The Supreme Court has affirmed election of Governor Ademola Adeleke of Osun State, sealing his victory over then incumbent governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, in the keenly contested 16 July 2022 election in the state.

The judgement of a five-member panel, on Tuesday, upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal in Abuja which had earlier on 24 March affirmed Adeleke’s victory.

It lays to rest the dispute over the outcome of the governorship election, and extinguishes Oyetola’s hopes of coming back to office after his momentary victory at the Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in January.

Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as winner of the election in an upset that deprived Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) a second term in office.

Displeased with INEC’s result, Oyetola had approached the election petition tribunal in Osogbo, the state capital, to challenge the outcome of the poll.

The tribunal in its decision  in January ruled in favour of Oyetola by declaring him winner of the election, and sacking Adeleke who was just months in office.

Adeleke, who remained in office to exhaust his right of appeal, had appealed against the decision of the tribunal.

His appeal was successful.

Upholding Adeleke’s victory, the Court of Appeal in Abuja held that the tribunal was wrong in its conclusion that that the election in some parts of the state was marred by over-voting, the pivotal legal issue on which Oyetola built his case.

The court held that “the burden of proving the allegations of over-voting lies squarely with the respondents Oyetola and the APC).”

“It is inconceivable to assume that the testimonies of the respondents’ witnesses had any probative value,” the appellate court held.

The Court of Appeal noted that Oyetola and the APC “did not tender the voter registers and Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS machines,” which captured data of eligible voters at the Osun governorship election.

“Though the 1st and 2nd respondents (Oyetola and APC) relied on BVAS reports obtained from INEC to prove over-voting, they did not, nonetheless, call petitioner’s witness 1 to speak to the reports, that is, Exhibits BVR reports from INEC’s back-end server.

“In their pleadings,” Oyetola and APC “alleged that the results recorded and transmitted directly from the polling units were not taken into account and therefore accredited voters recorded in Form EC8A from the disputed polling units do not tally with the number of BVAS for the same polling units.

“Strangely, the tribunal, in its judgment, only relied on the table set out in an address of counsel to hold that over voting occured in an election,” the Court of Appeal said.

PT

The presidential election petition tribunal has adjourned for further pre-hearing, the case filed by the Labour Party and its candidate, Peter Obi.

Obi and the LP filed a petition challenging the victory of Bola Tinubu, candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), in the  election.

In the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023, Livy Ozoukwu, lead counsel to LP and Obi, said Tinubu “was not duly elected by the majority of the lawful votes cast at the time of the election”.

Amongst other allegations, they claimed that Kashim Shettima, vice-president-elect, had a double nomination in contravention of the electoral act.

The petitioners are asking the tribunal to declare Obi winner of the presidential poll or alternatively, order the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a fresh election.

At the pre-hearing session on Monday, Livy Uzoukwu, announced an appearance for the petitioners.

Lawyers to the APC, Tinubu, and INEC informed the tribunal that they had filed separate responses to the questions raised by the petitioners in their processes.

Afterwards, the five-member panel led by Haruna Tsammani, adjourned till Wednesday for further pre-hearing.

The court directed parties in the petition to identify all the witness statements and documents they would rely on or object to during the hearing of the petitions.

While Lateef Fagbemi is the lawyer for the APC,  Wole Olanipekun is representing Tinubu. Abubakar Mahmoud is the counsel to INEC.

The tribunal also adjourned the petition of the Action Peoples Party (APP) to Wednesday for further pre-hearing.

However, pre-hearing session for Atiku Abubakar’s petition and Allied People’s Movement (APM) is expected to hold on Tuesday (today).

Meanwhile, earlier at the court session, Action Alliance (AA) withdrew its petition against the victory of Tinubu.

Since there was no opposition from respondents in the petition, the panel dismissed the petition.

The Cable

The All Progressives Congress and the Peoples Democratic Party in Osun State have expressed hope for victory as the Supreme Court today determines the authentic winner of the July 16, 2022 governorship election in the state.

