It is tempting to want to see the world as a funny place, or perhaps as a joke, going by the level of foolish things that are not just pursued as valuable, but are presented as important to life and social actions and relations. Imagine that in spite of historical antecedents and the extensive reality of human action and inaction within the context of natural interventions, that in spite of the number of people tending toward evil in the world being such a great and high one - or what some people sometimes describe as the general inclination of humans toward evil, it has always been the lot of the good people to keep the world functioning - in which case, good almost always triumphs over over the bad and the evil in the last analysis, such that good and being good should recommend itself over and above bad behaviour at all times in an arena of wisdom and clear thinking because of its long-lasting effect and overall ability to trump badness in the long run. But what  do we have and what do we see in the world? - rampant pursuit of badness with so much fondness for the immediate but ephemeral pleasure and giddy satisfaction associated with such course of action.

You would be forgiven to think about the funny feeling it must elicit for humans to focus themselves on the unprofitable business of pursuing dead ends even where history and evidence point out the truth of such bad ends. We know that bad actions could temporarily lead to benefits, but that those benefits would eventually and ultimately disappear and lead to nothing. There is no history of bad actors sustaining their badness indefinitely as they would eventually be overtaken by the reality of truth. Let us take the example of Blaise Compaore in Burkina Faso.

Blaise was the childhood and close friend of the revolutionary Burkina leader, Thomas Sankara who pretended that they were together in the task and desire to positively transform their country. Blaise later engineered the gruesome killing of Thomas in order to set himself up as the new leader, burying him in unmarked grave to stave off public outrage and inquiry. The man managed to hold on to power after this betrayal of his country and people and the bosom friendship between him and Thomas for another 27 years before the people rose against him, forcing him to flee the country, leading to the reemergence of the true feelings about Thomas even while the government is poised to ensure that Blaise pays for all his atrocities through the full wrath of the law. In the end, Thomas is having the last laugh even from the grave while Blaise’s name has become a reproach!

Or the case of the butcher of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad, who rather than work to address the grievances of his people, preferred to enact and impose a reign of terror ad infinitum on them as if that would solve and address the grievances. With the backing of the murderous military machine and forces of superpower, Russia, it would have been difficult to imagine that the gruesome rule of Assad would ever end. But to assume that is to miss the essence of the position and theory that there is no good end in the long run to bad actors and their actions. After delivering and operating all the tricks in his bag for years, the only reason why there is still Assad alive was his being spirited away from Syria by Russia’s Putin in the dead of the night!

So when I see people labouring fastidiously on illegitimate runs, I am amazed and amused by the joke of people wanting to continue digging even after finding themselves in an improbable ditch. Dictators know that they are bad actors and those of them who do not win any election and rigged themselves into political power know the true reality of their illegitimacy. Yet, many of them continue to carry on normally as if that would be the most natural thing to do, expanding the scope of their illegitimate actions and behaving as if they are the ones really in charge of life with their gruesome and dictatorial actions. In truth, it would look like humans are fated to the joke of pursuing nothing as if it is something of substance; to believe that whatever happens to other bad actors would never happen to them no matter their own level of badness; every dictator or bad actor would think that he/she would not come to bad end even when history teaches otherwise. It is an inexorable joke that we see play out again and again with many still aspiring to be part of the cacophony going forward. Which is why I am not unduly bothered when I see people celebrate the so-called political sagacity of a political overlord without any pedigree or verifiable resume, and whose stock in trade is the rigging of elections, knowing that the joke must be on here too!

** Olaitan, Professor of Political Science, was Vice-Chancellor, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State.

For feedback, kindly send SMS/Whatsapp messages to:

+234 807 083 7212

Kimberly Zhang

The internet is getting excited about the prospect of AI. After the release of ChatGPT 3.5 last November, we're still very much in the early stages of people working out what's possible with the technology. Everyone wants to know how far it can be taken.

The prospect of AI becoming a superintelligence is leading many to wonder whether it could present a new form of entrepreneurship. Historically, business leaders would leverage a combination of people and capital to push their enterprises forward. In the last twenty years, that's expanded to "networks," but in the future, it could involve AI, too.

You can understand why AI has so many people excited. As some commentators are putting it, it's like having legions of highly intelligent grad students at your fingertips, ready to work for you for free.

But, of course, it's not quite that simple. While AI might be impressive, it can't replace people yet. Plus, there's an argument to suggest that many consumers don't want it to replace people. Having a human in the loop is beneficial and makes them feel like they are getting a better service.

For this reason, we're still very much back at square one. While AI might be useful in some circumstances, it is not a wholesale replacement for labor.

Emotional intelligence

One of the reasons humans still need humans is the emotional intelligence they offer. People tend to be excellent at getting on the same wavelength as other people and understanding their needs.

That's what live virtual receptionist services, such as Go Answer, specialize in doing. These services believe in the power of having a real person available to speak with customers. It's a key differentiator.

"The whole point of our services is to ensure businesses have somewhere there to take their calls, even when the owner or senior management is asleep," the company says. "Having a human in the loop enables firms to display their emotional intelligence even in the middle of the night instead of forcing customers to speak to robots, which they might not want to do. The great thing about human agents is their flexibility. General intelligence lets them understand even the most convoluted customerrequests. A machine might not be able to do that, or use its executive function to contact someone who knows the answer."

While machines are developing a theory of mind and getting to grips with human emotions, they tend to lack the intelligence that a person could offer. Knowing what to say and how to say it remains a challenge.

Complex decision-making

Related to this, human beings can also better make complex decisions. Members of staff can weigh up all their options and ask which is the best from a range of alternatives, given some available options.

Machines can do something similar, but, again, they may lack relevant context. They might also misunderstand various stakeholders' objectives and requirements which could skew their decision-making in the wrong direction.

