A Nigerian man, identified as Yomi Olayeye has been arrested and charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, and identity theft for his alleged role in a $10 million pandemic unemployment assistance fraud scheme in the United States.

The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts under the Department of Justice revealed this in a statement posted on its website on Monday.

The statement read, “A Nigerian man was arrested on Aug. 13, 2024 upon arriving at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City on charges that he and other conspired to fraudulently obtain at least $10 million in COVID-19 unemployment benefits.

“Yomi Jones Olayeye, a/k/a “Sabbie,” 40, of Lagos, Nigeria, is charged with one count of wire fraud conspiracy, one count of wire fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft. He made an initial appearance in the Eastern District of New York on Aug. 14, 2024 and will appear in federal court in Boston tomorrow. 

“According to the charging document, between March and July 2020, Olayeye and others defrauded three pandemic assistance programs administrated by the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance and other states’ unemployment insurance agencies: traditional unemployment insurance (UI), Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) and Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC).”

Olayeye and his co-conspirators were alleged to have used stolen personal information to apply for unemployment benefits in multiple states, including Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Indiana.

The statement added, “In total, Olayeye and his co-conspirators allegedly applied for at least $10 million in fraudulent UI, PUA and FPUC from Massachusetts, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Montana, Maine, Ohio and Washington and received more than $1.5 million in assistance to which they were not entitled.

“Specifically, Olayeye and his co-conspirators allegedly used personally identifiable information (PII) they purchased over criminal internet forums to apply for UI, PUA and FPUC – falsely representing themselves to be eligible state residents affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Olayeye and his co-conspirators allegedly used the same fraudulently obtained PII to open U.S. bank and prepaid debit card accounts to receive the assistance payments. It is also alleged that Olayeye and his co-conspirators recruited U.S.-based account holders to receive and transfer the fraud proceeds via cash transfer applications.”

They were also alleged to have used the benefits to purchase Bitcoin and concealed their connection to Nigeria by using US-based IP addresses.

“Olayeye and his co-conspirators then allegedly used the fraudulent proceeds to purchase Bitcoin via online marketplaces.

“It is further alleged that Olayeye and his co-conspirators concealed the conspiracy’s connection to Nigeria by leasing Internet Protocol addresses assigned to computers located in the United States for use in the fraudulent transactions,” the statement read.

The United States Department of Justice further explained that if convicted, Olayeye faces up to 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, forfeiture, and restitution.

The statement added,”The charges of wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy provide for a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, fforfeiture,and restitution.

“The charge of aggravated identity theft calls for a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison to be added to any sentence imposed on the wire fraud charge.

“Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.”

The Attorney General was reported to have established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force on May 17, 2021 to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across the government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud

[Punch]

THE #EndBadGovernance protest, which started on August 1, 2024 and formally ended on August 20, 2024 has continued to raise discussions across the country and beyond, especially within civil society groups. More than 1,400 people who took part in the protest have reportedly been arrested and detained by security agencies with indications that the government is still trying to hunt-down suspected sponsors of the protest.

One of the important lessons from the protest is that the storm clouds seem to be really gathering towards a totalitarian state – a system characterised by a strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. 

In political science, totalitarianism is the extreme form of authoritarianism, wherein all power is held by a dictatorial nanny state that promotes group-think through blackmail and propaganda. Group-think, according to the American social psychologist Irving Janis who coined the term, is “the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.”  In group-think, loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial or non-conforming issues and ideas or even alternative solutions.

The first lethal blow to liberal democracy by totalitarians is the ‘chilling of speech’.  This refers to a situation where individuals or groups refrain from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech (both verbal and symbolic, such as organising peaceful protests) for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation. The ‘chilling of free speech’ is a form of ‘prior restraint’ (a form of censorship that allows the government to review the content of printed materials to decide whether such should be published or not). When free speech is successfully stifled, even an honest opinion could be construed as an incitement by the totalitarian state which then uses it as a pretext to come after purveyors of the speech it does not like. As the American jurist Wendell Holmes famously put it in Gitlow v New York (1925): “Every idea is an incitement… The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the results”.

Totalitarians come in different guises, usually rationalising their desire to chill free speech by hiding under higher values. A good example is the ‘end of politics’ sycophants in the Tinubu government. This is an overzealous but self-serving group which, in the wake of the Supreme Court affirmation of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the President after the controversial 2023 presidential election, began an aggressive quest to muzzle free speech by those they consider as opposition elements. 

They did so (and still do) using various mantras such as “the time for politicking is over, it is now the time for governance” or “the President should be allowed to concentrate on governance”, the “President should not be distracted”, “those who lost elections should wait until 2027”, etc, etc. 

The irony is that the advocates of “the end of politics” are themselves being political. They are either trying to stifle the voices of opposition or blackmail critics of the government, both of which are needed in a democracy to keep the government on its toes for optimal performance. Ironically, some members of this in-group flaunt their ‘democratic credentials’ by constantly reminding us of their roles in the struggle for the revalidation of MKO Abiola’s mandate.  The truth is that not all who partook in the noble struggle to re-validate MKO Abiola’s mandate were democrats. Some were drawn into the struggle by different motives, including defence of ethnic pride.

Just like the DSS infamously went after people who expressed an honest opinion of supporting an interim government after the 2023 elections and sought to blackmail the public into believing that such expressions of honest opinion amounted to intentions to commit treason, the ‘end of politics’ zealots, (many of who are linked to the government), are going overdrive to criminalise protest. 

I fail to see any crime not just in peaceful protests but also in the ‘sponsorship’ of such protests – which is actually a way of encouraging citizens to become active participants in the political process. And talking of sponsorship, are various state agencies such as the National Orientation Agency and others that provide myriad forms of political enlightenment campaigns not also engaging in ‘sponsorship’ when they devise schemes for citizens to identify more with the government of the day, including funding pro-government or counter protests? The only difference is that while one group is presumably ‘sponsored’ to voice its displeasure with the government (which is constitutionally allowed), another group is ‘sponsored’ to identify with the government of the day. 

Of course supporting citizens to become active participants in the political process through ‘sponsoring’ peaceful protest must be distinguished from sponsoring an insurrection or encouraging violent protest or vandalising   people’s property, which is condemnable. 

In the run-up to the protest, Bayo Onanuga, who had in the aftermath of the 2023 presidential election in Lagos proclaimed himself a Yoruba irredentist and weaponised ethnicity, accused Peter Obi of being the secret sponsor of the #EndBadGovernance protest. Others linked to the government have also variously accused Atiku Abubakar, the North, some senior military officers from the North, the Igbos and foreign interest of being the sponsors of the protest. There was also a threat to start a campaign for Igbo-Must-Go from August 20 2024 to force the Igbos to vacate Lagos and all the states in the South-West (so far no arrest has been made about the sponsors of the genocidal campaign).  

Recently, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, introduced a so-called Counter Subversive Bill 24 (now withdrawn), which proposed harsh penalties for Nigerians who refuse to recite the national anthem, destroy national symbols, or deface places of worship or who organise “an unlawful procession”. I see all these as gangster methods of chilling speech through the spreading of fear across the camps of opposition forces. 

Once free speech is successfully chilled, our current liberal democracy, as imperfect as it is, would be further corrupted into George Orwell’s dystopian account of a totalitarian state in his book, ‘Nineteen-Eighty-Four’. Since the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, it is important that anti-democratic forces, in whatever guises they come, are not allowed to gain an upper hand. 

It is germane to note that the very First Amendment to the American Constitution in 1791 was to protect freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This is because free speech, and the marketplace of ideas which it creates, is the foundational structure of democracy. Without it, democracy dies.

