The Adamawa State Government has filed a lawsuit against the federal government at the Supreme Court concerning the distribution of revenue from the federation account.

Humwashi Wonosikou, the chief press secretary to Governor Ahmadu Fintiri, announced on Thursday that the state seeks an interpretation of Section 162 (1), (2), and (3) of the Constitution regarding the allocation of funds from the federation account.

Adamawa State contends that all revenue in the federation account must be distributed among all levels of government without any deductions, except those permitted by law.

"The president must adhere strictly to the Constitution in managing and distributing revenue," the statement reads. "All collected revenue, except those exempted by the Constitution, must be deposited into the federation account for equitable distribution to all tiers of government. The federal government lacks the discretion to withhold or deduct revenue for any purpose not expressly permitted by the Constitution."

The state further asserts that any deductions or withholdings made without constitutional backing are unconstitutional. "The federal government’s discretion to manage revenue is limited to only what is expressly permitted by the Constitution."

Adamawa is also seeking a strict interpretation of the Constitution to ensure that revenue distribution is "conducted in a transparent and constitutional manner, without arbitrary deductions or withholdings by the federal government."

On July 11, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government must pay allocations directly to local government councils from the federation account. A seven-member panel of justices found that state governments have been abusing their powers by retaining and using funds meant for LGAs.

The apex court also ordered the federal government to withhold allocations from LGs governed by unelected officials appointed by governors.

Kenyan President William Ruto on Thursday fired his entire cabinet apart from the foreign minister, bowing to pressure from nationwide protests that have created the biggest crisis of his two-year presidency.

The youth-led protests against planned tax hikes started off peacefully but turned violent, killing at least 39 people in clashes with the police last month. Some demonstrators briefly stormed parliament, before Ruto abandoned the new taxes.

"I will immediately engage in extensive consultations across different sectors and political formations and other Kenyans, both in public and private, with the aim of setting up a broad-based government," Ruto said in a televised address to the nation, adding that he would announce additional measures later.

He also dismissed the attorney general but said the office of the deputy president was not affected.

The sweeping cabinet changes were what Kenyans have been asking for, veteran anti-corruption activist John Githongo told Reuters.

"Let us see what happens now if the new ministers deal with big issues around corruption and just the arrogance and excess of his administration and the fact that a lot of Kenyans died during the demonstrations," he said. "Hopefully this should temporarily calm things."

Ruto has been caught between the demands of lenders such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to cut deficits and a hard-pressed population reeling from rising cost of living.

Last week he proposed spending cuts and additional borrowing in roughly equal measure to fill the nearly $2.7 billion budget hole caused by the withdrawal of the tax hikes.

Analysts have said the tax rollback means Kenya is likely to miss IMF targets although the government does not have debts that are due.

The budget deficit is now projected at 4.6% of gross domestic product in the fiscal year that started on July 1.

Ojango Omondi, a community activist from the Social Justice Centres Working Group in Nairobi, said dismissing so many cabinet ministers was a "move towards justice", but activists would want to see who Ruto appoints in their place.

"It's one thing to dismiss, the second is to ensure that the people that will be chosen in the cabinet are accountable to the constitution and the rule of law," Omondi said.

Reuters

Israel bombards Gaza City in one of the fiercest weeks of war, killing 26

Israel rained bombs on Gaza City during a week that residents described as comparable to the fiercest battle of the war, while a Palestinian Islamic Jihad official on Thursday said a new round of peace talks ended with no agreements yet.

Israel has been bombarding the Gaza Strip for 10 months in a war that has laid waste to the territory and killed more than 38,000 Palestinians, according to medical authorities in Gaza.

On Thursday, Israeli airstrikes killed at least six people in Gaza City and 19 in the rest of the Gaza Strip, according to Palestinian authorities. The civil emergency service said the bodies of at least 30 Palestinians killed in the previous three days also laid scattered on unreachable roads in Gaza City.

The latest round of peace talks ended with no agreements, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Palestinian militant group Hamas of making demands that contradicted a framework deal brokered by Washington. Netanyahu did not say what those demands were.

