International Air Transport Association has said that as of August 2023, Nigeria accounts for $783m of airlines’ blocked funds.

This was contained in a statement by the trade association which said that the IATA’s Regional Vice-President for Africa and Middle East, Kamil Al Awadhi, has had engagements with the Federal Government to resolve the situation.

Foreign airlines operating in the country have been unable to repatriate their commercial revenue amid a protracted scarcity of forex.

The statement read in part, “Al Awadhi also met with Nigeria’s new Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo, during which he called on the new government for continued, but closer, consultation with the industry while developing short- and long-term solutions for foreign exchange access to both domestic and foreign carriers.  As of August 2023, Nigeria accounts for $783m of airlines’ blocked funds.”

Punch

Nigeria’s national grid collapsed once more on Tuesday when power generation crashed from a peak of 3,594.60 megawatts at midnight to an alarming low of 42.7MW by midday.

Subsequently, at noon, only the Delta Power plant was operational on the grid, contributing 41MW, while Afam generated 1.7MW.

The grid failure was particularly impactful on the commercial hub of Lagos, where power supply was lost at 11:32 am. The incident is now attributed to a nationwide system collapse.

This marks the third grid collapse in less than a month, following two incidents just five days ago, which left the nation in total darkness for extended periods.

The recurring grid collapses have had severe consequences, leading to a nationwide blackout and depriving many Nigerians of electricity. The Transmission Company of Nigeria has yet to issue a statement explaining the cause of this latest collapse. However, it is believed to be linked to infrastructure limitations, challenges in gas supply, and constraints within the transmission system.

These grid failures pose a significant setback to the nation’s economic and developmental progress. The country is estimated to suffer substantial financial losses annually due to power interruptions.

Moreover, the outages negatively affect the daily lives of Nigerians, hindering their ability to work, study, and conduct business activities.

Punch

At least five policemen were killed in an attack by armed men in Nigeria's southeastern Imo state, a police spokesman said on Tuesday, the latest incident in a state rife with gang and separatist violence.

Armed groups have attacked police stations and government buildings in states in Nigeria's southeast, which authorities often blame on the proscribed separatist Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) group. IPOB denies the charges.

Imo police spokesman Henry Okoye confirmed the attack occurred at Ehime Mbano local government area of the state, but did not immediately provide details because investigations are ongoing.

Local media reported at least eight fatalities including soldiers and men of Nigeria's Civil Defence Corps, a paramilitary agency.

Widespread insecurity has rocked Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, with armed attacks and kidnappings in the northwest, a festering Islamist insurgency in the northeast and violent sectarian and herder-farmer clashes in the central region.

IPOB has been campaigning for southeastern Nigeria, the homeland of the Igbo ethnic group, to be an independent country.

More than a million people died, mostly of starvation, during a three-year civil that began in 1967 when the region attempted to secede under the name Republic of Biafra.

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

At UN General Assembly, Biden asks world to stand with Ukraine

U.S. President Joe Biden appealed to world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday to stand with Ukraine against Russian invaders, hoping Republicans in Congress will also take notice.

"Russia believes that the world will grow weary and allow it to brutalize Ukraine without consequence," Biden said in his speech to UNGA. "If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure?"

Biden drew applause when saying that the United States and its allies would stand with Ukraine's fight for freedom. "Russia alone bears responsibility for this war," the president said. "Russia alone has the power to end this war immediately."

Biden's address at the annual gathering was the centerpiece event of his three-day visit to New York, which will include meetings with the heads of five Central Asian nations, and the leaders of Israel and Brazil.

Biden, a Democrat, has made rallying U.S. allies to support Ukraine a leading component of U.S. foreign policy, arguing the world must send a clear signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin that he will not be able to outlast the West.

Biden has faced criticism from some Republicans who want the United States to spend less money on the war effort.

Former President Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential election, has vowed to seek a quick endto the war if returned to power.

Trump has voiced skepticism about Washington's engagement with traditional allies, including NATO, and has been complimentary of Putin.