To be concluded

Nations like Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria are among the top 5 countries in Africa that have lost the most people to emigration

Across Africa, millions of people are leaving their home countries due to a mix of factors such as economic hardship, political instability, conflict, and a lack of opportunities. The continent has seen a significant outflow of its population, with some countries experiencing particularly high rates of emigration.

Nations like Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria are among the top 5 African countries that have lost the most people to emigration, per ranking via UN’s World Population Prospects 2024. 

5 countries in Africa with most emigration

1. Sudan

Sudan ranks first among African nations experiencing the highest levels of emigration, with approximately 1.35 million citizens having left the country. This places Sudan in a growing crisis as political instability, economic hardship, and conflict continue to drive people out in search of better living conditions abroad.

Recent statistics highlight the ongoing trend of migration, with many Sudanese seeking refuge in neighboring countries, Europe, and beyond. The loss of this large portion of its population not only strains families but also contributes to a significant brain drain, as skilled workers leave the country. Sudan’s position in this ranking underscores the broader migration challenges facing the African continent.

2. Uganda

Uganda ranks second in African countries experiencing significant emigration, with over 126,000 Ugandans leaving the country in recent years. This wave of migration is attributed to various factors, including economic challenges, political instability, and limited opportunities for growth within the nation.

Many Ugandans have sought refuge and better prospects in countries across Europe, the Middle East, and North America. The continued emigration presents concerns over the loss of talent and labor, which has led to calls for more robust policies aimed at retaining skilled professionals and fostering better economic conditions at home.

3. Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe ranks third among African countries most affected by emigration, with an estimated 97,000 citizens having left the country in recent years. The primary drivers behind this exodus are ongoing economic difficulties, high unemployment rates, and political instability.

Many Zimbabweans are migrating to neighbouring countries like South Africa, as well as further afield to Europe, the UK, and North America, in search of better opportunities. The large-scale emigration is contributing to a significant brain drain, impacting critical sectors such as healthcare and education.

4. Nigeria

Nigeria ranks fourth among African countries experiencing a high rate of emigration, with an estimated 58,000 Nigerians leaving the country in recent years. The trend is driven by a combination of economic challenges, security concerns, and a desire for better educational and employment opportunities abroad.

A significant portion of Nigerian emigrants are heading to Europe, North America, and the Middle East, seeking stable environments and improved living conditions. The outflow has raised concerns over a “brain drain,” particularly in sectors like healthcare and technology, where skilled professionals are increasingly leaving the country.

5. Mali

Mali ranks fifth among African countries experiencing the most significant levels of emigration, with approximately 40,000 Malians having left the country in recent years. This migration is largely driven by persistent insecurity, economic instability, and limited opportunities for advancement.

A considerable number of Malians have migrated to Europe and neighboring West African countries, often risking dangerous journeys in search of better livelihoods. The outflow of people has raised concerns over the loss of talent and labor, particularly among the youth, who are seeking opportunities that are scarce at home.

Vanguard News

At the beginning of March 2020, Nigeria’s Supreme Court  dismissed an application for the review of its seven-week old decision to judicially install Hope Uzodinma as the Governor of Imo State, citing as its main reason the need to preserve the authority and finality of decisions of the apex court. The court issued what appeared to be a principled defence of the finality of its judgments, declaring somewhat ostentatiously that once it had issued a decision, “it shall remain forever.”

Olukayode Ariwoola, who delivered the judgment of the majority in the review was also a member of the original panel which decided in January 2020 that Mr. Uzodinma had won the election despite being the candidate who came fourth in the tally of votes scored among the contestants on the ballot. Few could recall at the time that Olukayode Ariwoola had previous experience in this kind of improbable judicial alchemy.

Ahead of the 2007 general elections, the then ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) chose Joy Emordi, a lawyer, to fly its flag in the contest to represent Anambra North in the Senate. In the contest for the party ticket, she had defeated Ubanese Alphonsus Igbeke, who had been installed by judicial order after the 2003 elections as the member representing Anambra East/Anambra West in the House of Representatives. After losing the senatorial ticket to Ms. Emordi, Ubanese Igbeke relocated his party loyalty to the All Nigeria Peoples’ Party (ANPP)

Election day was 28 April 2007 and voting occurred took place in the seven LGAs of Anambra North to determine the person to represent the constituency in the Senate. At the end of the contest, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) returned Joy Emordi as the winner. Five of the losing candidates, including Ubanese Igbeke, lodged petitions to challenge the outcome before the Election Petition Tribunal in Awka, the capital of Anambra State.

On 14 June 2008, the tribunal dismissed the petitions and upheld the return of Senator Emordi. Eight months later, on 10 February 2009, a Court of Appeal panel comprising Victor Omage, Ladan Tsamiya, and Olukayode Ariwoola as Justices of Appeal dismissed the appeal by one of the candidates, Jessie Balonwu, against the decision of the first instance tribunal, holding in particular that there were elections in the seven Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the constituency.

This was significant because the crux of the appeal by Ubanese Igbeke in his own appeal was that there were no elections in two of the seven LGAs in the constituency, specifically in Anyamelum and Onitsha South, respectively. At the same time, Igbeke also asked the Court of Appeal to find that Joy Emordi had failed to score the highest number of lawful votes in the election and to, instead declare that he had in fact scored the highest number of lawful votes in the election and return him as the winner.

One year later, on 25 March 2010, the Court of Appeal, this time comprising Amiru Sanusi, Ladan Tsamiya and Olukayode Ariwoola found in favour of Ubanese Igbeke on all issues and returned him as duly elected. To reach this decision, a panel of the Court of Appeal which included two of the three Justices who decided the earlier case, inexplicably changed their position on the pivotal issue of whether balloting in fact occurred in all the LGAs in the constituency but felt no need to explain how or why.

Having found in Igbeke’s favour on that point, the panel incredulously proceeded to award the election to him when the only logical order was a re-run in the LGAs where the court claimed that no balloting in fact occurred. The skills required to produce this outcome defied all laws of judicial calisthenics.

Senator Emordi lost in her effort to appeal against this to the Supreme Court and on 25 May 2010 – with a mere one year to spare out of a four-year parliamentary term – Ubanese Igbeke took the oath as Senator representing Anambra North.

Of the three Justices of Appeal who implausibly sent Ubanese Igbeke to the Senate, Ladan Tsamiya remained on the Court of Appeal where his career ended in ignominy in 2016 on allegations of corruption in another election dispute.

In the month of the fourth anniversary of the senatorial debut of Ubanese Igbeke secured through their judicial machination, Amiru Sanusi proceeded in May 2015 to the Supreme Court from where he retired in February 2020, the month after they installed Hope Uzodinma as Imo State Governor.

The year after Igbeke’s entry into the Senate, in November 2011, Goodluck Jonathan appointed Olukayode Ariwoola as a Justice of the Supreme Court. After more than one decade on the court, in June 2022, Ariwoola emerged as Chief Justice after leading an unprecedented mutiny against his predecessor in which 14 Justices accused then Chief Justice, Tanko Muhammad, of ignoring their wellbeing. He was officially born 22 August, 1954.

The tenure of Olukayode Ariwoola as Chief Justice of Nigeria began “amid ‘all-time low’ judicial trust.” It was not too much to hope that shoring up public trust in the judicial branch should have been a priority in these circumstances. Instead, he seemed to be on a mission to make up for lost opportunities in the material benefits of office. The result was a tenure which denuded public trust in the judiciary rather than rehabilitate it.

As CJN, Olukayode Ariwoola will be well remembered for the alacrity with which he redressed any previous neglect – real or imagined – of the welfare of his own family and his beloved village, Iseyin, in Oyo State. In two years in the position, he made his son a judge of the Federal High Court; his daughter-in-law a judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory; his brother auditor of the National Judicial Council  (NJC) chaired by himself as Chief Justice; and another reported member of his family a Justice of the Court of Appeal. It was done with a grubbiness that did not pretend to have any regard for the authority of the CJN or respect for the Judicial Code of Conduct, which explicitly prohibits such manifest nepotism with the warning that a judge “who takes advantage of the judicial office for personal gain or for gain by his or her relative or relation abuses power.”

