Hundreds stage Gaza protest against Hamas after conflict resumes

Hundreds of Palestinians have protested in northern Gaza to demand an end to war, chanting "Hamas out," social media posts showed, in a rare public show of opposition to the militant group that sparked the latest war with its October 7, 2023 raid on Israel.

Northern Gaza has been one of the most devastated areas of Gaza. Most buildings in the densely populated area have been reduced to rubble and much of the population has moved several times to escape the conflict.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to say the protest showed Israel's decision to renew its offensive was working in Gaza, where Hamas police - the group's enforcers - have once again disappeared after emerging during a ceasefire.

"Out, out, out, Hamas get out," chanted those seen in one of the posts published on X, apparently from the Beit Lahiya region of Gaza, on Tuesday. It showed people marching down a dusty street between war-damaged buildings.

"It was a spontaneous rally against the war because people are tired and they have no place to go," said one witness, who spoke on condition that his name not be used for fear of retribution.

"Many chanted slogans against Hamas, not all people but many, saying 'Out Hamas'. People are exhausted and no one should blame them," he said.

The posts began circulating widely late on Tuesday. Reuters was able to confirm the location of the video by buildings, utility poles and road layout that matches satellite imagery of the area. Reuters was not able to independently verify the date of the video. However, several videos and photographs shared on social media showed protests in the area on March 25.

Social media activists circulated a video they said was of a protest by hundreds of people in Shejaia, a suburb of Gaza City, on Wednesday calling for the dismissal of Hamas, indicating the anti-Hamas protests may be spreading. Reuters could not verify the authenticity of the video.

Senior Hamas official Basem Naim said people had the right to protest at the suffering inflicted by the war but he denounced what he said were "suspicious political agendas" exploiting the situation.

"Where are they from, what is happening in the West Bank?" he said. "Why don't they protest against the aggression there or allow people to take to the streets to denounce this aggression?"

The comments, reflecting tensions among Palestinian factions over the future of Gaza, came several hours after the rival Fatah movement called on Hamas to "respond to the call of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip". Fatah leads the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the occupied West Bank.

POLITICAL TENSIONS

More than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli campaign in Gaza, Palestinian officials say. It was launched after thousands of Hamas-led gunmen attacked communities in southern Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and abducting 251 as hostages, according to Israeli tallies.

Much of the narrow coastal enclave has been reduced to rubble, leaving hundreds of thousands of people sheltering in tents or bombed-out buildings.

Hundreds of thousands of residents who had fled to the south of Gaza earlier in the war returned to their ruined homes in the north after a ceasefire took effect in January.

Now, Israel has issued new evacuation orders after relaunching its offensive on March 18.

"All Gaza is in ruins and now the occupation ordered us to leave the north again, where to go?" the witness at the protests said.

Since Israel resumed its strikes on Gaza, saying its goal was to completely dismantle Hamas, nearly 700 people, mostly women and children, have been killed, according to Palestinian health officials.

Hamas deployed thousands of police and security forces across Gaza after the ceasefire took effect in January, but its armed presence has sharply retracted since Israel's major attacks resumed. Fewer police were present in some areas, while members and leaders of the armed wing went off the radar to avoid Israeli airstrikes.

Palestinian analyst Akram Attallah said Hamas, which kept a lid on public opposition before the war, would have few options to clamp down on demonstrations if they gained momentum.

"The people are exhausted and paid with their lives and property, and the group is facing a devastating Israeli military offensive that makes it weaker to crack down on the protesters even if it wanted to," he said.

Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007 in elections that swept out the Fatah group of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. It has ruled the enclave since then, offering little space for opposition.

The two movements have been at odds for years and have failed to bridge differences over the postwar future of Gaza, which the PA says must come under its authority.

Hamas, while expressing readiness to step back from an active part in government, says it must be involved in selecting whatever administration comes next.

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Rubio says US will evaluate Russian demands for Black Sea ceasefire

The United States will evaluate demands made by Russia after Moscow had agreed "in principle" to a U.S.-brokered ceasefire with Ukraine in the Black Sea to allow safe navigation, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday.

The U.S. announced separate Black Sea agreements with Ukraine and Russia on Tuesday - following talks in Saudi Arabia - to ensure safe navigation, stop attacks, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes.

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. U.S. President Donald Trump - who took office on January 20 - has been pushing for an end to the war amid a rapid U.S. rapprochement with Moscow that has alarmed Kyiv and European allies.

"After our meeting (in Saudi Arabia) ... the Russians detailed a number of conditions that they want to see met in order to do that, so we're going to evaluate that," Rubio told reporters on Wednesday during a visit to Jamaica.

He said U.S. officials would work to "more fully understand what the Russian position is, or what they're asking in exchange, and then we'll present that to the President (Trump)" and make a decision about the next step.

Russia's demands are well-known. The conditions listed in a statement by the Kremlin on Tuesday - including the lifting of restrictions and sanctions on a major agricultural bank, exporters of food and fertilizer and on Russian vessels - largely mirror demands made by Moscow two years ago during talks to extend a Black Sea deal first agreed in July 2022.

RUSSIAN DEMANDS

The 2022 deal was brokered by the United Nations and Turkey to allow the safe Black Sea export of Ukrainian grain. Under an accompanying three-year pact, the U.N. agreed to help facilitate Russia's food and fertilizer exports.

Russia quit the Black Sea deal in July 2023, complaining that demands related to its food and fertilizer exports had not been met. U.N. officials have continued to work with Russia to try and address its export concerns.

In a letter to the U.N. in March 2023, Russia said it wanted the Russian Agricultural Bank (Rosselkhozbank) reconnected to the SWIFT payments system. The bank was cut off from SWIFT by the European Union in June 2022.

Russia also said it wanted a resumption of supplies to Russia of agricultural machinery and spare parts; lifting restrictions on insurance and access to ports for Russian ships and cargo; and unblocking accounts and financial activities of Russian fertilizer companies.

While Russian exports of food and fertiliser are not subject to Western sanctions, Moscow has said restrictions on payments, logistics and insurance have amounted to a barrier to shipments.

Rubio noted on Wednesday that Russia's demands involved the lifting of some EU sanctions. The European Commission said on Wednesday that the withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukraine would be one of the main conditions to lift or amend sanctions.