House of Representatives Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the leading Republican in Washington, has questioned whether the United States should keep sending billions of dollars in weaponry to Ukraine.

In his speech, Biden said Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine and occupation of territory violated the founding U.N. Charter, a main principle of which is respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

His remarks echoed those of U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who in his opening speech to UNGA on Tuesday said Russia's invasion "has unleashed a nexus of horror."

A Biden administration official said Biden and U.S. officials would also focus at the U.N. meetings on mobilizing resources for infrastructure and sustainable development and fighting climate change.

Solid majorities of Americans support providing weaponry to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia and believe that such aid demonstrates to China and other U.S. rivals a will to protect U.S. interests and allies, according to a Reuters/Ipsos survey in June.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who attended and applauded Biden's remarks ahead of his own speech at UNGA on Tuesday, was expected to visit Biden at the White House on Thursday and to meet some congressional leaders as well.

The United States is preparing a new military aid package for Ukraine to coincide with Zelenskiy's visit, and Congress has been asked to approve billions of dollars more in security assistance for the rest of the year.

"We have confidence that there will be bipartisan support for this. I think President Zelenskiy does as well," White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters.

After his speech, Biden was due to sit down with Guterres to discuss world hot spots.

Later, he will attend a summit with the presidents of five Central Asian nations, a first. They are Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

On Wednesday, Biden will meet Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and join him in an event with labor leaders from Brazil and the United States.

Also on Wednesday, Biden will have his first face-to-face meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since Netanyahu regained power last December.

Sullivan said they would discuss "a vision for a more stable and prosperous and integrated region, as well as to compare notes on effectively countering and deterring Iran."

** At UN, Zelenskiy tells Russia to stop war so world can fight climate, other crises

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy implored world leaders gathered at the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday to stand united against Russia's invasion and said Moscow had to be pushed back so the world could turn to solving pressing global challenges.

Zelenskiy drew applause as he took his place at the United Nations General Assembly lectern in New York for his first in-person appearance at the annual UNGA since Russia invaded his country in 2022.

"Ukraine is doing everything to ensure that after Russian aggression, no one in the world will dare to attack any nation," he said. "Weaponization must be restrained, war crimes must be punished, deported people must come back home and the occupier must return to their own land."

"We must be united to make it - and we'll do it."

He accused Russia of manipulating global food markets to seek international recognition of ownership of land it seized from Kyiv.

In a nod to the Global South, whose support he is seeking in his standoff with Russia, Zelenskiy spoke about the worsening climate crisis and natural disasters, mentioning the recent earthquake in Morocco and floods in Libya.

"We have to stop it. We must act united to defeat the aggressor and focus all our capabilities and energy on addressing these challenges," he told the General Assembly.

Earlier on Tuesday, Ukrainian officials said nine people were killed in Russian attacks, including a drone strike that set ablaze industrial warehouses.

Zelenskiy accused Russia of kidnapping Ukrainian children.

In March, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin on suspicion of illegally deporting children from Ukraine. The Kremlin rejects the accusations and the court's jurisdiction.

"Those children in Russia are taught to hate Ukraine and all ties with their families are broken. And this is clearly a genocide when hatred is weaponized against one nation," Zelenskiy said.

Last year, Zelenskiy presented a 10-point plan that included restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities, and the restoration of Ukraine's state borders.

He said he was now working towards a peace summit based on that: "Tomorrow I will present the details at a special meeting of the U.N. Security Council."

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine conflict set to ‘last a long time’ – Erdogan

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is set to drag on for a “long time,”Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said. Moscow is actually among the parties seeking to end the hostilities as soon as possible, he argued.

Erdogan made the remarks in an interview with American broadcaster PBS that aired on Monday. The president was asked about a recent meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and whether the latter believed Moscow was “winning that war.”

The Turkish leader said the pair did not discuss the conflict in terms of who was winning. He said, however, that Russia was actually seeking a speedy resolution to the hostilities, which have been dragging on since February 2022. 

