Central Bank of Nigeria dismissed a report that it had devalued the naira as traders raised bets for it to weaken by almost a third, days after President Bola Tinubu said his administration will seek to end the nation’s multiple-currency regime

The CBN said a media report claiming it had devalued the naira by 26% to 630 per dollar was inaccurate. The exchange rate is N465 per dollar and “has been stable around that rate for a while,” it said on Twitter.

Tinubu announced plans to adopt a uniform exchange rate in his inauguration speech on May 29. Nigeria has numerous exchange rates, dominated by a tightly controlled official rate, that cuts off access to many businesses and individuals, which in turn drives demand to the unauthorized black market. The spread between the managed and parallel markets is almost 60%. Tinubu’s proposal may help attract investors who had shunned Africa’s biggest economy. 

Non-deliverable forward contracts on the naira are pricing in a depreciation of about 21% over the next three months and those with a 12-month tenor 32%. 

The moves reflect speculation by some market participants that authorities will allow for a steep decline in the naira.

Lagos-based brokerage, Chapel Hill Denham said that the naira should be weakened above its fair value of N606.58 to the dollar. It should be devalued close to the N650 to N700 range to the dollar it trades at in the parallel market “to restore investor confidence,” analyst Tajudeen Ibrahim said in an emailed note on Wednesday.

Nigeria's state owned oil company NNPC will soon end its monopoly on petrol supplies, its chief executive told local television on Thursday, a day after it nearly tripled prices at its fuel stations countrywide.

Newly inaugurated President Bola Tinubu pledged to remove fuel subsidies, a popular but costly benefit that has drained billions annually from government coffers.

Mele Kyari told Arise TV that prices were expected to come down once new companies started supplying petrol, bringing more competition.

"All we did was to set variable prices depending on our costs by location and knowing full well that NNPC is the single supplier of the market and we are seeing that exit coming very, very quickly," said Kyari.

"There will be no monopoly, NNPC will not continue being supplier of this product alone."

Kyari has previously said the corporation was owed $6 billion in petrol subsidy payments by the federal government.

Under the Petroleum Industry Act signed into law two years ago, NNPC cannot supply more than 30% of gasoline in Nigeria.

"As soon as the market stabilises, oil marketing companies are able to come in. Competition will surely come in ... and you will see changes in prices downwards," said Kyari.

Nigeria imports most of its refined petroleum products because it has run down its refineries over the years.

The 650,000 barrel per day Dangote Refinery was commissioned last month, amid hopes of transforming the country into a net exporter of petroleum products.

Reuters

Candidate of the Labour Party, LP, Peter Obi, who is insisting that he won the presidential election held on February 25, on Thursday, produced certified copies of results of the election from six states of the federation, to support his claim.

Obi tendered the results, which were obtained from 115 Local Government Areas, LGAs, in evidence before the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja.

Though Obi’s legal team was led by Awa Kalu, however, the election results, which were contained in Forms EC8A, were tendered from the Bar by one of his lawyers, Emeka Opoko.

The first set of results of the election that was tendered before the court by the LP candidate who came third in the presidential election was from 15 out of 22 LGAs of Rivers State.

Despite opposition by all the respondents in the matter, Haruna Tsammani-led’s five-member panel admitted the Rivers state results and marked them as Exhibits PD 1 to PD 15.

Obi and the LP equally tendered results from 23 LGAs in Benue state, which were also admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits PC 1 to PC 23, while results from 18 LGAs in Cross River State were added in evidence as Exhibits PD1 – PD 18.

On Niger state, Obi tendered Forms EC8A from 23 LGAs and they were admitted in evidence as Exhibits PE-1 to PE 23, as well as that of 20 LGAs in Osun state which were marked as Exhibits PF 1 – PF 20.

The last set of results the petitioners adduced and tendered in evidence before the court were from 16 LGAs in Ekiti and they were marked as Exhibits PG 1 to PG 16.

The Tsammani-led panel subsequently adjourned further proceedings in the matter till Friday.

All the respondents said they would give reasons why they challenged the admissibility of the presidential election results that Obi and the LP tendered in evidence, in their final written address.

Cited as 1st to 4th respondents in the petition, are; the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Bola Tinubu, Kashim Shettima and the All Progressives Congress, APC.

It would be recalled that Obi and the LP had indicated their decision to call a total of 50 witnesses in the matter.

Specifically, Obi, in the joint petition he filed with the LP, is contending that Tinubu was not the valid winner of the election.

The petitioners, in the case, marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023, equally maintained that Tinubu was not qualified to participate in the presidential contest.

According to the petitioners, at the time Tinubu’s running mate, Shettima, became the Vice Presidential candidate, he was still the nominated candidate of the APC for the Borno Central Senatorial election.

The petitioners further challenged Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the presidential election, alleging that he was previously indicted and fined the sum of $460,000.00 by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483, for an offence involving dishonesty and drug trafficking.

On the ground that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act, 2022, the petitioners argued that INEC acted in breach of its own Regulations and Guidelines.

The Petitioners argued that the electoral body was in the course of the conduct of the presidential poll, mandatorily required to prescribe and deploy technological devices for the accreditation, verification, continuation and authentication of voters and their particulars as contained in its Regulations.

