As a media scholar who engages with Nigeria's media landscape from the safe yet impassioned perch of the diaspora, I have found 2024 to be particularly illuminating in the annals of government-media relations. It presented a study in tension, turmoil, and eventual catharsis.

 If the media is society's mirror, then its cracks often reveal not just distortions but deeper fissures in the polity it reflects. And nowhere was this more evident than in the July 4 report by Daily Trust, which set the Nigerian public sphere ablaze with moral indignation and, in a twist befitting a Greek tragedy, threatened lives.

The Daily Trust report in question bore the sensational headline: "LGBT: Nigeria Signs $150 Billion Samoa Deal." In one fell swoop, it conjured a narrative wherein the Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration had purportedly traded Nigeria’s moral sanctity for European coffers flush with foreign currency. It was a claim unburdened by evidence but rich with emotional currency.

 In its aftermath, it left ripples of moral panic, social turbulence, and political fallout, especially in the Muslim North where issues bordering on religious morality inflame our passions and mentally transport us to celestial realms. 

Clerics swiftly mobilized their pulpits and invoked ominous maledictions. Their invocations of divine ire resonated not only within mosques but deep into the social sinews of a people already hampered by mistrust.

 Prominent Northerners in the Tinubu administration became objects of incendiary wrath, targets of whispered curses and objects of overt death threats. Family members became collateral damage in this frenzy.

As I pointed out in my July 6, 2024, column titled “LGBTQ Storm in $150 Billion Samoa Deal Teacup,” what Daily Trust did exemplified the literary and journalistic sin of circular reporting, a rhetorical sleight-of-hand where unsuspecting people are fed with false information, made to spout it back, which then gets established as the source of the information.

Alex Haley’s Roots is one of the most prominent examples of circular reporting. Haley's wildly celebrated epic, initially marketed as historical truth about the life of Kunta Kinte, an 18th-century Mandinka who was captured and sold into slavery in America, was later unmasked as a potpourri of embellished fiction and poorly sourced “facts.” 

In his eagerness to find validation, Haley planted narratives into the mouths of griots in the Gambia, only to repackage their guided, predetermined responses as original confirmation of his fabricated story.

In a parallel act, Daily Trust ignited outrage by feeding its sources erroneous claims about the Samoa Agreement, then turned their emotionally charged responses into a “story”—a journalistic ouroboros swallowing its own tail. 

Yet unlike Haley’s indulgence in narrative fiction, Daily Trust’s misstep wasn’t victimless. It carried real and immediate consequences: Vice President Kashim Shettima, the son of a revered Maiduguri Islamic scholar, and Nuhu Ribadu, scion of a distinguished Adamawa family with deep Islamic roots, became unwilling lightning rods for holy vitriol.

 Minister of Information Mohammed Idris, himself a bridge between Nupe and Fulani Muslim cultures, found himself straddling a tempest from all corners. All northern Muslims in the Tinubu administration became objects of unappeasable fury. 

The Minister’s Delicate Maneuver

Confronted with this escalating storm, Information Minister Mohammed Idris exhibited both restraint and strategic acumen. It would have been easy, even tempting, to unleash the full punitive might of the state upon Daily Trust. 

After all, if recent history is any guide, Nigerian courts beckon eagerly to governments eager for retribution. Yet Idris wisely chose not to enter the arena of litigation, where victors are often the defeated in the court of public opinion. To sue would have been to martyr the newspaper, inflame its supporters, and escalate the matter beyond the bounds of reason.

Instead, Idris turned to a tool of elegant resolve: the National Media Complaints Commission (NMCC), Nigeria’s fledgling experiment in self-regulation. Incidentally, it is a forum that was conceived, in a delicious twist of fate, by none other than Idris himself (as publisher of Blueprint, an Abuja-based daily) alongside Media Trust’s Chairman, Malam Kabiru Yusuf. 

Together, in the more harmonious days of 2021, after Yusuf’s and Idris’ December 2020 election as chairman and general secretary respectively of the Newspapers Publishers Association of Nigeria (NPAN), they planted the seeds of this Ombudsman, a voluntary watchdog designed to enforce media ethics with an invisible hand.