In a statement, the Palestinian Islamist militant group said mediators had yet to provide it with updates on the state of the talks since it made concessions last week in response to a U.S.-backed Israeli peace offer.

Washington is pushing for a peace deal at talks in Egypt and Qatar to end the Gaza war, now in its 10th month. The head of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency was headed to Cairo to pursue the negotiations, Netanyahu's office said.

In Washington, White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said many details still need to be hammered out to secure a deal.

In its statement on Thursday, Hamas accused Israel of "stalling to buy time to foil this round of negotiations, as it has done in previous rounds", all of which have ended in failure since a week-long truce in November.

As peace talks dragged on, Gaza City residents endured a fierce night of bombing.

Home to more than a quarter of Gaza's residents before the war, Gaza City was largely razed to the ground in late 2023, but hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have returned to homes in the ruins. Israel has once again ordered them out, though it is unclear where residents can go safely. Israel controls most of Gaza's borders.

Many say they will not leave.

"We will die but not leave to the south. We have tolerated starvation and bombs for nine months and we are ready to die as martyrs here," said Mohammad Ali, 30, reached by text message.

Ali, whose family has relocated several times within the city, said they had been running short of food, water and medicine.

"The occupation (Israel) bombs Gaza City as if the war was restarting. We hope there will be a ceasefire soon, but if not then is God's will."

The Israeli army told Gaza City residents on Wednesday to use two "safe routes" to head south. Some posted a hashtag on social media: "We are not leaving".

Asked by Reuters to comment on its operations in Gaza City, the Israeli military said in a statement its forces were working to dismantle Hamas capabilities, and that it "follows international law and takes feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm." It said the same was not true of Hamas.

Critics have accused Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians, which Israel denies. It characterizes its actions as self-defense, though the International Court of Justice ordered Israel in January to take action to prevent acts of genocide.

Israel launched its assault on the Gaza Strip last year after Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and capturing more than 250 hostages according to Israeli tallies.

An Israeli military report on Thursday acknowledged that it had failed to protect the citizens of one of the worst hit communities, Kibbutz Be'eri, where more than 100 people were killed.

PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS CALL FOR WAR TO END

The negotiations in Qatar and Egypt follow important concessions last week from Hamas, which accepted that a truce could begin and some hostages be released without Israel first agreeing to end the war.

Just east of Gaza City in the Shejaia suburb, residents were returning on foot to a desolate moonscape of destroyed buildings after Israeli forces withdrew following a two-week offensive.

The territory's main cemetery had been bulldozed by the army. People wheeled supplies on the back of bicycles across rubble-strewn tracks, passing the remains of burnt-out and blasted Israeli armoured vehicles.

"We have returned to Shejaia after 15 days. You can see the destruction. They spared nothing, even trees, there was a lot of greenery in this area. What is the guilt of stones and trees? And what is my guilt as a civilian?" resident Hatem Tayeh told Reuters in the ruins.

"There are bodies of civilian people. What is the guilt of the civilian? Who are you fighting?"

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine urges NATO to lift restrictions on targeting Russia

Ukraine on Thursday urged NATO allies to lift restrictions on its use of long-range weapons against targets in Russia, saying that would be "game-changer" in its war with Moscow, while China slammed NATO criticism of its support for Russia as biased and malicious.

NATO members issued a declaration in support of Ukraine at a summit in Washington on Wednesday, promising additional aid and pledging to back its "irreversible path" to NATO membership.

"At this summit we are turning a corner and putting in place the foundations for Ukraine to prevail," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told a news conference after a three-day meeting in Washington of the 32 NATO states.

"Today, we send a strong message of unity and resolve to Moscow that violence and intimidation do not pay, and that Ukraine can count on NATO now for the long haul."

Near the end of the summit on Thursday, U.S. President Joe Biden mistakenly referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy as "President Putin," before correcting himself, in a mix up likely to add fuel to calls for him to quit the 2024 presidential race.

In a press conference shortly after, Biden made another verbal slip, referring to Vice President Kamala Harris as "Vice President Trump."

