Dele Alake, minister of solid minerals development, has pledged Nigeria’s support to a global campaign against lead poisoning.

Alake spoke during an exhibition at the Lead-Free Future event which took place on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.

In a statement on Friday by Segun Tomori, media assistant to the minister, Alake announced the federal government’s plan to procure additional equipment for the detection of lead in communities.

He said clearing up lead from communities will restore child and maternal health.

Casey Bartrem, the USAID representative, appreciated the minister’s commitment to combatting lead poisoning.

She presented him rock samples retrieved from Zamfara state during a clean-up that followed a lead poisoning incident.

She said USAID hoped to collaborate with the ministry to reduce lead poisoning in mineral extraction and processing.

[TheCable]

In a speech that will be remembered for years to come, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu captivated global leaders at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) today, September 27, 2024. His address, rich with references to biblical history and modern-day geopolitics, left world leaders in awe as he artfully linked Israel’s ancient past to its present and future on the global stage.

Netanyahu’s speech was far more than a standard diplomatic address as it was an invitation to view Israel not just as a nation with contemporary challenges but as a civilization with a storied legacy. By drawing on ancient biblical references, he evoked powerful imagery that transcended politics and reached into the heart of Israel’s cultural and spiritual identity. The speech resonated on a deeply emotional level, not just for Israelis, but for people across the globe who see the Bible as a shared heritage.

With a commanding presence, Netanyahu began by referencing King David’s battles for Jerusalem, framing Israel’s current position in the Middle East as a continuation of biblical struggles. “Just as David faced Goliath with courage and faith, today Israel stands before great adversaries. But like David, we will prevail,” he declared, his voice ringing through the hall. The analogy drew a standing ovation from many in attendance, with several world leaders visibly moved by his words.

Netanyahu’s references to the Bible did not stop there. He invoked the prophetic wisdom of Isaiah and Ezekiel to discuss the turbulent dynamics of the Middle East and the constant threats Israel faces, particularly from Iran. “As the prophets warned of destruction, we are tasked with vigilance in our time,” he said, turning the attention of the assembly to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. His plea for the international community to unite against the Iranian threat was bolstered by this historical context, giving his words a timeless, almost sacred weight.

In an era of fleeting political sound bites, Netanyahu’s speech stood apart, rich with substance and history. His eloquent invocation of biblical scripture was not just rhetoric, it was a profound reminder that Israel’s story spans millennia, and that its survival has always been a matter of divine providence as much as human resilience.

Many in the room acknowledged after the speech that it was a moment destined to be remembered. Political analysts, diplomats, and scholars were quick to note that Netanyahu’s address could be a defining moment in both his career and in Israel’s diplomatic narrative at the UN. It was not just his words that stirred the assembly, it was the depth of his message.

Netanyahu’s ability to weave together ancient texts and modern concerns created an extraordinary impact. “This wasn’t just a speech, it was a moment in history,” said one European diplomat. “He reminded us all that Israel’s survival and its pursuit of peace are part of a much larger story, one that has been unfolding for thousands of years.”

The speech also marked a turning point in Netanyahu’s leadership style. Known for his hardline stance on security and diplomacy, today he showed a different side, a leader deeply in tune with the cultural and spiritual currents of his people. His speech at UNGA today will likely be studied for years as an example of how a leader can use history and tradition to reinforce national sovereignty and diplomacy.

World leaders, from the United States to the Middle East, were left with much to ponder after his address. Netanyahu’s remarks on the Abraham Accords were particularly striking. He described the agreements as not just political pacts, but as the fulfillment of ancient prophecies of peace between Israel and its neighbors. “These accords are the dawn of a new Middle East, one that embraces peace, mutual respect, and shared prosperity,” he said.

Netanyahu’s speech at the UNGA may well be remembered as a milestone in Israeli diplomacy. His skillful blending of biblical history with modern geopolitical realities gave the speech an enduring quality—one that world leaders will recall long after the assembly has concluded.