Fittingly, Olukayode Ariwoola’s tenure as Chief Justice ends in a filigree of clannish patronage. In his last meeting as Chair of the NJC, he handed out judicial sinecures to two sisters; one to the High Court of Kwara State and another to the High Court of Ondo State. The month before, he had installed their brother as a judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory. Their dad was a judicial benefactor.

In 2020, the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) then chaired by Olukayode’s Ariwoola’s predecessor sanctioned a lawyer who had applied for elevation to the rank of SAN by altering Supreme Court judgments to insert his name as counsel in cases in which he had not acted. 21 days to his departure as Chief Justice, Olukayode Ariwoola rushed through new elevations, making this same lawyer a SAN when he was better off being struck off the Roll entirely. When, in one of her first acts as Chief Justice, his successor inaugurates this kind of specimen into the Inner Bar, it will set the seal on unquestionably the most baleful judicial legacy in contemporary Nigeria.

Addressing the opening of the legal year before a special session of the Supreme Court – the last to be presided over by Olukayode Ariwoola as CJN – in November 2023, Ebun Sofunde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) speaking on behalf of the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN), testified that judicial reputation “is at an all-time low… to a point where it may no longer be redeemable” and ended with the complaint that Supreme Court judgments under him had become “perfunctory.” These words easily sum up what will be remembered as the most lamentable tenure in the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria since the appointment of the first indigenous CJN in 1958.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Delivering a paper on the “Impact of the whistleblowing policy on public sector accountability and transparency” on Thursday July 11, 2024 at the Inter-agency Task Team (IATT) conference in Abuja, the executive chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Olanipekun Olukoyede, reopened the debate about the imperative of effective engagement of whistle-blowers in the battle against corruption. Restarting the conversation, perhaps unwittingly, he identified some of the perceived weaknesses of the whistle-blower policy, which should be addressed, including the need for adequate safeguards for whistle-blowers to shield them from persecution or punishment.

It was in a bid to expose and confront corruption that the Buhari administration adopted whistleblowing as a government policy in 2016. The policy has since become lukewarm as many would-be whistle-blowers withhold information for fear of their safety. Corruption must be tackled frontally for it has eaten deep into our nation’s fabric like cankerworm.

In fact, Olukoyede labels corruption as the next deadliest affliction of humanity after terrorism. Indeed, a measure of the magnitude of public sector corruption in Nigeria and its colossal disruptive effects on the economy emerged in a report released by the National Bureau of Statistics, which indicated that Nigerian public officials received N721 billion as bribes in 2023, amounting to about 0.35% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.

When it was espoused in 2016, a whistle-blower who provides information about any financial mismanagement or gives clue about any stolen funds to the Ministry of Finance’s portal is rewarded or entitled to between 2.5% and 5% from the recovered funds by the federal government. Some important recoveries were made following whistleblowing. For instance, within the first two months of the policy, the federal government recovered over $178 million stolen from government’s coffers. According to Wikipedia, by June 5, 2017, the federal ministry of finance had received a total of 2,150 tips from the public and this grew to 5,000 by August of the same year.

The recovery that year, through a whistler-blower’s effort, of $43.5million, GBP27, 800 and N23.2million at No. 16 Osborne Road, Ikoyi in Lagos is particularly remarkable.To keep its part of the bargain, the federal ministry of finance, according to reports, paid the whistler-blower involved the sum of N421million, though the entire episode later became controversial.

Strengthening whistle-blowers to expose wrongdoings has become imperative if the anti-corruption fight must fully succeed. This is why civil society organisations and concerned individuals had been engaged in a number of advocacies since 2016 to ensure that people who blow whistle are properly protected.
“The starting point is to emplace a legal framework for whistleblowing including a Whistle-blower Protection Law,” the EFCC chairman surmised, while also calling for the streamlining of the channels for reporting and procedures for the determination and payment of incentives.

According to him, there should be “clear-cut guidelines on reporting channels, including determining agencies to receive the whistle-blower information”.

Olukoyede’s call is important. Those who blow the lead on corrupt practices must not be put on arm’s way. They must be sufficiently protected. Their resolve to promote the anti-corruption crusade would be strengthened if they know the law will protect them in the act.

Since his appointment as the fifth executive chairman of the EFCC in October 2023, Olukoyede has ushered in a new era and leadership at the commission. A pastor and lawyer, he has left no one in doubts about his seriousness to wage the war on corruption and given the graft battle all it requires. Olukoyede has taken important steps to take the battle against corruption to a new high. He has taken on those hitherto viewed as sacred cows, those who could not be touched, let alone asked to account for their deeds.

At every turn, he uttered the right words and made the right call, though occasionally his haste and exuberance shone through. His passion and determination to clean the Augean stable is, however, unmistakable. His deep knowledge of the law has been a huge advantage, helping to moderate his handling of allegedly corrupt people.

While making a case for whistle-blowers to be protected, Olukoyede also urged Nigerians not to be motivated by pecuniary benefits in exposing corruption, stressing that incentives should not be the driving force of the policy. “A sustainable whistle-blower programme should be anchored on a moral foundation in which citizens provide information as a matter of patriotic duty, not propelled by a desire for reward. Whistleblowing should be organic, not driven by pecuniary considerations,” he said.

For him, whistleblowing should also not be reactionary. “We should be more interested in whistleblowing that prevents the stealing of public funds rather than the recovery of funds. Once funds are looted, the entire loot may never be recovered,” he said.

Barely a year in office, the EFCC under Olukoyede’s watch has recorded considerable convictions of people for corrupt practices and made bounteous recoveries from proceeds of corruption. Between May 2023 and May 2024, it is on record that the commission secured a total of 3,451 convictions from 5, 376 cases filed in various courts. A total of 15,753 petitions were also received out of which 12, 287 cases were investigated within the same period.

It is a pointer to the visionary leadership being provided by Olukoyede and his commitment to a better Nigeria that the EFCC contributed the sum of N50 billion each to two of the key programmes of the President Bola Tinubu administration, the Nigeria Education Loan Fund and Consumer Credit programme, from the proceeds of corruption.

In the final analysis, the government and Nigerians generally, especially youths, must prioritize prevention and encourage behavioural changes towards anti-corruption. The news about the new mobile app for youth to report crimes is therefore a welcome development. The mobile application called mobiliser is specifically targeted at Nigerian youths and can be downloaded on phones to report crimes and criminalities.

According to the National Orientation Agency director-general, Lanre Isa-Onilu, who developed the app, this will give security operatives, comprising the Nigeria Police, the military and other security agencies, the opportunity to swing into action and trail criminals and bring them to book.

Indeed, we must continue to tighten the noose around corrupt officials if we are to promote transparency and accountability in public service. To actualise this, we need to revisit the matter of whistleblowing and protection for whistle-blowers. And the best way to protect whistle-blowers,in my view, is through the confidentiality of information.

Rahman is a senior presidential aide.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) says it recorded remittance inflows of $553 million in July.

This is a 130 percent increase from the corresponding period in 2023, the CBN said in a statement on Tuesday, signed by Hakama Sidi Ali, its acting director of corporate communications.