PDP candidate, Ademola Adeleke, was returned elected by the Independent National Electoral Commission, but the APC candidate at the poll, Adegboyega Oyetola, rejected the result and approached the Election Petition Tribunal to challenge it.

Independent National Electoral Commission had declared that Adeleke polled 403,371 votes, to defeat then incumbent governor Adegboyega Oyetola of the APC, who got 375,027 votes.

But Oyetola and the APC rejected the result of the poll and headed for the tribunal.

In its January 27, 2023 majority verdict, the Tertse Kume-led tribunal annulled Adeleke’s victory and declared Oyetola the winner of the poll.

However, a minority judgment by B. Ogbuli affirmed Adeleke as the winner of the poll.

Displeased, Adeleke and the PDP headed for the Court of Appeal, which on March 24 nullified the tribunal judgment and returned Adeleke as winner.

Oyetola and the PDP, who were disastified with the judgment, then headed for the Supreme Court, which held the matter on Monday and fixed judgment for today (Tuesday).

At the sitting of the apex court panel that heard the matter on Monday, the parties adopted their briefs and addressed the court after which the panel announced Tuesday for judgment.

Punch

Gunmen abducted 40 people from a church in a remote village in northern Nigeria, a local Christian group said on Monday, in the latest attack against worshippers.

Armed gangs, known locally as bandits, have been abducting people from villages, schools and highways mostly in the northwest of the country, where government security is thin.

Joseph John Hayan, chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in Kaduna state, said the attack took place on Sunday when gunmen attacked worshippers during a service at Bege Baptist Church, in Madala village, in Chikun local government area, Southern Kaduna.

Chikun is among two districts in Kaduna where ransom-seeking armed gangs are most active.

Hayan, however, said 15 of those kidnapped escaped from their captors on Sunday night.

"We have not heard any contact for ransom or anything from them (gunmen) concerning the remaining people and we pray that the abductors would be merciful to release the remaining 25 back to their families," Hayan said.

A Kaduna police spokesperson did not respond to calls and messages to their mobile phone.

Reuters

Thousands fleeing Sudan are stuck on Red Sea shore

Hanadi Al-Sir was among thousands who rushed to Port Sudan, hoping to get on a boat or a plane to escape fierce fighting between the army and rival paramilitary forces.

Ten days later she is still camped out in the sweltering heat at the Red Sea city with crowds of others waiting in tents and shelters to get their hands on a ticket.

"I sleep on the ground and I don't have money to book a hotel room. There's no services here," the 37-year-old said.

The city is a shipping hub and, in happier times, a tourist destination. But it has struggled to cope with the crowds of Sudanese, Syrians and Yemenis arriving every day.

Rooms are going for as much as $100 a night, too much for many of the refugees who are forced to sleep rough in public parks, under trees and outside government buildings.

UN and foreign diplomatic missions have set up bases there, competing for space. Saudi Arabia, which sits across the Red Sea from Port Sudan, says it has evacuated almost 8,000 people.

But many complain of a lack of communication and there has been a number of small protests.

"All I get are promises but I don't know when we will be evacuated," Sudanese engineer Ahmed Hassan, a Saudi resident, said.

Port Sudan has seen little fighting, but is bracing for the effects of a wider economic crisis.

A breakdown in banking and customs procedures has hit shipping activity, the local economy's main employer, a port official said.

The wrecked telecoms and banking systems have made it even harder for the refugees to get cash.

"They've made us powerless, we don't have privacy or freedom. I wish we never left Khartoum," said Salem, waiting under one of the makeshift tents. "We moved to find a way out, but there's no way out until now."

Clinics run by the Sudanese Red Crescent see about 400 cases a day, mainly Syrians and Yemenis, volunteer doctor Rawan Abdelrahman said. They are running short of medicines, supplies, and staff, she added.

Many of her patients are people who originally came to Sudan fleeing war in their own countries.

Restaurant owner Abu Munir says he is one of 5,000 Syrians waiting to get out.