As the audience dispersed, the consensus was clear: this was a speech that transcended the usual political theater of the UNGA. Netanyahu’s message was a powerful reminder of Israel’s deep historical roots and its enduring commitment to peace and security. By invoking the wisdom of the Bible, he reached beyond the immediate political challenges, offering a timeless perspective on the nature of leadership, resilience, and survival.

Historians and diplomats alike agree that Netanyahu’s speech will go down in the annals of the UN as one of the most remarkable and memorable addresses ever delivered. By drawing on the rich tapestry of Israel’s biblical past, he gave the world a speech that was more than just words—it was a testament to Israel’s enduring strength, faith, and determination to secure its future in a turbulent world.

In the corridors of Nigerian politics, certain phrases have become so commonplace that they seem to lose their meaning over time. Among them, none stands out as more overused, and, some may argue, more hollow, than the oft-repeated declaration: “I can assure you.” This phrase, typically uttered by politicians in positions of power, has been wielded in moments of crisis, failure, or disappointment to pacify a weary populace. However, the constant repetition of this phrase has caused it to lose credibility and effectiveness over time.

When Nigerian political leaders declare “I can assure you,” it often signals a deflection rather than a resolution. For instance, during times of economic downturn, insecurity, or fuel scarcity, government officials are quick to “assure” citizens that better days are coming. However, these assurances are frequently followed by minimal action or tangible improvements. This reliance on rhetoric, instead of genuine reform or policy change, has led to growing skepticism among the public.

Consider the case of Nigeria’s power sector. For decades, successive administrations have promised to fix the country’s erratic electricity supply, with numerous ministers and heads of parastatals beginning their speeches with the same assurance. Yet, the national grid continues to collapse, and citizens are forced to rely on generators or solar power to survive.

Similarly, promises of job creation are repeatedly given as an assurance to Nigeria’s large youth population. In 2023, as unemployment figures skyrocketed and inflation hit record highs, politicians routinely used “I can assure you” to pacify the public, promising that job creation and economic recovery plans were in place. Yet, to date, the tangible benefits of these assurances remain largely invisible, with many Nigerians struggling under the weight of economic hardship.

To understand why this phrase has become a favorite among Nigerian politicians, one must consider the role of political optics. “I can assure you” serves as a verbal Band-Aid, designed to quickly soothe public unrest or discontent without addressing the root cause of the problem. It momentarily placates citizens who are waiting for solutions, buying time for leaders to either delay action or deflect responsibility.

This tactic has been especially prevalent in the aftermath of major national crises. Whether it’s the #EndSARS protests, high inflation rates, or the rising cost of fuel, “I can assure you” has been deployed as a way to temporarily cool tempers while tangible responses remain elusive.

For example, in 2020, during the heat of the #EndSARS protests, a movement that rocked the country and saw Nigerian youth taking to the streets to demand an end to police brutality, political leaders were quick to assure protesters that their demands would be met and that necessary reforms were underway. Yet, nearly four years later, the issues that sparked the protests remain unresolved, with many citizens questioning whether the assurances given were ever genuine.

One of the major issues with the overuse of “I can assure you” is that it diminishes accountability. If political leaders were judged on the assurances they have given, many would fail spectacularly. However, the phrase is so frequently used, and often forgotten by the time the next crisis hits, that no one is held responsible for unfulfilled promises.

For example, during election campaigns, politicians offer assurances on everything from job creation to infrastructure development. Once in office, however, the specifics of these assurances fade away, leaving the citizens with empty words and no real progress. This lack of follow-through is not unique to any political party but has become a culture across Nigeria’s political landscape.

In the build-up to the 2015 general elections, for instance, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) assured Nigerians that the issue of insurgency in the northeastern part of the country would be a thing of the past within a matter of months. President MuhammaduBuhari’s administration “assured” the nation that Boko Haram’s reign of terror would be swiftly ended. While some progress has been made, the insecurity crisis has since evolved into a broader range of threats, including banditry, kidnapping, and farmer-herder clashes, leaving many Nigerians feeling that the assurances were nothing more than campaign rhetoric.

