Western deception has been with Africa forever:

1493: Pope Alexander VI issued a papal bull, “Inter Caetera,” proclaiming the right of Spain and Portugal to enslave Africans and own the land. They were subjects. They stole your people and your land.

1885: Africa was a Dark Continent. It required colonization to become civilized. Europe would bring change and civilize them. They stole your raw materials and truncated your self-development.

1940: When over a million Africans fought in Europe, North Africa and the Far East during the Second World War, the West convinced them they were dying for freedom and democracy. But where in Africa do they receive freedom and democracy? Indeed, Apartheid was inaugurated in 1948 in South Africa.

When will this deception come to an end? So, Gabon and Niger were democracies before the 2023 coups? You must be using the wrong dictionary to define democracy. Cameroon under the invalid Paul Biya is a democracy? You must be confusing the Mali Empire with the modern country of Cameroon. And the presidents who rule for as long as they want practising democracy?

You need a little education.

Recent developments in Africa’s political space, particularly the growing number of military takeovers, have informed fresh queries around the expressions of neo-colonialism in Africa and the commitment to liberal democracy as the ideal political model for the region. The point of reference for these queries is the ceremonial reactions from the acclaimed “champions of democracy” in the West, who waste no time issuing condemnations at every instance of “democratic failure” on the continent without any actual commitment to ensuring that power indeed lies with the people. Not only have these champions of African interests—the United States (US), Britain and France—touted democracy as the best system of political organization to achieve political stability and economic prosperity in Africa, but they have also prosecuted wars, allegedly in its defence, which cost millions of lives and destabilized entire regions. However, it is not enough to accuse our benevolent friends in the West of hypocrisy without providing compelling proof of double-dealing in delivering their duties as democratic crusaders. After all, in a democratic setting, all are innocent until proven guilty. 

As a philosophy of government, democracy has existed since the Greco-Roman times. However, its foray into Africa can be traced to the eve of independence when Britain and France introduced forms of local representation as concessions to indigenous demands for independence. Thus, from 1959, parliamentary elections and other democratic institutions started to become commonplace on the continent. But, as it would turn out, this democratic experiment, which formed part of the third (global) wave of democracy, was to be short-lived—derailed as it was by fluctuating Western interests on the continent. 

Guiding Western interest in Africa from the 1950s was the ideological war between the West (mainly the USA) and the Soviet Union. The “Cold War,” as it came to be known, was the first incident to unmask the real intentions of the West for post-colonial Africa. In their quest to emerge as the world’s sole superpower, the US and the Soviet Union, who actively strove to undermine each other’s influence by, among other things, advancing their political ideologies around the world, turned to Africa as another important frontier of conquest. While the Soviet Union armed African revolutionary movements against their Western colonial overlords and provided support to openly communist governments, Washington concluded that, to effectively check the spread of Soviet influence on the continent, it was more expedient to enthrone biddable leaders in African states than it was to woo them with any ideological arguments or economic incentives.

Anxious to ensure power was handed over to reliable politicians, Britain and France became eager participants in the US policy in Africa. Together, the US and its allies targeted venal local strongmen, preferably with military backgrounds and authoritarian tendencies, who, in collaboration with its intelligence agencies, ousted legitimate/democratic governments. Notable victims and beneficiaries of this plot included (in the former category) Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Patrice Lumumba of Congo DRC, Sylvio Olympio of Togo and (in the latter category) Idi Amin of Uganda, Mobutu Sese Seko of Congo DRC and Gnassingbé Eyadema of Togo, to mention a few. Consequently, thirty-three African countries that achieved independence between 1956-1970 became authoritarian immediately or not long after. 

Another demonstration of the complete disregard that the West has for democracy, peace/stability and human rights in Africa is its willingness to engulf the entire region in conflict so that it can achieve its “strategic interests.”  Once again, we begin from the Cold War era where, having recently come out of a highly destructive war in Europe (in 1945) and being cautious of engaging in another, the West and the Eastern Bloc turned Africa into the site of their proxy wars. In southern Africa, where the US considered both Angola and Mozambique as areas of “strategic interests,” Washington armed the 200,000 Portuguese conscripts, who went on to fight a protracted war against local nationalist revolutionaries, with imported weapons, which included defoliants and napalm. In Angola, the US, in cooperation with Apartheid South Africa, backed the National Union for Total Independence (UNITA) against the country’s (Soviet-backed) leading national liberation front, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA). There were also similar cases in northern Africa where Sudan was funded and armed by the US against Egypt and Ethiopia, who had also pitched their tents with Moscow. These conflicts and the resultant proliferation of arms saw the loss of millions of African lives from war and famine and a general destabilization of the region. 

While the West cannot be said to have been directly involved in all the occasions of transition from democratic to authoritarian rule, in more than a few instances, the leaders of newly independent democratic/multi-party African states seized the opportunity of Western patronage to quickly switch to one-party/despotic rule. In other cases, it was the corruption, resource mismanagement, “tribalism,” patrimonialism, clientelism and imperialism perpetrated by a Western-backed ruling political class which formed the basis of military takeovers (coups). Nevertheless, in this atmosphere of quasi-democratic rule, full-fledged despotism, military rule and Apartheid—where national resources were siphoned by kleptocratic regimes and millions of Africans either became refugees or died as a result of civil wars, hunger, and human rights abuses—our western “friends” were content to look the other way if the government in place proved itself an ally of Washington.      

Perhaps the most glaring example of the West’s democratic hypocrisy in Africa was its age-long support for the highly racist and politically repressive Apartheid regime in South Africa. Like the French, who were able to cajole Washington into believing that they were fighting communist-backed insurgents in Algeria, the South African Apartheid regime, for forty years, posed as the last bastion against communists in Africa—an attitude that was able to secure a steady flow of western arms. This, alongside the West’s tacit approval, allowed for one of Africa’s most despicable shows of human debasement, carried out in the name of imperialism and racial superiority. After all, as President Ronald Regan remarked in 1981, South Africa was “essential to the free world in its production of minerals we all must have.”  