"I came here nine years ago fleeing war and now war is driving us out in Sudan," he said, exhausted after spending more than a week on the street. "Our only hope is to go back to Syria despite the war at home."

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russia to hold Victory Day parade amid tight security after drone attacks

Russia celebrates on Tuesday (today) the anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two with a parade in Red Square amid tight security following a series of drone attacks, including on the Kremlin citadel itself, that Moscow has blamed on Ukraine.

Victory Day is one of the most important public holidays in Russia, when people commemorate the huge sacrifices made by the Soviet Union during what is called the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45, in which around 27 million citizens perished.

This anniversary is even more emotionally charged as Russia mourns thousands of soldiers killed in the nearly 15-month war in Ukraine which shows no sign of ending.

Russia is also reeling from drone attacks, including one on the Kremlin on May 3 which it said was an attempt to assassinate President Vladimir Putin. Ukraine, which is expected shortly to launch a counteroffensive to retake land, denies involvement.

Putin has repeatedly likened the Ukraine war - which he casts as a battle against "Nazi"-inspired nationalists - to the challenge the Soviet Union faced when Hitler invaded in 1941.

Kyiv says this is absurd and accuses Russia of behaving like Nazi Germany by waging an unprovoked war of aggression and seizing Ukrainian territory.

Putin, his defence minister and other senior officials are expected to review the Red Square parade, which usually includes tanks, intercontinental missile launchers and marching troops.

However, reflecting increased security concerns caused partly by the drone attacks, authorities have cancelled the traditional flyover. There have also been reports of fewer soldiers and less military hardware joining this year's parade as the Ukraine conflict takes a heavy toll on men and equipment.

Authorities nationwide have cancelled the "Immortal Regiment" processions, where people carry portraits of relatives who fought against the Nazis.

'SACRED BORDERS'

Putin will deliver a speech in Red Square, where he will be joined by leaders of several ex-Soviet republics. In last year's address he made no mention of Ukraine but slammed the NATO military alliance for expanding to Russia's borders and hailed Soviet heroism in resisting Hitler.

Since then, Finland - which borders Russia - has also joined NATO.

"May no one ever again encroach on the sacred borders of our Fatherland," said Patriarch Kirill, head of the powerful Russian Orthodox Church and a close Putin ally, as he laid flowers on Monday at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in central Moscow.

"But in order for this to be so, our country must be strong because a country that is feared is not attacked."

Asked on Monday about cancellations of some Victory Day events, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov blamed Ukraine: "When we have to deal with a state that is de facto a sponsor of terrorism, then it is better to take precautionary measures."

As well as the attack on the Kremlin compound, Moscow also blames Ukraine for drone strikes over the past week on fuel depots, freight trains and multiple targets in Crimea, which Russia forcibly annexed from Ukraine in 2014.

Moscow also accused Kyiv and the West of carrying out a car bombing on Saturday that wounded a prominent Russian nationalist writer, Zakhar Prilepin.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy annoyed Russia on Monday by movingthe day that his country marks the allied victory over Nazi Germany to May 8, aligning it with Western nations in a repudiation of its Soviet past.

Russia's foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova branded Zelenskiy a "traitor", saying he had betrayed the memory of Ukrainians who died fighting the Nazis.

** U.S. to announce $1.2 bln in military aid for Ukraine -source

The United States plans as soon as Tuesday to announce a new $1.2 billion military aid package for Ukraine that will include air defense systems, ammunition and funds for training, a U.S. official said.

Ukraine will receive 155-mm Howitzer ammunition, counter-drone ammunition, and funding for satellite imagery as well as various types of training, said the official.

The package is paid from Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) funding which allows President Joe Biden's administration to buy weapons from industry rather than pull from U.S. weapons stocks.

The military aid, first reported by the Associated Press, comes as Congress and the White House debate ways to avoid a default on the nation's debt, with many Republicans demanding sharp cuts in domestic spending in exchange for lifting the debt limit.