Repeatedly hearing “I can assure you” from leaders who fail to deliver has nurtured a deep sense of cynicism among Nigerians. Citizens are increasingly less inclined to believe these words and more likely to demand action. The disconnect between what is assured and what is delivered has eroded trust in public institutions and political leadership.

This skepticism is evident in the public’s response to recent economic policies. When Nigeria’s leadership assured citizens that removing fuel subsidies would benefit them in the long run, the immediate result was skyrocketing prices and widespread hardship. While citizens were assured that the government had their best interests at heart, the realities on the ground told a different story.

The issue of fuel subsidy removal is a classic example of overused assurances. Time and again, citizens have been “assured” that the removal of subsidies is necessary for the growth and sustainability of the economy. Yet, when such policies are enacted, the burden of adjustment disproportionately falls on the masses, while politicians and those in power remain largely insulated from the harsh realities of inflation and rising costs of living. This gap between promise and outcome has left citizens disillusioned.

The phrase “I can assure you” is not only problematic because it is overused but also because it is often accepted without being challenged. The Nigerian media, which plays a crucial role in holding leaders accountable, has at times been complicit in amplifying these assurances without enough scrutiny.

However, in recent years, the rise of independent media and investigative journalism has put some pressure on political leaders to be more accountable. Civil society organizations and citizen journalists have also played a key role in questioning the assurances given by leaders, especially in the era of social media, where political statements are dissected and analyzed almost instantly.

Nigerian leaders must recognize that the era of placating citizens with empty assurances is fast coming to an end. The public is more informed, vocal, and impatient than ever before. Politicians can no longer rely on mere rhetoric to carry them through their terms in office. Instead, they must back their words with decisive actions, measurable progress, and transparent policies.

The overuse of “I can assure you” is not just an issue of political language but one of governance. If leaders cannot deliver on their promises, they should refrain from making them. Nigerians deserve leaders who take action, hold themselves accountable, and offer more than hollow reassurances.

In conclusion, “I can assure you” has become a tired phrase in Nigerian politics, one that represents more of what has gone wrong than what could go right. It’s time for a new lexicon of leadership, one that emphasizes action over words and results over rhetoric. Nigerians are waiting, and they will no longer be placated by promises. If Nigerian politicians want to regain the trust of the public, they must replace assurances with visible change, addressing the pressing issues of governance, insecurity, and economic hardship that plague the nation. The clock is ticking, and the people are watching.

Eight more young girls trafficked to Ghana have been rescued and brought back to Nigeria.

Chairman/CEO, Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM), Hon Abike Dabiri-Erewa @⁨Abike Dabiri⁩ receiving the young ladies at the NiDCOM Annex Office in Lagos, thanked the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, (CON) for her unwavering support in facilitating the return of the girls

She also acknowledged the significant role of Chief Callistus Elozieuwa, President, Nigerians in Diaspora Organisation (NIDO) Ghana Chapter, the Nigerian embassy in Ghana and the Interpol Units of Nigeria and Ghana.

According to the NiDCOM Boss, the Renewed Hope Agenda of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is committed to combating human trafficking and protecting the rights of Nigerian citizens both at home and in the Diaspora.

Furthermore, the Chairman/CEO, said the rescued girls have been handed over to the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) to ensure that the girls have safe and comfortable accommodations pending their formal rehabilitation and reintegration with their families.

The rescued girls, aged between 15 and 22, hail from various states across Nigeria, including Ebonyi, Akwa-Ibom, Imo, Plateau, and Cross River, were lured to Ghana under false promises of employment but were forced into sexual exploitation.
She noted that there are still many more trafficked victims waiting to be rescued and thanked the Ghanaian security agencies for their co operation

Meanwhile, a 28-year-old Nigerian, Ms. Favour Ugwu, one of the traffickers, was arested and jailed for eight years in prison, by the court in Ghana on account of human trafficking.

Signed,
Gabriel Odu,
Media, Public Relations and Protocols Unit,
NiDCOM.

Nigeria will be 64 in a few days’ time. It has not all been sixty-four years of pain. No, it has not. Much optimism greeted the birth of the nation. Much bloodshed went into a civil war that was ostensibly fought in order to keep it together for the good of all its constituent units. But the nation has not come this far without some broken promises and dashed hopes. There are still broken promises and dashed hopes, as I write.

