During his visit to the White House on Friday, February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced a tough reception from President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Their handling of him demonstrated their firm approach to diplomacy, signaling a shift in global power dynamics.

As the saying goes, a beggar has no choice—their hand is always beneath that of the giver, not above it. This principle was clearly reinforced when President Trump made it explicit that Ukraine had little say in negotiations regarding the resolution of the ongoing three-year war with Russia. Initial discussions had already taken place in Saudi Arabia without Ukraine or European nations at the table. Instead, the negotiations involved Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Russia.

In response, Zelensky expressed his frustration:

 “It feels like the U.S. is now discussing the ultimatum that Putin set at the start of the full-scale war. Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine. I wonder why they believe Ukraine would accept all these ultimatums now if we refused them at the most difficult moment.”

Similarly, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer voiced concerns over Trump and Vance’s strategy of excluding Europe from the discussions:

 “Nobody wants the bloodshed to continue, least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything that they have suffered, after everything they have fought for, there can be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine, and the people of Ukraine must have a long-term, secure future.”

However, the reality is that Zelensky is in no position to dictate terms. This was emphasized when Vice President Vance rebuked him during the Oval Office meeting:

 “Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

Trump had long accused Zelensky of being a shrewd negotiator who, during Biden’s presidency, would visit Washington and leave with massive financial aid. Determined to change this dynamic, Trump made it clear that such a practice would not continue under his administration. Summarizing the meeting, he stated:

 “We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.”

Trump went further, saying: “He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for peace.”

By securing a deal that would grant the U.S. control over some of Ukraine’s rare earth resources as repayment for previous military aid, Trump demonstrated his negotiation skills. This approach mirrors historical precedents, such as Kuwait compensating the U.S. with oil after being liberated from Iraq in 1990 and Europe repaying America for the post-World War II Marshall Plan by allowing the formation of NATO under U.S. leadership.

The war itself stems from Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, which Russia perceived as a threat, prompting the invasion. Biden’s administration rallied U.S. allies to support Ukraine, possibly influenced by Biden’s personal connections—especially considering that Zelensky previously shielded Biden’s son, Hunter, from scrutiny over alleged financial misconduct in Ukraine. This decision may have played a role in Biden’s election victory in 2020, sparing him political damage from Trump’s opposition research.

However, Zelensky’s alignment with one side of U.S. politics carried risks. Hunter Biden’s business dealings eventually came under investigation, leading to his conviction, though his father pardoned him before leaving office. Some speculate that Biden’s support for Ukraine was a way of repaying Zelensky, providing him with financial and military backing against Russia.

This led Ukraine into a protracted war, with devastating consequences. Europe, drawn into the conflict through NATO, has suffered economic strain due to sanctions on Russian energy, with Germany experiencing economic downturns and the UK entering a recession. Africa has also been affected, as food shortages have worsened due to disruptions in wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia.

Had former President Barack Obama acted in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, this war might have been avoided. However, Obama, who prioritized ending wars rather than starting them, resisted calls for military action, despite pressure from figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Biden, who was Obama’s vice president at the time, later led Ukraine into a war that his former boss had deliberately avoided.

With around 400,000 Ukrainians killed or wounded and much of the country’s infrastructure in ruins, the war has proven catastrophic. As Trump attempts to broker peace, it remains uncertain whether Zelensky will adapt to the new realities of U.S. foreign policy. Unlike the previous administration, Trump and Vance do not view Ukraine as a victim but as a country that must make concessions to secure peace.

Trump has already played a key role in de-escalating the Gaza conflict, and a similar approach could be applied to Ukraine. However, for this to happen, Zelensky must recognize that the geopolitical landscape has shifted and that the U.S. will no longer provide unconditional support. If Ukraine truly seeks peace, its leadership must engage with the new administration on its own terms.

The cold reception President Trump gave to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was evident when he labeled him a dictator and accused him of starting the war—though he later jokingly retracted the statement, expressing disbelief that he had said it. This exchange took place in response to reporters’ questions on the matter.

