George Orwell envisioned the dangers of monolithic government armed with artificial intelligence in his famous novel of a future dystopia, "1984," published in 1949.

The Party, led by Big Brother, uses omnipresent technology to monitor constantly and to propagandize to the docile citizens of Oceania.

The terrifying tandem of technology and the human intoxicant of power is used in Oceania to rewrite history, control society, crush the human spirit and keep the Party entrenched forever.

Protagonist Winston Smith works for the ironically named Ministry of Truth, a job he hates. He dreams of the freedom to think, act, write and love. 

The totalitarian scenarios described in "1984," and the technologies to enforce them, seemed like science fiction 75 years ago. 

Yet they appear more possible today with the emergence of artificial intelligence and the stark warnings about its dangers from Elon Musk and others among the brightest people in technology. 

Digital devices already constantly track our movements and behaviors.

Artificial intelligence, experts say, is on the verge of perhaps even predicting our thoughts and actions.

The warnings of "1984" are also more ominous after big tech proved its eagerness to partner with big government in recent years to influence electionsand stifle dissent. 

The book that issued warnings about these very scenarios may now also be a target of governments armed with technology to track dissent. 

Orwell was recently added to a list compiled by government officials in the U.K. of authors whose works are allegedly shared by people sympathetic to "the far-right and Brexit," according to The Spectator. 

Here are 10 warnings from "1984" that seem more prescient — and more urgent — than ever.

1. The screen on your wall knows what you’re doing

"The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely," Orwell wrote of the household electronic device in Oceania we now recognize as the television. 

Few homes in the U.S. or U.K. owned televisions in the late 1940s — but Orwell already saw their potential for surveillance.

"You may not be aware of it, but your TV knows — and shares — a lot of information about you," Consumer Reports noted in 2021. "We’ve found that you can’t stop all the data collection."

2. History is canceled and rewritten to benefit the state

"Who controls the past controls the future," wrote Orwell. "Who controls the present controls the past."

Thomas Jefferson, and his words from the Declaration of Independence, such as "all men are created equal," are recast or canceled in "1984."

"Jefferson’s words would be changed into a panegyric on absolute government," wrote Orwell, while only fragments of the Declaration of Independence exist as it is slowly erased. 

3. Technology supplants the rule of law with political purpose

The legal system is obsolete in Oceania, where society exists only to support the government. 

Orwell discussed the phenomenon when Smith opens a diary to pour out his thoughts, then considers the dire consequences of his action. 

"This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws)," Orwell wrote. 

"But if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punished by death, or at least by 25 years in a forced-labor camp."

4. Technology is leveraged to savage a man who challenged the system

The residents of Oceania are fed a constant stream of digital hatred against a figure who dared to speak out against the Party.

"As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed onto the screen," wrote Orwell of an office meeting. 

"All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies." 
Goldstein’s crimes, Orwell wrote, were advocating freedom of speech, press, assembly and thought. 

5. Virtues are erased, replaced by empty new language

Words such as honor, justice, morality, democracy, science and religion "had simply ceased to exist’ in Oceania, Orwell wrote.

"A few blanket words covered them, and, in covering them, abolished them."

It might already sound familiar today: Concepts such as morality and religion are belittled on social media, while new phrases quickly gain political power by their sudden and constant presence on the same platforms. 

Speaking new phrases becomes a virtue unto itself even if the words are undefined. 

6. The worship of God is replaced by worship of the state

Any existing faith in God in Oceania is replaced a death cult that worships only the Party and specifically Big Brother. 

Assemblies or even words of faith are easily tracked by technology. 

"Everywhere there is the same pyramidal structure, the same worship of semi-divine leader," wrote Orwell. 

The prevailing philosophy, he added later, "is called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-Worship, but perhaps better rendered as Obliteration of the Self."