The end of the Cold War changed Western attitudes towards Africa. Without the Soviet threat, the West leaned more towards development diplomacy and foreign aid regimes as the main thrust of its foreign policy in Africa. Foreign aid to Africa, however, turned out to be a Trojan horse. Already saddled with the task of building vibrant economies whilst also harmonizing the aspirations of the different ethnic nationalities which characterized them, African countries, especially in Francophone Africa, also had to grapple with the undermining economic and political agreements they had been coerced into signing with their erstwhile colonial overlord as a condition for independence and continued patronage. To make matters worse, some African countries were, at the end of the Cold War, either fighting or had just come out of civil war. This, combined with the widespread corruption and mismanagement of national resources which characterized Africa’s tyrannical governments, put many African countries at the mercy of international monetary agencies (the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank) and their financiers whose aid they were now heavily dependent on. 

At first, these Bretton Woods institutions were content to grant loans/aid, at debilitating interest rates no less, to authoritarian leaders who used them to perpetuate themselves in power and, in return, provided the former with mineral and other economic concessions. However, without the Cold War pressures, more emphasis was placed on the liberalization and capitalist/free-market aspects of US foreign policy to guarantee return on investments. Soon enough, Structural Adjustments Programmes (SAPs) were introduced as a precondition for further loans/aid. Said adjustments, which demanded limited government intervention in the public sector, i.e., removing government subsidies in energy (fuel/gas), education and health care, brought untold hardships to already suffering populations. And as research has shown, poverty and non-tax revenue make for the ideal democratic environment. In other words, “when the government is not beholden to citizens for its funding, there is less accountability and less reason to democratize” (Tilly 1990). Instead, leaders simply use the “free” funding from natural resources (oil) and foreign loans/aid to buy enough support to remain in power. 

Judging from the various expressions of Western interests in Africa over decades, it goes without saying that the West simply pays lip service to ideologies when convenient. Although many Africans might not object to the cynical pragmatism that has always guided Western foreign policy in Africa, I dare say they will not stand for the continued lies and hypocrisy that have characterized Western reactions to African developments. Even if the above-described instances of Western hypocrisy in Africa were to be argued to be in the past, it is a living past for Africa.  

Africa, today, still has authoritarian governments in place whose political repression and human rights abuses go on unchecked by our democracy and rule of law-loving friends in the West. After being siphoned by kleptocratic governments, our commonwealth still finds its way to Western banks, where it sits and improves the local economy. Western interests continue to impoverish Africans and destabilize their regions. So, Africans are today saying to the West, its diplomats, presidents, and the other agents of its propaganda: “Your gambit in Africa is up. Our people are awakened!”   

The West has sold you a fake product called democracy. Africans, your vote is not a sign of democracy. It is no more than a deception. There is no democracy without accountability. You are just voting thieves to power. There is no democracy without transparency. You are just using your votes in support of crooks and thugs. There is no democracy without good governance. Your vote is facilitating theft. Maybe you are waiting for your turn to steal. There is no democracy without development. Your vote is moving you back to the Stone Age. Even early humans knew when to replace stones with iron during the Stone Age. Africa, you don’t have a democracy. Anyone you have not appointed cannot disappoint you! Citizens are being deceived, and they are deceiving themselves. Organize yourselves at various levels and think of alternatives to democracy or, at the minimum, how accountability and transparency will form the core of your democratic practices. Your lifetime president is not a Democrat. He is an authoritarian kleptocrat far worse than the combination of Doris Payne, Stephane Breitwieser, Simon Leviev, Veerappan, Derek Smalls, Vincenzo Peruggia, Bonnie and Clyde, Natwarlal, Carl Gugasian, Frank Abagnale, Anna Sorokin, Albert Spaggiari, Jesse James, Anthony Strangis, and Bill Mason. Do you know these names?

The differences between European and American cultures is always an interesting — and sometimes controversial — topic to discuss. As an American, I personally find it very interesting to learn of these differences. So of course when I found this thread on Reddit where u/a_m42_ asked: "Americans, what is something that Europeans have/do that makes no sense to you?" I had to do a deep dive and read all the responses. Here are some that really stood out to me.

1. "I'm Canadian, but it always baffled me that some Europeans consider a half hour's worth of driving a long time. That wouldn't even get me out of the area I'd consider local."

—u/TwoFingersWhiskey

2. "In Germany, apartments supposedly don't normally come with a kitchen. It's purchased and installed by the tennant. Sometimes you luck out but not usually."

—u/Widegina

3. "Paying to use the bathroom in public spaces."

—u/Neat_Serve730

4. "No AC? Sure, fine. But then no screens on your windows so all the bugs get in? Not sure if this is all of Europe, but definitely the UK."

—u/Curiosity13

5. "I've always been curious how carbonated water became the default in many places."

—u/thedevilsgame

6. "The smoking. I stayed with a host family in France and my 16-year-old host’s sister smoked like a chimney, as did all her friends. Like you're so young. Why?"

—u/101bees

7. "Charging for water at a restaurant is something that I would have expected Americans to do and Europeans be the ones making fun of it."

—u/Optimistic_Futures

8. "The cute-sounding police sirens in Europe. In America, the police sirens seem like an urgent, semi-deranged warning to GTF out of the way, like 'SHIT'S GOING DOWN AND I'M NOT THERE!! MOOOOOOOOVE!!!!!!!!' Meanwhile, every European police siren I've heard just kind of politely annoys you out of the way. Like 'bee doooo bee doooo, pardon me but a spot of bother has occurred and I must hasten to it, pardon me as I simply must attend to it, pardon me.'