Yet here we are: In thrall, as they battle painful policy decisions of the moment, which may yet deliver long-term benefits. In thrall, but unbowed, angry but determined not to be totally disruptive, full of angst and yet convinced that we are on the path to authenticity. Nigerians are facing their worst daymares (not nightmares anymore) yet.

Against the background of the foregoing, there is the prospect, or threat, of a national protest on the very day the nation is to celebrate the 64^th anniversary of its flag independence. And, lest we forget, there is nothing wrong with protests or petitions in themselves; as part of the global democratic enterprise. They may take the form of written correspondence, verbalized and non-violent submissions, or physical displays of discontent; including street matches and generous showing of placards, on which are blazoned the matters of disagreement at the moment.

Thus, protests are legitimate means of social expression, so long as they are designed and structured around the desire citizens to bring up, and bring about, useful and positive, interventions in the society. And that is what makes it radically different from a riot. In the latter case, aggravated misconduct is the norm. This may have no higher social purpose in view, beyond the desire to plunder the polity and carry off anything of value that lay in the way of the rioters.

Most riots are characterized by deeds of madness. There are usually no clear collective goals, beyond the general and specific acts of vandalism that could acquire lives of their own if unchecked. Even when they are checked, riots are what they are: riots. Unstructured, socially self-defeating and sometimes driven by what can best be described as motiveless malignity.

The national protests of two months ago, which, presumably, is about to precipitate another one that has been in gestation, were no riots in most places. Some poor, jobless and hungry people took advantage of the situation to go on a stealing and looting spree. The northern part of the country was the most affected in this regard. This was no surprise to many, because that part of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has been under the weather of ungovernability for far too long.

But we need not do ourselves in because of the allegedly planned October 1 protests. We saw more than enough protests in 1993, after the annulment of the presidential elections. We also know of the Aba Women’s Riot and several others, on the strength of which some have averred that our nation got its independence and everything about it today as a result of one type of protest or the other.

As was said here some two months ago: “It was the long-drawn protests of our founding fathers, in written addresses, in several constitutional conferences and some other means, that eventually birthed an allegedly independent Nigerian in 1960. Just as sceptics had their doubts about the sincerity of the colonialists when they promised us independence, many reasonable Nigerians also doubted the sincerity of the military whenever a ruling junta announced plans to return the nation to civil rule”. And that was after all manner of subtle pressures and open protests.

It was said, further: “Even more sceptics looked on with grave misgivings at the protracted military rule, unconvinced that it was serious when it “threatened” to birth a democratically elected government. Twenty-five years later, and despite the apparent shortcomings, we are making progress; willy nilly if you will. And that progress has more elements of suffering, misgovernment, lack of intraparty cohesion and the absence of a memorable ideological focus from the political class.

Our progress is coming through bitter, mind boggling, morally disorienting and psychologically devastating lessons. The lessons are apparently unscripted, and the teachers are teaching away without Lesson Notes and conventional teaching certificates. And they are exacting and merciless – these teachers.

The names of the teachers include the following: (1) Dishonest politicians, (2) Broken promises, (3) The consequences of citizen gullibility, (4) The results of supporting the wrong candidates, (5) The progressive denudation of the capacities of our national defense and security forces, and (6) The increasing inability of the ruling elite to protect itself from its own depredations”.

As was further observed here, “President Obasanjo, coming in as the first to hoist the flag of democratic rule after the military, was a quasi-military-civilian president. He did his best to craft good policies and establish institutions that would aid good governance. Presidents Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari were the circumstantial by-products of a system of elite myopia that had prevailed in the land for over 50 years. They were not entirely responsible for the problems they inherited. Their parties, the PDP the APC, were, again, not entirely responsible for everything that went wrong with Nigeria under their watch.

