RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Putin issues F-16 warning to Ukraine sponsors

Should the US-made fighter jets make it to Ukraine, Russia will destroy them just as it has other Western equipment so far, President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.

Several NATO members have promised to donate their F-16s to Kiev and have trained Ukrainian pilots to fly them, but no deliveries have been made as of yet. Russia has repeatedly warned the West that fielding the nuclear-capable jets will be an unacceptable escalation of the Ukraine conflict.

“If they deliver the F-16s, I think you know better than others that this will not change the situation on the battlefield,” the president said. “And we will destroy these planes just as we have destroyed tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, including multiple launch rocket systems.”

The comments came during Putin’s visit to the Torzhok Air Base in Tver Region, home of the 344th Training Center for Russian combat pilots, including personnel being trained to take part in the Ukraine conflict.

In case the F-16s flown by Ukrainian pilots end up getting based in third countries, they will be legitimate targets for Russian aviation, Putin added.

“Of course, if they are used from airfields of third countries, they become a legitimate target for us, wherever they are located,” the Russian president stated.

Russia is well aware that the 1970s jet can potentially carry nuclear weapons, and this will be taken into account in combat operations, he noted.

Kiev has lost much of its air force over the past two years, including the Soviet-era jets donated by several NATO members as replacements. The Ukrainian government eventually asked the US-led bloc for the F-16s.

The single-engine fighter is a late 1970s design, originally manufactured by General Dynamics before it was acquired by Lockheed Martin. It requires pristine runways, which are in short supply in Ukraine, prompting speculation that Ukrainian-operated jets might be stationed in nearby NATO countries instead. 

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russia may have used new guided bomb to attack Ukraine's Kharkiv, local officials say

Russia may have used a new type of guided bomb in airstrikes on the northeastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv that killed at least one person on Wednesday, local officials said.

The officials said four children including a three-month-old baby were among 19 people wounded in Kharkiv in the latest strikes since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, some of which have caused blackouts, including in Kharkiv.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy condemned the attack as "Russian terror" and Volodymyr Tymoshko, head of the Kharkiv regional police, said Moscow may have used a new type of guided bomb which he described as the UMPB D-30.

"This is something between a guided aerial bomb which they (the Russians) have used recently, and a missile. It's a flying bomb so to say," Tymoshko said at the site of the strike.

Regional governor Oleh Synehubov also suggested Moscow may have used a new type of bomb, saying: "It seems that the Russians decided to test their modified bombs on the residents of the houses."

Russia did not immediately comment on their remarks. It denies targeting civilians although the war has killed thousands of people, uprooted millions and destroyed towns and cities.

Two residential buildings and a medical institution were partially destroyed, and a total of 14 buildings, including an educational facility, were damaged, Synehubov said on the Telegram messenger.

NEW ATTACK AFTER MIDNIGHT

Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov, also writing on Telegram, reported another strike after midnight on a city district that destroyed a restaurant and smashed windows in an adjacent building. There were no injuries.

Prosecutors in Kharkiv region reported that a 12-year-old boy was killed when Russian forces shelled the town of Borova, southeast of Kharkiv.

Police cordoned off a five-storey residential building that had been hit, its windows blown out and balconies badly damaged.

"Some people were unlucky. One person was killed, others have shrapnel wounds," said Kateryna Velnychuk, who was with her boyfriend in the building when it was hit.

At the scene, a man with a bandaged head sifted through the rubble of a damaged apartment in search of two cats, which he eventually found alive.

A dead body covered with a jacket lay near the entrance to the building. There was blood on the pavement.

Kharkiv and the surrounding region have frequently been attacked with missiles and drones during more than two years of war, but the use of large-calibre guided bombs is unusual for the city.

"Russian terror against the city is becoming increasingly heinous," Zelenskiy said on X, and urged Ukraine's allies to supply more air defences and fighter jets.

"There is no rational explanation for why Patriots (missiles), which are plentiful around the world, are still not covering the skies of Kharkiv and other cities and communities under attack by Russian terrorists," he said.

RT/Reuters

From the description of the VIP treatment given the two Binance executives abducted by the Nigerian government in a Mohammed bin Salman’s Ritz-Carlton style, one gets the impression that they did not think their tactic through. They detained the men (Nadeem Anjarwalla and Tigran Gambaryan) deemed economic sabotages, still allowed them several privileges, somehow forgot to put them on a watch list, and one of them managed to escape. Nigeria’s handling of the Binance affair suggests that their detention and proposed trial were half-hearted. So desperate was the government to find a scapegoat that they invited Binance officials, detained them, and demanded $10bn from their employers.

The government alleges that some unscrupulous elements use Binance for money laundering, terrorist financing, currency speculation and market manipulation, thus distorting the Nigerian economy and weakening the Naira against other currencies. Nigeria also accused them of offering taxable services without remitting taxes to the country. The government said over $21.6bn was traded by Nigerians whose identities were concealed by Binance. These accusations are grievous, and I agree that they should be addressed. However, it was foolish to arrest, detain the Binance officials, and demand money. Even the bandits that abduct schoolchildren for a living are far more tactical. By doing that, Nigeria overplayed its hand.