"And the police cars themselves are so small. American police cars are big and brawny like they might need to make their own garage door into a building."

—u/Alpha-Sierra-Charlie

9. "It still seems marvelous to me that in France (other places I'm sure, but I learned this in French class) it is common to buy groceries every day. You may wake up and go to the bakery for fresh baked bread, or stop by for fresh produce on the way home to make dinner. Yes, having walkable grocery stores nearby makes it easier, it seems so much easier to buy three to four days or a week's worth of groceries at a time."

—u/dishonourableaccount

10. "Why do you guys like to put bathroom light switches outside the bathroom?"

—u/XXMAVR1KXX

11. "I saw this mostly in the UK — why do they have two separate faucets for hot and cold water? Washing my hands was the worst."

—u/Athlete_Aromatic

12. "Solid month of vacation in the summer."

—u/winkt42

13. "Swedish here, living in Norway at the moment, and lived in DC for a while as well. The first time in the States, I was baffled by how many people could just strike up a conversation or just compliment your outfit, hair, or makeup. I absolutely loved it since I’m quite an extrovert and love talking to people. If you do that here (both Sweden and Norway) you’ll probably get a massive side eye and no response. But, as you said, once people feel comfortable with you in their inner circle, you’ll feel like family."

—u/ellielovisa

14. "I went to Scotland recently and was baffled by the weird half-shower doors that swung outward. Water got everywhere even if it was 'closed.'"

—u/Chelseedy

15. "Dinner takes six hours."

—u/turkeylamb

Buzzfeed

A Russian man who had spent the last 22 years of his life in a penal colony for serious crimes, recently escaped on the very day he was supposed to be released.

According to the SHOT Telegram channel, Kamoljon Kalonov had been serving a lengthy 22-year-sentence for a double murder, theft, and possession of weapons, ammunition, explosives, and explosive devices, but he was supposed to be released from the IK-19 penal colony in the village of Markova near Irkutsk last week.

However, the regional department of the Federal Penitentiary Service told RIA Novosti that on the morning of his release day, at around 4 in the morning, Kalonov disappeared from the colony without informing anyone and is now supposedly on the run.

Originally from the city of Zima in the Irkutsk region, Kamoljon Kalonov was first convicted for organizing a criminal community and was released from prison in 1997. He was then convicted again in 2001 and imprisoned for 22 years. Technically, anyway, because the colony he disappeared from is open facility where convicts can move around freely.

The fact is that, for those serving time in a colony-settlement, absence for three days is not considered a prison escape, but rather an evasion from the route. If during this time he does not come back or is not found, then the inmate risks a criminal punishment of up to 4 years in prison,” the press service of the Main Directorate of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Irkutsk Region wrote in a statement.

After 22 years, Kalonov was going to be released on parole and sent to forced labor, but he apparently decided to go on the run on the very day of his release.

Oddity Central

Federal Government may spend about N1.68tn as subsidy on Premium Motor Spirit, popularly called petrol, from September to December this year, an analysis of data provided by oil marketers and the sector has shown.

PMS dealers stated on Thursday that the pump price of petrol should be between N890 to N900/litre based on the fall of the naira against the United States dollar and the surge in the price of crude in the international market.

Petrol currently sells at between N598 and N617/litre depending on the location of purchase, fuelling suspicion that the commodity is being subsidised by the Federal Government.

The government and the NNPCL have not officially admitted that subsidy on petrol has been reintroduced. President Bola Tinubu had on May 29 announced an end to the subsidy regime during his inaugural address.

The government subsidises PMS through the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited. NNPCL is the sole importer of PMS. Other marketers stopped PMS imports due to their inability to access foreign exchange.

The removal of subsidy led to an increase in the pump price of petrol from about N198/litre in May to the current rate of N617/litre. But the fall of the naira coupled with the rise in crude oil price have continued to mount pressure on the cost of PMS.

Dealers in the downstream oil sector explained that the cost of crude oil and the exchange rate of the naira-dollar accounted for over 80 per cent of the cost of PMS.

Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, rose to about $95/barrel on Thursday. It had peaked to $97/barrel the preceding day, which was the highest figure in 2023.

Oil had started the year at about $82/barrel, dipped to $70/barrel in June, but traded above $94/barrel in the past week.

Also, the naira continued its downward trend after exchanging to the dollar at 980 on the parallel market on Wednesday.

A week earlier, the naira was exchanged to the dollar at 950/$.

However, on the FMDQ at the Investor & Exporter forex window, the naira appreciated slightly after closing at 770.71/$ on Wednesday from 776.76/$ on Tuesday.

The forex crisis and the recent rise in crude price, according to oil marketers, have made it impossible for petrol price to still remain at N617/litre. They insisted the government had quietly reintroduced fuel subsidy.

A media report on Thursday indicated the Federal Government paid N169.4bn subsidy in August, 2023.

Quoting a Federal Account Allocation Committee document, the report said the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas paid $275m as dividends to Nigeria via NNPCL.

NNPCL, according to the report, used $220m (N169.4bn at N770/$) out of the $275m to pay for the PMS subsidy in the review month.

“I told you earlier that there is no way that the government will sustain the price of petrol at N617/litre without paying subsidy on it, going by the continued fall of the naira,” the National Public Relations Officer, Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria, Chinedu Ukadike, told The PUNCH on Thursday.

He added, “The dollar is almost N990 at the parallel market currently, and you can see the effect of this on the pump price of diesel. Diesel is close to N1,000/litre, so the retail price of PMS should be around N890 to N900/litre.