The Nigerian State was taken hostage long ago. For over 50 years now, many powerful individuals and groups have succeeded in pushing personal and limited group interests into the front row of national consciousness; such that, today, 25 years into a now-unsettling experience with a fledgling democracy, we are not sure where we really are as a nation. Those whose interests are at variance with wider and deeper national interests have become the real enemies of Nigeria. They may well have actually constituted themselves into a team of highway men and women who waylay everything that could rescue Nigeria and consolidate our current democratic experiment.

Protests are coming and going, because our “25 years old democracy is being bombarded from all sides by (1) A fundamentally distorted eldership recruitment process, (2) Skewed values, (3) A largely dysfunctional educational system, (4) A flawed national psyche and (5) A youth bulge that is increasingly becoming the biggest unaddressed national crisis. With every passing day, these problems morph into new, and self-replicating, societal challenges”.

The havoc wrought on the soul and psyche of this nation by the Nzeogwu coup d’état of January 1966 also came up for mention here two months ago. Part of the submission then was the counter coup that came some six months after Nzeogwu’s unfortunate intervention embodied the worst forms of thoughtless, state-sanctioned misconduct with impunity. We are living with its aftermath today. The initial coup, and the subsequent ‘retaliatory’ one, banished the nation’s true leaders from the political and leadership playing field”. They lived in silent protest for over a decade.

“The ‘replacement generation’ for the founding fathers and leaders of Nigeria, whom they were grooming along ideological lines for the propagation of specific ideological norms, stagnated for 12 years, until 1979. Zik, Awo and Aminu Kano would since have given way to the likes of Tafawa Balewa, Michael Okpara, Bola Ige and others before 1979.

The backlog of two generations of leaders, who were left unfulfilled by the military interventions, did not exercise and fulfil their calling. The petulant idealism and uninformed exuberance of the groups of coup makers trampled upon traditional rulers, traditional values, and almost every other thing that was generally respected as instruments for social control”. So, it has all been series of voiced and unvoiced and unclear protests at every turn.

The many institutional, sociopolitical and axiological problems plaguing the nation today, and which have plagued it for over 50 years now, got all the fillip they needed from the actions and inactions of the past. We got a deluge of prematurely retired military officers within a span of 20 years, precisely because of the negative dynamics of coup making in Nigeria. Many such retired military personnel became frustrated and unfulfilled professionals because of the new character of the Nigerian state after the 1966 military coups. Without intending it, many of them ended up being pushed into areas they would never have contemplated. And their new trajectories naturally elicited protests”.

The point was also made here that: “Our nascent 25 years old democracy has thrown up leaders with sudden stupendous wealth from questionable sources. Their wealth has mostly impacted their immediate and extended families, of less than 15 persons, and a few friends. Their local communities, members of their religious congregations, most of their friends and even members of their extended families know how poor or rich they were a few years before they went into politics. The priests, traditional rulers and other supposed custodians of public conscience ask no questions”.

Before the next protest, let the aspiring protesters be clear about what they want, what lines of action they wish to take and what specific positive outcomes they hope to achieve thereby. The protests will not be accompanied by riots if they are well structured. The government should have made some mileage for itself in discussions and negotiations after the last protests. But, but has it? The issues raised back them seem to still be on the front burner.

Many protesters are driven by poverty and lack of survival skills. That is why the Federal Government should look hard at the hunger in the land, revisit the impact of the measures it has so far taken to address the problems and make some preemptive interventions while it can still do that before October 1.

The efforts of the government need to be better contextualized for wider citizens buy-in and understanding. Protesters must be aware that their protests can only be meaningful if, in protesting, they remain fully conscious of the fact that the nation must exist before they can continue to carry out any protest in it. The president’s cabinet has not performed in such a way that it can be said to have impressed anyone, including itself. some ministries have done a lot, but the ministers themselves are dumb about it.

Quote

The efforts of the government need to be better contextualized for better understanding. Protesters must be aware that their protests can only be meaningful if, in protesting, they do not forget that the nation must remain in existence for them to carry out their protests successfully live to enjoy its “dividends”. The president’s cabinet has not performed in such a way that it can be said to have impressed anyone, including itself. Some ministries have done a lot, but the ministers are dumb about it. Mr. President, Biko, think more of capacity as you shoo out the non-performing ministers in your cabinet.