Trump’s firm stance signaled a shift from past U.S. support, and Zelensky might have adjusted his approach accordingly, handling the new White House administration with more caution. However, he chose a more assertive approach and was met with strong pushback from Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. The two leaders discarded diplomatic formalities and sternly reprimanded Zelensky for what they perceived as arrogance regarding global security and an attempt to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities—something they were unwilling to tolerate.

Through their bold policies, which are reshaping international relations, Trump and Vance are clearly dismantling the old world order and crafting a new one. This is evident in Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on U.S. trading partners, a move that is redefining alliances worldwide. Simultaneously, he is pushing for a swift resolution to conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine—wars he insists would never have started under his leadership. Despite domestic political challenges, Trump has vowed to bring these conflicts to an end.

For the sake of a more comprehensive global peace effort, it would be worthwhile for Trump to extend his focus to ending conflicts in Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. These regions hold vast reserves of critical resources—Congo with its cobalt and Sudan with its oil—both vital for sustaining global energy production and technological advancement.

Even before formally taking office, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric influenced global events. His warning that chaos would erupt if Hamas refused to negotiate a ceasefire prompted a temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). A pattern of strategic pressure appears to be emerging. After Trump excluded Europe from negotiations on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, French President Emmanuel Macron, a longtime acquaintance of Trump, was among the first European leaders to visit him in Washington, seeking clarity on France’s position in the shifting geopolitical landscape. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer soon followed, with Zelensky arriving thereafter.

Notably, Scholz maintained Germany’s trademark direct and pragmatic approach during his White House visit. Macron, having built a rapport with Trump during his previous presidency, engaged in lighthearted banter, reflecting the French leader’s personable style. Starmer, adhering to Britain’s tradition of diplomatic finesse, presented Trump with a letter from King Charles III, inviting him for a state visit—an overture that reportedly charmed the U.S. president. This diplomatic strategy was reminiscent of how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had won Trump over with personal letters, following initial hostilities.

Unlike these European leaders, who carefully navigated discussions with Trump, Zelensky adopted a confrontational tone, attempting to lecture Trump on why defending Ukraine was also in America’s best interest. He argued that, despite the Atlantic Ocean separating the U.S. from Europe, Russia still posed a threat. However, Trump and Vance found this stance presumptuous and swiftly dismissed his arguments, reminding him that he was in no position to dictate U.S. security policy.

Zelensky’s misstep revealed his lack of diplomatic finesse, likely stemming from his inexperience—having transitioned directly from a comedian satirizing politicians to a wartime president. His extensive international support, largely driven by Western sympathy for Ukraine as the underdog in its struggle against Russia, may have inflated his sense of importance, leading him to expect universal backing. But Trump was not swayed by this sentiment.

The flurry of European leaders visiting Washington underscores Trump’s influence as a dominant global figure. While critics often overlook it, Trump’s approach is rooted in pragmatism and his commitment to his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda. His numerous executive orders are designed to strengthen the U.S. economy and give it an edge over competitors.

A key aspect of Trump’s legacy-building efforts is tackling the U.S. budget deficit, which currently stands at approximately $36 trillion. He is also seeking to reverse trade imbalances with major partners like China, Mexico, and Canada. One of his unconventional strategies to generate revenue is the significant increase in the EB-5 visa investment threshold—from $1 million to $5 million—offering a direct pathway to U.S. residency for high-net-worth individuals willing to invest in the country.

Similarly, his tariff hikes are aimed at shifting trade dynamics in America’s favor. These strategies are already causing ripples globally, sending shockwaves across markets and international relations. While some argue that Trump’s ambitious goal of attracting 10 million investors through the $5 million EB-5 visa is unrealistic—citing the UK’s modest intake of 1,000 applicants for its similar program—others believe the U.S. will draw significant interest, particularly from wealthy individuals in China, Korea, the Middle East, Russia, and even Britain.

For many affluent foreigners, the opportunity to secure U.S. residency through the “Golden Green Card” is worth the steep price tag. With Trump’s administration pursuing aggressive economic and geopolitical strategies, the global landscape is rapidly evolving—whether the world is ready for it or not.

A provision in the U.S. Constitution, which the new administration attempted to nullify through an executive order, was subsequently suspended by a court ruling.