More to follow…

[TheCable]

This paper by Learned Senior Advocate, Dr Olukayode Ajulo, provides an in-depth examination of the legal status of cryptocurrencies, their validity as legal tender, the current legal framework for taxing cryptocurrencies in Nigeria, the challenges faced, and the potential future directions for policymakers

An Examination of the Current State and Future Directions

This paper by Learned Senior Advocate, Dr Olukayode Ajulo, provides an in-depth examination of the legal status of cryptocurrencies, their validity as legal tender, the current legal framework for taxing cryptocurrencies in Nigeria, the challenges faced, and the potential future directions for policymakers

Introduction

A cryptocurrency (also known as virtual currency), is a type of decentralised digital currency that investors can buy and sell along the blockchain. Unlike banknotes or minted coins that have tangible, physical forms, cryptocurrencies can only be accessed using computers and other electronic devices. While there are thousands of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Binance coin, Dogecoin, etc., many with unique traits, they all tend to work in similar ways. The rapid growth and adoption of cryptocurrencies worldwide, have presented significant regulatory and taxation challenges for governments, including Nigeria. As one of the countries with a burgeoning cryptocurrency market, Nigeria has grappled with the task of developing a comprehensive legal and taxation framework, to address the unique aspects of this emerging asset class.

*Overview of the Current Legal Framework*

The legal framework for the taxation of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria is still evolving, as the Nigerian Government has not yet enacted specific legislation to address the taxation of cryptocurrency transactions. However, there are some existing laws and regulations that can be applied to the taxation of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria. Here’s an overview of the current legal framework:

1. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Regulations: The Central Bank of Nigeria has issued several circulars and directives regarding the regulation of cryptocurrency activities in Nigeria. In 2021, the CBN prohibited banks and other financial institutions from facilitating cryptocurrency transactions. However, the CBN has not explicitly addressed the taxation of cryptocurrencies in its regulations.

2. Income Tax Laws: The relevant income tax laws in Nigeria, such as the Companies Income Tax Act (CITA) LFN 2004 and the Personal Income Tax Act (PITA) LFN, 2004, do not specifically mention cryptocurrencies. However, the Nigerian tax authorities can potentially consider cryptocurrency transactions as either business income or capital gains, depending on the nature of the transaction and the taxpayer’s activities.

3. Value Added Tax (VAT) Act: The Value Added Tax Act (CAP. V1 LFN, 2004) in Nigeria does not provide specific guidance on the VAT treatment of cryptocurrency transactions. The Nigerian tax authorities may consider applying VAT to certain cryptocurrency-related services, such as cryptocurrency exchange services or the sale of digital assets.

4. Regulatory Guidance: The Nigerian government, through the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has issued some guidance on the taxation of cryptocurrencies. In 2019, the FIRS released a public notice stating that gains from cryptocurrency transactions should be subject to capital gains tax. The SEC has also provided guidance on the classification and regulation of certain cryptocurrency-based assets, which may have implications for their taxation.

It is however important to note that the legal framework for the taxation of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria is still evolving, and there may be additional developments or clarifications from the Nigerian government in the future. Taxpayers and businesses involved in cryptocurrency activities in Nigeria should stay informed about any updates or changes in the relevant laws and regulations.

*Legality and Legal Status of Cryptocurrencies in Nigeria*

Legal or Illegal?

There is no legislation in Nigeria that expressly bans the usage of cryptocurrencies. In normative systems such as law, without an express prohibition of a conduct (whether an act or omission) by a code, such a conduct is permitted. Its application in legal philosophy is that an action is permitted if it is not prohibited.  In criminal law, this is known as the principle of nullum crimen sine lege (Latin, meaning “there is no crime where there is no law”). 

When applied to legislation, it simply means that the existence of a crime depends on there being a previous legal provision declaring the action to be an offence. This is the jurisprudence behind the provision in Section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) that“…a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefor is prescribed in a written law”.The courts have consistently upheld this principle (Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 1; Amadi v. FRN [2011] All FWLR (Pt. 561) 1588). In the absence of a statutory prohibition of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria, their creation, use or dealing in them is lawful as they do not contravene any law in existence.

Legal or Non-Legal Tender?

Apart from the question of the legality of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria, another important consideration is whether they constitute legal tender.  A legal tender refers to the money that is legally recognised in a defined jurisdiction as the means of exchange, i.e., acceptable for use to purchase goods or services and for settlement of debt or other obligations. Legal tenders take the forms of coins and banknotes (sometimes referred to as “currency”).

The Supreme Court in the case of Okpara v FRN (1977) while explaining the concept of a legal tender in contradistinction to a counterfeit held as follows:

“Counterfeit, in relation to a bank note or current coin of a kind which is legal tender in Nigeria, means a bank note or current coin made or issued other than by or by the authority of the Central Bank of Nigeria and in relation to a bank note or current coin of a kind which is not legal tender in Nigeria means a bank note or current coin made or issued other than by or by the authority of the body which, under the laws of the country in which the bank note or current coin is legal tender, is authorised to make or issue such bank note or current coin.” Per BELLO, J.S.C. (P. 7, paras. A-C)

Generally, the characteristics of a legal tender include:

a) regulation by a national government or regional formation;

[b) only a statutory authority is permitted by law to create legal tender, such as the national banks or mints;

c) the primary medium of exchange and people who trade within the jurisdiction are bound to accept it for the settlement of transactions; and

d) a unique name which identifies with a particular nation or region.

In Nigeria, the body empowered by law to issue legal tender is the CBN.  Furthermore, the law also prescribes the unit of currency and its subdivision which is the Naira – further divisible into one hundred Kobo (CBN Act No. 7 of 2007, sections 2 and 15; Decimal Currency Act Cap.  D2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004, Section 1).  According to Section 17 of the CBN Act: 

“The Bank shall have the sole right of issuing currency notes and coins throughout Nigeria and neither the Federal Government nor any State Government or Local Government, other person or authority shall issue currency notes, bank notes or coins or any documents or tokens payable to bearer on demand being document or token which are likely to pass as legal tender”.

CBN also determines the exchange rate of the Naira to other currencies in the world, and arranges for the printing of currency notes and the minting of coins. Currency notes and coins issued by CBN, shall be legal tender in Nigeria at their face value for the payment of any amount.

These laws largely apply to Nigerian currency and where they make reference to foreign currency, they seem to envisage foreign fiat currency.  In view of the foregoing, it is therefore, submitted that since cryptocurrencies are not issued by CBN they are not legal tender.    Therefore, laws currently governing the  CBN’s  legal tender (Naira)  may  not  be  applied  to cryptocurrencies, unless expressly revised to such.

*The Regulatory Landscape

Cryptocurrency Regulation in Nigeria*

Nigeria’s approach to cryptocurrency regulation has been cautious and evolving. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has issued several circulars and directives, aimed at limiting the use of cryptocurrencies in the country. In 2017, the CBN cautioned banks and other financial institutions against facilitating cryptocurrency transactions, citing the risks associated with their use.

In 2021, the CBN went a step further by ordering the closure of bank accounts belonging to entities or individuals involved in cryptocurrency transactions. This directive was met with criticism from the cryptocurrency community, who argued that it stifled innovation and financial inclusion in the country. Despite these regulatory actions, the legal status of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria remains ambiguous, as there is no comprehensive legislation specifically addressing their use and classification.

*Efforts Towards Regulation*

In recent years, there have been some efforts by the Nigerian Government to develop a more comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies. In 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of Nigeria released a set of regulations for digital assets and their service providers, which included guidelines for the issuance, exchange, and custody of cryptocurrencies.

However, the implementation and enforcement of these regulations have been limited, as the SEC’s authority over cryptocurrency activities has been challenged by the CBN’s directives. This regulatory uncertainty has created a significant barrier to the growth and adoption of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria. Nevertheless, when SEC published the SEC Rules on Issuance, Offering and Custody of Digital Assets in May, 2022, it was generally understood that the SEC Rules will apply to cryptocurrencies as either digital assets or virtual assets.