After U.S. and Russian officials met in Saudi Arabia, the White House said in a statement on Tuesday that as part of a ceasefire deal it had agreed to "help restore Russia's access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions."

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Russian forces strike Ukrainian military airfields, UAV assembly workshops over past day

Russian forces struck Ukrainian military airfields, an equipment repair plant and UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) assembly workshops over the past day in the special military operation in Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported on Wednesday.

"Operational/tactical aircraft, attack unmanned aerial vehicles, missile troops and artillery of the Russian groups of forces struck military airfield infrastructure facilities, a military hardware repair enterprise, UAV production workshops and control posts, ammunition depots and massed enemy manpower and equipment in 143 areas," the ministry said in a statement.

Russia’s Battlegroup North inflicts 55 casualties on Ukrainian army in Belgorod area

Russia’s Battlegroup North inflicted roughly 55 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed two enemy armored combat vehicles in its area of responsibility in the Belgorod direction over the past day, the ministry reported.

"In the Belgorod direction, Battlegroup North units struck massed manpower and equipment of three mechanized brigades, an assault brigade and an assault regiment of the Ukrainian army and two territorial defense brigades in areas near the settlements of Krasnopolye, Ugroyedy, Prokhody, Miropolskoye and Petrushevka in the Sumy Region," the ministry said.

The Ukrainian army lost an estimated 55 personnel, two armored combat vehicles, a motor vehicle and an artillery gun in that frontline area over the last 24 hours, it specified.

Russia’s Battlegroup West inflicts 250 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day

Russia’s Battlegroup West inflicted roughly 250 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed three enemy artillery guns and three ammunition depots in its area of responsibility over the past day, the ministry reported.

"Battlegroup West units improved their forward positions and inflicted losses on formations of three mechanized brigades, an assault brigade and an airborne brigade of the Ukrainian army in areas near the settlements of Lozovaya and Petropavlovka in the Kharkov Region, Nadiya in the Lugansk People’s Republic, Kirovsk and Yampol in the Donetsk People’s Republic and in the area of the Serebryanka forestry," the ministry said.

The Ukrainian army lost an estimated 250 personnel, a US-made HMMWV armored vehicle and two pickup trucks, it specified.

In addition, Russian forces destroyed three artillery guns and three ammunition depots of the Ukrainian army, it said.

Russia’s Battlegroup South inflicts 310 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day

Russia’s Battlegroup South inflicted roughly 310 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed two US-made counterbattery radar stations in its area of responsibility over the past day, the ministry reported.

"Battlegroup South units gained better lines and positions and inflicted losses on manpower and equipment of eight mechanized brigades of the Ukrainian army, a territorial defense brigade and two National Guard brigades in areas near the settlements of Novoolenovka, Romanovka, Minkovka, Chasov Yar, Druzhba, Kalinovo, Zarya, Katerinovka and Tarasovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic," the ministry said.

The Ukrainian army lost an estimated 310 personnel, two armored combat vehicles, three motor vehicles, a 155mm M777 howitzer and two AN/TPQ-36 counterbattery radar stations of US manufacture in that frontline area over the last 24 hours, it specified.

In addition, Russian forces destroyed two electronic warfare stations, a warehouse of unmanned aerial vehicles and a fuel depot of the Ukrainian army, it said.

Russia’s Battlegroup Center inflicts over 480 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day

Russia’s Battlegroup Center inflicted more than 480 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed two enemy tanks and two armored combat vehicles in its area of responsibility over the past day, the ministry reported.

"Battlegroup Center units improved their tactical position and inflicted losses on formations of a mechanized brigade, a jaeger brigade, two assault brigades, an unmanned systems brigade, an assault regiment, an assault battalion, the Vostok Special Operations Center of the Ukrainian army, a marine infantry brigade and a National Guard brigade in areas near the settlements of Mirolyubovka, Kotlino, Dimitrov, Zverevo, Krasnoarmeisk, Uspenovka, Udachnoye, Grodovka, Alekseyevka, Nadezhdinka and Novoaleksandrovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic," the ministry said.

The Ukrainian army lost more than 480 personnel, two tanks, two Kozak armored combat vehicles, five motor vehicles, two field artillery guns and an electronic surveillance station in that frontline area over the last 24 hours, it specified.

Russia’s Battlegroup East inflicts 150 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day

Russia’s Battlegroup East inflicted roughly 150 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed three enemy artillery guns in its area of responsibility over the past day, the ministry reported.

"Battlegroup East units kept advancing deep into the enemy’s defenses and inflicted losses among manpower and equipment of four mechanized brigades, an airmobile brigade of the Ukrainian army, a marine infantry brigade and two territorial defense brigades in areas near the settlements of Shevchenko, Voskresenka, Fyodorovka, Novopol, Razliv and Zelyonoye Pole in the Donetsk People’s Republic and Gulyaipole in the Zaporozhye Region," the ministry said.

The Ukrainian army lost as many as 150 personnel, three motor vehicles and three field artillery guns, including a Swedish-made 155mm Archer self-propelled artillery system in that frontline area over the last 24 hours, it specified.

In addition, Russian forces destroyed a materiel depot of the Ukrainian army, it said.

Russia’s Battlegroup Dnepr destroys over 65 Ukrainian troops in past day

Russia’s Battlegroup Dnepr destroyed more than 65 Ukrainian troops and a US-made multiple rocket launcher in its area of responsibility over the past day, the ministry reported.

"Battlegroup Dnepr units inflicted losses on formations of two mechanized brigades, a mountain assault brigade, three coastal defense brigades of the Ukrainian army and two territorial defense brigades in areas near the settlements of Sadovoye, Pridneprovskoye, Antonovka and Vesyoloye in the Kherson Region, Malaya Tokmachka, Orekhov and Kamenskoye in the Zaporozhye Region," the ministry said.

"More than 65 [Ukrainian] military personnel, seven motor vehicles, a US-made MLRS rocket launcher and two ammunition depots were destroyed," it specified.