“It’s quite obvious that this war is going to last a long time. And for the war to end as soon as possible, we would like to be very hopeful. And Mr. Putin is actually on the side of ending this war as soon as possible,” Erdogan said. “That’s what [Putin] said. And I believe his remarks,” he added. 

Erdogan expressed doubts that Russia will ever “withdraw” from Crimea, revealing he had certain “deliberations” with Putin back in 2014 on the matter. The peninsula broke away from Kiev in the aftermath of the Maidan coup and was incorporated into Russia following a referendum.

“I couldn’t make them withdraw from Crimea. I think it’s not going to be possible for the time being either. I think time will only tell,” Erdogan stated.

Over the course of the conflict, top Ukrainian officials have repeatedly pledged to expel Russian forces from all of Ukraine’s former territories. In addition to Crimea, this includes Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions, and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, all of which were also incorporated into Russia after referendums last fall. 

Moscow has repeatedly signaled that it considers the matter closed and that the new territorial reality must be recognized.

** Russia to hit back hard if Ukraine attacks Crimea — diplomat

Any attempt by Ukrainian troops to infringe on Crimea with the use of force will be met with Russia’s immediate and tough response, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a briefing.

"Any attempts to assault the peninsula will be met with an immediate and harsh response as before," she said, commenting on a statement by Alexey Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, who threatened to "smoke Russians out of Crimea" with weapons.

"I would like to remind all Kiev extremists that the Crimea chapter was closed when its residents made their choice back in 2014, knowing what awaited them, that they would be ‘smoked out’ as Danilov put it, in different ways over all these years, economically, socially, in the humanitarian sense, based precisely on this nationalistic logic," the diplomat added.

Reuters/RT/Tass

X owner Elon Musk has floated the idea that the social network formerly known as Twitter may no longer be a free site. In a live-streamed conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, Musk said the company was “moving to a small monthly payment” for the use of the X system. He suggested that such a change would be necessary to deal with the problem of bots on the platform.

“It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots,” explained Musk. “Because a bot costs a fraction of a penny — call it a tenth of a penny — but even if it has to pay…a few dollars or something, the effective cost of bots is very high,” he said. Plus, every time a bot creator wanted to make another bot, they would need another new payment method.

Musk didn’t say what the new subscription payment would cost, but described it as a “small amount of money.”

During the conversation, Musk also shared new metrics for X, noting the site has now 550 million monthly users, who generate 100 to 200 million posts every day. However, it wasn’t clear if Musk is counting automated accounts — that is, either good bots like news feeds or bad bots like spammers — among those numbers.

This figure also didn’t allow for a direct comparison with Twitter’s user base pre-Musk, which was calculated using a specific metric Twitter had invented called the “average monetizable daily active user,” or mDAU. This older metric indicated the users on Twitter who could be monetized by viewing its ads. During its last public earnings of Q1 2022 Twitter had 229 million mDAUs.

Musk didn’t expand on his plan to charge for X or when such a change would come about. But since Musk took over the platform last year, the company has been pushing its users to subscribe to its paid subscription product, X Premium (previously Twitter Blue). This $8 per month or $84 per year subscription service offers a variety of features like the ability to edit posts, half the ad load, prioritized rankings in search and conversations, the ability to write longer posts, and more.

X doesn’t disclose how many paid subscribers it has, but independent research indicates X Premium hasn’t attracted a majority of X users. One analysis determined only 827,615 users currently subscribe to X Premium, for example.

The idea of charging everyone for X is not a new idea for Musk. Platformer last year reported that Musk was weighing the idea of putting all of Twitter behind a paywall, in fact.

The larger conversation between Musk and Netanyahu today focused on AI technology and its regulation, though the topic of hate speech on X came up. Here, Musk claimed he’s “against antisemitism” and “anything that promotes hate and conflict.” Of course, Musk’s latest spat saw him threatening to file a defamation lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League, which has accused both Musk and X of being antisemitic.