Many may be surprised to learn that people worldwide already pay amounts equivalent to or even exceeding $5 million to participate in the U.S. citizenship-by-investment program. This is similar to how, in Nigeria, bureaucratic hurdles and corruption sometimes force citizens to pay up to four times the official cost to obtain an international passport. Likewise, visa application fees for certain countries are often inflated by syndicates, as seen in recent allegations against South African High Commission officials accused of visa racketeering.

The current $5 million fee is significantly higher than the original cost when the EB-5 visa program was introduced in 1990. To put this into perspective, the U.S. Congress initially established the EB-5 Program to stimulate the economy through job creation and foreign investment. In 1992, lawmakers expanded the initiative by creating the Immigrant Investor Program, or Regional Center Program, allowing investors to fund projects tied to designated regional centers that promote economic growth. While the program initially required a $1 million investment, this amount increased to $1.8 million in 1992 and has now been raised to $5 million under President Trump in 2025.

Critics who accuse Trump of being overly transactional for increasing the cost of the EB-5 visa may be unaware—or deliberately ignoring—the fact that he is not the first president to revise its pricing.

Following his tense meeting at the White House, Zelensky has shifted his tone, seemingly acknowledging the need for a more conciliatory approach. On Saturday, he issued a statement of appreciation, saying, “America’s help has been vital in helping us survive, and I want to acknowledge that.” He also emphasized the need for open dialogue, stating, “Despite the tough discussions, we remain strategic partners. But we need to be honest and direct with each other to truly understand our shared goals.”

At its core, Zelensky’s visit aimed to secure U.S. security guarantees against future Russian aggression. His skepticism toward any agreement with Moscow is understandable, given that Russia previously invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexing Crimea during President Obama’s tenure. Zelensky does not trust Putin, especially since Russia violated the 2015 peace agreement with Ukraine.

However, his confrontational approach—marked by emotional appeals rather than pragmatic diplomacy—worked against him. As a result, he left the White House empty-handed, failing to secure his key objectives, including a potential deal to trade rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. military protection.

Zelensky has since sought solace among European leaders, but this offers little real security. Even those comforting him recognize their own vulnerabilities, as they, too, rely on U.S. military support. Despite Europe’s show of solidarity with Ukraine during a recent meeting in London on March 2—where they agreed to form a coalition—it remains clear that Europe cannot effectively defend itself without the United States. This reality, which became evident after World War II and led to NATO’s formation under U.S. leadership, remains unchanged.

Recognizing this, European leaders—including those from France, the UK, Germany, and Italy—have prioritized maintaining strong ties with the U.S., frequently traveling across the Atlantic to engage with President Trump, despite the turbulent state of their current relationship.

Trump has made it clear that he intends to end both the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars, possibly through unconventional means. In a phone conversation with Putin, he reportedly expressed no opposition to Europe deploying a peacekeeping force in Ukraine—a concept that closely resembles Ukraine’s original desire to join NATO, which sparked Russia’s invasion in the first place.

Strangely, this significant development has received little attention, with European leaders instead opting to continue funding Ukraine’s war efforts. The UK, for instance, approved a $2.8 billion loan to Ukraine just last Sunday, despite the reality that Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive military victory, no matter how determined it remains.

Ultimately, the U.S. remains central to resolving these major conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This reality must be acknowledged in any serious discussion about achieving lasting peace in regions where wars have left millions dead or struggling with extreme hunger.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

Despite his long absence from the epicentre of power, General Ibrahim Babangida remains a subject of constant fascinations. The attention commanded by his recently published autobiography, My Journey in Service, attests to his hold on the public imagination for good or evil. Love him or hate him, you dare not ignore him. Younger Nigerians may not understand the full import of Babangida’s allure, yet his career has so much to do with what we are today. This is the man offered a place in history by Destiny but who through his reckless idiosyncratic preoccupations, destroyed the house he had built with so much meticulous husbandry. He tried to ramble about the June 12 debacle by speaking through both ends of his mouth. Now all his story, whatever else he may be struggling with in his winter years, would be reduced to the tragedy of the man who annulled the freest election in Nigerian history.