*Regulation of Cryptocurrencies in Other Selected Jurisdictions*

*European Union*

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 22 October, 2015 in the case of Skatteverket v David Hedqvist held that transactions to exchange a traditional currency for bitcoin and vice versa constitute the supply of services for consideration. It can be argued that although the case relates only to Bitcoin, the decision will apply to other cryptocurrencies.

The court also held in the case that such transactions are exempt from Value Added Tax (VAT) in the European Union. However, while it appears that the Directive as well as case law recognises virtual currencies as medium of exchange in the European Union, it is doubtful whether it can be considered legal tender as the Directive clearly states that “it is not necessarily attached to a fiat currency”.  As such a person cannot legally be compelled to receive it in a transaction unless he is bound by any agreement to that effect.

*United States of America (USA)*

Just as in Nigeria, in the US, cryptocurrencies are not considered as legal tender but their use and dealing in them are legal. Laws governing virtual currency exchanges vary by state. At the federal level, authorities differ in their categorisation of cryptocurrencies. While the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) since 2013 considers them to be mediums of exchange on the basis that tokens are “other value that substitutes for currency” under the Code of Federal Regulations, the Inland Revenue Services (IRS) by contrast, regards cryptocurrencies as property, and has issued tax guidance accordingly.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (USSEC), considers cryptocurrencies to be securities while the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) describes Bitcoin and cryptocurrency derivatives as commodities and allows them to be traded publicly. The Justice Department is collaborating with USSEC and CFTC to streamline regulatory oversight and ensure effective consumer protection.

*South Africa*

There is no specific law or regulation governing virtual currencies in South Africa. Virtual currencies (VC) are not legal tender in the country and “any merchant or beneficiary may refuse VCs as a means of payment”. South African Reserve Bank (SARB) warned of various risks associated with the use of virtual currencies, including issues relating to payment systems and payment service providers, price stability, money-laundering and terrorism financing, consumer risk, transactions on decentralised ledgers without an intermediary. 

*Taxation of Cryptocurrencies*

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) makes no provision for a specific definition of tax. Rather, it provides for the distribution of taxing powers among the federal, state and local governments. However, tax has been statutorily defines in the National Tax Policy, 2107 as any compulsory payment to government imposed by law without direct benefit or return of value or a service whether it is called tax or not. 

*The Current State of Cryptocurrency Taxation

Nigeria’s existing tax laws do not explicitly address the taxation of cryptocurrencies. The applicable tax statutes, such as the Personal Income Tax Act and the Companies Income Tax Act, do not provide clear guidelines on how various cryptocurrency-related activities, such as trading, mining, and payments, should be taxed. As a result, there is a lack of clarity on the appropriate tax treatment of cryptocurrencies, which has led to several challenges:

1. Classification of Cryptocurrencies: The absence of a clear legal classification of cryptocurrencies (e.g., as currency, asset, or commodity) has made it difficult to determine the appropriate tax treatment.

2. Compliance and Enforcement: Without specific guidelines, taxpayers and cryptocurrency users face uncertainty in fulfilling their tax obligations, leading to potential non-compliance.

3. Revenue Generation: The government’s inability to effectively tax cryptocurrency-related activities may result in the loss of potential tax revenue.

4. Investor Uncertainty: The regulatory ambiguity surrounding cryptocurrency taxation may deter potential investors and hinder the growth of the cryptocurrency market in Nigeria.

Attempts at Addressing Cryptocurrency Taxation

The Nigerian government has made some attempts to address the taxation of cryptocurrencies, but these efforts have been limited in scope and impact. In 2020, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), the country’s tax authority, issued a public notice acknowledging the existence of cryptocurrencies and stating that they should be taxed in accordance with existing tax laws. However, the notice lacked specific guidance on the applicable tax treatment and reporting requirements.

More recently, in 2022, the FIRS announced the establishment of a dedicated Cryptocurrency Tax Compliance Team to enhance the monitoring and taxation of cryptocurrency transactions in Nigeria. While this move was seen as a step in the right direction, the team’s specific mandate and the implementation of effective tax compliance measures remain unclear.

Challenges and Limitations

The lack of a comprehensive legal and taxation framework for cryptocurrencies in Nigeria has resulted in several challenges and limitations, including:

1. Regulatory Uncertainty: The ambiguous legal status of cryptocurrencies and the conflicting directives from different regulatory bodies have created an uncertain environment for cryptocurrency users and investors.

2. Tax Compliance and Enforcement: The absence of clear tax guidelines for cryptocurrencies has made it difficult for taxpayers to comply with their obligations, and for tax authorities to effectively enforce compliance.

3. Revenue Leakage: The government’s inability to effectively tax cryptocurrency-related activities have led to the potential loss of substantial tax revenue.

4. Hindered Market Development: The regulatory and taxation uncertainty surrounding cryptocurrencies may deter potential investors and hinder the growth and adoption of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria.

5. Lack of Clarity for Cryptocurrency Businesses: Cryptocurrency businesses, such as exchanges and service providers, face challenges in determining their tax obligations and structuring their operations accordingly.

Future Directions: Towards a Comprehensive Legal and Taxation Framework

To address the current limitations and challenges, the Nigerian government should consider the following future directions:

1.  Enacting Comprehensive Cryptocurrency Legislation: The government should enact comprehensive legislation that clearly defines the legal status of cryptocurrencies and provides a clear regulatory framework for their use and taxation.

2. Establishing Clear Tax Policies: The government should issue clear guidelines on the classification of cryptocurrencies for tax purposes and the treatment of various cryptocurrency-related activities, such as trading, mining, and payments.

3. Improving Tax Administration and Enforcement: The government should strengthen the capacity of tax authorities, such as the FIRS, to effectively monitor and enforce cryptocurrency-related tax compliance, including the development of specialised expertise and the use of technological solutions.

4. Fostering Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement: The government should actively engage with cryptocurrency industry stakeholders, including exchanges, developers, and users, to better understand the dynamics of the cryptocurrency market and incorporate their feedback in the policymaking process.

5. Exploring Innovative Taxation Approaches: The government should consider innovative taxation approaches, such as the introduction of a withholding tax on cryptocurrency transactions or the implementation of a digital asset registry, to enhance tax compliance and revenue generation.

6. Promoting Regulatory Clarity and Coordination: The government should ensure coordination between regulatory bodies, such as the CBN and the SEC, to provide clear and consistent guidelines on the regulation and taxation of cryptocurrencies.

7. Adopting a Balanced Approach: The government should strive to strike a balance between regulating cryptocurrencies to mitigate risks and fostering an environment that supports innovation and the growth of the cryptocurrency market in Nigeria.

Conclusion

The legal framework for taxing cryptocurrencies in Nigeria is currently in a state of flux, presenting both challenges and opportunities for policymakers and regulators. By developing a comprehensive legal and taxation framework, establishing clear policies, and fostering collaboration with industry stakeholders, the Nigerian government can create a more conducive environment for the growth of the cryptocurrency market while ensuring the appropriate taxation of related activities. This balanced approach will be crucial in navigating the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency taxation in Nigeria and optimising the potential benefits for the country’s economic development.

Dr Olukayode Ajulo, OON, SAN, FCIArb (UK), Attorney-General of Ondo State 

https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/08/20/the-legal-framework-for-taxing-cryptocurrencies-in-nigeria/

“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God” – John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address January 20, 1961.

Leaders must resist playing God as President Olusegun Obasanjo tried to do by dismissing the anger and anguish of impoverished people of Niger Delta in 2001. Crude oil theft, illegal refineries, vandalisation of oil pipelines and violence against foreign oil operators are but natural responses to disdain for ‘distributive justice”, equitable allocation of assets in society or as Aristotle puts it, ‘treating equals equally”.