Tech Crunch

Most people now live in countries where two or fewer children are born for every two adults. If all people in the United States today lived through their reproductive years and had babies at an average pace, then it would add up to about 1.66 births per woman. In Europe, that number is 1.5; in East Asia, 1.2; in Latin America, 1.9. Any worldwide average of fewer than two children per two adults means our population shrinks and in the long run each new generation is smaller than the one before. If the world’s fertility rate were the same as in the United States today, then the global population would fall from a peak of around 10 billion to less than two billion about 300 years later, over perhaps 10 generations. And if family sizes remained small, we would continue declining.

What would happen as a consequence? Over the past 200 years, humanity’s population growth has gone hand in hand with profound advances in living standards and health: longer lives, healthier children, better education, shorter workweeks and many more improvements. Our period of progress began recently, bringing the discovery of antibiotics, the invention of electric lightbulbs, video calls with Grandma and the possibility of eradicating Guinea worm disease. In this short period, humanity has been large and growing. Economists who study growth and progress don’t think this is a coincidence. Innovations and discoveries are made by people. In a world with fewer people in it, the loss of so much human potential may threaten humanity’s continued path toward better lives.

Whenever low birthrates get public attention, chances are somebody is concerned about what it means for international competition, immigration or a government’s fiscal challenges over the coming decades as the population ages. But that’s thinking too small. A depopulating world is a big change that we all face together. It’s bigger than geopolitical advantage or government budgets. It’s much bigger than nationalistic worries over which country or culture might manage to eke out a population decline that’s a little bit slower than its neighbors’.

Fewer and fewer countries have high birthrates

Sustained below-replacement fertility will mean tens of billions of lives not lived over the next few centuries — many lives that could have been wonderful for the people who would have lived them and by your standards, too.

Perhaps that loss doesn’t trouble you. It would be tempting to welcome depopulation as a boon to the environment. But the pace of depopulation will be too slow for our most pressing problems. It will not replace the need for urgent action on climate, land use, biodiversity, pollution and other environmental challenges. If the population hits around 10 billion people in the 2080s and then begins to decline, it might still exceed today’s eight billion after 2100. Population decline would come quickly, measured in generations, and yet arrive far too slowly to be more than a sideshow in the effort to save the planet. Work to decarbonize our economies and reform our land use and food systems must accelerate in this decade and the next, not start in the next century.

This isn’t a call to immediately remake our societies and economies in the service of birthrates. It’s a call to start conversations now, so that our response to low birthrates is a decision that is made with the best ideas from all of us. Kicking the can down the road will make choices more difficult for future generations. The economics and politics of a society in which the old outnumber the young will make it even harder to choose policies that support children.

If we wait, the less inclusive, less compassionate, less calm elements within our society and many societies worldwide may someday call depopulation a crisis and exploit it to suit their agendas — of inequality, nationalism, exclusion or control. Paying attention now would create an opportunity to lay out a path that would preserve freedom, share burdens, advance gender equity, value care work and avoid the disasters that happen when governments try to impose their will on reproduction.

Or perhaps we don’t need to concern ourselves at all if fertility rates self-correct to two. But the data shows that they don’t. Births won’t automatically rebound just because it would be convenient for advancing living standards or sharing the burden of care work or financing social insurance programs. We know that fertility rates can stay below replacement because they have. They’ve been below that level in Brazil and Chile for about 20 years; in Thailand for about 30 years; and in Canada, Germany and Japan for about 50.

In fact, in none of the countries where lifelong fertility rates have fallen well below two have they ever returned above it. Depopulation could continue, generation after generation, as long as people look around and decide that small families work best for them, some having no children, some having three or four and many having one or two.

Nor can humanity count on any one region or subgroup to buoy us all over the long run. Birthrates are falling in sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the current highest average rates, as education and economic opportunities continue to improve. Israel is an example of a rich country that, as of today, has above-replacement fertility rates. But there, too, fertility rates have been falling over the decades, from 4.5 in 1950 to 3.0 today. Israel may not be above 2.1 for many more generations.

As living standards increased, birthrates fell

The main reason that birthrates are low is simple: People today want smaller families than people did in the past. That’s true in different cultures and economies around the world. It’s what both women and men report in surveys.