“Therefore, it is better the government assists the masses by paying subsidy. From our records, in the United States, the super product or petrol is sold around $3.9, which is close to about N3,000/litre.

“The premium product is sold at about $2.89, which is over N2,000/litre. And if you check in other African countries you will find out that the product is being sold at between N1,200 and N1,500. But going by the forex rate in Nigeria, it should be around N900/litre.”

It was gathered that the subsidised ex-depot price of petrol as sold by NNPCL, was between N585 and N600 depending on area of purchase.

By subtracting the ex-depot cost of N600/litre from the projected unsubsidised rate of N890/litre, that the government may have been spending about N290/litre as subsidy currently.

In July, data from the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority showed that between June 1 to June 28, 2023, which was described as the post-deregulation period, the total petrol consumption across the country was 1.36 billion litres, while the average daily consumption was put at 48.43 million litres.

With an average daily consumption of 48.43 million litres and an estimated subsidy of N290/litre, the government could be incurring N14.04bn as subsidy daily, while this could rise to N421.3bn monthly.

This could rise to as high as N1.68tn for the months of September, October, November and December 2023, should the naira continues its fall against the dollar and crude price maintains its upward surge.

Punch

As Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu rang the closing bell at New York’s Nasdaq exchange this week, he exhorted investors to “be confident in Nigeria.”

His ebullience was a stark contrast with the mood on the streets of Nigeria, where confidence in the country’s currency is ebbing fast. The naira plunged to a new record low on Thursday and is on the cusp of touching 1000-per dollar on the parallel market, according to traders who track the exchange rate. As citizens and companies alike rushed to buy dollars, the naira was quoted almost 30% below where it officially closed Wedneday on the FMDQ OTC trading platform.

“The demand for foreign exchange is currently a stampede,” said Ogho Okiti, chief executive of ThinkBusiness Africa, a Lagos-based advisory and data services firm. “The demand is now not just for imports, but also for store and preservation of value.”

The naira rout has dissipated much of the optimism generated by the reform program Tinubu unveiled soon after he took office in June. He pledged back then to unify a complex system of exchange rates, and scrapped a costly years-old system of fuel subsidies, sending Nigerian markets soaring.

Tinubu reiterated his commitment to reform in New York, telling investors they were “free to take in your money and bring out your money.” Bottlenecks had been removed while the exchange rate had been retooled “to a reliable, one figure exchange rate of the naira,” he added.

Market players disagree. Many attribute the latest naira plunge partly to the central bank’s failure to supply dollars to the official market. They say the bank has been on the sidelines since the start of the month, forcing buyers to flock to street traders for the greenback. That’s sharply widened the gap between the parallel and official exchange rates which had converged after Tinubu took office.

Authorities are not allowing the market to function on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis, which they had pledged to do, said Ayo Salami, chief investment officer at Emerging Markets Investment Management Ltd. in London.

“With the current restrictions in the FX market, it is not possible to form a realistic judgement on the value of the naira,” Salami added.

Unease has grown over other reforms too, especially after Tinubu was forced last month to suspend a planned gasoline price increase.

Hopes of a speedy and substantial interest rate hike to stabilize the naira were dashed meanwhile by a central bank announcement that it would postpone next week’s policy meeting until further notice. Interest rates are currently at 18.75%, compared with inflation approaching 30%.

Its new governor, former Citigroup executive Olayemi Cardoso, is yet to be confirmed in his role, while the acting governor and four deputy governors have resigned, effectively leaving a policy-making vaccuum at the top.

Foreign investors are still holding off investing in local assets, fearful of exposure to a falling naira and the possibility of being unable to withdraw their capital from the country. Authorities are also yet to clear a backlog of hard currency arrears to the tune of billions of dollars owed to foreign companies and investors.

The naira selloff has rippled into Nigerian dollar bond markets where the issue maturing 2033 fell more than half a cent on Thursday to 76.5 cents, some seven cents off end-July highs. The Lagos stock exchange closed modestly lower for a second day, though it is still hovering near the 15-year highs hit soon after Tinubu took office.

“People are not going to come in until they’re sure that there is a certain amount of stability around the exchange rate, and that’s where we are,” Segun Agbaje, chief executive officer of Guaranty Trust Holding Co., told investors last week.

Bloomberg

Judge Nancy Maldonado of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has placed an immediate stay on the release of President Bola Tinubu’s university records after he pleaded severe and irreparable consequences to his life. 

Tinubu, through his lawyers, begged Maldonado, a district judge, that the September 6 order of Judge Jeffrey Gilbert, a magistrate, should be delayed. The judge agreed that the matter might be too severe for Tinubu to bear and granted a stay until further argument on the matter.

‘This needs to be handled with care,” Maldonado said. 

The judge gave Tinubu’s lawyers until Monday to file a full brief on the matter before the court. Atiku Abubakar’s lawyers said they would reply to the brief by 11:00 p.m. on the same day. 

“I may ultimately adopt the magistrate’s recommendation and allow the discovery to go forward, or I can ask all parties to file briefs afresh,” the judge added. 

At issue has been the subpoena application filed by Abubakar seeking to obtain records of Tinubu at Chicago State University, following widespread inconsistencies with the Nigerian president’s academic records already in the public domain.

Abubakar’s application was granted in a judgement issued on Tuesday by Gilbert, who ordered the production of the documents as well as the deposition of the school’s administrators. Abubakar plans to use the records to demonstrate Tinubu’s ineligibility for president, relying on the constitutional section that disqualifies a candidate who submitted a forged certificate to the electoral office INEC.

CSU officials have insisted that Tinubu attended the school, but they they have also said they couldn’t authenticate his certificate under oath because they couldn’t tell where he found it. 