Zelenskiy earlier called on allies to preserve their unified support of Ukraine and said new aid had to be delivered quickly.

"If we want to win, if we want to prevail, to save our country and to defend it, we need to lift all the limitations," he said.

Zelenskiy's cabinet chief Andryi Yermak told a public forum Russia had no restrictions on its use of weapons and it would be "a real game-changer" if Ukraine's allies could lift all limits on the use of those they supply to Ukraine.

NATO members have taken different approaches to how Ukraine can use weapons they donate. Some have made clear Kyiv can use them to strike targets deep inside Russia while the United States has taken a narrower approach, allowing its weapons to be used only just inside Russia's border against targets supporting Russian military operations in Ukraine.

Biden told the press conference the United States had allowed Zelenskiy to use American weapons in a limited way within Russia's borders.

"If he had the ability to strike Moscow, strike the Kremlin, would that make sense? It wouldn't," he added.

Biden said he and U.S. military and intelligence officials were making decisions on "a day-to-day basis on how far they should go in. That's a logical thing to do."

The United States and its allies have used this week's summit to try to project unity in the face of what they see as a rising threat to Europe from Russia and China.

However, NATO member Hungary said ahead of a meeting of NATO members with partners from the so-called Indo-Pacific Four - Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea - that it does not want NATO to become an "anti-China" bloc, and will not support it doing so.

Hungary's Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto also told Hungarian state television that Ukraine's admission to the military alliance would weaken unity in the group.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban irked other NATO members with surprise visits to Kyiv, Moscow and Beijing in the past two weeks on a self-styled "peace mission". He and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump will meet on Thursday at the latter's Florida home, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

Orban's meeting in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin in particular angered some fellow NATO allies, who said the trip handed legitimacy to Putin's claims to Ukrainian territory seized since Russia's 2022 invasion.

Biden's national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told a public forum he would not speculate on whether Orban's trip to Moscow was coordinated with Trump, Biden's rival in the November U.S. election, but said the Ukrainians had grave misgivings about any effort to negotiate a peace deal without them.

"So whatever adventurism is being undertaken without Ukraine's consent or support is not something that's consistent with our policy, the foreign policy of the United States," he said.

ANGRY WORDS FROM CHINA

Wednesday's NATO declaration included sharp words about China, calling it "a decisive enabler" of Russia's war in Ukraine, and said Beijing continues to pose systemic challenges to Europe and to security.

China's Foreign Ministry said the declaration was biased and "sowing discord" and its mission to the European Union described it as being "full of Cold War mentality and belligerent rhetoric, and China-related content full of provocations, lies, incitement and smears."

At the news conference, Stoltenberg recalled language in the declaration by saying that "China cannot continue to fuel the largest military conflict in Europe without this impacting Beijing's interests and reputation."

China has repeatedly lashed out at NATO criticisms and has warned against its expansion into the Indo-Pacific.

Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia have forged stronger ties with NATO amid rising concerns over China's pressure on rival claimants in disputed waters in the region and on democratic Taiwan, the global hub of cutting-edge chip production, which Beijing claims as its own.

PROJECTING UNITY

Fears that the U.S. presidential election could yield a sharp change in Washington's support for Ukraine and NATO have loomed over the Washington meetings.

On Wednesday, Trump, who has questioned the value of NATO in the past and pressed congressional Republicans to stall military aid for Ukraine before later reversing course, claimed Ukraine would not have been attacked had he been president. He cited his "good relationship with President Putin."

Biden's uneven performance in a June 27 debate against Trump and low public approval ratings have raised fresh doubts about his mental fitness to stand again, with 13 Democratic members of Congress and one Democratic senator calling for him to step aside.

Zelenskiy met both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Washington on Wednesday. He is keen to cement ties with U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle in the event that Trump is reelected.

A NATO declaration said the allies would provide at least 40 billion euros ($43 billion) in military aid to Ukraine within the next year, although they stopped short of the multi-year commitment Stoltenberg had sought.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Either NATO or Ukraine must go – Medvedev

NATO’s declaration that Ukraine’s eventual membership of the US-led military bloc is “irreversible” means that either the nation or the alliance – and preferably both – should disappear, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has said.