Humanity is building a better, freer world with more opportunities for everyone, especially for women. That progress deserves everyone’s greatest celebration — and everyone’s continued efforts. That progress also means that, for many of us, the desire to build a family can clash with other important goals, including having a career, pursuing projects and maintaining relationships. No society has solved this yet. These tradeoffs bite deep for parents everywhere. For some parents, that means struggle. For others, that means smaller families than they hoped for. And for too many, it means both.

In a world of sustained low birthrates and declining populations, there may be threats of backsliding on reproductive freedom — by limiting abortion rights, for example. Some will inexcusably claim that restricting reproductive choice is a way to curb long-run population decline. Somealready do.

No. Low birthrates are no reason to reverse progress toward a more free, diverse and equal world. Restricting reproductive rights — by denying access to critical health care and by denying the basic freedom to choose to parent or not to parent — would harm many people and for that reason would be wrong whether or not depopulation is coming. And it would not prevent the population from shrinking. We know that because fertility rates are below two both where abortion is freely available and where abortion is restricted. Any policymaker asking how to respond to global depopulation should start by asking what people want and how to help them achieve it rather than by asking what they might take away.

There are many ways to live a life or be a family, and having that freedom and diversity is good. If an inclusive, compassionate response to population decline emerges someday, it need not be in conflict with those values. If one in every four pairs of American adults would choose to have one more child, that would be enough to stabilize the U.S. population. In that future, there would still be many ways to live a life or be a family; two kids on average doesn’t mean two kids for everyone.

Nobody yet knows what to do about global depopulation. But it wasn’t long ago that nobody knew what to do about climate change. These shared challenges have much in common, which gives humanity some shared experience to build on.

As with climate change, our individual decisions on family size add up to an outcome that we all share. No people are making mistakes when they choose not to have children or to have small families. (Although we might all be making a mistake, together, when instead of taking care of one another, we make it hard for people to choose larger families.) It’s in no one’s hands to change global population trajectories alone. Not yours, whatever you choose for your life, not one country’s, not one generation’s. Nor is it in your hands personally to end all carbon emissions even by ending your own emissions. And yet our personal choices add up to big implications for humanity as a whole.

It’s not too early to take depopulation seriously. The New York Times reported on the threat of climate change in 1956. A scientist testified about it before Congress in 1957. In 1965 the White House released a reportcalling carbon dioxide a pollutant, warning of a warming world with melting ice caps and rising sea levels. That was nearly six decades ago.

Six decades from now is when the U.N. projects the size of the world population will peak. There won’t be any quick fixes: Even if it’s too early today to know exactly how to build an abundant future that offers good lives to a stable, large and flourishing future population, we should already be working toward that goal. Waiting until the population peaks to ask how to respond to depopulation would be as imprudent as waiting until the world starts to run out of fossil fuels to begin responding to climate change.

Humanity needs a compassionate, factual and fair conversation about how to respond to depopulation and how to share the burdens of creating each future generation. The way to have that conversation is to start paying attention now.

** Spears is an economist at the University of Texas, Austin, and a research affiliate at its Population Research Center.

New York Times

TikTok is full of advice on how to ace your job interview — but not all of those tips are actually a good idea, some recruiters say.

It’s smart to come prepared with questions for your interviewer when they inevitably ask if you have any. But one question often floated as a way to make yourself stand out could actually end your interviews prematurely.

“When you ask questions at the end of your interview and ask your interviewer, “Do you have any hesitations about my candidacy?′ That is the worst advice,” says Farah Sharghi, who estimates she’s conducted more than 10,000 interviews at companies like Google, Lyft and TikTok. “Do not do that.”

Why it’s a bad idea

First of all, Sharghi says, you don’t always know if the person interviewing you is making any hiring decisions, let alone the final one, for the role. When Sharghi was a recruiter at Google, for example, candidates interviewed with members of a hiring committee, who would then submit feedback to the person making the hiring decision, and it wasn’t always the person managing the role.

