whose rights to protest it, however, chooses not to respect.

The colonists defaulted to violence in response to protest because they lacked legitimacy with the natives. Ninety-five years after the colonial regime massacred Opobo women in Ikot Abasi at the onset of the Aba Women’s Uprising, the response of Independent Nigeria to the idea of dialogue with its people under the government of Bola Tinubu remains largely un-evolved and, if anything, even more lethal. Today, as then, whenever government does that, it is because it suffers a costly crisis of legitimacy.

** Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a professor of law, teaches at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and can be reached through This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

It is always interesting to read the reactions of Nigerian to various national and international issues. You get a full mix of brilliant arguments, morally compelling admonitions, sensationalist illogic, and watery defense of the establishment often couched in flowery language. More often than not, when individuals realise their interventions are morally vacuous and intellectually wanting, they take a recourse to ad hominems and veiled- and not so veiled- threats.

In this short piece, I’d like to invite you join me in examining some of the specious arguments being put forward by apologists of the Nigerian state, in the wake of the protests that engulfed the nation.

The first of these arguments I have come across is the suggestion that those who supported, and supports, the right of Nigerian citizens to peaceful protests, should be held responsible for, or at least made guilty about, the violent outcomes in some sites of protests in Nigeria over the past few days. The argument goes that supporters of protest should know better that, with previous experiences of protests in Nigeria, citizen protests were always, or most likely, to be hijacked by violent elements and should therefore be discouraged- presumably at all times. These apologists conveniently forget Nigeria’s own recent history and legacy of civil action and citizen advocacy, of which protests are a key part. It was the force of citizens protest, led by Nigerian citizens both home and diaspora, that put an end to military rule in 1998/99 and has now given the country 25 years of uninterrupted civil rule. The years of citizen struggle  against Military rule did not pass without challenges and casualties, including some high profile ones. In the wake of the June 12 1993 protests, thugs were unleashed to disrupt citizens protest, and a dedicated death squad was set up by Abacha’s military junta. Still, you’ll be hard pressed to find anyone today who would argue, with hindsight, that the citizens campaign against the military was the wrong thing to do. And this is not the end of the matter, because the democratic process does not mature on autopilot. Conscious citizens must keep at it- scrutinising, probing, and always raising the bar of expectation from their elected representatives and governments. Make no mistake, the Office of the Citizen is the most important office in a liberal democracy. It is the citizen who wields the power of democratic renewal, through the choices they exercise in the ballot at elections, and their continuous, active engagement between electoral cycles. Without this committed, continuous efforts of conscious citizens, society falls into atrophy. And so it was, in 2009, Nigerians again rightfully took to the streets when the Yar Adua government was taken over by an opportunistic cabal, in the wake of President Yar Adua’s sickness. Nigerians would subsequently take to the streets, once more, in protest during Jonathan’s government, as well as Buhari’s. We cannot gloss over the horrific spectacles of death unleashed by the Nigerian armed forces during the #EndSARS protest, but it is perverse and immoral to blame peaceful citizen protesters for the destruction unleashed by those officers paid by taxpayers to keep citizens safe. Or, for that matter, to blame the organisers of the #EndSARS protesters for the violence unleashed by hoodlums in various parts of Nigeria.

The argument that citizens who organise peaceful protests inherently invite or incentivises violence is fundamentally flawed. It is also morally perverse, the equivalence of arguing, in effect, that those who seek to do good do so in order to bring about evil. Such an argument is desperate and bizarre, quite frankly. Organisers of the Nigerian protests are not insurrectionists calling for an end to the Nigerian government. They are not armed militants, terrorists, or bandits, of which Nigeria is not in short supply. Citizens should be able to raise their voices in protest when they are unhappy with the performance of their government, and even the most desperate apologists for government must see, at the very least, that all is not well with the country and things can be much better. It is also the case that Nigerians have been venting their grievance on social media and other channels for more than a year now. In the circumstances, it is in the interest of government, and of society, to allow citizens to come out openly to give voice and face to their grievance. The alternative is to suppress their voice and push them underground, and into the shadows. Not much good comes from the shadows, as our history has shown.