A joint statement adopted by the leaders of NATO states during a summit in Washington this week expressed support for Ukraine’s “right to choose its own security arrangements,” and declared that it is on an “irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.”

Russia has consistently said that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would cross a ‘red line’. It cited the expansion of the bloc in Europe as one of the key triggers of the current hostilities with Kiev.

“The conclusion is obvious. We have to do everything to make sure that the ‘irreversible path of Ukraine’ towards NATO ends with either the disappearance of Ukraine, or the disappearance of NATO. Better, both,”Medvedev said on Thursday.

The wording of the joint statement, according to media reports, was intended to appease Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, who has claimed that his nation deserves to be fast-tracked into NATO in gratitude for fighting to supposedly “defend” the West from Russia. But member states, including the US, have made it clear that Ukraine will not be able to join them as a full participant while the conflict remains unresolved.

Kiev has signed numerous bilateral security agreements with Western nations in recent months in lieu of guarantees provided for under the NATO Treaty. The most recent pact was finalized with Luxembourg this week.

Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, previously called for caution in the event that Kiev made a U-turn and accepted Russia’s conditions for a negotiated peace.

He argued that such a deal, which would include Kiev’s renunciation of its NATO aspirations, could lead to a new coup in Ukraine and an even more radical government eventually seizing power.

In that scenario, he said, hostilities would resume and Ukraine’s statehood would be lost for good. But “the enemies of Russia will not go anywhere” and will “gather strength for a new attempt to destroy our country,”Medvedev predicted.

Reuters/RT

Ten years ago, this article appeared under a different title, “The Debt I Owe.” Olatunji Dare was 70 at the time. Ten years later, on Dare’s 80th birthday on July 17, I’m republishing the article with minor changes.

Without this man, I might have turned out to be a literary plumber or perhaps a motor park journalist, but nothing near the second-eleven of a craft that I owe so much. I have also attached a fairly comprehensive file record of Dare in case my updated article is deficient – as I’m sure it is:

I met him in 1985. I was in Mas 101 freshman journalism class, and it was my first lesson and first encounter with the University of Lagos lecturer.

He wiped the board clean and wrote the course title and his name, "Dr Olatunji Dare". He then turned to the class and asked us to introduce ourselves and say why we were there. Writing out his name seemed familiar, but asking us why in the class seemed strange.

One by one, we introduced ourselves, each with his own story. Some chose to study journalism to get a big chance to travel far and wide. Some hoped that a career in journalism would bring them face-to-face with rich, influential and powerful people. A few said they wanted to report the rich and powerful and become rich, influential and powerful.

Dare listened patiently, showing no emotion, only motioning from row to row until the last student spoke.

Then silence. I still remember how he shook his head and, with a severe look, said he was either in the wrong classroom or many of us had missed our way.

Journalism could take you places. It could bring you face-to-face with the rich and powerful. It could even make you famous if you worked hard enough, with some luck. But those who thought here at last was the lottery to money, riches, and fame should perish the thought. Our road would be rough, and there was free advice on how to think again.

“And if it would make it easier”, he said, “I'm willing to help you get the Faculty Officer to arrange a change of course for you!”

A number of us didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. No one would likely take up his unsolicited offer of help, but that, for me, was the baptism needed for the journey ahead. Over the next three years, I developed a closer relationship with him and was especially fascinated by his teaching style and commitment to his students.

He would pose out-of-the-text questions and challenge us to solve them; he would ask about journalists whose names we had never heard of, like Oriana Fallaci, and point us to her famous interviews with Ayatollah Khomeini or Muammar Ghaddafi. He would send us out to file reports about campus life, and when we turned them in, he would return our scripts bleeding in red ink.

I still remember Dare refusing to mark our scripts once, and when we pressed him, he responded that the copies were so bad he would have shortened his life by at least 10 years if he read them all!

And boy, was he funny! He would walk into the exam hall and say there was no need to worry about failing. If you couldn't answer any exam questions, you could write your own questions and answer them—no need to panic or faint in the hall. And he would say it with a straight face!