Asking someone who doesn’t do the hiring why you might not be hire-able shows a naivete about how the interviewing process works, Sharghi says.

“You’re putting someone on the spot who is going to be put in a very uncomfortable [position],” she adds.

Second, and most crucially, asking this type of question can introduce doubt into your otherwise stellar qualifications.

“If I mention ‘pink elephant,’ what do you think of immediately? You’re visualizing in your head a pink elephant,” Sharghi explains. So, “when you’re asking this question, ‘Do you have any hesitancies about my candidacy?’ Maybe the interviewer was thinking, ‘Well, I actually really liked this person, but now you’ve introduced hesitancy into my head.’”

That alone could cause the interviewer to think, “Maybe I should hesitate to hire this person” or “Let me think of the negative reasons why we shouldn’t hire this person,” Sharghi says

“Why would you lead someone down the path of saying no? Don’t do this. Let them say yes,” she says.

What to ask instead

Instead, pose questions where you can focus on your strengths rather than your shortcomings.

Former HR professional Natalie Fisher says one question she always tells people to ask during interviews is, “If the new hire was to achieve one thing that would blow your mind, what would it be?”

Once the interviewer responds with the task, mention if you’ve ever hit a similar goal in your experience. If you haven’t, you can instead respond with follow-up questions that show your enthusiasm to deliver on it, and explain why you have what it takes.

When done well, Fisher says, clients say asking this question has helped them land an offer on the spot.

CNBC

In a race to beat the deadline for the planned commencement of an indefinite strike that may lead to the shutdown of the economy, the Federal Government on Monday held a meeting with organised labour on post-subsidy removal palliatives for workers.

The parley, hosted by the Minister of Labour, Simon Lalong, in Abuja, however, failed to reach a consensus as the Nigerian Labour Congress insisted that the FG must meet its demands ahead of the 21-day ultimatum issued on September 1 by the congress.

The union had on September 1 handed down the 21-day ultimatum to the FG over the delay in sharing of palliatives, saying it might be compelled to declare an indefinite labour action if its demands were not met.

In furtherance of its demands, the NLC mobilised workers for a two-day warning strike on September 5 and 6, partially grounding social and economic activities in several states with banks, ministries, agencies and departments closed to the public in some states.

The NLC leadership had said the action was in preparation for a total shutdown of the economy which would start at the expiration of the ultimatum on Friday.

Among other demands, the NLC and the Trade Union Congress were asking for wage awards, implementation of palliatives, tax exemptions and allowances to the public sector workers and a review of the minimum wage.

Though the FG made a commitment to restructure the framework for engagement with organised Labour on palliatives, the eight-week timeframe set for the conclusion of the process expired in August with no action whatsoever.

Briefing journalists at the end of the meeting on Monday, both parties pledged to find solutions to the key demands tabled before the government by the organised labour before the deadline.

Lalong said many of the items presented by Labour were still under consideration before the final agreement.

The minister stated, “Our meeting was very robust. It was a fruitful meeting. Many of the items presented by labour are still under consideration before the final agreement or discussions.

“It was a fruitful meeting. I thank the NLC for coming to the meeting and for their very useful contributions.”

President of the NLC, Joe Ajaero, also described the meeting as fruitful but said only the Presidency could take decisions on the demands presented to the government

Ajaero said the organised labour was ready to meet with the government any time of the day to find solutions to its demands and avert the planned strike.

The NLC president said, “Like the minister said we had a fruitful deliberation and we have agreed to continue to make sure we arrive at meaningful agreement within the remaining days of the ultimatum.

“We equally discussed frankly the issue bordering the coup floated and executed by the Nigeria Police against the National Union of Road Transport Workers which has led to the detention of their democratically elected national officers and both parties agreed to show concern towards the resolution of the matter.

‘’It is one sore area that the trade union movement in Nigeria is not ready to compromise. Whether a coup in the trade union movement or in the polity. It must be condemned; whether it is in Niger Republic, Congo or Mali or in the trade union movement in Nigeria.