Conceptually, ‘fuel theft’ in the Niger Delta is a misnomer. For the leading lights and the warring militants of the ‘scorched land’ Niger Delta, whose region has been reduced to by crude oil merchants, it is a euphemism for resource control.

And their reasoning is unassailable. The majority of the people of the region are extremely poor without access to basic necessities of life. Their air is polluted, their rivers poisoned and their land abused. Their youths including “General Loaf” in the words of Pa Edwin Clark, ‘have no education and are unemployable’. Adults can neither fish nor farm. Children with brownish hair are a sad reminder of acute malnutrition. 

And it is not of any relief that they alone carry the burden and hazards of their environment while a few reap its benefits.  While they have no bridges over their rivers, those enjoying the environmental benefits of their land built ‘bridges over land’ in state capitals across the nation including Abeokuta, a city built on the rock and Kano on the edge of the Sahara desert.

 Oil theft in the Niger Delta can therefore be seen as a protest against the tyranny of the state especially when President Obasanjo, a personification of the state, contemptuously breached section 162 (2) of the 1989 constitution which declares that “the principle of derivation shall be constantly reflected in any approved formula as being not less than 13 percent of the revenue accruing to the Federation Account”

Crude oil theft in the Niger Delta is therefore beyond finger pointing as Tony Elumelu, a representative of Nigerian elite who always try to play the ostrich instead of calling a spade by its name tried to do in his interview with Financial Times some two weeks back. It is not enough to demonise the federal government when both the federal and Niger Delta leaders are tarred with the same brush.

For instance, just as Elumelu was pointing fingers, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) was also speaking  of 63 illegal refineries discovered and confiscated in one week in  Bayelsa, Rivers, Abia, Imo and Delta states,  177 incidents of oil theft  recorded between August 3 and 9 by different incident sources and 17 vehicular arrests  made in communities in Mosogar, Oleh, and Amooe in Delta State, Imiringi in Bayelsa State, Korokoro and Akwa Odogwa in Rivers State, and in Akwa Ibom State. The 15 wooden boats conveying stolen crude that were confiscated, in Rivers and Bayelsa states and 19 illegal pipeline connections recovered, during which some underwent repairs across several locations in Bayelsa and River states.

The fact that all the Niger Delta governors, their state assembly lawmakers, LGA chairmen, councillors  and National Assembly legislators live within the above identified crime scenes only validate the thesis that the parasitic bug that feeds on the vegetable lives within the vegetable.

But perhaps to underscore how critical crude oil theft symbolizes symptoms of our crisis of nation-building, requiring urgent political solution, we need to take a journey through memory to remind ourselves where the rain started to beat us.

The Nigerian elite (political, economic, intellectual and the military), the scourge of Nigeria, lured the military into politics. And because the military was ill-equipped and ill-trained to manage a multi-cultural and a heterogeneous society, they soon plunged the country in to a civil war. Desperate to generate revenue to prosecute the war, they embarked on promulgation of decrees including that on-shore and off-shore dichotomy and those that set aside revenue allocation based on derivation, a critical element in our founding fathers’ decision to form a federation of Nigerian ethnic nationalities.

Related NewsArmy recovers 238,500 litres of stolen crude oil in three statesCrude oil production rises by 31,629b/dFed Govt to reduce cost of crude oil production below $20/b

The confiscation and centralization of resources of the regions that aided their victory during the war was retained by successive military regimes. In the 1979 constitution, Ben Nwabueze and Rotimi Williams whether driven by their ideological beliefs in strong centre or doing the bidding of a military, retained the military era revenue allocation structure.

 The 1999 constitution, often dismissed as Abdulsalami Decree 24, with all its imperfections reluctantly allocated 13% derivation to the oil producing states despite stiff opposition from northern politicians.

 Obasanjo in 1999, perhaps to please the opponents of the 13% derivation who were mainly northern politicians that imposed him on the west and went on to put him power, instead of paying the 13% approved by the constitution, opted to dispatch Bola Ige, his Attorney General and Minister of Justice to seek the interpretation of totally unrelated on-shore and off-shore dichotomy at the Supreme Court in February 2001. Obasanjo’s victory at the apex court on April 5, 2002 reduced the 13% constitutional provision by as much as 7.5%.

People of Niger Delta felt betrayed by their president with  the Ijaw National Congress (INC) declaring Obasanjo’s action as “a declaration of war against the defenceless people of Niger Delta”(Vanguard, April 20, 2002) and the Niger Delta Youth Congress (NDYC)  threatening “to renegotiate their membership or otherwise withdraw from a Nigerian federation which has its laws and constitution significantly skewed in favour of an unnecessarily large, powerful and domineering central government”.(Punch, April 20 2002)

Renewed attack on oil facilities and kidnapping of oil executives soon began. Obasanjo’s side-lined VP Atiku Abubakar, joined forces with James Ibori and other Niger Delta states governors to threaten Obasanjo’s second term ambition.  This threat forced Obasanjo to send a bill to the National Assembly to abrogate the onshore and offshore dichotomy. But it was too late. The militants had realized their potential to wreck Nigerian economy.

Yar’Adua presidency was forced to set up the Amnesty Programme and deploy Vice President Goodluck Jonathan to go and appeal to the conscience of his constituency in the creeks. There were new undertakings including the establishment of a new free trade zone in Ogidigben, Delta State, with world-class petrochemical and fertilizer plants and creation of over five million jobs across the value chain. The Amnesty Programme and Jonathan interaction with his people helped to increase oil production from pre-amnesty level of 700,000 to about 2,500,000 barrels per day.

Despite the Amnesty Programme, the silent war against the federal government continued. As late as 2013, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala,  from her far away World Bank and the International Monetary Fund meeting in New York, admitted to the federal government’s loss of  about 300,000 barrels daily, or $1billion (N155 billion) revenue monthly. According to her  “a great deal of loss in production is also closely linked to illegal bunkering, and oil theft  which  were getting more evasive as the criminals were going beyond the outer pipelines and moving into more sensitive pipes.’ (The Premium Times April 18, 2013).

The 2015 presidential election that pitched President Jonathan, a Niger Delta candidate against Buhari, a Fulani man was turned to an indirect battle for resource control.  Niger Delta politicians led by Nyesom Wike appealed to the sentiments of their people by painting Buhari as an outsider coming to take control of the resources of Niger Delta.  The Niger Delta militants saw Jonathan’s loss as a licence to continue sabotaging the economy of the country. The effect was that crude oil export never moved beyond 50% of what obtained during Jonathan presidency.

Not much has changed under Tinubu presidency. In fact the sabotage of the oil sector and the economy started with Godwin Emefiele, the CBN Governor and Niger Delta indigene who was an aggrieved aspiring APC candidate in the election. Graduates of the Amnesty Programme that received technical professional training abroad are today believed to be fronting for their leaders, their collaborators outside the state and international criminal gangs to resist the tyranny of the state by taking what they believe rightly belong to them.

With over 600,000 barrels of crude oil stolen daily, with over a thousand of unresolved cases of crude oil theft pending in the courts with a hundred new daily discovery by an overwhelmed and poorly paid security personnel that many believe may not be able to refuse inducement, it has become apparent that solution to crude oil theft is not judiciary but politics. The country will be better off by adopting fiscal federalism that allows the oil producing areas retain 50% of generated revenue as was the case in the first republic.

And the cheapest way to go about it according to Chief Olu Falae, “is going back to the Independence Constitution which our leaders negotiated with the British between 1957 and 1959. It was on that basis that the three regions agreed to go to independence as one united country”.

In order not to massage the ego of ingratitude, I would like to extend heartfelt commendations to His Excellency, Governor Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji, for his remarkable initiative in connecting with Ekiti citizens in the diaspora through a recent Zoom meeting. This initiative not only highlights the Governor's commitment to inclusivity but also underscores his visionary leadership in fostering a people-driven approach to governance.

