The current pace of advances in generative artificial intelligence makes it difficult to forecast how the technology will affect the economy, business, and society. Nonetheless, it already seems clear that the new AI applications will produce a narrow cohort of winners and lead to a smaller workforce, confronting governments with big policy challenges.

Consider how AI will affect the three key components of growth: capital, labour, and productivity. In terms of capital, the massive volume of investment required to power AI innovations ensures that there will be a smaller, more concentrated set of winners. Big Tech firms with monopolies in their respective markets are the only ones that can afford the enormous costs associated with developing, training, and powering large language models (LLMs).

Most of these costs come from running high-end graphics processing units (GPUs), and from powering and cooling enormous data centers. Sam Mugel, the chief technology officer of Multiverse, estimates that training the next generation of LLMs will soon cost at least $1 billion. In 2023 alone, the Magnificent Seven – the top technology companies in the United States –allocated a combined $370 billion to research and development. That is roughly equal to the European Union’s total R&D budget (counting both businesses and the public sector).

With respect to labour, it is too early to anticipate the winners and losers, or how the gains and losses associated with AI will be distributed across the economy. While a 2023 report from Goldman Sachs estimated that AI could “expose the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs to automation,” a World Economic Forum survey of 803 companies points to a much lower net loss, owing to job creation related to investment in the green transition and climate-change adaptation.

In any case, many fear that AI will contribute to long-term structural unemployment, creating a jobless class that will include both skilled and unskilled workers. But while the projections above provide a baseline of what might occur, there is ample scope to refine our thinking on the issue. After all, the scale of the problem will depend on which jobs are lost at different points of the AI value chain.

We have not yet seen what job losses at one link in the chain will mean elsewhere in the technology sector, let alone the broader economy. The impact on jobs could vary widely as we move from chip manufacturers, AI infrastructure, and AI applications to sectors such as health care, education, and telecommunications – all of which are poised to benefit from AI innovations. At the technology’s base, there is already enormous growth and job creation as chip manufacturers (such as Nvidia) build fabrication facilities and invest in the production capacity that will drive the AI revolution.

It is less clear how many jobs will be created or lost elsewhere, because no one can predict all the ways a new technology will be used, or what knock-on effects it may have. Early indications of AI’s impact on long-term efficiency and productivity gains are encouraging – at least for those workers who will still have jobs. For example, a 2023 studyof 5,000 workers by Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, and Lindsey R. Raymond found that AI tools boosted worker productivity by 14%, on average, and by 34% for new and low-skilled workers.

Technological advances have a long track record of enhancing global connectivity in trade and telecommunications, expanding access to public goods like health care and education, driving innovation, improving living standards, and ultimately powering broad-based economic growth. There is no reason to think that AI will not do the same.

Moreover, AI will likely diffuse across the wider economy faster than previous technologies did, which means that AI-related productivity and efficiency gains could happen sooner rather than later. Earlier general-purpose technologies (such as the steam engine, electrification, and personal computers) required vast outlays to build the underlying infrastructure. It took more than 40 years for electricity to become widely accessible in the first half of the twentieth century, and it took roughly a decade for smartphones to surpass 90% adoption in the 2010s. AI, by contrast, can be deployed through existing digital platforms and devices.

The upshot is that the AI super cycle will likely drive productivity gains and stronger economic growth – to the tune of $16 trillion globally by 2030, in PwC’s forecast. But these gains will accrue largely to the owners of capital, and less so to a potentially shrinking labour force. In an era of less labour-intensive growth, many companies and industries will adapt their business models – namely, by increasing the ratio of capital to employment – and governments will need to reassess tax and welfare policies.

If greater economic gains are flowing to the owners of capital, taxes will need to change accordingly. For example, a much higher corporate tax rate may be necessary to capture the excess profits generated by automation and a smaller workforce. With respect to welfare, the threat of rising structural unemployment from AI will reinvigorate debates about hitherto radical proposals such as a universal basic income.