Russian air defenses down 58 Ukrainian UAVs, two JDAM smart bombs over past day

Russian air defense forces shot down 58 Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles and two JDAM smart bombs over the past day, the ministry reported.

"Air defense capabilities shot down two JDAM guided aerial bombs and a rocket of the HIMARS multiple launch rocket system of US manufacture and 58 fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles," the ministry said.

Overall, the Russian Armed Forces have destroyed 659 Ukrainian warplanes, 283 helicopters, 48,462 unmanned aerial vehicles, 601 surface-to-air missile systems, 22,499 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1,532 multiple rocket launchers, 22,987 field artillery guns and mortars and 33,368 special military motor vehicles since the start of the special military operation, the ministry reported.

Reuters/Tass

During an interview on Channels TV on Monday, Wole Soyinka responded to critics who have been taunting him to “say something” about the present administration. In the interview, he said, “People should stop trying to work on my timetable for me. I had not swallowed an alarm clock. I don’t see why I should put my alarm on and say: ‘One year has passed, now, I must make an assessment’ if there is nothing I feel like talking about and if I am busy elsewhere.” Following his earlier statement when he visited Bola Tinubu at Aso Rock in 2023, that he only criticises a government after its first year, it must be disappointing to his monitors that they cannot put their hands in his mouth and force out words.

To be fair to him, Soyinka has not been exactly silent on Nigeria’s situation. He criticised Tinubu’s decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State, but his intervention was tame, lame, and lacking characteristic edginess. The Soyinka who once referred to President Goodluck Jonathan as “Nebuchadnezzar” because of a police siege on the National Assembly resorted to prevarications on Rivers’ state of emergency. Time truly changes everything. If Jonathan were Nebuchadnezzar, the enslaving king who lost his sanity at the height of his brutal reign, then to which biblical figure can one similarly liken Tinubu, under whose watch Nigerians have confronted a severe economic crisis and recorded an unparalleled number of human rights abuses? Rehoboam, perhaps. That was the king who ill-advisedly refused to lighten the strenuous taxes his predecessor had tolled the people, incited a public rebellion, and ended up balkanising a united kingdom.

Everyone, including the critics taunting Soyinka for bringing less than the blunt edges of his sharp wit to political discourses, knows he is in an awkward situation under the present administration. He and Tinubu are friends, and their close relationship reportedly started during their NADECO days. Ordinarily, it is hard for a social critic to take down a close friend in power. It is even harder for a man like Soyinka, who has set a high bar of radical public engagement, to continue to meet his own standards now that his buddy is the President. While he has built a towering profile around being an anti-establishment figure, he is part of the political establishment now, even if he does not hold any official position in Tinubu’s administration. He can no longer maintain his previous ideological stance on political issues, and he should make that clear to the public rather than promising to speak when he finally has something to say. There is nothing he will ever have to say on any issue that has to do with Tinubu’s administration that will not be considered tainted and even cynically prejudged, so why bother?

Perhaps if Soyinka had known that a day would come when Tinubu would become the President, he would have been more measured in his criticisms of previous administrations. He would not be in the awkward position where they jab him to prove his patriotic commitment to the nation by criticising an oppressive government now run by his dear friend. The past cannot be helped, but he should also be able to clearly state to the public on whose behalf he has advocated for years, why he would hang up his boxing gloves this time around. It will not be a crime, nor will it mean he has lost the patriotic zeal that pushed him into lifelong social advocacy; it would just be practical under the circumstances. It is not enough to say, “I will speak when I have something to say,” but you must also be accountable enough to the public to point out your closeness to the political subject, how it compromises you, and why you would take a pass on political commentary. Without being upfront about why you have nothing to say during an oppressive reign when you would have had more than enough to say if your friends were not involved, you damage your public image and legacy. Respecting the public enough to be honest about your limits under the circumstances means you can frame your actions as courtesy to a friend rather than leave them to be interpreted as cowardice or hypocrisy.

One of the several fallouts of the ascendance of the All Progressives Congress to the national stage from being a regional party is that it forcefully retired many anti-establishment figures. Many of them cut their critical teeth railing against the Peoples Democratic Party machine that was in power for 16 years. While at it, they also fraternised with the Alliance for Democracy/APC, the political party that also defined itself against the state. Their mutual affiliation was logical for reasons ranging from ethnic sentiment to the lush funds Tinubu provided from Lagos’ purse. When the APC won the Presidency in 2015, many of them found themselves in the uncomfortable position where they could either maintain their oppositional stance (and risk offending their APC allies) or become apologists for a government that duplicated every political action for which they once attacked the PDP. Before many could figure out their roles under the dispensation, the dynamics of Nigerian political opposition changed. The old guard was replaced by a younger generation who quickly made it clear they would have nothing to do with them.

Soyinka was one of those who soldiered on, although one can argue that his criticisms of the Muhammadu Buhari administration curiously coincided with the sidelining of Tinubu among the APC establishment. While I do not think he is a card-carrying member of the APC, Soyinka’s political posture since 1999 has favoured the AD/APC political class more than any other collective in Nigeria. Now that the same Tinubu has made it to the Presidency, Soyinka is in an even more complicated place. There is no winning for him under the circumstances other than acknowledging that some personal relationships necessarily compromise us. The writer E.M. Forster once said, “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” This should be one of the times when choosing your friend over your country is the right thing to do.

This is not the first time friendship has put Soyinka in an awkward position where he has to self-justify. In 2016, during one of the many squabbles between Rivers Governor Rotimi Amaechi and his successor Nyesom Wike, it was revealed that the former had spent N82m (about $165,000) to host him to a dinner. Wike’s boys pulled that detail out from official records for no other reason than to embarrass Soyinka, whose intervention in the Rivers matter was perceived as fighting Amaechi’s battles. Soyinka’s response was to deny it was his “business to probe into the catering and logistical implications of the hundreds of institutions and governments all over the world to whom I acknowledge an immense debt of unsolicited recognition over the years”. Yes, while no reasonable person expects a Nobel Prize winner to ask such questions when he is hosted at a dinner, the right thing would have been to condemn such an inordinate expense made in your name. By not calling out Amaechi’s corruption, he fell into Wike’s well-laid trap to make him choose between his friend and the strict moral principles for which he is renowned.