Again, entrepreneurs require humans for these purposes. So-called "agentic" AIs simply aren't at the stage where they can direct production or manage business processes. Bottlenecks in their functionality and lack of embodiment mean that we're still years away from these kinds of applications.

Corner cases

Entrepreneurs still need human beings for corner cases, too. AIs depend heavily on a normal distribution of outcomes, but the real world doesn't always behave in that way. Instead, there are extremes of the distribution and corner cases with qualitatively different solutions.

Humans are great at these "exception to the rules" scenarios, but machines are not. While they can handle the former, they do a poor job of the latter.

"We found that when customers talk to robots, they break easily," Go Answer says. "Even minor deviations from standard questions produce frustrating replies that don't really deal with customers' concerns. Eventually, many become so frustrated that they simply give up and quit the service entirely. But with humans in the loop, this simply doesn't occur. A person can tell that a customer is becoming frustrated and they feel emotionally compelled to resolve it. If a query isn't being resolved, they find ways to approach it from different angles or arrange callbacks once they have more information. AIs don't have this proactivity or short-term memory."

Personalized customer experience

Human agents may also be better at providing customers with a personalized experiencecompared to AIs. Colleagues can better understand the types of interactions clients want based on their character profiles and conversation history.

"This is something our agents focus on from the start," Go Answer says. "It's why we offer a personalized service to the businesses we work with. Virtual assistants understand that they should apply a flexible and almost improvised approach to customer conversations depending on subtle cues and their requirements. Simply reading a script and saying the same thing every time isn't an endearing approach and it doesn't serve companies well."

Better innovation

Entrepreneurs also still need people to spearhead innovations. While AI might be cutting-edge, it tends to regurgitate the best of human ideas instead of developing its own concepts and novel approaches (though this might be changing).

Innovation validation is a critical aspect of a high-functioning business that AI simply can't replace. You can't hand software a new prototype product and gather meaningful feedback, simply because AIs don't derive any pleasure or services from using most consumer products designed for humans. Therefore, entrepreneurs will always need people in these circumstances. Having individuals with whom they can bounce off ideas is essential for iterating on products and making them better.

Making ethical decisions

Finally, entrepreneurs need people to make ethical decisions. Unfettered, machines will often make psychotic recommendations to achieve certain ends if they are the most rapid approach for doing so.

Making ethical decisions requires moral judgment and nuance. While some engineers believe AI might be conscious, most agree that it can't and doesn't view morality through the same lens as people. As such, it is up to humans to make the best choice for the direction in which to send a business.

Entrepreneur

Despite Nigeria’s oil production increasing to over 1.4 million barrels per day, domestic refiners, including modular refineries, continue to face severe challenges in accessing crude oil, with allocations remaining virtually nonexistent. This has prompted refinery owners to urge the Federal Government to prioritize crude supply to local refiners before allowing exports, as the lack of access has crippled their operations and limited their contribution to the energy sector.

The Crude Oil Refinery-owners Association of Nigeria (CORAN) highlighted this issue on Thursday, revealing that many refiners have resorted to importing crude to sustain operations. Eche Idoko, CORAN’s Publicity Secretary, stated in an interview that domestic refiners have been marginalized for months, receiving no allocations under the Domestic Crude Oil Supply Obligation (DCSO) framework or through any special arrangements.

“Local refiners, especially modular refineries, have not been getting crude—zero allocation under the DCSO or any other arrangement,” Idoko emphasized. The DCSO, a key component of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, mandates the supply of crude oil to domestic refiners. However, approximately 500,000 barrels per day intended for local refining are being diverted to the international market, as producers and traders prioritize foreign exchange earnings over domestic obligations.

Industry experts note that oil companies prefer selling crude to international buyers for higher profits, bypassing statutory allocations for local refiners. In response, the Federal Government, through the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), has banned the export of crude oil designated for domestic refineries. NUPRC Chief Executive Gbenga Komolafe stressed that such diversions violate the law and warned that export permits for crude meant for local refining would be denied.

Despite this directive, producers argue that the domestic crude market remains unviable without significant reforms. CORAN’s Idoko revealed that many refiners have turned to private arrangements, including imports, to source crude, a process he described as “herculean.” He expressed hope that the NUPRC’s directive would be enforced, urging international oil companies (IOCs) to cooperate.

Idoko also called on President Bola Tinubu and his economic team to support domestic refiners, particularly modular refineries, which are investing heavily in the economy and helping to stabilize the naira. “We appeal to Mr. President and the government’s economic team to prioritize local refineries, especially modular ones,” he said.

In a recent report, the NUPRC disclosed that the Dangote Petroleum Refinery and seven other domestic refineries will require 770,500 barrels of crude per day for processing in the first half of 2025. These refineries include the OPAC, WalterSmith, Duport Midstream, Edo Refinery, Aradel, Port Harcourt, Warri, and Kaduna refineries. The NUPRC emphasized that this allocation, representing 37% of the projected daily production of 2,066,940 barrels, aligns with Section 109 of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021 and aims to optimize domestic refining capacity.

The Nigeria Customs Service's (NCS) implementation of a four percent charge on all imported consignments has sparked widespread criticism from manufacturers, economists, and business leaders who warn the policy could deepen the country's economic challenges.

The new charge, embedded in the Comprehensive Import Supervision Scheme (CISS), increased from one percent to four percent last week. According to NCS calculations, the four percent charge on the Free On Board (FOB) value of imports is expected to generate N2.84 trillion annually, based on the country's estimated annual imports of N71 trillion.

The Nigeria Employers' Consultative Association (NECA) warned that the new policy would drive duty payments up by 80 percent for industries dependent on imported raw materials. NECA's Director-General, Adewale-Smatt Oyerinde, cautioned that the levy would significantly inflate production costs and erode business competitiveness.