However, members of both parties insist they support continued aid for Ukraine including top Republicans House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Kiev’s counteroffensive to ‘pave the way’ for dialogue with Russia — WSJ

The Kiev regime’s ostensibly possible counteroffensive may "pave the way" for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine by the end of the year with China being one of the mediators, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday citing European officials.

According to the newspaper, key representatives from the US National Security Council support the idea of holding the negotiations between Kiev and Moscow. That said, the US Department of State and the CIA are skeptical of the idea and would like to see the result of the potential Ukrainian counteroffensive before taking any diplomatic steps.

The Wall Street Journal also points out that this "shift in Western thinking" is occurring amid Western countries’ serious concern that they won’t be able to maintain the necessary level of military aid to the Kiev regime in the future. That said, some Western states want to see whether China is capable of defusing the conflict which also indicates a change in the way the West sees Beijing’s role.

Media conjecture about a potential counteroffensive by Ukrainian troops has been rife for several months running, with various potential trigger dates being publicly mooted. Earlier, the Russian Foreign Ministry highlighted that such open speculation within Western countries about expectations for an upcoming Ukrainian counteroffensive only serves to confirm these countries’ direct involvement in the conflict.

On April 23, Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Alexey Danilov rejected calls for dialogue on settling the conflict with Russia demanding more weapons from the West. Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow always supported holding negotiations but dialogue on the situation around Ukraine is possible only if Russia's legitimate interests and concerns are taken into account.

Reuters/TASS

On May 4, 2023, I tweeted on my Twitter handle that “Given that the FINALITY of election result is decided by the Court, except where the INEC-declared result is uncontested, it’s unconstitutional to swear-in a winner whose victory has not been affirmed by the Court. Where’s the law that says such a winner must be sworn-in? None!”

Since then, I have received a barrage of direct messages and requests to publicly speak more on this. So, to those who asked me and in the public interest, below are the short answers to your many questions:

Yes, inauguration of a new President on May 29 is not absolute, neither by the provisions of the Constitution, the Electoral Act nor any other written law.

And no, there won’t be any VACUUM if a new President is not sworn-in on May 29. The Constitution envisaged such an anomalous situation and thus copiously provided for the rainy day, as follows:

First, Section 135(1)(a) of the Constitution says that “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a person shall hold the office of President UNTIL when his successor in office takes the oath of that office”.

If you pay close attention to above provisions, you will notice that the Constitution never said “until May 29” and it used the word ‘shall’ which - by settled legal interpretation - means ‘must’. That means that the incumbent President, despite exhausting his eight years, is not going anywhere until his successor is sworn-in and such a date could overshot May 29.

Now, you can see that this is not about Bola Tinubu, because, if you strictly follow the Constitution, neither Atiku, nor Obi (in addition to Tinubu) would be inaugurated as President on May 29 and Nigeria will still have a constitutional President.

You will also notice that since 1999, a lot of ‘successors’ or winners of elections, mostly of the gubernatorial kind, had taken their oaths of office AFTER May 29. So, where did this widespread notion that May 29 is sacrosanct or absolute come from? It came from mere custom or political expediency, not from any known black letter law.

Second, Section 136(2) of the Constitution says that “Where the persons duly elected as President and Vice President die or are UNABLE for ANY REASON whatsoever to assume office before the inauguration of the National Assembly, the Independent National Electoral Commission shall immediately conduct an election for a President and the Vice-President”.

In plain terms, what the preceding Section 136 is saying is that, apart from death, there are myriad reasons that could prevent or imperil the President-elect and the Vice, standing together, from assuming office on May 29 and heavens won’t fall.

One of such other reasons that easily comes to mind is a Court order, usually of an Interlocutory kind, emanating from the Tribunal on a Motion; or from an Originating Summons (not an election petition) succeeding before a Federal High Court on interpretation of the pertinent constitutional provisions on point, including particularly the said Sections 135, 136, in addition to Section 1(2) of the Constitution vis-a-vis the absolutism or otherwise of May 29.

To be clear, the Section 1(2) of the Constitution that is pertinent to this discourse provides that “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any persons or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.”