Now he is in another situation that warrants choosing between his friend and his principles, and I suggest he chooses the former. We can borrow the immortal wisdom of Ogbuefi Ezeudu in Things Fall Apart, who told Okonkwo: “That boy calls you father. Do not bear a hand in his death to remind him this unpleasant task needs not to involve him.” Soyinka was right that other people—the Falanas, Sowores, and the Baiyewus—are already doing a good job without him. The thing is, by looking away from his friend’s administrative shortcomings, he will also be losing the moral right to comment on any other leader after Tinubu. He should make peace with that.

Punch

Rodger Dean Duncan

It’s been said that character is what we do when we think no one is watching and how we treat people who can’t do us any good.

As a careful observer of character for more than six decades, Robert L. Dilenschneider understands that better than most. The former president and CEO of strategic communications giant Hill & Knowlton, he’s had an up-close-and-personal view of human behavior in circumstances ranging from tragedy to triumph.

Bob has shared his observations in several books. His latest is Character: Life Lessons in Courage, Integrity, and Leadership.

In examining character, he considers eight components: leadership, innovation, resilience, breaking barriers, courage, loyalty, integrity, and openness and transparency. How did he land on those particular components?

“Character is the bedrock of leadership, and in studying significant figures from history, I found that these eight traits were essential to their success,” he says. “Leadership isn’t just about making decisions. It’s about guiding others with integrity. Innovation is the ability to push boundaries, as Steve Jobs did. Resilience defines those who rise from adversity, like Nelson Mandela. Breaking barriers is the hallmark of pioneers like Margaret Chase Smith. Courage sustains action when the path is difficult, loyalty builds trust, integrity is the moral compass, and openness and transparency ensure credibility. Each of these traits is not just a virtue but a necessity for those seeking to shape the world in a meaningful way.”

In today’s topsy-turvy political and business climate, what can leaders do to face the challenge of leading with integrity?

Bob says integrity is the foundation of trust, and trust is the currency of leadership. “Look at figures like Colin Powell, who led with conviction, or Dwight Eisenhower, who balanced military strength with moral responsibility,” he says. “Leaders today must hold fast to their principles while embracing transparency. They must speak the truth—even when inconvenient—because honesty builds enduring respect.”

How does staying true to personal values help a person navigate crises or challenges in a professional setting?

“Staying true to one’s values provides a guiding light in moments of uncertainty,” Bob says. “Anwar Sadat took an extraordinary risk in making peace with Israel because he believed in the larger goal of stability for his people. Similarly, Eleanor Roosevelt championed human rights despite opposition. When challenges arise, those who rely on deeply held values rather than momentary pressures emerge with their character intact. Personal values give clarity amid chaos.”

From the example of Anwar Sadat, what can leaders learn about change?

“Sadat exemplified the courage to redefine leadership,” Bob says. “He understood that actual progress requires bold action—sometimes at significant personal risk. His decision to seek peace rather than continue the conflict with Israel was an extraordinary act of vision. Leaders can learn that change is not about appeasement but about conviction, about knowing when the right course demands a break from tradition. It’s in these moments that leadership is tested.”

Leadership, of course, is more about behaviors than titles. How does the example of Mother Teresa reinforce that reality?

“Mother Teresa led not through political power but through action. She embodied the idea that leadership is not about commanding authority but about inspiring people through service and example. Her life showed that authenticity, selflessness, and dedication to a cause can have a more profound impact than any title.”

Steve Jobs helped introduce an amazing array of paradigm-breaking products. Bob explains how that example of innovative thinking can help leaders in non-technical fields.

“Jobs demonstrated that innovation is not just about technology. It’s about vision, perseverance, and an uncompromising focus on excellence. He rejected complacency and continuously sought ways to improve. Leaders in any field can learn from their ability to anticipate needs before they are recognized, challenge assumptions, and embrace calculated risks. The key lesson: Never settle for the status quo.”

“Both of these men displayed resilience in the face of overwhelming odds,” Bob says. “Mandela endured decades in prison yet never lost his belief in reconciliation. Hawking defied physical limitations to redefine our understanding of the universe. Entrepreneurs face setbacks, but success comes from the ability to adapt, persist, and see opportunities where others see obstacles. Their lives show that true visionaries do not let adversity dictate their destiny.”

Bob quotes basketball legend John Wooden as saying, “Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.” How can today’s political and business leaders benefit from adopting that perspective in their own behaviors?

“Wooden’s words remind us that true success is built on character, not perception,” Bob says. “In today’s world of social media and immediate judgment, it’s easy to focus on reputation management. However, leaders who prioritize doing what is right over what is popular leave a lasting legacy. John McCain’s unwavering loyalty to his fellow soldiers is a perfect example—he made difficult choices based on principle, not public opinion. Those who lead with integrity will ultimately be remembered for their actions, not for fleeting headlines.”

What role does self-awareness play in an individual’s effort to build personal character, and what are the steps to strengthening that skill?

Bob says self-awareness is the foundation of personal growth. “It requires a willingness to reflect on strengths and weaknesses, seek honest feedback, and remain open to learning. Great leaders—from Eisenhower to Katherine Graham—understood that acknowledging mistakes is a sign of strength, not weakness. To strengthen self-awareness, individuals must practice humility, actively listen, and continuously self-improve. The more you understand yourself, the better you’re equipped to lead authentically.”

What’s the greatest challenge to character in today’s world?

Bob says it’s distraction—losing sight of long-term values in the face of short-term pressures. “In a time of instant gratification, we must remind ourselves that character is built over a lifetime. Daily decisions—how we treat people, stand by our principles, respond in times of crisis—shape the legacy we leave behind.”

Forbes

The cost of agricultural produce has seen dramatic price increases in March, with pepper experiencing a staggering 225% price surge and tomatoes rising by 114%, according to recent market findings.

Daily Trust investigations revealed significant price changes across major markets in Lagos and Ogun states.

Abdulahi Yerima Shehu, a pepper seller in Ogba market, detailed the price transformations: a big bag of pepper has rocketed from N80,000 to N260,000, while a small bag increased from N20,000-N23,000 to N110,000. Tomatoes saw a similar trend, with prices climbing from N18,000-N21,000 to N45,000.