"This additional financial burden on import-dependent businesses will escalate production costs, fuel inflation, and threaten jobs. Ultimately, consumers will bear the brunt of higher prices, worsening an already challenging economic climate," Oyerinde stated.

The Chairman of the Ogun State chapter of the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN), George Onafowokan, described the charge as "ill-conceived" and called for its immediate suspension. "A 4 percent on FOB is a disaster waiting to happen," said Onafowokan, who is also the CEO of Coleman Technical Industries Limited. "It will put unnecessary increase in the cost of raw materials and every material brought into this country."

Former Senate President Bukola Saraki joined the criticism, questioning whether the Customs service requires an additional N2.84 trillion annually for operations, noting they already have a budget and receive incentives on collected duties. Saraki emphasized that the fee applies to all imports, not just luxury goods, potentially affecting industries importing raw materials with duties as low as 5 percent.

The timing of the new charge has been particularly criticized, as it coincides with the Nigeria Ports Authority's implementation of a 15 percent increase in tariff. Importers already face numerous charges, including a 7 percent port development levy and various handling fees.

Responding to the concerns, NCS National Public Relations Officer Abdullahi Aliyu Maiwada defended the charge as compliant with the Nigeria Customs Service Act (NCSA) 2023. He stated that the Act, which replaces the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), resulted from extensive consultations with industry stakeholders.

"The NCS acknowledges concerns raised by stakeholders," Maiwada said, adding that "extensive consultation is ongoing with the Federal Ministry of Finance to address all agitations raised by our esteemed stakeholders."

Critics also noted that the new charge contradicts ongoing tax reform efforts led by the Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee, which aims to harmonize taxes and support business sustainability. NECA has called for an immediate reversal of the levy and urged the government to engage with stakeholders in developing a more sustainable approach to revenue generation.

Saudi Arabia has implemented new visa regulations affecting travelers from 14 countries, limiting them to single-entry visas valid for 30 days without the option of an extension.

The restrictions apply to tourists, business travelers, and those visiting family members but do not affect applicants for Hajj, Umrah, diplomatic, or residency visas. The affected countries include Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen.

Saudi authorities cited the misuse of multiple-entry visas as the reason for the policy change, stating that some travelers overstayed their visas or participated in Hajj without proper authorization. The Saudi government enforces strict Hajj quotas for each country, and unauthorized pilgrims have contributed to overcrowding.

The issue became particularly severe in 2024, when over 1,200 pilgrims died due to extreme heat and congestion, a crisis authorities partly attributed to unregistered attendees.

Officials have described the suspension of multiple-entry visas as a temporary measure, though no specific timeline has been given for its review. The Saudi government plans to assess the impact of the new regulations before making further decisions.

Travelers from affected countries are advised to apply for single-entry visas well in advance and strictly follow the new rules to avoid penalties or travel disruptions.

Israel troops withdraw from corridor that split Gaza in two

Israeli troops have withdrawn from the Netzarim Corridor - a military zone cutting off the north of the Gaza Strip from the south.

Hundreds of Palestinians in cars and on carts laden with mattresses and other goods began returning to northern Gaza following the pull-out - often to scenes of utter destruction.

The Israeli withdrawal is in line with the Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement of 19 January under which 16 Israeli hostages and 566 Palestinian prisoners have so far been freed.

By the end of the first stage of the ceasefire in three weeks' time, 33 hostages and 1,900 prisoners are expected to have been freed. Israel says eight of the 33 are dead.

Hamas seized 251 hostages and killed about 1,200 people when it attacked Israel on 7 October 2023, triggering the Gaza war.

At least 48,189 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's offensive, according to Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry. About two-thirds of Gaza's buildings have been damaged or destroyed by Israel's attacks, the UN says.

On Sunday, crowds of Palestinians were seen traversing the Netzarim Corridor - mostly moving north to see what had happened to their abandoned homes.

"What we saw was a catastrophe, horrific destruction. The [Israeli] occupation destroyed all the homes, shops, farms, mosques, universities and the courthouse," Osama Abu Kamil, a resident of al-Maghraqa just north of Netzarim, told the AFP news agency.

The 57-year-old, who had been forced to live for more than a year in the southern Gazan city of Khan Yunis, said he now planned to "set up a tent for me and my family next to the rubble of our house".

"We have no choice," he added.

Mahmoud al-Sarhi, another displayed Palestinian, told AFP that for him "arriving at the Netzarim Corridor meant death until this morning".

He said this was "the first time I saw our destroyed house", referring to his home in the nearby Zeitun area.

"The entire area is in ruins. I cannot live here," he added.

About 700,000 residents of northern Gaza fled to southern areas at the start of the war, when the Israeli military issued mass evacuation orders before launching a ground invasion of the Palestinian territory.

Many of those displaced were subsequently forced to move multiple times after Israeli forces pushed into southern Gaza, too.

They were also prevented from returning to their homes through the Netzarim Corridor, stretching from the Gaza-Israel border to the Mediterranean Sea.

Israeli forces partially withdrew from the west of the corridor last month and the first Palestinians - pedestrians - were allowed to walk along the coastal Rashid Street as they crossed into northern Gaza.

Those on vehicles have to use Salah al-Din Street and undergo screening for weapons by US and Egyptian security contractors.

The Israel Defense Forces have not officially commented on Sunday's withdrawal from the eastern part of the corridor, which will leave it in control of Gaza's borders, but not the road that had cut it in half.

The Haaretz newspaper says the Hamas-run Gaza interior ministry has been urging people to "exercise caution and adhere to the existing movement guidelines for their safety".

Can Trump really take ownership of Gaza?

The troop withdrawal comes as an Israeli delegation is expected to fly to Qatar which has been moderating talks between the two sides in the Gaza war.