We must reflect on AI’s effect on inequality both within countries – between capital and labour – and among countries. A widening gap between technology leaders, such as the US and China, and the rest of the world – particularly the poorest economies – bodes ill for an already-fraught geopolitical environment.

Project Syndicate

The final minutes of a job interview — when the interviewer is done with their questions and opens up the floor — is time you don’t want to waste. 

Asking smart, thoughtful questions can give you an edge over other candidates and help you decide whether a role is the right fit for you. 

There’s one question, in particular, that you should “always” ask in a job interview, says LinkedIn career expert Andrew McCaskill.

“What does success look like to you in the first 90 days of this role?” 

By asking how success is measured within the team or company, you’re demonstrating that you’re proactive, and someone who wants to learn the skills needed to excel in the role, McCaskill explains. 

The first 90 days of a new position is the most common timeframe employers use to assess your fit for the job and company culture, McCaskill adds, so it’s a helpful reference point to include — otherwise, the question might feel too broad.

“It cues to the interviewer that you’re curious, and really thinking about how you can help them solve whatever challenges they’re facing at the moment,” he says.

With this question, you’ll better understand what kind of learning curve you’ll face and how your performance will be evaluated. 

The interviewer’s response could make you feel more confident about the role or uncover some red flags. 

If the hiring manager avoids spelling out the specific tasks and responsibilities of the role or is vague about scheduling and expectations for working overtime, “those could be signs that a job is high-stress,” McCaskill explains. 

This question can also help you prepare for any follow-up interviews.

“It gives you a vantage point into what skills and traits the employer is prioritizing in hiring for this role, and what language they use to describe their ideal candidate, so you can mirror it,” says McCaskill. “It helps you get to the very heart of what they’re looking for.”

CNBC

Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest person and Chairman of Dangote Group, announced on Sunday that the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited's stake in the Dangote Petroleum Refinery has dropped significantly from 20 percent to 7.2 percent. Speaking during a press briefing at the refinery in Lagos, Dangote attributed the reduction to NNPC's failure to pay the balance of their share, which was due in June.

“NNPC no longer owns a 20 percent stake in the Dangote refinery. They were meant to pay their balance in June, but have yet to fulfill the obligations. Now, they only own a 7.2 percent stake in the refinery,” Dangote stated.

In September 2021, NNPC acquired a 20 percent interest in the refinery for $2.76 billion. However, the balance of $1.76 billion, which was supposed to be paid upon completion of the refinery project or at an agreed date, remains unpaid. NNPC's investment was held by NNPC Greenfield, a subsidiary created for this purpose.

Further details revealed that the national oil company was expected to supply 300,000 barrels of crude per day to the refinery, backed by a $3.3 billion loan from Afreximbaank, to be repaid with crude oil.

In January, the global Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) raised concerns about NNPC's stake in the refinery, highlighting the need for clarity on interest rates, repayment schedules, and valuation of the crude-backed loans. Despite NNPC joining EITI in 2019 to enhance transparency, questions about its financial dealings remain.

Meanwhile, the Dangote refinery, which commenced production on January 12, is increasing its output of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), commonly known as petrol. Sales to local distributors are expected to begin in August. The refinery is projected to produce 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) by August, 550,000 bpd by the end of the year, and reach its full capacity of 650,000 bpd by the first quarter of 2025.

Additionally, during the briefing, Dangote announced plans to list the refinery’s fertilizer and petrochemical business in the first quarter of 2025.

A court of appeal in the United Kingdom (UK) has dismissed the appeal of Process & Industrial Development (P&ID) on a previous judgment halting the enforcement of its $11 billion award against Nigeria.

In a unanimous decision, Lord Justice Snowden, the lead judge, permitted P&ID to appeal the judgment but dismissed the appeal.

The two other judges are Lord Justice Fraser and Julian Flaux.

BACKGROUND

P&ID had entered into a deal in 2010 to build a gas processing plant in Calabar, Cross River state, but the company said the agreement collapsed because the Nigerian government did not fulfil its end of the bargain.