In my view, both the Tribunal (under the Electoral Act) and the Federal High Court (under Section 6 of the Constitution) have concurrent jurisdiction to delve in the interpretation of these Sections as they impact on May 29.

Anybody saying that it is only the Election Tribunal that possesses an exclusive jurisdiction on this matter or that simultaneously and separately initiating such a Suit before the Federal High Court will abuse the process of the Election Tribunal is wrong, because the fundamental business of interpreting the Constitution (the organic law) is independent of, and should have primacy over everything else, including particularly a mere election petition before a narrowly-constituted ad hoc Tribunal.

Now, ponder this: If the result declared by INEC does not accord with the Electoral Act, it then follows that such result does not, ipso facto, accord with the Constitution, because the Electoral Act is a product of (and subservient to) the Constitution - the grundnorm. The river never flows backwards. Thus, any repugnancy in the Electoral Act must yield to the demands of the Constitution.

Thus, by virtue of the preceding Section 1(2) of the Constitution, inaugurating a new President on May 29 while the Court (as the final umpire) is yet to call the final result would mean that persons (or a group of persons) have taken control of the Government of Nigeria in a manner that does not accord with the Constitution.

The clearer and obvious way of understanding this conundrum is to think of it this way: If a new President is sworn-in on May 29 and subsequently, the Tribunal or the Supreme Court (again: the final umpire) invalidates the election, what would you say happened to the Government of Nigeria during the period the sacked President held office before the final judgment?

Unarguably, what happened is that, during such period, the Federal Republic of Nigeria and her government were taken control of in a manner that did not accord with the Constitution. This is a grave constitutional injustice that can never be undone. So, by all means, it should be avoided as the Constitution has enabled such under Sections 135 and 136.

While you ponder this, keep in mind that there is no express provision in the Constitution, the Electoral Act (the law that enables elections and transitions) or any other written law that strictly requires that a challenged winner of an election must be sworn-in on May 29.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no personal or political animus against any election winner. An election winner surely deserves the fruits of his victory but it must not be on May 29. It can be later or even not at all, if the Court - which is the final electoral umpire - fails to affirm his INEC-victory.

In the unique legal framework of Nigeria’s elections, INEC is not the end but the means to the end. That end is the Court (the judiciary) which alone possesses all the judicial powers of the Federation, including the final powers to declare winners of elections.

So, the smart framers of the Constitution, having figured that, some day, an occasion will surely arise where a winner may be unable for ANY REASON to be sworn-in on May 29, they inserted the implicit ‘tenure elongation’ in Section 135 but limited it by the provisions of Section 136 that requires INEC to ‘immediately’ conduct another Presidential election. If the intendment of this creative Constitution-making was not to ensure there’s no VACUUM, what then is its intendment?

Thus, in the clear absence of any law mandating that a swearing-in must proceed apace on May 29, the only reason (or justification) Nigeria had indulged in such crass unconstitutionality (or extra-constitutionality) since 1999 was political CUSTOM, and that’s because the country or the political class was desperate and thus minded to avoid anything that the military can latch on to continue in power.

Today, that custom, even though initially convenient and compelling is retrograde and can no longer stand because it is repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience. Above all, it is - by hindsight - incompatible with the Constitution and Laws of the Federation of Nigeria in several ramifications.

And mark my word: This thesis does not apply to the office of the President ALONE. It applies across the board. And until Nigeria gets its elections right or purges itself through a popular REFERENDUM, the judiciary should ensure that winners of disputed elections must not take power until the declaration of the final result by the last Court.

If politicians are made aware that power can only come after the courts (not INEC) have decided the result, it will work wonders in getting the greatest number of contestants and even INEC and political partisans to keep in line, play fair and desist from this mantra of ‘go to court’ which is a subliminal insult on the Constitution and the judiciary.

