Fuel stations across Lagos and surrounding areas have increased the price of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), commonly called petrol, to between N930 and N970 per litre, up from the previous N865 per litre rate.

On Sunday morning, BusinessDay observed that numerous filling stations throughout Lagos had adjusted their pump prices upward. Concurrently, depot prices rose to between N890 and N900 per litre, marking an increase from below N850 per litre just two weeks ago.

Industry experts attribute this price hike to recently reported increases in petrol landing costs, which oil marketers say have jumped by N88 per litre in a single week, alongside growing import volumes.

BusinessDay confirmed an AP filling station on Admiralty Road in Lekki Phase 1 selling fuel at N930 per litre, while other Lagos outlets priced petrol between N930 and N935 per litre. Further afield, stations in Abuja and Magboro, Ogun State have set prices between N960 and N970 per litre.

This represents the first petrol price increase of 2025, following several price reductions earlier in the year during heightened competition between the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited and Dangote Refinery.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria, MACBAN in Benue State has raised the alarm over the alleged poisoning and rustling of members’ cattle by criminal elements in Agatu Local Government Area, LGA, of Benue state.

The Chairman of MACBAN in the state, Risku Muhammed who raised the alarm weekend said over 20 cows belonging to Fulani herdsmen were Saturday poisoned at Ucha village in Agatu.

He explained that aside the poisoned cattle, “over 200 cows were last Thursday also rustled by the criminals but for the prompt intervention of security operatives who arrested one of the rustlers while others escaped.”

Mohammed alleged that a farmer in Ucha community, name withheld, poisioned the cows with the chaff of rice after he invited a herder to feed his cows with it leading to the death of 13 of the cows while seven others thar survived were undergoing treatment.

He said, “I got report from my members in Agatu LGA that a criminal who had laced rice chaff with poison invited one of our members to come and graze on the rice chaff, unfortunately, 13 cows died instantly while seven are being treated by a veterinary doctor.”

He commended the Local Government Council Chairman, Melvin Ejeh for promptly responding to issues concerning the herders and communities in the area saying “the Local Government Chairman with some Non Governmental Organizations working in the LGA have several times paid for cows killed by these criminals.”
He disclosed that herders had at one time or other lost several cows to criminals in Olegodege, Utigologwu, Egwuma, Akele, Okwtanobe and now Ucha through rustling and killing.

Contacted, Chairman of Agatu LGA, Melvin Ejeh acknowledged receipt of the complaint from MACBAN, assuring that the matter was being investigated though a farmer had been arrested in connection with the poisoned cows.
He noted that Agatu had enjoyed relative peace in recent time following the help from the state government and security operatives deployed to the area.

The Council Chairman said: “We have received complaints from Miyetti Allah and investigation is going on about the incident. Agatu has been enjoying peace and this is as a result of the Peace Committee that was set up and on daily basis we review the peace process.

“It is unfortunate that some criminal elements are bent on instigating crisis and destroying the peace process but government will not fold its arms and allow that to happen.”

The Chairman who lauded the state government for ensuring peace in Agatu appealed for the deployment of more security operatives to the LGA.

The Police Public Relations Officer, Catherine Anene who confirmed the development said “I have a briefing this morning (Sunday) about dead cows said to have been poisoned, investigation is ongoing and a suspect has been arrested over the matter.”

Anene also confirmed the existence of a Peace Committee working tirelessly in the area to ensure sustainable peace in the communities of Agatu LGA.

Vanguard

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

'Pissed off' at Putin, Trump threatens tariffs on Russian oil if Moscow blocks Ukraine deal

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday he was "pissed off" at Russian President Vladimir Putin and will impose secondary tariffs of 25% to 50% on buyers of Russian oil if he feels Moscow is blocking his efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

Trump told NBC News he was very angry after Putin last week criticized the credibility of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's leadership, the television network reported, citing a telephone interview early on Sunday.

Since taking office in January, Trump has adopted a more conciliatory stance towards Russia that has left Western allies wary as he tries to broker an end to Moscow's three-year-old war in Ukraine.

His sharp comments about Putin on Sunday reflect his growing frustration about the lack of movement on a ceasefire.

"If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault ... I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,” Trump said.

“That would be, that if you buy oil from Russia, you can’t do business in the United States,” Trump said. “There will be a 25% tariff on all oil, a 25- to 50-point tariff on all oil.”

Trump later reiterated to reporters he was disappointed with Putin but added: "I think we are making progress, step by step."