By July 8, Idris’ ministry formally petitioned the NMCC, requesting an inquiry into Daily Trust’s reckless reportorial infraction that endangered the lives of people in government. It demanded a retraction, an apology, and stricter editorial safeguards against future transgressions. 

The NMCC, under the leadership of Emeka Izeze, former MD of the Guardian and widely admired figure in Nigerian journalism, undertook its task with measured diligence. On September 23, the commission issued a 19-page report that cut through the fog of misinformation.

The commission found that although earlier versions of the Samoa Agreement did include provisions for the protection of sexual minorities and marginal gender identities (which many countries, including Nigeria, had rejected), the final 403-page agreement that Nigeria signed did not require any commitments on the part of countries that signed the agreement to codify LGBTQ rights in their law books.

The NMCC’s findings were refreshingly even-handed: while Daily Trust was found guilty of violating Article 2.1 of the Revised Code of Journalism Ethics—a clause that enshrines accuracy as the bedrock of reporting—the commission gently admonished the government for its opacity surrounding the Samoa Agreement. Transparency, it suggested, would have preempted much of the hysteria.

Thus, the judgment did more than hold a newspaper accountable; it underlined an eternal truth about public trust: opacity begets speculation, and speculation births chaos.

A Redemption through Humility

On October 2, 2024, Daily Trust rose to the moment with an unreserved apology: “We accept the verdict of the NMCC without equivocation… We apologize to the Federal Government for any inconvenience the story might have caused.”

In the apology, Daily Trust commended the “thorough and professional approach” of the National Media Complaints Commission (NMCC) and expressed gratitude to Information Minister Mohammed Idris “for his professional and democratic approach to this incident.”

 In its humility, Daily Trust not only mended fences with its readership but also fortified its credibility. Self-correction is not a weakness but the wellspring of enduring strength.

After all, as the New York Times demonstrated when it corrected a 161-year-old error in 2014, the integrity of any news organization lies not in its infallibility but in its courage to admit when it stumbles. To err may be human, but to apologize—and to do so with grace—is the hallmark of institutional maturity.

Lessons Learned: Self-Regulation as Democratic Vigilance

This episode is a timely moral tale for Nigeria’s democracy and media ecosystem. For too long, the relationship between Nigerian governments and the media has oscillated between adversarial hostility and co-opted complicity.

 This case reveals the potential for a middle path, that is, a relationship characterized by accountability without authoritarianism, and freedom tempered by responsibility.

The NMCC’s successful arbitration places Nigeria alongside countries like the United Kingdom, where the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) maintains order in the wake of scandal; Germany, where the Deutscher Presserat enforces rigor; South Africa, whose Press Council safeguards post-apartheid press freedoms; and several other examples.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “The only security of all is in a free press.” But press freedom, like all freedoms, carries obligations—chief among them the pursuit of truth. To borrow Edmund Burke’s metaphor of the Fourth Estate, if journalists sit atop their watchtower as society’s sentinels, they must keep their eyes unclouded by haste, bias, or error.

In the final analysis, both Minister Idris and Daily Trust deserve commendation for their conduct. The minister’s refusal to wield the bludgeon of state power speaks to his understanding of democracy’s delicate balance.

 Daily Trust’s forthright apology reaffirms its place as an honorable newspaper committed to ethical journalism, even when it falters, like we all do.

Errors, after all, are the cracked kegs of palm wine through which wisdom occasionally trickles. It is what we do with the lessons—how we patch the cracks and safeguard against future spills—that determines whether we remain custodians of public trust or mere peddlers of ink-stained chaos.

This case tells us that the relationship between the government and the media need not always be a drumbeat of conflict; it can, when guided by mechanisms like the NMCC, achieve the harmony of a well-tuned orchestra where every note serves the greater good of truth, transparency, and trust.

In 2024, Nigeria glimpsed that harmony. 

“But can we continue to service external debt with over 90% of our revenue? It’s a path to destruction, we cannot continue that. We have to make hard decisions” —President Tinubu’s speech at the NBA Annual General Conference of 2023.