The Nigerian government alleged that the gas deal was a scam conceived to defraud the country.

But P&ID denied the allegation and accused the Nigerian government of “false allegations and wild conspiracy theories”.

Consequently, P&ID took legal recourse and secured an arbitral award against the country.

On January 31, 2017, a tribunal ruled that Nigeria should pay P&ID $6.6 billion as damages, as well as pre and post-judgment interest at seven percent, which later amounted to $11 billion.

In October 2023, Robin Knowles, justice of the commercial courts of England and Wales, halted the enforcement of the award by upholding Nigeria’s prayer that it was obtained by fraud and in violation of section 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996.

The judge found that P&ID paid bribes to Nigerian officials involved in the drafting of the gas supply and processing agreement (GSPA) in 2010.

He also found that P&ID was illegally in possession of Nigeria’s privileged legal documents during the arbitration hearings.

The judge ordered that the company pay £43 million in compensation to Nigeria as legal fees and disbursements.

THE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES IN THE APPEAL

The judgment of the UK court of appeal was delivered on Friday.

In a copy of the judgment published on the UK judiciary website, one of the issues raised in the P&ID appeal bordered on whether the lower court was wrong to order the £43 million legal cost to be paid in British pound sterling and not in naira.

The company argued that Nigeria funded its legal services by exchanging naira from its consolidated revenue fund.

“The second issue (which is only reached if this Court has jurisdiction and grants permission to appeal) is whether the Judge was right to order P&ID to pay Nigeria’s costs in sterling,” part of the court judgment reads.

“Although Nigeria was billed by its English lawyers in sterling and paid them in sterling, P&ID contends that Nigeria funded such payments by exchanging naira from its consolidated revenue fund, so that the Costs Order should have been in naira.

“The issue is of some financial consequence because the naira depreciated significantly against sterling in the period between Nigeria’s payments to its lawyers and the making of the Costs Order.

“Nigeria’s legal fees and disbursements are said to have amounted to around £43 million. P&ID asserts that payment of such fees and disbursements at the relevant times would have cost Nigeria a total of about 23 billion naira; but if P&ID is required to pay £43 million in costs now, that could be exchanged by Nigeria at the current rate to about 76 billion naira.”

Snowden, the lead judge, accepted the arguments of Nigeria that since the legal cost was paid in sterling, the cost order should be paid in the same currency.

“In my judgment, therefore, the judge was right to accept Nigeria’s straightforward submission that because Nigeria had been invoiced and had incurred its liability to its solicitors in sterling and had paid those bills in sterling, the court ought to make its Costs Order in sterling,” the judge ruled.

“I would therefore grant P&ID permission to appeal, but would dismiss the appeal.”

The Cable

The recent Supreme Court ruling mandating direct allocation of funds to local governments and barring governors from dissolving elected councils has raised afresh questions about the nature and future of federalism in Nigeria. While the decision aims to curb the notorious misappropriation of funds by state governors, it inadvertently undermines the core principles of federalism and perpetuates an inequitable system of local government distribution.

In a federal system, true autonomy is reserved for the federating units—states or regions that come together to form a central authority for mutual benefits. Local governments, created primarily for administrative convenience, do not qualify as federating units and should not draw directly from the federation account. The Supreme Court’s decision, however well-intentioned, ignores this fundamental distinction and disrupts the delicate balance of power that federalism seeks to maintain.

Historically, the creation of local government areas (LGAs) in Nigeria has been a tool for sectional and personal interests rather than equitable development. Military regimes, particularly those from the North, exploited their powers to create LGAs disproportionately in their regions, securing demographic and fiscal advantages. For instance, while Lagos State remains with its original 20 LGAs since the 1976 reform, the old Kano State has been split into Kano and Jigawa States, boasting a combined total of 77 LGAs. This discrepancy has led to an unjust allocation of national resources, leaving states like Lagos, which contribute significantly to the national purse, at a disadvantage.