Several faithful readers of this column who have followed it from the mid-2000s in the Weekly Trust have asked me to spice up my columns with occasional commentaries on American politics and culture, which was the column’s dominant thematic preoccupation in its earliest incarnation.

This year’s presidential election offers an opportunity to do that. This week I want to explore a phenomenon called the “October Surprise” in American presidential elections about which I had written 16 years ago when Barack Obama and John McCain squared off.

An “October Surprise” is any dramatic last-minute event, typically in October but occasionally a little later than October, that swings the election to the disadvantage of a leading candidate. Such dramatic events are believed to have the potential to influence the outcome of the election by swaying public opinion or shifting the narrative around the candidates.

October surprises symbolize the unpredictable nature of the final stretch of the presidential campaign and the high stakes involved in influencing the electorate. 

Before talking about what this presidential election year’s October Surprise will be, I want to reference previous notable “October Surprises” and how they influenced the outcome of past elections.

The term “October Surprise" was coined during the 1980 presidential election between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter (the only president my state of Georgia has produced). A year before Election Day, radical Iranian students had invaded the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, and held the Americans they found there hostage.

President Carter worked throughout the campaign to secure the release of the American hostages during which eight American servicemen were killed.

According to the Associated Press, “Critics say the Reagan team was so concerned that Carter would gain a boost by winning their release just before the election, that his campaign manager and others negotiated privately with the Iranians to ensure that did not happen.” This cost Carter the 1980 election.

But before October Surprise became entrenched in America’s political lexicon beginning in 1980, it happened eight years earlier. In 1972, according to American presidential historians, President Richard Nixon’s administration announced a potential breakthrough in the Vietnam peace talks, which bolstered Nixon’s re-election prospects. The war was a sticking point in the country.

During the 2000 presidential election, the October Surprise was a damning revelation that George W. Bush had been arrested for driving while he was drunk. It’s called DUI (i.e., driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) here. It negatively impacted his image among voters, which probably caused him to lose the popular vote—and only narrowly win the Electoral College vote.

Bush became president only because of America’s strange, archaic, and convoluted system of electing presidents, which deprives voters of the opportunity to directly elect their presidents. He was declared president because he won the then battleground state of Florida by 537 votes out of nearly six million cast, which gave him the state’s Electoral College votes.

 In the final weeks of the 2004 election, all the major polls predicted that John Kerry would defeat Bush. He was a bumbling, incompetent president who was very unpopular. 

Then Osama bin Laden allegedly issued a videotape that criticized Bush and warned U.S. voters that "your security is in your own hands" in the election.

"It changed the entire dynamic of the last five days," Kerry told newsmen in 2008. "We saw it in the polling. There was no other intervening event. We saw the polls freeze and then we saw them drop a point, because all the security moms, it agitated people over 9/11."

There was also an October Surprise in the 2008 presidential election that nearly torpedoed Obama’s lead and punctured his campaign’s overweening confidence. On October 30, 2008, conservative British newspaper TimesOnline broke the news of Obama’s late father’s half-sister, identified as Zeituni Oyango, living in the United States illegally and that she first came to the U.S. on the invitation of Obama.

The woman was mentioned in Obama’s best-selling autobiography Dreams From My Father.

She was invited by Obama to the United States to witness his swearing-in as a U.S. senator. She returned to Kenya after Obama’s inauguration and came back again on her own. She applied for asylum, but her application was rejected and was ordered to be deported back to Kenya.

But she somehow escaped and had been living in the slums of Boston. The TimesOnline story initially did not gain traction in the United States until the Associated Press pounced on it and added a fresh dimension: that Obama’s aunt was not only here illegally but had contributed money to the Obama campaign, which violates America’s campaign laws, which stipulate that only U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents can contribute to political campaigns.

The news dramatized Obama’s “otherness” in more concrete ways than the McCain camp had tried vainly to do. Because AP’s reporting showed that the woman contributed up to $265 to the Obama campaign even though she was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident, she helped to feed the Republican Party-inspired allegations that Obama’s unprecedented financial buoyancy was consequent on his receiving illegal donations from non-Americans.