In sum, while there will always be a risk of violent hijack, there is no good reason to deny citizens the right to peacefully protest. Let me add, of course, that I believe that organisers of protest should always cooperate with law enforcement so they can protect peaceful protesters and deal with those who unleash violence. Citizens should be able to protest, nonetheless.

Let me now come to the second point raised by some who are comparing the violent protests going on in parts of the UK with the protests in Nigeria. Some have summoned this comparison to take petty digs at Nigerians in the UK who supported the protest in Nigeria, concocting all sorts of spurious narratives in the process. By their perverse logic, those comparing the UK far right protests with Nigerian protests also do not, presumably, see a difference, in substance and form, between a Civil Right march and a Kulx Klux Klan procession. For good measure, they would see no difference between a Jesse Owens black power salute at the Olympics and a Nazi commander giving a Nazi salute to troops. I think it says something about the way their mind works and a sheer level of desperation to make such incongruous comparisons between far right racists who set out to unleash violence, including on law enforcement officers; and long-suffering citizens seeking better performance and outcomes from their elected government on existential issues. In their moral muddle, Nigerian government apologists making this dubious comparison believe that far right violent marchers demanding that migrants be precipitously sent back to their countries are equally reasonable in their demands as Nigerian citizens asking for government interventions to mitigate the impact of hyperinflation, reduce the price of goods, and reduce ostentatious elite living in the midst of hardships for citizens. These apologists conveniently miss the point that there is hardly any one of those far right thugs that is not on government benefits, if they do not have regular employment. If you are to make a comparison with any semblance of moral clarity, you will find that the far right protest is an exercise in vanity, not a comparable desperate cry for help. Still, this is not the main point of difference, which is: far right groups actively advocate morally repugnant views and seek violent means to achieve them. It’s double whammy. To compare them with citizens demanding action from their government on existential issues of physiological survival and basic welfare, is morally vacuous. To inject ridicule into the comparison is beyond the pale.

In the end, what has emerged as a trend in these inauspicious interventions of apologists of the Nigerian government, is a ready recourse to strata man argument and ad hominens, in the hope that they won’t be found out. To achieve this, their interventions are infused with a lot emotional contents to steer their readers from the path of clear-headed, rational scrutiny. Thus,  for example, when they take desperate aims at Nigerians in diaspora for their support of protesters, they sensationally proclaim that those diaspora Nigerias are inciting violence at home while their own family is safely tucked away abroad. Their hope, in this instance, is that they can make their readers forget three things, among others: that the diaspora Nigerians are not the cause of Nigeria woes that instigated the protest; that the protest is being organised by groups of Nigerians at home who will proceed regardless of support they get from overseas; Nigerians in Diaspora do, in fact have families and interests at home and are therefore legitimate stakeholders in the affairs of the Nigerian state. They probably know these themselves, of course, but their object as rabble rousers is to steer unsuspecting readers away from objective truth and cold facts.

A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of aging.

Many Western countries are facing what the World Bank calls a “profound demographic crisis”: The twin perils of an aging population and record-low fertility rates are predicted to send their populations plunging in the coming decades.

The worst consequences of this demographic shift, per the World Bank, are economic. Soon, the shrinking working population in the U.S., Canada, or Germany won’t be able to meet their own constant demands for high-quality goods and services. These rich, elderly countries will have to make a hard choice for economic survival: force people to work more, or allow immigrants to fill in?

Lant Pritchett, one of the world’s top thinkers on developmental economics, has seen this crisis coming for decades over his career at Harvard, the World Bank, and Oxford University, where he currently heads a research lab. He told Fortune his radical plan to stave off economic disaster.