The Israeli government has previously said the delegation will initially discuss "technical matters" regarding the first phase of the ceasefire deal, rather than the more challenging second phase which is meant to lead to a permanent ceasefire, the exchange of all remaining living hostages in Gaza for more Palestinian prisoners and a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.

That will require further direction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently became the first foreign leader to meet US President Donald Trump since his return to the White House.

During the trip, in the most dramatic shift in US policy regarding Gaza in decades, Trump called for the removal of the territory's entire civilian population and the development of what he called "The Riviera of the Middle East".

Convening his first cabinet meeting since returning to Israel over the weekend, Netanyahu said Trump had come up with a "completely different vision, much better for the State of Israel".

"A revolutionary, creative vision - and we are discussing it," he was quoted as saying in an official readout of the meeting. "He [Trump] is very determined to carry it out. It also opens up many possibilities for us."

Trump's proposal, which would be a crime under international law, has been almost universally rejected, including by Arab states.

The Saudi foreign ministry said on Saturday that it would not accept "any infringement on the Palestinians' unalienable rights, and any attempts at displacement," accusing Israel of "ethnic cleansing".

Egypt has also rejected any idea of the removal of the Palestinian population and has said it is calling an emergency summit of the Arab League on 27 February to discuss what it called "serious" Palestinian developments.

BBC

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Trump says US is making progress with Russia, declines to discuss talks with Putin

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday he believed the United States was making progress in its talks to end the war between Russia and Ukraine, but declined to provide details about any communications he had had with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump indicated that the two men had been in contact; that would mark the first officially acknowledged conversation between Putin and a U.S president since early 2022.

Asked whether he had had his conversation with Putin since he became president on January 20 or before, Trump said: “I’ve had it. Let’s just say I’ve had it...And I expect to have many more conversations. We have to get that war ended.”

“If we are talking, I don’t want to tell you about the conversations,” Trump said. “I do believe we’re making progress. We want to stop the Ukraine-Russia war.”

The president said the United States was in touch with Russia and Ukraine. "We're talking to both sides," he said.

Trump has promised to end the war but not set out yet in public how he would do so.

In a Friday interview with the New York Post, Trump said that he had "better not say" how many times he and Putin had spoken and did not disclose when the latest conversation had taken place.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the TASS state news agency that "many different communications are emerging."

"I personally may not know something, be unaware of something," Peskov said when asked by TASS to comment. "Therefore, in this case, I can neither confirm nor deny it."

U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz also declined to elaborate when asked about communications between the two countries.

"There certainly are a lot of sensitive conversations going on," Waltz said on NBC News.

TRUMP-PUTIN SUMMIT?

Trump has repeatedly said he wants to end the war and that he will meet with Putin to discuss it, though the date or venue for such a meeting has not been announced. Trump told reporters on Sunday that he would meet with Putin at an appropriate time.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are seen by Russia as possible venues for a summit, Reuters reported earlier this month.

In the coming days, a flurry of U.S. officials are heading to Europe in part to discuss the war, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and Keith Kellogg, the special envoy for the Ukraine war.

Waltz indicated that Trump would be willing to use sanctions and tariffs to coax Putin to the negotiating table.

Waltz said U.S. and Ukrainian officials would discuss the United States gaining access to Ukraine's rare earth resources as compensation for U.S. aid to the eastern European ally.

On June 14, Putin set out his opening terms for an immediate end to the war: Ukraine must drop its NATO ambitions and withdraw its troops from the entirety of the territory of four Ukrainian regions claimed and mostly controlled by Russia.

Reuters reported in November that Putin is open to discussing a Ukraine peace deal with Trump but rules out making any major territorial concessions and insists that Kyiv abandon ambitions to join NATO.

The Kremlin has repeatedly urged caution over speculation about contacts with the Trump team over a possible peace deal.

Leonid Slutsky, head of the Russian parliament's international affairs committee, was cited by the state RIA news agency on Thursday as saying that preparations for such a meeting were at "an advanced stage" and that it could take place in February or March.

Putin last spoke to former U.S. President Joe Biden in February 2022, shortly before Putin ordered thousands of troops into Ukraine.

Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward in his 2024 book "War" reported that Trump had direct conversations as many as seven times with Putin after he left the White House in 2021.

Asked if that were true in an interview to Bloomberg last year, Trump said: "If I did, it's a smart thing." The Kremlin denied Woodward's report.

Reuters, The Washington Post and Axios reported separately that Trump and Putin talked in early November. The Kremlin also deniedthose reports.

On Friday, Trump said he would probably meetUkrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy the following week to discuss ending the war. Zelenskiy told Reuters that he wanted Ukraine to supply the United States with rare earths and other minerals in return for financially supporting its war effort.

Putin sent thousands of troops into Ukraine in 2022, calling it a "special military operation" to protect Russian speakers and counter what he said was a grave threat to Russia from potential Ukrainian membership of NATO.

Ukraine and its Western backers, led by the United States, said the invasion was an imperial-style land grab and vowed to defeat Russian forces.

Moscow controls a chunk of Ukraine about the size of the American state of Virginia and is advancing at the fastest pace since the early days of the 2022 invasion.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Scholz opposes German weapons supplies to Ukraine for strikes inside Russia

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said it would be wrong if his country sent weapons to Ukraine that could be used for strikes inside Russia.

"I think it is wrong for us to send weapons [to Ukraine] that have a major destructive power for strikes deep inside Russia. I think it is exactly the step that cannot be made if you have the responsibility for Germany," the chancellor said during election debates with his main rival Friedrich Merz from the conservative CSU/CDU bloc.

Earlier, Scholz opposed the idea of supplying Kiev with Taurus cruise missiles that have a range of around 500 km. The German head of government has stated that sending such weapons carries major escalation risks.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) summit in late November that Moscow had repeatedly pointed out that the use of Western long-range weapons on Russian soil would mean direct NATO involvement in the conflict.