What saved Obama was that Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate, fell for a cheap prank by two well-known Canadian comedians by the names of Marc-Antoine Audette and Sebastien Trudel who go by the stage name “the Masked Avengers.”

They put a call through to Sarah Palin, which she picked. One of the comedians pretended to be then French president Nicholas Sarkosky. Palin believed him. And she went on for over 5 minutes discussing inane issues with the “ French president.” The conversation further betrayed her shallowness and ignorance of foreign policy issues.

This dominated the news cycle days before the election.  Sarah Palin’s inability to detect that she was being tricked even in the face of so many red flags during the conversation had the effect of canceling out the scandal of Obama’s aunt living illegally in the US and making illegal donations to Obama’s campaign. (Obama’s aunt later became a legal permanent resident in 2010 but died  four years later).

Finally, in the 2016 presidential election, FBI Director James Comey announced that a renewed investigation had been launched into Hillary Clinton’s email practices. This became a major talking point just 11 days before the election, which some argued influenced the final vote. Although she defeated Donald Trump by three million votes, America’s Electoral College system caused her to lose the presidency.

So what might be the October Surprise in this year’s presidential election? It’s hard to tell, particularly because Donald Trump is not a conventional candidate. He is the most morally flawed, most openly racist, and most explicitly psychologically damaged presidential candidate America has had in recent memory. Yet nothing seems to stick to him.

He once boasted that he could murder someone in broad daylight in the streets of New York and nothing would happen to him. He is what Americans call a “Teflon candidate.” Teflon is a substance used to cover the surface of cooking utensils, etc. in order to prevent extraneous substances from sticking to them).   

If any candidate should be fearful of an October Surprise, it should be Vice President Kamala Harris, whom polls favor to win both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote and make history as the first woman to be president of the United States. 

Had the attempt on Trump’s life taken place in October, that would have been the October Surprise that would hand him the presidency. Some people think it may happen again next month. 

The Edo State Government has responded to recent criticisms by affirming that Governor Godwin Obaseki‘s administration is the most transparent and accountable in the state’s history.

Naija News earlier reported that former Governor Adams Oshiomhole, in a statement on Thursday, called for an investigation into Governor Obaseki’s administration as it nears its conclusion in the coming months.

This followed the recent electoral victory of Senator Monday Okpebholo, who, along with his running mate, Dennis Idahosa, received their Certificate of Return from the Independent National Electoral Commission.

Oshiomhole raised concerns about Obaseki’s handling of a $75 million World Bank fund meant for the Edo Basic Education Sector Transformation (EdoBEST) programme, suggesting that the money may not have been used appropriately.

He questioned how the fund was spent, claiming the programme had not improved the education system in the state as promised.

“All the fraud that Obaseki was doing with so-called World Bank money, and I think the World Bank will want even to investigate what he did with that money when you have schools without teachers and you are doing EdoBEST. He left Edo worse,” Oshiomhole said.

In response, the Commissioner for Communication and Orientation, Chris Nehikhare, issued a statement defending the governor’s record.

Nehikhare emphasized that Obaseki’s government has consistently adhered to due process in awarding contracts, gaining national and international recognition for its transparency.

He said, “I would like to emphasize that Governor Obaseki’s administration has been the most transparent and accountable in Edo State ever.

“The government has adhered to due process in the award and execution of contracts, while the pricing and procurement processes have received numerous accolades both nationally and internationally.”

Nehikhare also highlighted that a staff member from Edo State is currently in Liberia to share the state’s best practices in procurement.

He further stressed that Obaseki welcomes accountability, contrasting his leadership style with Oshiomhole’s, whom he implied had avoided scrutiny during his time in office.

“One of our staff members is currently in Liberia to help replicate Edo State’s exemplary procurement processes. Various agencies, including the World Bank under the SFTAS programme, gave our government, Public Expenditure Efficiency Award, (The only state in the Federation) and Fiscal Transparency And Accountability Award (first among 5 States)as well as ICAN, have recognized Governor Obaseki with awards for his commitment to transparency and accountability.