It is a fact that Abiola did not have the opportunity to tell his own side of the story. Abiola was eager to display his love affairs with Babangida. In those days, as you climb the flight of stairs leading to the first floor of Abiola’s palatial mansion in Ikeja, you will see the giant picture of Babangida on the wall. Abiola wanted it be known that Babangida was his friend. He was very successful in his primary assignment of making money. He had almost everything. He kept acquiring more. He acquired good friends. He acquired a multitude of dangerous and envious enemies whom he thought were his friends.
During the Second Republic, Abiola made a spectacular foray into politics, colliding with the immovable obelisk of Yoruba politics, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, first Premier of the defunct Western Region. His ambition was high and he thought he had arrived. He had money and relied on the dangerous friends he had acquired in the military. One of them was Babangida.
It was believed that Abiola was recruited into millionairedom through his friendship with General Murtala Muhammed, General Yakubu Gowon’s Minister of Communications. It was a turbulent and profitable friendship and when Gowon was toppled in 1975, Abiola’s friend became the new Head of State. Six months later, Muhammed was assassinated during the botched coup of February 13, 1976 and Abiola’s kinsman, General Olusegun Obasanjo, became the new Head of State. It was an endless summer time for Abiola and the harvest was big. He found his way into the Constituent Assembly and made more friends.

One of his new friends was Alhaji Shehu Shagari, a suave subaltern of the late Sardauna of Sokoto, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello. Shagari was Abiola’s colleague at the Constituent Assembly. He was elected the first President of Nigeria under the new American style Constitution. Despite his money, Abiola’s National Party of Nigeria, NPN, did not make much inroads into Yorubaland. Despite the passage of years, the Yoruba people have not forgotten the Fulani, who dominated the NPN, as the traditional enemy. For almost 50 years in the 19th Century, the Fulani, after seizing Ilorin, an Oyo provincial town, by subterfuge, embarked on a ceaseless campaign to impose Fulani rule over the rest of Yorubaland on the presence that they were spreading Islam. They have succeeded in doing the same in Hausaland, where they killed all Hausa kings and replaced them with Fulani rulers. Their unforgiving and unrelenting quest for total power also manifested during the First Republic when they hounded Obafemi Awolowo into prison. By the time of Abiola’s bumptious challenge, Awolowo had joined the pantheon. To the Yoruba people, he was now an irunmole; one of those ageless deities inhabiting Oke Itase in the sacred land of Ile-Ife.

By 1982, Abiola was having a rethink. He left the NPN and claimed that he was no longer interested in partisan politics. However, when the military struck on December 31, 1983, sacking the regime of President Shagari, Abiola’s friends were back in power. Some people were even ready to speculate that Abiola was one of the sponsors of the coup that toppled the Shagari regime. He was flamboyant and large and through him, possibilities were many. He was very successful; too successful. That was the problem.

Among the stories of Orunmila, there was a man who was too well fed that he started looking for medicine that could burst his protruding belly. So, Abiola started looking for battles to fight. He sought and was given honours from different corners of the world. He was the Pillar of Sports in Africa. He was the Bashorun of Ibadan, a title once held by Oluyole, the Oyo prince who became the second ruler of Ibadan after the legendary Ife general, Lagelu. He wanted visibility. He wanted power! He had the unquenchable desire to change the world.

He soon started having trouble with his old friends. In 1991, the African Concord, one of the publications of the Concord Group of Newspapers owned by Abiola, wrote a story that annoyed the Babangida regime. The regime simply passed a decree banning all newspapers in the Concord stable including the National Concord, Sunday Concord, Weekend Concord, Isokan and Amana. When Abiola humiliatingly arranged a truce, asking his editor, Bayo Onanuga, to apologise, Onanuga refused flatly, declaring in a letter to Abiola: “I am not going to write any apology to anyone!” Instead, he resigned, along with his colleagues; Kunle Ajibade, Femi Ojudu, Dapo Olorunyomi and Seye Kehinde, to start TheNews magazine.

Despite his travails, Abiola still believed so much in Babangida. In 1992, I was among a group of journalists that travelled with him to Goree Island in Senegal, as part of his global campaign for reparation from the West for their two centuries of Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. On our return journey, I sat beside him on the plane to conduct an interview for TELL magazine. He said he would not join politics again. “What else do I want in my life,” he said. I believed him.