People like to come up with how the United States similarly extracted $4.3bn from Binance to justify the detention of Anjarwalla and Gambaryan, but seem to forget that the US—despite the leverage it has over Binance since the country is their major market— did not resort to abducting company officials and demanding payment. They spent years piling up evidence and going to court. Their prosecutors demonstrated that Binance violated federal anti-money laundering and sanctions laws through lapses in its internal controls. They failed to report more than 100,000 suspicious transactions involving designated terrorist groups including Hamas, al Qaeda, and ISIS. Prosecutors also alleged that Binance’s platform supported the sale of child sexual abuse materials and was among the largest recipients of ransomware proceeds.

Nigeria has relatively little leverage over transnational corporations like the US does, and we would have done far better by addressing the situation through the instrument of the law, diplomacy, policies, technical expertise, and moral suasions. If Binance has not been remitting taxes to Nigeria, we should create a policy framework and technical structure that facilitates it. The fact that they sent two of their workers to Nigeria suggests good faith on their part. We should have worked hand in hand with the company to resolve the issues raised.

But trust Nigerian officials. They like gragra. Thinking through situations can be too tasking for them, so they quickly resort to the sole weapon of their warfare: force. Everything must be remedied through a blatant show of force. What exactly did they think they would achieve by abducting two Binance officials and demanding $10bn?

Think about it: if you were the CEO of Binance and asked to give up information regarding transactions worth $21.6bn in exchange for two company officials, would you? You would consider that paying the ransom might not secure your company officials. Besides, if you allowed yourself to be blackmailed, what would stop other broke countries and individuals from seizing your officials and demanding payment? So, how should you respond?

Well, you will first disconnect the men’s access to any of the company’s operating systems so that they will have no means of giving up valuable information, even under duress. You will make the necessary diplomatic and legal moves to get your officials released, but you will also steady yourself to wait out Nigeria. What you will not do is hand over money or information to the abductor.  Even if those men die in Nigerian custody, it would still be far cheaper to pay their families some compensation than to yield grounds. Even if you pay their families $100m each, it is still not up to one per cent of the sum at stake.

I listened to a television interview where a talking head said Nigeria should extradite Anjarwalla. Why keep escalating errors? It was bad enough that Nigeria started what it had no idea how to finish, it is imprudent to keep expending resources over inanity. Did anyone study the company organogram to determine that these “executives” are central to decision-making in Binance to the point that taking them hostage ever made sense? Even now, it is more than likely that their job with Binance has been terminated. If an abducted employee manages to return in a dramatic escape, you would rightly wonder if it were not a ploy by the abductors to get access to the company by other means. In case the abducted had been brainwashed, you would either place him on an administrative leave or pay him a severance pay. Of what use would further pursuing Anjarwalla be to Nigeria?

The trouble with the Binance affair is the Nigerian tendency to blame spurious factors for its economic woes. Nigeria vs. Binance is a recrudescence of that time when CBN governor Godwin Emefiele blamed abokifx—a website that reports exchange rate figures—for tanking the national currency. I thought that had to be one of the most thoughtless moves ever in the history of national banking until the present administration repeated it with Binance. At some point, they started arresting BDC owners for driving up forex through their speculative activities. There was also a time when the Emefiele clown also blamed the Nigerians who collected Business Travel Allowance and ended up not travelling abroad for driving up the exchange rate. Everything, except the real issues of our mono-economy as administered by our perennially visionless leaders, is to be blamed.

It does not seem these people think through the implication of blaming national woes on singular entities. Not only do you display imprudence by thusly broadcasting your vulnerability, but you also give yourself away as inept and lacking the capability to think through situations other countries face but choose to approach with reasonable solutions.

The Binance charade is another misstep by Nigerian leaders dealing with transnational corporations in the age of the internet. We are so wired into demonstrating forcefulness on issues that require rational judgment that we seem to forget that our local gragra ways go nowhere on the international market. Unlike our local cases where a tomato review gets a poor woman arrested, global capitalism is complex and cannot brook the puerility of the Nigerian extrajudicial methods. We did the same unsophisticated thing with the then Twitter (now X). We even inaugurated a committee of old men to go to Silicon Valley to negotiate with Twitter, but what came out of it? Twitter comfortably neglected Nigeria and their share price did not even drop. They proved that the Nigerian market is negligible in the global scheme of things. Binance too had no problem barring Nigerians from its app and that in itself is quite telling. If we were a profitable market, they would not have walked away from us so easily.