The Supreme Court’s directive for direct allocation to LGAs, irrespective of these historical inequities, is akin to reinforcing an unjust system under the guise of promoting local autonomy. The resultant fragmentation could see every village and ward demanding its share of the federation account, leading to an administrative nightmare and further diluting the essence of federalism.

The real issue plaguing local governance in Nigeria is not just the misappropriation of funds by state governors but the inherent inequity in the creation and distribution of LGAs. Local governments should be under the purview of states, which can better assess and address the needs of their populations. The federal imposition of LGAs and their direct funding from the federation account contradicts the principles of federalism and exacerbates existing inequalities.

Moreover, there is little evidence to suggest that direct allocation will lead to better governance at the local level. Without robust accountability mechanisms, local government chairmen may well emulate the corrupt practices of state governors. The root cause of underdevelopment in many local areas is not solely financial mismanagement but a pervasive lack of accountability and transparency in the political system.

The Supreme Court’s decision should serve as a catalyst for a broader debate on restructuring Nigeria’s federal system. A workable solution lies not in granting undue autonomy to local governments but in returning the creation and sustenance of LGAs to the states. This approach would respect the principles of federalism, allowing states to delineate local governing areas based on demographic realities, administrative needs, and financial viability.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court’s decision aims to promote local governance, it inadvertently undermines the federal structure and perpetuates historical injustices. True federalism requires a system where states, not the central government, create and manage local governments. Only through such restructuring can we hope to build a more equitable and functional federal system in Nigeria.

Abdul-azeez Suleiman, spokesman for the Northern Elders Forum has tasked northern youths to learn from the mistakes of past leaders and push for reforms that will reposition the society.

Suleiman, who spoke at the Leadership Summit organised by the Zaria Local Government Students Association (ZASA) said in a society where the older generations have become complacent or entrenched in outdated ways of thinking, it is the youth who have the potential to shake things up and push for the much-needed reform.

He observed that it is the youth that have the ability to challenge the status quo, question authority, and demand accountability from those in power.

He, however, reminded the youth that change starts from within, saying that “Instead of blaming past leaders for the current state of affairs, it is crucial to learn from their mistakes and strive to do better”.

The NEF spokesman pointed out that as northerners, it is important to be proud of the northern identity without arrogance or conceit, while taking cognisance of the history and destiny of the region.

Suleiman stressed that the North is a region of immense potential, with a rich history of resilience and strength, and admonished honesty on the region’s limitations and challenges, while working collectively to address challenges.

“Past leaders have made sacrifices and stood up for the rights of northerners, and it is essential to learn from their bravery and courage. Unity is the key to our progress, and we must be willing to respect the identities of all Nigerians, while also defending our own rights with dignity and resolve.”

Daily Trust

For weeks Kenya has been mired in unrest. Confronted with demonstrators denouncing the tax policies of William Ruto, Kenya’s president, the security forces responded ruthlessly. They have killed at least 39 people, most of them in Nairobi on June 25th, when protesters briefly overran Parliament and set a portion of it ablaze. Looting has also erupted in several towns and cities, though it is unclear whether this was by state-backed provocateurs, as the protesters allege, or by opportunist criminals, as Ruto claims.

Yet far from provoking fear among Kenya’s better-off, the unrest has inspired wild optimism. Unlike most protests in recent decades, these are led by young, eloquent, educated Kenyans who are unsullied by political or tribal allegiance. Their cause—an end to corruption, injustice and inequality—seems noble rather than tawdry. Instead of championing a self-serving political leader or faction, they have denounced the entire political class. These protests have consequently united rather than polarised people. Perhaps the only parallel that can be drawn is with the protests led by the present lot’s parents, who also braved police bullets in 1990 to demand, successfully, an end to dictatorship and the restoration of multiparty elections.