Reuters/Tass

In 1954 John Verity lost his job because he won an argument. It was in his ninth year in office as Chief Justice of colonial Nigeria. John arrived in Nigeria in October 1945 from the British Guyana, where he had served in a similar position since 1941. At the time, Nigeria was still a unitary system under colonial rule. 

Two years before John’s arrival in Nigeria, the Native Courts (Colony) Ordinance of 1943 had created a “Supreme Court of Justice” for the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. Taslim Elias, the distinguished academic who was destined to play a significant role in the administration of law and courts in post-colonial Africa, described the structure of the colonial court system that John met on arrival in Nigeria as comprising “a Supreme Court, which is the highest court for the territory. It consists of two parts, a Divisional Court and a Full Court (as in the West African colonies), or a High Court and a Court of Appeal (as in several other colonies such as Jamaica, Singapore and Kenya), or simply a High Court (as in Uganda and Northern Rhodesia).”

That system had existed with modest adaptation since the Amalgamation in 1914. In his Amalgamation Report in 1919, Frederick Lugard, Nigeria’s founding Governor-General, pointed out that it was made up of a Chief Justice and Puisne Judges who “sat at certain places and visited on Assize the ‘District Courts.’”

Six years into John’s tenure as Chief Justice, in 1951, the colonial government turned the country into a federation. Two years later, one of the issues to engage the constitutional conference that began in London was the implication of this new structure for judicial administration. As the conference began, the delegates – mostly politicians who preferred in the language of the day to be called “nationalists” – advocated the decentralisation of the judiciary. John opposed the proposal, venturing with what proved to be accurate foresight, that such a step “might lead to judges and magistrates becoming tools in the hands of politicians” and “might eventually lead to the control of the judiciary by the Executive.” 

The conference relocated to Lagos in 1954 where the politicians overwhelmingly approved the proposal to regionalise the judiciary. Having lost the fight over the future of the judiciary that he led, John opted to take early retirement from the office of Chief Justice. He was the penultimate English man in the role. 

In the reorganisation of the court system that followed upon the conclusion of the constitutional conference, the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) was created in 1954. The regions had high courts from which appeals could go to the FSC. The highest court for the country remained the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. 

By 1963, the nationalists fighting for independence one decade earlier had metamorphosed into political incumbents seeking control of the courts (like their colonial predecessors). The Privy Council had effectively ruled in favour of the opposition Action Group (AG) on the question whether the regional governor could remove renegade premier, Ladoke Akintola, without a formal vote in the regional parliament. 

Confronted with the loss of a prized ally helpfully decimating the ranks of a loathed political foe (like a certain minister is doing today for the ruling party), the then ruling federal coalition led by the Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC), legislated the Privy Council out of existence, abolished the Judicial Service Commission, and made the Supreme Court Nigeria’s apex court. John’s prophecy had become reality. 

Although the 1963 Constitution enabled the court to sit “in such other places in Nigeria as the Chief Justice of Nigeria may appoint”, the Supreme Court has functioned from its seat, first in Lagos when it was the capital city for the first three decades after independence and, thereafter, from Abuja, the current federal capital. The fortunes of the court have waxed and waned in symmetry with the political economy of Nigeria. Unlike other courts in the country, there are no divisions of the Supreme Court. 

For much of its life, the Supreme Court was an all-comers affair for appeals “on questions of law.” As the claims on the court’s judicial bandwidth rose and the political economy of the country grew more complex, it was predictable that its docket would increase. The sensible thing to do was to reform the law governing access to the Supreme Court – as well as its doctrine – to keep pace with the increasing demand for the rarefied attention of the court and preserve its authority. This was not done.

Instead, since the onset of the current elective dispensation in 1999, the Supreme Court became preoccupied with electoral and political disputes. Among the many consequences from this, two are notable. First, the preoccupation of the court (and of the judiciary below it) with political and electoral disputes increasingly tasks its credibility. Second, the resulting prioritisation accorded by the court to political cases has created an intolerable backlog to which there is no sensible solution under the current system of judicial administration. The result is that appeals not involving senior politicians or election results vegetate interminably in the bowels of the Supreme Court with no reasonable chance of getting heard. 

It is right that this situation should engage the attention of senior lawyers and senior politicians. Manu Soro, the member of the House of Representatives representing Darazo/Ganjuwa Federal Constituency of Bauchi State, has decided to bell the proverbial cat. On World Anti-Corruption Day, 9 December 2024, his bill for Supreme Court reform was gazetted. 

The bill proposes – among other things – to authorise the establishment of five regional divisions of the Supreme Court, with the one in Abuja serving as the headquarters. The bill comes complete with a political geography of the proposed divisions: Umuahia (Abia State) to serve the south-east; Bauchi (Bauchi State) for the north-east; Uyo (Akwa Ibom) for the south-south; Lagos (Lagos State) for the south-west; and Kano (Kano State) for the north-west. The declared objective of the bill is “to enhance access to the highest justice, to minimise the logistical cost of accessing justice and to ensure timely dispensation of matters brought before the apex court.”

Commendable as it is for initiative, this bill is plainly misguided for many reasons. First, it misconceives and mis-characterises the mission of the Supreme Court. Second, it has no diagnosis for the problems that ail the Supreme Court and, to the extent that it evinces any, offers no reasonable solution to them. Third, it offers a misplaced geographical and genealogical solution for a crisis of jurisdictional sclerosis and unimaginative judicial administration that it is unable to see.

The most charitable anyone can be about this bill is that it is hare-brained. The solution that it offers is guaranteed to make the situation worse, not better. It will also dis-establish the court because a “Supreme Court” that sits in judicial divisions will be neither apex nor supreme. 