I hope the incident teaches our aged leaders who like to make a show of how much they support youths, digital economy, and global technology that the world is no longer what they know it to be. The internet has changed the world in such drastic ways that countries like Nigeria where lawmakers debate social media regulations waste their time. To succeed in the new world being unfolded, you must drop gragra tactics and commit to learning so you can propose reasonable solutions.

As for Gambaryan, they should let him go his way. That these men were labelled “executives” and sent to Africa does not mean they have any real power in the corporation. Even if you abduct their CEO for $10bn, you will be surprised how the company board of shareholders will rather give him up than give up money. Binance trades capital, not sentiments.

Punch

Chioma Okoli, a 39-year-old entrepreneur from Lagos, is being prosecuted and sued in civil court for allegedly breaching the country’s cybercrime laws, in a case that has gripped the West African nation and sparked protests by locals who believe she is being persecuted for exercising her right to free speech.

What did she say?

Okoli, a small-scale importer of children’s wear, told CNN that on September 17 she asked her 18,000 followers on Facebook to share their opinions about a tomato puree she bought in place of her usual brands, saying she found it too sweet.

Her post, accompanied by a photo of an opened can of Nagiko Tomato Mix, produced by local company Erisco Foods Limited, sparked varied reactions from commenters, one of whom replied: “Stop spoiling my brother’s product. If (you) don’t like it, use another one than bring it to social media or call the customer service.”

Okoli responded: “Help me advise your brother to stop ki***ing people with his product, yesterday was my first time of using and it’s pure sugar.”

A week later, on September 24, she was arrested.

In legal filings seen by CNN, the Nigeria Police Force alleged that Okoli used her Facebook account “with the intention of instigating people against Erisco Foods,” adding in a statement on March 7 that it had “unearthed compelling evidence” against her from its preliminary investigations.

According to the police, Okoli was charged with “instigating Erisco Foods Limited, knowing the said information to be false under Section 24 (1) (B) of Nigeria’s Cyber Crime Prohibition Act.”

If found guilty, she could face up to three years in jail or a fine of 7 million naira (around $5,000), or both.

Okoli was separately charged with conspiring with two other individuals “with the intention of instigating people against Erisco Foods Limited,” which the charge sheet noted was punishable under Section 27(1)(B) of the same act. She risks a seven-year sentence if convicted of this charge.

CNN has reached out to Facebook for comment.

Okoli is also being sued in a separate civil case brought by Erisco, which said in a statement issued on January 19 that it was defending its reputation after her comments “resulted in several suppliers deciding to disassociate themselves from us.”

The Lagos-based food company said it also “suffered the loss of multiple credit lines” and had therefore filed a civil lawsuit against Okoli that sought 5 billion naira (more than $3 million) in damages. This case is due to be heard on May 20, her lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, told CNN.

A spokesman for Erisco Foods, Nnamdi Nwokolo, told CNN the company would not speak further on the case “because it is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Public apology required

Okoli, who’s currently pregnant with her fourth child, told CNN she was arrested by plainclothes police while she was in church in Lagos and detained in a leaky police cell.

“I was put in the cell around 6 p.m. (on September 24). There were no seats, so I stood all through till the next day. My legs were inside the water (that came in from the leaking roof). Sometimes, I squatted to reduce the pressure on my legs. I was thinking about my children who were at home. I was talking to myself. I would think, I would pray, I was messed up,” she said.

The following day, Okoli was flown to the Nigerian capital, Abuja, and held at a police station until her release on administrative bail was finalized a day later, she said.

Agreeing to apologize publicly to Erisco was a condition of her release on bail, she said, but her lawyer, Effiong, told CNN she agreed to this under duress and therefore did not apologize after her release.

The police filed their case against Okoli in an Abuja court on October 5.

The first court hearing took place on December 7. She was represented by her lawyer but did not attend in person.

Okoli told CNN that a month later, on January 9, police entered her Lagos home and attempted to arrest her, despite a restraining order issued by a court on November 8 barring her arrest without a court order. CNN has seen a copy of the restraining order.

“They stayed in my building from 6:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. My children couldn’t go to school that day and we couldn’t go out to get food because the cooking gas was finished,” she said. Eventually, she said, the police left.

National police spokesman Olumuyiwa Adejobi told CNN he could not comment on the case as the matter was in court.

“We will comment on the case when the court decides,” Adejobi said.

Countersuit against police and food company

Effiong told CNN that Okoli’s legal team was now gearing up for the two legal cases, which he described as a David vs. Goliath battle.

“In this case, we believe that David is right, and Goliath is wrong,” Effiong said.

In October, he filed a 500 million naira ($361,171) countersuit on behalf of Okoli against both Erisco and the police at a Lagos court, challenging her arrest and detention, which he said violated her constitutional rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement.

In court papers relating to the countersuit, Effiong argued that his client’s arrest was also a breach of her constitutional right to freedom of expression. He said that he would also ask the Abuja court where she is being tried for cybercrime violations to transfer the case to Lagos, where she lives, at the next hearing, set for April 18.