Then he visited his friend in the newly built Aso Rock Presidential Villa, Abuja. Babangida took him on a tour of the palace, culminating in a pleasurable moment at the presidential office. “This would be your office,” Babangida told him. Abiola believed him and he plunged into the presidential race, culminating in the June 12 debacle.

My late boss, Mr Dele Giwa, the first Editor-in-Chief of Newswatch also believed that Babangida was his friend. Then one day early 1986, my colleague, Chuks Iluegbunam, was assigned to cover the opening day of the trial of Major-General Maman Vatsa and 15 others accused of plotting to topple the new military regime of Babangida. I told the Editorial Board of Newswatch that I believe Vatsa will be killed because he was put in handcuff and leg chains. You cannot do that to a general unless you are prepared to finish him.
“He is Babangida’s childhood friend,” Giwa said. “Babangida was his best man at his wedding.” Giwa believed Babangida would spare Vatsa.
Giwa was very sober when the news came via an announcement by General Domkat Bali that Vatsa and the others “have been executed about an hour ago!” Bali added with blatant irony: “In the military, the price of treason is death!”

After that death came for Giwa on October 19, 1986 wearing the innocent mask of a parcel.
Babangida said in his book that he did know anything about the death of Dele Giwa. I believe him.

He would have a lot of explanations to make when he finally makes the inevitable journey to God’s Headquarters. He may have to contend with many restless ghosts before he finally keeps that appointment before the Judgement Throne. Then his comprehensive mendacity may not be of any use. Francois-Marie Arouet, better known as Voltaire, his nom de plume, the French philosopher of the 18th Century said: “Lord, protect me from my friends; I can take care of my enemies!”

-the end-

Organised crime in Nigeria is like a tap root with its grip firm and difficult to detach, all thanks to systemic weaknesses and institutional failures. This crime epidemic is not just a statistic, but a harsh reality that affects Nigerians daily. Most citizens agree on three fundamental issues regarding crime in Nigeria: the high success rate of organised crime, the fact that socioeconomic conditions create a breeding ground, and the weakness of governmental structures and institutions.

 Criminal enterprises continue to grow with little resistance from law enforcement, and widespread poverty, hunger, and unemployment push many into criminal activities as a means of survival. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Nigeria’s unemployment rate stood above 34% in 2023, with youth unemployment exceeding 42%, creating a vast pool of potential recruits for organized crime. 

Corruption, inefficiency, and lack of accountability have allowed criminals to overpower the justice system. The inability of security agencies to curb the growing influence of organized crime has emboldened criminals, who operate with little fear of repercussions. This situation has created a vicious cycle where crime flourishes, law enforcement remains ineffective, and public confidence in governance continues to erode. The Global Organized Crime Index 2021 ranked Nigeria as the 6th most criminally entrenched country globally, highlighting the country’s struggle with illicit markets, criminal networks, and state-embedded actors. The absence of a strong judicial deterrent has led to an increasing number of young Nigerians being drawn into illegal activities. 

A recent warning by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) chairman highlighted how foreign criminal groups embed themselves within Nigerian cities. These syndicates recruit young Nigerians into sophisticated cybercrimes, particularly cryptocurrency fraud, with global financial implications. Adding to the concerns, the EFCC has alleged that foreign fraud syndicates are importing arms into Nigeria using cryptocurrency as a payment mode. This development raises serious national security concerns and underscores the critical need for stricter monitoring of digital financial transactions. International collaboration is not just beneficial, but necessary in our efforts to combat crime. 

High-profile cases of fraud, drug trafficking, and financial crimes fuel Nigeria’s reputation as a centre for organized crime. Failing to combat these crimes has led to travel restrictions, financial monitoring, and diplomatic strain between Nigeria and other nations. The reputational damage is enormous, and the implication is visible when you see how innocent Nigerians are searched and treated like criminals at airports and other gateways in countries around the world. 