Another vendor, Bala Yaro from Abeokuta, reported slightly different but equally substantial increases. He noted pepper bag prices rising from N100,000 to N165,000, and tomato prices increasing from N35,000 to N45,000.

Consumers are feeling the pinch of these price hikes. Moyosore Salami lamented the expensive peppers, noting that even with the increased prices, the produce quality remains inconsistent, with baskets containing both ripe and unripe items.

Food security expert AfricanFarmer Mogaji explained the price surge, citing multiple contributing factors:

- Reduced cultivation areas for pepper compared to other crops

- Diminished farmer interest during the dry season

- Limited land availability

- Challenging climate conditions

- Increased logistics costs

Mogaji highlighted that farmers are more inclined to focus on crops like rice and wheat due to available support, while pepper and tomato cultivation has become less attractive.

The expert urged Southwest governors to support farmers in pepper and tomato cultivation, pointing to successful models in northern states.

Despite the challenging market conditions, some sellers remain optimistic. Abdulahi Yerima Shehu expressed hope that prices might stabilize in the coming weeks, stating, "The market is moving well, even though it is expensive, my customers are trying."

The dramatic price increases underscore the ongoing challenges in agricultural production and food security in Nigeria, calling for strategic interventions to support farmers and stabilize food prices.

The Pan-Yoruba socio-political organization, Afenifere, has strongly condemned the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu, describing it as an unconstitutional usurpation of democratic governance.

The group made its stance known in a communiqué issued at the end of its National Caucus meeting held at the residence of its late leader, Ayo Adebanjo, in Isanya Ogbo, Ogun State, on Tuesday.

Burial Arrangements for Ayo Adebanjo

Afenifere announced that the burial ceremonies for the late elder statesman, Adebanjo, would hold from April 30 to May 4, 2025, in collaboration with his family and other stakeholders. Additionally, a symposium in his honour will take place on April 10, 2025, at the Muson Centre in Lagos, commemorating what would have been his 97th birthday.

Rejection of Emergency Rule in Rivers State

The group reiterated its earlier condemnation, alongside the Southern and Middle Belt Leaders Forum (SMBLF), of Tinubu’s imposition of emergency rule in Rivers State, which led to the dissolution of the State House of Assembly and the removal of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy.

Afenifere argued that no provision in the 1999 Constitution permits the federal government to dismantle a democratically elected state government. It particularly dismissed references to Sections 305(5) and 11(4), stating that these do not grant such powers to the president.

The group also lambasted the 10th National Assembly for failing to check the executive’s excesses, accusing lawmakers of complicity in undermining democracy. It criticized the use of a voice vote —rather than a transparent two-thirds majority vote—to approve the emergency declaration, calling it a betrayal of Nigerians.

Call for Senate Leadership to Resign

Afenifere demanded the immediate resignation of the Senate President and House Speaker, citing a loss of moral authority after presiding over what it termed an "illegitimate vote of confidence" in themselves. The group warned that Nigeria risks sliding into autocracy, comparing Tinubu’s actions to Adolf Hitler’s hijacking of German democracy.

Appeal for Democratic Resistance

The organization called on Nigerians of goodwill to resist the erosion of democracy through lawful means and urged the judiciary, civil society, and the international community to intervene before the nation’s constitutional order collapses.

The communiqué was signed and dated March 25, 2025, reaffirming Afenifere’s commitment to federalism, rule of law, and democratic integrity.

Meanwhile, the burial of Adebanjo is expected to draw dignitaries from across the country, serving as both a celebration of his legacy and a potential rallying point for opposition voices.

Israeli strikes kill 23 in Gaza, military expands evacuation orders

Israeli strikes across the Gaza Strip killed at least 23 Palestinians on Tuesday, local health officials said, as the Israeli military expanded evacuation orders to tens of thousands of residents across the enclave.

The Israeli military resumed its campaign against Hamas in Gaza a week ago, shattering a two-month ceasefire. Since then, nearly 700 people, mostly women and children, have been killed, Palestinian health officials say.

Most of Gaza's 2.3 million population has already been displaced by the fighting multiple times during nearly 18 months of war and is facing worsening shortages of food and waterafter Israel suspended aid deliveries earlier this month.

On Tuesday, the Israeli army told residents in all northern border towns to evacuate, saying Palestinian rockets had been fired at Israel from the area.

The affected towns include Jabalia, Beit Lahiya, Beit Hanoun and Shejaia in Gaza City. Orders were also issued for areas in Khan Younis and Rafah in the south.

"For your safety, you must move immediately south to known shelters," the military said in its orders to residents in Jabalia, the largest of Gaza's historic refugee camps.

Palestinian and United Nations officials say there are no safe areas in the Gaza Strip.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the renewed offensive aimed to pressure Hamas into releasing the remaining 59 hostages it is holding in Gaza. About 24 of them are believed to be still alive.

Hamas, which accuses Israel of abandoning the January 19 ceasefire deal, said it was cooperating with a new effort, mediated by Qatar, Egypt and the United States, to restore calm and conclude the three-phase ceasefire agreement.

According to some Hamas sources, there has been no breakthrough.

The latest bloodshed in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict was triggered on October 7, 2023, when Hamas militants attacked Israel, killing 1,200 and taking about 250 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.

Israel's subsequent military assault on Gaza has killed over 50,000 Palestinians, according to the local health ministry.

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russia, Ukraine agree to sea, energy truce; Washington seeks easing of sanctions

The United States reached separate deals on Tuesday with Ukraine and Russia to pause their attacks at sea and against energy targets, with Washington agreeing to push to lift some sanctions against Moscow.

While it was not clear when or how the Black Sea maritime security deals would start, the agreements are the first formal commitments by the two warring sides since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, who is pushing for an end to the war in Ukraine and a rapid rapprochement with Moscow that has alarmed Kyiv and European countries.

The U.S. agreement with Russia goes further than the agreement with Ukraine, with Washington committing to help seek the lifting of international sanctions on Russian agriculture and fertiliser exports, long a Russian demand.