Hard to prove

Nigerian legal and public affairs analyst Kelechukwu Uzoka told CNN that there are limits to the freedom of speech defense.

“No law guarantees absolute freedom,” he said. “While we have our freedom of expression, there are limitations. You can’t defame or malign someone.”

However, he added that “cybercrime is difficult to prove in court. You have to prove actual harm when the post was made. Erisco must prove that the Facebook post (by Okoli) affected its business as at the point it was made.” He noted that in Okoli’s post, she used a word with three asterisks, which could be open to interpretation.

“Harassment and intimidation of Chioma Okoli must end now,” Amnesty International Nigeria said earlier this month, as Nigerians began crowdfunding online to support her legal fees.

Okoli’s case has sparked protests at Erisco’s Lagos facility as many on social media called for a boycott of its products. The company’s founder, Eric Umeofia, refused to budge, however, saying in a recent documentary on the local Arise Television channel that he won’t drop the lawsuit against Okoli and that he would “rather die than allow someone to tarnish my image I worked 40 years to grow.”

CNN

Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), on Tuesday, raised the interest rate by 200 basis points from 22.75 per cent to 24.75 per cent amid soaring inflation.

The central bank made this known after the two-day Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting held between Monday and Tuesday.

According to the National Bureau of Statistics, the country’s latest annual inflation rate jumped to 31.70 per cent from 29.90 per cent a month prior, primarily fueled by a continuous surge in food prices.

Olayemi Cardoso, governor of the CBN, on Tuesday, disclosed that the MPC voted to adjust the asymmetric corridor around the MPR at +100 to -300 basis points.

He said the committee voted to retain the Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) at 45 per cent for commercial banks and adjust the CRR of merchant banks from 10 per cent to 14 per cent.

The committee also voted to retain the liquidity at 30 per cent.

According to him, the committee’s considerations focused on the current inflationary pressures and the need to anchor inflation expectations as well as ensure sustained exchange rate stability.

“These considerations underscore the importance of the ECB and its commitment to the price stability mandate and the need to urgently bring inflation under control to ensure that the purchasing power of ordinary Nigerians is restored in the short to medium term.

“Members noted the continued rise in headline inflation driven largely by food prices, because of supply shortages, and high cost of Logistics and Distribution. The committee, therefore, was of the view that addressing food insecurity is key to containing current inflationary pressures.

“On this note, members commended the ongoing efforts of the federal government towards addressing food insecurity. Some of these measures include the provision of various palliatives release of grains from the strategic reserves, distribution of seeds and fertilisers as well as farm implements for dry season farming. The committee therefore called for the full implementation of the federal government’s agricultural policies and programmes to improve food supply and further advised for broader fiscal consolidation, particularly on the improvements of tax collection and tax to GDP ratio,” he said.

Cardoso said the committee will continue to monitor developments in the global and domestic economies to ensure that inflationary expectations are anchored to restore and sustain macroeconomic stability.

He announced that the next meeting of the MPC will be held on 20 and 21 May.

PT

Reactions have trailed bandits seen in viral videos displaying cash supposedly collected from victims.

Videos of the ransoms were uploaded on Tiktok.

The monies were seen in a series of post on X by a counter-insurgency expert and security analyst, Zagazola Makama.

Makama said the user of the social network account has over 3000 followers.

He noted that some of them are bandits who openly show off their rifles and are dressed in military or police uniforms.

“Audacity: Bandit on Tiktok flaunting and showing off ransom money he collected from his victims.”

“The user of the account has 3000 followers, some of them are bandits who openly show off their rifles and are dressed in military or police uniforms.

“Tiktok platform has given room for insurgents to promote their campaign of terror without being restricted,” he wrote.

The post has elicited anger.

Writing via @tundealuko, one Tunde Aluko said: “Bandit has a social media account and ‘can’t be found” random user post a comment about EFCC chairman and was arrested under 2 weeks.”

@mobilisingniger: “The annoying thing is the video was taken 3days ago. There is a video where he was showing where he went to collect ransom from his victim.”

@Sikowitz17: “If someone insulted the IGP or the presidency and had a video showing his face on TikTok or Twitter. He’d have been arrested within hours.”

@Kings_Things: “Openly showing off rifles and flexing on the gram, Nigerian security forces refuse to do anything to apprehend them. Every Nigerian deserves the right to legally own a gun to protect themselves because no one will protect you better than yourself.”

@obajemujnr: “Security can track anyone who dares insult politicians, but they can’t track b@ndits flaunting ill-gotten wealth on TikTok. That speaks volumes.”

@aamowuN: “Nigerian police spokesman brazenly bragged here that he can locate anyone who called out the Nigerian police on social media within minutes but can’t locate bandit who roam freely on social media. Abi the rule of location does not apply to terrorists?”