The crisis of appellate throughput and its consequences which presently afflicts Nigeria’s Supreme Court is too serious to be banished to post-codes defined by geographies of genealogy. To address it, the supply of appeals to the court will need to be constrained significantly. The administration of the court needs to be overhauled and professionalised; and case management needs attention too. The one thing the court cannot afford is precisely what this bill seeks – to cannibalise it into a collection of judicial Bantustans.

•A lawyer & a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Will Fan

Key Takeaways

• AI is great for automating repetitive tasks and and identifying patterns at scale, but it's not ready to make sophisticated decisions that require intuition, creativity or context.
• AI should be used as a tool to support decision-making, not replace it — businesses should integrate AI to enhance efficiency and provide insights, but human oversight is essential for making strategic and context-rich decisions.
• The best approach is to start small by identifying repetitive tasks and testing AI tools to see how they perform. Then you can gradually expand AI's role while ensuring that humans remain at the center of creative and strategic decision-making.

AI is no longer a futuristic buzzword; it's here, and it's reshaping how companies operate. From automating repetitive tasks to offering insights that were once impossible to uncover, AI has become integral for businesses looking to scale smarter, not harder.

But with the rise of AI agents — tools capable of interacting autonomously — we're on the cusp of a new chapter in how AI integrates into daily processes. For industries like education, Web3 and beyond, the key is learning where AI excels (and where it doesn't) to make the most of this game-changing technology.

The power of pattern recognition

One of AI's greatest strengths lies in its ability to identify patterns at scale. Companies like Netflix and Spotify have been leveraging AI to recommend content based on user behavior for years, but recent advancements take this to a whole new level. Take Grammarly, for instance. In the past three years, the platform's AI has evolved beyond just identifying grammatical errors to providing tone, style and clarity suggestions, helping users write better emails, essays and even social media posts. For businesses, this means less time spent on mundane tasks like proofreading or data entry, allowing teams to focus on higher-value activities.

For startups in education or Web3, pattern recognition can unlock similar efficiencies. Imagine an educational platform that identifies which students are struggling with specific concepts and provides tailored lessons. Companies like Khan Academy are already experimenting with AI tutorspowered by OpenAI, which can adapt lessons in real time based on a student's progress. In Web3, AI can analyze blockchain data to detect irregularities, flagging potential security risks faster than any human team could.

If your business involves large amounts of data, AI should be your go-to tool for finding actionable insights. Use it to automate repetitive processes and identify trends, but don't expect it to make creative leaps or nuanced decisions — at least not yet.

AI's limits: Sophistication and decision-making

While AI excels at recognizing patterns, it's not ready to make sophisticated decisions that require intuition, creativity or context. Case in point: autonomous driving. Companies like Tesla and Waymo have made significant strides in using AI for self-driving cars, but true Level 5 autonomy — where vehicles can navigate any scenario without human intervention — remains elusive. Why? Because real-world driving involves split-second decisions and unpredictable variables that AI struggles to process without human oversight.

This limitation is just as relevant for businesses. AI can help a Web3 company analyze wallet activity to spot trends, but it won't tell you whether launching a new token is the right move for your community. Similarly, in education, AI can flag students who are at risk of dropping out based on attendance and grades, but it can't have a heart-to-heart conversation with those students to understand the underlying issues.

The business takeaway: Use AI as a tool to support decision-making, not to replace it. Empower your team with AI-driven insights, but remember that the final call should come from a human who can factor in context and nuance.

Integrating AI into daily processes

So, how can businesses integrate AI into their day-to-day operations without falling into the trap of over-reliance? The answer lies in striking a balance between automation and human input. Let's look at how some companies are doing it right.

Slack, for example, has integrated AI into its platform to help teams stay organized. Its AI can suggest channels, prioritize messages and even automate routine workflows, freeing up employees to focus on strategic initiatives. However, Slack doesn't pretend that its AI can replace the creativity and collaboration that happen in team discussions. Instead, it positions AI as a tool to make those discussions more productive.

In education, Duolingo has embraced AI agentsto provide personalized feedback to language learners. By analyzing user mistakes, Duolingo's AI can adapt lessons to each learner's weaknesses, keeping users engaged and improving retention. Yet, the platform still incorporates gamification and human-designed curricula, ensuring that AI enhances rather than overshadows the learning experience.

The takeaway here is that AI works best when it's integrated as a complement to your team's existing workflows. Start small: Identify repetitive tasks that drain time and energy, and test AI tools to see how they perform. From there, expand AI's role while ensuring that humans remain at the center of creative and strategic decision-making.

The future of AI and your business

As AI continues to evolve, the businesses that succeed will be the ones that understand how to use it effectively. This doesn't mean jumping on every new AI trend or tool; it means aligning AI capabilities with your company's specific needs and goals. For example, if you're in Web3, use AI to enhance transparency and security, but don't expect it to replace the trust-building that's central to your community. If you're in education, leverage AI to scale personalized learning, but don't lose sight of the importance of human teachers and mentors.

AI is a powerful ally, but it's not a silver bullet. It's excellent for accelerating processes, identifying patterns and providing data-driven insights, but it still needs human oversight to make meaningful, context-rich decisions.

So, as you consider integrating AI into your business, ask yourself: Where can AI save us time and uncover opportunities? Where do we need human judgment to lead the way? By answering these questions and keeping a balanced approach, you'll not only stay ahead of the curve — you'll redefine what's possible for your industry.

Entrepreneur

A wave of criticism has trailed the recent naming of a newly constructed army barracks in Asokoro, Abuja, after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, bringing the number of institutions named after him to five since he assumed office in May 2023.

The Bola Ahmed Tinubu Barracks, inaugurated on January 23, 2025, comes shortly after the federal government approved the establishment of Bola Ahmed Tinubu Polytechnic, Gwarinpa, also in Abuja, to promote technological, vocational and entrepreneurial education.