Shortly after the U.S. announcements, the Kremlin said the Black Sea agreements would not come into effect unless links between some Russian banks and the international financial system were restored.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said his understanding was that the truce agreements did not require sanctions relief to come into force and would take effect immediately, calling the Kremlin's statement an attempt to "manipulate" the deals.

"They are already trying to distort agreements and, in fact, deceive both our intermediaries and the entire world," Zelenskiy said in his nightly video address.

Kyiv and Moscow both said they would rely on Washington to enforce the deals, while expressing scepticism that the other side would abide by them.

"We will need clear guarantees," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. "And given the sad experience of agreements with just Kyiv, the guarantees can only be the result of an order from Washington to Zelenskiy and his team to do one thing and not the other."

Zelenskiy said if Russia violated them he would ask Trump to impose additional sanctions on Moscow and provide more weapons for Ukraine.

"We have no faith in the Russians, but we will be constructive," he said.

In the hours following the announcements, both Russia and Ukraine accused each other of launching drone attacks, but there were no immediate reports of hits on Black Sea or energy targets.

Meanwhile Trump, in an interview with Newsmax, acknowledged that Russia could be trying to delay ending the war.

"I think that Russia wants to see an end to it, but it could be they're dragging their feet. I've done it over the years," he said.

BROADER TRUCE PROSPECTS

The deals were reached after parallel talks in Saudi Arabia that followed separate phone calls last week between Trump and the two presidents, Zelenskiy and Vladimir Putin.

If implemented, the deals could be the first significant step toward Trump's goal to achieve a more encompassing ceasefire in the war in Ukraine that Russia started with its full-scale invasion three years ago.

Putin rejected Trump's proposal for a full ceasefire lasting 30 days, which Ukraine had previously endorsed.

"We are making a lot of progress," Trump told reporters on Tuesday, while adding there was "tremendous animosity" in the talks.

"There's a lot of hatred, as you can probably tell, and it allows for people to get together, mediated, arbitrated, and see if we can get it stopped. And I think it will work."

Washington has softened its rhetoric towards Russia in recent days, with Trump envoy Steve Witkoff saying he did not "regard Putin as a bad guy," alarming European officials who consider the Russian leader a dangerous enemy.

Lavrov, a veteran Russian diplomat at the helm of the foreign ministry since 2004, said the optimism of Witkoff who said that truce could come soondoes not take under consideration the European allies of Kyiv.

"He (Witkoff) significantly overestimates the elites of European countries, who want to 'hang like a stone around the neck' of Zelenskiy, so as not to allow him to 'give in'," Lavrov said.

Ukraine and its European allies fear Trump could strike a hasty deal with Putin that undermines their security and caves in to Russian demands, including for Kyiv to abandon its NATO ambitions and give up land claimed by Moscow.

PAUSE ON ATTACKS ON ENERGY FACILITIES

Russia has pounded Ukraine's power grid with missiles and drones and Kyiv has launched long-range strikes on Russian oil and gas targets in attacks that have become a major aspect of the war to undermine each other's war efforts.

The Kremlin said the pause in attacks on energy would last for 30 days from March 18, when Putin first discussed it with Trump. Ukraine had said last week it would accept such a pause only after a formal agreement.

The agreement on a truce at sea addresses an issue that was critical early in the war, when Russia imposed a de facto naval blockade on Ukraine, one of the world's biggest grain exporters, worsening a global food crisis.

More recently, maritime battles have been a comparatively small part of the war since Russia withdrew its naval forces from the eastern Black Sea after a number of successful Ukrainian attacks.

Kyiv has been able to reopen its ports and resume exports at around pre-war levels, despite the collapse of a previous U.N.-brokered Black Sea shipping agreement, but its ports have come under regular air attack. Zelenskiy said the agreement would bar such strikes.

Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov said Kyiv would regard any movement of Russian military vessels outside the eastern part of the Black Sea as a violation and a threat, in which case Ukraine would have full right to self-defence.

Moscow said the agreement would require sanctions relief including restoring links between Russia's agricultural export bank and the SWIFT international payments system. That and other steps could require agreement from European countries.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

White House reveals details of US-Russia talks in Riyadh

The White House has released a statement on the US-Russia negotiations in Saudi Arabia, shedding some light on 12-hour talks held on Monday.

The “bilateral technical-level talks” focused on the situation in the Black Sea, as well as the agreement to halt strikes on “energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine” proposed by US President Donald Trump, the White House said on Tuesday.

“The United States and Russia have agreed to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea,”the statement reads.

The US has also pledged to “help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions,” according to the White House. Both Moscow and Washington remain committed to “working toward achieving a durable and lasting peace” to end the Ukraine conflict, it added.

Earlier in the day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed that the negotiations explored the possibility of reviving the defunct Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye. The deal envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural exports in exchange for the West lifting restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer trade. Moscow declined to renew the deal in 2023, citing the West’s failure to meet its obligations.

To renew the deal, Moscow needs firm guarantees from the US, which can “only result from a direct order issued by Washington to [Ukraine’s Vladimir] Zelensky and his team,”Lavrov explained, pointing to Kiev’s habit of breaking promises. Russia’s position now “is simple: We cannot take anyone’s word at face value,” he said in an interview with Channel 1.

“We need the clearest, most specific, verifiable, working guarantees and mechanisms [to revive the deal],” Lavrov stated. “We want the grain and fertilizer market to be predictable so that no one tries to kick us out of this market.”

Reuters/RT

As part of its golden jubilee, the University of Calabar is said to have held a special convocation ceremony on Saturday, 22 March, during which it handed out honours to all manners of persons. The Chancellor of the University is Aminu Ado Bayero, the deposed emir of Kano. Present at that event also were Nyesom Wike, minister of the Federal Capital Territory and Nigeria’s most prolific political litigant; as well as Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, a senior Justice of the Supreme Court, who delivered the leading decision in the recent judgment of that court concerning the withholding of the federal allocations of the Rivers State government.

Images of the event in Calabar putting these major actors in contemporary politics of the Nigerian judiciary in close propinquity with one another have gone viral. In response, Festus Akande, director of Information and Public Relations at the Supreme Court issued a public statement on Monday, 24 March, in which he felt compelled to claim that Emmanuel Agim attended the convocation “as an esteemed honouree and an alumnus of the institution, whom the Governing Council had found worthy to be conferred with an Honorary Doctorate Degree in Law (Doctor Honoris Causa). He was recognised for his significant contributions to the legal profession; which is a reflection of his commitment to justice, integrity, and the rule of law, serving as a model for aspiring legal professionals and students alike.”