They are, therefore, praying the court to among other things, declare that all the votes recorded for Tinubu and the APC, were wasted votes owing to his non-qualification/disqualification.

“That it is determined that on the basis of the remaining votes (after discountenancing the votes credited to the 2nd Respondent) the 1st Petitioner (Obi) scored a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and had not less than 25% of the votes cast in at least 2/3 of the States of the Federation, and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the 25th February 2023 presidential election.

“That it be determined that the 2nd Respondent having failed to score one-quarter of the votes cast at the presidential election in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja was not entitled to be declared and returned as the winner of the presidential election held on 25th February 2023.

In the alternative, the petitioners, want an order cancelling the election and compelling INEC to conduct a fresh election in which Tinubu, Shettima and the APC, listed as 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents, respectively, shall not participate.

They urged the court to declare that since Tinubu was not duly elected by a majority of the lawful votes cast in the election, therefore, his return as the winner of the presidential election, was unlawful, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever.

In a further alternative prayer, the petitioners want the court to hold that the presidential election was void on the ground that it was not conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, and the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

Likewise, the applied for an order, “cancelling the presidential election conducted on 25th February 2023 and mandating the 1st Respondent to conduct a fresh election for the President, the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.

Meanwhile, both Obi and his Vice Presidential candidate, Baba Ahmed Datti, were in court on Thursday to observe the proceeding.

Vanguard

Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, on Thursday, presented his first witness at the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja.

Atiku, who came second in the February presidential election, is challenging the victory of Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 25th February election.

Tinubu was sworn in Monday as Nigeria’s president, while three petitioners, including Atiku, continue to pursue their separate cases to challenge his victory.

Led in his evidence-in-chief by Chris Uche, Atiku’s lawyer, the witness, Joe Agada, informed the five-member panel of the court headed by Haruna Tsammani that there were rampant cases of manipulation of electoral records by officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) during the February poll.

Agada, a retired army captain, served as PDP’s State Collation agent in Kogi for the presidential election.

Agada said he monitored the polls in 20 polling units across two senatorial districts in Kogi.

Under cross-examination by INEC’s lawyer, Abdullahi Aliyu, Agada said Bimodal Voters Accreditation System “BVAS machines were manipulated during the conduct of the (presidential) election.”

“I was forced to sign the collated result sheets in Lokoja,” Agada added.

He explained that he signed the electoral documents under duress without further explaining the situation.

Agada is one of the 100 witnesses Atiku intends to call in support of his petition at the court.

The electoral documents earlier tendered by Atiku’s team comprise printouts of data from BVAS machines and result sheets tendered before the court.

But Tinubu and the electoral umpire objected to the admissibility of the documents.

They did not disclose any rationale for their objections but promised to do so at the close of arguments in the petition.

Lawyers to parties in the petitions had pledged not to object to certified true copies of electoral documents from INEC. However, the respondents have opposed the admissibility of many of the electoral records.

Atiku is challenging the outcome of the presidential election over allegations of INEC’s manipulation of the electoral process in favour of Tinubu.

But the legal battle to overturn Tinubu’s victory continues at the court.

PT

Nine people were killed in Senegal on Thursday in clashes between riot police and supporters of opposition leader Ousmane Sonko after a court sentenced him to two years in jail, casting serious doubt on his chances of running for president next year.

Sonko, 48, did not attend the hearing over an alleged sexual assault. The justice ministry said the opposition leader could now be taken to prison at any time. Police remained stationed around his home Dakar as unrest flared in the capital and elsewhere after the verdict.

Sonko was accused of raping a woman who worked in a massage parlour in 2021, when she was 20, and making death threats against her. He denies wrongdoing and says the charges are politically motivated.

A criminal court cleared Sonko of rape, but found him guilty of a separate offence described in the penal code as immoral behaviour towards individuals younger than 21.

"With this sentence Sonko cannot be a candidate," said one of his lawyers, Bamba Ciss, citing Senegal's electoral law.

Sonko's PASTEF party said the verdict was part of a political plot and called on citizens in a statement to "stop all activity and take to the streets".

Nine people were killed in the protests that broke out in parts of Dakar and other cities after the verdict, Interior Minister Antoine Felix Abdoulaye Diome said on state television in the early hours of Friday.

Earlier, thick black smoke had billowed from a central university campus in Dakar, where protesters set several buses alight in the afternoon and threw rocks at riot police who responded by firing tear gas.

Government spokesperson Abdou Karim Fofana said security forces had the situation under control in the capital.

Several social media and messaging platforms were restricted in Senegal late on Thursday - a move "likely to significantly impact the public's ability to communicate," the Netblocks internet observatory said.

University law professor Ndiack Fall said Sonko could demand a retrial if he turns himself in to authorities.

The case has triggered sporadic violent protests in the West African country since 2021. Sonko's supporters denounce the charges as a ploy to prevent him from running in elections scheduled for February. The government and the justice system deny this.

A former tax inspector who came third in the last election, Sonko has tapped into frustrations with President Macky Sall that have grown since he was elected in 2012.

Critics say Sall has failed to create jobs and has stifled opposition criticism amid rumours he may seek to bypass presidential term limits and run again next year. Sall has neither confirmed nor denied this.