The increasing decay of public infrastructures and the apparent inability of the successive governments in Nigeria to fund basic social amenities call for some concerns. Our public institutions that offer basic amenities are at the verge of total collapse. Public universities have become ghost of themselves, while many public secondary and primary schools are not fit for animal habitation, let alone humans. Our public health service is appalling while transportation infrastructure is crying for help. Our children study under dilapidated school buildings with leaking roofs, libraries lack basic books let alone latest publications while school laboratories are without basic reagents. It is also apparent that the governments at all levels have been recording budget deficits due to the increasing gap between government revenue and expenditures.  This work posits that wealth taxation is one option open to Nigeria to overcome its infrastructural decay challenges.

The work explains the fundamentals of a wealth tax including the practicability and policy issue considerations involved in the design and implementation of a wealth tax. It concludes that as controversial as it may seem, with the declining economic fortunes of Nigeria, the super rich in the society must be made to contribute a token of their wealth to rescue the country.

A wealth tax is a tax levied on the market value of assets owned by a taxpayer. It is a tax that applies to the net fair market value of all or some of a variety of a person’s wealth stock including but not limited to cash, bank deposits, shares, fixed assets, cars, real estate, pension, ownership of unincorporated businesses, financial securities and trusts. It is a tax on an individual’s net worth which is generally the difference between someone’s assets and liabilities.

Historically, a wealth tax seeks to achieve some public policy goals including raising revenue to fund government programmes. A very unique tax, a wealth tax, historically, is often a response to a state of emergency. It has been used in the past by countries to raise revenues to fund State expenditures in the event of disasters, war or pandemic.

The Nigerian State presents a paradox of some super rich individuals living in a society where the majority wallow in abject poverty amidst infrastructural decay. The case for a 2% one-off wealth tax in Nigeria appears not very complex especially where the applicable threshold is, for instance, N10billion. This ensures that the tax burden is borne by the super rich only. A one-off 2% to 5% wealth tax with a relatively wide base would be an efficient way to mobilise revenue for critical infrastructures in the country. The fact that the imposition is one-off may “calm down” the rich and it may be taken as a sacrifice to be made in the overriding interest of the society. A wealth tax is often an interventionist fiscal measure rather than a recurring imposition. A one-off wealth tax (unlike an annual wealth tax) will certainly generate much less uproar and resistance among the wealthy class.

Special payment arrangements may also be made to enhance ease of payment. These arrangements may include deferred or instalmental payment, especially for the “assets rich but cash poor”. These will include dormant assets held by the aged. Government may also consider payment in kind with a portion of the asset. Beyond the immediate revenue generation, a wealth tax is also capable of reducing the spate of civil unrests such as the 2021 “end SARS” protests which appears to be a protest by the poor against the rich. With the increasing wide gaps between the “haves” and the “have nots” in Nigeria, a wealth tax is capable of creating a feeling of social justice among the less privileged. The recent removal of the fuel subsidy and its attendant economic hardship being experienced by the masses might have been prevented by the introduction of a wealth tax which targets only the super rich in the country. A one-off wealth tax could have generated enough funds to cushion the effect of the subsidy removal. With this arrangement, social justice is enhanced as the masses get the feeling that the wealth tax operates to reduce the wide gaps between the rich and the poor. A society like ours, where the rich and the poor are made to bear equal burden in national growth and development, may be sitting on a time bomb.

As controversial as it may seem, a tax system that makes the super rich to support the State appears to be very compelling at this time in our overall interest as a people. It also seem to be in the enlightened best interest of the rich class as well. The country is at the cross road and the rich elite should wake up to the reality of the discontent of the poor and its implications for security of lives and properties.

Accountability and trust is crucial to the success of a wealth tax, especially in a country like ours. Being a special fiscal measure, the tax must be administered in a way that engenders public confidence, especially the confidence of the tax payers. We recommend that while the tax may be collected by the FIRS, the use of same must be entrusted to a special committee comprised of distinguished Nigerians with clean and impeccable records of service both in the private and public sector. 

In designing a wealth tax for a country, it is important to determine whether the tax will be global or domestic. A domestic wealth tax charges residents’ assets within its jurisdiction while a global wealth tax imposes tax not only on residents’ assets within its jurisdiction but also nationals’ assets located in foreign jurisdictions. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Nigerian wealthy class have a significant part of their assets in foreign jurisdictions including tax havens. A global wealth tax will, therefore, be the most appropriate for Nigeria with the potential for a very high yield. To achieve this objective, the government must have access to reliable data of foreign assets owned by Nigerians. This will require international cooperation. Exchange of information between Nigeria and other countries, particularly in Europe, UK and America, is critical to the success of a global wealth tax. The federal government may need to enter into multilateral and bilateral treaties in this regard.

