WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russia, Ukraine trade allegations of chemical weapons use

Russia and Ukraine have accused each other at the global chemical weapons watchdog in The Hague of using banned toxins on the battlefield, the organisation said on Tuesday.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said that the accusations were "insufficiently substantiated" but added: "The situation remains volatile and extremely concerning regarding the possible re-emergence of use of toxic chemicals as weapons."

Neither Russia nor Ukraine has formally asked the OPCW to investigate the alleged use of chemical weapons, it said.

Andriy Sybiha, Ukraine’s first deputy foreign minister, said he discussed Russia’s use of ammunition with chemicals on the battlefield with OPCW director Fernando Arias on Tuesday.

Sybiha informed Arias about the parliamentary ratification of an agreement that “opens up opportunities for organising OPCW technical assistance visits to Ukraine”, the ministry said in a statement.

Last week, the U.S. said Russia had violated the international chemical weapons ban overseen by the OPCW by deploying the choking agent chloropicrin against Ukrainian troops and using riot control agents "as a method of warfare" in Ukraine.

It followed Ukrainian assertions in April that Russia had increased its use of tear gas in the trenches.

Ukraine's General Staff said in a statement earlier this month its armed forces had recorded 1,891 cases of Russia using "ammunition equipped with dangerous chemical substances" in the year till April.

Russia has denied allegations of violating the Chemical Weapons Convention.

In documents posted on the OPCW website, Moscow accused Kyiv of using "a wide range of toxic chemicals against Russian servicemen and public officials", including fertilizers, pesticides and other banned toxins.

The OPCW said it had been monitoring the situation since February 2022, when Moscow invaded Ukraine.

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention, any toxic chemical used with the purpose of causing harm or death is considered a chemical weapon.

"It is against the Convention to use riot control agents at war on the battlefield. If used as a method of warfare, these agents are considered chemical weapons and, hence, are prohibited under the Convention," the OPCW said.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine strikes oil facility in Donbass – authorities

Ukrainian forces have launched several missiles at civilian infrastructure in the Russian city of Lugansk, injuring at least five people and causing a large blaze at an oil depot, regional head Leonid Pasechnik has said.

The late Tuesday night attack was likely carried out using surface-to-surface Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) supplied by Washington, the head of Russia’s Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) added. Five employees of the facility were hospitalized with moderate injuries, as emergency services were working at the scene to tackle the blaze.

“Ukraine is compensating its defeats on the front lines by shelling civilian targets,” Pasechnik said, adding that the attack also damaged a high-pressure gas pipeline and power lines, causing a partial blackout in the area.

The Russian Defense Ministry has yet to confirm the type of projectiles used in the strike. Over the past week, Russian air defenses intercepted at least 15 ATACMS missiles, according to Moscow, as Kiev increasingly targeted Russian oil refineries, energy facilities and other infrastructure in recent months.

In late April, US officials confirmed earlier media reports that the Pentagon had secretly shipped an unspecified number of long-range missiles to Ukraine as part of an arms package announced by President Joe Biden in mid-March.

The “goal” of supplying Kiev with ATACMS was to put more pressure on Crimea and allow Ukrainian forces to target the peninsula “more effectively,” the New York Times reported at a time, citing an unnamed Pentagon official.

Moscow said the provision of long-range missiles would only spell “more problems” for Kiev. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov insisted that the use of ATACMS would not impact the outcome of the conflict, or prevent Russia from achieving its security goals.

Reuters/RT

Construction of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway has begun amid a myriad of fiscal and due process concerns. But indifference is the response of President Bola Tinubu’s administration to the challenges. The 700-kilometre stretch of road infrastructure, which will span eight years to complete, will gulp a staggering N15 trillion. This figure is tentative, given the country’s inflationary spiral. The project might well have significant economic benefits for the country but there are real questions involved, especially as regime spokespersons have repeatedly reiterated the fact that our economy is bankrupt, of which there is no question.

The pilot phase of the construction has started at the Eko Atlantic City and it will terminate at Lekki Deep Seaport, for which N1.06 trillion has already been released. It is a highway of 10 lanes, which will cost N4 billion per kilometre, and would be the first of its kind in Africa, says the Minister of Works, David Umahi. His zealousness in its implementation brooks no dissent, and sometimes it gets spiteful. The first set of victims, whose properties were demolished to pave the way for the construction, were paid N2.75 billion in compensation last week.