Trump said he could impose the new trade measures within a month.

There was no immediate reaction from Moscow. Russia has called numerous Western sanctions and restrictions “illegal” and designed for the West to take economic advantage in its rivalry with Russia.

Trump, who spent the weekend at his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, told NBC News he planned to speak with Putin this week. The two leaders have had two publicly announced telephone calls in recent months but may have had more contacts, the Kremlin said in video footage last week.

The White House had no immediate comment on when the call would take place, or if Trump would also speak with Zelenskiy.

Trump has focused heavily on ending what he calls a "ridiculous" war, which began when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, but has made little progress.

Putin on Friday suggested Ukraine could be placed under a form of temporary administration to allow for new elections that could push out Zelenskiy.

Trump, who himself has called for new elections in Ukraine and denounced Zelenskiy as a dictator, said Putin knows he is angry with him. But Trump added he had “a very good relationship with him” and “the anger dissipates quickly ... if he does the right thing.”

GROWING PRESSURE TO END WAR

Trump's comments followed a day of meetings and golf with Finnish President Alexander Stubb on Saturday, during Stubb's surprise visit to Florida.

Stubb's office on Sunday said he told Trump a deadline needs to be set for establishing a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire to make it happen and suggested April 20 since Trump would have been in office then for three months.

U.S. officials have been separately pushing Kyiv to accept a critical minerals agreement, a summary of which suggested the U.S. was demanding all Ukraine's natural resources income for years. Zelenskiy has said Kyiv's lawyers need to review the draft before he can say more about the U.S. offer.

Trump told reporters on Air Force One he thought Zelenskiy was "trying to back out of the rare earth deal.... if he's looking to renegotiate the deal, he's got big problems." Trump also told reporters that Ukraine would never be part of NATO.

Trump's latest tariff threats would add to the pain already facing China, India and other countries through trade measures imposed during his first two months in office, including duties on steel, aluminum and cars. More duties on imports from the countries with the largest trade surpluses are slated to be announced on Wednesday.

William Reinsch, a former senior Commerce Department official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the haphazard way Trump was announcing and threatening tariffs leaves many questions unanswered, including how U.S. officials could trace and prove which countries were buying Russian oil.

Trump set the stage for Sunday's news with a 25% secondary tariffimposed last week on U.S. imports from any country buying oil or gas from Venezuela.

His remarks to NBC suggest he could take similar action against U.S. imports from countries that buy oil from Russia, a move that could hit China and India particularly hard.

The U.S. has not imported any Russian barrels of crude oil since April 2022, according to U.S. government data. Before that, U.S. refiners bought inconsistent volumes of Russian oil, with a high of 98.1 million barrels in 2010 and low of 6.6 million in 2014, according to a review of EIA data since 2000.

India has surpassed China to become the biggest buyer of seaborne Russian crude, which comprised about 35% of India's total crude imports in 2024.

Trump on Sunday also said he could hit buyers of Iranian oil with secondary sanctions if Tehran did not reach an agreement to end their nuclear weapons program.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Intel sharing and ‘boots on the ground’: Takeaways from NYT investigation into ‘secret’ US-Ukraine partnership

A New York Times investigation has found that the administration of former US President Joe Biden provided Ukraine with support that went far beyond arms shipments – extending to daily battlefield coordination, intelligence sharing, and joint strategy planning that were indispensable in Kiev’s fight against Russia.

The report, which was prepared based on more than 300 interviews with Ukrainian and Western government and military officials, takes a deep dive into the cooperation between Washington and Kiev from the early days of the conflict through late 2024.

Attempt at Vietnam rematch

Following the outbreak of the hostilities in February 2022, the US and Ukraine gradually moved towards an “extraordinary partnership of intelligence, strategy, planning and technology” that became Kiev’s “secret weapon” in fighting Russia, the investigation said.

The outlet noted that Washington’s campaign to support Ukraine reached such a scale that it became “a rematch in a long history of US-Russia proxy wars – Vietnam in the 1960s, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Syria three decades later.” 

'Points of interest,' not 'targets'

The US Army garrison in Wiesbaden, Germany, became the nerve center of the cooperation, according to the report. American and Ukrainian officers worked jointly each day to select Russian targets – although they avoided using the phrase, using instead the euphemism “points of interest” out of fear that the phrase could be deemed too provocative. Intelligence flowed from satellite imagery and intercepted communications directly into Ukrainian targeting decisions.