Akande’s statement further claimed that “Emmanuel Agim’s participation at the ceremony was independent and not as an official representative of any government ministry or department, let alone accompanying any serving or retired government official”, before asserting that “any insinuation to the contrary is not only inaccurate but undermines the judicial independence that is crucial to our democracy.”

These claims are made in the name of the Supreme Court and in pursuit of high sounding goals of judicial independence and democracy.

The Supreme Court is a public institution embodying the highest judicial authority in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Judicial independence is a high constitutional principle ordained for the protection of judicial authority as a public trust. It is not a self-serving shibboleth.

In terms of Nigeria’s constitution, the source of democratic legitimacy resides in the people alone.

To leave Akande’s claims uncontested or without a response, therefore, is to diminish the high authority of the Supreme Court, the service of the distinguished men and women who have laboured to give it its historically high standing in the public imagination until recently, and the high principles of judicial independence and democracy instituted for the protection of the peoples of Nigeria.

This statement is issued out of concern to stem the heedless haemorrhaging of the rarefied authority of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. In this spirit, it is essential to set the records straight, even if ever so briefly.

The Applicable Standards

The fact that Akande considered it essential to issue the statement itself shows what something was wrong with that event in Calabar. In case he needs reminding, Lord Chief Justice Hewart laid down the applicable standard for judging judicial impartiality and independence in 1923 in R. v Sussex Justices, Ex Parte McCarthy, (1923) All ER 233, to the effect that: “Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.”

That event in Calabar was rich with pictures to support suspicions of improper interference with the cause of justice.

Rule 2.8 of the Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers in Nigeria (2016) is very clear: “A Judge shall avoid developing excessively close relationship with frequent litigants – such as government ministers or their officials, municipal officials, police prosecutors in any Court where the Judge often sits, if such relationship could reasonably create an appearance of partiality.”

In Buhari vs. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors(2008) LPELR-814(SC) at PP.145-146, Justice Niki Tobi of the Supreme Court admonished judges to “maintain a very big distance from politics and politicians,” warning that:

“….the two professions do not meet and will never meet at all in our democracy in the discharge of their functions…. Their waters never meet in the same way Rivers Niger and Benue meet at the confluence near Lokoja. If they meet, the victim will be democracy most of the time, and that will be bad for sovereign Nigeria.”

In his memoirs, Faces, Cases and Places, published in 1983 (p.78), former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Atanda Fatayi Williams, stated:

“In Nigeria, familiarity does not breed contempt. It breeds obligation. As a result, people with whom you are friendly expect you to bend the rules to suit their requirements. It pays in the end for a judge, even at the risk of being accused of being a snob or of haughtiness, to be somewhat aloof, not only from members of the Executive, but also from political powerbrokers.”

Neither Festus Akande nor, indeed, Agim as a Justice of the Supreme Court can pretend to be unaware that Nyesom Wike is the most prolific current political litigator in Nigeria. To justify public fraternising with him by a Supreme Court Justice is to licence the accessorising of judicial officers for political purposes.

The Context: Nyesom Wike and Emmanuel Akomaye Agim

On the last day of February, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the consolidated appeals in SC/CV/1174A/2024 et al, Rivers State House of Assembly & Anor vs. The Government of Rivers State & 9 Ors. The case sought orders of the court to, among other things, require the Central Bank of Nigeria to withhold the federal allocations of the government of Rivers State until the passage of a budget by a faction of the State House of Assembly. At the time, the question of the right of that faction of the State House of Assembly to function as such was the subject of litigation before lowers courts in FHC/PHC/CS/2024 Oko-Jumbo & 2 Ors vs. Martin Amaewhule & Ors (pending in the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt since April 2024).

The case seeking to withhold the federal allocations of Rivers State was un-related to this appeal. Delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court on 28 February, Agim framed two issues for determination, neither of which had anything to do with the issues pending before the Federal High Court. Yet, without an appeal from that case before it, the court purported to determine the issues then pending before the Federal High Court on the question of the defection of the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly from the platform on which they were elected (the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to the All Progressives Congress, APC). Even though the issue of the defection of the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly did not arise in the appeal, the Supreme Court raised it by itself and shockingly decided a case that was still pending at the High Court.

This course of action has no precedent in Nigeria’s judicial history. It is the  first in the history of Nigeria that the Supreme Court will take over a case that is pending in the Federal High Court. Unsurprisingly, counsel to the 27 legislators promptly applied to the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt asking it to dismiss the case on the ground that it has become academic, on the basis that the Supreme Court has decided the matter, while it was still at the Federal High Court. The Port Harcourt judicial division of the Federal High Court will render its judgment on this application on 20 April.

The Context: Nyesom Wike and Aminu Ado Bayero

On 14 March, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja in Appeal No., CA/KN/27/M/2025, Alhaji Aliyu Babba Dan Sarki Dawaki Babba vs. Kano State House of Assembly & 7 Ors, granted a “Mandatory Injunction” (not a stay of execution) arresting the enforcement of the judgment of the same Court of Appeal on 10 January in Appeal No. CA/KN/126/2024, Kano State House of Assembly & Anor vs. Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan Agundi & Ors. The earlier judgment of the Court was delivered by a panel led by Justice Gabriel Kolawole, a Justice of Appeal since 22 June, 2018. The latter decision arresting that judgment was given by a panel led by Justice Okon Abang, a Justice of the Court of Appeal since 20 September 2023. Other members of the latter panel were Justice Eberechi Suzette Nyesom-Wike (Justice of the Court of Appeal since 10 July 2024) and Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi (Justice of the Court of Appeal since 10 July 2024). This panel of the Court of Appeal included the wife of the Minister of the FCT, Nyesom Wike.