There are similar road networks in the offing, in the Sokoto-Badagry Coastal Highway and the Enugu-Abakaliki-Ogoja-Cameroon Highway, in what seems like a geo-political balancing act. As a spur, the latter will course through Oturkpo in Benue State, to Nasarawa State and end at Apo, in Abuja.

On the second project, Umahi said, “We have started the design and I’m sure that as soon as the Federal Executive Council approves it, we will be starting at the Sokoto side.” Given its 1,000-kilometre length, it will surely gulp over N20 trillion.

The political ecosystem is already astir on the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, with the circumstances surrounding its award. Adherence to due process has been raised by some critics, causing waffling in official quarters. The point has to be made: the project did not go through a competitive bidding process, which is imperative for such a huge venture, in line with the 2007 Public Procurement Act, as enunciated in Section 16 (1) (1) and (d), to create transparency, accountability and value for money.

As the minister admitted, the award sidestepped the public tender competitive bidding process. This raises the question of how the cost was arrived at. Was it a favour to a friend of the administration? Or is the government bidding farewell to the transparency and accountability of public tender and the competitive bidding process? In addition, why was the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) phase of the project not done before work began? We know this through a letter dated 18th April that emanated from the Ministry of Works, soliciting residents living in the Section 1 and 11 areas of the highway in Lagos, to attend a workshop organised for a scoping study that will generate this all-important data, after the project implementation had commenced.

This action, the letter reads in part, will “ensure that the project is developed in a responsible and sustainable manner, in line with regulations in Nigeria as well as international standards and frameworks.” No, this is sophistry! The country’s statute and global best practices do not uphold putting the cart before the horse in the award of a contract, as the ministry’s letter exemplifies. The ESIA precedes any contract.

How the project will be financed is still mired in obfuscation. On 23 September 2023, Umahi disclosed that Hitech – the construction company for the work, would fund the project, precisely under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) scheme. However, in a volte-face recently, he said that the government will provide 50 per cent counterpart funding, in an Engineering, Procurement, Construction plus Finance (EPC+F) model. This fiscal decision is not cast in stone yet, as he revealed that discussions were ongoing for a possible reduction to 30 per cent of government funding.

Recently my Inc. colleague Jeff Haden wrote a piece about the connection between bad bosses and toxic work environments, citing some 57 separate studies that effectively came to the same conclusion - "Destructive leadership significantly decreases employee job satisfaction." 

I immediately found myself wondering why otherwise intelligent business and thought leaders would need even one, let alone 57 studies to prove what should be self-evident - that horrible bosses create horrible places to work. 

What seemed even more important to understand though, is how, in the face of such a literal mountain of evidence, do these awful executives manage to keep their jobs?

Until now, it's been a question that most have been content to treat as rhetorical. After all, until a year or so ago, when presented with the century-old "take it or leave it" bargain, most workers felt compelled to take the "it" - one that included any or all of poor treatment, a toxic workplace and a lack of care ... until the Great Realization.

Since then, and in the "Great Resignation" that followed, which, through January, has seen some 41 million workers walk away from their positions - many in search of better conditions - employees have largely decided to stop taking it. No longer are they content to tolerate bad bosses and the toxic environments they propagate. 

The trouble is, the wrong people are leaving. It's the bad bosses that should be on their way out. Unfortunately, for the most part, they aren't, despite massive numbers of resignations because of them. I decided to take a look at exactly why, and what the rest of us can do about it.

To begin, there is no single reason that bad bosses keep their jobs. A few years ago, business giant Warren Buffet took a stab at guessing why they do. He posited that toxic CEOs hang on for three principal reasons: 

1. an absence of written performance standards for many of these leaders;
2. the fact that most CEOs have no immediate supervisor; and
3. that the boards that these CEOs typically answer to desire to maintain collegial boardroom atmospheres and, so, almost never directly confront their charges on any performance issue, let alone those having to do with the happiness of his/her associates.