I remember turning in a term paper in which I had boasted I would score an A. As I submitted my paper in his office at the pre-fab of the Mass Communication building and made to go, he called me back.

There was a visitor with him. “Azu,” Dare began, looking very solemn, “what have you been reading?”

Finally, here is my chance to showcase my latest collections!

“Oh, I have been reading David Copperfield, sir. Copperfield by Charles Dickens."

He looked up from my script, shook his head, and laughed the way only Dare could laugh – from his stomach up and rocking with delight.

And then, looking at me, he said, “It’s not showing at all! I can’t see any trace of Dickens in your script. This is a classic example of disco journalism!”

He handed back my script and gave me another chance to rewrite it.

I left his office devastated but knew he meant well. The repeat copy so pleased him that he urged me to adapt it for publication under his watchful eye. It turned out to be my first published article in the priceless op-ed page of The Guardian. I'll always remember.

I have followed his writings since and often imagined myself a wannabe satirist. Once, when he wrote about stalagmites and stalactites in his Tuesday column in The Guardian, I couldn't figure out where that came from until later found that he taught science subjects in a secondary school before he became a lecturer.

I still remember the note he gave me on the back of his complimentary card to Nojeem Jimoh, then Editor of PUNCH. That note gave me a shot at my first vacation job in a newspaper in 1986.

The note would not only land me a vacation job, and later a full-time job, but it would also open the door for me to meet the former chairman of PUNCH, AjibolaOgunshola, one of the men who would shape my thinking and career profoundly for the next several decades.

…Dare on File

He is one of Nigeria's best-known journalists, journalism educators, and public intellectuals.

For nearly a decade, he served as editorial page editor and chair of the Editorial Board of Nigeria’s leading newspaper, The Guardian, where his award-winning and wide-ranging weekly column, severe and satirical, attracted a broad, appreciative national audience.

His weekly column for The NATION, now in its 14th year, is of the same vintage and has drawn high praise for its insights and felicity of style. To mark his contributions to journalism and to public discourse in Nigeria, 20 of his contemporaries, colleagues and former students on three continents in July 2014 presented a festschrift on his 70th birthday titled Public Intellectuals, the Public Square & The Public Spirit: Essays in Honour of Olatunji Dare.

In 1995, he was awarded the Louis M. Lyon's Prize for Conscience and Integrity in Journalism by the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University, recognising his steadfast commitment to journalism’s best practices.                                                                                                                

In 1994, Nigeria’s military government shut down The Guardian because of its editorial outspokenness. The military authorities made it clear that if The Guardian apologised for its past conduct and promised to be less outspoken, it would be allowed to resume publication.

Eager to resume business – The Guardian was the most successful of his many commercial ventures – the publisher, Alex Ibru, led a team of executives to the head of the military government, Sani Abacha, in keeping with Abacha’s demand.

Dare refused to join the team and resigned, pointing out that a newspaper that had always insisted on the importance of the rule of law should not enter into a bargain that effectively eviscerated the rule of law.

Unable to find meaningful media work and facing constant harassment, Dare left Nigeria in 1996 to take up a faculty position at Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois. The Hammet/Hellman Grant for Courage in the face of Political Persecution, presented by Human Rights Watch, recognised that phase of his career.

While teaching at Bradley, he continued to be engaged in journalism, writing weekly columns for attentive audiences in Nigeria and on the Internet.  In the summer of 2000, he served as an editorial writer for The Seattle Times, based on a competitive fellowship awarded by the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Previously, he conducted journalism workshops in Zimbabwe, Ghana, and Nigeria.

Dare earned the first-ever First Class (summa cum laude) degree in Mass Communication from the University of Lagos, Nigeria, where he subsequently became senior lecturer in journalism.  

He also holds a Master's degree in Journalism from Columbia University in New York, where he was the prizeman in Editorial Writing, and a Ph.D. from Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, with twin concentrations in International Communication and Public Policy.