“On the other issue, you can see that there is no agreement or implementation on any. There is no CNG anywhere. Refineries are not working. No agreement on wage award. Those are the issues we believe that something will happen before the ultimatum expires. It is possible that something will happen.’’

He further explained, “We had a convivial deliberation with the minister and we hope that even if it is remaining one day, we will get to the root of all these problems. Whenever we are invited, we will be there. Both parties will work towards the realisation of these objectives before the last minute of the ultimatum.

“There is a larger committee that has set up technical committees. The ministry has performed its role to mediate and conciliate in the problem between us and the Federal Government. There is an inter-ministerial committee at the Presidency level which is supposed to address these issues.

“The ministry of labour can’t address wage award, the issue of CNG, refineries and others. The ministry has mediated to ensure that there is no problem or get both parties to resolve these issues. We are ready to engage the government whether in the night or day; we are ready to engage but not at gunpoint.”

Before the meeting went into a closed-door session, Ajaero had said the two – day warning strike declared on September 5 and 6 by the NLC was “a product of frustration caused by the economic situation in the country.”

The labour leader complained that “none of the demands put before the federal government had been addressed.”

He lamented the lack of trust between the government and the union in the negotiation process.

Ajaero stated, “We came with mixed feelings whether it will work or not because we have had many meetings, some beyond this level, yet nothing seems to be coming out of it.

 ‘’But I have great optimism in the Nigerian project; we can’t stop trying. We are here with that belief that something may happen. But that doubt, that trust gap is what we feared for a long time now and it calls for lamentation.

“The strike is an effect of a policy that doesn’t have a human face. There was no strike before the removal of fuel subsidy. It was the government that said ‘ask for palliatives, ask for wages’ and we have asked for it; that warning strike was a product of frustration, up till this moment.’’

Ajaero bemoaned the adverse impact of the fuel subsidy withdrawal on Nigerians, stressing that the NLC would not rush into a strike without justifications.

He added, “We must work together to ensure that we don’t keep on dragging these issues. It is the Nigerian people that are being affected, they are the people that are suffering. We have a lot of demands that we have put on paper for the government.

‘’There is the issue of CNG, refineries working, wage award and cash transfer. Of all these agreements, not even one has been addressed by the government and you want us to meet every day.

“Some of us have been around for a long time and our job is not to go on strike but when you enter into an agreement that agreement should be implemented. Before the warning strike we raised the issues of palliatives and wage award and the NURTW.

“Nobody earning N30,000 or N60,000 will buy fuel for one week. We need to find solutions to all these problems and we have articulated them. Each time we finish they ask for time.

‘’They asked for eight weeks, we gave them. They asked for four weeks, we gave them. We don’t know what to tell our colleagues or members again. We hope that at the end of this meeting, we will have something to tell our members. This is a neck-breaking meeting.”

Lalong assured the labour leaders that the government was committed to addressing all the issues that led to their warning strike.

The minister maintained that the government must be mindful of striking a balance that promotes economic growth and secures sustainable progress for the nation as it attempts to address the demands of Labour.

Lalong said, “In recent months, our country has witnessed teething challenges, marked by industrial actions and unrest that have adversely affected the economy.

‘’I appear before you today not just as a representative of the government, but as an advocate for constructive dialogue, aspiring to understand your concerns and working hand in hand to find lasting solutions that benefit all Nigerians.

“I fully acknowledge and appreciate the invaluable role the NLC plays in championing the rights and welfare of our workers. Your dedication and tireless advocacy have been critical in shaping a fair and inclusive work environment, and ensuring the wellbeing of our workforce. We acknowledge the valid grievances that have fuelled the recent labour crisis, and we are committed to addressing them in a just and equitable manner.”

He added, “We must also recognise the economic realities that confront us. As we address the concerns of our workforce, we must be mindful of striking a balance that promotes economic growth and secures sustainable progress for our nation.

‘’Today, I call upon each one of you to join hands in an open-minded and constructive dialogue, enabling us to bridge any gaps that may exist between the interests of workers and the ultimate goal of driving economic advancement.”