@AmaraDeborah1: “Thinking TikTok is the problem here is crazy. This is an evidence of a failed state. A country that massages ego of terrorists, negotiated (fund them), reintegrates the arrested ones into the society and pays them, then sets up armoured vehicles to raze down civilian communities.”

@toyeebarowona: “The government is doing a lot to fight terrorism but this might be a wake up call to the government to do more in its war against terrorism. We can’t allow miscreants to mock us as a nation.”

@VictorFargo: “Nigeria insecurity crisis have given insurgents the audacity to post on social media. Don’t blame it on tiktok, this is an easy opportunity to track them.”

@Tsure1∅1: “These people are completely animal. You are calling the name of God to do evil, kill, and rob people because of the guns you have in your possession.”

Daily Trust

Togolese lawmakers adopted a new constitution on Monday, moving the country from a presidential to a parliamentary system and giving parliament the power to elect the president of the small West African country.

The president will be chosen “without debate” by lawmakers “for a single six-year term”, and not by the public, according to the new text.

The vote comes less than a month before the next legislative elections in Togo, but it is not yet known when the change — which was approved with 89 votes in favour, one against and one abstention — will come into force.

Currently, the president can serve a maximum of two five-year terms.

The change to the constitution, proposed by a group of lawmakers mostly from the Union for the Republic (UNIR) ruling party, was adopted almost unanimously.

The country’s opposition, which boycotted the last legislative elections in 2018 and denounced “irregularities” in the electoral census, is poorly represented in the national assembly.

The new constitution also introduces the position of “president of the council of ministers” with “full authority and power to manage the affairs of the government and to be held accountable accordingly.”

The president of the council of ministers is “the leader of the party or the leader of the majority coalition of parties following the legislative elections. The position will be held for a six-year term,” according to the text.

“The head of state is practically divested of his powers in favour of the president of the council of ministers, who becomes the person who represents the Togolese Republic abroad, and who effectively leads the country in its day-to-day management,” said Tchitchao Tchalim, chairman of the national assembly’s committee on constitutional laws, legislation and general administration.

The new text will mark Togo’s entry into its fifth republic, with the last major constitutional change dating back to 1992.

It comes less than a month before the next legislative elections, due to be held on April 20 at the same time as regional elections, in which the opposition has announced its participation.

In 2019, members of parliament revised the constitution to limit presidential terms to two, but it did not apply retrospectively, leaving President Faure Gnassingbe free to stand for the next two elections.

Gnassingbe — in power since 2005 — succeeded his father, General Gnassingbe Eyadema, who seized power in a coup more than 50 years ago.

The Guardian

Israel confirms Hamas deputy military commander killed in Israeli strike

Hamas deputy military commander Marwan Issa was killed in an Israeli strike this month, Israel's military spokesperson said on Tuesday, confirming reports from earlier in the month.

"We have checked all the intelligence," Daniel Hagari said in a televised statement. "Marwan Issa was eliminated in the strike we carried out around two weeks ago," he said.

There was no immediate comment from Hamas.

Issa was at the top of Israel's most-wanted list together with Mohammed Deif, the head of Hamas' military wing, the Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, and Hamas' leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, who are believed to have masterminded the group's Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel that triggered the Gaza war.

Reuters

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Russia delivers strike at Ukrainian intelligence decision-making centers

Russian forces delivered a combined strike by long-range precision weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles against Ukrainian intelligence decision-making centers and sites and foreign mercenaries’ deployment areas over the past day in the special military operation in Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported on Tuesday.

"During the last 24-hour period, the Russian Armed Forces delivered a combined strike by seaborne and ground-based long-range precision weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles against SBU [Ukrainian Security Service] decision-making centers and sites, military-industrial enterprises and deployment areas of Ukrainian Neo-Nazi formations and foreign mercenaries. All the targets were struck. The goals of the strike were achieved," the ministry said in a statement.

On March 16-22, Russian troops delivered 49 retaliatory strikes with precision weapons, including Kinzhal hypersonic missiles in response to Kiev’s shelling of Russian populated areas and attempts to break through into its territory, the ministry reported.

On March 24, Russia’s Aerospace Forces delivered a combined strike by air-launched precision weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles against Ukrainian electric power and gas-extracting industry sites and naval drone assembly workshops.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting with Security Council permanent members that the enemy’s strikes delivered against Russia’s populated areas during the presidential election would trigger a retaliatory strike.

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Ukrainian missile attack hits Russian warship and reconnaissance vessel, navy says

A Ukrainian missile attack struck a Russian naval reconnaissance vessel and a large landing warship that Moscow captured from Kyiv during the annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014, Ukraine's navy said on Tuesday.

Ukraine hit the vessels during an attack on Crimea at the weekend, the navy said. The fact of that strike was already known, but the military had said it hit two other warships, the Azov and Yamal large landing ships.

The navy said the Konstantin Olshansky large landing ship was struck with a Neptune anti-ship missile, sustaining damage that Kyiv was still assessing.