** Ishiekwene is the Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP and author of the new book Writing for Media and MonetisingIt

The CEO of ClickUp learned through this trial-and-error process that the most inefficient and unproductive meetings are one-on-ones, especially among executives.

Time is our most precious asset, and we’re always running out of it. Having spent the past seven years running a company all about productivity, I’ve found that meetings are generally the most inefficient activity across companies. So I started to cancel meetings.

That is until I found the meetings that truly needed to be added back. I learned through this trial-and-error process of canceled meetings that the most inefficient and unproductive are one-on-ones, especially among executives.

One-on-ones for individual contributors are necessary for morale, connection, and coaching. But for executives, they are costly, ineffective, and inefficient. I used to have standing one-on-ones with every member of the executive team, and they had one-on-ones with each other. Think about the cost of these meetings: the highest paid people meeting with each other individually, every week. But more importantly, what comes out of these meetings? And what happens when you cancel meetings?

I found it was the single source of enabling politically charged decision-making. Many executives use one-on-ones to privately align on their preferred decision or outcome for an upcoming topic. While they don’t necessarily have bad intent, it creates a culture of closed-door decisions made without transparency. Plus, the discrete and informal nature of one-on-ones created a slippery slope to complaining about others.

Topics discussed in a one-on-one are rarely only relevant to the two people in the room. The vast majority of times that executives disagree vehemently and can’t come to a quick resolution is simply because both parties don’t have the full context.

The solution? I canceled meetings within the executive team and replaced them with daily group meetings.

Companies have become far too siloed, and fragmented meetings are largely what causes it. The way to solve it is by canceling one-on-one meetings at the top.

Default to asynchronous work

The large majority of work can be done in asynchronous communication. With all the productivity tools at our disposal, between project management platforms, email, and messaging, live conversations are the least efficient way to work.

Not only is asynchronous work typically faster, it creates a repository of decisions and discussions that can be referenced by everyone. Our entire executive team can catch up on progress and decisions when it suits their schedule, creating more transparency without extra work. 

When a topic can’t be concluded quickly asynchronously, we add that topic to the daily executive team meeting.

Schedule daily meetings with the full executive team

We use a daily, full-team meeting to make decisions, with shared context already available and discussed async. Everyone is in the room, everyone has the same knowledge, and everyone leaves on the same page. Rather than repeating one conversation over and over amongst individuals, we discuss it once together live.

It might sound counterintuitive to schedule a daily executive team meeting to save time, but between all of our calendars, we easily had 20 one-on-ones weekly. We canceled meetings until we got down to five meetings per week with just as much accomplished.

Add ‘one-off’ meetings for longer discussions

At first, the daily meetings had pushback. I heard that it would be inefficient for the whole team to meet when not every topic is related to everyone.

The reality is that most of the time, it’s beneficial to share the context even when it doesn’t directly affect others. In rare cases where it truly is a project or decision that needs dedicated one-on-one time, we use a one-off.

These one-off meetings are with specific stakeholders, must be about a particular topic, and the meeting results should be captured in the daily full-team meetings.

Of course, these aren’t allowed to be recurring meetings.

Create a culture of consciousness around time

I can control my schedule, but to create change at the company level you have to have a culture that values and protects time.

I was open with the executive team about why I banned one-on-ones and encouraged them to use discretion if they needed to make an exception. I openly advocate for the entire company, at all levels, to be mindful of all meetings.

Our policy is to respectfully give feedback if a meeting is a waste of time. It helps the meeting host learn, run a more effective meeting the next time around, and think through if a meeting is truly necessary.

Ultimately, time is our only truly limited resource. Replacing one-on-ones with daily team meetings and one-offs has multiplied our company decision-making, productivity, and happiness working with each other. 

Fast Company

The Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) has announced stringent sanctions against electricity distribution companies (DisCos) that fail to meet performance standards, while also warning consumers not to pay for electricity distribution infrastructure such as transformers, cables, and poles.

In a recent order, NERC stated that it will reduce the administrative and operational expenditure of any DisCo that fails to offtake at least 95 percent of the total energy allocated to it for distribution. DisCos will be evaluated on seven key performance indicators, including energy off-take, revenue recovery rate, and compliance with customer service standards.