Tinubu initially argued that the documents should not be released to Abubakar because they would not be tenable before the Nigerian Supreme Court, where Abubakar now intends to file them as part of his appeal against a tribunal verdict that certified Tinubu’s election on September 6. 

Abubakar submitted his appeal to the Supreme Court on September 19, the same day Gilbert ordered CSU to release Tinubu’s records within two days. 

But as the 48-hour deadline loomed on Thursday afternoon, Tinubu suddenly approached Maldonado, seeking a delay, and suddenly elevating the desperate situation of the matter to include potential damage to Tinubu’s life.

“Severe and irreparable harm will be done to Bola Tinubu if the records are released,” Tinubu’s lawyer argued at an emergency appeal before Maldonado of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.

If the records are released, harm will be done and cannot be taken back to the bottle, Tinubu’s lawyer added during the court hearing that began at 3:00 p.m. via telephone conference and lasted about 40 minutes.

PG

Atiku Abubakar, candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), says the “disparaging words” used by the presidential election petitions tribunal when it upheld the victory of President Bola Tinubu were signs that it was biased against him and his party.

Abubakar said the tribunal failed to take into cognisance the “doctrine of legitimate expectation”, which he noted is a reason the verdict affirming Tinubu’s victory should be overturned.

On September 6, the tribunal dismissed the petitions filed by the PDP candidate and Peter Obi, standard bearer of the Labour Party (LP).

The court ruled that their cases were devoid of merit.

But the former vice-president has filed an appeal before the supreme court to challenge the verdict.

In the notice of appeal dated September 18, Abubakar argued that the alleged non-compliance by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with the electoral act is another reason the verdict should be nullified.

“The lower court erred in law when it failed to nullify the presidential election held on February 25, 2023 on the ground of noncompliance with the Electoral Act 2022, when by evidence before the court, the 1st respondent (INEC) conducted the election based on very grave and gross misrepresentation contrary to the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, based on the ‘doctrine of legitimate expectation’,” the appeal filed by Chris Uche, Abubakar’s counsel, reads.

“The 1st Respondent neither deployed the electronic transmission of election results nor the electronic collation system in the said election, sabotaging the raison d’etre for the enactment of the new Electoral Act 2022 and the introduction of the technological innovations.

“Rather than hold the 1st respondent (INEC) as a public institution accountable to the representations that it made pursuant to its statutory and constitutional duties which created legitimate expectation on the part of the appellant, the lower court wrongly exonerated the 1st respondent of any responsibility by holding that the use of the technological innovations to guarantee transparency was not mandatory.

“The justices in their verdicts, while discountenancing the arguments and contentions of the appellants used expressions such as ‘ludicrous’ (page 721 of the judgment), ‘clever by half’ (page 557 of the judgment), ‘dishonourable practice’ (page 507 of the judgment), ‘smuggle’ (page 557), ‘fallacious’ (page 721 of the judgment); ‘foul play’ (page 560 of the judgment), ‘cross the line of misconception’ (page 644 of the judgment); ‘collect evidence from the market’ (page 765 of the judgment); ‘those who are not used to reading preambles’ (page 726 of the judgment); ‘hollowness in the argument of the petitioners’ (page 727 of the judgment); etc.

“It is the position of the appellants that the choice of words and expressions by the lower court shows the lower court’s contempt and disdain for the appellants.”

Abubakar said it is guaranteed under the law for a candidate to file a petition against an outcome of an election he is not comfortable with.

The Cable

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Kiev has ‘nothing to show’ for all the money spent – US senator

The US should not endlessly pour money into Ukraine, especially since Kiev has “nothing to show for it,” Senator Josh Hawley has said, following President Joe Biden’s request for additional funds. 

“If there’s some path to victory in Ukraine, I didn’t hear it today. And I also heard that there’s going to be no end to the funding requests,” Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, told reporters following a closed-door Senate briefing on the situation in Ukraine on Wednesday. “What we were basically told is ‘Buckle up and get out your checkbook.’”

“It’s American people’s money. They’ve spent $115 billion, and, so far, they have basically nothing to show for it,” the senator said, arguing that Germany and other European allies should “step up to the plate” in terms of aiding Kiev in its conflict with Russia.

Take out Ukraine, insert Iraq or Afghanistan, and you would get exactly what George W. Bush said for years – and other people after him – about why we have to stay indefinitely in those countries and keep spending money indefinitely, with no oversight… It’s the same recycled argument.

Speaking to Fox News on Thursday, Hawley reiterated his position that the US “shouldn’t be spending a dime more on Ukraine,” and called for an audit of the fund already sent to Kiev. 

Biden, who met with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky in the White House on Thursday, has been asking Congress to provide an additional $24 billion in aid. “I’m counting on the good judgment of the United States Congress,” Biden said. 

White House spokesman John Kirby previously urged legislators not to block the funding, warning that it was “really a critical time” to help Kiev.

US officials vowed to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” However, Kiev’s much-anticipated counteroffensive launched in early June has failed to yield any significant victories, as Ukrainian troops struggle to break through fortified Russian positions and thick minefields. The events on the ground prompted NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg to advise Ukraine’s supporters to brace for a prolonged conflict.

** US government and media lying about Ukrainian counteroffensive – Seymour Hersh

US intelligence analysts believe that Ukraine has given up on its counteroffensive against Russia and the only thing prolonging the conflict is the unwillingness of Washington and Kiev to acknowledge its failure, a source has told investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

Writing on Substack on Thursday, the veteran reporter cited an unnamed source, who “spent the early years of his career working against Soviet aggression and spying” as rejecting the Ukrainian narrative about slow but steady progress in its counteroffensive.

“‘It’s all lies,’” the source said, according to Hersh. “‘The war is over. Russia has won. There is no Ukrainian offensive anymore, but the White House and the American media have to keep the lie going.’”