"Currently, this ship is not combat-capable," navy spokesman Dmytro Pletenchuk said on national television, adding that the Ivan Khurs reconnaissance vessel had also been hit.

There was no immediate comment from Russia.

Russia's Black Sea Fleet, which Moscow used to project power into the Mediterranean and Middle East before the war, has suffered a string of blows as Ukraine has picked off warships and even a submarine with naval drones and missiles.

Earlier this month, Russia confirmed the appointment of a new head of its navy in what was seen in Ukraine as tacit acknowledgement of the success of their naval attacks even though Ukraine does not have any large warships of its own.

The Konstantin Olshansky, then a Ukrainian warship, was captured by Russia along with much of the Ukrainian navy in 2014 when the Kremlin's troops seized control of Crimea, the traditional base of the Black Sea Fleet.

Russia cannibalised the vessel for parts for other landing ships, Pletenchuk said.

But Ukrainian strikes on large landing ships created a shortage and forced the Russian navy to prepare the ship to be brought back into service over the past year, he said.

"It had gone through a renovation and was being prepared for use against Ukraine, so unfortunately the decision was taken to strike this (ship)," he said.

He added that a Ukrainian-made Neptune anti-ship missile was used for the strike.

"Out of 13 (large landing ships), four have been destroyed, four are being repaired, and five are in working order," he said.

The Yamal and Azov warships that were also hit over the weekend have been taken for repairs, Pletenchuk said.

The battle in the Black Sea is important for Ukraine, which wants to secure a vital export corridor for its grain, metal and other cargo to international markets despite attempts by Russia to impose a de-facto sea blockade.

Ukraine controls several hundred kilometres of Black Sea coastline despite Russian occupation of some of its southern regions.

Tass/Reuters

A lack of quality, people-oriented leadership has been the single most identified challenge to development in Nigeria. Over the years, since its independence from Britain in 1960, the quest for good (dedicated) leadership has seen Nigeria(ns) suffer through a series of upheavals—including several (sometimes brutal) military coups, a civil war, and decades of political suppression—and other developmental setbacks. Consequently, when, in 1999, the country was returned to democratic rule, which was celebrated as an ideal government model capable of delivering public goods to the masses, many were optimistic for a new dawn.

True to the hopes and aspirations of Nigerians, the first few years following the country’s return to democratic rule rekindled belief in the citizenry that leadership had, indeed, taken a turn for the better. Beyond the upward review of the national minimum wage, there were also substantial debt pardons and other economic indices, which signaled a positive start to a bright future. Such beliefs were to be further encouraged by the dedication displayed by government officials like the late Dora Akunyili (as Director General, National Agency for Food and Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC)) and Nuhu Ribadu (as pioneer Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)), whose achievements contributed, in no little measure, to reassuring Nigerians that their interests were well looked after. This was an era when Nigerians witnessed, perhaps for the first time, the wealthy, powerful, and politically well-connected being subject to the superior arm of the law—as seen in the sanitization of Nigeria’s manufacture and importation industries, the sack of a federal minister, impeachment of three state governors, and the imprisonment of then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, after a refund of £150 million under a plea bargain.

Unfortunately for Nigeria(ns), however, the apparent transformations/reforms that followed the country’s return to democracy were to be short-lived. One occasion which revealed perceptible cracks in Nigeria’s rejuvenated democratic project was the 2003 presidential elections, which was marred by allegations, both locally and internationally, of electoral malpractices in favour of the then-ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its leader, president Olusegun Obasanjo. This was followed by another controversial presidential election in 2007, which expelled all hopes that the 2003 incident would be an isolated one. This question mark, placed on the electoral integrity of Nigeria’s reemergent and rejuvenated democracy, became a critical step in her gradual descent into political impunity.

Upon assumption of office in 2007, then-president Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, compelled by the brazenness of the electoral heist which aided his emergence, confirmed that the elections which brought him to office had “shortcomings,” to which he promised electoral reforms. But, as fate would have it, he did not live long enough to deliver on this promise. The task then fell to his vice and successor, President Goodluck Jonathan, who managed to deliver, in 2015, what is today considered Nigeria’s freest and fairest elections after the June 12, 1993, annulled votes. However, if Jonathan’s ability to deliver “free, fair and credible” elections—so dubbed for his uncharacteristic (by African standards) readiness to concede defeat—in 2015 was construed by Nigerians as a watershed moment for leadership in the country, what transpired during President Muhammadu Buhari’s eight-year stint as president would make an absolute mockery of any such optimism. To many, his administration took Nigeria back many decades.