Sanctions include a downward adjustment of DisCos' administrative operational expenditure by five percent for the next quarter if they fail to meet the 95 percent off-take requirement in two out of three months in any quarter. Additionally, any instance of customer overbilling will result in a 10 percent deduction from the DisCo's annual administrative operational expenditure allowance, along with credit adjustments for the overbilled customers.

NERC's order also imposes fines for non-compliance with customer complaint resolutions, including N10,000 per day for billing issues and N1,000 per day for metering delays. Persistent non-compliance could lead to the withdrawal of key personnel responsible for these functions.

Furthermore, NERC has reminded consumers that it is the responsibility of the DisCos to provide necessary infrastructure such as transformers, cables, and poles. In a statement shared on social media, NERC emphasized that consumers should not be coerced into purchasing these materials and urged them to report any such coercion or delays by DisCos.

To facilitate the reporting of these issues, NERC has established a dedicated email and phone number: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and 07074865354. NERC assured the public of prompt action upon receiving complaints.

This dual approach of enforcing compliance among DisCos while protecting consumers' rights aims to address widespread dissatisfaction and ensure the long-term sustainability of Nigeria's electricity distribution system.

Chief Whip of the Senate, Ali Ndume, has expressed concern that President Bola Tinubu is unaware of the widespread hunger affecting many Nigerians. Ndume, representing Borno South Senatorial District, claims that Tinubu has been "caged" within the Presidential Villa, with forces preventing meaningful discussions from reaching him.

Speaking at a briefing with journalists at the National Assembly complex on Wednesday, Ndume stated, "Mr. President is not aware of what is happening outside the Villa. He has been fenced off and caged. Many of us will not go through the backdoor to engage him."

Ndume criticized Tinubu's administration for its lack of action on food security, highlighting that the president has not been addressing the issue. "Nigerians are getting very, very angry. The government is not doing anything about food scarcity, and it needs to act urgently. We don’t have a food reserve. The food crisis is the worst crisis any nation can encounter. If we add that to the security crisis, it will be severe," he warned.

As a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), the same party as Tinubu, Ndume urged the president to take proper measures to combat food insecurity. "The president should wake up. It seems he isn’t aware of what is happening because he has been caged off by plutocrats. He should open his doors and meet those who will tell him the truth. Unfortunately, the people who will tell him the truth won’t struggle to meet him. I am very worried, not only for the president but also for myself."

During Tuesday’s plenary, Ndume co-sponsored a motion to draw the federal government's attention to the impending food insecurity in the country. Following discussions on the motion, the Senate urged the federal government to address the issue immediately.

Two days ago, Nigeria's Senate sounded the alarm on the worsening food crisis, warning of potential nationwide protests if urgent action is not taken. While their concern is warranted, it is crucial to examine the role the lawmakers themselves play in the current economic hardship facing everyday Nigerians.

The Senate's call for President Bola Tinubu to "do something urgently" rings hollow when juxtaposed against the lavish spending and self-serving policies that have become hallmarks of Nigeria's political class. If our representatives truly wish to address the hunger and anger gripping the nation, they must first look inward and implement meaningful reforms.

Firstly, the exorbitant allowances and perquisites enjoyed by lawmakers must be drastically reduced. In a country where millions struggle to afford a single meal a day, it is unconscionable for elected officials to allocate vast sums for "constituency projects" that often serve as little more than slush funds. The recent approval of N21 billion for a vice-presidential mansion and plans to purchase new presidential jets worth hundreds of billions of Naira are stark examples of misplaced priorities in the face of widespread poverty.

Secondly, lawmakers must cease their complicity in enacting policies that further burden the already struggling populace. The removal of fuel subsidies, hikes in electricity tariffs, and increased taxes have compounded the economic woes of ordinary Nigerians. While these measures may be presented as necessary reforms, they must be balanced with robust social safety nets and economic policies that genuinely benefit the masses.