Since mid-2022, Ukraine heavily relied on US data to attack Russian command and control centers and other high-value targets. Targeting sheets contained dozens of objectives listed in order of priority, the NYT said.

Some of the massive strikes made using Western-supplied long-range missiles were aimed at targets in Crimea, including Russian warships. Some of the strikes have resulted in civilian casualties.

One unnamed European official told the paper that he was shocked by the extent of the involvement. “They are part of the kill chain now,” he was quoted as saying.

‘Boots on the ground’ after all

While early into the conflict the Biden administration promised that the US would not “put boots on the ground” in Ukraine, the cooperation in Wiesbaden ended up leading to an easing of this prohibition, the report claims.

Under Biden, the US “authorized clandestine operations,” and “American military advisers were dispatched to Kiev and later allowed to travel closer to the fighting,” NYT said, estimating their number in the dozens.

Walking over ‘red lines’

As the conflict progressed, the Biden administration gradually relaxed the self-imposed restrictions on supplying Kiev with arms, particularly long-range missiles. In 2024, the US extended its permissions to allow Ukraine to carry out limited long-range strikes using American-supplied weapons into internationally recognized Russian territory while providing Kiev with the relevant targeting data.

Tensions over strategy

While cooperation with the US provided Ukraine with invaluable data and resources to fight Russia, the sides at times had major disagreements over strategy and objectives, the NYT noted.

“Where the Americans focused on measured, achievable objectives, they saw the Ukrainians as constantly grasping for the big win, the bright, shining prize,” the report said.

The contradictions became particularly apparent during Ukraine’s botched counteroffensive in the southern sector of the front in the summer of 2023. The Ukrainian leadership was split between competing objectives – pursuing an assault toward Melitopol, and prioritizing the area of Artyomovsk (Bakhmut).

What now?

While describing the cooperation as a “secret weapon” in Kiev’s arsenal, the NYT noted that the arrangement now “teeters on a knife edge”as US President Donald Trump is pushing for talks with Russia and seeking to end the conflict.

“For the Ukrainians, the auguries are not encouraging… the American president has baselessly blamed the Ukrainians for starting the war, pressured them to forfeit much of their mineral wealth and asked the Ukrainians to agree to a ceasefire without a promise of concrete American security guarantees,” the outlet summarized, adding that Trump has already started to wind down some elements of the partnership.

Reuters/RT

Numan, the town that lends its name to one of the 21 Local Government Areas in Adamawa State in north-east Nigeria, is home to the Bwatiye (Bachama), a transnational identity group stretching into parts of Cameroon. Located in the basin of Benue River and one of its tributaries, River Taraba, Numan’s fecund lands play host to vast energies in sedentary agriculture. Fulbe pastoralists have for long also found it welcoming for grazing their herds.

These factors have made Numan a major frontier in the murderous livelihood conflict that has pitted sedentary farmers against armed pastoralists in the Middle Belt of Nigeria. Described as a crisis “over scarce land and water resources,” this conflict is estimated to have “claimed the lives of around 10,000 Nigerians” in the period since about 2013. It is widely recognised as the second most deadly conflict in Nigeria after the Boko Haram crisis.

For nearly three years until 2018, Numan was the site of a murderous war between sedentary farmers and armed pastoralists. No one knows the number of those who have lost their lives in this conflict. James Courtright, who researched the situation, wrote in 2023 that “by the time the crisis ended in January 2018, around 150 people were dead, a dozen villages burned to the ground and hundreds of Fulbe who had called Numan home had fled.” Tens of thousands were reportedly displaced. This crisis even became the subject of litigation before the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court of Justice).

On 5 December 2017, then Vice President Yemi Osinbajo visited Adamawa State to see things for himself. Subsequently, the Federal Government arranged to distribute emergency relief materials to affected communities, including Dong, Lawaru, and Kukumso in Demsa LGA; as well as “Shafaron, Kodomti, Tullum, Mzoruwe and Mararraban Bare in Numan Local Government Area.” Amidst these developments, the Federal Government launched what ultimately proved to be an inconclusive “series of national consultations with all relevant groups designed to find a lasting solution to the farmers-herders conflict in parts of the country.”

The events in Kodomti village during this crisis were to become the subject of prosecutorial interest, which worked its way up to the Supreme Court, coming to a decision on 7 March. On 27 January 2015, an incident occurred in a farm in Kodomti belonging to Sunday Jackson. By the time the dust had settled, Ardo Bawuro lay dead, a victim of three stab wounds in the neck in the hands of Jackson.