Under the leadership of former president Buhari, Nigeria perceptibly sank deeper into the murky waters of political highhandedness and impunity. His was a government which favoured propaganda over actual service—as evidenced by how busy the trio of the presidential spokesmen, Femi Adesina, media adviser Garba Shehu, and the information minister, Lai Mohammed, were while it lasted. Returning after many months abroad in medical tourism, Buhari initiated a lacklustre performance, which characterized most of his eight years in office. In fact, the only instances of administrative vigour were to be recorded in areas of self-preservation and perpetuation. To this end, the government became notorious for defying court orders. It also showed contempt for the rule of law both in Zaria (in 2015) and Lekki (in 2020), where the army was used to disperse protesters, leading to many casualties. In the economy, the administration, in connivance with a cowed/subservient senate, plunged Nigeria(ns) into devastating debt after having depleted the national reserves without any evidence of economic development. As a self-appointed petroleum minister, Buhari oversaw the investment of billions of dollars into the maintenance and refurbishment of Nigeria’s three refineries, which remained unproductive and cost the country trillions in fuel subsidies. To wrap it all up, the administration conducted an election (in 2023) which was rife with electoral violence and malpractice: vote buying, ballot snatching, result tempering, and voter intimidation.

As has been the unspoken/unwritten constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, especially since its democratic revival in 1999, exiting presidents are never held accountable by their successors, notwithstanding the extent of corruption and highhandedness observed during the former’s tenure. This political arrangement, which is even more assured when both exiting and incoming presidents belong to the same political party, however, does little in the way of protecting lieutenants who—perhaps having incurred the ire of some party heavyweight(s)—become scapegoats paraded by the nation’s anti-corruption/graft agencies to enhance the credibility image of the newly inaugurated governments. Hence, outside the occasional “political witch-hunting,” such publicly advertised trials have become the only sign of accountability in government in Nigeria. After all, as serving senator Adams Oshiomole, the former national chairman of the ruling party (APC), once declared during a presidential rally in 2019, “Once you join the APC, your sins are forgiven.”

However, if those entrusted with managing the affairs of Nigeria are so disposed to forgiving the catastrophic sins of their counterparts—who have enriched themselves at the expense of their fellow countrymen—in exchange for political support, the suffering citizenry has displayed no such magnanimous inclinations. In a social media video which went viral—catching the attention of Nigerian government officials—recently (February 17 2024), a pupil was captured in debate, denigrating Nigeria’s leadership, whom he described as a “bunch of thieves, gold-diggers, betrayers, hungry lions….” Even for one so small, his energic vituperations, which were rounded off by an invocation of thunder and doom on Nigerian “leaders,” raised different reactions, ranging from approval to disapproval and outright condemnation. While the majority of Nigerians, angered and frustrated by the increasing and unending hardship in the country, viewed the young pupil as speaking their minds, a “moral” few emphasized the moral and ethical implications of such display. They faulted the child’s teachers for their “unprofessional” conduct while also suggesting that there were better avenues to convey grievances. On its part, the Niger State government, where the concerned school is domiciled, took great offence at the development and promised to discipline the teachers.

Once responding to a question on the prevalence of corruption in Nigeria, former vice-president Yemi Osinbajo alluded that corruption thrived in Nigeria not because there was something wrong with Nigerians but because there was an “absence of consequence.” This begs the question, ‘‘what is the consequence of corruption in Nigeria?’’ Corruption, the irrational desire to become wealthy at the expense of others, has been the major bane of leadership in Nigeria. In fact, if a book were to be written about government corruption in Nigeria today, the volumes would fill many rooms. Curiously, however, while some people have spent years in prison and even paid the ultimate price for corruption and other acts that contravene the law, others have thrived because of it. It has also been the experience that anytime the subject of the consequence of corruption for public office holders comes up; citizens have been required to consider the reputation/rank of the office of the offending party when demanding justice. But, speaking both ethically and morally, should anyone who abused an office they were entrusted with enjoy the respect and privilege it carries? Is this not how sacred cows are created?

As we speak, a controversy is brewing in the national assembly over an alleged budget padding to the tune of 3.7 trillion naira. Although such behaviour has, over time, been forced on Nigerians as the standard practice amongst her lawmakers, the amount of money allegedly involved in this case has elicited much outcry from the masses who are suffering the pains of the biting policies of President Bola Tinubu. Nevertheless, more recent information, as contained in a PUNCH online publication dated 17 March 2024, shows embattled Adbul Ningi settling for a lesser fifty-three-billion-naira figure as against his original 3.7 trillion-naira claim. Of this amount—not captured in the proposal submitted by Tinubu— the paper, through its investigations, confirms that hundreds of billions have been earmarked for “vague” projects with equally “vague” locations. More so, other public investigations into the amounts earmarked for the construction of boreholes, streetlights and other constituency projects reveal that they have been grossly inflated, sometimes over a hundred per cent more than the actual costs for the best options. This, coming from a group that enjoys the best remuneration and welfare packages obtained anywhere in the world, is the worst example of stewardship that anyone can imagine.