Thirdly, the pervasive corruption that plagues all levels of government, including the legislative branch, must be rooted out. The misappropriation of public funds directly contributes to the emptying of food reserves and the inability to provide basic services to citizens. Senators lamenting empty silos should reflect on how their actions, or inactions, have contributed to this dire situation.

It is commendable that the Senate recognizes the gravity of the food crisis and the potential for civil unrest. However, their response – promising fertilizer deliveries to constituents and considering summoning ministers – falls far short of the systemic changes required. True leadership in this moment demands sacrifice and a fundamental shift in how elected officials view their roles and responsibilities.

The people of Nigeria have indeed been patient, but as former Senate President Ahmad Lawan rightly pointed out, this patience is not eternal. To prevent a "Kenya moment" – referring to the recent riots over economic hardship in that country – the lawmakers must lead by example. They must demonstrate a genuine commitment to the welfare of the people by cutting their own benefits, championing anti-corruption efforts, and crafting policies that prioritize the needs of the many over the luxuries of the few.

Only through such concrete actions can the government hope to address the root causes of hunger and discontent in Nigeria. The time for empty rhetoric and half-measures has passed. Elected officials must act decisively and selflessly to restore faith in governance and provide real solutions to the food crisis threatening to engulf the nation. The present and future stability of Nigeria depends on it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) community court of justice has found the federal government of Nigeria guilty of human rights abuses in its response to the #EndSARS protest in October 2020.

The court ruled on Wednesday that the Nigerian government’s actions, particularly its disproportionate use of force at the Lekki Toll Gate in Lagos, breached several international human rights standards, including articles 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 of the African charter on human and peoples’ rights.

The court mandates the Nigerian government to pay N2 million in compensation to each victim named in the suit.

The applicants, Obianuju Catherine Udeh (popularly known as DJ Switch), Perpetual Kamsi, and Dabiraoluwa Adeyinka, alleged several violations occurred during the peaceful protests at the Lekki tollgate on October 20 and 21, 2020.

The first applicant (DJ Switch) claimed that protesters were shot by soldiers, resulting in deaths and injuries, which she live-streamed.

The applicant also claimed she started receiving threatening phone calls that forced her into hiding and eventual asylum.

The second applicant, who was responsible for the protesters’ welfare, told the court how soldiers began shooting after a power cut, leading to her hospitalisation due to police tear gas.

The third applicant related how she barely escaped being shot, how soldiers refused to let an ambulance in, and how she later saw victims receive subpar treatment in the hospital.

The third candidate related how he barely avoided being shot, how soldiers refused to let an ambulance in, and how he later saw victims receive subpar treatment in the hospital.

She submitted that after taking over the victims’ care with her colleagues, she began to get threats and was constantly under surveillance by the respondent’s operatives.

The applicants asked the court to grant them declaratory relief as well as monetary damages for these infractions.

However, the respondent had denied all claims made by the applicants, asserting that the protesters unlawfully assembled at Lekki tollgate on October 20, 2020, under the guise of protesting against the now-defunct special anti-robbery squad (SARS) unit of the Nigeria police.

The respondent also maintained that its agents followed strict rules of engagement and did not shoot or kill protesters.

The respondent argued that DJ Switch incited the crowd by playing music and using her Instagram page to stir disaffection against law enforcement agents, who were targeting escapee members of Boko Haram and bandits.

The federal government legal team further contended that the second applicant’s provision of logistics and a welfare package to protesters indicated her support for the violent protest.

The team also said the treatment and care of the injured were managed by the Lagos state government, adding that the applicants did not provide credible evidence to support their claims or the reliefs sought.

Koroma Mohamed Sengu, the judge rapporteur, who delivered the judgment, said the court dismissed the allegation that the right to life as guaranteed under Article 4 of the ACPHR is violated.

However, the court found the government guilty for violations of the applicants’ rights to 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.

The three-member panel of the court directed that the respondent must adhere to its obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, investigate and prosecute its agents responsible for these violations, and report to the court within six months on the measures taken to implement this judgment.

The other justices are Dupe Atoki and Ricardo Claúdio Monteiro Gonçalves.

The Cable