7. The elite rule amid grandeur while cities crumble

"The Ministry of Truth … was startlingly different from any other object in sight," Orwell wrote of London’s most glorious edifice in "1984," after describing the squalor inhabited by ordinary people.

"It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace … Scattered about London there were just three other buildings of similar appearance and size." 

They were, he noted, the Ministry of Peace, the Ministry of Love and the Ministry of Plenty — each name a misrepresentation of their actually mission. 

8. Basic facts are rewritten as a tool of oppression

One of the tenets of the Party in "1984" is that 2 + 2 = 5. 

The obvious error of math seems less shocking today, in a world in which people in position of power can no longer define the word "woman" or flout the long-known scientific reality of two genders.

9. The family is replaced by the state

Children learn to pledge allegiance to the Party over their parents in "1984," armed with technology to peer into their lives.

"It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children," wrote Orwell.

"And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which ‘The Times’ did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak — ’child hero’ was the phrase generally used — had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police."

10. ‘Big brother is watching you’

The most famous phrase from "1984" entered pop culture long before it became a reality.

Televisions, computers, smartphones, even automobiles today can already track our movements and even hear our voices. 

Social media giants know all about our lives and behaviors — information the publicly has given willingly.

Constant surveillance will only grow stronger and more pervasive with the advances of artificial intelligence, most experts agree.

"Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by the telescreen," wrote Orwell. 

"There was, of course, no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork."

 

Fox News

The federal government spent N22.7 trillion without prior approval from the National Assembly, but the Senate has now approved the spending after a report was presented by Ibrahim Gobir, the Senate Leader.

The funds were borrowed by the federal government from the Central Bank of Nigeria through "ways and means advances" and were disbursed to various agencies, including the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nigeria Bulk Electricity Trading, Azura Power West Africa, Niger Delta Power Holding Company, and Accugas Limited.

President Muhammadu Buhari had requested approval for the spending in December 2022, but some opposition senators demanded records of how the funds were spent before granting approval.

To address the issue, Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, appointed an ad hoc committee chaired by Gobir to liaise with relevant ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs) on the spending.

In January 2023, Buhari asked the Senate to securitise the N22.7 trillion ways and means loan to avoid accruing N1.8 trillion in interest. Securitisation involves pooling together various types of debt instruments and selling them as bonds to investors.

Patience Oniha, Director-General of DMO, said securitising the ways and means advances would improve debt transparency by including the debt in the public debt stock. If the House of Representatives approves the spending, Nigeria's public debt will exceed the current level of N46.25 trillion.

Hearing of the petitions challenging Bola Tinubu’s declaration as President-elect has been fixed for Monday, May 8 by the Presidential Election Petitions Court.

The legal team of the All Progressive Congress (APC) candidate Tinubu said the hearing is a pre-hearing session.

Also, the hearing is to clarify if there are any applications before the main hearing will start.
On March 1, Tinubu was declared winner of the 2023 presidential election by the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mahmood Yakubu.

Tinubu polled 8.8 million to defeat Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who scored 6.9 million

Labour Party’s Peter Obi finished third with 6.1 million votes.

After Tinubu’s declaration, Atiku and Obi filed separate petitions seeking orders to annul the election.

Atiku urged the court to cancel the election and order a fresh election due to allegations of irregularities that marred the February 25 elections in many polling units.

The PDP argued that as of March 1 when Tinubu was declared the winner of the election, the entire results and accreditation data from polling units had not been transmitted and uploaded by INEC.

On their part, Labour alleged that the election was characterised by various irregularities including the non-qualification of Tinubu and his running mate, Kashim Shettima to contest the election.

Also, they alleged that the APC candidate did not win the majority of the lawful votes cast in the election, and just as he could not secure one-quarter of the lawful votes cast in the FCT.

 

The Guardian

President-elect, Bola Tinubu, on Wednesday, rejected a request made by the Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike, for a refund for the construction of some federal roads in the state.

Tinubu spoke while inaugurating the Rumuokwuta-Rumuola Flyover in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State.