Demonstrations are not uncommon in Senegal and typically increase around elections. But Sall's second term has been particularly turbulent for a country usually viewed as one of West Africa's strongest democracies.

Separately, Sonko is appealing against a six-month suspended prison sentence for libel - an offence he also denies.

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine lifts air raid alerts, says downed more than 30 missiles and drones

Ukrainian authorities on Friday lifted air raid alerts across most of the nation, and officials in the capital Kyiv said defences appeared to have shot down more than 30 missiles and drones fired by Russia.

Moscow has launched around 20 separate missile and drone strikes against Ukrainian cities since the start of May.

Kyiv military authorities, writing on Telegram, said Russia had launched drones and cruise missiles at the same time.

"According to preliminary information, more than 30 air targets of various types were detected and destroyed in the airspace over and around Kyiv by air defence forces," they said in a statement.

Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko, who earlier reported two separate waves of attacks, wrote on Telegram that there had been no calls for rescue services.

Ukraine regularly says its defences knock down the majority of Russia's missiles and drones.

** US seeking explosives in Japan for Ukraine artillery shells

The United States is seeking to secure supplies of TNT in Japan for 155mm artillery shells, as Washington rushes weapons and ammunition to Ukraine for a counteroffensive against Russian forces, two people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

For war-renouncing Japan, any procurement would test its willingness to court controversy to help Kyiv because export rules ban Japanese companies from selling lethal items overseas, such as the howitzer shells that Ukraine fires daily at Russian units occupying its southeastern regions.

Nonetheless, the allies appear to have found a workaround to enable the TNT sale amid global shortages of munitions.

"There is a way for the United States to buy explosives from Japan," one of the people with knowledge of discussions on the matter in Japan told Reuters on the condition of anonymity, citing the issue's sensitivity.

Export restrictions for dual-use products or equipment sold commercially are less stringent than for items with a purely military purpose, which is why the U.S. can buy Panasonic Toughbook laptops for its military.

Tokyo, which hosted U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin this week, has told the U.S. government it will allow the sale of industrial TNT because the explosive is not a military-use-only product, the other source said.

The U.S. wants to plug a Japanese company into a TNT supply chain to deliver explosives to U.S. army-owned munitions plants that would pack them into 155mm shell cases, the person added.

Japan's Ministry of Trade, Industry and Economy declined to say whether any Japanese company had approached it about exporting TNT. It added in an email that items not subject to military restrictions would be assessed under regular export rules that consider the buyer's intent, including whether their use would impede international security.

The Japanese defence ministry's Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency declined to comment.

The U.S. State Department did not directly address questions from Reuters about whether the U.S. planned to buy TNT in Japan but said Washington was working with allies and partners "to provide Ukraine with the support it needs" to defend itself. Japan, it added, "has demonstrated leadership in supporting Ukraine's defense".

EAGER TO HELP

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida wants to help Ukraine because his administration fears a Russian victory would embolden China to attack Taiwan and embroil his country in a regional war. Last year, he warned that Ukraine may be "East Asia tomorrow", and his administration announced Japan's biggest military build-up since World War Two.

That retreat from the state pacifism that has dominated Japan's foreign policy for decades has not so far extended to lethal military aid, limiting Tokyo's offerings to Kyiv to kit such as flak jackets, helmets and food rations.

Following Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's visit to Japan during the Hiroshima G7 leaders summit last month, Kishida agreed to donate jeeps and trucks.

There appears to be growing acceptance in Japan about providing military aid to Ukraine, but the degree of lethality is contentious, said Tsuneo Watanabe, a senior fellow at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

"The fact that Japan has decided to give trucks to Ukraine shows that things are changing. However, there doesn't yet appear to be any political consensus around the issue of sending lethal aid," he said.

Japan is one of dozens of friends and allies that Washington is asking to help arm Ukraine as it wrestles with stretched military supply chains.

South Korea, which also uses 155mm shells, is among those the U.S. has approached. A South Korean defence official told Reuters that Seoul's stance against providing lethal aid to Kyiv had not changed.

Asked in Tokyo this week about the possibility of a shift in Japanese policy on lethal aid, Austin said at a press briefing that any change would be a matter for Japan but "any bit of support" for Ukraine was "always welcome".

The sources who spoke to Reuters declined to identify the Japanese company that would supply explosives to the U.S. government and did not say how much TNT Washington wanted to buy.

Reuters contacted 22 explosives makers listed on the Japan Explosives Industry Association's website. The only one that said it made industrial TNT was Chugoku Kayaku, an Hiroshima-based firm that supplies Japan's military.

"We have not received any direct inquiry from the U.S. government or U.S. military," the company said in an email.

Asked if it was discussing any TNT sales through an intermediary, the firm, which lists an industrial TNT product on its website, said it did not disclose the identity of customers or potential buyers.

JAPAN'S NEXT MOVE

Supplying commercial TNT to the U.S. may only be a stop-gap measure because many lawmakers of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) want to ease or eliminate the export restrictions.

In December, when Kishida announced Japan's five-year military build-up, he pledged to revise the export rules, opening up the possibility that Japan could supply lethal weapons not only to Ukraine, but to other nations that Tokyo and Washington see as potential allies against Russia and China.