** Aloy Ejimakor, a constitutional lawyer, wrote from Abuja.

Before it gains traction and embarks on a life of its own, I wish to state clearly that the word “Reconciliation” inserted into some reports of Peter Obi’s visit to me on Sunday, 7 May, is a most inappropriate, and diversionary invocation. Let me clarify: I know the entity known as Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Labour Party. I can relate to him. I know and can relate to the Labour Party, on whose platform he contested election. There are simply no issues to reconcile between those two entities and myself. However, I do not know, and am unable to relate to something known as the “Obidient” or “Obidient Family”.

Thus, albeit in a different vein, any notion of Reconciliation, or even relations – positive, negative or indifferent – with such a spectral emanation is simply grasping at empty air.

During that meeting, attended by two other individuals only, the word “Reconciliation” was never bruited, neither in itself nor in any other form. It simply did not arise. By contrast, there were expressions of “burden of leadership”, “responsibility”, “apology”, “pleading”, “formal dissociation from the untenable”, all the way to the “tragic ascendancy of ethnic cleavage”, especially under such ironic, untenable circumstances. Discussions were frank, and creative. The notion of Reconciliation was clearly N/A – Non Applicable. It was never raised.

The following should be understood, but never underestimated. What remains ineradicable from that weekend of orgiastic rave in the social media was the opening up of the dark, putrid recesses in the national psyche that we like to pretend do not exist. It invited – into minds seeking a grasp on reality – gruesome variations on images from Dante’s Purgatorio. A fathomless pit was exposed, at the bottom of which one glimpsed a throng of the damned, writhing in competitive lust for the largest of the gangrenous ladles in a diabolical broth. To peek over the edge of that pit for a prolonged spell was to turn giddy, with a risk of falling into the tureen of inhuman pus. To attempt to navigate one’s way, however gingerly, along a mat spread across the infernal abyss, is an invitation to moral suicide.

For the serious minded, I call attention to essays I have offered on the theme of Reconciliation based on Truth, and the ethical imperative of Restitution. There will be further elaborations forthcoming in DEMOCRACY PRIMER III – Bookcraft’s INTERVENTION series, now brought forward for publication on June 12, the watershed extorted from the current regime as the nation’s Democracy Day.

If, from here on, I now comply with entreaties from several valued, genuinely concerned directions, and ignore new provocations, however vile, it is only because I also approve of Mohammed Ali’s strategy of Rope-a-Dope, where blind menace is left flailing hopelessly at the disdainful manifest of Truth.

Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against omicron infection fell to less than 20% after six months, according to a new analysis published Wednesday.

Researchers from Italy and the United States looked at some of the most common vaccines used around the world, including Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Sinovac.

The researchers, however, did not look at the updated bivalent vaccines that target the original strain of the virus as well as BA.4 and BA.5, which are subvariants of omicron.

For the analysis, published in JAMA Network Open, the team examined 40 studies -- a combination of articles and reviews published in peer-reviewed journals and preprints.

After receiving a primary series, protection against symptomatic disease decreased from 52.8% at one month after the last dose to 14.3% at six months to 8.9% at nine months.

When it came to vaccine effectiveness against overall infection, protection fell from 44.4% at one month to 20.7% at six months to 13.4% at nine months.

There were some differences in vaccine products from Pfizer and Moderna; they had higher effectiveness than the AstraZeneca and Sinovac vaccines.

John Brownstein, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children's Hospital who was not involved in the study, said the results are not surprising because researchers have known about waning effectiveness for quite some time.

"However this study provides important insights into the specific effectiveness of the original monovalent vaccines against omicron and highlights the importance of the updated bivalent booster in providing additional protection," said Brownstein, an ABC News contributor.

Studies from the Centers for Disease Control and Protection show that the updated bivalent boosters enhance levels of protection.

One study found the bivalent booster slashed the risk of visiting an emergency department, urgent care facility or hospital due to Covid-19 by at least half for U.S. adults.

Another showed the bivalent booster provided additional protection against symptomatic infection with the two variants of omicron currently circulating, XBB and XBB.1.5, for at least three months in those who received two to four doses of the original vaccine.