While noting how the state had to amend its procurement law to enable it to source funds and complete the various flyover projects in embarked up in record time, Wike said the projects undertaken by the state ought to be done by the Federal Government.

“And unfortunately too, these projects ought to be Federal Government projects because they are federal roads.

“If we had said because they are Federal Government roads, and we won’t do it. Who are those to suffer?

“Since we have said we don’t want our people to suffer, I also believe that the Federal Government should say look, you have done well for us. These are projects we should be doing, can you bring your bill, let us refund you the money you have done these roads.

“That is what it is supposed to be for a partnership with a good Federal Government. I can assure you as you enter the office and you approve to pay this money back, other states will have the courage to also do the same thing.

“I am not asking what we are not entitled to. The Federal Government should say you are a true son of this government you have removed shame from us.”

But in his response, the President-elect stated, “The 12th flyover and the demand you made for refund, I owe you nothing. It is your road.

“You can’t chuckle at me and make a demand. You are the one living on this road. I commend your effort. You have to lobby me to collect it.”

 

Punch

Federal Government, on Wednesday, in Abuja, approved N16.77bn as reimbursement to Borno State Government for the money spent on the construction of federal roads.

Senior Special Assistant to the Vice President on Media and Publicity, Laolu Akande, disclosed this after this week’s Federal Executive Council meeting presided over by President Muhammadu Buhari at the State House, Abuja.

Akande who did not give assurances of when the monies will be disbursed to the Northeastern state said the memo was put forward by the President himself.

However, the disbursement will only follow a debt sustainability analysis to be carried out by the Debt Management Office.

He said, “The council approved the president’s memo for the reimbursement of funds expended by the state government for federal projects and its total sum of N16.77bn which will be processed after a debt sustainability analysis has been carried out by the debt management office leading to the issuance of debt instruments and a promissory note of the same value to be approved by the National Assembly.”

On his part, Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation, Olorunimbe Mamora, revealed that the council approved an action plan for the deployment of technology to fight climate change.

He said, “The memo brought before the council by our Ministry has to do with the National technological action plan for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Nigeria’s most vulnerable sectors.

“Of course, we all know climate change is a global issue and the entire global community is worried. It’s becoming necessary for nations to start taking actions particularly geared towards mitigation and adaptation. To achieve this, you have to leverage technology. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you will need technology and that’s why we’re talking about renewable energy.”

Mamora lamented that Nigeria’s technology required an upgrade to meet up with global adaptation standards.

“So one of the very first things that we had to do in our situation was to set up a committee that would look into our technology.

“Our technology needs to meet up with those processes to achieve mitigation and adaptation.

“And that’s exactly what we did. We now have a plan of action in place, which we presented to the Council and was approved,” he explained.

 

Punch

The first batch of Nigerians who fled the war in Sudan have returned to the country.

Due to the closure of Sudanese Airspace, the Federal Government made arrangement for them to be conveyed to Egypt by road from where they were to connect flights back home.

However, there was a major setback when the Egyptian authorities denied them access over documentation issues.

The logjam continued for days until the Nigerian intelligence network struck a deal with its Egyptian counterpart.

The Nigerians, who were airlifted on Wednesday evening, landed at the Nnamdi Azikiwe Airport, Abuja, around 11:30pm.

Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management, Sadiya Farouk; Chairman/CEO of Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NIDCOM), Abike Dabiri-Erewa; and the Director General of the National Management Emergency Agency (NEMA), Ahmed Mustapha, welcomed them back to the country.

The Minister disclosed that each of them would get N100,000 to enable them settle in.

There are at least three million Nigerians in Sudan, according to Dabiri-Erewa, who promised that the Federal Government would rescue as many citizens as possible.

Azman and Max Air planes left for Egypt for more evacuation.

Nigeria was able to rescue its citizens after the Sudanese warring factions declared ceasefire.