Population decline

In the long run, without intervention, the UN predicts that a decline in population growth could cascade into a full-on population “collapse.” That collapse is not likely to occur until well into the next century – if it comes at all. However, in the short run, population decline presents a real, and relatively simple economic problem: the West soon won’t have enough workers.

The ratio of working-age people to elderly people in rich countries will soon become so diminished that support for elders will be unaffordable. In Japan, a nation already facing the consequences of a graying population, the average cost of nursing care is projected to increase 75% in the next 30 years, with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warning that the nation is on “the brink.” In the U.S., think tanks have warned, an older population with more retirees means a shrinking tax base and higher demands on programs like Social Security and Medicare, along with a smaller number of working-age people to pay into those programs.

In short, we have a “ticking time bomb” on our hands, in the words of Greece’s prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, whose government introduceda six-day workweek last month to address the nation’s labor shortages. The move prompted fury and protests among workers as they watched their German and Belgian cousins embrace four-day workweeks.

Indeed, even as some European countries and a few American companies flirt with working less, panicked economists and politicians are sounding the alarm: We need to work more. A study conducted by consulting firm Korn Ferry found that by 2030, there will be a global human talent shortage of more than 85 million people, roughly equivalent to the population of Germany. That talent shortage could slash $8.5 trillion from nations’ expected revenues, affecting highly educated sectors such as financial services and IT as well as manufacturing jobs, which are considered “lower skilled” and require less education.

Now is the time to act, economic veteran Pritchett told Fortune. But doing so involves some radical rethinking of the current immigration debate.

Classical economics offers a number of ways to address a labor shortage, Prichett said. Since most of the unfilled jobs are “unskilled,” or don’t require a degree to complete, one solution for businesses and governments is to invest in automation, essentially having robots fill the gap. But, while automation helps get the jobs done, it depresses human workers’ wages by decreasing the amount of jobs available, “exacerbating” the issue, Pritchett said.

Some have called for increasing wages to induce more people to work. But most of the working-age population in the U.S. is already employed. Despite a well-documented decline in the portion of working-age men with jobsover the past few decades, Prichett said that the vast majority of working-age men are working, meaning raising pay would have small effects at best. There’s room for more women to work, he noted, but that could take away from other important responsibilities that are overwhelmingly shunted to women, such as caring for family or raising children.

That leaves two other options: forcing workers to work more or allowing an influx of legal, controlled immigration.

Why a six-day week won’t work

Mitsotakis’ plan for a six-day-work week is a step in the right direction for the short term, Pritchett said.

But “economics is not just about direction: It’s about magnitude,” he added. In other words, he says, small policy tweaks won’t do it. If we’re trying to address a big, structural problem with the U.S. labor force, the solution needs to be ambitious and comprehensive—precisely the type of legislation American politicians have largely avoided in recent years.

If policymakers simply try to make everyone work an additional day, the math simply won’t work out in the long run, Pritchett said. Even if Greece has “fantastic success” and increases its working hours by 10% over the next 30 years, that growth would represent a “drop in the bucket” in fighting a worsening labor shortage. He calculated a demographic labor force gap of 232 million people globally in his most recent paper, even assuming the highest possible labor force participation rate.

“You can’t solve a problem that’s growing over time with [a labor force] that has an upward bound,” he said. You would have to keep the labor force working more and more, and even then, you would never be able to fill in the gap.

Pritchett has a better idea. He knows that the current immigration debate is fraught, since the West is concerned with the social ramifications of allowing more migrants into its borders. But he maintains the only way to solve rich countries’ labor problem is to let in immigrants to work, particularly from countries where population growth is increasing, such as Nigeria or Tanzania, rather than decreasing.

In his view, the Western debate on immigration has taken on an unnecessarily binary flavor, with the choice depicted as one between a path to citizenship or closed borders. In a recent article titled “The political acceptability of time-limited labor mobility,” Pritchett says the West will soon have to abandon this view. Instead, he advocates for developed nations to embrace a system where immigrants can come to their country to work for a limited time – while also buying goods and services, renting homes, starting companies, and hiring workers — and then go back home, leaving both parties wealthier.