Akihisa Nagashima, a former deputy defence minister and a ranking LDP member of the parliamentary committee on national security, said the military build-up would take Japan four-fifths of the way to becoming a "normal country" unencumbered by the legacy of its World War Two defeat.

"Tackling the export restrictions is the remaining 20%," he said.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Ukrainian drones attack Russian city – governor

Several Ukrainian drones have been shot down near the Russian city of Kursk, regional governor Roman Starovoyt said in the early hours of Friday.

Starovoyt urged residents to stay calm, adding that the capital of the region that shares a border with Ukraine was “under the firm protection of our military.” 

The governor’s statement came shortly after several Telegram channels reported that explosions were heard over the city. The channel Mash posted an unverified video appearing to show an air defense system firing a missile into the sky.

Russia’s border regions have frequently come under artillery and rocket fire, as well as drone attacks, ever since Moscow launched its military operation in the Ukraine in February 2022. 

Raids have also been launched into Russian territory. On Tuesday, drones carrying explosives crashed into several high-rise residential buildings in Moscow. No one was killed, while two civilians suffered minor injuries. According to Russian officials, Kiev had conducted the attack in order to sow fear and confusion among the population. 

On Thursday, the Russian Defense Ministry said that its troops had repelled an armed incursion from Ukraine into the Belgorod Region. 

Units in Kiev's service, allegedly made up of Russian nationalist volunteers, have claimed responsibility for similar cross-border raids on the Belgorod Region in mid-May and the Bryansk Region in early March.

** Russian assault teams advance in Maryinka area in DPR, top brass reports

Russian assault teams continued advancing in the Maryinka tactical area in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) over the past day during the special military operation in Ukraine, Defense Ministry Spokesman Lieutenant-General Igor Konashenkov reported on Thursday.

"The assault teams of the 5th motor rifle brigade and the Akhmat special operations formation continue offensive operations in the Maryinka tactical direction," the spokesman said.

Operational/tactical and army aviation and artillery of Russia’s southern battlegroup inflicted damage on the enemy’s manpower and equipment in areas near the settlements of Georgiyevka, Lastochkino and Tonenkoye in the Donetsk People’s Republic," the general reported.

Russian forces destroy 45 Ukrainian troops in Kupyansk area

Russian forces destroyed roughly 45 Ukrainian troops and neutralized three enemy subversive groups in the Kupyansk area over the past day, Konashenkov reported.

"In the Kupyansk direction, aircraft and artillery from the western battlegroup struck the enemy units in areas near the settlements of Timkovka and Berestovoye in the Kharkov Region and Stelmakhovka in the Lugansk People’s Republic. As many as 45 Ukrainian personnel, three motor vehicles, an Akatsiya self-propelled artillery system and a D-20 howitzer were destroyed in the past 24 hours," the spokesman said.

In areas near the settlements of Sinkovka and Kislovka in the Kharkov Region and Rozovka in the Lugansk People’s Republic, three Ukrainian subversive/reconnaissance groups were neutralized, the general reported.

Russian forces eliminate 80 Ukrainian troops in Krasny Liman area

Russian forces eliminated roughly 80 Ukrainian troops in the Krasny Liman area over the past day, Konashenkov reported.

"In the Krasny Liman direction, operational/tactical and army aviation, artillery and heavy flamethrower systems from the battlegroup Center inflicted damage on the Ukrainian army units in areas near the settlements of Karmazinovka and Chervonaya Dibrova in the Lugansk People’s Republic and Grigorovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic," the spokesman said.

In all, the enemy lost as many as 80 Ukrainian personnel, two pickup trucks, a Gvozdika motorized artillery system and a D-20 howitzer in that area in the past 24 hours, the general reported.

Russian forces destroy 395 Ukrainian troops in Donetsk advance

Russian forces destroyed roughly 395 Ukrainian troops in their advance in the Donetsk area over the past day, Konashenkov reported.

"As many as 395 Ukrainian personnel, a tank, two infantry fighting vehicles, three pickup trucks and two D-30 howitzers were destroyed in the Donetsk direction in the past 24 hours," the spokesman said.

"Near the settlement of Udachnoye in the Donetsk People’s Republic, a Ukrainian ammunition depot was obliterated," the general reported.

Russian forces destroy Ukrainian ammo depot in DPR

Russian forces destroyed a Ukrainian ammunition depot in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) over the past day, Konashenkov reported.

"In the area of the settlement of Serebryanka in the Donetsk People’s Republic, an ammunition depot of the 125th territorial defense brigade was destroyed," the spokesman said.

In addition, the activity of a Ukrainian subversive/reconnaissance group was thwarted near the settlement of Kremennaya in the Lugansk People’s Republic, the general reported.

Russian forces eliminate 120 Ukrainian troops in southern Donetsk, Zaporozhye areas

Russian forces eliminated about 120 Ukrainian troops in the southern Donetsk and Zaporozhye areas over the past day, Konashenkov reported.

In the southern Donetsk and Zaporozhye directions, aircraft and artillery of Russia’s battlegroup East struck the Ukrainian army units near the settlements of Vodyanoye and Pavlovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic, Malaya Tokmachka and Shcherbaki in the Zaporozhye Region, the spokesman specified.