 

Daily Trust

Sudan's conflict: Who's backing the rival commanders?

Military rivals locked in a conflict that erupted in Sudan on April 15 both courted foreign backing in the years leading up to the fighting.

That support could now influence the course of the power struggle between army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the leader of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, commonly known as Hemedti, as well as efforts to stop the violence.

The conflict has brought open warfare to Sudan's capital Khartoum and sparked new unrest in the western region of Darfur, displacing hundreds of thousands of people within Sudan and sending 100,000 fleeing across its borders.

The influence of outside players has loomed over events in Sudan since the overthrow of former leader Omar al-Bashir during a popular uprising four years ago.

WHO SUPPORTS BURHAN?

Burhan's most important backer is Egypt, which shares a border with Sudan that more than 40,000 people have crossed since the fighting began.

In both countries, the military has assumed a dominant role in the decades since independence and has intervened following popular uprisings - in Egypt when former army chief Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi led the ousting of democratically elected President Mohamed Mursi a decade ago, and in Sudan when Burhan led a military takeover in 2021.

Diplomats and analysts say Egypt feels comfortable dealing with Burhan and sees him as the most likely guarantor of its interests, including in negotiations over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam being constructed on the Blue Nile upstream of Sudan and Egypt.

In recent months, as much of the international community backed a transition plan involving the main civilian coalition to emerge from Sudan's 2019 uprising, Cairo created a parallel track of negotiations involving figures closer to the army.

During the current fighting Egypt has joined calls for an effective ceasefire while saying they consider the conflict an internal matter for Sudan. On Tuesday Egypt's foreign ministry received an envoy for Burhan.

Diplomats and analysts say Cairo is crucial to applying any short-term pressure on Burhan.

WHO SUPPORTS HEMEDTI?

The most important regional ally for Hemedti before the conflict was the United Arab Emirates.

Hemedti has presented himself as a bulwark against Islamist-leaning factions that established deep roots in the army and other institutions under Bashir. The UAE has aggressively sought to roll back Islamist influence across the region.

The UAE has provided Hemedti, who grew rich through the gold trade, with a platform for channelling his finances as well as public relations support for the RSF, said Andreas Krieg, Associate Professor at King's College, London.

Analysts however say the UAE has also sought to hedge its bets, retaining ties to Burhan and the army and joining the Quad, a grouping that has taken the lead on diplomacy on Sudan and includes the United States, Saudi Arabia and Britain.

"While it publicly supports the policy approach by the Quad, it has used its networks to create an alternative influence hub with Hemedti and the RSF," said Krieg.

Hemedti had also cultivated ties with Russia. Western diplomats in Khartoum said in 2022 that Russia's Wagner Group was involved in illicit gold mining in Sudan and was spreading disinformation. Hemedti said he advised Sudan to cut ties to Wagner after the U.S. imposed sanctions on the private military contractor. Wagner said on April 19 that it was no longer operating in Sudan.

WHICH OTHER POWERS HAVE INFLUENCE?

Saudi Arabia has had close ties to Burhan and Hemedti, both of whom sent troops to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

As it steps up its diplomatic ambitions across the Middle East, Riyadh has asserted itself in mediating over Sudan while also looking to protect its economic ambitions in the Red Sea region, said Anna Jacobs, Senior Gulf Analyst with Crisis Group.

"Saudi Arabia is focused on Red Sea security, which is integral to Saudi Vision 2030 and investments along the Red Sea like Neom," she said, referring to the futuristic city backed by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Saudi Arabia and the United States have been leading efforts to secure an effective ceasefire.

East African powers Ethiopia and Kenya also hold some sway due to their prominent role in regional diplomacy and previous mediation in Sudan.

South Sudan hosted peace talks between the Sudanese state and rebel groups in recent years, and was designated as one of the countries that could host talks over the current crisis.

Israel, which had been hoping to move forward in normalising ties with Sudan, has also offered to host talks.