The Adamawa State Director of Public Prosecutions arraigned Jackson on one count of culpable homicide punishable with death (murder) for the killing of Bawuro. On 10 February 2021, the High Court of Adamawa State convicted and sentenced Sunday Jackson to death. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 20 July 2022. From there he appealed to the Supreme Court.

The evidence relied on by the courts was straightforward. There was a coroner’s report but the judgment does not mention a pathologist’s report. According to Jackson’s statement to the police:

“On Tuesday, 27/01/15 at about 11:10 hrs, I left my village and was cutting thatching grasses (sic) in a bush located in Kodomti village in Numan LGA when the deceased, Buba Bawuro as identified attacked me after loosing (sic) sight of some persons alleged to be pursuing (sic) for killing his cattle. He attacked me in frustration and wanted to stab me with a dagger then we engaged in a wrestling encounter. I succeeded in seizing the dagger from him which I used to stab him thrice on his throat. When the deceased collapsed and was rolling down in a pool of his blood, I took heels and escaped.”

In its judgment on 7 March delivered by Baba Idris, the Supreme Court determined that this statement was a confession and simultaneously also raised issues of self-defence, which had to be considered.

In Nigeria, self-defence is a constitutionally guaranteed right. In criminal law, it is also total exoneration to a charge of murder.

According to the court, four conditions must be present for self-defence to succeed. First, the accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter leading to death. Second, there must be present an impending peril to life or of grievous bodily harm. Third, there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape. Fourth, there must be a necessity for taking of life.

The Supreme Court found that the first and second conditions were fulfilled in the case of Sunday Jackson. As to the last two conditions, the court said that “there was a reasonable mode of escape by retreat and there was no necessity to take the life of the deceased.” It did so, notwithstanding that there was nothing in evidence about how safe it was to retreat. Consequently, the court held that “the defence of self-defence is not available on a closer consideration of the evidence, and in the light of the circumstances of this particular case.” The court also dismissed any possibility of a defence of provocation, which would have reduced the crime to manslaughter.

In his concurring judgment, Haruna Tsammani said: “on the facts as narrated…., I am of the view that [Jackson] inflicted more harm than was necessary for the purpose of defending himself. Having overpowered the deceased and collected the dagger from him, a stab would not be considered excessive. It is also my view that [Jackson] acted in a vengeful manner by stabbing the deceased trice (sic) in the neck; a person he had overpowered.”

This statement by Tsammani is at the heart of the three flaws with this judgment. One is a matter of law and evidence: The Supreme Court believed it was alright for Sunday Jackson to have stabbed Ardo Bawuro once, but not thrice. But there was no evidence before the court as to which of the three stab wounds killed Ardo Bawuro.

It is possible that it was the first stab wound; or the second; or the third. That determination is a matter of evidence and, in criminal law, establishing what killed the Ardo Bawuro was the responsibility of the prosecution. If he was killed by the first stab, then the claim by the court that three stab wounds were too many is demonstrably gratuitous, and self-defence would have availed. In the absence of that kind of evidence, the court had no basis for excluding self-defence.

Second, the court imposed an unreasonable standard of assessment, requiring a person whom it found to be in real peril of loss of his life from an assailant with murder or grievous bodily harm on his mind to make assessments that are beyond the capability of any human in the throes of a fight-or-flight struggle.

Third, in suggesting that Jackson had a reasonable means of escape, the Supreme Court showed almost blissful lack of awareness of the nature of the conflict on the floodplains of the Benue River (and its tributaries). This case arose in a conflict zone between livelihood and identity groups. The standard of evidentiary assessment deployed by the Supreme Court required Jackson to possess almost divine knowledge of the surrounding circumstances. Asking him to run in the middle of this required him to be certain that there was no other danger around him. There was no way that he or anyone could in the middle of an active conflict zone have attained that degree of knowledge or awareness.

The miracle in this case is how the court reached a unanimous judgment.

The Supreme Court, we are reminded, is the last bus-stop on legal disputes. Yet, in nearly every case presented for judicial resolution, we find ourselves not merely before the court of law but also before courts of public opinion, of precedent, and of posterity. The judgment in Jackson’s case is bad law, bad precedent, and bad policy. It is perverse on the scale of a miscarriage of justice. Jackson is eminently deserving of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy by the Governor of Adamawa State.

** 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..