Nigeria is a Federal State with each layer of government exercising certain fiscal powers within its jurisdiction. As noted earlier, international cooperation including bilateral and multilateral treaties is crucial to the success of a global wealth tax. Foreign relations including treaties fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government through the National Assembly. The federal government, through the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), will be in the best position to administer a wealth tax. The revenue authorities in most States of Nigeria lack the capacity to administer an efficient wealth tax.

The prospects of a wealth tax in Nigeria are not without its challenges. These challenges will include poor data on property ownership, disguised assets ownership, the problem of valuation, endemic corruption among others.

Nigeria has no reliable data of property and asset ownerships. The success of a wealth tax will depend largely on the level of property and assets ownership data available to it. The federal government may overcome this challenge by calling on all the States revenue authorities in Nigerian to forward their taxpayers database for harmonisation.  Relevant data may also be collected from agencies such as Land Registries, vehicle licencing authorities, and authorities that licence luxury goods such as private jets and yachts.  Other potential sources include registers of political offices aspirants in Nigeria, Nigerian Immigration Service and Passport offices and Code of Conduct Bureau.

There is also the problem of disguised asset ownership. A wealth tax is customarily imposed on individuals and families, but many high worth properties and assets in Nigeria are held in the name of corporate entities especially limited liability companies. Because the dominant tax units for wealth taxation are individuals and families, assets and properties held in corporate names may escape the tax net. Accordingly, the tax net should cover corporate entities including those with significant market presence whether with or without permanent establishment in case of foreign companies. The FIRS should be assigned the core role with support from bodies such as National Intelligence Agency, the State Security Service, CBN and EFCC. This is to enable the authorities have adequate and full information about those who ought to be in the tax net in respect of assets both within and outside the country.

Valuation is a major challenge of any wealth tax. A wealth tax is often imposed at a percentage of the value of the target asset or property. Will the method of valuation be the open market value of the assets, self-assessment or other methods of valuation such as insurance valuation? While self-assessment method may promote voluntary compliance, the tax yield may be poor due to undervaluation. The process of valuation, tax assessment, collection and general administration of the tax may also be bedevilled by the culture of endemic corruption in Nigeria.

There are various concerns and policy objectives that may motivate a government to consider a wealth tax. The current state of infrastructural deficit and decay in Nigeria calls for some drastic measures to save the situation. This has become very important in view of the level of our current national indebtedness which we are told is being serviced with over 90% of our revenue. Surely, this is a recipe for disaster which must be arrested. Wealth tax, if properly designed and well implemented, offers a great window. It should not be delayed till election cycle is around the corner otherwise the political will may be lacking. It should be now. A one-off wealth tax is a fiscal option which this current government may consider to achieve a massive urban renewal and infrastructural development.  This is also in the enlightened self-interest of the Nigerian super rich elites class.

• Raji, a Senior Advocate of Nigerian, FCIArb (UK), has a Master’s degree in Taxation from the University of Oxford, United Kingdom

I was quite ecstatic about Kemi Badenoch’s miraculous slaying of the Goliath of the British establishment and emerging as the head of the Conservative Party and is now leader of the Opposition. I felt disappointed by the rather lukewarm reception of this great news, especially in Nigeria and Africa. I drafted this opinion piece and I decided to seek the opinion of my good friend, Dipo Salimomu who has lived in England and understands the issues. I felt his criticisms would be useful. Nothing prepared me for the response I got from him.

After reading the draft, he called to say he did not have much to add but could I take a look at a short video he had just sent to my WhatsApp? I opened and played the video and could not believe my eyes. There, right before me was a young lady, Kemi Adegoke, with whom I had shared a Tedex-Euston platform in 2017. Pat Utomi had been at the same event too. I had been struck by her eloquence and clarity of thought but that was it.