"As many as 120 Ukrainian personnel, two motor vehicles and an Msta-B howitzer were destroyed in those directions in the past 24 hours," the general reported.

Russian forces destroy 20 Ukrainian troops in Kherson area

Russian forces destroyed roughly 20 Ukrainian troops, a Grad multiple rocket launcher and a D-30 howitzer in the Kherson area over the past day, Konashenkov reported.

"In the Kherson direction, as many as 20 Ukrainian personnel, two pickup trucks, a Grad multiple rocket launcher and a D-30 howitzer were destroyed in the past 24 hours as a result of damage inflicted by firepower," the spokesman said.

Russian forces wipe out command posts of two Ukrainian army brigades

Russian forces destroyed command posts of two Ukrainian army brigades in the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Zaporozhye Region over the past day, Konashenkov reported.

"In areas near the settlements of Seversk in the Donetsk People’s Republic and Gorkoye in the Zaporozhye Region, the command/observation posts of the Ukrainian army’s 81st air mobile brigade and 108th territorial defense brigade were destroyed," the spokesman said.

During the last 24-hour period, operational/tactical and army aviation, missile troops and artillery of the Russian group of forces struck 103 Ukrainian artillery units at firing positions, manpower and military equipment in 149 areas, the general reported.

Russian air defenses down Ukrainian Su-25 ground attack plane, 17 drones

Russian air defense forces shot down a Ukrainian Su-25 ground attack aircraft and destroyed 17 enemy drones over the past day, Konashenkov reported.

"Air defense capabilities shot down a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25 plane near the settlement of Novoandreyevka in the Zaporozhye Region. In the past 24 hours, they intercepted 16 rockets of the HIMARS, Uragan and Olkha multiple launch rocket systems," the spokesman said.

In addition, Russian air defense forces destroyed 17 Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles in areas near the settlements of Ploshchanka, Kuzyomovka and Makeyevka in the Lugansk People’s Republic, Tonenkoye and Georgiyevka in the Donetsk People’s Republic, the general reported.

In all, the Russian Armed Forces have destroyed 430 Ukrainian warplanes, 235 combat helicopters, 4,407 unmanned aerial vehicles, 424 surface-to-air missile systems, 9,352 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1,105 multiple rocket launchers, 4,954 field artillery guns and mortars and 10,587 special military motor vehicles since the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine, Konashenkov reported.

Reuters/RT/Tass

US imposes sanctions on companies tied to Sudan forces as fighting rages

The United States on Thursday imposed sanctions on companies it accused of fuelling the conflict in Sudan, stepping up pressure on the army and a rival paramilitary force to stop fighting raging in Khartoum and other regions.

The U.S. Treasury Department said it targeted two companies linked to the army, including the country's largest defence enterprise, and two companies tied to the rival paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, including one involved in gold mining.

"We will not hesitate to take additional steps if the parties continue to destroy their country," a senior U.S. administration official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said.

"The targeting of the companies is far from symbolic," the official said, adding that the measures are intended to choke off the parties' access to weapons and resources that allow them to perpetuate the conflict.

Sudan's army and the RSF did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The conflict, which broke out on April 15, has killed hundreds, forced more than 1.6 million to flee and turned the three cities that make up the capital around the confluence of the Nile - Khartoum, Omdurman and Bahri - into a war zone.

Residents said heavy artillery fire could be heard in northern Omdurman and intermittent firing in southern Bahri, despite a deal for a ceasefire that is meant to run till Saturday evening.

"We are being terrorized by the sounds of heavy artillery around us. The house has been shaking," 49-year-old Nadir Ahmed said in the Thawra neighbourhood of Omdurman. "Where is this ceasefire we hear about?"

Clashes also continued near a market in southern Khartoum, where at least 19 people were killed and 106 wounded on Wednesday, according to a member of a local neighbourhood committee.

SANCTIONS, WARNINGS

The United States, alongside Saudi Arabia, has been leading efforts to try to secure an effective ceasefire at talks in Jeddah, though both sides have breached a string of truces.

Saudi Arabia and the U.S. said late on Thursday they were suspending the talks, a day after Sudan's army announced it was halting its participation.

The sanctions are the first punitive measures imposed under an executive ordersigned by U.S. President Joe Biden in May. They target Sudan's largest defence enterprise, Defence Industries System, which the Treasury said generates an estimated $2 billion in revenue and manufactures arms and other equipment for Sudan's army.

Arms company Giad, also known as Sudan Master Technology, was targeted as well.

On the RSF side, Washington imposed sanctions on Algunade, which it said was involved in gold mining and controlled by RSF Commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo and his brother, as well as Tradive General Trading L.L.C., which it said was a front company controlled by another brother and procured vehicles for the RSF.

The companies, all key to the business and procurement activities of both forces, could not immediately be reached for comment.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said visa restrictions were imposed on individuals in Sudan, including officials from both the army and the RSF and leaders from the government of Omar al-Bashir, who was ousted four years ago. Those hit with visa restrictions were not named.

'WARNING SHOT'

Outside Khartoum, clashes have flared in major cities in the western region of Darfur. A regional rights group said at least 50 people had been killed in the last week in the westernmost city of El Geneina, which has been cut off from communications for more than 10 days.