This sentiment is shared by many figures in the US intelligence community, and the CIA in particular has been skeptical of Kiev’s claims of a continued push forward, unlike the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), he explained.

Trent Maul, the director of analysis for the DIA, touted Ukraine’s success to The Economist earlier this month and claimed Kiev’s forces had a “realistic”chance to break through Russian defense lines this year. The British outlet contrasted the assessment with that of an unnamed senior US intelligence official, who said the battlefield “could look broadly similar” in five years.

The source cited by Hersh blasted the leadership in both Moscow and Washington for acting “stupid” during the crisis. Russian President Vladimir Putin got “provoked [into] violating the UN charter” with a poorly-prepared military campaign, he argued. US President Joe Biden retaliated with a proxy war and has had to rely on the vilification of Putin by the media “in order to justify our mistake.”

“The truth is if the Ukrainian army is ordered to continue the offensive, the army would mutiny. The soldiers aren’t willing to die any more, but this doesn’t fit the B.S. that is being authored by the Biden White House,” the source concluded.

Moscow has denied the US claim that the operation against Ukraine was an act of “unprovoked aggression,” insisting that the people of Donbass had the right of self-determination under the UN Charter and acted accordingly when they broke away from Ukraine after the 2014 armed coup in Kiev.

The Russian government has maintained that it acted lawfully when it recognized the independence of the Donetsk and Luganks People’s Republics in February 2022. Days later, after Kiev refused to stop attacks on Donbass and pull out its troops, Moscow launched its offensive.

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russian attack on Ukrainian town west of Donetsk injures 13 - Official

A Russian attack on a town west of Donetsk near Ukraine's eastern front has injured 13 people, including one pulled out from under rubble, an official from the area was quoted as saying early on Friday.

There were two strikes on the town, sparking a fire, according to Roman Padun, administrative head of the town of Kurakhove, speaking to public broadcaster Suspilne. He gave no details on what weapons had been used.

Photos posted on social media showed several buildings ablaze. Reuters was unable to independently verify the reports.

Kurakhove is near Maryinka, a town near the front line still held by Ukraine but under Russian attack for many months.

In the southern region of Kherson, governor Oleksandr Prokudin, in a report on Telegram, said Russian forces had shelled the town of Zelenivka and killed a woman resident, who was pulled from underneath the rubble of her home.

Ukraine's southern group of forces, also reporting on Telegram, said a Russian missile had struck recreation facilities southwest of the Black Sea port of Odesa. No casualties were reported.

** In Washington, Zelenskiy courts Congress, Biden on military aid

U.S. President Joe Biden assured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Thursday that strong U.S. support for his war to repel Russian invaders will be maintained despite opposition from some Republican lawmakers to sending billions more in aid.

Biden and Zelenskiy held a war council in the White House East Room as part of a blizzard of appearances the Ukraine leader made looking to bolster U.S. support for a war that began in February 2022 and has no end in sight.

"Mr. President, we're with you, we're staying with you," Biden told Zelenskiy before reaching across the table and shaking his hand after two hours of talks.

Zelenskiy thanked Biden for a new $325 million military aid package of weaponry and air defenses, saying "it has exactly what our soldiers need now."

He said he and Biden agreed on specific steps to expand the export of grain from Ukraine in the face of a Russian blockade and tensions with neighbor Poland. He did not detail the steps.

Biden's request for $24 billion in more Ukraine funding to help pay for Ukraine's defense and humanitarian aid through the end of the year is bottled up in a budget fight pushed by Republican hardliners in the House of Representatives.

Asked how to overcome the opposition, Biden said the only way was approval by the U.S. Congress.

“I’m counting on the good judgment of the United States Congress. There’s no alternative," he said.

Comments from Republican Senator Rand Paul, a frequent critic of foreign aid, were emblematic of the opposition. He told Fox Business News that Ukraine is a "corrupt regime" and that the war has no end in sight.

Biden said the first American Abrams tanks will be delivered to Ukraine next week.

"Just as we're committed to helping Ukraine defend itself now, we're also committed to helping them recover and rebuild in the future, including supporting reforms that will combat corruption," Biden said.

AIR DEFENSE

Biden said Washington would also send Ukraine a second Raytheon-built Hawk air defense battery and related equipment. A U.S. official said the equipment would arrive in Ukraine soon.

After seeking international support at the United Nations on Wednesday, Zelenskiy came to Washington on a blitz across town that included meetings with military leaders at the Pentagon, a visit to the U.S. Capitol and an address in the evening at the National Archives museum.

In announcing a new $325 million military aid package for Ukraine, Biden lauded the bravery of the Ukrainian people when he and Zelenskiy met earlier in the Oval Office.

"Together with our partners and allies, the American people are determined to see to it that (we do) all we can to ensure that the world stands with you," Biden said in comments at the start of their meeting.

Zelenskiy said Ukraine greatly appreciates U.S. assistance "to combat Russian terror" and said he would discuss Ukraine's defense needs with Biden, with a special emphasis on air defense.

"Today I'm in Washington to strengthen our ability to defend Ukrainian children, our families, our homes, freedom and democracy in the world," he added.

While Biden and most congressional leaders still support aid to Ukraine, and Biden's Democrats control the Senate, Zelenskiy faced a tougher crowd than when he visited Washington nine months ago.

Dressed in military green to reflect his status as a wartime leader, Zelenskiy briefed the full U.S. Senate in the Capitol's historic Old Senate Chamber, receiving several standing ovations, according to a post on the platform X by Senator Chris Murphy.

Zelenskiy told senators that military aid was crucial to Ukraine's war effort, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in the Senate chamber after the briefing, which took place behind closed doors.