The virtual meeting was a testament to the Governor’s understanding of the invaluable contributions that Ekiti indigenes abroad can offer towards the development of our beloved state. By creating this platform, the Governor has opened a crucial channel for the exchange of creative ideas, allowing Ekiti citizens in the diaspora to actively participate in shaping the future of our state. This approach has the potential to harness the diverse experiences and expertise of Ekiti citizens globally, thereby driving sustainable growth and development within the state.

The significance of this meeting cannot be overstated. It has provided an opportunity for Ekiti indigenes in the diaspora to voice their concerns, share innovative solutions, and collaborate with the state government in a meaningful way. This engagement is a clear indication that the current administration is not only focused on immediate gains but is also deeply invested in the long-term prosperity of Ekiti State.

I would also like to shine a spotlight on the organizers of this successul Zoom meeting under the leadership of Dr Adeola Adeleye-Fasuba, Ekiti Diaspora Relations Their efforts in facilitating this dialogue have laid a strong foundation for continuous interaction and collaboration between the state government and its diaspora community. Hon Abike Dabiri, Chairman of Nigerians In Diaspora Commission, is highly appreciated for her robust participation in the dialogue.

The seamless execution of the meeting, despite the geographical barriers, is a reflection of their dedication to ensuring that the voices of Ekiti citizens are heard and valued. 

Governor Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji's recent Zoom meeting with Ekiti citizens in the diaspora was more than just an exchange of ideas; it was a masterclass in leadership, collaboration, and the power of inclusivity. Here are some key take-home lessons from this significant engagement:

1. The Power of Inclusivity in Governance:

   Governor Oyebanji’s initiative to engage Ekiti indigenes abroad highlights the importance of inclusive governance. By reaching out to the diaspora, he demonstrated that every Ekiti citizen, regardless of their location, has a role to play in the state’s development. This approach fosters a sense of belonging and ensures that diverse perspectives contribute to policy-making and implementation.

2. Leveraging Global Expertise for Local Development:

   The meeting underscored the value of tapping into the global expertise and experiences of Ekiti citizens abroad. The diaspora community, with its wealth of knowledge in various fields, offers innovative solutions to local challenges. The Governor’s willingness to listen and integrate these ideas into the state’s development plans is a powerful reminder of the benefits of global-local collaboration.

3. The Importance of Communication and Transparency:

   Regular communication between the government and its citizens, both at home and abroad, is crucial for building trust and ensuring transparency. The Zoom meeting exemplified how modern technology can be used to maintain open lines of communication, making governance more accessible and participatory. This transparency fosters accountability and strengthens the relationship between the government and its people.

4. People-Centered Leadership:

   Governor Oyebanji’s people-driven approach in this meeting highlighted the significance of leadership that prioritizes the needs and aspirations of the people. By actively listening to the concerns and ideas of Ekiti indigenes in the diaspora, he reaffirmed his commitment to serving the interests of the citizens. This lesson is a reminder that effective leadership is rooted in empathy, responsiveness, and a genuine desire to improve the lives of the people.

5. The Role of Technology in Bridging Gaps:

   The successful execution of the Zoom meeting demonstrated the potential of technology to bridge geographical gaps and bring people together. In today’s digital age, leveraging technology to facilitate dialogue and collaboration is essential for driving development. This meeting sets a precedent for future engagements, showing that distance is no barrier to meaningful participation in the governance process.

6. Collaborative Problem-Solving:

   The exchange of ideas during the meeting emphasized the importance of collaborative problem-solving. Governor Oyebanji’s willingness to engage with the diaspora community in addressing the state’s challenges showcases the power of collective intelligence. This lesson reinforces the idea that complex issues can be more effectively addressed when diverse voices and expertise are brought together.

In conclusion, the Zoom meeting with Ekiti citizens in the diaspora was a groundbreaking event that offered numerous lessons in leadership, collaboration, and the use of technology in governance. Governor Oyebanji’s initiative serves as an inspiring model for other leaders, highlighting the immense value of inclusivity, communication, and global-local partnerships in driving sustainable development.

* Aruleba Fabamise Oke writes from Ado Ekiti.

The Democratic National Convention (DNC), starting on Monday, August 19, in Chicago, is set to see Vice President Kamala Harris officially accept her nomination as the party’s presidential candidate. Harris has secured over the necessary 1,976 delegate votes needed to represent the DNC in the presidential election against former President Donald Trump from the Republican National Convention (RNC) on November 5, 2024.

Through a virtual roll call, Harris had already received the endorsement of the DNC stakeholders before the convention began. However, this development did not immediately alleviate the pressure on President Biden, who was forced to end his re-election campaign following a poor debate performance against Trump. But his traducers did not stop there as they initially also demanded that he should resign and exit the White House effective immediately.

This situation echoes the tale of Oliver Twist, who perpetually asks for more. That is because not a few Republicans had been calling for Biden to resign from the presidency since he had conceded his re-election bid to Harris, suggesting he was unfit to continue in office. 

Fortunately, the initial calls for Biden’s resignation, fueled by the notion that withdrawing from re-election indicated his incapacity, have subsided. Although he has about five months left in his presidency, Biden has recovered from a recent bout with COVID-19 and even participated in a joint campaign event with Harris in Maryland on August 15.

President Biden’s decision not to seek re-election on Sunday, July 21, 2024, led to calls for him to step down from the presidency, an unprecedented move, particularly because he was pressured by his party members and allies.This decision mirrors President Lyndon Johnson’s choice in 1968 to forgo re-election, although Johnson completed his term rather than resigning.

In a twist of fate, the COVID-19 pandemic, which initially helped Biden win the presidency in 2020, seemed to have undermined his re-election bid less than 90 days before the November 5 election. The pandemic was crucial to Biden’s 2020 victory and Trump’s exit from office, but it now appears to be Biden’s Achilles' heel. His poor debate performance against Trump, which he admitted was dismal, intensified calls for him to withdraw from the race, and he eventually succumbed to pressure from allies like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Ironically, the same pandemic that boosted Biden’s 2020 campaign is now contributing to his inability to seek re-election, potentially aiding Trump’s return to the White House. Although Biden did not specifically cite COVID-19 as the reason for his withdrawal, the pandemic’s negative impact on his campaign, including his abysmal debate performance when he faced- off with former President Trump in a CNN-organized TV debate and the resulting criticism for his subpar output, influenced his decision to step aside.

Several factors contributed to President Biden's declining approval ratings and his decision not to seek re-election. Public opinion soured over his foreign policy, particularly due to the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the surge of illegal migration into the U.S., and perceived excessive U.S. support for Ukraine and Israel in their respective conflicts. The recent escalation in the Middle East, including the assassination of key figures such as Hamas leader in lran and Hezebah commander in Lebanon , the potential for broader conflict involving Russia and Iran in what might stretch into a third world war, has further strained the situation and democrats under pressure to end the two conflicts-lsraeli/Hamas and Russia/Ukraine wars before they degenerate into a conflict of global dimension.

Although Biden initially received praise for his handling of foreign policy during his 2019-2020 campaign, however his approval rating had dropped to about 38% by February this year. While COVID-19 was not the only reason for his withdrawal, it significantly impacted his presidency and political environment. Consequently, Biden decided to step aside for Vice President Kamala Harris, whose nomination has rejuvenated the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and restored enthusiasm for the party’s 2024 campaign.

Coincidentally, the RNC candidate, Donald Trump, has also gained momentum. This boost followed President Biden's poor performance in their first debate and Trump's ability to maintain a strong public profile despite ongoing legal issues, including a failed assassination attempt. The would-be assassin's bullet merely grazed Trump's ear, which many supporters and undecided voters interpreted as divine protection, especially as Trump instinctively moved his head away from the shot aimed at his forehead.