The future of immigration is temporary

The truth, Pritchett said, is that the U.S. needs low-skilled migrants, and many migrants need the economic boost from working in the U.S. Immigration is a symbiotic relationship that the West cannot quit – that’s why it’s so hard for us to actually control our borders.

“The way to secure the border is to create a legitimate way for people and firms to get the labor that the economy really needs in legitimate, legal ways, and until we have that, the whole debate over the wall and stuff is just silly,” Pritchett said.

If anything, the intensifying crackdown on undocumented and legal migration since the late 1980s has led to mass settlement, according to Hein de Haas, a sociologist of immigration. Prior to the 1980s, the U.S. and Mexico enjoyed a relationship similar to the work-visa program Pritchett envisions. Mexicans freely flowed across the border, coming for a short time to work, returning home to enjoy their money, and sometimes repeating this journey over several years, Haas wrote. They never permanently settled because, knowing they could come and go as they pleased, they did not have to.

The U.S. facilitated this temporary migration programs specifically aimed at Mexicans, encouraging contract workers to come to the U.S. after World War I and II. The second of these,the Bracero Program, established a treaty for the temporary employment of Mexican farmworkers in the U.S., and was so popular that it was extended far beyond its initial lifespan, allowing nearly 5 million Mexicans to temporarily work in the U.S. from 1942 to 1964. (The program ended in 1965, when the U.S. sharply limited immigration from Latin America as part of a major overhaul of immigration laws.)

What Pritchett suggests isn’t too dissimilar from simply turning the clock back to a time when migrants could move and work freely. He proposes a fixed-term system: a worker comes to the U.S. with the understanding that they are not on a path to citizenship, works on a 3-year contract, and then returns to their home country. After an “off period” of six months to a year, the migrant could come back for another three years.

“There are a billion people on the planet who would come to the U.S. under those terms,” Pritchett said. “But we don’t have that available.”

He isn’t exaggerating about the billion. In a 2010 survey, Gallup asked people around the world whether they would like to temporarily move to work in another country. Some 1.1 billion responded “yes,” including 41% of the 15-to-24 population and 28% of those aged 25-44, Pritchett sa

“What you could make in America in three years and go back to Senegal with is a fortune compared to anything else you could do to make your way in Senegal,” he added. “You go back to Senegal, you build a house, you buy your own business, and you’ve transformed your life by working temporarily.”

To avoid potential labor shortages in sending nations, Pritchett’s system would depend on bilateral agreements between the host and sending countries, and nations “could choose to put limits on their participation” to address their own labor needs, Pritchett said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. would receive fresh batches of workers for service industries, elderly care, or manufacturing—essentially, all the jobs that would be otherwise unfilled.

Policies like these are not yet being discussed on the national stage, but Pritchett believes that will soon change. With the upcoming labor shortage and the unpopularity of forcing workers to toil for longer, politicians will have to expand their understanding of immigration to allow for policies like his. For now, he’s planting the seed.

In partnership with economist Rebekah Smith, Pritchett has started an organization called Labor Mobility Partnerships (LaMP) that aims to build political support for a temporary rotational migration system. The way he sees it, nothing will change by pitching the idea to politicians (“who tend to be followers, not leaders”) so instead, he is working with countries that are currently already expanding their immigration channels, like Spain.

He is also courting business leaders in sectors that will be the hardest hit by labor shortages, such as elderly care, who could “be potentially a powerful force” in explaining to politicians why policies like his are necessary.

“Ideas at times are like dams: huge, unmoving, impregnable, able to hold the water back forever,” Pritchett writes in the conclusion of his paper. “But a small, strategically placed crack can cause a dam to be washed away overnight.”

Fortune