"If we don't get the aid, we will lose the war," Schumer quoted Zelenskiy as saying.

Zelenskiy later described his meetings with lawmakers as frank and constructive.

Zelenskiy held discussions with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other senior Pentagon leaders. He visited the Pentagon's memorial of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks where he and his wife each placed a bouquet of sunflowers, irises and other flowers.

The White House announced the U.S. will host a conference this fall for the U.S. defense industry, Ukrainian business leaders and officials from both governments to explore joint ventures and co-production, as Washington seeks to bolster Ukraine's long-term defense capabilities.

In their meeting, Zelenskiy shared with Biden his plans to address corruption and Biden emphasized the importance of strong anti-corruption institutions in Ukraine, the White House said.

In his speech at the National Archives, in front of a display case holding the U.S. Constitution, Zelenskiy thanked Americans for their support, saying "there is not a soul in Ukraine that does not feel gratitude to you, America."

Zelenskiy and his wife handed out awards to doctors who treated Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, and to people who raised funds for medical equipment, ambulances and other vital supplies.

As Ukraine's military counteroffensive grinds on and Congress stages a bitter debate over spending ahead of a possible government shutdown, a growing chorus of Republicans have questioned the billions of dollars Washington has sent Kyiv for military, economic and humanitarian needs.

The U.S. has sent some $113 billion in security and humanitarian aid to help Zelenskiy's government since Russia invaded in February 2022.

RT/Reuters

Following the G-20 summit held in India, I have been amused by the debate about whether or not Nigeria should be more than a guest again at the next G-20 meeting in Rio, Brazil. If South Africa is a member, why not Nigeria?

How do you offer Africa’s largest economy only a complimentary ticket every time to such an important global event, leaving it with the rather humiliating option of begging for a place? 

I thought that we had outgrown the belief that respect is earned by size or by simply hanging out with the right crowd, regardless of performance. If it’s not just another boost for the testosterone of a few African leaders who attend such meetings, it’s difficult to understand why they cannot see that they would have to put their house in order first to earn respect on the outside. 

I don’t know what President Cyril Ramaphosa’s membership is doing for South Africa or what the AU membership of the G-20 is doing for the continent. Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu obviously feels that if Ramaphosa can be on the stage at this pageant of global powers, then so can he also.

But I frankly think that both of them and others on the continent have barely paid enough attention to the opportunities that come with building truly vibrant regional and continental institutions. African leaders must pay attention to what is happening back home, in their own backyard. It’s the sheer force of their record of performance that would compel the world to notice and take them seriously. 

Lesson from EU

The EU, one of the world’s most prosperous trading blocs today, started as a trading community of six European countries with a combined population of 170m at the time. Today, it has grown to 27 members with an economy of approximately 16 trillion euros.

Apart from the EU’s institutional membership of the G-20, three EU countries – Germany, France and Italy – are also members of the group in their own rights, because of the sheer size of their economies. They didn’t have to beg for membership.

Consider, for example, how shabbily Africa has so far treated the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA), perhaps its single biggest opportunity in decades to remove trade barriers amongst members, lift millions out of poverty and earn a significant spot on the world stage.

Five years into AfCFTA, the continent still pays lip service to free movement of people, with Africans requiring visas to travel to at least 60 percent of the 54 countries, never mind the monumental obstacles to free trade. 

Compared to India, for example, where only three compulsory documents are required for import-export processing, Nigeria’s Customs requires nearly 12 to process intra-African goods and services, and you’re just getting started.

While Africa’s population has grown to double that of Europe, intra-African trade accounts for about 11 percent or $170 billion, which is merely five percent of intra-European trade. Intra-African trade also lags intra-Asian trade.

Missed opportunities

Nigeria is not even among the eight countries currently participating in AfCFTA’s Guided Trade Initiative (GTI), a platform that is supposed to boost the region’s trade policy framework. How can Nigeria, which ought to be in the forefront of turning this state of affairs around, but which is sadly one of the laggards in AfCFTA commitments, covet a table at the G-20? And on what terms when, like most of the continent, Nigeria is still largely a market for primary commodities with the inherent disadvantages?

According to Tom Burgis in The Looting Machine, “In Africa, the outflows (as of 2011) amounted to five to seven percent of GDP, the highest proportion in any region and growing at a rate of 20 percent a year. African losses from trade mispricing alone are roughly the equivalent to the continent’s income from aid.”

To add insult to injury, Nigeria, Ghana and Chad were listed by Burgis as first, sixth and ninth respectively among the countries that suffered the worst illicit outflows from 2005. This sounds more like a continent that needs to look after itself than one whose leaders should be hankering for a courtesy ticket for a front-row seat outside.

If you add the current state of political turmoil across a number of countries on the continent, especially the so-called coup belt, the situation becomes even more deserving of serious homework and introspection.

Whereas the OAU of those days challenged apartheid and fought against minority rule and oppression in Zimbabwe and Namibia while supporting more African states to attain political independence, its successor the AU is sleep-walking through multiple conflicts, content to make only perfunctory noises.

Meanwhile, the new crop of military rulers from Chad to Mali and from Burkina Faso to Gabon continue to dig in, sparking a dangerous wave of copycats and self-doubt about the value and use of democratic rule.  

Africa’s 1.3 billion population is perennially a source of cheap labour for developed and middle-income countries in a manner reminiscent of the slave trade; while its landmass of 30 million square kilometres has remained a booty for external forces to exploit, loot and cart away as the continent slumbers.

Instead of trying to cross seven seas to join the G-20, Nigeria should be more concerned that even though it was also a guest to the BRICS meeting in Johannesburg in August, it was not among the six countries that would get membership from January 2024, with the two new spots in Africa going to Ethiopia and Egypt.