WHAT'S THE WEST'S POSITION?

Western powers swung behind a transition towards elections as the military shared power with civilians after Bashir's overthrow, offering direct financial support that was frozen when Burhan and Hemedti staged a coup in 2021.

Led by the United States, they supported a new transition deal that was meant to be finalised in early April. However the deal instead helped trigger the eruption of fighting by creating a stand-off over the future structure of the military.

Critics say the U.S. was too lenient with the generals.

"Their strategy was stability and their basic misconception was that they would get stability by backing the apparently strong and decisive and cohesive players who happened to be in power," said Alex de Waal, a Sudan expert and head of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts University.

 

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Factbox: Kremlin drone incident: What do we know?

Here's a look at what we know about the alleged overnight drone attack on the Kremlin, and the questions it raises.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Two of the numerous videos published on Russian social media channels show two objects flying on the same trajectory towards one of the highest points in the Kremlin complex, the dome of the Senate, with the clock on the nearby Spassky Tower showing 2:27 and 2:43 in the early hours of Wednesday. The first seemed to be destroyed with little more than a puff of smoke, the second appeared to leave blazing wreckage on the dome. Reuters checks on time and location indicated that the videos could be authentic.

WHAT IS RUSSIA SAYING?

Russia called the incident a terrorist attack and an attempt to assassinate President Vladimir Putin, for which it said it reserved the right to retaliate.

Western security analysts dismissed the idea that the attack was meant to kill Putin, given that the drones appeared to have been aimed at a highly visible point of the huge, walled Kremlin citadel, rather than any residential quarters, and that Putin often works from elsewhere. His office said he was not there at the time.

WHAT DOES UKRAINE SAY?

Ukraine denied responsibility. "We don't attack Putin, or Moscow, we fight on our territory," President Volodymyr Zelenskiy told a press conference in Helsinki.

WOULD UKRAINE BE ABLE TO MOUNT SUCH A STRIKE?

Possibly. Ukraine appears to have mounted drone strikes deep inside Russia and Russian-annexed Crimea on many previous occasions, including twice last December on an air base for Russian strategic bomber planes. It typically has not claimed responsibility for such actions, although Ukrainian officials have often celebrated them.

IF IT WAS UKRAINE, WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN?

Ukraine has frequently surprised Moscow with its military prowess, staging attacks far beyond the front lines, but a hit on the symbolic centre of Russian power would be its most audacious act to date.

"If we presume it was a Ukrainian attack, consider it a performative strike, a demonstration of capability and a declaration of intent: 'don't think Moscow is safe', Russia specialist and security analyst Mark Galeotti wrote on Twitter.

Some commentators described it as a humiliation for Russia, drawing comparison with a 1987 incident when a young West German pilot, Mathias Rust, evaded Soviet air defences and landed a small plane on Red Square.

COULD IT BE A RUSSIAN 'FALSE FLAG' OPERATION?

Some Western analysts said it was possible that Russia might have staged the incident itself in order to pin the blame on Kyiv and justify some kind of crushing response. The aim could be "to make Ukraine look reckless, either to weaken Western support or try to shore up Russian domestic support", said Phillips O'Brien of the University of St Andrews.

James Nixey of London's Chatham House think tank said that, if it was a "false flag" operation, "it reeks of desperation ... And it's a high-risk strategy likely to be exposed".

WHAT WILL THE U.S. MAKE OF IT?

The Biden administration has poured cash and weapons into Ukraine to help it defend against Russia's invasion, but would likely be nervous of the unpredictable consequences that any Ukrainian attack on the Russian capital could entail. The White House said it had not been able to verify the Russian claim of a Ukrainian attack, and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Russian assertions should be taken with a "very large shaker of salt".

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TIMING?

The incident comes at a moment of high tension and a potential turning point in the war, as Ukraine prepares to mount a long-anticipated counter-offensive.