While I buy that these three reasons - assembled from the bird's-eye perspective of the greatest organizational heights - apply in some cases, they certainly don't explain why all bad bosses stay employed. To fully understand this issue requires one to look at the problem from every altitude, not just the top. In doing so, a common theme emerges.

Mostly, including in the case of the three Buffet-supplied explanations, it's a courage problem, or at the very least one of conflict-avoidance. Take Warren Buffet's excuses. The reason most CEOs don't have clear performance standards is because most boards avoid the discomfort that comes with presenting him or her with them. 

Likewise for the point about supervision. Among the roles these boards are expected by shareholders to play, whether they choose to accept it or not, is to supervise and to hold CEOs accountable to deliver the expected results of the organization and, ostensibly, to reflect the values of it. 

Lastly, the desire for collegiality is less about back-slaps and smiles than it is about ensuring that board meetings and other interactions are devoid of difficult conversations around accountability or CEO behavior. And this avoidance strategy doesn't end here.

Remember that any executive hire, especially C-Suite hires like the chief of the company, involve many well-placed people - senior HR leaders, board members, and executives at the white-shoe recruiting firm that led the search. 

So, removing these people will require all of these people to admit that they either made a mistake or missed a gargantuan red flag. People like this rarely admit to having committed errors. So, they conspire to live with their mistake rather than live up to it.

It is also helpful to remember that in many of these organizations, whether privately held, public, for profit, or not, the people at these levels run together. They are friends. They socialize together. Their kids are in school together. They serve on community boards together. They belong to the same clubs and frequent the same service providers. 

As a result, for any part of the clique to move on another part of it becomes problematic and requires enormous amounts of fortitude.

Many companies hang on to bad bosses for fear of upsetting investors, creating bad press, or inviting litigation. So, they find doing nothing more favorable to airing their dirty laundry. As a result of this general lack of courage, these crafters of toxic cultures are left to roam freely, without compunction. 

Sensing the reluctance of the organization to deal with them, over time, these awful executives double down on their bad behavior, eventually making the work environment unbearable.

Finally, over time, a sort of Stockholm Syndrome begins to overtake many of these organizations. I have seen it first-hand. Left uncorrected, those constantly abused by a tormentor will, in time, begin to recognize him or her as a benefactor. 

Once this happens, finding a collective bloc with the courage to speak against the aggressor becomes very difficult. But regarding these people as aggressors and tormentors is precisely what is going to be required to make progress. And the very results of the business demand that it must happen.

Here's why. A recent Talenteck study published by Harvard Business Review found that employee experience is directly correlated to business results. In fact, top quartile businesses in regard to employee experience significantly outperform bottom quartile businesses - those offering a poor employee experience and ostensibly led by a bad boss. 

By the numbers, top quartile businesses deliver 53% higher revenue and 44% higher earnings than their bottom quartile counterparts. So, keeping bad bosses thinking they are good for business is, actually, a really bad idea. 

I cannot stress enough how important and timely it is for those responsible for making the decision to move on these bad bosses to begin finding the courage to do so. Not only will you start stemming the loss of good people, which has exceeded 4 million for five straight months, but you'll add to the numerical performance of your business too, and you'll avoid the inevitable grassroots action that's coming next.

Salesforce founder and co-CEO, Marc Benioff was recently quoted as saying, "We have a lot of examples in Silicon Valley, where CEOs were 'fired' by their employees because they did not listen." 

Small and medium enterprises that have left horrible bosses in place for far too long now have a decision to make: do the right thing now or risk being called out by an activist mob. Employees are increasingly losing their patience with boards and senior HR leaders who fail to act on these bad bosses. 

More and more they are speaking out against these tormentors in the same way they spoke out against sexual harassers of both genders. They are tired of being treated poorly or being the ones to have to uproot their lives when things become unbearable. They want to stop leaving; they want their companies to start doing the right thing.

It's not only about better leadership, it's about time.

Inc

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has mandated all financial institutions in the country to commence deductions for a cybersecurity levy on electronic transactions, effective May 20, 2024, following a directive issued six years after its initial issuance.

The levy, to be remitted to the National Security Fund administered by the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), will be deducted from all electronic transactions conducted through various financial channels, including commercial banks, merchant banks, non-interest banks, payment system banks, mobile money operators, and payment service providers.