The minister appealed to the labour unions to embrace dialogue and shun the strike.

“In the spirit of unity and with utmost commitment to the betterment of our nation, let us seize this opportunity to listen and understand one another. Together, let us explore innovative approaches, reimagining strategies that enhance working conditions and worker benefits while nurturing a robust economy.

“I am confident that this gathering will produce resolutions that propel our labour sector towards greater strength, and our beloved country towards a brighter future.

“We eagerly look forward to our discussions today, knowing that the harmonious collaboration between the government and the NLC will facilitate an environment where our workforce thrives, and our economy flourishes,”  he admonished.

Punch

President Bola Tinubu has been accused of nepotism following the concentration of most of his recent appointments in the Southwest and Lagos State in particular.

Daniel Bwala, the spokesperson of the Atiku Abubakar presidential campaign council for the 2023 general election made the accusation while speaking on Channels TV Politics Today.

He claimed that Tinubu had beaten ex-president, Muhammadu Buhari, in nepotism.

Buhari was accused of making most of his appointments from the northern part of the country while in office, but Bwala said in the case of Tinubu, only a section of the southern part of the country was getting attention.

Bwala, a chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), stressed that the president had ignored the Southsouth and Southeast in his appointments so far.

He said: “APC as a political party is a party that commenced the idea of nepotism. Remember when Buhari was in power, people complained about nepotism…but he’s like iPhone 13 Promax.

“By the time Tinubu took over, his own even exceeded iPhone 14 and went straight to iPhone 15 Promax in the sense that his appointments have generated a conversation around the country that the government is being concentrated in one part of the country over and above others.

“In the case of Buhari, you could argue that he favoured the North…but you could see that it is populated by Northeast, Northwest, and Northcentral. There was a democratic distribution of appointments there but when it comes to this present government, if you look at it, the Southeast and the Southsouth are left behind.

“The dominance of the appointments is in the Southwest. And even when you go further in the Southwest, there are quite a number of people in the Southwest who will tell you that the appointments were concentrated in Lagos.”

He argued that the constitution stated that the country should not be run in a way that would reflect the dominance of one part over the other, stressing that Tinubu is breaking the law.

The former member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), said the president may not be able to enjoy loyalty from all sections of the country, following his obvious disregard for other parts of Nigeria.

It’s too early – APC

Reacting, a member of the ruling APC, Aliyu Audu, who was also featured on the programme, said criticisms of the government should be constructive.

He argued that it was too early to accuse the president of nepotism, stressing that there were more appointments to be made.

While pointing out that the concerns have been noted, he assured that Tinubu would not leave any part of the country behind.

“We should critique our own, we should praise our own but we should understand where to draw the line. We should always have an objective, we should not criticize just for the sake of criticism, we shouldn’t criticize for the sake of causing disaffection among Nigerians,” he said.

Daily Trust

A new Nigeria can only be born with a new constitution says the leader of the Church of Nigeria Anglican Communion,Henry Ndukuba. 

Ndukuba the Archbishop Metropolitan and Primate of all Nigeria declared in Nnewi: "We need a new constitution that would reinforce true federalism, granting states more powers to address local challenges and drive development initiatives."

Delivering his opening address at the just concluded 14th  General Synod of the Church  of Nigeria Anglican Communion at St Mark's Anglican Church Nnewichi Ndukuba said: "To address the pressing issues and lay a solid foundation for a stronger future, Nigeria must embark on the arduous but essential task of crafting a new Constitution that reflects the aspirations and values of all people and culture.

"One is convinced that what 

we need is a totally new Constitution made by a Sovereign Representation of the Ethnic Nationalities of this country."

He stressed further that this new Constitution must "reflect the nation's identity and diversity and be a unifying force that recognizes and protect our diversity."

He noted that Nigeria, "is a diverse and dynamic nation, which has seen significant progress over the years, but it also faces numerous challenges. The current constitution has limitations that hinder the nation's growth and stability", the Primate concluded.