The reverberations of the “Gen-Z protests”, as they are known in Kenya, could be as profound. Ruto has been weakened and humiliated. Could the chastening of the political class lead to a cleansing of corruption and fairer politics? Stung by the extent of the unrest, Ruto has capitulated on tax. Much will depend on whether Kenya’s people and its rulers can overcome the challenges and seize the opportunities created by past weeks’ events.

Ruto’s first task will be to find a way of getting Kenya to live within its means. He came to power in 2022 with an ambitious poverty-alleviating agenda yet inherited a wodge of debt from his free-spending predecessor. Faced with rising borrowing costs, a public debt equivalent to 68% of GDP, conditional IMF support and the expectations of his voters, Ruto had little choice but to put up taxes. The latest rise triggered the unrest, with protesters nicknaming the president “Zakayo”, the Kiswahili name for Zacchaeus, a biblical tax-collector.

Kenya is not the only country to suffer debt distress. But it seems to have a lower pain threshold than others on IMF lifelines, such as Pakistan, Egypt and Nigeria, notes Charlie Robertson of FIM Partners, who draws parallels with the Greek financial crisis of 2009. Like Greece, Kenya built up debt when borrowing was cheap and paid little heed to current-account and budget deficits. Now it is struggling to pay up.

Facing a $2.7bn hole in his budget this year after abandoning the tax increases, Ruto has to cut spending and raise borrowing. Kenya is likely to miss its target of cutting its fiscal deficit to 4.7% of gdp this year. Ruto also faces a potential mutiny from MPs who are enduring the fury of their constituents. “His legislative agenda is dead,” one says. “He is a lame duck.”

Ruto could possibly have avoided this pickle. While anger over his fiscal policy exists, the president’s tax rises became a tangible hook on which to hang more nebulous grievances, primarily over corruption and unemployment. Kenya’s young are more educated than ever before, but 67% of those under the age of 34 are not regularly employed.

Many are angry that while they struggle to survive, Ruto’s allies have flaunted their wealth. “The finance bill wasn’t the root cause of the protests,” says John Githongo, a former anti-corruption tsar. “The biggest grievance is the conspicuous consumption of the Ruto regime.”

Addressing corruption is where the real opportunity for change comes. MPs who supported the tax rises have had their offices, businesses and homes attacked. Congregations have walked out when some have tried to address church services. “We have become pariahs,” grumbles one lawmaker. MPs who used to swank about their wealth are now cultivating new images as humble servants of the people.

This is a start, but the protesters frequently demand two things. The first is to end a culture of nepotism in which cushy sinecures are bestowed on politicians’ relatives. Ruto has responded by scrapping state funding for his wife and slashing the number of special advisers whom cabinet ministers can appoint.

The second is to end community fundraising drives, known as harambees(Kiswahili for “let’s pull together”) because they incentivise political corruption. One of the reasons politicians flaunt their wealth, for example by arriving at rallies by helicopter, is to prove that they are rich enough to hand over bags of banknotes at these weekly events, as is commonly expected of them. (In March Ruto donated $389,000 to the Salvation Army.) Activists see these donations as little more than a tax on corruption, with politicians encouraged to steal in order to return a portion of their ill-gotten gains to the public.

On July 5th Ruto banned public officials from taking part in harambees. Whether that will last is another question. One county governor predicts that the ban will begin to unravel by the end of the school holidays in August, when harambees are called to provide bursaries for pupils whose parents cannot afford fees.

The biblical Zacchaeus was redeemed by climbing down from the tree from which he could view Jesus and giving half his money to the poor. Kenyans would rather Ruto and his colleagues stopped giving cash away and instead prevented officials from stealing it in the first place. If he heeds their call, he may yet survive.

Hamas says it has not left ceasefire talks after Israeli attacks

A senior Hamas official said on Sunday that the Islamist group has not withdrawn from ceasefire talks with Israel after this weekend's deadly attacks in Gaza that Israel said had targeted the group's military leader Mohammed Deif.