The trend, according to findings, began 11 months ago when the Niger State Government in March 2024 renamed the Abubakar Imam International Airport in Minna as Bola Ahmed Tinubu International Airport, sparking outrage, particularly among residents of Rafi Local Government Area, the home of the late Abubakar Imam Kagara. The renaming was controversial as the airport had only been named after Abubakar Imam in June 2023 in recognition of his contributions to northern Nigeria’s literary, political and educational landscape.

Similarly, in May 2024, the National Assembly Library and Resource Centre was inaugurated and named the Bola Tinubu Building, while in December 2024, the Nigeria Immigration Service named its state-of-the-art technology complex after President Tinubu, citing his commitment to innovation.

Beyond these five institutions, there is also a proposed Bola Ahmed Tinubu Federal University of Nigerian Languages in Aba, Abia State. A bill for its establishment was introduced in the House of Representatives in October 2024, aimed at advancing higher education in Nigerian languages and cultures.

Weekend Trust reports that despite not breaching any known law, the trend of naming institutions after a sitting president has raised moral and ethical concerns. The controversy around these renaming exercises continues to intensify, particularly due to the perception that they are politically motivated.

Historical context of military barracks naming

Historically, the naming of military barracks has followed a pattern of honouring those who contributed significantly to the country, particularly in the context of wartime heroes or military leaders, or to recognise some significant historical locations, mostly relating to military events.

In an article titled Barracks: The History Behind Those Names, historian, Nowa Omoigui recalled how, in September 2002, the then Minister of Defence, Lt. Gen. TY Danjuma (retd) set up a Military Installation Naming Committee to assess the propriety of naming military installations after individuals. The committee comprised Brig-Gen Mobolaji Johnson (retd); Lt-Gen M. I. Wushishi (retd), General D. Y. Bali (retd), Major-General M. C. Ali (ertd) and Brig-Gen Pius Obi (retd), with Brig-Gen A. N. Bamali as the secretary,

Omoigui recalled that among other things, the committee was tasked: “To determine the propriety or otherwise of naming military installations after individuals; to examine ways of reviving the names inherited from colonial era that have now been abandoned; to recommend appropriate additional names arising from the Nigerian Civil War, ECOMOG operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone and any other peacekeeping operation in which Nigerian troops suffered casualties.”

At the time, barracks were traditionally named after specific battles or locations in which Nigerian troops had been involved, particularly during the Nigerian Civil War and the peacekeeping operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone. For example, Arakan Barracks and Myohaung Barracks were named after campaigns during the World War II era, and Tamandu Barracks was named after a notable battle in the northern region.

Specifically, the minister was quoted as saying: “At no time was any barracks named after individuals, whether dead or alive. The first departure from this practice was recorded when the military cantonment in Kaduna was named after Alhaji Muhammadu Ribadu, the first Minister of Defence.”

The naming conventions for military barracks was updated after the review committee’s work, which led to several barracks being renamed after prominent Nigerian military figures, including Yakubu Gowon, Sani Abacha, Aguiyi Ironsi, Ibrahim Babangida, and Olusegun Obasanjo. The change was seen as an effort to honour and solidify the legacy of the country’s military leadership and to further instill a sense of patriotism.

But during the administration of President Umar Musa Yar’adua, the policy was partly reversed. It was ordered that military barracks, formations and institutions previously named after individuals — particularly former heads of state and military officers —should revert to their original names or be renamed in line with military traditions. 

Accordingly, the Obasanjo Barracks in Abuja was renamed Mambilla Barracks; Mohammed Buhari Barracks reverted to its former name, Lungi Barracks; and Ibrahim Babangida Barracks changed back to Maimalari Barracks in Maiduguri.

The decision was seen as an effort to depersonalise national military assets and restore professionalism in the armed forces.

A moral issue, not legal

While it is not uncommon for governments around the world to name institutions after past leaders or significant figures, critics have raised concerns about the practice of naming critical institutions after sitting presidents. In particular, the growing trend of naming various public facilities after President Tinubu has been met with widespread disapproval. Many argue that this practice reflects a troubling pattern of self-promotion and is not in line with democratic principles.

Seun Onigbinde, the co-founder of BudgIT, a civil society organization dedicated to promoting transparency and accountability in Nigeria, took to X (formerly Twitter) to express his concerns. 

He wrote: “In less than a year, four public institutions have been named after President Bola Tinubu. This abuse of norms is rooted in the sycophantic culture that has grown in recent times. The president should put a stop to this as he is signaling a culture that is highly unacceptable.”

Onigbinde’s statement summed the criticism that this renaming trend represents a form of sycophantic excess, where institutions are manipulated for the benefit of those in power, rather than being named in recognition of true merit or service to the country. He contended that this practice diminished the significance of public institutions by associating them too closely with the personal image of the sitting president.

In support of Onigbinde’s criticism, another observer commented: “Nothing to worry about, once power changes hands, it will be returned to the initial name it was bearing,” even as another posited that “institutions and public infrastructures will begin to have name changes every 4/8 years with the cost burden on public purse.”

Another commentator, Okediran Adeyemi submitted that, “This act promotes sycophancy and undermines meritocracy. Such honours should be reserved for leaders’ post-tenure whose legacy of service or sacrifice is undeniable.”

Civil society groups respond

The practice has also been condemned by several prominent civil society groups who argue that it undermines democratic values and fosters an unhealthy culture of personality worship. 

Dr Moses Paul, the convener of the Free Nigeria Movement, a coalition of activist groups, expressed his dismay at the direction the administration is taking. He stated that naming significant public institutions after a sitting president compromised national integrity and undermines the democratic process.

He described the renaming of a military barracks in Asokoro after Tinubu as particularly egregious. 