At that event, at only 30 years old, she had spoken about her journey into politics barely 15 years after returning to the UK at the age of 16. She spoke of her experience with white British teachers who had discouraged her from contemplating going to Oxford because she would be boxing well above her weight. She said that when she informed a white female Member of the Labour Party of her plan to join the Conservative Party, the lady had considered it a sign of ingratitude and a lack of appreciation of what the Labour Party had done for people of her kind. In the end, she said, she had joined the Conservative Party because its ideology aligned with her personal beliefs. Barely seven years later, Kemi now sits at the highest pedestal of a Party she joined barely 10 years ago. This is a feat that is moment defining and will remain a major marker in the future of British politics.

Truth be told, at the beginning, when I heard that one Kemi Badenoch, a British woman of Nigerian descent, had thrown her headgear into the ring to contest for the position of Leader of the Conservative Party in July this year, I must confess that I sneered: “What kind of gra-gra is this,” I said to myself. I imagine that millions of people of African descent living in the United Kingdom and beyond felt the same. I was convinced that perhaps she simply wanted her name on the list for history. I recalled the story of the tortoise who was to be carried away in exile. As he was lifted up by, he had pleaded to be put down for just a few minutes. “I am not quarrelling with my exile,” he said, “but just put me down, please.” When his captors reluctantly did, he scratched the ground with his paws and turned, saying: “Ok, I am ready for exile. You can carry me.” Asked why he had wasted their time, he replied: “I want my descendants to know that their forefather did not go on exile without a fight.”

How Kemi pulled this great feat off, definitely requires far more attention than we are prepared to concede to her. On personal reflection, I scratched my head, paused and reflected: Kemi was born a year after I arrived at the University of Bradford for a postgraduate degree. The landscape of British public life from where I stood, was almost totally denuded of black presence in either academia, economics or politics. Bradford itself then was a sleepy environment with a very high Asian population running corner shops. There were hardly any black heroes or heroines not to talk of British citizens of Nigerian descent. In Long Tennis, Mr. David Imonite had made a brief appearance in Wimbledon in 1979. I had begun to support Nottingham Forest Football Club because of Viv Anderson, the first black person I saw playing football at that level. Later, John Barnes followed, with Liverpool later. Then came the greatest decathlete of all time, Daley Thompson, followed by the sprinter, Linford Christie, the heavyweight boxer, Frank Bruno, and Lennox Lewis along with others. Sports, and to some extent, music (Sade Adu) would remain the main theatre of action for many British citizens of colour.

The walls of British politics, hitherto seeming impregnable, cracked open slightly when the 1987 elections saw Diane Abbot, Paul Boateng and Bernie Grant emerge as Members of Parliament under the flag of the Labour Party. Then, a lull followed, until 2017, where there was a surge in black representation in the Parliament. Six British citizens of Nigerian descent won six seats (Chi Onwurah, Bayo Alaba, Kemi Badenoch, Taiwo Owatemi, Florence Eshalomi, Kate Osamor). Nigerians still blew muted trumpets.

It is from this Class of 2017 that Kemi forged her way through to become an insider in just about five years. Her speed of progress is phenomenal by any measure. She had no visible name recognition, experience, age or even resources. Like Oscar Wilde, the controversial Irish writer, who was asked by Immigration what he had to declare, Kemi can only declare genius! Against the run of play, she is today the Leader of the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, and Leader of the Opposition. Coming from a background where patriarchy holds supreme, many men are still holding their breath. After over a hundred years of presence, no black person has accomplished anything close to this. The drums ought to roll out.

There is a need to pause and remember. This is the Conservative Party of Margaret Thatcher. This is the party that celebrates its 190th anniversary this year. To ascend to the top of this Party at the age of 44, is by any measure, an historic achievement. To do so as a woman and a black woman at that, the daughter of immigrants, and a wife and a mother, is worthy of celebration. Kemi’s ascendance is special. It points at the possibilities and challenges that lie ahead for those who dare. It is often the case that some doors are closed but not locked. When that right moment comes, you need boldness, courage, character and self-belief and of course, the grace of God.

Kemi’s selection by her peers has elicited comments and controversy, and rightly so. Some people have accused her of throwing her country, Nigeria ‘under the bus’ at the slightest opportunity. This is no doubt an exaggeration by her opponents. But let’s face it. To be thrown under a stationary bus should not be a matter of concern at all. Should we not be worried about the corruption that has become a swamp out of which we have been unable to swim? Should we not be worried that in our own country, we are still raising roadblocks against gifted men and women because of their faith or ethnicity? I am surprised that even some of her critics who have cases with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission have found it convenient to condemn her for calling out Nigeria’s cancer of corruption. Nigeria’s dirty laundry will not be cleaned by outsiders or by self-deceit. From where she stands today, as a former Secretary of State for International Trade, Kemi likely knows more about the state of our sleaze than even we are prepared to admit. There are, of course, other critics who seem to be driven by envy.