But Izzat El-Reshiq, a member of the political office of Hamas, accused Israel of trying to derail efforts by Arab mediators and the United States to reach a ceasefire deal by stepping up its attacks in the enclave.

Saturday's strike in the Khan Younis area of Gaza, in which at least 90 Palestinians were killed, according to local health authorities, has put the ceasefire talks in doubt.

There had been increasingly hopeful signs in recent days that a deal could be reached to halt fighting and return hostages held in Gaza.

Two Egyptian security sources at ceasefire talks in Doha and Cairo said on Saturday that negotiations had been halted after three days of intense talks.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expected to convene his close circle of ministers later on Sunday to discuss the talks.

The strike on Saturday which targeted Deif killed Rafa Salama, commander of Hamas' Khan Younis brigade, the Israeli military said on Sunday, but there was no confirmation about the fate of Deif.

"The strike in Khan Younis was a result of surgical intelligence," the head of the Shin Bet domestic security service said in a video released by the service from Rafah. He said 25 Hamas operatives who took part in the deadly Oct. 7 attack in southern Israel that triggered the war had been killed in the past week.

On Saturday, a senior Hamas official denied that Deif had been killed and the group said Israeli claims were aimed at justifying the attack.

Israel's military chief said on Sunday in a televised statement that Hamas was concealing the truth about Deif's fate, but stopped short of confirming whether he was alive or dead.

Israeli forces pressed ahead on Sunday with aerial and ground shelling of several areas across the Gaza Strip, home to 2.3 million people, most of whom have been displaced by the war.

A strike on a UN-run school in Nuseirat camp, one of Gaza's eight longstanding refugee camps, killed 15 Palestinians and wounded dozens more, Hamas media and health officials said.

The Israeli military said the site was used as a base for Hamas fighters to attack Israeli forces and said numerous steps were taken to limit the risk of harming civilians, including the use of precise munitions and intelligence.

Residents said two missiles targeted the upper floor of the school, not far from the camp's local market, usually busy with shoppers, where displaced families have also taken shelter nearby.

Earlier on Sunday, Israeli airstrikes on four houses in Gaza City killed at least 16 Palestinians and wounded dozens of others, medics said.

The Gaza health ministry said at least 38,584 Palestinians have been killed and 88,881 others injured in Israel's military offensive since Oct. 7.

It added that 141 Palestinians were killed by Israeli military strikes across the Gaza Strip in the past day, the biggest one-day death toll in many weeks.

Gaza's health ministry does not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants but officials say most of the dead throughout the war have been civilians.

Israel says it has lost 326 soldiers in Gaza and says at least a third of the Palestinian fatalities are fighters.

The war began after a Hamas-led attack inside Israel on Oct. 7, that killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and saw around 250 taken hostage to Gaza, according to Israeli authorities.

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russia claims control of Urozhaine village in Ukraine's Donetsk region

Russia's Defence Ministry said on Sunday that its forces had taken control of the village of Urozhaine in Ukraine's eastern Donetsk region, which if confirmed would be the latest in a series of gains since capturing the strategic town of Avdiivka in February.

Ukrainian bloggers said that Kyiv's forces had relinquished control of the village, southwest of the Russian-held city of Donetsk. Ukraine's military said fighting was still going on in the area.

"As a result of successful actions, the 'east' group of forces has taken control of the locality of Urozhaine in Donetsk region...and are carrying out mopping-up and demining operations," the Russian Defence Ministry said on Telegram.

Reuters was not able to independently confirm the Ukrainian or Russian reports.

The village came under Russian control early in the February 2022 invasion, but Ukraine retook the settlement near the Mokri Yaly river in July 2023.

The operation was part of Ukraine's counter-offensive in southern and eastern areas along the 1,000-km (600-mile) front line that made only limited headway.

The General Staff of Ukraine's armed forces, in a Sunday morning report, said only that Russia had launched 18 attacks on Urozhaine and other nearby localities. It made no mention of the village in a late afternoon report.