Perhaps more immediately, it coincides with preparations for Russia's Victory Day holiday on May 9, marked with a military parade across Red Square, under the Kremlin walls.

Some of the videos of the incident showed spectator stands that had already been put up for the parade, directly over the wall from the Senate. Security for the parade had already been tightened.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The statement from Putin's office pointed to a significant response. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said it was time to "physically eliminate Zelenskiy and his clique", and parliament speaker Vyacheslav Volodin called for the use of "weapons capable of stopping and destroying the Kyiv terrorist regime".

Western analysts questioned how far it was possible for Russia to escalate, given the death and destruction it has already inflicted on Ukraine with mass missile strikes.

Matthew Ford, associate professor at the Swedish Defence University, said further strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure would be less effective now that spring has arrived, and that disruption to grain supplies would hurt Russia's own allies. He also questioned whether Russia was capable of taking out Zelenskiy. "The closest they got was last spring. How they could pull it off now - that seems very unlikely," he said in a telephone interview.

** Explosions heard in Kyiv, other Ukrainian cities - authorities

Explosions were heard in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv and other cities in the early hours of Thursday morning, officials and media outlets said, with some local authorities reporting that anti-aircraft defences were at work.

Russia has regularly bombarded Ukraine since October last year, striking at a variety of targets. The latest blasts were reported less than 24 hours after Kyiv said 21 people died in a Russian strike on the city of Kherson.

"Air defences are working in the Kyiv region," the regional military administration said on Telegram. Reuters eyewitnesses in the city said there had been at least one loud blast.

Ukrainian public broadcaster Suspilne reported explosions in the southern city of Zaporizhzhia. Yuri Malashko, the head of the Zaporizhzhia regional military administration, said on Telegram that anti-aircraft defences were at work.

Local media also reported blasts in the Black Sea port of Odesa. Air alerts have been sounded in most of the eastern half of the country, according to an official government map.

 

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Ex-Russian president urges ‘physical removal’ of Zelensky

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev drew a comparison between Ukraine and Nazi Germany on Wednesday, after two drones targeted the Kremlin. The vice-chair of the national security council urged Moscow to retaliate against President Vladimir Zelensky.

“After today’s terrorist act, there are no options left but the physical removal of Zelensky and his clique,” Medvedev wrote on Telegram.

“We don’t need him to sign [their] unconditional surrender. Hitler, as it is known, didn’t sign his either. There will always be someone like Admiral Doenitz to sit in as president,” he added, in reference to the Nazi officer who officially replaced Hitler after he committed suicide in April 1945 and presided over Germany’s capitulation.

Medvedev’s ire was provoked by last night’s drone attack on Moscow, which Russia blamed on Ukraine. Two UAVs exploded over the Kremlin and the Russian Senate, with authorities saying they were brought down by air defenses. There were no injuries or reports of damage.

Russian President Vladimir Putin was not in the Kremlin at the time, working from another residence instead.

“We consider this a premeditated terrorist action and an attempt against the Russian president,” the Kremlin said in a statement after the incident, adding that “Russia reserves the right to retaliate in a manner, place and time of its choosing.” City authorities in Moscow and St. Petersburg have already responded by imposing a ban on drone flights.

Medvedev was president of Russia between 2008 and 2012, and then prime minister until 2020. Currently, he serves as the deputy chair of the national security council, which is formally chaired by Putin. Despite his prior reputation as a moderate liberal, he has been far more hawkish on Ukraine than the official Kremlin.

Last week, for example, Medvedev advocated “mass destruction of personnel and military equipment” and a “maximum military defeat” of Kiev once the much-hyped Ukrainian counteroffensive begins, arguing that the “Nazi regime in Kiev”must be “completely dismantled” and “former Ukraine” entirely demilitarized. 