“Edo State has experienced unprecedented levels of resource utilization, ensuring value for money. Our data and documentation regarding government activities are accessible at our data centre located in the Government House.

“Every action taken has been in the best interest of the Edo people, and we have the authority as their elected government to do so.

“Unlike former Governor Oshiomhole, who was shielded from scrutiny, Governor Obaseki welcomes accountability and does not hide behind others,” he added.

[NaijaNews]

A former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, says contrary to popular belief among the members of the public, many politicians in Nigeria are not in government for money.

Dogara, who was a guest on Channels Television’s Sunrise Daily programme on Friday, said many government officials are ready to work for free if people’s expectations on them are lowered to an extent.

“If we can cut the demands on some of these our government officials by 90 per cent I assure you that there are so many people there who are willing to work free of charge,” Dogara said on the programme.

“But the situation is that you cannot put a lot of burden on my head, and you knock on my leg which I am supposed to stand in order to carry the burden.”

On the current hardship and hunger in the country, Dogara said that President Bola Tinubu acknowledged the situation in their discussion during a recent visit of former national assembly leaders to him in Aso Rock.

According to the former Reps Speaker, President Tinubu promised that he is doing something about the hunger and hardship in the country.

‘Tinubu Didn’t remove petrol subsidy’

The President has been blamed by many for the removal of petrol subsidy which contributed to the galloping inflation that has seen prices of commodities skyrocket, but Dogara insisted that Tinubu isn’t to blame as the subsidy was not captured in the budget before his election.

“We must accept whether we like it or not, except we are disingenuous to say that the removal of subsidy itself, whether the president said that subsidy was gone or that he was removing subsidy, we all know that subsidy had been removed before he was elected.

“It wasn’t in the budget, so if there is no provision in the budget, how do you pay? It is illegal for the executive to appropriate money.

“They can only appropriate money in consequence of an express legislative authorisation which is the budget. And in this case, there was no provision in the budget,” he said.

He said the most important thing is that the president has admitted the challenges he is faced with, adding that accepting responsibility for a problem is the beginning of finding a solution for it.

[Channels Tv]

Nigeria and Mastercard have announced a partnership aimed at supporting one million African farmers to improve yield and agricultural productivity.

The project plan includes support for one million agricultural workers across Nigeria, Kenya and Tanzania, with a focus on enhancing financial inclusion and digital access to critical services, as well as support from the African Development Bank (AfDB).

The partnership deal was sealed during a meeting between Vice President Kashim Shettima and executives of Mastercard Corporation on the sidelines of the ongoing 79th Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York

Speaking during a meeting, the Vice President who is representing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the annual global event in a statement by his spokesman, Stanley Nkwocha noted that the initiative has transformative potential for Africa’s food security drive.

He said, “This partnership is an important milestone in our quest for comprehensive financial inclusion and agricultural empowerment.

“By leveraging Mastercard’s global expertise, we’re set to create unprecedented opportunities for farmers across Nigeria, Kenya, and Tanzania.”

Earlier, the Minister of Communications, Innovation & Digital Economy, Dr. ‘Bosun Tijani, explained that the partnership will provide digital access to critical financial services for agricultural workers, which he said is expected to significantly boost productivity and economic growth in the sector.

“We’re not just introducing new technologies; we’re reimagining the entire agricultural value chain. Our goal is to ensure that every farmer, regardless of their location, has access to modern financial tools”.

He disclosed that the initiative also addresses existing challenges in Nigeria’s digital payment ecosystem.

“We’re aware of the trust deficits that have hindered the full activation of contactless payments by some acquirers and banks. This partnership includes specific measures to bridge these gaps and ensure widespread adoption,” Tijani added.

Also, the Country Manager for West Africa at Mastercard, Dr. Folasade Femi-Lawal, said a key component of the partnership is the rollout of contactless payment systems.

“We’re planning 160 contactless payment seminars starting next February. These seminars are crucial in educating stakeholders and preparing the market for this technological leap,” he stated.

[Leadership]