DeepState, a popular Ukrainian military blog, reported Urozhaine's capture on Sunday, saying Russian forces had launched "mass assaults on the south of the village".

It described the loss as a "defence collapse" whose cause would have to be investigated.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Russian forces strike Ukrainian explosives plant

The Russian Defense Ministry has said its forces have destroyed an explosives factory in Ukraine. It also reported that Russian troops took out multiple pieces of hardware and artillery guns, including those provided by Western nations, and killed hundreds of Ukrainian service members in a single day.

In a statement on Saturday, the ministry said the explosives facility, as well as a radar, were among the targets hit by Russian Air Force jets, UAVs, missiles and artillery.

In addition, the Russian military is said to have advanced to more favorable positions in several villages in Donetsk Region within the past 24 hours. In those locations, the Ukrainian army lost at least three US-made М113 armored personnel carriers, several US-made М198 howitzers, and one Polish-made self-propelled artillery gun, among the other hardware, the ministry claimed.

Elsewhere along the frontline, Kiev’s forces supposedly lost two US-made M777 howitzers in Zaporozhye and Kharkov regions, along with several radio-electronic warfare systems.
The Russian strikes are said to have killed more than 1,700 Ukrainian troops across the country.

On Monday, the Russian military said it had launched a massive missile and kamikaze drone attack on Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, allegedly striking the Artyom military plant in Kiev, the Yuzhmash plant in Dnepr, and an unnamed factory in Krivoy Rog.

Earlier this month, the Defense Ministry reported that between June 29 and July 5, Moscow’s “high-precision” strikes had hit several Ukrainian air bases, including the Mirgorod military airfield in Poltava Region. According to the Russian military, the attack destroyed five of Kiev’s Su-27 fighter jets, with two more sustaining damage. Ukraine confirmed the strike, insisting, however, that the number of destroyed aircraft was lower.

Russian missiles and kamikaze UAVs are also said to have destroyed a number of energy infrastructure facilities, fuel and missile depots, and drone assembly workshops across Ukraine in late June and early July.

Reuters/RT

“The judiciary has immense power. In the nature of things, judges cannot be democratically accountable for their decisions. It therefore matters very much that their role should be regarded as legitimate by the public at large.” – Jonathan Sumption, Law in a Time of Crisis, 121 (2021)

For a cumulative period of 17 years between 1885 and 1905, Hardinge Giffard – who was better known as Lord Halsbury – served three tenures as Lord Chancellor. In this capacity he earned a reputation for having “appointed many undistinguished men to the Bench because of their political services to the Conservative Party.” In 1897, Lord Salisbury, one of the prime ministers under whom Lord Halsbury served, advised him that “the judicial salad requires both legal oil and political vinegar; but disastrous effects will follow if due proportion is not observed.” For having so manifestly got the proportions out of kilter, Nigeria could be on course for a date with Lord Salisbury’s predicted effects.

Abuja, Nigeria’s federal capital, is a place where mutual intercourse between lawyers, politicians and judges is both natural and habitual. It is home to judges too numerous to count and host to the headquarters of many court systems, including the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT High Court), as well as of Nigeria’s Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The headquarters of the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court of Justice) is also in Abuja.

The pace of production and reproduction in the courts in Abuja has been rather dizzying recently. On the penultimate day of the past working week, Nigeria’s Supreme Court, in a case instituted by the Federal Government against the states, issued a decision designed to make it mandatory for local government to be run only by elected officials. This judgment has unlocked a predictable scrum of both political ululation and lamentation but the risk remains that its full benefits are likely to be undermined by the well-established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, in favour of bandit ballots which support the production of leaders at all levels who lack electoral legitimacy.

The day before the Supreme Court judgment, on the approach to the fourth anniversary of Nigeria’s #EndSARs uprising of 2020, the ECOWAS Court of Justice ruled that the conduct of the Nigerian government and its security agencies in their response to the #EndSARS uprising, violated the guarantees of “security of person, prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association, duty to investigate human rights violations, and right to effective remedy.” In effect, the Court said that the Nigerian government engaged in a cover-up of the violations that occurred during the #EndSARS protests, especially at the Lekki Tollgate in Lagos.