In terms of seniority in the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal, Justice Okon Abang is number six out of 10; Justice Nyesom-Wike is number nine; and Justice Oyewumi is the last. It is unprecedented for a panel this junior to be constituted to sit upon a decision of a much more senior panel of the Court of Appeal. It is equally notable that the President of the Court of Appeal has unilaterally moved this case to Abuja from Kano.

The subject matter of this appeal is a fundamental rights claim by a disaffected king-maker in respect of the stool of the Kano Emirate, from which Aminu Ado Bayero was deposed. The Court of Appeal in Kano had denied that claim, holding that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction over essentially chieftaincy matters.

Following this decision, Aminu Ado Bayero, who is not a named party in the case, notified the security services in Kano of his intention to hold an Eid-El-Fitr durbar at the end of the holy month of Ramadan. I am reliably informed by sources within the Court of Appeal of plans by some people to procure an order of the same Court of Appeal on Tuesday, 25 March to enjoin the security authorities in Kano to ensure co-operation with and protection for the durbar proposed by Aminu Ado Bayero.

Meanwhile, on Monday, 24 March, the Supreme Court entered an appeal against the ruling of the Okon Abang-led Court of Appeal panel as Appeal No SC/CV/279/2025. This should ordinarily preclude the Court of Appeal from further engagement with the subject matter, but these are no ordinary times and no one can say what could happen.

The Optics

Aminu Ado Bayero, the chancellor who conferred the honorary degree on the minister of the FCT, is seeking to claim benefit of a curious, incongruous and improbable order of the Court of Appeal panel, which included the wife of the minister. As I write, the panel is yet to release the text of the reasoning on which it issued its orders.

Justice Emmanuel Agim is the author of a curious, incongruous, and inexplicably unprecedented decision of the Supreme Court in favour of satraps of the same minister in the political contest in Rivers State.

This context makes the optics of that particular occasion in Calabar an awful advertisement for high subversion of the values of judicial independence and democracy, around whose flags Akande sought to wrap his defence of the indefensible. Even worse, these facts create a credible perception of network transaction in judicial orders.

The 50th anniversary convocation of a university is not an emergency event. The parties who met in Calabar had to have had notice of that event long before the dates of the judgments or rulings in the cases in which their interests interlocked. There was ample time, if they desired, to make alternative arrangements. Their decision to proceed in the manner they did without any regard to the optics or possible damage to the standing of the judicial institutions serves neither judicial independence nor democracy. Instead, it showcases a peculiar brand of hubris and impunity at the desecration of those high constitutional values.

Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a professor of law, teaches at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and can be reached through This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Everybody makes a big deal about regular engine oil changes, and with good reason. Just like any other part of a vehicle, oil wears down during constant use and needs to be replaced to ensure your vehicle keeps operating at peak efficiency. In fact, oil might be the hardest working part of your vehicle seeing as how it gets squeezed and circulated through your engine thousands of times per minute and suffers through a gazillion heat cycles over the course of its lifetime.

What about transmission fluid, though? That does a lot of work, especially in a car or truck with an automatic transmission where it's not just lubricant but also the life's blood of the whole mechanism. Do you need to change your transmission fluid? If so, how often? Is there a difference between automatic and manual transmission service intervals? Is it good that my ATF is black and smells like burnt hair? Well, let's talk about it, shall we?

Most people don't think about transmission fluid until they absolutely have to — i.e., when it's too late. Even the most hardened gearhead might take their transmission fluid for granted if their transmission is shifting like it's supposed to. This isn't a value judgment, mind you. It's more to say that there are so many things on a car you need to worry about, and so many of them last a long time these days, that even something as important as the juice that makes sure your car actually moves can slip right through the cracks.

Transmission fluid (we're going to call it ATF from here on out to save the ink) is way better nowadays than it was even a decade ago. There have been constant advancements in the metallurgy and materials sciences that go into producing transmissions and the petro-science underpinning ATF itself throughout the century that cars have been around. Metals get stronger, tolerances get tighter, oils get slipperier, and things last a lot longer on even the cheapest modern car than they did on your father's Oldsmobile.

Like modern engine oils, modern transmission fluids come in two general flavors — synthetic and, uh... "organic" (dinosaur squeezins). We can argue for a million years about the pros and cons of each, but for the purposes of this here conversation, let's agree that both kinds wear out eventually, likely at different rates, and will need to be changed at some point in a vehicle's life.

Honestly, if you have a newer vehicle or something that's still under warranty, just follow the manufacturer's suggested maintenance intervals. The rule of thumb these days seems to be a full transmission flush and refill somewhere between 60,000 and 120,000 miles (96,560 and 193,121 kilometers for our friends in the civilized lands). That's a pretty broad spread, I admit, and it can be altered by a number of factors including how you drive, where you drive, if you're towing, and how hot it usually is where you drive. Don't worry too much about it, though. If you follow the suggested maintenance schedule, and listen to your dealership tech/neighborhood mechanic/oil change guy, you should be fine.

What if I'm cool, though?

If you're driving an older vehicle, you'll need to be a bit more proactive in figuring out when and where to change your trans fluid. You should check the level (or have it checked if you don't do the work yourself) every oil change just to be sure. If your transmission is leaking or otherwise losing fluid, you don't want to be surprised.

It's pretty easy to tell when your ATF — or gear oil/Synchromesh/etc. if you have an old-timey bolt-action transmission — is worn out, especially if you're paying attention. A transmission with burnt, worn out, low, or otherwise compromised transmission fluid may behave badly and can even pose a danger to you while driving. The transmission might slip, losing power under acceleration, or the shifts between gears might be noticeably rougher and louder. The car might hesitate and surge while driving, or the transmission might get hotter than normal, reducing the transmission fluid's efficacy even further. Worst case scenario, of course, is that the transmission eats itself or blows up, leaving you stranded somewhere with a growing puddle of stinking, burnt-up transmission fluid spreading under your crippled car. This last one is deeply embarrassing, ask me how I know.

Again, don't worry too much about it. Make sure you check the transmission level during regular oil changes and check around where you regularly park to see if the car's leaking anything. If everything's good, it's more than likely good! If you're low, top the transmission off. Other than that, changing your ATF or gear oil every 100,000 miles is probably best practice. Remember, an ounce of prevention (regular maintenance) is worth a pound of cure (new transmission).

Jalopnik