In another Darfur city, Zalingei, it said the hospital and university were looted and people were being killed "randomly".

Some government officials have relocated to the army-controlled Red Sea coast city Port Sudan, which has also become a base for the United Nations, aid groups, and diplomats.

However, a curfew was declared in the city this week as the army warned of "sleeper cells". Residents say buses have been stopped from entering the city, which is a key evacuation point.

In El Obeid, a regional hub southwest of Khartoum the U.N. World Food Programme reported food was being looted. "Food for 4.4 million people is at stake," agency chief Cindy McCain said.

Army and RSF leaders had held top positions on Sudan's ruling council after toppling Bashir in 2019. They fell out over the chain of command and military restructuring under a planned transition to civilian rule.

Cameron Hudson, a former U.S. official now at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the sanctions would have little impact on the parties' ability to continue to wage war and were unlikely to be enforced by Russia or the United Arab Emirates, which have ties to the RSF.

"It's hard to think this sanctions announcement is the thing that will dissuade entities already doing business with these corporations from continuing," Hudson said.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

"This feels like more of a warning shot than a direct hit, which is odd given that we are long past the time when warning shots should be used."

Reuters

President Bola Tinubu is under fire for announcing that petrol subsidy is gone from day one. His inauguration address also touched on a unified currency exchange, high interest rate and power, among others.

Of all these, however, the one that got the headlines was petrol subsidy and the most frequently expressed concern, is why now? 

To say, in his first speech, that fuel subsidy was gone, that a unified exchange rate was vital, and that the current interest rate was anti-people and anti-business, was the economic equivalent of an earthquake. 

Of the four preceding presidential inauguration speeches since 1999 from Olusegun Obasanjo to Buhari, none that I reviewed was nearly as audacious and as provokingly clear as Tinubu’s position was on perhaps the most crucial economic decisions as he took office. 

Obasanjo, for example, talked about corruption, loss of confidence in government and the Niger Delta crisis. His three successors spoke about infrastructure, corruption and unemployment. But none was bang on the nail, as frontal and clear, as Tinubu’s was. We’re struggling because we’re used to being lied to.

Interestingly, in campaigns before the last general election, the other leading presidential candidates – Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Peter Obi of Labour Party – said they would remove subsidy. Obi, in fact, called it an “organised crime” and he was right.

For a man who has his work cut out for him, Tinubu does not have the luxury of philosophy or poetry. Not when organised criminals trading on a yearly petrol subsidy of about N4.4trillion as of 2022, have left the country bleeding nearly to death. He had to make his own structural earthquake or risk uncontrolled seismic explosion. If not now, then when? 

Tinubu’s dilemma reminds me of the story of a number of leaders confronted with extremely difficult choices before they had time to settle in office. The first of them is the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who told his story eloquently in his autobiography, “Bibi: My story.”

Israel might have had some important military successes before, but at the time Netanyahu became prime minister in 1996 the country was an economic basket case and inflation was in double digits.

Netanyahu ran for and won the premiership against his father’s advice, against principalities in his own Likud Party and against veterans in the ruling Labour Party. Winning was hard, but making his victory count was even harder. The press and the unions hated him and didn’t hide it.

As he rolled up his sleeves, he was shocked at what he found when he entered the cabinet room for his first meeting. The room was like a banquet hall, lined with omelets, cheese, assorted bread, tomatoes, cucumber, jam, cookies and so on.

“The cabinet ministers were already busy munching away,” he wrote, “passing dishes to one another. It reminded me of the Shabbat Breakfast Club in the synagogue in Hull, Massachusetts.”

It was the sort of executive indulgence that President Obasanjo also saw in Nigeria when he assumed office in 1999 and his response then, like Netanyahu’s on that day, was to scrap the nonsense immediately. 

But cabinet menu reform was the least problem on his plate. The real challenge was how to free the country from a semi-socialist nanny economy, state control, exposure to future global vulnerabilities, the dominance of monopolies, and union fat cats.

“By far the most important reform I enacted,” he said reflecting on that very difficult period, “was to liberate Israel’s rigid foreign currency controls. In 1998, Israel still resembled many third-world countries with regards to currency. Israelis could not take more than $7,000 out of the country without special authorisation from Israel’s central bank. Returning from abroad, they had to redeposit and register all foreign currency they held inside the country.” 

His finance minister and other bureaucrats opposed his decision to announce immediate currency reforms. They argued that such a drastic step would seriously devalue the country’s currency. He bit the bullet, and his finance minister resigned in anger.

By 2004, in spite of dire warnings of the disastrous consequences of his actions, Netanyahu had removed all foreign exchange restrictions. He transformed Israel’s economy from third to first world by following a simple rule: “Whenever possible, remove barriers to trade. Money, trade and investments generally flow to the freer economies away from the more controlled ones.”

Of course, to unleash innovation and creativity, he also tackled the archaic educational system. He told university administrators at one point that although he had the utmost respect for the study of humanities, if he had to share government shekel between Tibetan poetry and microelectronics, he would have no hesitation putting the money in the latter.