In the face of such conduct, from a group whose concepts of ethics, values and morals apparently hold no meaning, is it any surprise that the citizenry entertains only disdain for their “leaders”? If all attempts at expressing a grievance, either through public protests or electoral decisions, have either been met with brutal force or systemic manipulations, what is the next recourse? Perhaps the Nigerian “leadership” should be thankful that the disgruntled masses appear to be satisfied with verbal options for expressing their dissatisfaction. They should consider using this period of grace, which is fast running out, to turn a new leaf instead of plotting ways to shortchange and vex the same people on whose backs they have reaped their many luxuries. In desperation, my people alter a curse-prayer: a fa yin si kotu Olorun! Who is to lift this curse?

You see it all the time in business: people who are vocal about their achievements, who assert their opinions, and who have a certain swagger. The person may be a boss, a coworker, or an employee.

But how can you tell if the person’s behaviors come from a place of confidence or cockiness? What’s the difference? And why does it matter?

The whole key to a cocky person’s persona is that they exude confidence that masks inadequacy. Cocky people don’t have the ability to perform at the level required, so they have to make themselves look good through arrogant, boastful behaviors and impressive appearances.

So if the surface covers up shortcomings, how does the work get done? Cocky people are masters at passing a task off to someone else and taking credit for its completion.

As the boss, you have to spend energy to unravel this dynamic. That takes time away from other jobs that are meaningful on your plate.

There are certain telltale signs to determine if the person you’re dealing with is cocky or confident.

Sign #1: Talk versus action

Not to sound cliché, but a primary attribute of a cocky person is talking the talk without walking the walk. In other words, the person talks a good game but doesn’t back it up with action.

A confident person may boast about their accomplishments, but with good reason. They have the capabilities to get the job done.

Sign #2: Appearances versus reality

A cocky person looks for attention by calling attention to appearances, especially material possessions. The person may drive a fancy car or wear an expensive watch but is actually up to their eyeballs in debt.

A confident person’s reality matches or exceeds outside appearances. What you see is what you get.

Sign #3: Enforcing versus listening

A person who is cocky tends to try to impose their will, flaunting what they believe to be a position of power to get what they want. When questioned, the cocky person may respond with a variation of “Because I said so.”

By contrast, a confident person doesn’t insist on one way of doing things. Confident individuals have no need to humiliate others. They sit back, they ask questions, they listen, and they try to understand.

Sign #4: “You” versus “we”

When it comes to taking responsibility, you’re never going to hear “we” or “I” out of a cocky person. The cocky person always deflects blame to “you.” “You didn’t do what I asked.” “You made a mistake.”

Confident people look inside first and accept responsibility for themselves and their team. ”Maybe we should have done something differently.” “How can we make this better?”

Understand the risks of cockiness in business

Cocky people pose a danger to your business. They blame and deflect. They believe they can talk their way out of any situation rather than making the effort to understand. They’re more concerned with protecting their own best interest than figuring out what went wrong and solving problems. 

Customers get turned off when rudely challenged. And because the external bravado is a mask for inaction and deflection, an overly cocky person tends to create additional problems by making poor decisions.

Confident people are cordial, which helps customers relax. This approach diffuses conflicts by changing the tone of the conversation. Customers appreciate a businessperson who listens and accepts responsibility. 

When dealing with customers or coworkers, confident people favor a team approach, working together instead of in opposition. Confident people pose thoughtful, challenging questions. The underlying goal is to uncover what is in the best interest of the project or the customer.

Eliminating cockiness from the workplace

I try to weed out cocky people in the hiring process. I have been known to ask increasingly challenging questions in interviews to try to strip away the top layer of arrogance. It usually becomes evident pretty quickly when someone is using bravado to cover for lack of knowledge.

Even after I’ve hired someone, I’m a big advocate of challenging people to help them improve. I set high expectations and encourage my employees to reach that level. A cocky employee won’t be able to meet those challenges, a trait that reveals itself as soon as I pay closer attention to how work is getting done. 

For example, I will closely examine specific indicators of the person’s performance, such as sales quotas, to see if and how the person is meeting these expectations. Also, I carefully observe interactions with customers. 

I might pop into a customer meeting unannounced to watch what’s going on. If the customer is raising concerns, and my employee is talking around those concerns rather than taking responsibility and addressing them directly, that’s a red flag for me.

Eventually, a cocky employee’s shortcomings take their toll on customers and coworkers. If you’re the boss, your integrity is on the line.

Evaluate your own behavior

As you go about your business, evaluate yourself and the people who work for you. How do you conduct yourself in meetings? How do you behave with your employees and coworkers? 

What type of businessperson would you like to be? Because if you fall on the cocky side of the spectrum, you’re just holding yourself back.

Cockiness is self-serving. A cocky person continues to boost themselves up…until the façade inevitably falls apart. Confidence is strength. You back your claims with integrity, truth, and performance. 

But there is a time when cockiness serves its purpose through confidence. The confident person can be cocky, which translates into charisma that people are drawn to.

Inc