Non-compliance with the directive and failure to remit the levy within the stipulated timeframe will attract a penalty of two percent of the institution's annual turnover.

Originally introduced in 2018 with a levy rate of 0.5 percent on electronic transactions, the implementation was delayed. However, a recent circular jointly signed by the CBN's director of payments systems management and director of financial policy and regulation now mandates the deduction and remittance of the levy.

As per the circular, the levy, equivalent to 0.5 percent of all electronic transaction values, will be applied at the point of transaction origination and reflected in customers' accounts with the narration "Cybersecurity Levy." Deductions are to commence within two weeks from the circular's date, with monthly remittances to the NCF account domiciled at the CBN by the fifth business day of each subsequent month.

Financial institutions are required to complete system reconfigurations to ensure timely submission of remittance files to the Nigeria Interbank Settlement System (NIBSS) Plc within four weeks for commercial, merchant, non-interest, and payment service banks, as well as mobile money operators. Other financial institutions have eight weeks to complete the reconfigurations.

Certain transactions are exempted from the levy to prevent double application. Failure to remit the levy is considered an offence under Section 44 (8) of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) (amendment) Act 2024 and is subject to penalties, including fines of not less than two percent of the defaulting business's annual turnover.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has reactivated fees for cash deposits exceeding N500,000 for both individual and corporate account holders, marking a resurgence in processing charges after a suspension period.

The decision, effective May 1, comes after over four months of the apex bank's suspension of processing fees on cash deposits surpassing N500,000, which was set to expire on April 30, 2024.

In a circular addressed to customers, First Bank Nigeria (FBN) notified of the revised processing fee structure, where individuals face a 2 percent charge on deposits above N500,000, while corporate account holders encounter a 3 percent fee on deposits surpassing N3 million.

"We write to inform you that, effective 1 May 2024, our processing fees structure on cash deposits has been adjusted in accordance with regulatory requirements," FBN stated.

This reinstatement follows the CBN's directive on September 18, 2019, which introduced processing fees of 3 percent for withdrawals and 2 percent for deposits exceeding N500,000 for individual accounts, aimed at promoting cashless transactions.

Additionally, banks were instructed to impose 5 percent processing fees on withdrawals and 3 percent on deposits exceeding N3 million for corporate account holders.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has unveiled plans to remove the naira from all peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms, as announced by Emomotimi Agama, SEC's acting director general, during a virtual meeting with the Blockchain Industry Coordinating Committee of Nigeria (BICCoN), the collective body of major blockchain and cryptocurrency associations in the country.

P2P platforms facilitate direct financial transactions between two parties without traditional financial institution involvement. SEC's decision aims to mitigate perceived manipulation within the cryptocurrency domain.

Agama emphasized the importance of collective action and dialogue within the financial ecosystem, citing concerns over the impact of crypto P2P traders on exchange rates. He urged stakeholders to report and denounce any illicit activities detrimental to national interests.

Furthermore, SEC is committed to purging the virtual assets space of illegal trading activities, employing all available powers within its mandate. Agama stressed the importance of upholding decency and fair play within Nigeria's capital market community, in accordance with the Investments and Securities Act 2007.

The capital market regulator also announced forthcoming regulations to govern virtual space activities and expedite license approvals for individuals or institutions. Agama assured streamlined processes to facilitate compliance and operation.

SEC is actively developing an inclusive regulatory framework for digital assets, encompassing various cryptocurrency ecosystem aspects. This initiative seeks to support and regulate every Nigerian contributing to economic advancement.

In response to the crypto sector challenges, BICCoN proposed the formation of a working group to address issues and propel market development.

Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC) have jointly demanded that the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) revoke its recent electricity tariff increase before May 12, 2024. Failure to comply, they warn, will prompt unprecedented industrial action.

In a letter addressed to the Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of NERC, dated May 3, 2024, and copied to key government officials and electricity distribution companies, the presidents of NLC and TUC expressed outrage over the tariff hike, labeling it as exploitative and unjust. They argued that the increase, from N65/kWh to N225/kWh, imposes undue hardship on Nigerians amidst existing economic challenges.

The unions accused NERC of neglecting its regulatory duties and siding with electricity companies at the expense of consumers' rights. They demanded an immediate reversal of the tariff hike, cessation of discriminatory practices in tariff application, and adherence to statutory obligations.