As Trump celebrated these developments, President Biden stepped down, leading to a surge in support for Vice President Kamala Harris and reinvigorating the DNC. Recent polls show Harris in a tight race with Trump. While Harris’s campaign slogan, “We are not going back,” suggests a commitment to preventing Trump’s return to the White House, some analysts argue it lacks impact compared to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA), which may not be as effective as in previous elections.

Despite the current enthusiasm for Harris, some pundits caution that the excitement may be short-lived. Historical patterns suggest that the political landscape can shift rapidly, and the initial boost for Harris might not last beyond the convention, which started on August 19.

In 2016, few predicted that Donald Trump would make it to the White House, with most polls favoring Hillary Clinton. Despite Clinton winning the popular vote by about 3 million votes, Trump won the presidency by securing 307 electoral college votes to Clinton's 227. The US electoral system is so complex that although Clinton received 65,853,514 popular votes, while Trump received 62,984,514 of the popular votes, Trump won the contest.

That 2016 election marked the fifth time in U.S. history that the winning candidate lost the popular vote, and Trump's victory in that contest against all odds suggests he might repeat that success in 2024. There is a conspiracy theory that Clinton's loss was influenced by key electoral college voters who were opposed to the idea of a Clinton presidential dynasty, akin to the Kennedy family or the Bushes. 

Had Clinton won, it would have added a husband-and-wife presidential pair to the list of political dynasties, including the Kennedys and the Bushes. Given the political dynamics and underlying racial and gender biases in the U.S., some argue that while there is public support for Kamala Harris, there may be underlying resistance due to her being a female and a Black candidate, reflecting deeper societal biases.

In summary, there are likely many voters in the U.S. who may harbor latent racial biases and might not vote for Kamala Harris due to her being both a woman and a person of color. While former President Barack Obama successfully engaged younger voters in 2008 through social media—who judged candidates by their abilities rather than race—Harris’s campaign relies on this demographic to support her. The challenge remains whether these younger voters can influence their parents, who may hold biases against Harris. Plus how many of the youths, particularly university students are willing to overlook the administration's support for the ongoing massacre of Palestinians in Gaza by Israel even though Hamas is the agent provocateur?

Obama faced the challenge of being a Black man, and despite extensive efforts by previous Black leaders like Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson, Obama was the first to succeed in winning the presidency. Hillary Clinton, the first female nominee from a major party, also failed to win despite being Caucasian.

Given these factors which still exist as formidable barriers, it's doubtful that Harris will overcome the same obstacles. Her bid for the presidency in 2024 may face significant hurdles, akin to the proverbial difficulty of a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Although Harris has gained momentum since Biden’s withdrawal, this enthusiasm is expected to wane after the current convention.

The concern arises from the fact that Kamala Harris will face realpolitik challenges when she steps out of her scripted, teleprompter-driven comfort zone into unscripted interactions with news reporters. These journalists will likely press her on various aspects of her tenure as Attorney General of California, her time as a senator, and her current role as Vice President. Apart from young democrats who are on her side because she did not want Biden due to his old age, there is no evidence that blacks or women who should be natural constituents are with her in significant numbers.

While Harris's team has preemptively addressed potential questions through social media, this structured approach may not shield her from direct questioning by reporters. The upcoming television debate between Harris and former President Trump on September 10 could be a critical moment. If Harris fails to perform effectively, especially given her background as a former prosecutor, it could significantly damage her campaign, much like Biden’s poor performance against Trump on June 27, 2024, which led to the end of his re-election bid.

How would she defend the multiple conflicting political positions that she has taken in her two decades-long political career which make her look like a chameleon that's always changing its color to blend with the environment it finds itself in?

The key question is whether a debate between Trump and Harris could mark a political downfall for Harris, the first female, and woman of color to become Vice President and a major party’s presidential candidate. Trump's supporters, who view him as divinely chosen to return to the White House, are driven by his continued popularity despite being the most criticized and vilified presidential candidate since his 2020 loss. This popularity persists even amidst criticisms of his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the numerous court cases that he has been slammed some of which he has received judgement in his favor.

Ron Klain, former Chief of Staff to President Biden, recently highlighted that the White House did not effectively promote Kamala Harris, potentially by design. Biden’s body language had suggested he might not seek re-election due to concerns about his age during the 2019 campaign against Trump.

Although it was anticipated that Harris would replace Biden in the 2024 race, this created friction between them after they assumed office in 2020 and Biden's intentions to run again became evident. 

Ultimately, COVID-19 and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's concerns about the DNC not being able to take control of the House if Biden remained as the candidate led to Biden’s decision to withdraw from the race. 

Harris now faces the challenging task of securing the presidency against the formidable Donald Trump, who has experience from the 2016 and 2020 campaigns and remains a strong contender. Despite Harris’s boost from Biden’s endorsement, she is not inheriting strong voter support from a president whose approval ratings had plummeted to around 38% before he stepped down. Meanwhile, Trump, known for his ability to come from behind, is likely to leverage his support from evangelicals and MAGA supporters to mount a strong campaign.

Given that Kamala Harris has not faced the rigorous challenges of a presidential campaign like Donald Trump, who is running for the third time, and that she did not go through the traditional party primaries but was selected by President Biden, her optimism about winning the election is puzzling. That is more so because she is not enjoying overwhelming support of her natural constuents -women folk and blacks or colored who nurse the grudge that as District Attorney in San Francisco she is alleged to have the penchant for jailing blacks on crimes that could have ordinarily been deemed unserious .

According to PEW Research, 63% of Americans find that televised debates help them assess a presidential candidate’s capabilities. However, Harris has not participated in debates or unscripted media interviews since her ascent to the top of the ticket roughly a month ago, which did not involve the usual primary process. Her reaction to tough questions, such as when she was confronted by a Democrat during one her campaign events about the Gaza conflict and how the U.S. is complicit , suggests she may struggle with probing questions from journalists, especially given her record of shifting positions. This could undermine her rising popularity before the November 5 election.

Moreover, despite the DNC’s portrayal of Trump as a threat to democracy and accusations of racist comments (which he denies), swing voters are increasingly seeing Trump as a candid politician who speaks plainly about issues. Trump’s straightforwardness may help him regain momentum, as he provides clear positions on various topics, in contrast to more evasive politicians. This directness is a double-edged sword: it appeals to some voters but alienates others due to his blunt demeanor.

An often-overlooked fact is that while President Biden has been involved in politics for about fifty years, former President Trump has been active in the political arena for only about a decade.

Remarkably, since launching his presidential bid against Senator Hillary Clinton in 2016 and winning the presidency, Trump has become the RNC’s presidential candidate for a third time. His charismatic leadership has given him greater influence over the party than any other figure, including Ronald Reagan, and surpasses even the Bush family’s influence with its father-and-son presidential dynasty.

In contrast, Kamala Harris began her political career in 2002 when she ran for District Attorney of San Francisco and won. This marks about twenty-two years of political experience, double the time Trump has spent in politics.

If Kamala Harris does not win the presidential election on November 5, which in my reckoning seems quite probable, she still has time to try again in the future. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who was 68 when she ran for president, Harris is only 59, giving her a decade more to pursue another presidential bid before she becomes too old to run.

Harris can leverage the goodwill she’s building now as a foundation for a future campaign. After all, President Biden, who has just concluded his 50-year political career, made several attempts after being a senator and vice president before finally winning in 2020, partly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic which helped him take over the White House from then President Donal J.Trump who would likely return as the 47th president of the USA.

Many Nigerians have formed prayer groups to support Trump’s return to the White House, believing he is more favorable to legal immigrants and anti-abortion policies, as seen in his support for overturning Roe v. Wade. With the election still several months away, the wait feels long, and many are anxiously anticipating the outcome.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria. To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.