Weighty as they were, both of these otherwise seminal outcomes were relative non-events in the political and judicial registers of Abuja this past week. On the same day that the ECOWAS Court delivered its judgment in the #EndSARS case to a near empty gallery and the day before the Supreme Court held forth on the destination of local government funds, all roads led to the Supreme Court, where the outgoing Chief Justice of Nigeria, Olukayode Ariwoola, presided over the inauguration of 22 new Justices of the Court of Appeal and 12 new judges of the FCT High Court.

Many people may have missed the number of Justices of Appeal inaugurated, however. Anyone who followed the reportage would have been forgiven for supposing that there were just two Justices of Appeal sworn in: “Wike’s wife and 21 others,” a reference to the wife of political bruiser and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike. Also among the new Justices of Appeal is Abdullahi Liman, Kano’s self-appointed federal king-maker. The excess political vinegar in some of these most recent elevations to the Court of Appeal sadly detracts from the tasteful salad among some others. For the sake of their own professional and career advancement in a cynical system, it is best at this time to preserve the anonymity of those deserving ones.

Among the 12 new judges of the FCT High Court, at least seven were family members of serving or living judicial figures and three were family members of persons directly involved in the appointment process. Among these, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, who presided over the appointment, had his daughter-in-law made a judge; the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court made his daughter a judge; and the President of the Court of Appeal got her daughter appointed a high court judge for the second time in three years. In 2021, Governor Simon Lalong of Plateau State had made the same daughter a judge of the Plateau State High Court.

Responding to these appointments, Access to Justice, a group that monitors judicial independence and accountability in Nigeria pointedly saidthat “three candidates were ineligible to be considered for such appointments in the first place at the time the vacancies were announced.” This was in reference to the daughter of the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court; the daughter of the President of the Court of Appeal; and the daughter-in-law of the outgoing Chief Justice of Nigeria. According to the group, these three appointments were a composite transaction between the CJN, President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court, best described “in local parlance as: ‘you scratch my back, I scratch your back.’”

To say that these three appointments clearly violate the judicial code of conduct, as well as the regulations governing judicial appointments is to be kind to the lack of scruples at the helm of the current judicial appointments process in the country. It makes a joke of the judicial appointment process that someone in Nigeria can be appointed a High Court judge, while holding a subsisting appointment as a High Court Judge.

In the days when the Nigerian judiciary was under credible leadership, these judicial inaugurations would have passed almost as a non-event, attended only by select staff of the affected courts and by some members of the families of the new appointees. Reflecting the mood and mores of the times and consistent with the current tyranny of perverse incentives in judicial appointments, however, this swearing in was a carnival taken over by cavalcades of dubious politicians and insider dealers in perverse political influence. Following the formal swearing in of the new judges, Abuja was littered with “receptions” convoked by politicians and senior lawyers for many of the new judges.

There was good reason for the politicians to make an obligation of their noisy presence at the swearing in of the new judges. Section 14(2) of Nigeria’s Constitution loudly proclaims that “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria” but under the colour of “rule of law” and judicial independence, the judges have toppled the people and installed themselves as the ones who alone can elect politicians to positions of power and influence in Nigeria. Access to political office now, therefore, is a transaction that begins and rests with political access to judges. Having thus murdered the rule of law, what we now have is rule by judges under which both political power and judicial office have become bereft of legitimacy. The victim is the public good.

The week ended with a report which said that “(J)udges top (the) list of bribe recipients in Nigeria.” 15 years ago, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ rights warned that “the courts need the trust of the people in order to maintain their authority and legitimacy. The credibility of the courts must not be weakened by the perception that courts can be influenced by any external pressure.” In Nigeria, this is now a vain hope.

** 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..