Warning of swift action if their demands are not met, the unions vowed to mobilize members and occupy NERC offices and those of distribution companies nationwide until justice is served.

The Federal Government of Nigeria has dismissed speculations surrounding the establishment of foreign military bases within its borders. Mohammed Idris, the Minister of Information and National Orientation, unequivocally rejected assertions of discussions with foreign nations regarding military installations on Nigerian soil.

In a press release issued on Monday, Idris addressed what he termed as "baseless rumors" and urged the public to disregard such claims. He stressed that there have been no talks, nor is there any intention, to allow foreign military bases in the country.

According to the statement, "The Federal Government is not engaged in any such negotiations with any foreign nation. We have neither received nor are we entertaining any proposals from any country for the establishment of foreign military bases in Nigeria."

Highlighting existing collaborations in addressing security challenges, the statement affirmed the government's commitment to enhancing these partnerships. It stated, "Nigeria already benefits from international cooperation in addressing ongoing security issues, and the President remains dedicated to strengthening these alliances."

The Presidency has responded to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar's allegations regarding the Lagos-Calabar coastal highway contract, dismissing his claims and questioning his moral authority to raise concerns about conflicts of interest.

Atiku had accused President Bola Tinubu of favoritism in awarding the contract to Hitech Construction Company due to alleged ties between the company's owner, Gilbert Chagoury, and Tinubu. He also raised concerns about the demolition of buildings for the highway project.

In a statement, the Presidency refuted Atiku's claims, emphasizing that he lacks the moral high ground to question conflicts of interest given his own business dealings during his tenure as Vice President. The statement pointed out Atiku's involvement in Intels Nigeria, which secured major port concession deals while he was in office.

Furthermore, the Presidency highlighted Atiku's role in approving the sale of state-owned enterprises to his associates and friends during his tenure as Chairman of the National Council on Privatization.

Regarding Atiku's allegations against Seyi Tinubu's involvement with CDK, a tiles manufacturing company, the Presidency defended Seyi's right to pursue legitimate business interests, stating that his membership on the board does not conflict with Hitech Construction Company's work on the Lagos-Calabar highway.

The Presidency also challenged Atiku's assertion that the highway project would discourage investors, citing significant foreign direct investments attracted to Nigeria under the Tinubu administration. It highlighted the growth of various sectors in the economy, including telecoms, manufacturing, and fintech.

In response to Atiku's remarks on Nigeria's economy, the Presidency dismissed reports of IMF reclassifying Nigeria's economy due to Naira devaluation as "stale news," expressing confidence in Nigeria's economic resilience and potential for growth.

Ultimately, the Presidency urged all Nigerians to prioritize national unity and economic development, emphasizing the importance of infrastructural projects like the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway in stimulating economic growth and attracting investments.

Nigeria's electricity regulator, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), has instructed the grid operator to decrease electricity exports to overseas customers (Benin Republic, Niger, and Togo)

in order to enhance domestic supply.

In a directive issued recently, NERC highlighted that the grid operator's prioritization of supply to international customers, under bilateral contracts, has resulted in significant challenges for Nigerian consumers. To address this, NERC has imposed a 6% cap on total grid generation available to international off-takers for the next six months, starting from May 1.

While Nigerian power firms have agreements with neighboring African nations to export electricity, delays in payment have been a recurring issue. This move aims to alleviate domestic power shortages exacerbated by recent tariff hikes, which were intended to provide more consistent power but have not been fully realized due to supply constraints.

The decision to limit overseas sales could introduce operational uncertainties, requiring adjustments in production and distribution by power generation companies. Moreover, it may exacerbate financial strains by reducing revenue from foreign customers and necessitate debt repayment from distribution firms.

Since the directive, electricity supply from the national grid has increased, surpassing 4,700 megawatts compared to the previous weeks' levels below 3,000 megawatts. However, challenges persist, including lax terms in international contracts and unpaid debts owed by international customers, totaling $12.02 million according to a report by NERC.

The move underscores Nigeria's commitment to prioritize domestic electricity needs while seeking to address systemic issues within the power sector to ensure sustainable and reliable energy provision for its citizens.