Having said this, Ms. Badenoch must also know that she should not stray too far from her natural constituency, as every politician soon learns. She has shown that her identity does not define her, but she cannot either ignore that she is black and the daughter of immigrants. Not only because it would smack of self-hatred, but it would rob her of the authenticity and largeness of spirit required of all transformative leaders. Good diplomacy must ensure a smooth relationship between her and Nigeria. She needs Nigeria and Nigeria needs her very much.

And, it must be mentioned, the revolving doors in established hegemonies often run out of oil, become creaky or stop revolving for certain people after some time. How she handles this great opportunity and challenge, will determine how others like her get a chance to enter the door. As she fights her way within the establishment, she must ensure that her doors are open to women and other immigrants who are seeking a life in politics. She would do well to adequately acquaint herself with the history of the black struggle in British public life, and especially in politics. Despite the ideological differences which may exist, advancing the cause of those who consider themselves outsiders to British society should be taken seriously. She has some experience from her time as a former Minister for Women and Equalities. Her criticisms of existing populism must be constructive and helpful to all. She needs to be patient with those who have come from a long history of painful history of racism. It will not be wise to assume that the system has opened all her doors. This is the responsibility of leadership, to inspire and have empathy. She should not be tempted to ignore that the reinforced concrete that holds the structural injustice against those who feel left behind is still deep-seated in British society. She should resist the temptation to think that there are opportunities everywhere, it is just that the poor do not see them. It’s more than that.

Looking through a wider lens, African immigrants are poised to play a very significant role in global politics well beyond Africa. 

Nigeria needs to strategically position herself and take the lead in establishing and nurturing relationships with her sons and daughters in the diaspora. 

Often, immigrants hold the rough end of the stick and are endurers of structural injustices in the societies in which they find themselves. Nigeria need not see them as simply ‘remittances donors’. In my view, the organisation, Nigerians in Diaspora, should be restructured, and headed by a former Ambassador or a Nigerian who has an international Rolodex and can operate at the highest levels of global soft diplomacy. The commission could serve as a lighthouse, identifying and pointing out Nigerians of great achievement in whom the country should believe and invest. Such a head could help Nigeria identify where and how to seek (I nearly said, steal) technological assistance and collaboration whether in Russia, China, the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom. It was patriotism that enabled Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan to steal nuclear technology secrets from the Dutch company where he worked to enable Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to have nuclear weapons today. Developing nations with ambition must deliberately invest in their citizens in diaspora. I hope that Nigeria takes Kemi quite seriously for its own interest.

The world is in a tensive flux now. As white populations reduce in Europe and other parts of the world, we are witnessing an upsurge of hate in both fringe and mainstream politics. Populist mobsters weaponize identity and deploy the scare mongering rhetoric of hatred, especially against immigrants, both on the streets and on the pages of social media. Kemi’s victory suggests that along with rejecting the soft bigotry of low expectations, black people must not allow one single identity to define them, no matter the structural architecture of racism. Skin colour is surface thin, but it can be devastating as a weapon of exclusion. Kemi has shown that these walls are not static. They may be tough but they can be overcome.

That said, the modern world is very complex and no matter how noble the black agenda might be, it cannot succeed on its own. The challenge is to move away from blind and reductionist ideologies, and the suffocating nihilism which arises from self-pity or even self-hate. This is the lesson that great men like Mahatma Gandhi, Rev. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela have taught us. They tried to take their people away from self- consuming single-story narratives of oppression and prying open their worldviews and the lens through which their experiences are filtered and interpreted, despite the objection of a huge segment of their own people. Often, they paid the price with their lives.

Wimbledon needs a very special recognition as a sacred spot for Africans. It was in Wimbledon that Arthur Ashe became the first black man to win the Men’s Tennis title in 1975. It is there that our own David Imonite became the first black African to compete in Wimbledon in 1979. It is with the Wimbledon Football Club that John Fashanu became the highest signing in 1984 and went on to play for that Club for nearly ten years. It is in Wimbledon that the William Sisters held the world spell bound as they both competed against one another and shared the prestigious titles between themselves in 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2009. It is not an accident that it is Kemi’s place of birth!