It wasn’t easy for China’s Deng Xiaoping either. In the face of very serious economic challenges, Xiaoping made painful decisions not very different from those of Netanyahu. He liberalised the economy, unleashed the energy of the private sector and the small businesses, and introduced one of the most controversial – yet most consequential social reforms: the one-child policy. 

Also, India remained a nearly-there economic success story until nine years ago when Prime Minister Narendra Modi took some of the most far-reaching economic reforms, restructuring the tax system and expanding financial literacy and inclusiveness to cover the so-called “untouchables.”

From Netanyahu to Modi, the lesson is clear: a leader who inherits a broken country and an underperforming economy must take tough decisions or risk failure. Of course, tough decisions do not necessarily guarantee success. But shying away from them guarantees failure.

Since Tinubu said on Monday that petrol subsidy was gone, he has been criticised for a speech “lacking in empathy and philosophy.” If the current subsidy regime would officially end on June 30, why did he make an obviously unpopular decision on his first day on the job without first laying out how it was going to work?

For decades in this country, I have listened to empathetic and philosophical speeches about how subsidy only benefits the rich and how the country is being robbed to indulge them, yet nothing fundamental has been done to correct the situation. Government after government just kicks the can down the road.

I have heard union leaders, probably the greatest obstacles to a more transparent and efficient supply system, call for “greater stakeholder engagement”, when all they really want to do is exploit and milk public disaffection by holding the system hostage with threats of strikes, the sort of attitude that makes Margaret Thatcher’s handling of the unions in the UK look like redemption moment.

President Goodluck Jonathan came very close to scrapping subsidy in 2012. He was snagged, not by his good intention, but by the discovery that $6.8 billion collected to mitigate the impact of subsidy removal between 2009 and 2011 after petrol prices were raised from N65 to N120, had been cornered and stolen by his own government officials.

For eight years, President Muhammadu Buhari toyed with subsidy removal. In spite of strong support even by key members of his own party, however, he couldn’t quite overcome an approach-avoidance conflict, a catastrophic hallmark of his government.  

In 2020 the minister of finance said subsidy had been removed from the budget. Yet Buhari, the minister of Petroleum Resources who once said subsidy was a scam, turned a blind eye as subsidy returned in full force reaching an all-time high according to Reuters of N4.4trillion in 2022 alone. 

For lovers of philosophy and poetry, eight years of prevarication and temporising under Buhari was enough orchestra. One more day after would have unleashed the same forces that have held us hostage for this long. Not a luxury we can afford anymore.

The immediate fallout of Tinubu’s announcement would be messy, even ugly, with spikes in general price levels. Even though NNPC Limited has not issued import franchises in the last two weeks at least, which means the market had been hedging and anticipating Tinubu’s announcement, he had barely finished speaking when petrol queues surfaced all over the country and pump prices per litre tripled in some places.

That’s not new or unforeseen. Nor would the outcome have been significantly different even if Tinubu had waited another year before making the announcement or if NNPC had waited another six months before confirming the removal of pump price caps. 

My guess is that after the initial inevitable chaos, the market would gradually adjust and consumers, used to the easy road, would adapt. Prodigal states, faced with shrinking handouts from Abuja, would also have to examine their fiscal choices. 

There would be a need to reduce the impact on the weak and vulnerable, the bulk of who are outside the major cities and beyond the reach of the self-serving arguments of the city elite and the unions. But even intervention cannot start unless subsidy stops immediately to free funds.

Petrol subsidy is gone, means petrol subsidy is gone. Anything short of saying so on day one, would have amounted to kicking the can down the road, again. And that, we have seen, has been the graveyard of speeches in the last several decades full of economic philosophy and poetry but meaning nothing. Enough. 

** Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

In middle school, I played on a football team that lost every game. Our coaches tried to keep our spirits high by reciting the proverb once heard on fields and courts across the country: It’s not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. When it comes to the state of our democracy, Americans would do well to heed those words.

That old saying may appear out of place in a democratic society obsessed with election outcomes and legislative victories. Too many politicians interpret a ballot box victory as a mandate to shove their party’s agenda down people’s throats. They believe that winning confers legitimacy on everything they want to do and the authority to do it. This, of course, is wrong. How democracy is exercised — how the game is played — is more important than who wins.

We’re either forgetting this or deciding that we no longer care. Partisans increasingly see the other side as immoral, stupid, unworthy or incapable of good-faith debates. Americans have lost confidence in government’s ability to manage the country, much less address its intractable problems. This erosion of respect feeds an anti-democratic backlash: More than a third of us support violations of democratic norms by the political leaders we favor.

The right has embraced antidemocratic tactics more readily and with more fervor. But the left is not immune to the pull of illiberalism, a word that essentially means the infringing of the political minority’s rights, and a disregard for constitutional order. Whereas democracy requires parties to accept losses, illiberalism is obsessed with winning elections, prevailing in policy disputes and hoarding power — to hell with democratic norms, rules and fairness.

Illiberal impulses arise from different origins on the right and the left. Right-wing illiberalism has roots in the idea that the nation has always been exceptional, but that its destiny is now threatened by faithless or incompatible groups of others: progressives, racial and ethnic minorities, internationalists and so on. Former president Donald Trump’s rhetoric and actions put the impulse front and center. Running on the motto “Make American Great Again,” he repeatedly professed his obsession with winning, attacked the free press and made too many disparaging remarks about people of color to list. The impulse is visible in right-wing support for the “independent state legislature” theory, which empowers state-level majorities to ignore the courts and the public will; in book bans and whitewashed history classes; and in the violence of Jan. 6, 2021.