Despite efforts by law enforcement agencies, organized crime thrives due to systemic weaknesses. Nigeria has become a global hotspot for internet fraud, ranging from phishing scams to Business Email Compromise (BEC) fraud. The rise of “Yahoo Yahoo” (online fraudsters) has normalized cybercrime among youths, many of whom view it as a lucrative alternative to legitimate employment. A Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) report estimated that cybercrime costs the Nigerian economy over $500 million annually. 

The infamous “419 scam” (named after Nigeria’s penal code section on fraud) remains a persistent issue, targeting individuals and businesses worldwide. Nigeria has become the butt of jokes around the world when comedians and the likes evoke the image of “a scam Nigerian rich prince looking for someone in the West to help him luander his family wealth”. 

Nigeria faces severe security challenges from Boko Haram, ISWAP, and other militant groups. However, the Nigerian government is not sitting idly by. Due to regulatory loopholes, the banking system has become an avenue for terrorist financing. In response, the Nigerian government implemented the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022 and the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022 to curb terrorist financing. However, enforcement remains weak, and more needs to be done to strengthen these measures. 

Kidnapping for ransom has become one of the most lucrative criminal activities in Nigeria. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS}, Nigerians paid approximately N2.23 trillion as ransom to kidnapers between May 223 and Aril 224. Victims range from schoolchildren to high-profile politicians and business executives. Many kidnappers operate with impunity due to compromised security forces. 

Fraudulent investment schemes prey on Nigerians’ economic desperation, often collapsing and leaving thousands financially devastated. High-profile Ponzi schemes such as MMM Nigeria defrauded millions of Nigerians, and most recently, investment scams such as MBA Forex and Chinmark have left investors with billions of naira in losses. The government’s failure to properly regulate investment platforms and prosecute perpetrators has contributed to the continued rise of Ponzi schemes.

Nigeria is also a transit point for illegal arms trafficking, fueling conflicts and criminal enterprises. The porous borders allow weapons to flow freely into the country, exacerbating insecurity. Reports by the Small Arms Survey indicate that over 70% of the estimated 500 million illegal small arms circulating in West Africa are in Nigeria, aiding insurgents, bandits, and criminal syndicates. The unchecked smuggling of firearms contributes significantly to rising violence and organized crime activities, including armed robbery and terrorism.

Nigerian drug syndicates operate both locally and internationally, with high-profile cases of cocaine and heroin trafficking. In 2022, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) seized over 3.6 million kilograms of illicit drugs, including heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, across various states. Despite these efforts, corruption within law enforcement agencies often compromises investigations, allowing drug barons to operate with impunity. The international reach of Nigerian drug cartels has been evident in cases such as the arrest of Nigerian nationals involved in heroin trafficking in Southeast Asia, where drug-related offences carry the death penalty.

The theft and illegal crude oil refining have cost Nigeria billions in revenue. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) estimates that the country loses about 400,000 barrels of crude oil daily to theft, amounting to over $3 billion annually. Militants, local cartels, and corrupt government officials are deeply involved in this illicit trade. The environmental consequences of illegal oil bunkering are severe, with widespread pollution in the Niger Delta region leading to health crises and economic devastation for local communities. 

Additionally, illegal mining of valuable minerals like gold and lithium is widespread, often controlled by criminal groups that exploit weak regulations. Reports by the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) reveal that the country loses billions in revenue due to unregulated mining activities. In Zamfara and Osun states, illegal gold mining has been linked to armed banditry, with criminal gangs using proceeds to fund violent attacks. Foreign companies, often operating with local collaborators, smuggle precious minerals out of Nigeria, depriving the nation of much-needed economic gains. 

Several factors contribute to the high success rate of organized crime in Nigeria. The lack of a reliable national identification and address system makes tracking criminals difficult, as many citizens operate without proper documentation. Nigeria has created a NIN data base but still it has not been appropriately used to combat crime. Rapid urbanization has led to an unregulated population boom, overwhelming security agencies. Unemployment remains a key driver of crime, pushing many young people towards fraudulent activities. The societal pressure to attain wealth at any cost has normalized corruption and criminal behaviour. 