“Military barracks are not mere structures; they are sanctuaries of sacrifice, discipline, and service to the nation. Naming one after a sitting president while countless soldiers have paid the ultimate price for our security dishonours their memory,” he said.

Paul argued that globally, public infrastructures are named after individuals whose contributions have stood the test of time. “Nigeria’s military has suffered immense losses in the fight against insurgency. Naming barracks after fallen soldiers would be a far more fitting tribute,” he said.

He warned that such actions erode public trust in governance, signalling a lack of accountability and a tendency toward self-glorification.

“We call on the federal government to review these decisions. Nigeria deserves a leadership that respects its history, honours its heroes and prioritises its people over self-aggrandisement. True leadership is measured not by names on buildings but by lasting impact on citizens’ lives,” he said.

Comrade Ibrahim Zikirullahi, the executive director of the Resource Centre for Human Rights and Civic Education (CHRICED), also condemned the renaming of institutions, arguing that such actions are part of a broader strategy to consolidate political power rather than honouring individuals who have made lasting contributions to society.

“Naming government institutions after public figures is not alien to Nigeria, but the manner in which the current administration is naming almost every government institution after President Tinubu is disturbing. The standard practice is for successors to honour a leader after they leave office. Naming institutions after a sitting president not only undermines historical continuity but risks politicising public resources,” he said.

Comrade Zikirullahi’s remarks stressed the risk of undermining democratic norms by introducing a cult of personality, where every administration seeks to secure its place in history at the expense of public trust and transparency.

Efforts to get the reaction of the Presidency on the matter were unsuccessful as none of the spokesmen could be reached for comment.

The Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communication, Sunday Dare and Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga did not respond to calls put across to them.

Also the Special Adviser to the President on Policy Communications, Daniel Bwala, could not be reached on phone. Messages sent to their mobile phones was yet to be replied as at the time of filing this report.

N’Assembly urged to make it legal issue

The Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) and Head of Transparency International Nigeria (TI-Nigeria), Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, was equally critical of the trend, warning that the practice sets a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching consequences for the country’s political culture. He cautioned that such actions might lead to the instrumentalisation of public institutions for partisan purposes, which undermines the democratic ethos of national development.

“The concentration of national symbols and institutions around a sitting president reflects an attempt to monopolise public spaces and institutional memory for personal glorification. This is not the kind of democratic politics we should encourage,” Rafsanjani said.

He went on to draw comparisons with other countries, highlighting the political implications of similar actions by other leaders around the world. He noted the cases of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Yoweri Museveni in Uganda and Vladimir Putin in Russia, where the naming of institutions after sitting leaders was part of a broader strategy of consolidating personal power and entrenching their legacies. In all of these cases, he argued it led to long-term political instability and a weakening of democratic institutions.

He noted that leaders world over who truly seek to build their legacies often do so by creating lasting change that benefits the entire country, not by altering public infrastructure for the sole purpose of reinforcing their personal image.

Rafsanjani urged the National Assembly to pass a legislation prohibiting the renaming of public institutions after sitting officials. He suggested that any renaming of public assets should only be carried out after broad consultations and with the input of the civil society to ensure that it reflects the interests of the people rather than the preferences of those in power.

“Any decision to rename public institutions should involve broad consultations with stakeholders, including civil society and the public,” he said.

He stressed that this process is crucial in ensuring that such renaming exercises do not become tools for political manipulation but rather serve to honour leaders whose actions have had a lasting, positive impact on the country.

Lagos and Tinubu’s political influence

Beyond the federal level, Lagos State, where Tinubu served as governor from 1999 to 2007, has been another focal point for his legacy-building efforts. Tinubu, often regarded as a political godfather in Lagos, enjoys widespread loyalty among the state’s political elite, which has resulted in numerous institutions named in his honour. 

Some of these facilities are the Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu Ultra Modern Market, Ijaiye Ojokoro; Bola Tinubu Memorial Hall, Ifako-Ijaiye; Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu Block at Ojokoro LCDA; Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu Ultra Modern Market, Ijaiye Ojokoro, Lagos; Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu Legislative Building, Kosofe, Lagos; Bola Tinubu Memorial Hall inside Ifakojaiye LCDA, and Asiwaju Bola Tinubu Civic Centre, Ifako Ijaiye LCDA.

Others are Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu Health Centre, Aboru, Oke Odo; Bola Ahmed Tinubu Estate, Abule Egba;  Ahmed Tinubu Modern Market, Agbara;  Bola Tinubu Staff Quarters, Alausa Secretariat Bus Stop; Bola Tinubu Model Market Idimu; Bola Ahmed Tinubu Train Station.

Many argue that these re-naming serve to reinforce his dominance within the local political landscape

However, some critics have acknowledged that while Tinubu’s influence in Lagos is significant, these renaming might also be a signal of the growing trend of consolidating political power through symbolic gestures.

Speaking anonymously, a Lagos-based chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) defended the naming of institutions in Tinubu’s honour, arguing that his contributions to the state and the country in general warrant such recognitions.

“He touched lives across Nigeria. He raised people, made them senators, House of Representatives members and more,” he said.

Yet, even in Lagos, the timing of the renaming has sparked debate, with some observing that it may be premature to place the names of living leaders on public institutions. 

The chieftain of the ruling party acknowledged that while Tinubu’s legacy should eventually be honoured, the renaming of facilities during his presidency might be seen by some as politically motivated.

Prof Sylvester Odion, a Lagos-based political scientist, also criticised the renaming of institutions while a leader is still in power, asserting that it is inappropriate and undermines the democratic values that should guide such decisions. He also echoed the sentiments that leaders should be celebrated for their service only after they leave office, when their legacies can be more accurately assessed.

“Celebrating oneself while in power is improper. It is better for the society to acknowledge you after office based on merit,” he said.

Daily Trust