"While effectiveness against infection is an important metric, effectiveness against severe disease, hospitalization and death are crucial metrics when evaluating the overall effectiveness of Covid vaccines, as these outcomes have the most significant impact on public health," Brownstein said.

The analysis also looked at protection when receiving the original booster dose. Levels of protectiveness increased but eventually waned as well.

Against infection, booster effectiveness fell from 55.4% at one month to 28.9% at nine months. Against symptomatic disease, effectiveness declined from 60.4% at one month to 13.3% at nine months.

Brownstein said it's important to reiterate that vaccination is still very important -- to protect both ourselves and those who are at risk of severe disease -- and to not interpret the study to mean vaccines aren't effective.

As of March 19, the latest date for which CDC data is available, Covid-19 cases were 81.11 per 100,000 among unvaccinated people compared to 26.66 per 100,000 for those vaccinated without the updated booster and 25.81 per 100,000 for those vaccinated with the updated booster.

Death rates as of Feb. 26, similarly, had a large gap with 1.07 per 100,000 deaths for those unvaccinated, 0.21 per 100,000 for those vaccinated without the updated booster and 0.19 per 100,000 for those vaccinated with the updated booster.

"The findings from this study shouldn't detract from the importance of vaccination," Brownstien said. "While the effectiveness of vaccines against omicron infection may wane over time, vaccines still provide significant protection against severe disease, hospitalization and death."

He added, "Additionally, booster doses can help maintain protection against the virus especially when they are more closely matched to circulating variants.

ABC News

The Tesla founder's simple strategy to making decisions and leading organizational success.

Elon Musk recently sent shock waves when he issued Tesla executives an ultimatum: Return to the office or find a new job.

As one of the nation's most highly regarded employers, Tesla is a model for many business owners when navigating difficult workplace decisions. But whether you like Musk's decision or not, it's worth noting how his approach to practical decision-making and effective leadership makes decisions easier.

While copying Musk's every move certainly won't be the solution to all of your business quandaries, you'd do well to follow his path by fielding decisions with his simple leadership strategy: the "3 C's Rule." It's as simple as choices based on results, convictions based on confidence and communication with clarity.

1. Choices: Let Results Drive Decisions

Part of the surprise for many surrounding Musk's message was how inflexible the innovative company was when it came to bending to new norms. Despite the initial optics, Musk isn't blind to societal standards--even if he still uses a decades-old four-word innovation strategy. Instead, Musk looks at options in terms of results, seeing through any emotional biases or short-term benefits. With that, he can clearly identify the best long-term option that benefits the organization on the whole.

To make good decisions, leaders need to look at the big picture and remove both individual and personal elements from the equation. Look at the prospective outcomes and consider which option will help bring you closer to your overarching, long-term goals. (That approach is also part of Warren Buffett's powerful life advice for those that want to be highly successful.)

2. Conviction: Be Confident

Elon Musk's strong convictions make him a very confident leader. Since he makes decisions based on results, he can rest assured that he is making the right ones. In other words, Musk's convictions are a very powerful tool in leading his businesses--just as they can be for any entrepreneur.

Psychologically, people want to feel as though those guiding them know what they're doing, even if they can't necessarily understand why. It's what has led troops in battle, as well as professional athletes on the court. People follow the orders of others whom they trust--and they trust those who are not only experts in their field, but steadfast in their decisions.

3. Communication: Be Clear

Musk is so direct that he leaves no margin of error when it comes to communication. When it comes to his expectations and plans, he tells it exactly as it is. As abrasive as it may be for some, there's tremendous value in being straightforward.

For staff, it means never having to guess what is expected of you and knowing exactly where you stand. It takes the guesswork out and in return leads to better results and a heightened sense of job security.

By using the "3 C's Rule" anyone can make more strategic decisions and effectively lead organizations by rooting decisions in results, being convicted in our choices and being clear in our communication. In a world of indecision and anxiety, those who can make decisions confidently and communicate them clearly to others are those who become top leaders and leading entrepreneurs.

Inc