Many criminals evade justice due to bribery and judicial inefficiencies, further eroding trust in the legal system. Corruption at all levels of government enables organized crime to flourish, from law enforcement officials who accept bribes to policymakers who ignore illicit activities. Ineffective policies and weak political will prevent meaningful reforms, allowing criminal networks to strengthen.

Despite the challenges, Nigeria can still reverse the trend of organized crime with strategic interventions. The first necessary step is a comprehensive process of reform, involving de-criminalization of the relevant agencies. You cannot use officially licensed criminal cartels to fight casual criminals. Strengthening law enforcement and judicial systems is critical, but the role of the public is equally important. Citizens should be vigilant and report any suspicious activities to the authorities. Security agencies require better funding and training, and the public can support these efforts by providing information and cooperating with investigations. 

Judicial reforms should ensure speedy trials and strict sentencing for criminals. The judiciary must uphold strict interpretations of the law, and courts should deliver appropriate punishments for criminal offences. Judges must resist external influences, bribery, and political interference. Enforcing harsher penalties for criminal activities is essential. Laws against cybercrime, kidnapping, and fraud should be strictly enforced, and high-profile criminals should be prosecuted as deterrents.

Enforcing stricter financial regulations will help disrupt criminal financing. Strengthening anti-money laundering measures and improving surveillance of cryptocurrency transactions are necessary steps. Implementing a national identification and address system will help track criminals and reduce identity fraud. Citizens should be required to register with verifiable addresses. 

Addressing unemployment and poverty through job creation programmes and entrepreneurship initiatives will discourage youth involvement in crime. Combating corruption and improving governance will require more assertive and independent anti-corruption agencies. Government officials found complicit in organized crime should be held accountable. 

Nigeria stands at a crossroads. The country can either continue on its current path, where crime syndicates dictate the rules or take bold and decisive action to reclaim national security and stability. The government must demonstrate an unwavering commitment to justice, ensuring crime is met with swift and appropriate punishment. Citizens must demand accountability from leaders and refuse to normalize corruption. 

A functioning society cannot exist where crime thrives unchecked. It is time for Nigeria to embrace the rule of law, restore public trust, and build a nation where security and justice prevail over criminal enterprise. The fight against organized crime is not just a fight for governance—it is a fight for the nation’s soul. Without urgent intervention, Nigeria risks deeper instability and economic decline. The future of Nigeria depends on a collective effort to restore law, order, and justice.

In his column last Saturday, my friend and brother, Farooq Kperogi, reminisced his previous piece on unusual Muslim names in Nigeria which do not “seem to have any links with the rest of the Muslim world.” He listed ‘Badamasi’ as one of them.

Kperogi said some readers of his column traced for him what they thought was the etymology of ‘Badamasi’ to an Arab poet “whose book advanced students in traditional Arabic schools” in Hausaland. He said his readers added that the book, “a Sufi poem, is used as a resource for Arabic vocabulary lessons and that over time, it became popularly known as Badamasi, named after its author.” Kperogi, however, held that he had “not found any scholarly corroboration for the claim that Badamasi is the name of an Arab poet.” Instead, he noted that “there is a late nineteenth-century Ilorin Muslim scholar and poet by the name of Badamasi whose poems are often utilized to enhance Arabic vocabulary and are a staple in the curriculum of traditional Islamic schools. But it’s not clear if he is the original bearer of the name.”

Both Kperogi and his readers may be right. But, even if they are right, the question still remains: How did the author(s) get the name and what does it mean?

A few months before the British invaded and conquered Kano in 1903, a young man wandered into that city with the panache of the literate. He gave his name simply as Abd Allah. As usual in those days, he came with no surname. Historians say he was found to have originated in a place called Ghadames (Ghadamis) in the far north of Africa. He was not alone in Kano; he had uncles who formed the Ghadames community of Arabs. But, because he was well-loved in Kano, he became popular and known as Abd Allah el-Ghadamisi (Abd Allah the Ghadamisi); the toponym, Ghadames (Ghadamis) had provided for him a surname – Ghadamisi, a citizen of Ghadamis.