Kiev has officially denied having anything to do with the drones. Zelensky insisted that Ukraine fights on its own territory and has no weapons to reach Moscow. His aide, Mikhail Podoliak, insisted Ukraine was fighting “an exclusively defensive war” and claimed the Kremlin attack was the work of “local resistance forces” in Russia. The Ukrainian postal service has already released a stamp design showing the Kremlin in flames, however, just as they did after the Crimean Bridge bombing last October – also denied by Zelensky and his government.

** Ukrainian counteroffensive has started – Wagner boss

Head of the private military company Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, said on Wednesday that the Ukrainian forces had begun their counterattack in Artyomovsk (known in Ukrainian as Bakhmut) and are threatening to overwhelm his undersupplied troops.

Wagner forces advanced more than 200 meters on Wednesday, sustaining 116 fatalities and leaving less than three square kilometers of the Donbass city in Ukrainian possession, Prigozhin said in an audio clip shared online.

However the PMCs leader then announced that the Ukrainian military has “...begun its counterattack,” with “...unlimited manpower and ammunition.”

Meanwhile, he painted a dire picture of Wagner’s own situation, saying “ammunition shortages are acute” and his troops have enough rounds remaining “for just a few days.”

The Russian Defense Ministry is refusing to issue artillery ammunition to Wagner, “ignoring our every request,” Prigozhin claimed.

Wagner forces have been at the forefront of street fighting in Artyomovsk, known by Ukrainians as Bakhmut, a key rail and road junction in Donbass. Kiev has funneled tens of thousands of soldiers to the city, even as Wagner and other Russian troops established fire control over all the supply roads, leaving the Ukrainians half surrounded.

 

Reuters/RT

Nigerian universities come up in the news these days to announce either the inauguration of new dress codes or the revival of dormant rules. Fixating on appearance is not new in Nigeria, but the frequency—especially by academic institutions—in the past months is head-scratching. Hardly a month passes these days without some university or polytechnic issuing a sartorial decree.

One can trace this mania to several factors. First, we are a culture that insistently regulates every sphere of life, and we cannot but extend that attitude to other people’s virtues. The orientation stems from our political history when our consciousness was militarised to the point that we are now a country of few producers but many regulators. You can detect the dictatorial bent in the language of the university bulletins where they announce they are “banning” certain sartorial items “with immediate effect.” Second, the rise of faith-based universities, similarly preoccupied with squeezing out virtue from students by any means necessary, puts some pressure on public universities to join in and play a lead role in this unfolding morality play.

Third is the painful fact that our tertiary institutions are just not busy enough. Industrialisation potentials in Nigeria have whittled due to serial poor leadership, and universities do not have research and development goals set for them. When an academic institution thus cannot produce knowledge for society, its energies get recalibrated towards administration and not much else. Chasing after students over their appearance or, in some cases, inaugurating a task force to do so gives these schools a sense of motion and mission. Since they cannot impact their immediate world meaningfully through their research and maybe even teaching, they turn to the Hisbah. The result of their preoccupation is that hardly a month goes by without one or more of these schools, in the bid to outdo each other in this ostentatious expression of their moral bona fides, announce which adornment they would be banning.

Time and space will not allow me to catalogue all the examples, but I will share enough to demonstrate the ridiculous extent these schools have gone to prove their virtues. Niger Delta University Vice Chancellor, Samuel Edoumiekumo, announced that students would wear uniforms. For a sum ranging between N20,000 and N30,000, the school would, of course, supply the uniforms. Students protested the directive and the university backed down. The compromise was to “ban” indecent dressing and enforce dress codes. Rivers State University similarly “banned” students from “wearing miniskirts, ankle chains (anklets or ankle bracelets), false eyelashes, tattoos, and any item of clothing that might be considered indecent.” The Vice-chancellor of Godfrey Okoye University, Christian Anieke, similarly “banned” indecent dressing for staff and students. Anieke lamented that most students and staff wear t-shirts with “unauthorised” inscriptions and “ordered” male students to comb or shave their hair properly.