Indo-China love

What’s more? In an increasingly multipolar world, the unspoken message by absent Chinese President Xi Jinping to the last G-20 meeting, was that his country was no longer happy to play second fiddle to US hegemony. Rather than coveting that same company Nigeria and other African countries should do more to chart their own course. And they can do so without holding out the begging bowl.

Ambition to play in the big league is not a bad thing in itself. A spot on the big stage, however, requires more than a large ego, more than an extravagant claim of untapped potential, and certainly, much more than a sense of entitlement.

For a start, since Nigeria’s president obviously loved what he saw at the G-20 in Delhi he should have asked Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, to share the story of India’s journey to the G-20 with him. As of 2005/2006, more than 640 million people across India were in multidimensional poverty.

A 2019 UNDP report on multidimensional poverty however found that in about six years, the number of multidimensionally poor had fallen from 640 to 365 million. And in just nine years of Modi, access to electricity has increased from 70 percent to 93 percent, while states with basic sanitation coverage across India are over 90 percent.

That is the sort of record that makes a country both an eligible and inevitable member of the G-20 or any other respectable global platform; not covetousness, begging or a sense of entitlement.

Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

This story is part of CNBC Make It’s The Moment series, where highly successful people reveal the critical moment that changed the trajectory of their lives and careers, discussing what drove them to make the leap into the unknown.

Sometimes, you need to recognize that pretty good isn’t good enough.

Just ask Spenser Skates and Curtis Liu. Today, the two MIT graduates are known as co-founders of Amplitude, an analytics software business with a market cap of $1.35 billion and more than 2,300 corporate clients. A decade ago, they were on a completely different track — running a voice recognition startup called Sonalight.

It was “a version of [Apple’s] Siri before Siri even existed,” Skates, Amplitude’s 35-year-old CEO, tells CNBC Make It. The duo created Sonalight in 2011, earned a coveted spot in Y Combinator’s startup accelerator program and even reached 500,000 downloads of their app.

Then, they made what might sound like a surprising call: They shut it down.

Internally, Skates and Liu saw that people were using the app once, but not re-engaging with it repeatedly. “Sonalight was a 95th percentile idea,” says Skates. “Most ideas are terrible. It was pretty good, but it’s not the bestest best. And it was like, we should probably go for a 99th percentile idea and go find that.”

They found it in their analytics tools, which they’d built in-house to get insights into their users’ habits. “We probably spent half of our time doing that — this, like, silly hubris mistake by engineers, seeing if they could build it,” Skates says.

Yet at Y Combinator, the tools proved more effective than anything their peers were using, he says. Skates and Liu began working on Amplitude in 2012 and officially launched the analytics platform in 2014 along with an additional co-founder, Jeffrey Wang. By 2021, Amplitude had raised $336 million from investors, and Skates decided to to take the company public.

Here, Skates discusses the risks of ditching Sonalight, how to build great ideas rather than good ones and why software engineers don’t always make the best startup founders.

CNBC Make It: Why did you decide to move on from Sonalight? Did you worry that you might be trading a decent idea for one that wouldn’t work at all?

Skates: There’s always that risk when starting something new, but it actually wasn’t that hard of a decision for us. I think the question was: How successful was Sonalight going to be?

We had this really cool, magic demo on stage [at Y Combinator] where I put my phone in my pocket, I talked to it and had a conversation back and forth with it. We got this amazing amount of press out of it, a little bit of seed investment and like, 500,000 downloads. So it was like, “OK, this is real. Someone’s using this. This is cool.”

But we’d been working on it for almost a year, and it was starting to become clear to us that the technology wasn’t good enough, in terms of creating a great user experience and getting people to engage and come back. It wasn’t useful enough as a product to be really sticky.

We could probably grind on it for the next four or five years and get to some OK success as a company, but it wouldn’t be some breakout, massive success. [Sonalight] was not the best thing we could work on. There was more impactful stuff to do.

Once you decided to change gears, how did you pick the “best” new idea to focus on?

We spent a month just talking and exploring different ideas. You really want to find a problem that fits your strengths, weaknesses and interests. Voice recognition was almost too hard technically to solve. It’s like this probabilistic problem where there’s not a clear right answer.

Analytics, to the average engineer, it’s a pretty hard problem — but to us, it was a cakewalk, because we were algorithms guys. Building a distributed data store was very straightforward for us. It’s like, “OK, that’s a solvable problem with a clear answer. If we do it, people want it. Great, let’s go work on that.” It was a million times easier.

We had built our own analytics in-house. What was interesting was a lot of the insights we were getting about [Sonalight’s] customer journey, so many other companies wanted those exact same insights. We were like, “OK, this is fantastic.”

We talked to 30 companies, and found enough that had the need. So we started building.

Why did you feel the need to chase “breakout, massive” success? Was there something wrong with good enough?

[After college] I spent a lot of time thinking: How is it that I can have such a positive impact on the world? What do I know? I know how to build software. Let me figure out the biggest way I can do that.

I worked for a year in finance and high-frequency trading. I was trying, at the time, to recruit a lot of my friends from MIT [to build a startup]. I asked classmates, peers and other folks. No one wanted to start a company.

You know, the funny thing about engineers: A lot of people would talk about starting a company and get really excited, but very few would actually take the leap. Most of them would go to Google and get sucked in and just never come back.

Engineers are a risk-averse bunch. They want to do it only if there’s a clear path to success and there’s validation along the way. But startups and entrepreneurs, it’s the exact opposite. You have to be willing to take on all that uncertainty and risk yourself. Your bosses and your teachers aren’t there. No one’s there to be like, “Hey, you’re doing good.”

Either you have something people want or you don’t. You have to be willing to see through that, and see the potential in what you’re doing.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

CNBC