Because a man’s skill and competence will feed him even in a season of famine, Abd Allah soon found favour before God and man because his primary language was Arabic and he was literate in it. And, because he could read and write Arabic and had quickly amassed enormous competence in Hausa language, C. L. Temple, northern Nigeria’s Lieutenant Governor, employed him as an assistant. He spent some time with Temple, then moved to H. R. Palmer, another top colonial officer who was employed by the authorities to do rural tax assessment. It was Palmer who got Abd Allah to write his memoirs. That book, ‘Your Humble Servant: The Memoirs of Abd Allah Al-Ghadamisi’. There is a 1996 seminal article on it authored by Muhammad Sani Umar and John Hunwick. Because, sometimes an author gets more famous than his work, al-Ghadamisi’s name appears to have overwhelmed the book’s title.

We read former President Ibrahim Babangida in his autobiography (page 2) crediting his father’s name, Badamasi, to the title of a book. He wrote: “As I understand it, my grandfather named my father ‘Badamasi’ after a particular religious book that he consulted regularly. My grandfather was so fond of the book that he decided to name his second child after it, and that was how the name ‘Badamasi’ came into our lineage!” Could he be referring to Abd Allah Al-Ghadamisi’s memoirs?

Sheikh Adam Abdullah el-Ilory (1917-1992) was the founder of the Markaz, Agege, Lagos. He was a highly regarded Islamic scholar and historian, and for that, he got decorated home and abroad. John Hunwick, British academic, author and Africanist, in his ‘The Arabic Literary Tradition of Nigeria’ published in 1997, described Sheikh Adam as “the greatest (Arabic/ Islamic scholar) that Nigeria has produced in the twentieth century.” Adam was educated far and wide and, he, significantly, was at Al-Azhar University, Cairo. He wrote books on Astronomy and Philosophy, on Yoruba origin and history; Islamic history and jurisprudence, Arabic language and its history, etc, etc and delivered hundreds of very seminal lectures.

In one of his lectures that I uploaded on my Facebook wall on 22 March, 2024, Sheikh Adam traced the history of Islam in Hausaland to a group of itinerant clerics and merchants from Ancient Mali. The cleric added that “with the Malians were the Ghadamisi”, the people of Ghadames, a town built on an oasis in northwestern Libya. Geographers locate that place today near the Tunisian and Algerian borders. For centuries, the town was very popular as a centre for Trans Saharan Trade, particularly, the Arab flank of the Slave Trade.

The Sheikh Adam story is better told in his very words but he spoke in Yoruba; I try some translation (and transliteration) here: “The Ghadamisi. They are a tribe, a whole city. Àwon olórúko president wa ní Nigeria nìyen (they are our president’s namesakes). That is where he (Babangida) got his name, Badamasi. Some pronounce that name as Bidimos. They use Badamasi in Hausaland; we use Gbadamosi in Yorubaland. Bidimosi (Badmus, Bidmus) is a recent variant…It is not as popular as Ghadamisi. With the Ghadamisi were the Wangara. The Wangara brought Islam to Hausaland.” The period he spoke of was around the 14th century.

Sheikh Adam linked the Wangara with the Ghadamisi. You would want to ask what brought together those two disparate tribes. The Malian city of Gao was a major hub for trade and cultural exchange in those distant days. History told us that the “westernmost of the three central routes of the trans Saharan trade was the Ghadames Road, which ran from the Niger River at Gao north to Ghat and Ghadames before terminating at Tripoli.” That route provided the common course for the lives of the Wongara and the people of Ghadames in their joint journey of trade and faith to West Africa. It is in The Kano Chronicles that “during the reign of Yaji, the King of Kano from 1349 to 1385, the Wangarawa came from Melle (Mali) bringing the religion of Islam.” The Wangarawa came as clerics, marabouts and scholars.

Kperogi thinks Hausa’s ‘Badamasi’ was “Yorubized to ‘Gbadamosi’ and later anglicized to ‘Badmus’ in Yoruba land.” If he reads me here, and if he agrees with Sheikh Adam that ‘Ghadames/ Ghadamisi’ is the root of ‘Gbadamosi/Badamasi’, I hope he will rethink this conclusion. I say so because between ‘Badamasi’ and ‘Gbadamosi’, the one with the ‘Gb’ sound sounds closer to ‘Ghadamisi’, their root.