Lagos State University did not stop at proclaiming a ban on “indecent” clothing such as miniskirts, face caps, rolled sleeves, etc., the Vice Chancellor, Ibiyemi Olatunji-Bello, also asked lecturers to deny students that flout the rules access to lecture halls. So, as a LASU lecturer, you are not only to teach and research, but your range of skills must also include leering at female students wearing clothes “revealing sensitive parts of the body” to chase them out of class. Before teaching students, you must take some time to spot the ones with “lousy, unkempt, extremely bogus hair or coloured artificial hair, brightly tinted hair/eyelashes/brown, fixing of long eyelashes, nails and artificial dreadlock” to deny classroom access. If a male student wears jewellery, plaits his hair, they cannot possibly learn and must be chased out of class too. The LASU circular also noted a ban on “tattered,” “tight fighting clothes,” and “unkempt hair.” That makes you wonder if those who write these rules give a thought to their classism. What if some students wear tattered/tight clothes or unkempt hair simply because they are poor?

The University of Ilorin has a Dress Code Committee and Ahmadu Bello University’s dress codes even extend to the university staff and visitors. The Polytechnic Ibadan  did not stop at hounding “indecent” dressers, certain acts such as hugging a fellow student, wearing nose rings (or an additional earring) and wearing face caps “unconventionally” (?) are all major sins that will attract a semester suspension. I could keep going on relating the absurd obsession with regulating appearance by giving examples from schools such as Kwara State University; the University of Maiduguri; Federal Polytechnic, Anambra; University of Calabar; Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University; University of Ibadan; Abia State University, and many others, but you already get the point by now.

This hyperfocus on the dress by Nigerian public universities trying too hard to reform moral decline is not limited to the administrative cadre. On Google scholar, there are several articles written by academics in these schools to support one “ban” or the other on appearance. These allegedly academic articles first pontificate about the “moral crisis” engendered in society through the loss of cultural values and now being heightened by dressing. Some of these pieces even round off their poorly conceived thoughts with clichés such as “the way you are dressed is the way you are addressed.” Addressing people merely based on their dress is an error of judgment. It means those who lack virtue but can afford to dress well deserve more reverence than their less privileged counterparts who might be truly virtuous. If what people wear determines their morality, does that mean that the pre-modern societies where people did not wear clothes lacked virtue? If clothes are truly a mark of one’s morality, does that mean that the virtues of the Nigerian political class—almost always resplendently dressed in massive agbadas—is given?

The thing is, when a society is going through a phase where there is such anxiety about values and emphasis on regulating conduct (especially of its younger generation) such as this, at least two things are likely to be ongoing: first is that the crisis of morality that people are sensing and reacting to by instituting codes of conduct must be real. Those people might not be able to put their finger on it, but their intuition is correct that something is very rotten in the state. You only need to look at our society to agree that their sense of moral crisis is accurate. So, yes, people are justifiably disgusted by the putrefying odour wafting through their nostrils and sincerely anxious to trace its source.

Second, it is also likely that those who try their hardest to find out where things are wrong embody that rottenness. Traditionally, institutions like universities are a moral force within society because they are spaces where ideas of its value systems are formed and reformed. Through the power of thought, the university informs and impresses a culture of conscience to advance society’s understanding of itself. Their responsibility of moral preparation goes in tandem with similar institutions such as the family, religious and social organisations, and even the media. Wherever the values these institutions jointly uphold are strong, the society gains commensurate ethical strength. When they are weak, the rot is palpable.

Students’ dressing “indecently” to school is therefore not the evidence of moral decline as those making and enforcing dress codes imagine. No, the rottenness is symbolised in a university that no longer represents a space of intellectual and moral learning. Rather than reckon with the ethical decline within society and the overall institutional degradation that stymies serious ideological responses to these issues, university administrators respond in the most superficial ways by banning the least of all culprits – dress.

 

Punch