So, Kemi, accept our congratulations and prayers as you make history. Please work hard but conserve your energy. Wear the shoes of a long-distance runner. And be mindful of presumed allies. Remember that some night, you do not know when the long knives may come out. All you need to do is just look at the shelf life of other women who have come after you. The work of a woman is never ended. Look back at the fate of your predecessors who are still around with you. Stay in touch with, compare notes or head-ties with big aunties like Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Amina Mohammed and others. You never know. Never forget, whatever you may believe today, God brought you where you are and for a purpose. The race ahead is not for the swift or for the faint of heart. Please remember with God on your side, ‘You will run, but you will not get weary, the Lord will renew your strength’ (Is. 40: 31). Well done, and Godspeed. We await the coronation.

. Kukah is the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Sokoto and founder of the Kukah Centre, Abuja, Nigeria.

On December 6, Ukrainians commemorated the Armed Forces Day. It is an occasion used annually in honouring their “brave defenders who protect their homeland from Russian aggression.” I happened to be at the Ukrainian embassy that Friday where the Ambassador of Ukraine to Nigeria, Ivan Kholostenko, said the heroes being honoured “safeguard not only Ukraine but also the broader world.”

“On this day, we express our deepest gratitude to all those who defend the freedom and future of our country, ensuring peace and security for millions around the globe. The Embassy of Ukraine in Nigeria commemorates the heroes with an exhibition. Faces of men and women who risk everything for their homeland and peace around the globe are looking from the pictures of the exhibition,” Kholostenko said.

The most important element of the composition of the exhibition is the blue-yellow Ukrainian flag, which he said “bears the imprint of heroism and love for the motherland – the signatures of the heroes, soldiers of the 4th Battalion of the Slovozhansk Brigade of the National Guard of Ukraine, who defended Kharkiv from invaders.”

The national pride was palpable as he spoke. “The battle for Kharkiv became an example of heroism and self-sacrifice, when Ukrainian soldiers rebuffed the superior forces of aggressor, preventing them from turning the city into a monument of repression and cruelty. The flag has travelled all the way to Nigeria to serve as a symbol of courage and love for the motherland.”

Of course, Ambassador Kholostenko was talking about the Russia-Ukraine war which is almost in its third year now. He blamed Russia for the aggression and for deploying hunger as a component of its war strategy.

“By unleashing an unprovoked and brutal war against Ukraine, Russia is using hunger as a way to put pressure on the world. The courage of the Ukrainian defenders allows Ukraine to fulfill its role as a guarantor of global food security and produce grain. This grain is delivered to the countries of Africa and Asia, which have felt the consequences of Russia’s aggression the most.”

It is a testament to how much the world has fractured since the United Nations, UN, came into existence on October 24, 1945 that bloody conflicts such as the war the Ukrainian envoy was bemoaning still remain a global spectacle. On that historic day 79 years ago, four years of painstaking planning morphed into an international organisation designed to promote global peace, justice and better living for all humanity.

The negotiations were particularly conscientious in the U.S. where President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, FDR, convinced Americans that an international organisation was the best means to prevent future wars and the U.S. Senate approved the UN Charter by a vote of 89 to 2. On June 26, 1945, 50 countries signed the Charter in San Francisco. Poland signed on October 15, 1945, becoming one of the original 51 member states.

The overarching goal of the new organisation, which rose from the ashes of the League of Nations, was to reduce international tension, promote human rights, lower the chance of other large-scale conflicts, promote peace, justice, and better living for all mankind.

Frustratingly, almost eight decades thence, and 193 member states to boot, the world is teetering on the brink of another large-scale conflict with the debilitating invasion of Ukraine by Russia and Israel’s genocidal onslaught on Palestinians.

Fortuitously, just as all eyes were on President Roosevelt eight decades ago, all eyes are on U.S. President-elect, Donald Trump, for a solution. The fact that many acknowledge that Trump is no Roosevelt has not dampened expectations.