In the far reaches of the left wing, illiberalism springs from an unwillingness to recognize and praise those aspects of the United States that should be conserved, preferring instead to portray a nation corrupt from the start, beyond repair and in need of a teardown. The illiberal left chills the speech of ideological opponents, hijacks legitimate protest movements to serve undemocratic ends and supports coercive means to achieve policy goals. Although not equivalent to the excesses of right-wing illiberalism, the left repudiates democracy nonetheless.

The two sides are equally obsessed with imaginary utopias — for the right, a pining to return to an America that never existed; for the left, attempting to forge an America that cannot be built.

Given what they have in common, their stark opposition has an odor of hypocrisy. Consider presidential emergency powers. Democrats cried foul when Trump used emergency powers to redirect federal money to build a wall on the southern border. Republicans had a conniption over the idea that President Biden could use executive authority to make abortion available or forgive student loans. Victory, not democracy, is the goal. The blunt exercise of power is excused by the winners as long as they get their way.

Lots of attention has been devoted to the right’s illiberalism, and rightly so. But the mirror tendency on the left — in no small part a response to congressional intransigence during the Obama administration and the ongoing antidemocratic agenda in red states — is perhaps more worrisome. The left’s illiberalism grants a monopoly on national pride, and our symbols of unity, to the right: the flag, the anthem, the very concept of patriotism. It’s as if the two sides ask Americans to choose between a nation that behaves as if it doesn’t need to respect its people and a people who act as though they don’t need to respect the nation.

Nations have identities, cultures, narratives and customs that are needed to provide stability. Such symbols, along with a shared history, connect the people of this large, diverse — and still young —country. Ceding the symbols and stories to the illiberal right wing will leave too many Americans alienated from the nation they hope to improve. Why struggle to build up a country that is not worthy of love?

We know how to deal with undemocratic conservatives. The whole of the civil rights movement took aim at their reactionary illiberalism. The Jim Crow era they sought to enforce was put to bed by folks who offered a better and more optimistic version of the nation’s future.

We need to learn how to oppose the illiberalism of the left, the impulse to give up on the national story, to lose the thread of it, to declare the American experiment dead. “We must not be enemies,” Abraham Lincoln urged; instead, we must all practice a conservatism that preserves the institutions and beliefs undergirding the shared liberal ideals of human freedom and equality. When the political game is played between these lines and by these rules, everyone wins.

Washington Post

Gmail has so many useful features that some of them go unnoticed. Here’s a handful that you’ll wish you’d known about ages ago.

Most of us have been using Gmail for so long that we never really bother to explore new features that have been added over the years.

But if you use Gmail to get actual work done, there are a handful of really helpful goodies that aren’t quite so obvious unless you look for them. Here are five of these time-savers that you may have overlooked—until now.

Add a recipient in the body of a message

This one’s about as straightforward as it gets, but you’d be forgiven for not knowing it existed, given that there’s nothing in the Gmail interface to spotlight it.

You’ll get a dropdown with a selection of your contacts: Click the person’s name and they’ll be added as a recipient.

Open your calendar in a sidebar

If you live inside Gmail, you probably spend a fair amount of time with Google Calendar as well.

Kill two birds with one stone by keeping your calendar open on the right-hand side of Gmail at all times.

In the upper corner to the right of your inbox, you’ll notice icons for Calendar, Keep, Tasks, and Contacts. Click the Calendar icon and you’re good to go.

You’ll see your entire day at a glance and you’ll be able to create new meetings with a couple of clicks. I actually prefer the simplicity to the full-blown Google Calendar interface.

Explore add-ons galore

You may already be using Chrome extensions for Gmail, but Gmail itself makes it easy to find a heaping helping of add-ons that work across several browsers, not just Chrome.

In the same right-hand column where you click the Google Calendar icon to open it in the sidebar, there’s a nondescript plus-sign icon.

Click it, and a bountiful marketplace will pop up. It’s chock-full of handy integrations from the likes of Zoom, Webex, Docusign, and a ton of other providers large and small.

Hover to quickly sort your inbox

Here’s a feature that had been staring me in the face for a while before I actually realized how useful it was.

Clearing out the morning deluge of overnight messages is as easy as hovering over each one. When doing so, you’ll notice four icons on the right-most side of each subject line: archive, delete, mark unread, and snooze.

With a single click, you can send each message elsewhere. Blaze your way through your inbox in no time.

Create templates for repetitive messages

And last but not least, arguably the greatest Gmail time-saver of them all: templates. If you find yourself constantly tapping out the same messages over and over again, you absolutely must use this feature.

To do so, create a canned message. Once you’ve gotten it just how you like it, click the three-dot icon on the far-right of the bottom of your message, then Templates > Save draft as template > Save as new template.

Give it a name, and then the next time you need to use your templated message, click the same three-dot icon, then Templates, and then click on the name of the template you saved.

The contents of the canned message are automatically inserted into the body of the email: no typing required.

Fast Company