On the hustings, Trump blamed the two wars on the foreign policy failures of the Biden administration, with a promise to end them in 24 hours if re-elected. Now that his dream has come true, the global community is waiting on him.

Meanwhile, Trump, in his usual bombast, is ratcheting up the rhetoric. “I think we have to solve the Ukraine problem with Russia,” he told the French magazine, Paris Match, this week. “Both countries are losing numbers that nobody can believe. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers are being killed,” Trump said, responding to a question about his top priority on the international stage. “And the Middle East is of course a big priority. But I think that the Middle East is a less difficult situation than Ukraine with Russia. But those are the two situations that we have to solve and we have to solve them quickly. A lot of people are dying.”

On Saturday, Trump met with French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Paris, during the reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral, his first international trip since his dramatic political comeback. After the highly anticipated meeting, he wetted global appetite for peace when he wrote on his Truth Social platform that “there should be an immediate ceasefire and negotiations should begin.”

It is in the interest of both countries that the bloody conflict is ended. As Trump rightly noted, both Ukraine and Russia are paying a dire price. Only 18 months into the conflict, officials of the Biden administration aver that both countries had lost a staggering number of troops estimated at over 500,000, including the injured. Ironically, the troop toll was heavier on the Russian side in a war Putin said would end in a matter of days.

But more Ukrainian civilians have died since the war is waged mostly on Ukrainian soil, with fighting and air strikes inflicting over 30,000 civilian casualties, while 3.7 million people are internally displaced, and 6.5 million have fled Ukraine and 14.6 million others need humanitarian assistance.

There is no doubting the fact that Ukrainians desire peace and are willing to collaborate with Trump and, indeed, the international community to realise that goal, yet, one question concentrates their minds right now. What will be the terms of the ceasefire that Trump is touting? Will it guarantee enduring peace? This is important because without justice and equity, peace becomes an illusion.

Ukrainians deserve a peaceful homeland, immune to Russia’s wilful aggression, a point poignantly made by President Zelenskyy last Sunday in a post on the Telegram messaging app: “When we talk about an effective peace with Russia, we must talk first of all about effective peace guarantees. Ukrainians want peace more than anyone else. Russia brought war to our land.”

That is the crux of the matter. The Ukrainian envoy to Nigeria is on the same page with President Zelenskyy.

“Ukraine’s position on peace remains firm. Ukraine desires peace more than anyone does. Ukraine did not start this war and never wanted it. If Russia stops fighting – there will be peace. If Ukraine stops fighting – Ukraine will cease to exist.

“Thus, the peace must be lasting and just. Ukraine is ready to seek diplomatic solutions, but only on the condition of full adherence to the United Nations Charter. Additionally, Ukraine requests effective and reliable security guarantees from international partners to prevent future aggression,” he said in a statement forwarded to me on Wednesday.

To underscore their quest for peace by building trust with the incoming U.S. administration, Zelenskyy’s top aide, Andriy Yermak, met with key members of the Trump team on a two-day trip recently. Will such deft diplomatic maneuvering thaw the diplomatic ice and prod Trump in the direction of a ceasefire that will guarantee lasting peace?

Trump insists that he is pushing the Russian leader Vladimir Putin to reach an immediate ceasefire with Ukraine. “Zelenskyy and Ukraine would like to make a deal and stop the madness,” he wrote on social media. And that is true. The question is: Would Putin and Russia also want to make a deal and stop the madness? Trump says he knows Vladimir well and that this is his time to act. “China can help. The World is waiting!”

Indeed, the world is waiting and as Zelenskyy cautioned, Ukraine needs a “just and robust peace that Russians will not destroy within a few years.”

Reducing military aid to Ukraine and pulling the U.S. out of NATO as Trump has threatened will indubitably hamstrung Kyiv’s fighting capacity. That cannot guarantee peace. Kremlin’s incessant reference a decree by Zelenskyy from October 2022 that declared the prospect of any talks “impossible” as long as Putin was Russia’s leader is also a smokescreen to camouflage Putin’s aversion for talks with Ukraine. That decree came after Putin proclaimed four occupied regions of Ukraine to be part of Russia, in what Kyiv and the West said was a clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty.

Truth remains that Russia is the aggressor. And any deal that does not guarantee lasting and just peace for Ukrainians will be a repudiation of the 79-year-old UN Charter.